GAY TRUTH

In a devastating 6-3 ruling on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt religious liberty a brutal blow and handed the LGBT movement a victory that stunned even them by deciding that both “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are protected under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  Antonin Scalia’s replacement Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion, and John Roberts joined him. President Donald Trump called it a “very powerful decision,” and most of the top GOP senators greeted the ruling with a collective shrug. Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley offered criticism, but for the rest, it appears that Rod Dreher has been correct in his constant warnings that much of the Republican Party is disinterested in doing the tough work necessary to protect religious liberty. To discuss the implications of the ruling, I contacted Dr. Darel E. Paul, professor of political science at Williams College and author of the essential book  From Tolerance to Equality: How the Elites Brought America to

The US Supreme Court, which arbitrarily redefined human life in the Roe decision, and redefined marriage in Obergefell, has now redefined sex. There’s a frightening consistency to these decisions - it brings moral death. In the Bostock decision, the Supreme Court interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to mean things that, in all likelihood, not a single member of Congress intended at the time the bill was enacted. At any time in the 56 intervening years, Congress could have amended that Act, or passed other legislation, to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Congress never did so. This decision is a pure act of judicial legislation. But this is nothing new. With Obergefell, the Court had legalized same-sex marriage without even a nod at Congress. In that case, the Court had discovered the right to homosexual marriage in the “emanations from penumbra” of the Constitution. As Kevin Williamson wrote in National Review: The gentlemen who wrote the Const

To m Rost loves his job. Day in and day out, he gets to be there for people who are going through one of the most difficult situations in their life—the loss of a loved one. And at R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Tom wants to make sure that he gets everything exactly right for them. He and his staff meticulously plan every detail so that the families and friends they serve can focus on the grieving process. Tom never imagined that this care and attention to detail would land him at the U.S. Supreme Court. Let’s take a look at this case and the man behind Harris Funeral Homes. Who: Tom Rost, owner of R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Harris Funeral Homes has been in Tom’s family for over 100 years. But he didn’t always want to carry on the family tradition of serving grieving families. In fact, Tom dreamed of one day being the president of General Motors. But God had other plans. Tom worked with his dad and uncle at Harris Funeral Homes when he was home for

Americans should be able to rely on what the law says. Unfortunately, it seems the U.S. Supreme Court does not agree. Today, the Supreme Court ruled against our client Harris Funeral Homes. In doing so, the Court has delivered a truly troubling decision: Unelected officials and courts can effectively rewrite laws—forcing Americans to guess what the law means—including something as fundamental as the meaning of “sex.” Alliance Defending Freedom has represented Harris Funeral Homes since 2013. That year, a male funeral director expressed the intent to begin dressing and presenting as a woman at work while interacting with grieving families. This funeral director had worked at Harris Funeral Homes for nearly six years and agreed to abide by the sex-specific dress code throughout that time. Harris Funeral Homes have professional conduct and dress codes to ensure that the grieving families it serves can focus on healing and not on the funeral home or its employees. Such policies

Staunch conservatives have slammed yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which redefined the term “sex” in the 1964 Civil Rights Act to mean not simply “male” and “female” as biological facts, but also “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” Josh Hammer of First Liberty Institute called the decision by six justices, including Trump nominee Neil Gorsuch, the “Roe v. Wade of religious liberty.” “Bostock is no joke, and it lays bare the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the conservative legal movement,” he added. Hammer demanded, “a more forceful conservative legal movement, just as willing as the left to make moral arguments in court, based on principles of justice, natural law (the rules embedded in our very nature as human beings), the common good and the religious and moral traditions underlying Anglo-American constitutional order.” Speaking of Gorsuch’s majority opinion, he said it did not at all qualify as textualism, a legal philosophy

Two more former Harry Potter stars whose careers were built on the works of J.K. Rowling have affirmed their support for transgenderism after the author defended the concept of womanhood. Actor Rupert Grint, 31, best known for his portrayal of Harry Potter’s friend Ron Weasley in the Harry Potter movies, made a statement to Britain’s establishment newspaper last week supporting the idea that men can be women, and vice versa.  Anybody can make an assertion like this but would fail in biology, common sense and an understanding of the human body. “I firmly stand with the trans community and echo the sentiments expressed by many of my peers,” Grint told The Times of London.    “Trans women are women. Trans men are men. We should all be entitled to live with love and without judgment.” Except of course when these men who dress as women beat women in sport - totally unfair.  Grint’s remarks have been described as another shot in a “war” between the young actors who starred in t

The long-running PBS children’s television program Sesame Street showed its support for LGBT “Pride Month” with a social media post shared on Twitter and Facebook last week. “On our street, we accept all, we love all, and we respect all. Happy #PrideMonth!” says the Twitter post dated June 11, from the official Sesame Street account @sesamestreet. Sesame Street was not the only kids’ show that voiced a message of support for the LGBT activist–backed “Pride Month,” which promotes the homosexual lifestyle and gender-fluidity. Also tweeting in support of “Pride Month” was the kids’ network Nickelodeon, which posted a tweet featuring a trio of its popular characters in colorful dress. “Celebrating #Pride with the LGBTQ+ community and their allies this month and every month,” said the June 13 Nickelodeon tweet. The LGBT-backed “Pride Month” was also supported by the Cartoon Network, who celebrated with social media advertising and special videos along with shows approved by t

In a controversial decision, the United States Supreme Court has held by 6-3, in Bostock v Clayton County, Georgia (No. 17–1618; June 15, 2020), that the prohibition of “sex discrimination” in the workplace in Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 means that an employer cannot discriminate on the basis of “sexual orientation” or “gender identity”. Both majority and minority focus strongly on the issues of how statutes should be interpreted.  In my view, the concerns expressed by the minority about the “literal” approach of the majority judgment are well-justified, as are the possible detrimental implications for religious freedom in the USA. I will also comment briefly on how similar issues would be resolved in Australia. The Facts The judgment of the Court relates to not one, but three separate claims. Without going into the details, two of these claims involve an employee dismissed on account of his homosexuality; the third involved an employee dismissed on the