Difference between revisions of "Bostock v. Clayton County"
m |
(added to case history) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
==Case History== | ==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.<ref name="ref1"/> | 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.<ref name="ref1"/> | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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. | ||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
* [[Neil Gorsuch]] | * [[Neil Gorsuch]] | ||
| − | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | [[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | ||
[[Category:Judicial Activism]] | [[Category:Judicial Activism]] | ||
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]] | [[Category:Homosexual Agenda]] | ||
Revision as of 16:56, October 22, 2020
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.
See also
References
- ↑ 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
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf