Quite foolish to think that human nature would preclude reverse discrimination.

@2 not as foolish as thinking government intervention would be necessary to protect the rights or interests of a majority

In the Ohio discrimination case noted right-wing-MAGA-Trump Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson writing for the unanimous majority said, “By establishing the same protections for every ‘individual’ — without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group — Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.” I can't wait for the Stranger writers to attack her MAGAT ass....

The Mexico firearms case was also unanimously decided based on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) of 2005. I'm sure Hannah Murphy Winter and the rest of The Stranger staff will pillory then VT Representative Bernie Sanders for his sponsorship and support of that law....

As for the travel ban, I since residents of Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, are extremely homophobic and misogynistic, I'm sure The Stranger will tout this as welcome news during pride month....

/s

@3 I'm pretty sure that as an older white guy, I've never been discriminated against in my life. But you seem to be suggesting that in the unlikely event that happens, a judge should determine if I'm in the suitably powerless demographic before I get the equal protection of the laws? Why the fuck? What benefit do you think that affords society? What necessary protection does that afford minorities and other historically shit-upon groups? What right do you lose by not being able to discriminate against me? Please do clarify.

The Supreme Court decison (authored by Jackson!) is obviously correct. Discrimination is always wrong, and plenty of companies will be paying the price for recorded Zoom calls saying things like "Everyone knows we have too many white and Asian males in engineering, and we are working urgently to diversify the pipeline in Q3". The era of openly announced discriminatory intent while forcing employees to endorse it ia over.

@3: Which can change depending on location. Wouldn't, for example, a straight gardener working for a gay nursery owner getting passed up for promotion have a case?

It's so nice that corporate America is no longer alienating 90% of their customers with dumb ass pride virtue signaling. My Starbucks got rid of the rainbow flags and my Target has an American Pride section with Stars-N-Stripes flip-flops. As my name implies, America is back baby!

Garfield and other high schools would be well served to bring back armed law enforcement. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

@2:

After they shoot them, they're going to give the carcasses to RFK, Jr. so he can dump them in Central Park - hey, it was on teh Interwebs, so it MUST be true, amiright?

@7:

It would depend on whether the straight gardener was demonstrably more qualified for the position, which might be a rather tricky thing to prove when it comes to gardening. Maybe next time pick a better hypothetical to make your obviously whataboutist argument, m'kay?

@6 -- Everyone knows that companies discriminate against black people. The University of Michigan proved it with a study. They didn't even look at color or hair or any of that. Just names. People with identical resumes but black sounding names (i. e. Latisha, Juwaan) were routinely discriminated against.

Thus a company going after black people is not only just, but a good business strategy. It is like the Dodgers hiring Jackie Robinson. This was the first DEI hire in baseball. They didn't do it out the goodness in their hearts, they did it to win the pendant (and they did).

The tricky part is not going overboard. For Robinson to get his job the Dodgers had to skip over a white player. But it was pretty obvious that Robinson was better than the white player. It isn't so obvious in something like software. But that doesn't mean it can't be done. You just have to rephrase it. "To compensate for the obvious discrimination that exists in this industry that make it difficult for women and many racial minorities to succeed in this field we will be doing the following... ".

Basically you just have to explain to the idiots out there that discrimination against women and racial minorities still exists and companies need to do things to overcome it.

I think of it as being less protecting majority from minority and more about protecting an individual from a group of individuals who bend or break rules or procedures to advance a perceived member of an in group from over that of an outsider. It's still difficult to prove in court for whoever faces that.

@10 - lol, women are not discriminated against in the current market.

They are the majority of college students, the majority of degree earners, fresh female graduates earn more than recent male graduates, corporations pander to them endlessly. The gender pay gap never existed - any gap was easily explained by the types of careers men prefer vs women. Men live shorter lives, have more dangerous jobs, are more likely to go to prison... So no women are not discriminated against.

EXCEPT...

Women's sports. Women are absolutely being discriminated against in the sporting world where they are forced by evil "progressive" policies to compete against male athletes.

@9 - When it comes to gardening, no sexual orientation has the upper hand. See @11 - M-Kay?

Finally, a legal precedent for the persecution complex. A lot of people with nothing better to complain about will surely feel validated. Christains need one too so they can stop referencing being fed to lions. That one's been done to death.

@4, Having the “correct” social beliefs is not a prerequisite for living in a pluralistic society. If it were, this would be an argument for exiling 25-40% of our own population just based on polling data. You would be on the first plane to El Salvador if we took your argument to its logical conclusion.

But also, living under a hateful, oppressive regime doesn’t make you a bigot by virtue. Our own government is currently targeting and scapegoating immigrants, lgbtq people and other minorities, but this is still the same country that passed the civil rights act and legalized marriage equality. This regime doesn’t define who I am or what I believe any more than Biden or Obama defined yours. If you’re a racist you don’t stop because you have a black president.

