https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Isaiahbc 2026-10-08T23:11:11Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.35.14 https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bostock_v._Clayton_County&diff=1712150 2020-12-09T22:31:23Z

<p>Isaiahbc: </p> <hr /> <div>I apologize, I originally thought that Aimee Stephens was biologically born female. I guess I was wrong. So thank you for correcting my use of addressing him as a female.[[User:Isaiahbc|Isaiahbc]] ([[User talk:Isaiahbc|talk]]) 17:31, 9 December 2020 (EST)<br /> <br /> Does the first paragraph need more support for its claims? I agree with the information, but should there be more foundation given for why the information is true? Such as, why is the ruling illegal?[[User:Isaiahbc|Isaiahbc]] ([[User talk:Isaiahbc|talk]]) 17:31, 9 December 2020 (EST)</div>

Isaiahbc https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bostock_v._Clayton_County&diff=1699099 2020-10-24T21:02:09Z

<p>Isaiahbc: </p> <hr /> <div>'''''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 &quot;protected&quot; 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 theory|sexual &quot;orientation&quot;]] 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 &quot;[[Roe v. Wade]]&quot; of [[homosexual &quot;rights&quot;]] cases,&lt;ref&gt;https://mobile.twitter.com/josh_hammer/status/1272532875204853761?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1272532875204853761%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lifesitenews.com%2Fnews%2Fsupreme-court-votes-6-3-to-redefine-sex-write-transgenderism-into-1964-law&lt;/ref&gt; 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 &quot;marriage&quot;]], ''Bostock v. Clayton County'' opens the door to religious persecution in the [[United States of America]].<br /> <br /> ==Facts==<br /> Three cases were decided by ''Bostock v. Clayton County'', each of which dealt with the firing of a homosexual or [[gender confusion|gender-confused]] employee.<br /> <br /> 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.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;&gt;https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> 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.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> Aimee Stephens, who is biologically male, was employed by R. G. &amp; 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 &quot;live and work full-time as a woman,&quot; and upon this statement he was fired by the funeral home.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Case History==<br /> 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.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> 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.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/17-1618&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Case Analysis==<br /> ===Majority Opinion===<br /> 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 &quot;materially identical&quot; in every way except gender, to pick one gender and reject the other constitutes sex discrimination.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Dissenting Opinions===<br /> [[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 &quot;materially identical&quot; 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. &lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Justice Kavanaugh]] also wrote in dissent, promoting the view that the Court should not &quot;update&quot; 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.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> * [[Neil Gorsuch]]<br /> ==References==<br /> [[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]<br /> [[Category:Judicial Activism]]<br /> [[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]</div>

Isaiahbc https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bostock_v._Clayton_County&diff=1699098 2020-10-24T21:00:42Z

<p>Isaiahbc: </p> <hr /> <div>'''''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 &quot;protected&quot; 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 theory|sexual &quot;orientation&quot;]] 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 &quot;[[Roe v. Wade]]&quot; of [[homosexual &quot;rights&quot;]] cases,&lt;ref&gt;https://mobile.twitter.com/josh_hammer/status/1272532875204853761?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1272532875204853761%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lifesitenews.com%2Fnews%2Fsupreme-court-votes-6-3-to-redefine-sex-write-transgenderism-into-1964-law&lt;/ref&gt; 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 &quot;marriage&quot;]], ''Bostock v. Clayton County'' opens the door to religious persecution in the [[United States of America]].<br /> <br /> ==Facts==<br /> Three cases were decided by ''Bostock v. Clayton County'', each of which dealt with the firing of a homosexual or [[gender confusion|gender-confused]] employee.<br /> <br /> 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.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;&gt;https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> 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.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> Aimee Stephens, who is biologically male, was employed by R. G. &amp; 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 &quot;live and work full-time as a woman,&quot; and upon this statement he was fired by the funeral home.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Case History==<br /> 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.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> 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.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/17-1618&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Case Analysis==<br /> ===Majority Opinion===<br /> [[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 &quot;materially identical&quot; in every way except gender, to pick one gender and reject the other constitutes sex discrimination.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Dissenting Opinions===<br /> [[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 &quot;materially identical&quot; 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. &lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Justice Kavanaugh]] also wrote in dissent, promoting the view that the Court should not &quot;update&quot; 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.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> * [[Neil Gorsuch]]<br /> ==References==<br /> [[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]<br /> [[Category:Judicial Activism]]<br /> [[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]</div>

Isaiahbc https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Neil_Gorsuch&diff=1698412 2020-10-23T00:18:02Z

