Posted on 10/10/2019 8:38:26 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in three cases that could set important precedents about whether federal civil rights protections on the basis of sex also guarantee legal protections on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.
The three cases involve people who claim to have been fired because they are gay or identify as transgender. Two are gay men and the other is a man who identifies as a woman.
The two gay men argue that they were fired due to their sexual orientation. However, decisions were split at the U.S. Court of Appeals as to whether firing on the basis of sexual orientation violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The other case, Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, involves a Christian funeral home operator in Michigan that terminated an employee who refused to wear clothing that corresponded with the employee’s biological sex.
Harris Funeral Homes was later sued by the EEOC based on the claim that the company engaged in sex discrimination under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Stephens, who is represented at the Supreme Court by the American Civil Liberties Union. Meanwhile, R.G. & G.R. Funeral Homes is represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom.
The funeral home case represents the first high court case on transgender rights.
The nine justices heard hours of arguments Tuesday and debated along political lines. Supporters of both sides rallied outside the Supreme Court building on First Street.
According to Reuters, the court’s four liberal justices seemed to agree with arguments presented by the plaintiffs that sex discrimination protections should be extended on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
Meanwhile, the court’s five conservative justices seemed to be more skeptical.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s first Supreme Court appointee, appeared to play both sides of the issues throughout the day. He was seemingly more open to the plaintiffs’ arguments than other conservative justices.
Gorsuch did, however, question the “judicial role and modesty in interpreting statutes that are old.”
“The question is about judicial interpretation,” Gorsuch said.
But Gorsuch suggested that the “textual evidence” for extending discrimination protection to Stephens is “really close.”
“We're not talking about extra-textual stuff,” Gorsuch said, according to the court transcript. “We're talking about the text. It's close. The judge finds it very close.”
ACLU lawyer David Cole responded by saying that his side is not asking the court to “apply any meaning of sex other than the one that everybody agrees on as of 1964, which is sex assigned at birth.”
“We're not asking you to rewrite it,” Cole explained.
Gorsuch also suggested that sex, as defined in the law, can be a contributing factor to someone being fired on the basis of sexual orientation, Reuters notes.
“Sexual orientation is surely in play here,” Gorsuch said. “But isn’t sex also in play here? And isn’t that enough?”
“In what linguistic formulation would one say that sex — biological gender — has nothing to do with what happened in this case?” Gorsuch added.
Gorsuch did wonder if there would be “massive social upheaval” if the court usurps judicial authority.
“It's a question of judicial modesty," Gorsuch contended, asking if such a policy was "more appropriate a legislative rather than a judicial function?"
Cole responded by saying that courts have ruled for 20 years that that discrimination against transgender people is sex discrimination and there has been no social upheaval.
Justice Samuel Alito, appointed by President George W. Bush, argued that ruling that Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is “a different policy issue from the one that Congress thought it was addressing in 1964.”
“And Congress has been asked repeatedly in the years since 1964 to address this question,” Alito said. “Congress has declined or failed to act on these requests. And if the Court takes this up and interprets this 1964 statute to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, we will be acting exactly like a legislature.”
Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, appointed by President Bill Clinton, pointed out that there were many in 1964 when the law was enacted who would not have thought that sexual harassment was covered under sex discrimination protections.
“It wasn't until a book was written in the middle '70s bringing that out,” she argued. “And now we say, of course, harassing someone, subjecting her to terms and conditions of employment she would not encounter if she were a male, that is sex discrimination but it wasn't recognized."
U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, who is responsible for representing the federal government at the Supreme Court, argued that it is “important to allow the democratic processes to resolve these issues so we have a stable resolution of the issue and one that takes into account what everybody would agree are legitimate interests on all sides.”
“And in Obergefell, this court made very clear that there were good and decent people who had different views with respect to gay marriage and they should be respected,” Francisco said. “The legislative process is the process that allows those views to respect — be respected as well as the very powerful views of my friends on the other side.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, appointed by President Barack Obama, followed up by asking “at what point does a court continue to permit invidious discrimination against groups that, where we have a difference of opinion, we believe the language of the statute is clear.”
