Changes

Gorsuch authored the decision that unleashed [[lawfare]] for the [[transgender movement]], in ''[[Bostock v. Clayton County]]'' (June 15, 2020).  This has been called the new "''[[Roe v. Wade]]''," because it set the precedent -- without any [[textualism|textual]] basis in law -- for [[homosexual]]s and [[transgender]]s to sue for alleged discrimination against employers, private schools, and virtually any institution. “A Constitutional Right to Gender Surgery? An appeals court uses the Bostock ruling to usurp state law, in a new version of ''Roe v. Wade'',” wrote the ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'' in a May 11, 2024 editorial.  As the chief architect of transgender rights, Gorsuch subsequently "never asked a question, which is highly unusual" when Tennessee's law banning transgender operations on children was argued before the Supreme Court on December 4.<ref>https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/scotus-transgender-care-ban-12-04-24/index.html</ref>

Gorsuch authored the decision that unleashed [[lawfare]] for the [[transgender movement]], in ''[[Bostock v. Clayton County]]'' (June 15, 2020).  This has been called the new "''[[Roe v. Wade]]''," because it set the precedent -- without any [[textualism|textual]] basis in law -- for [[homosexual]]s and [[transgender]]s to sue for alleged discrimination against employers, private schools, and virtually any institution. “A Constitutional Right to Gender Surgery? An appeals court uses the Bostock ruling to usurp state law, in a new version of ''Roe v. Wade'',” wrote the ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'' in a May 11, 2024 editorial.  As the chief architect of transgender rights, Gorsuch subsequently "never asked a question, which is highly unusual" when Tennessee's law banning transgender operations on children was argued before the Supreme Court on December 4.<ref>https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/scotus-transgender-care-ban-12-04-24/index.html</ref>

At least some teachers and applicants for teaching positions may be blocked from recovering on such claims by the “ministerial exception” recognized in ''Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC'', 565 U. S. 171, 132 S. Ct. 694, 181 L. Ed. 2d 650 (2012). Two cases pending before the Court present the question of whether teachers who provide religious instruction can be considered to be “ministers.” But even if teachers with those responsibilities qualify, what about other very visible school employees who may not qualify for the ministerial exception? Provisions of Title VII provide exemptions for certain religious organizations and schools “with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on” of the “activities” of the organization or school, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-1(a); see also §2000e-2(e)(2), but the scope of these provisions is disputed, and as interpreted by some lower courts, they provide only narrow protection.

The “ministerial exception” recognized in ''Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC'', 565 U. S. 171 (2012), provides some protection against transgender lawfare for religious schools. Provisions of Title VII exempt certain religious organizations and schools “with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on” of the “activities” of the organization or school, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-1(a); see also §2000e-2(e)(2), but the scope of these provisions is disputed; as interpreted by some lower courts, they provide only narrow protection. ''Bostock v. Clayton Cty.'', 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1781 (2020) (Alito, J., dissenting).

''Bostock v. Clayton Cty.'', 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1781 (2020) (Alito, J., dissenting).

 

joined the liberal wing of the [[Supreme Court]] in voting (along with [[John Roberts]]) to write [[transgenderism]] and "sexual identity" into the twelfth title of the [[1964 Civil Rights Act]]<ref>Two references:

Gorsuch joined the liberal wing of the [[Supreme Court]] in voting (along with [[John Roberts]]) to write [[transgenderism]] and "sexual identity" into the twelfth title of the [[1964 Civil Rights Act]]<ref>Two references:

*[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]

*[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]

*[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]</ref> in ''[[Bostock v. Clayton County]]''.

*[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]</ref> in ''[[Bostock v. Clayton County]]''.