Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, February 28, 2025

The Supreme Court seemed receptive to a woman's argument Wednesday she was discriminated against at work because she is heterosexual.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

More from the article...

... Why it matters: A ruling that allows the woman, Marlean Ames, to pursue the claim would open the door for men, white people, and heterosexual people to sue for job discrimination in the future. ...

#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-02-27 12:20 AM | Reply

SMDH How absurd this is. Cry me a river will you.

#2 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-02-27 12:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"We are in radical agreement," Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said about the court's consensus that the same legal test should apply to all discrimination claims " including ones from straight, white, and male workers."

So there are currently different standards for discrimination? If so, that is discriminatory.

#3 | Posted by homerj at 2025-02-27 07:59 PM | Reply

Cry me a river will you.

#2 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-02-27 12:25 AM | Reply | Flag

Apparently from your fake vagina..... According to Legallyourdead

#4 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2025-03-01 12:06 AM | Reply


... The Supreme Court seemed receptive to a woman's argument Wednesday she was discriminated against at work because she is heterosexual. ...

In my view, there should be no discrimination based upon whether one is a heterosexual or a homosexual, or the color of the skin.

When I was a hiring manager, I had a set of questions I asked of applicants. The same set of questions was asks of all applicants.

The responses to those questions determined whether or not the applicant would go on to further interviews with the senior technical team members in the department. Nothing else. Just the answers to the questions.

As a result of that policy of mine, I have hired quite an assortment of people to work on the team.

But each was qualified for their position, and grew into higher positions.

So, yeah, I am not a fan of the White Christian Male movement of late.

Back in the day when I was a hiring manager, I just wanted people who would do the tasks and grow within the company, one of whom would eventually replace me in my position.

Yeah, back in the day, when General Electric was an admired company, I was in the GE Management Training Program. It was a respected program back then. Since Mr Jack Welch, not so much, it seems, but I digress.

One of the things that was taught to me on that program was that a goal as a manager was to grow the people who worked on my team.

And to grow them to the point that they can replace me in my position.

Because of the simple corporate fact, you will not be promoted if there is no one who can step up and do your job after you are promoted.


That simple fact of management has stayed with me for decades after it was explained to me, and was one of my goals as a manger ... grow the people who work on the team.

When I check the people I had hired just out of college, I see they are doing quite well in their careers. I can only hope that my influence and guidance has helped them in attaining their goals.



#5 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-03-01 12:38 AM | Reply

Cramps - Goo Goo Muck (1989)
www.youtube.com

Is there no hope for me? :;

#6 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-03-01 01:10 AM | Reply

The headline supposes a view apparently not the Court's.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday was sympathetic to an Ohio woman who alleges that she was the victim of reverse discrimination. Marlean Ames contends that she lost out on a promotion that she wanted, and then was demoted, simply because she is straight. With Ames and her employer in what Justice Neil Gorsuch described as "radical agreement" that federal employment laws impose the same requirements on all plaintiffs, a solid majority (if not all) of the justices appeared ready to overturn a ruling by a federal appeals court that required Ames to meet a higher bar for her case to go forward than if she had been a member of a minority group. (emphasis mine)
www.scotusblog.com

#7 | Posted by et_al at 2025-03-01 01:44 AM | Reply

"The headline supposes a view apparently not the Court's."

It depends on the reference, doesn't it?

If it means "Lower than others" that's one thing, but "Lower than before" means something else. If the first was meant, you're right. But...

Before, the bar was, she had to be a member of a named, protected group. Now she doesn't; she can simply be the backlash to the protected group.

That lowers the bar, yes?

#8 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-03-01 01:55 AM | Reply

@#7 ... The headline supposes a view apparently not the Court's. ...

The headline says...

... SCOTUS Eyes Lower Bar for White, Straight Workers to Sue ...

The article you cite says ...

... Court appears likely to side with straight woman in reverse discrimination suit ...


So I have to ask, what is the difference in those wordings?


#9 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-03-01 01:57 AM | Reply

Dumbmass, the difference is evaluating equality of claims. Kinda like the part I put in bold. Dumbass.

#10 | Posted by et_al at 2025-03-01 02:26 AM | Reply

Dumbmass, the difference is evaluating equality of claims. Kinda like the part I put in bold.

#11 | Posted by et_al at 2025-03-01 02:26 AM | Reply

"Kinda like the part I put in bold."

Doesn't the part you put in bold literally suggest the bar be lowered?

"overturn a ruling by a federal appeals court that required Ames to meet a higher bar"

That would mean LOWER bar...right?

#12 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-03-01 03:16 AM | Reply

"So there are currently different standards for discrimination? If so, that is discriminatory."

That's exactly right

"So I have to ask, what is the difference in those wordings?"

It would be more accurate to state that SOCTUS levels the bar for discrimination suits.

#13 | Posted by madbomber at 2025-03-01 03:18 AM | Reply

"It would be more accurate to state that SOCTUS levels the bar for discrimination suits"

Doesn't that lower it for the straight, white woman, who used to have an infinite bar?

#14 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-03-01 03:20 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

" literally suggest the bar be lowered?"

Sorry: literally suggest the bar IS lowered?

#15 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-03-01 03:22 AM | Reply

In his 1965 commencement address at Howard University, President Lyndon Johnson said,

"You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, "you are free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.

Thus it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates."

www.presidency.ucsb.edu

That's exactly right.

#16 | Posted by YAV at 2025-03-01 07:39 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy

Drudge Retort