Seems they rejected it outright. As suspected.

The catch is that this was always a non-starter. I said it yesterday in a thread about this.

Gorsuch literally wrote the majority opinion on Bostock. As far right as he is on everything else, he’s actually pretty good on LGBT stuff. Between him, Kagan, Roberts, KBJ, and Sotomayor, there wasn’t even going to be a debate.

This was simply conservative groups taking pot shots with cases. This never had a chance to go anywhere.

This is such a nonstarter, as Gorsuch was the one who wrote the opinion on Bostock. He’s strong on LGBT rights. So there’s a solid 5 with him, Kagan, Sotomayor, KBJ, and Roberts.

It was a mandated provision by law passed in 2019: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/24

The people working are guaranteed pay by labor law. No one is debating not paying the people actually working.

Any talk of not paying people is about those government employees who are currently furloughed.

Sure, but if I was a betting man, I’d say there’s a good 95% chance they get paid. It’s bad politics to do otherwise.

I’m not saying they’ll do it because the law says so. Just that there’s a lot of reasons not doing it only hurts them with no real benefits.

Yes, all federal employees will get back pay, regardless of whether they were working or not. That was a law passed during Trump 1, iirc.

Not that it makes it easy to go a month without a paycheck, but you do get your money after the fact.

I don’t think, “she deserved it, just look what she’s wearing, and if you tell me that’s a wrong thing to say it’s because you’re infantilizing women by saying they can’t be wrong,” is quite the defense you seem to think it is.

I don’t think, “you don’t understand, she wasn’t grieving the way women are supposed to grieve, and she was dressed like a slut,” is exactly the defense you seem to think it is…

There’s not a “right” way to grieve. And someone isn’t “wrong” because they process trauma differently than you would. And none of that is an excuse for slut shaming.

Idk man, I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. I think the pants were a 2/10 “scandalous” decision at best.

And I don’t feel like “if she grieved the way I think would be appropriate, then her grieving would be valid, but she’s grieving wrong so I’m gonna judge her for her slutty outfit,” is the defense you seem to think it is…

And I think the fact that the huge rally that his funeral was had things being sold at it to help support the organization he dedicated his life to isn’t quite as tacky as you’re trying to paint it as being.

Look, I’m not defending either one of them as a person, but I just genuinely don’t believe that you’d have any of the same criticisms if Kirk was a huge left wing policy advocate who was killed, and literally everything else played out exact the same way.

Sure, you wouldn’t, but this is someone who was already in the limelight anyway.

And to be clear, a lot of people make public appearances after tragedy. Left and right alike. It doesn’t invalidate their grief just because they don’t react the exact way you would. There’s no right way to grieve.

And genuinely, if Charlie Kirk had been a great champion for the left, and his widow was doing the exact same things to continue his legacy, would you still say she was grifting? Do you really believe in your heart of hearts that would be your reaction?

Let me be clear, I’m not being a devil’s advocate here.

I genuinely believe it’s not okay to tell a widow she’s grieving wrong.

I also genuinely believe that telling women how they should be dressed is some sexist BS.

I also genuinely don’t think those pants were particularly egregious. And I thought her hug with Vance wasn’t particularly scandalous. And I also genuinely believe if it wasn’t someone you were already primed to hate, you’d feel the same way.

And I don’t think the solution to any of the problems were having in this country is more dehumanization. We get plenty of that with this current administration thanks. And just because they suck doesn’t make it okay to abandon your principles.

Idk man. Is this really meaningfully different than when the right was piling on Obama for wearing a brown suit?

And any time the narrative is “look at what this woman decided to wear and judge her harshly for it,” I think it’s worth taking a moment to step back and evaluate if you might be the baddie on this one.

And I feel like “getting to first base with the VP” is overstating it. It’s a weird hug for sure, but it’s not egregious. She moves her hand to his head for, like, half a second. I’ve known parents who kiss their kids on the lips. Is it weird? Hell yes. But I don’t think they were plowing their kids. They were just weird in how they did social affection. And this is way less weird than that.

And look back at that image again. Imagine this was about Michelle Obama. Let’s say that she wore something the right found questionable to her husband’s funeral, and decided to make a “lying grifter bitch” outfit about her? It would be, at best, in bad taste. And while they could always defend themselves with, “well she shouldn’t have decided to dress like that if she didn’t want to get mocked,” I think that I’d rather not associate myself with that kind of rhetoric, personally.

Idk, with the way things are going, I’d be willing to take that bet.

Does it not feel… a bit misogynist, to say that a woman can’t be grieving her husband because of what she’s wearing?

Like, idk guys. I get Charlie Kirk had abhorrent and racist politics, but that doesn’t mean his wife didn’t actually care about him. This hate-circlejerk just feels gross to me.

Thanks. It’s always a good reminder that 80% of the people on here are children.

I mean, I think it’s pretty tightly bounded by when airports shut down. If all planes are grounded for any length of time, that’s an economic collapse kinda no matter what you do.

Plus with the holidays coming up? No, I think they are gonna panic when the air traffic controllers start walking out en masse cause they’re not getting paid.

No worries. I don’t put an immense stock in the karma system or whatever. It all kinda balances out in the end. :)

But I do think saying the only difference is authority, while true, misses the point a bit. If I give a baby a sword and he wants to murder someone but can’t because he’s too weak to swing it, is he less culpable than the man who murders someone with a sword, even though they have the same intent? Absolutely. If Hitler had been a street urchin with no influence and never risen to power, he probably would still have been a loathsome person, but he wouldn’t have been deserving of being out to death, as he would never have taken any actions deserving of that, even if he really wanted to. The fact Kirk didn’t have authority does in fact matter.

I do see your point about soft power and don’t wholly disagree. He did advocate for a lot of extremely harmful policies, and likely pushed a few people over the edge into extremist action. I certainly am not defending that. Again, I can’t say it enough, I did not care for or support Charlie Kirk or anything he stood for.

But I do still believe that the freedom of speech is important if for no other reason than if it wasn’t, this current administration would make talking about LGBT issues or immigration a felony and start throwing people in jail for it. It seems they’re trying anyway, and things like the first amendment are one of the only remaining bulwarks against that.

The correct way to deal with rhetoric like Kirks (imo) is through community driven things like lobbying companies to deplatform him. His rhetoric should be heinous enough that places refuse to amplify him, and the fact it’s not is a black mark on where the nation is at as a whole. But that doesn’t mean that having the government limit his speech or murdering him outright is the correct call.

It may be harder to do things the right way and win things in the public sphere of ideas, but it’s important to do things in the right way, even when they’re hard. Which doesn’t mean “do nothing” to be clear. I’m advocating for an MLKj version of civil disobedience and protest. Change can and will happen without banning speech or murdering people.

I mean, in this exact thread, lol: https://lemmy.world/comment/19339137

Plenty of people are saying it was correct and good to shoot him.

And I’m not whitewashing his history. He was the worst kind of asshole. I’m not sad he’s dead. But there are in fact a lot of people on this site arguing that it was the absolutely correct thing to do to extrajudicially murder him, and that’s where I disagree.

He wasn’t a member of “the state” any more than you or I.