Wingnut Texas Judge Overrules SCOTUS Trans Decision Because YOLO - Above the Law

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

57% : Accordingly -- although the Enforcement Guidance explicitly recognizes that no "binding Supreme Court precedent" underpins its actions -- it determines that Bostock should be extended to bar "harassment" based on gender identity.
56% : Instead he differentiated the case brought by Texas and the Heritage foundation challenging EEOC protections for trans employees thusly: The Guidance states that it does not attempt to "impose new legal obligations on employers with respect to any aspect of workplace harassment law, including gender identity discrimination."
53% : Instead, it fundamentally expands Title VII to include harassment based on gender identity.
52% : The Court didn't say employers had to use appropriate pronouns or let trans people pee at work or wear clothes corresponding to their gender identity.
43% : The opinion makes it very clear that it bars discrimination, not just termination: "For an employer to discriminate against employees for being homosexual or transgender, the employer must intentionally discriminate against individual men and women in part because of sex." And even though Bostock clearly states that "sex is necessarily a but-for cause when an employer discriminates against homosexual or transgender employees," Kacsmaryk insists that there is no precedent for the EEOC's "metastasized definition of 'sex.'

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.