<p>Isaiahbc: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Officeholder<br /> |name=Neil Gorsuch<br /> |image=Neil Gorsuch SCOTUS.jpg<br /> |party=<br /> |spouse=Louise Burleston<br /> |religion=[[Episcopalian]]<br /> |offices=<br /> {{Officeholder/Supreme Court Justice<br /> |role=Associate<br /> |nominator=[[Donald Trump]]<br /> |terms=April 10, 2017 – present<br /> |preceded=[[Antonin Scalia]]<br /> |former=n<br /> |succeeded=<br /> }}<br /> {{Officeholder/misc<br /> |office=Judge of the United States [[Tenth Circuit]] Court of Appeals<br /> |terms=August 8, 2006 – April 9, 2017<br /> |preceded=David M. Ebel<br /> |former=y<br /> |succeeded=Allison H. Eld<br /> }}<br /> }}<br /> <br /> '''Neil McGill Gorsuch''' (born August 29, 1967, age {{age|1967|8|29}}) is an [[Associate Justice]] on the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]]. Prior to this, he served as a federal appellate judge. He was nominated by [[United States]] President [[Donald Trump]] to the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy created by the passing of [[Antonin Scalia]]. In his first full Term on the Court, according to ''Reason Magazine'', Gorsuch had a more [[liberal]] voting record than even the social liberal Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]].&lt;ref name=&quot;Reason&quot;&gt;https://reason.com/blog/2018/06/27/neil-gorsuch-was-more-liberal-than-antho&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Gorsuch is &quot;[[pro-choice]]&quot; and told Senator [[Susan Collins]] that he would not overturn ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' simply because there was a 5-4 majority to do so, as reported by ''Politico'':&lt;ref&gt;https://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/neil-gorsuch-charm-offensive-selling-democrats-235159&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> :When [Gorsuch] met with Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) earlier [in February], she pressed him on his views on judicial precedent: If five current justices disagree with a previous Supreme Court decision, is that sufficient grounds to overturn the ruling? Gorsuch said no.<br /> :“It’s important to me generally, but it also is important to me because of Roe v. Wade,” Collins, who supports abortion rights, said of asking Gorsuch about precedent. “It’s an important principle.”<br /> <br /> [[David Souter]] and [[Anthony Kennedy]] used the same excuse to perpetuate ''Roe v. Wade'' in 1992 in ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]''.<br /> <br /> Gorsuch is active in an ultra-[[liberal]] [[Episcopalian]] church whose woman pastor marched against [[Trump]] in [[Washington, D.C.]] in January. More generally, the Episcopal Church is officially on record as being strongly against [[pro-life]] laws, though TEC's official statement says that abortion &quot;should be used only in extreme situations.”<br /> <br /> After Scalia unexpected passed away, Gorsuch began positioning himself for the vacancy by aligning himself with [[originalism]]. He supposedly opposes [[judicial activism]] as an underhanded method to bring about social change,&lt;ref&gt;https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/31/who-is-judge-neil-gorsuch.html&lt;/ref&gt; but sided with inventing new rights for [[transgender]]s under a federal law passed years ago.<br /> <br /> ==Life==<br /> Neil Gorsuch was born in Colorado on August 29, 1967, to two lawyers.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.biography.com/people/neil-gorsuch-020617&lt;/ref&gt; He spent increasing time in [[Washington, D.C.]] as his mother Anne became the first woman to run the EPA.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/01/neil-gorsuchs-mother-once-ran-the-epa-it-was-a-disaster/?utm_term=.498012b39bc1&lt;/ref&gt; He went to Columbia University, where he wrote for the ''Columbia Daily Spectator'' and co-founded ''The Federalist Paper'', and later attended Harvard Law School.&lt;ref&gt;http://spectatorarchive.library.columbia.edu/cgi-bin/columbia?a=d&amp;d=cs19860319-01.2.19&amp;e=-------en-20--54972--txt-txIN-columbia-----&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == The &quot;Frozen Trucker&quot; Case ==<br /> {{See also|Frozen Trucker case}}<br /> Judge Gorsuch rendered several opinions after the vacancy arose on the U.S. Supreme Court, perhaps as a way of enhancing his own candidacy. Often for the first time, Gorsuch used language in these opinions to position himself closer to Justice Scalia's philosophy. One of these opinions, a dissent by Gorsuch, occurred in the so-called &quot;frozen trucker&quot; case, ''TransAm Trucking, Inc. v. Admin. Review Bd., United States DOL'', 833 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2016).&lt;ref&gt;[https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/15/15-9504.pdf United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit]: Appeal from the Department of Labor (ARB No. 13-031) (pdf)&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This so-called &quot;frozen trucker&quot; case emerged during Gorsuch's confirmation hearings as an example of his favoring powerful corporations over the &quot;little guy.&quot; A trucker whose rig had broken down was stuck in freezing weather and told to remain with his rig until help arrived. After waiting in vain for more than two and a half hours, he unhooked his trailer and drove it to safety, and was fired for disobeying orders.<br /> <br /> Gorsuch dissented passionately from a panel decision that upheld an administrative ruling reinstating the employment of the trucker.&lt;ref&gt;[http://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2017/03/a-look-at-the-frozen-trucker-case/ Criticism of Judge Gorsuch's dissent]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Supreme Court nomination and confirmation==<br /> [[File:Donald Trump with Neil Gorsuch Jan. 31, 2017.jpg|thumb|200px|President Trump announcing his nomination of Gorsuch, January 31, 2017.]]<br /> [[File:Neil Gorsuch swearing-in, April 10, 2017.jpg|thumb|200px|President Trump looks on as Gorsuch is sworn-in.]]<br /> On January 31, 2017, President [[Donald Trump]] nominated Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.&lt;ref&gt;Klukowski, Ken (January 31, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/31/trump-nominates-judge-neil-gorsuch-supreme-court/ Trump Nominates Judge Neil Gorsuch to Supreme Court]. ''Breitbart''. Retrieved January 31, 2017.