Changes

==Case Analysis==

==Case Analysis==

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 he 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.<ref name="ref1"/>

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 he 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.<ref name="ref1"/>

 

Justice Alito wrote a extensive, detailed opinion in strong disagreement with the majority decision.  He criticized the majority of judicial activism, under the guise of textualism.  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 discusses the various negative consequences that may come as a result of the Court's majority ruling. <ref name="ref1"/>

==See also==

==See also==