GAY TRUTH

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 ...

Justice Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s first addition to the nation’s highest court, wrote the majority opinion for the ruling, which concluded that “sex discrimination” in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act should be interpreted to mean sexual orientation and gender identity, in addition to its original biological meaning. "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,” Gorsuch wrote. “Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids." Trump’s reaction did not discuss any of the details of the ruling and did not address the fact that his own administration weighed in against the position Gorsuch ultimately chose, by filing an amicus brief that argued that Title VII  “simply does not speak to discrimination because of an individual’s gender identity or a disconnect between an individual’s gender identit...

Republican-appointed Justices John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch joined the U.S. Supreme Court’s liberals Monday in ruling that longstanding anti-discrimination law should be reinterpreted to cover homosexuality and gender confusion, in a case that will have drastic ramifications on religious liberty and force Americans to adopt a “fluid” understanding of biological sex in scores of policies.  Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s first addition to the nation’s highest court, wrote the majority opinion for the 6-3 ruling, which concluded that “sex discrimination” in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act should be interpreted to mean sexual orientation and gender identity, in addition to its original biological meaning. The case consolidated several suits into one, including that of a Christian funeral home that fired a male employee who insisted on dressing as a woman on the job; a skydiving instructor who was fired after informing a customer he was gay; and a county child welfare s...

A diverse coalition of faith-based college leaders say they feel like the Supreme Court holds the fate of their institutions in its hands this term. They’re closely following a high-profile trio of sex discrimination cases about whether federal employment nondiscrimination law protects gay and transgender employees. And yet, none of the employers involved in the cases are religious institutions. So why are faith-based schools so concerned? In a legal brie f filed Friday by the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, Brigham Young University and 40 other religious schools, campus leaders explain how the cases could change life as they know it. They argue that a ruling in favor of a broad interpretation of sex discrimination could devastate their ability to operate in accordance with their beliefs. “Student housing standards would face new pressure. Affiliated clinics and hospitals could be compelled to provide religiously objectionable medical procedures. A religious unive...

The governors and attorneys general of 16 states are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse a lower court’s judgment this year that gender-confused individuals are covered by the Civil Rights Act. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in March that Title VII of the 1964 law, which was passed to end racial segregation and hiring discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, ethnicity, or national origin, also extends to employees who wish to “identify” as the opposite of their biological sex. The case was sparked by a Detroit funeral home that fired a male employee who wanted to present himself as a woman while on duty, in defiance of the home’s dress code. “Discrimination on the basis of transgender and transitioning status is necessarily discrimination on the basis of sex,” Judge Karen Nelson Moore ruled. On August 23, the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, ...