The Supreme Court has now ruled in favor of the idea that you don’t have to be a member of a minority group in order to be discriminated against.

That is obviously true. The fact of the matter is that you can certainly be a white, straight male and be discriminated against or in the case reviewed by the Supreme Court, a white straight female.

According to The New York Times:

The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled in favor of a straight woman who twice lost positions to gay workers, saying an appeals court had been wrong to require her to meet a heightened burden in seeking to prove workplace discrimination because she was a member of a majority group.

The decision came two years after the Supreme Court struck down race-conscious admissions programs in higher education and amid the Trump administration’s fierce efforts to root out programs that promote diversity. The ruling will place further pressure on employers and others to eliminate affirmative action and other initiatives that seek to provide opportunities to members of historically disadvantaged groups.

Leftist Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the opinion for the court. Again, remember this was a unanimous decision, so the three leftists on the Court, Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor, concurred. Despite the best attempts of The New York Times to turn the decision into a Right-wing decision, it was not. It was unanimous.

The Times continued:

The standard for proving workplace discrimination under the law, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court, “does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group.” The case was brought by Marlean A. Ames, who had worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services, which oversees parts of the state’s juvenile corrections system. After a decade there, in 2014 she became the administrator of a program addressing prison rape. Five years later, she applied for a promotion. Her supervisors turned her down, saying she lacked vision and leadership skills. They eventually gave the position to a gay woman who had been at the department for a shorter time and, unlike Ms. Ames, lacked a college degree.

Not long after denying her the new position, her supervisors removed her from her existing job, telling her that they had concerns about her leadership and offering her a demotion that came with a substantial pay cut. She was replaced by a gay man with less seniority.

Ames claimed that she was discriminated against because she was straight.

WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show

Put aside the underlying facts of the case. The question here for the Supreme Court was whether she had to — as the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals suggested —prove that she was a member of a minority or face a heightened standard because she wasn’t a member of a minority group.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, said she could have satisfied the “background circumstances” requirement by showing that decisions about her employment were made by “a member of the relevant minority group (here, gay people)” or with statistical evidence. But the appeals court said Ms. Ames had provided neither kind of proof.

The underlying facts of the case are less relevant than the actual ruling, which says that yes, of course you can be discriminated against if you’re a white, straight person. If you’re a member of a majority group, you can indeed be discriminated against.

That should not be a shock in any way, shape or form.

Good for the Supreme Court for ruling correctly.

* * *

Gift Dad an All Access Membership. Use code DAD40 at checkout to save 40%!