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Hurley, Lawrence; Holland, Steve (January 31, 2017). [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-trump-idUSKBN15F1OW Trump picks conservative judge Gorsuch for U.S. Supreme Court]. ''Reuters''. Retrieved January 31, 2017.&lt;/ref&gt; The nomination was well received by many conservatives.&lt;ref&gt;Chamberlain, Steve (January 31, 2017). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/31/reaction-to-trumps-supreme-court-pick-split-along-partisan-lines.html Conservatives hail Trump's Supreme Court pick]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved January 31, 2017.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Ertelt, Steven (January 31, 2017). [https://www.lifenews.com/2017/01/31/president-donald-trump-nominates-pro-life-friendly-judge-neil-gorsuch-to-the-supreme-court/ President Donald Trump Nominates Pro-Life-Friendly Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court]. ''LifeNews.com''. Retrieved January 31, 2017.&lt;/ref&gt; Others, however, most notably [[Andrew Schlafly]], disagreed with the nomination due to concerns about Gorsuch's position on abortion.&lt;ref&gt;Dannenfelser, Marjorie (January 31, 2017). [https://townhall.com/columnists/marjoriedannenfelser/2017/01/31/the-truth-about-trumps-prolife-scotus-list-n2279232 The Truth about Trump’s Pro-life SCOTUS List]. ''Townhall''. Retrieved February 1, 2017.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&amp;diff=1302133&amp;oldid=1301962&lt;/ref&gt; The Senate ultimately confirmed Gorsuch on a vote of 54–45, even though the GOP was forced to initiate the [[nuclear option]] and remove the [[filibuster]] for Supreme Court nominees due to Democrat obstructionism.&lt;ref&gt;Berger, Judson (April 7, 2017). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/07/gorsuch-confirmed-to-supreme-court.html Gorsuch confirmed to Supreme Court]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved April 7, 2017.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Tenure on the Court==<br /> After assuming office, Gorsuch was frequently described as generally positioning himself along with conservative justices,&lt;ref&gt;Multiple references:<br /> *Pollak, Joel B. (June 28, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/28/democrats-despair-gorsuch-rulings-weve-got-new-scalia/ Democrats Despair over Neil Gorsuch: ‘We’ve Got Another Scalia’]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 28, 2017.<br /> *Dinan, Stephen; Swoyer, Alex (June 26, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/26/neil-gorsuch-firmly-on-supreme-court-right/ Justice Gorsuch immediately asserts himself on right of Supreme Court]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved June 27, 2017.<br /> *Lovelace, Ryan (June 26, 2017). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/conservatives-cheer-gorsuch-amid-flurry-of-decisions-on-final-day-of-supreme-court-term/article/2627143 Conservatives cheer Gorsuch amid flurry of decisions on final day of Supreme Court term]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved June 27, 2017.<br /> *Wheeler, Lydia (June 28, 2017). [https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/339765-gorsuch-starts-to-show-his-conservative-cards Gorsuch starts to show his conservative cards]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved June 28, 2017.<br /> *Mears, Bill (July 6, 2017). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/06/gorsuch-already-making-conservative-mark-on-supreme-court-amid-kennedy-rumors.html Gorsuch already making conservative mark on Supreme Court, amid Kennedy rumors]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved July 6, 2017.<br /> This perception remained one year in:<br /> *Wheeler, Lydia (April 4, 2018). [https://thehill.com/regulation/381539-a-year-in-trumps-pick-makes-waves-at-high-court A year in, Trump’s pick makes waves at high court]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved April 4, 2018.<br /> *Swoyer, Alex (April 8, 2018). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/8/neil-gorsuchs-supreme-court-decisions-favor-conser/ Justice Gorsuch forms conservative triumvirate on Supreme Court]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved April 9, 2018.<br /> *Quinn, Melissa (April 10, 2018). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/neil-gorsuch-thrills-conservatives-in-first-year-on-supreme-court Neil Gorsuch thrills conservatives in first year on Supreme Court]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved April 10, 2018.<br /> *Wolf, Richard (April 8, 2018). [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/04/08/justice-gorsuch-confirms-conservatives-hopes-liberals-fears-first-year-supreme-court/486630002/ Justice Gorsuch confirms conservatives' hopes, liberals' fears in first year on Supreme Court]. ''USA Today''. Retrieved April 10, 2018.<br /> *Severino, Carrie (April 10, 2018). [https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/04/10/one-year-in-trumps-gorsuch-nomination-may-be-his-longest-lasting-legacy.html One year in, Trump's Gorsuch nomination may be his longest lasting legacy]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved April 10, 2018.<br /> *Klukowski, Ken (April 10, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/04/10/klukowski-gorsuch-1st-year-supreme-court-begins-lasting-legacy-president-trump/ Klukowski: Gorsuch 1st Year on Supreme Court Begins Lasting Legacy for President Trump]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 10, 2018.<br /> *Slattery; Elizabeth; Bates, Tiffany (April 12, 2018). [https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/a-look-back-at-one-year-of-neil-gorsuch-on-the-supreme-court A look back at one year of Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court]. ''LifeSiteNews'' (from ''The Daily Signal''). Retrieved April 14, 2018.<br /> Later sources discussing this:<br /> *Hillyer, Quin (February 21, 2019). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/gorsuch-joins-thomas-in-a-constitutionalist-revival Gorsuch joins Thomas in a constitutionalist revival]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved February 21, 2019.<br /> *Swoyer, Alex (April 7, 2019). