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?