digs
May 19, 2020, 12:32am
261
Hey, everyone. What basic tenet of the law (or the real world) would we like str8cashhomie to explain to UV next?
Jesus fuck. This and other posts like it are cleanosexuals all over again.
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?
I tried reading through that thread but idiotic posts like that one made me give up.
God help anyone who hires him to perform any legal task more complicated than drawing up a hall pass.
Monty
June 16, 2020, 5:09am
265
There’s no way that clown is really a lawyer. I’m certainly not one; however, part of my jobs in the Army and Navy included some matters related to legal issues. Again, there’s no way that clown is really a lawyer.
Monty:
There’s no way that clown is really a lawyer. I’m certainly not one; however, part of my jobs in the Army and Navy included some matters related to legal issues. Again, there’s no way that clown is really a lawyer.
He’s real. I’d link but I’m not doxxing anyone no matter how much of an ass he is. But I’ve seen his website and his presence on registries.
BigT
June 16, 2020, 2:44pm
267
Then, given the stuff I’ve seen him not know, I question what strings he was able to pull to pass the bar.
How the fuck can a defense lawyer not know how intent works?
Babale
June 16, 2020, 2:48pm
268
BigT:
Then, given the stuff I’ve seen him not know, I question what strings he was able to pull to pass the bar.
How the fuck can a defense lawyer not know how intent works?
I said it before:
Dumb morons,
BigT:
Then, given the stuff I’ve seen him not know, I question what strings he was able to pull to pass the bar.
How the fuck can a defense lawyer not know how intent works?
I’ve known people that can study like a maniac to pass a test, then after (barely) passing they retain zero of what they’d studied.
Monty
June 16, 2020, 3:31pm
270
I refer to that as “the massive data dump after exams”. Many students here are shocked that they can be tested on the same material twice. I guess “cumulative” wasn’t covered in any language courses.
In my opinion he’s just a successful troll. Any actual lawyer that posts the stupid shit about the law he does must be trolling. His refusal to see facts that are plainly presented to him are another indication of troll.
I would much rather Shodan was here and UltraVires been banned.
When cuckoo for cocoa puffs recognizes that your argument is ridiculous, you should probably step away from the keyboard.
Well, it’s just like the old joke about doctors: What do you call the guy who graduated last in his class at law school?
Dude probably just squeaked by with the lowest score possible.
UltraVires wants Bubba Wallace to pay for falsely reporting the noose that was found in his garage (but turned out to be a false alarm)
I’m upset that there is no punishment for Wallace forthcoming. The guy sees a door pull and goes ape shit and reports that it is a noose, upsetting the public, upsetting the sport, and involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation over a fucking garage door pull. There are riots going on out there and how much more destruction of property does he want to occur because either: 1) He’s an idiot, or 2) he purposely misreported this for more headlines.
Wasn’t the first clue that this rope actually had a function?
Then, after China_Guy sets him straight that Bubba didn’t find it or report it, his team member did, UV doubles down.
Kron
June 25, 2020, 6:06am
277
The fact that the new software shows that his statements were linked in the West Virginia’s Dumbest Lawyer thread is… Fucking incredible. No matter any other headaches, that feature makes the move worth it.
Lol, hadn’t even noticed that yet.
West Virginia’s dumbest lawyer on discrimination…
Even a more extreme example. A male employee waives his erect penis at other employees in the common office area. Would I fire a biological woman for waiving her erect penis? I would not as it is a biological impossibility, therefore according to Gorsuch, if I changed the sexes, no action would have been taken, and sex was at least a part of it. Yes, the waiving of the erect penis was a larger part of it, but if ANY part of it is because of sex, it is actionable.
And again, it does no good to say that I would fire a woman for exposing her vagina in the common area, because as Gorsuch says, we cannot change different facts, and the level of discrimination we look at is to the individual employee. Far from being protected because I would fire both employees for exposing their genitals, I have double exposure for discriminating against the man in the first instance and the woman in the second.
There’s not getting it, and then there’s aggressively not getting it.
Wow. They’re probably going to want to fix that, but for now it is a beautiful thing.