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/apr/7/neil-gorsuch-antonin-scalia-replacement-exceeds-co/ The New Scalia: Neil Gorsuch befriends liberal justices while exceeding conservatives' expectations]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved April 8, 2019.<br /> See also:<br /> *Dias, Elizabeth; Ember, Sydney (June 26, 2018). [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/us/politics/travel-ban-donald-trump.html Abortion and Travel Ban Rulings Are Victory for G.O.P. Tactics on Gorsuch]. ''The New York Times''. Retrieved June 26, 2018.&lt;/ref&gt; though ''Reason Magazine'''s analysis found that in his first full term, he positioned himself as slightly more liberal than even Justice Kennedy, the swing vote.&lt;ref name=&quot;Reason&quot;/&gt; On June 26, 2017, Gorsuch joined a dissenting opinion by Justice [[Clarence Thomas]] opposing the Supreme Court's decision to reject hearing two cases in which [[gun rights]] groups appealed and which meant that anti-gun and -Second Amendment laws would prevail.&lt;ref&gt;[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/26/justices-thomas-gorsuch-blast-court-decision-to-reject-gun-rights-appeal.html Justices Thomas, Gorsuch blast court decision to reject gun rights appeal]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved June 26, 2017.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Klukowski, Ken (June 26, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/26/justices-thomas-and-gorsuch-supreme-court-should-take-more-second-amendment-cases/ Justices Thomas and Gorsuch: Supreme Court Should Take More Second Amendment Cases]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 27, 2017.&lt;/ref&gt; The Court assigned Gorsuch to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.&lt;ref&gt;Lovelace, Ryan (June 27, 2017). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/supreme-court-gives-neil-gorsuch-a-midwestern-circuit-in-new-assignments/article/2627193 Supreme Court gives Neil Gorsuch a Midwestern circuit in new assignments]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved June 27, 2017.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> On subsequent [[Second Amendment]] [[Certiorari|petitions for cert]], however, Gorsuch sided with the [[liberal]] wing of the Court in denying cert and thereby allowing anti-[[Second Amendment]] appellate rulings to stand. For example, on Feb. 20, 2018, Gorsuch refused to join a dissent by Justice [[Clarence Thomas|Thomas]] which sought to invalidate a 10-day waiting period [[gun control]] law in [[California]]:&lt;ref&gt;''Silvester v. Becerra'', 138 S. Ct. 945, 945 (2018).&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> {{cquote|The Second Amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” and the Fourteenth Amendment requires the States to respect that right, McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 749-750, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (plurality opinion); id., at 805, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (Thomas, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Because the right to keep and bear arms is enumerated in the Constitution, courts cannot subject laws that burden it to mere rational-basis review. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 628, n. 27, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008).<br /> But the decision below did just that. Purporting to apply intermediate scrutiny, the Court of Appeals upheld California’s 10-day waiting period for firearms based solely on its own “common sense.” Silvester v. Harris, 843 F. 3d 816, 828 (CA9 2016). It did so without requiring California to submit relevant evidence, without addressing petitioners’ arguments to the contrary, and without acknowledging the District Court’s factual findings. This deferential analysis was indistinguishable from rational-basis review. And it is symptomatic of the lower courts’ general failure to afford the Second Amendment the respect due an enumerated constitutional right.}}<br /> <br /> On April 17, 2018, Gorusch joined the [[liberal]] wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] by casting the deciding vote against [[deportation]] of an [[illegal alien]] who broke the law, and thereby invalidated a key part of [[immigration]] law.<br /> <br /> On the [[Fourth Amendment]], Gorsuch alone espouses a view that it should be reinterpreted based on property ownership, rather than privacy expectations. Litigants in Fourth Amendment cases, including the one decided by the Supreme Court in June 2018, do not typically assert such an argument.<br /> <br /> On June 15, 2020, Gorsuch joined the liberal wing of the [[Supreme Court]] in voting (along with [[John Roberts]]) to write [[transgenderism]] and &quot;sexual identity&quot; into the twelfth title of the [[1964 Civil Rights Act]]&lt;ref&gt;Two references:<br /> *[https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/06/15/bostock-v-clayton-county-scotus-rules-6-3-that-gay-trans-employees-protected-by-civil-rights-act/# Bostock v. Clayton County: SCOTUS Rules 6-3 that Gay, Trans Employees Protected by Civil Rights Act]<br /> *[https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/supreme-court-votes-6-3-to-redefine-sex-write-transgenderism-into-1964-law BREAKING: US Supreme Court votes 6-3 to redefine ‘sex,’ write transgenderism into 1964 law]&lt;/ref&gt; in ''[[Bostock v. Clayton County]]''.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist}}<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> * [http://abovethelaw.com/2017/03/truck-drivers-weigh-in-on-transam-trucking-case-neil-gorsuch-nomination/ Truck Drivers Weigh In On TransAm Trucking Case, Neil Gorsuch Nomination]<br /> * [https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/03/21/the-real-story-about-neil-gorsuch-and-the-transam-frozen-trucker/ The Real Story About Neil Gorsuch and the TransAm 'Frozen Trucker']<br /> * [https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/mar/23/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-frozen-trucker-alphonse-maddin When Neil Gorsuch put corporate interests over a man freezing to death]<br /> <br /> {{DEFAULTSORT:Gorsuch, Neil}}<br /> [[Category:United States Supreme Court Justices]]<br /> [[Category:Moderates]]<br /> [[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]</div>