“I think Justice [Stephen] Breyer was right that Title VII, the Civil Rights Act, all of our acts were born from the desire to ensure that we treated people equally and not on the basis of invidious reasons,” Sotomayor stressed.
“At what point does a court say, Congress spoke about this, the original Congress who wrote this statute told us what they meant. They used clear words. And regardless of what others may have thought over time, it's very clear that what's happening fits those words. At what point do we say we have to step in?”
The justices have until June 2020 to issue a ruling.
ADF attorney John Bursch told media after the hearing that justices “across the bench” were “troubled” by how the ACLU’s argument would eliminate sex-specific policies in the workplace pertaining to dress codes, restrooms and even sports teams.
“Justice Ginsburg observed that, unlike other classifications, certain distinctions require treating men and women differently,” Bursch said, according to Detroit News. “That should be patently obvious to all of us.”
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Corrupt lawmakers unconstitutionally expanded the fed's constitutionally limited powers when they made the Civil Rights Act (CRA) of 1964 and its titles imo. And now, post-FDR era, institutionally indoctrinated Supreme Court justices are attempting to politically rewrite the unconstitutional CRA to make it even more unconstitutional imo.
From a related thread…
You would probably like to think that the first thing that the Supreme Court does in deciding if a federal law has been violated would be to check if the states have expressly constitutionally given the constitutionally-limited power feds the specific power to make the law in the first place. If the Court cannot find a clause that expressly and reasonably justifies a law then the law is unconstitutional.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
But neeeu.
Misguided, post-17th Amendment ratification, post-FDR era Supreme Court justices need to pull their heads out of their institutional indoctrination and recognize that the only mention of sex in the Constitution is in the 19th Amendment (19A). The states ratified that amendment in response to the Court’s decision in Minor v. Happersett which recognized sex strictly on the basis of female and male biological sexes.
"19th Amendment:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation [emphasis added]."
In other words, the Democratic vote-winning Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its titles are unconstitutional imo because they address sex related protections that are clearly outside the scope of Congress’s 19A voting rights powers.
Let's also throw in the 15th Amendment to undermine the constitutionally indefensible, non-voting-related race protections of CRA.
"15th Amendment:Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.Section 2: The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation [emphasis added].”
Patriots need to elect a new patriot Congress in the 2020 elections that will not only promise to fully support PDJT's vision for MAGA, now KAG, but will also do this.
New patriot lawmakers also need to support PDJT in deciding the fate of people in prison for violating a federal law that the feds never had the express constitutional authority to make.
Remember in November 2020!
MAGA! Now KAG! (Keep America Great!)
Corrections, insights welcome.
So, if I read this correctly, the employee at the funeral home was fired because he/she refused to dress up like a typical funeral home employee (I presume a suit and tie typical of male business attire).
Was he hired as a transgender or did he dress up like a man originally and only refused after switching his “identity”? If the latter, I would side with the funeral home because the transgender made him/herself a liability to the home’s business viability by dressing up as a woman (in other words, he/she creeped out the customers).
Can the funeral home prove he was hurting their business by dressing that way? Did his/her revenue generation drop after his transition?
Conversely, if he showed up for the job interview dressed as a woman and never presented himself to them as a man, then it is their fault for hiring him/her in the first place and have no grounds to fire him/her if she had otherwise been a satisfactory employee.
In the most true Constitutional sense you are absolutely right, but with the passage of the 1960s civil rights laws (which Goldwater opposed mostly on grounds like you would) the concepts morphed in the legal minds from the Constitutional sense that THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT discriminate, to the unconstitutional sense that YOU cannot discriminate. Contrary to the Constitution you became an agent of government policy in your own personal life and own free personal associations. Your freedom became discriminated against by government policy. It is no accident that it was Leftists in the legal profession from which the ideas behind these changes took place.
Now I’ve got to look up invidious.
Gender is Orwellian Newspeak.
How so?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.