# Pitting UltraVires **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 22, 2018, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-ultravires/821734 "2018-09-22T16:05:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 263
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2020, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-ultravires/821734/263 "2020-06-16T03:27:20Z")
Jesus fuck. This and other posts like it are cleanosexuals all over again. > [@Supreme Court rules for LGBTQ right to sue!](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-rules-for-lgbtq-right-to-sue/855699/72): > > Okay, so how about this. A big burly man in my employ, with full beard, and identifies as a man asks for a raise. I don’t give it to him. He tries to find a way to jab at me without being fired. > > He comes to work the next morning, before going out to meet clients in a rural area, wearing a flowered dress, with high heels, and wearing makeup. Just for spite. I tell him to get the fuck out, he is fired. > > Under Gorsuch’s opinion, I am liable. Why? Because I fired him because: 1) he was being a dick, and 2) he was dressed like a woman. So #2 means that my firing is actionable. If we switched his sex to female, I would have no objection to him wearing a dress, high heels, and makeup. Just because I had an additional reason, that he was being a spiteful dick, does not provide cover for my sex based discrimination. > > Could someone point to something in Gorsuch’s opinion that gives me as an employer some cover? --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-ultravires/821734)._