Isaiahbc https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Oak_Brook_College_of_Law&diff=1698384 2020-10-22T23:29:48Z

<p>Isaiahbc: </p> <hr /> <div>Oak Brook College of Law is a Christian law school based out of Fresno, California.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;&gt;http://www.obcl.edu&lt;/ref&gt; The primary method of instruction is through correspondence/distance learning.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.obcl.edu/accreditation/&lt;/ref&gt; Because of its use of a correspondence method, Oak Brook College is not accredited by the American Bar Association&lt;ref&gt;https://www.lsac.org/choosing-law-school/find-law-school/non-aba-approved-law-schools&lt;/ref&gt;, and therefore its graduates are generally not permitted to sit for the bar exam in many states (however, California does not require bar exam candidates to have graduated from, or even attended, an accredited school). <br /> <br /> Oak Brook College states that its mission &quot;is to train 'advocates of truth, counselors of reconciliation, and ministers of justice.'&quot;&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt; It teaches the philosophy that American law is based on Scripture and the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.obcl.edu/philosophy/&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> The College offers both Juris Doctor and Paralegal programs.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.obcl.edu/academics/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:California Universities]]</div>

Isaiahbc https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bostock_v._Clayton_County&diff=1698246 2020-10-22T18:43:57Z

<p>Isaiahbc: </p> <hr /> <div>'''''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 &quot;protected&quot; 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 theory|sexual &quot;orientation&quot;]] 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 &quot;[[Roe v. Wade]]&quot; of [[homosexual &quot;rights&quot;]] cases,&lt;ref&gt;https://mobile.twitter.com/josh_hammer/status/1272532875204853761?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1272532875204853761%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lifesitenews.com%2Fnews%2Fsupreme-court-votes-6-3-to-redefine-sex-write-transgenderism-into-1964-law&lt;/ref&gt; 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 &quot;marriage&quot;]], ''Bostock v. Clayton County'' opens the door to religious persecution in the [[United States of America]].<br /> <br /> ==Facts==<br /> Three cases were decided by ''Bostock v. Clayton County'', each of which dealt with the firing of a homosexual or [[gender confusion|gender-confused]] employee.<br /> <br /> 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.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;&gt;https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> 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.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> Aimee Stephens, who is biologically male, was employed by R. G. &amp; 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 &quot;live and work full-time as a woman,&quot; and upon this statement he was fired by the funeral home.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Case History==<br /> 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.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> 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.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/17-1618&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Case Analysis==<br /> ===Majority Opinion===<br /> 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 &quot;materially identical&quot; in every way except gender, to pick one gender and reject the other constitutes sex discrimination.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Dissenting Opinions===<br /> 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 &quot;materially identical&quot; 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. &lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> Justice Kavanaugh also wrote in dissent, promoting the view that the Court should not &quot;update&quot; 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.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> * [[Neil Gorsuch]]<br /> ==References==<br /> [[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]<br /> [[Category:Judicial Activism]]<br /> [[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]</div>

Isaiahbc https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bostock_v._Clayton_County&diff=1698241 2020-10-22T18:27:31Z

<p>Isaiahbc: added to case analysis</p> <hr /> <div>'''''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 &quot;protected&quot; 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 theory|sexual &quot;orientation&quot;]] 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 &quot;[[Roe v. Wade]]&quot; of [[homosexual &quot;rights&quot;]] cases,&lt;ref&gt;https://mobile.twitter.com/josh_hammer/status/1272532875204853761?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1272532875204853761%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lifesitenews.com%2Fnews%2Fsupreme-court-votes-6-3-to-redefine-sex-write-transgenderism-into-1964-law&lt;/ref&gt; 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 &quot;marriage&quot;]], ''Bostock v. Clayton County'' opens the door to religious persecution in the [[United States of America]].<br /> <br /> ==Facts==<br /> Three cases were decided by ''Bostock v. Clayton County'', each of which dealt with the firing of a homosexual or [[gender confusion|gender-confused]] employee.<br /> <br /> 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.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;&gt;https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> 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.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> Aimee Stephens, who is biologically male, was employed by R. G. &amp; 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 &quot;live and work full-time as a woman,&quot; and upon this statement he was fired by the funeral home.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Case History==<br /> 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.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> 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.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/17-1618&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Case Analysis==<br /> 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 &quot;materially identical&quot; in every way except gender, to pick one gender and reject the other constitutes sex discrimination.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;materially identical&quot; 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. &lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> Justice Kavanaugh also wrote in dissent, promoting the view that the Court should not &quot;update&quot; 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.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> * [[Neil Gorsuch]]<br /> ==References==<br /> [[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]<br /> [[Category:Judicial Activism]]<br /> [[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]</div>

Isaiahbc https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bostock_v._Clayton_County&diff=1698234 2020-10-22T18:13:26Z