If you ever step outside your bubble and talk to them, you will find that people from oppressive countries can be open minded and worldly, often more so than people who have lived here their whole lives. This is true in general, but particularly so for people who choose to leave those places. In any case you’re supposed to judge them by the content of their character, not where they were born.

@5 you answered your own question in your very first sentence. I said majorities don't NEED government to protect their rights and interests, and your lived experience is evidence of the truth of that statement.

The Stranger left out the actual point of the ruling. From the link:

"The justices’ decision affects lawsuits in 20 states and the District of Columbia where, until now, courts had set a higher bar when members of a majority group, including those who are white and heterosexual, sue for discrimination under federal law."

There's no legal reason for members of a majority group to have a higher bar for proving discrimination than the members of a minority group have. Congress did not include such a requirement in the law, and the courts should not have required it. Anyone can be a victim of discrimination, and so the law should be applied as Congress wrote it.

Arguing on the basis of what the Stranger says is a fool's game.

I can't wait to see what WereBackBaby has to say about SLOG tomorrow about Trump and Elon. So much winning. Already admitted to fixing the election and Trump being a pedophile today... what will tomorrow bring? Happy Pride indeed.

Biden's auto-pen was a far superior instrument of governance than anything currently running affairs of state.

@8: where are all the good guys with guns, then? hiding in their basements, stroking their gun barrels.

tired ass Wayne LaPierre bullshit.

Elon claims Trump named in Epstein files.

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5335453-elon-musk-donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-files/

I honestly don't know how much more ridiculous shit could get. I don't think the most batshit fictional script writers could conceive of more ludicrous storylines than what are playing out in our lives. We could see an alien mothership touch down someplace on earth in the next week or two and it'd probably dominate headlines for a couple days, but the invaders would probably also need to be threatening planetary destruction if they wanted to continue to do so for any amount of time.

"You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: ‘Now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.’ You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, ‘You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe you have been completely fair…This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity, not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result."

The failure of Reconstruction wasn't that it wasn't working, it was the backlash against its aims and success. I don't know if it's heartening that it's been taking longer to sweep past every aspect of the Civil Rights Era.

Ah, didn't know what @18 was alluding to until just now and they beat me to the punch here.

Trump also believes Elvis was the second gunman at Dealey Plaza.

Returned home from grocery shopping, and kicking myself for not picking up some popcorn. This hissy-fit between Trump and Musk is nearly as entertaining as that Twitter spat between Trump and Madonna...and about as consequential.

I love that the girls are fighting but I thought it was already understood that Trump was in the Epstein files? He’s been seen with Epstein and Maxwell many times and his name was all over the flight logs. Why would anyone need any more documentation than that when he’s a proven abuser who spoke sexually about his own teenaged daughter? There is no way he would pass up the chance to rape a teenager if the opportunity was presented to him.

re: 18 - don't mention that miserable abortion's name, you might summon them.

re: #17 - "Arguing on the basis of what the Stranger says is a fool's game." Well, well - listen to the reformed alcoholic.

Elon just admitted that rumors that he illegally scooped up the entire contents of every Federal database, including all levels of classified documents, are 100% true.

Elon gonna runaway to Russia now and go camping with snowden.

@29 not until he can line up a Russkie ketamine plug he won't

It should surprise no one that the bromance between Trump and Musk is spectacularly and publicly exploding.

Will this be enough to slap some sense into John Thune and Mike Johnson and have them understand why proper congressional oversight of the executive is essential?

I doubt it, but you never know. We live in bizarre times.

@31: One of the refreshing things about this event is how openly both ex-partners talk about how our democracy is just another item to be bought and sold:

"But Musk’s frustrations are about more than the legislation. He has told associates he is angry about Trump’s decision to withdraw the nomination of Jared Isaacman, a Musk ally, to run the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

"During a meeting in the Oval Office dining room on Friday before Musk’s send-off, Trump aide Sergio Gor gave Trump a file at the president’s request about Isaacman’s donations to Democrats. Musk defended Isaacman and tried to minimize the significance of the donations. But Trump said he wanted to pull the nomination, according to people familiar with the matter."

[...]

'“Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,” Musk wrote, adding, “such ingratitude.”'

We also got a nice note about the benefits of privatizing government functions:

"Musk responded to that by saying he would decommission the SpaceX craft that is used to take U.S. astronauts back and forth from the space station."

(https://www.wsj.com/politics/elon-musk-trump-fight-gop-bill-c2e0be66?mod=WSJ_home_mediumtopper_pos_1)

Plenty for us here to use, as we work to reclaim our democracy from these people.