Jesus Christ, please read what I wrote again because you obviously failed to understand what I was explaining.

This will be my last reply on the matter as your replies show not only a complete (and possibly even intentional) misunderstanding of what the Supreme Court decided, but your reasoning has become little more than conspiracy theories mixed with bigotry.

Not just any case gets before the SC. They choose cases for a reason, usually because it involves an aspect of the law they wish to clarify or (increasingly commonly) overturn. Special interest groups shop around for cases that they can find a defense for to make the political changes they want (for example Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado was funded by Alliance Defending Freedom). As you said this case began in 2017. There is NO WAY a middle manager at a state agency can afford to pay some of the best lawyers in the country for 8 years. She’s not some secret billionaire. Yes, her funding is unknown but that’s exactly why it is relevant. Dark money groups pushing political agendas are manipulating the justice system.

You have absolutely no idea what her financial situation is, and you're using that lack of knowledge as proof of sinister acts. Since you don't know where the money is coming from, it must therefore be some kind of dark money billionaire? For all you know she could have inherited $100k from her grandmother or has investment money tucked away somewhere. Unless you have some kind of proof of this "dark money", her funding source is none of your damn business, nor does it have a shred of bearing on this case. And without said proof, your dark money theory is nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

This woman is just a convenient tool to weaken minority protections. Previous SC precedent from 1973 holds that Title VII cases consider a history of discrimination of groups in question when determining how much evidence is required to prove the case. There is no history of straight discrimination but there is significant past history and current LGBT discrimination. It makes NO SENSE to treat these events as equally probably but that is exactly what overturning this decision does.

No, it does not. Not even remotely. The only thing that this case did was remove the higher burden required to even bring a reverse discrimination case in the first place. That's it. Nothing more. It did not discuss or consider the merits of the case. All this did was give this woman the right to be heard. It does not give her a guaranteed win, or even any leverage. There is nothing stopping whatever judge is assigned to the case to either dismiss the case or rule in the employer's favor because she didn't meet that higher standard anyway.

All this case gives her is the right to be heard. That's it.

This strips protections for LGBT, black, disabled people, non-Christians, and other protected minority groups. Now to prove they are discriminated against, they cannot rely on the well-proven precedent of this fact. This makes discrimination against these groups easier which of course is the point of all this anti-DEI stuff. It is Christian white supremacy in action.

The case says absolutely no such thing. It does not strip away protections from a single person, nor does it prevent a judge from dismissing the case or ruling in favor of protected minority groups in any way. All it says is that members of the majority group have the same rights to bring discrimination lawsuits as anyone else. It does nothing regarding the validity or legal weight of those claims.