this point, to be taken all of the way up to the Supreme Court for a ruling? The bit of logic I'm talking about...

Gorsuch (and ironically enough, a trump appointee):
The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”

Why did it have to get to this point when those in the know use their logical thought processes and thus, should be able to come up with this very same logic?

Just asking.

She was on MSNBC today and said she basically argued that when a male named Bobby is fired for being married to a man and a female named Bobby is not fired for being married to a man, the sole distinguishing factor is Bobby's sex and Title VII is unambivalent about that. I think it's one of those great arguments that isn't necessarily obvious until it's articulated.

on w/ her appearance on MSNBC. Take care.

And I loved the inexorable logic Gorsuch applied that tied anti-LGBT discrimination to sex.

He married us to the Civil Rights Act.

That is monumental. That is precedent. This goes far, far beyond just workplace discrimination. When you jot down historic dates in the LGBT movement, this is a big one.

Now let’s elect Biden and concrete this sucker.

One for US.

the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

Page 34 of the majority opinion

What are these consequences anyway? The employers worry that our decision will sweep beyond Title VII to other federal or state laws that prohibit sex discrimination. And, under Title VII itself, they say sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes will prove unsustainable after our decision today. But none of these other laws are before us; we have not had the benefit of adversarial testing about the meaning of their terms, and we do not prejudge any such question today. Under Title VII, too, we do not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms, or anything else of the kind. The only question before us is whether an employer who fires someone simply for being homosexual or transgender has discharged or otherwise discriminated against that individual “because of such individual’s sex.” As used in Title VII, the term “ ‘discriminate against’ ” refers to “distinctions or differences in treatment that injure pro- tected individuals.” Burlington N. & S. F. R., 548 U. S., at 59. Firing employees because of a statutorily protected trait surely counts. Whether other policies and practices might or might not qualify as unlawful discrimination or find justifications under other provisions of Title VII are questions for future cases, not these.

Link to tweet

(no idea, not a lawyer

But seems like other lawyers involved in case disagree with this assessment?

Roberts appears to be straddling the fence more and more in 5-4 and 6-3 liberal leaning rulings.