Church of God News

The ruling covered three cases. In one, a Michigan funeral home worker was fired after he began coming to work dressed as a woman and calling himself Aimee Stephens. In Georgia, county worker Gerald Bostock was fired as a child welfare advocate for conduct “unbecoming” a county employee after he joined a gay softball league. In the third case, New York skydiving instructor Donald Zarda was fired days after mentioning he was homosexual.

“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,” Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion.

“Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”

In dissent, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Clarence Thomas, charged the majority was exceeding its role as the interpreter of the Constitution.

“There is only one word for what the court has done today: legislation,” he wrote.

Alito pointed out that the body responsible for legislation, the Congress, has proposed such measures, but they have failed.

“The document that the court releases is in the form of a judicial opinion interpreting a statute, but that is deceptive,” he wrote. “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.’ … 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, bill have included ‘gender identity’ as well. But to date, none has passed.”

Alito argued that because Congress has not expanded the definition of sex in Title VII, the “prohibition of discrimination because of ‘sex’ still means what it has always meant.” …

ADF spokesman John Bursch said “Redefining ‘sex’ to mean ‘gender identity’ will create chaos and enormous unfairness for women and girls in athletics, women’s shelters, and many other contexts,” he argued. “Civil rights laws that use the word ‘sex’ were put in place to protect equal opportunities for women. Allowing a court or government bureaucrats to redefine a term with such a clear and important meaning undermines those very opportunities — the ones the law was designed to protect.”

The Supreme Court had been warned of the consequences of such a decision. …

“Every cell of a male is male, and every cell of a female is female.”

Those seeking a change in the definition of sex are suffering from a “false belief that they really are a different sex than their biology.” https://www.wnd.com/2020/06/mind-blowing-makeover-supremes-redefine-sex/