Bostock v. Clayton County

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Bostock v. Clayton County 590 U.S. ___ (2020) was a United States Supreme Court case that illegally ruled that members of the LGBT community were "protected" under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through judicial activism. In this case, justices Neil Gorsuch and John Roberts betrayed conservatives by ruling with the liberal side of the court to re-write the law, despite the fact that they are not legally authorized to do so. Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas all dissented, citing the fact that sexual "orientation" was not even mentioned in Title VII at all. As a result of this unfortunate decision, an employer can no longer terminate an employee due to his or her sexual identity. This case has been nicknamed the "Roe v. Wade" of homosexual "rights" cases,[1] and it is one of the boldest moves against religious liberty so far. Similar to how Lawrence v. Texas opened the door to the legalization of same-sex "marriage", Bostock v. Clayton County opens the door to religious persecution in the United States of America.

Facts

Three cases were decided by Bostock v. Clayton County, each of which dealt with the firing of a homosexual or gender-confused employee.

Gerald Bostock was an employee of Clayton County, Georgia, where he worked as a child welfare advocate. He was fired after he started participating in a softball league for homosexuals.[2]

Donald Zarda worked for a New York company named Altitude Express, where he was employed as a skydiving instructor. He was fired shortly after indicating that he was homosexual.[2]

Aimee Stephens, who is biologically male, was employed by R. G. & G. R. Harris Funeral Homes in Garden City, Michigan, after he applied as a male. After seeking treatment for emotional and mental struggles, he was diagnosed with gender dysphoria. At his clinicians' recommendation, he told his employer that he was going to begin to "live and work full-time as a woman," and upon this statement he was fired by the funeral home.[2]

Case History

Each employee sued for sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The lawsuits brought by Mr. Zarda and Mr. Stephens were allowed to proceed by the Second and Sixth Circuits, respectively. On the other hand, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that it was not illegal for Clayton County, under the text of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to fire Mr. Bostock for being homosexual; therefore, it was appropriate to dismiss the claim as a matter of law.[2]

The Supreme court ruled by a vote of 6 to 3 that employment discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Gorsuch voted with the liberals, with Justice Gorsuch writing the opinion that articulated the reasoning behind the Court's majority decision.[3]

Case Analysis

Majority Opinion

Justice Gorsuch based his reasoning in the idea that discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity is inseparable from sex discrimination. He argued that the only difference between a male employee who wants to marry a man and a female employee who wants to marry a man is the difference in gender between the male and female employee. Justice Gorsuch claims that because the only difference between the two employees is gender, accepting the female but not the male employee would constitute gender discrimination. He gives the example of a female employee who is a Yankees fan. If an employer fires this female employee for being a Yankees fan, this constitutes gender discrimination if the employer would tolerate a male employee who is also a Yankees fan. He relied on the principle that when two employees are "materially identical" in every way except gender, to pick one gender and reject the other constitutes sex discrimination.[2]

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Alito wrote a extensive, detailed opinion in strong disagreement with the majority decision. He criticized the majority for, under the guise of textualism, promoting judicial activism. He argued that the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, at the time it was written, could not have included discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. He also argued that it is erroneous to claim that gender is the only difference between a man who wants to marry a man and a woman who wants to marry a man. The two employees are not "materially identical" in every way except gender, because both employees are a different sexual orientation; the one is homosexual, and the other is not. In conclusion, he discussed the various negative consequences that may come as a result of the Court's majority ruling. [2]

Justice Kavanaugh also wrote in dissent, promoting the view that the Court should not "update" a statute, but rather such amending should be left to the legislature. He outlined how a court should look to the ordinary, and not literal, meaning of a statute. He stated that a phrase in a statute should be looked at as a whole, and not just as individual words. He reasoned that the Court's majority opinion followed neither the ordinary meaning nor the legislative intent of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[2]

See also

References

  1. https://mobile.twitter.com/josh_hammer/status/1272532875204853761?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1272532875204853761%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lifesitenews.com%2Fnews%2Fsupreme-court-votes-6-3-to-redefine-sex-write-transgenderism-into-1964-law
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf
  3. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/17-1618