U.S. Supreme Court
Updated: June 17, 2020
WASHINGTON, D.C. (WordNews.org) June 16, 2020 – The U.S. Supreme Court, in a lengthy ruling on Monday, said Title VII includes protections for gay and transgender individuals.
In the 6-3 opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, an “employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII.”
“Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear,” the High Court wrote. “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.”
Joining Gorsuch was Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer. The dissenting opinion was issued by Justice Samuel Alito. Joining Alito were Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanagh.
“The majority opinion departs from the clear language of Title VII and is no less than legislation from the bench,” said
Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver. “While the case did not include a religious freedom defense, the Court expressly stated that religious employers will likely have a valid defense under the First Amendment and the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”
Dr. Frank Wright, CEO and President of D. James Kennedy Ministries, released a statement Wednesday calling the ruling “an open assault on the rule of law.”
“These unaccountable justices usurped the people’s elected representatives and switched out the dictionary definition of sex (as used in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act) to make the word mean what no one in 1964 conceived possible,” Wright said. “That the plain meaning of sex—male and female—is now to be understood to include homosexuality and those suffering from gender dysphoria is a preposterous flight away from reality.”
Wright continued: “In this ruling, the Court gives wings to the transgender revolution. It launches a storm of litigation which will clog the courts and shrink the narrowing circle of religious liberty in our land. Yes, the Court’s majority opinion claims to be “deeply concerned with preserving the promise of the free exercise of religion enshrined in our Constitution.”
Two lower federal courts (Bostic and Altitude Express) disagreed on whether the plain wording of the word “sex” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act should include “sexual orientation.” A third case (Harris Funeral Homes) ruled that the law should include “gender identity.”
Regarding the fact that Title VII did not include “sexual orientation” or “gender identity,” the Court wrote:
“We agree that homosexuality and transgender status are distinct concepts from sex. But, as we’ve seen, discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily entails discrimination based on sex; the first cannot happen without the second. Nor is there any such thing as a “canon of donut holes,” in which Congress’s failure to speak directly to a specific case that falls within a more general statutory rule creates a tacit exception. Instead, when Congress chooses not to include any exceptions to a broad rule, courts apply the broad rule. And that is exactly how this Court has always approached Title VII.”
In his lengthy dissent, Justice Alito wrote:
“There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation. The document that the Court releases is in the form of a judicial opinion interpreting a statute, but that is deceptive.
“Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on any of five specified grounds: “race, color, religion, sex, [and] national origin.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(a)(1). Neither “sexual orientation” nor “gender identity” appears on that list. For the past 45 years, bills have been introduced in Congress to add “sexual orientation” to the list, and in recent years, bills have included “gender identity” as well. But to date, none has passed both Houses.
“Last year, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would amend Title VII by defining sex discrimination to include both “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” H. R. 5, 116th Cong., 1st Sess. (2019), but the bill has stalled in the Senate. An alternative bill, H. R. 5331, 116th Cong., 1st Sess. (2019), would add similar prohibitions but contains provisions to protect religious liberty. This bill remains before a House Subcommittee.
“Because no such amendment of Title VII has been enacted in accordance with the requirements in the Constitution (passage in both Houses and presentment to the Pres- ident, Art. I, §7, cl. 2), Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination because of “sex” still means what it has always meant. But the Court is not deterred by these constitutional niceties. Usurping the constitutional authority of the other branches, the Court has essentially taken H. R. 5’s provision on employment discrimination and issued it under the guise of statutory interpretation. A more brazen abuse of our authority to interpret statutes is hard to recall.
The Court tries to convince readers that it is merely enforcing the terms of the statute, but that is preposterous.”
Print
Email