<p>Isaiahbc: </p> <hr /> <div>'''''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 &quot;protected&quot; 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 theory|sexual &quot;orientation&quot;]] 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 &quot;[[Roe v. Wade]]&quot; of [[homosexual &quot;rights&quot;]] cases,&lt;ref&gt;https://mobile.twitter.com/josh_hammer/status/1272532875204853761?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1272532875204853761%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lifesitenews.com%2Fnews%2Fsupreme-court-votes-6-3-to-redefine-sex-write-transgenderism-into-1964-law&lt;/ref&gt; 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 &quot;marriage&quot;]], ''Bostock v. Clayton County'' opens the door to religious persecution in the [[United States of America]].<br /> <br /> ==Facts==<br /> Three cases were decided by ''Bostock v. Clayton County'', each of which dealt with the firing of a homosexual or [[gender confusion|gender-confused]] employee.<br /> <br /> 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.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;&gt;https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> 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.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> Aimee Stephens, who is biologically male, was employed by R. G. &amp; 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 &quot;live and work full-time as a woman,&quot; and upon this statement he was fired by the funeral home.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Case History==<br /> 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.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> 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.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/17-1618&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Case Analysis==<br /> 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 the 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 &quot;materially identical&quot; in every way except gender, to pick one gender and reject the other constitutes sex discrimination.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;materially identical&quot; 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. &lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> * [[Neil Gorsuch]]<br /> ==References==<br /> [[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]<br /> [[Category:Judicial Activism]]<br /> [[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]</div>

Isaiahbc https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bostock_v._Clayton_County&diff=1698231 2020-10-22T18:10:45Z

<p>Isaiahbc: Added to case analysis</p> <hr /> <div>'''''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 &quot;protected&quot; 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 theory|sexual &quot;orientation&quot;]] 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 &quot;[[Roe v. Wade]]&quot; of [[homosexual &quot;rights&quot;]] cases,&lt;ref&gt;https://mobile.twitter.com/josh_hammer/status/1272532875204853761?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1272532875204853761%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lifesitenews.com%2Fnews%2Fsupreme-court-votes-6-3-to-redefine-sex-write-transgenderism-into-1964-law&lt;/ref&gt; 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 &quot;marriage&quot;]], ''Bostock v. Clayton County'' opens the door to religious persecution in the [[United States of America]].<br /> <br /> ==Facts==<br /> Three cases were decided by ''Bostock v. Clayton County'', each of which dealt with the firing of a homosexual or [[gender confusion|gender-confused]] employee.<br /> <br /> 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.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;&gt;https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> 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.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> Aimee Stephens, who is biologically male, was employed by R. G. &amp; 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 &quot;live and work full-time as a woman,&quot; and upon this statement he was fired by the funeral home.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Case History==<br /> 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.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> 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.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/17-1618&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Case Analysis==<br /> 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 &quot;materially identical&quot; in every way except gender, to pick one gender and reject the other constitutes sex discrimination.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;materially identical&quot; 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. &lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> * [[Neil Gorsuch]]<br /> ==References==<br /> [[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]<br /> [[Category:Judicial Activism]]<br /> [[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]</div>

Isaiahbc https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bostock_v._Clayton_County&diff=1698213 2020-10-22T17:23:14Z

<p>Isaiahbc: </p> <hr /> <div>I apologize, I originally thought that Aimee Stephens was biologically born female. I guess I was wrong. So thank you for correcting my use of addressing him as a female.<br /> <br /> Does the first paragraph need more support for its claims? I agree with the information, but should there be more foundation given for why the information is true? Such as, why is the ruling illegal?</div>

Isaiahbc https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bostock_v._Clayton_County&diff=1698212 2020-10-22T17:21:59Z

<p>Isaiahbc: </p> <hr /> <div>'''''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 &quot;protected&quot; 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 theory|sexual &quot;orientation&quot;]] 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 &quot;[[Roe v. Wade]]&quot; of [[homosexual &quot;rights&quot;]] cases,&lt;ref&gt;https://mobile.twitter.com/josh_hammer/status/1272532875204853761?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1272532875204853761%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lifesitenews.com%2Fnews%2Fsupreme-court-votes-6-3-to-redefine-sex-write-transgenderism-into-1964-law&lt;/ref&gt; 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 &quot;marriage&quot;]], ''Bostock v. Clayton County'' opens the door to religious persecution in the [[United States of America]].<br /> <br /> ==Facts==<br /> Three cases were decided by ''Bostock v. Clayton County'', each of which dealt with the firing of a homosexual or [[gender confusion|gender-confused]] employee.<br /> <br /> 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.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;&gt;https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> 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.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> Aimee Stephens, who is biologically male, was employed by R. G. &amp; 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 &quot;live and work full-time as a woman,&quot; and upon this statement he was fired by the funeral home.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Case History==<br /> 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.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> 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.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/17-1618&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Case Analysis==<br /> 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.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> * [[Neil Gorsuch]]<br /> ==References==<br /> [[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]<br /> [[Category:Judicial Activism]]<br /> [[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]</div>

Isaiahbc https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bostock_v._Clayton_County&diff=1698208 2020-10-22T17:03:06Z

