(See pages 8-9, 12-13, and 20-23. Or just search for the verb "doubles", as in "an employer who fires both lesbians and gay men equally doesn’t diminish but doubles its liability.")

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins : Don't discriminate on the basis of sex means you can't fire a woman for doing a thing unless you would also fire a man that thing (and vice versa)
The employers: So it's okay to fire a gay man if we'd also fire a lesbian?
The Court: that is not even close what the hell you guys

He keeps referencing Alito's dissent when he wants to address a counterargument. Poor Kavenaugh also wrote a dissent but isn't getting nearly as much attention.

Nice bit near the end about legislative intent: *As Yeskey and today’s cases exemplify, applying protective laws to groups that were politically unpopular at the time of the law’s passage—whether prisoners in the 1990s or homosexual and transgender employees
in the 1960s—often may be seen as unexpected.*

But to refuse enforcement just because of that, because the parties before us happened to be unpopular at the time of the law’s passage, would not only require us to abandon our role as interpreters of statutes;

it would tilt the scales of justice in favor of the strong or popular and neglect the promise that all persons are entitled to the benefit of the law’s terms.

Alito's dissent is 107 pages long. What the hell man.

It has four appendices

11 pages and two appendices are just different dictionary definitions of the word "sex"

But even his main dissent is still twice the length of Kavenaugh's, which is probably why Gorsuch was using him for a pell.

... speaking of Kavenaugh. Buddy. Bro. Chum. I get that you don't make the rules about formatting Supreme Court documents. You can't turn on widow-orphan control or keep-with-next or anything.

But maybe. Just maybe. Cut down or inflate your word count somewhere.

Please. Because right now your puny little dissent ends...

Under the Constitution’s separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress’s role, not this Court’s, to amend Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the

PAGE BREAK

Court's judgment.

.....oh my god it does NOT

omfg

Update: The argument Gorsuch kept coming back to refute wasn't from the employers, it was from the SG's office.