SC Affirms gay rights

I'm going to give you credit for FINALLY creating a thread topic, but will have to disagree as to the merits of this case.
Title VII was clearly written to protect against workplace and employment discrimination against women (and less likely, but possibly, men). That was the plain intent. No one argues against that. What Gorsuch and the majority here have done is legislate from the bench by re-interpreting the plain meaning of "sex" to include a notion of gender ideology totally unknown or unanticipated by those who drafted and voted in favor of the original legislation in 1964.

And I find it hard to believe that employment discrimination based on sexual orientation is really a major issue in America in 2020. Most states have their own laws against this, which I don't object to, but just like Roe v. Wade and Obergefell, SCOTUS steps in and short-circuits the democratic process and decrees a national standard based on a tortured interpretation of a statute that had nothing to do with a newly desired "right." Congress is the place to go for this--just like the original Title VII issues in the 1960's.

While the decision issued yesterday is limited to areas of employment law, by imposing a gender ideology that says that "sex" is nothing but a social construct--against the plain words and meaning of what was intended in Title VII--the downstream consequences for women and girls will likely be disastrous, as it will become increasingly difficult to maintain women's-only sports, bathrooms, locker rooms, jails, and homeless shelters, putting countless women at competitive disadvantages and in unnecessary risk and discomfort. Men cannot be barred from playing in the WNBA or professional women's soccer. Goodbye female sports.

Well done.


p.s. If biological sex becomes a meaningless category, then I guess that means that "homosexuals" no longer exist, since the concept itself implies a biological and binary concept of sex that is outside the socially constructed theory of sex and gender that is now enshrined in law.

Well done again.

Rulings like this are often fraught with unforeseen consequences. For example, suppose a legitimate swimsuit company is hiring swimsuit/bikini models and unknowingly hires a trans "woman". At the first photo shoot, everyone notices "she" has a pecker bulge in her bikini bottoms. Does the company have any recourse?

You're right. There are potential undesirable ramifications. It would have been better if Congress passed a law making the intent explicit and not the result of linguistic gymnastics. But I think the principle involved in the decision trumps the reasonably anticipated complications that might arise. Engineers have a saying: "The perfect is the enemy of the good.".............................Luca

As an aside, I have never known or even heard of a person being fired for being gay. I did know a gay guy who was an asshole who was fired for being an asshole, but he was convinced he was fired for being gay. He was incorrect.

For anyone interested in a deeper dive into the complications the court has now introduced in the Bostock v. Clayton County case, see this excellent article by Ryan T. Anderson:

I'm curious to hear your reasoning as to why you think this ruling in any way implied that gender was a mere social construct.

In his opinion Justice Gorsuch made no such implication IMO. From NPR: 

Gorsuch couched his opinion in terms of the text of the 1964 statute and its ban on discrimination because of sex.



"It is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating ... based on sex," the justice wrote. He gave the example of two employees attracted to men — one male, the other female. "If the employer fires the male employee for no reason other than the fact that he is attracted to men," but not the woman who is attracted to men, that is clearly a firing based on sex, he said.

www.npr.org/2020/06/15/863498848/supreme-court-delivers-major-victory-to-lgbtq-employees