<p>Isaiahbc: added ref</p> <hr /> <div>'''''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 &quot;protected&quot; 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 theory|sexual &quot;orientation&quot;]] 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 &quot;[[Roe v. Wade]]&quot; of [[homosexual &quot;rights&quot;]] cases,&lt;ref&gt;https://mobile.twitter.com/josh_hammer/status/1272532875204853761?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1272532875204853761%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lifesitenews.com%2Fnews%2Fsupreme-court-votes-6-3-to-redefine-sex-write-transgenderism-into-1964-law&lt;/ref&gt; 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 &quot;marriage&quot;]], ''Bostock v. Clayton County'' opens the door to religious persecution in the [[United States of America]].<br /> <br /> ==Facts==<br /> Three cases were decided by ''Bostock v. Clayton County'', each of which dealt with the firing of a homosexual or [[gender confusion|gender-confused]] employee.<br /> <br /> 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.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;&gt;https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> 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.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> Aimee Stephens, who is biologically male, was employed by R. G. &amp; 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 &quot;live and work full-time as a woman,&quot; and upon this statement he was fired by the funeral home.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Case History==<br /> 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.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> 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.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/17-1618&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> * [[Neil Gorsuch]]<br /> ==References==<br /> [[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]<br /> [[Category:Judicial Activism]]<br /> [[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]</div>

Isaiahbc https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bostock_v._Clayton_County&diff=1698206 2020-10-22T17:00:53Z

<p>Isaiahbc: </p> <hr /> <div>I apologize, I originally thought that Aimee Stephens was biologically born female. I guess I was wrong. So thank you for correcting my use of addressing him as a female.<br /> <br /> Does the first paragraph need more support for its claims? I agree with the information, but should there be for foundation given for why the information is true? Such as, why is the ruling illegal?</div>

Isaiahbc https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bostock_v._Clayton_County&diff=1698202 2020-10-22T16:57:57Z

<p>Isaiahbc: </p> <hr /> <div>I apologize, I originally thought that Aimee Stephens was biologically born female. I guess I was wrong. So thank you for correcting my use of addressing him as a female.</div>

Isaiahbc https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bostock_v._Clayton_County&diff=1698200 2020-10-22T16:56:43Z

<p>Isaiahbc: added to case history</p> <hr /> <div>'''''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 &quot;protected&quot; 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 theory|sexual &quot;orientation&quot;]] 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 &quot;[[Roe v. Wade]]&quot; of [[homosexual &quot;rights&quot;]] cases,&lt;ref&gt;https://mobile.twitter.com/josh_hammer/status/1272532875204853761?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1272532875204853761%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lifesitenews.com%2Fnews%2Fsupreme-court-votes-6-3-to-redefine-sex-write-transgenderism-into-1964-law&lt;/ref&gt; 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 &quot;marriage&quot;]], ''Bostock v. Clayton County'' opens the door to religious persecution in the [[United States of America]].<br /> <br /> ==Facts==<br /> Three cases were decided by ''Bostock v. Clayton County'', each of which dealt with the firing of a homosexual or [[gender confusion|gender-confused]] employee.<br /> <br /> 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.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;&gt;https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> 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.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> Aimee Stephens, who is biologically male, was employed by R. G. &amp; 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 &quot;live and work full-time as a woman,&quot; and upon this statement he was fired by the funeral home.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Case History==<br /> 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.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> * [[Neil Gorsuch]]<br /> ==References==<br /> [[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]<br /> [[Category:Judicial Activism]]<br /> [[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]</div>

Isaiahbc https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bostock_v._Clayton_County&diff=1698181 2020-10-22T16:45:05Z

<p>Isaiahbc: Created page with &quot;I apologize, I originally thought that Aimee Stephens was biologically born female. I guess I was wrong. So thank you, Northwest, for correcting my use of addressing him as...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>I apologize, I originally thought that Aimee Stephens was biologically born female. I guess I was wrong. So thank you, Northwest, for correcting my use of addressing him as a female.</div>

Isaiahbc https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bostock_v._Clayton_County&diff=1698177 2020-10-22T16:38:18Z

<p>Isaiahbc: </p> <hr /> <div>'''''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 &quot;protected&quot; 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 theory|sexual &quot;orientation&quot;]] 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 &quot;[[Roe v. Wade]]&quot; of [[homosexual &quot;rights&quot;]] cases,&lt;ref&gt;https://mobile.twitter.com/josh_hammer/status/1272532875204853761?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1272532875204853761%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lifesitenews.com%2Fnews%2Fsupreme-court-votes-6-3-to-redefine-sex-write-transgenderism-into-1964-law&lt;/ref&gt; 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 &quot;marriage&quot;]], ''Bostock v. Clayton County'' opens the door to religious persecution in the [[United States of America]].<br /> <br /> ==Facts==<br /> Three cases were decided by ''Bostock v. Clayton County'', each of which dealt with the firing of a homosexual or [[gender confusion|gender-confused]] employee.<br /> <br /> 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.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;&gt;https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> 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.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> Aimee Stephens, who is biologically male, was employed by R. G. &amp; 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 &quot;live and work full-time as a woman,&quot; and upon this statement he was fired by the funeral home.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Case History==<br /> 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.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> * [[Neil Gorsuch]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> [[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]<br /> [[Category:Judicial Activism]]<br /> [[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]</div>

Isaiahbc https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Oak_Brook_College_of_Law&diff=1698176 2020-10-22T16:35:12Z

