BATON ROUGE – Today, the United States Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, issued its opinion in three combined employment cases, expanding the definition of “sex” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sexual orientation and transgenderism.
“I am deeply concerned by the vast implications of this Supreme Court decision," said LFF President Gene Mills. "I concur with the Alito dissent that, 'A more brazen attempt to abuse authority is hard to recall.' The majority on this court seem to have no clear legal, historical, or biological concept of the nature of 'sex.' Today six justices concocted a new meaning of the that word: 'sex.'
One of the cases, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC involved a dispute over the funeral home declining an employee’s request to violate the company’s dress code by dressing and presenting as the opposite sex when meeting with grieving family members.
Essentially, the Supreme Court rewrote the law passed by Congress in 1964. As Justice Kavanaugh noted in his dissent against the majority decision:
“The majority opinion insists that it is not rewriting or updating Title VII, but instead is just humbly reading the text. Most everyone familiar with the use of the English language in America understands that the ordinary meaning of sexual orientation discrimination is distinct from the ordinary meaning of sex discrimination. Federal law distinguishes the two. State law distinguishes the two. This Court’s cases distinguish the two. Statistics on discrimination distinguish the two. History distinguishes the two…”
“The Court could have easily taken an originalist, constitutionalist approach and followed the doctrine of separation of powers that it is Congress’ job to include sexual orientation and gender identity in the statute. The Civil Rights Act has always meant that ‘sex’ is biological sex," Mills added.
"As a result, protections for women and children from predatory encroachment in shelters, in bathrooms, in sports, and in other cases are now in jeopardy. Biology matters – today the court said it also matters for political purposes. Protections for individuals and organizations with deeply held religious beliefs dealing with human sexuality are also threatened. The Supreme Court has no authority to legislate from the bench.”
Louisiana Family Forum 655 Saint Ferdinand St. Baton Rouge Louisiana, 70802-6152