U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether to rewrite 1964 Civil Rights Act to protect homosexuals and "transgender" persons
October 7, 2019
On Tuesday morning, October 8, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear two vitally important cases. These cases will determine if the Court will grant
homosexuals and "transgender" persons special protection in employment — protections never enacted by Congress.
Cases often take years as they wind themselves through the lower courts. We filed three briefs — at the circuit court level, in the U.S. Supreme Court at the petition stage, and in the U.S.
Supreme Court on the merits — in each of these cases.
Both cases involve the same statute, and there is complete agreement that the U.S. Congress, in enacting Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, never intended the prohibition on employment
discrimination "based on ... sex" to cover anything other than biological "men" and "women." However, Social Justice Warriors do not let the meaning of words get in the way of serving their favored constituencies.
These cases will reveal whether the Supreme Court believes that it has the same liberty to re-write and re-interpret Congressionally enacted statutes as it does Constitutional provisions. If so, the Congress
need no longer meet, since the Supreme Court may do as it pleases — having not only hijacked our Constitution, but our Statutes as well.
Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Our amicus brief in the Sixth Circuit en banc is here.
Our amicus brief on the petition for certiorari is here.
Our amicus brief on the merits is here.
Our briefs in the Harris case tried to bring a dose of realism to the courts, addressing issues, such as — can a man really become a woman? Strangely, this question was almost never even touched upon in the
litigation of the Harris case.
Since the Harris Funeral Homes was owned by Christians and run according to Biblical principles, a loss in that case would constitute another massive attack on Christians
in the professions or owning businesses of any kind.
Altitude Express v. Zarda (consolidated with Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, decided by the Eleventh Circuit).
Our amicus brief in the Second Circuit is here.
Our amicus brief on the petition for certiorari is here.
Our amicus brief on the merits is here.
We pointed out in our Zarda briefs that both his employer and all his coworkers had known for years that he was homosexual. He was not fired because he was homosexual, but because he seemingly had a need to
share with everyone the fact that he was homosexual - including customers. When a customer finally complained about his oversharing, his employer was forced to take action and terminate his employment.
However, as we pointed out in our briefs, even if Zarda's termination was based in part on his sexual orientation, that still does not mean he is able to sue under the statute. Our brief disputed the idea that
sexual orientation is so closely tied to sex that it should be considered the same thing.
Finally, we attacked the idea of an "evolving legal landscape," wherein judges feel free to create new law based on how they perceive society, and how they believe the law should be read to fit that ever-changing society.
Rather, as Justice Gorsuch has noted, it is up to Congress to change federal statutes through legislation; it is not up to courts to do so by fiat. And in this situation, Congress numerous times has refused
to enact into law new protections for "sexual orientation."
|
|
|
|