<p>Isaiahbc: Added a few small things</p> <hr /> <div>Oak Brook College of Law is a Christian law school based out of Fresno, California.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;&gt;http://www.obcl.edu&lt;/ref&gt; The primary method of instruction is through correspondence/distance learning.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.obcl.edu/accreditation/&lt;/ref&gt; Because of its use of a correspondence method, Oak Brook College is not accredited by the American Bar Association.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.lsac.org/choosing-law-school/find-law-school/non-aba-approved-law-schools&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> Oak Brook College states that its mission &quot;is to train 'advocates of truth, counselors of reconciliation, and ministers of justice.'&quot;&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt; It teaches the philosophy that American law is based on Scripture and the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.obcl.edu/philosophy/&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> The College offers both Juris Doctor and Paralegal programs.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.obcl.edu/academics/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist}}</div>

Isaiahbc https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bostock_v._Clayton_County&diff=1697991 2020-10-22T01:55:34Z

<p>Isaiahbc: Sentence structure change</p> <hr /> <div>'''''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 &quot;protected&quot; 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 theory|sexual &quot;orientation&quot;]] 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 &quot;[[Roe v. Wade]]&quot; of [[homosexual &quot;rights&quot;]] cases,&lt;ref&gt;https://mobile.twitter.com/josh_hammer/status/1272532875204853761?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1272532875204853761%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lifesitenews.com%2Fnews%2Fsupreme-court-votes-6-3-to-redefine-sex-write-transgenderism-into-1964-law&lt;/ref&gt; 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 &quot;marriage&quot;]], ''Bostock v. Clayton County'' opens the door to religious persecution in the [[United States of America]].<br /> <br /> ==Facts==<br /> Three cases were decided by ''Bostock v. Clayton County'', each of which dealt with the firing of a homosexual or transgender employee.<br /> <br /> 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 gay softball league.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;&gt;https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> 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 gay.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> Aimee Stephens was employed by R. G. &amp; G. R. Harris Funeral Homes in Garden City, Michigan, after she applied as a male. After seeking treatment for emotional and mental struggles, she was diagnosed with gender dysphoria. At her clinicians' recommendation, she told her employer that she was going to begin to “live and work full-time as a woman,” and upon this statement she was fired by the funeral home.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Case History==<br /> Each employee brought suit for sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The lawsuits brought by Mr. Zarda and Ms. 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 gay; therefore, it was appropriate to dismiss the claim as a matter of law.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> * [[Neil Gorsuch]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> [[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]<br /> [[Category:Judicial Activism]]<br /> [[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]</div>

Isaiahbc https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bostock_v._Clayton_County&diff=1697990 2020-10-22T01:50:16Z

<p>Isaiahbc: Addition of facts and case history</p> <hr /> <div>'''''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 &quot;protected&quot; 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 theory|sexual &quot;orientation&quot;]] 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 &quot;[[Roe v. Wade]]&quot; of [[homosexual &quot;rights&quot;]] cases,&lt;ref&gt;https://mobile.twitter.com/josh_hammer/status/1272532875204853761?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1272532875204853761%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lifesitenews.com%2Fnews%2Fsupreme-court-votes-6-3-to-redefine-sex-write-transgenderism-into-1964-law&lt;/ref&gt; 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 &quot;marriage&quot;]], ''Bostock v. Clayton County'' opens the door to religious persecution in the [[United States of America]].<br /> <br /> ==Facts==<br /> Three cases were decided by ''Bostock v. Clayton County'', each of which dealt with the firing of a homosexual or transgender employee.<br /> <br /> 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 gay softball league.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;&gt;https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> 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 gay.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> Aimee Stephens was employed by R. G. &amp; G. R. Harris Funeral Homes in Garden City, Michigan, after she applied as a male. After seeking treatment for emotional and mental struggles, she was diagnosed with gender dysphoria. At her clinicians' recommendation, she told her employer that she was going to begin to “live and work full-time as a woman,” and upon this statement she was fired by the funeral home.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Case History==<br /> Each employee brought suit for sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Both the Second and Sixth Circuits allowed the cases brought by Mr. Zarda and Ms. Stephens, respectively, to proceed. 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 gay; therefore, it was appropriate to dismiss the claim as a matter of law.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> * [[Neil Gorsuch]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> [[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]<br /> [[Category:Judicial Activism]]<br /> [[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]</div>

Isaiahbc https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Oak_Brook_College_of_Law&diff=1697850 2020-10-21T18:56:47Z

<p>Isaiahbc: Created this page</p> <hr /> <div>Oak Brook College of Law is a Christian law school based out of Fresno, California.&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;&gt;http://www.obcl.edu&lt;/ref&gt; The primary method of instruction is through correspondence/distance learning.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.obcl.edu/accreditation/&lt;/ref&gt; Because of its use of a correspondence method, Oak Brook College is not accredited by the American Bar Association.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.lsac.org/choosing-law-school/find-law-school/non-aba-approved-law-schools&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> Oak Brook College states that its mission &quot;is to train 'advocates of truth, counselors of reconciliation, and ministers of justice.'&quot;&lt;ref name=&quot;ref1&quot;/&gt; It teaches the philosophy that American law is based on Scripture and the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.obcl.edu/philosophy/&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist}}</div>

Isaiahbc