Title VII cases would bypass Congress, impose policy preferences through courts

Three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court this term now seek to clarify or extend the meaning of Title VII’s employment provision. Employees in Zarda v. Altitude Express and Bostock v. Clayton County allege employer discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Alongside these two cases, a claim of discrimination on the basis of gender identity is being brought against the R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes under the same employment provision of Title VII.

As evidenced in the struggle of the civil rights movement, Title VII was intended to fulfill a distinct and remedial legislative purpose that was responsive to the cultural outcries of its time. In the 60 days of tumultuous debate leading to the passage of the Civil Rights Act, there was no mention of “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.” Since those debates in 1964, there have been more than 50 attempts to amend “sexual orientation” into the statute, and more than a dozen to add the term “gender identity.” While attempts to amend the statute reflect the evolving nature of the public debate and the constantly-shifting will of the people, each of these attempts has failed to be passed in legislation.

The Article III Branch rightly retains exclusive purview over matters of statutory interpretation, but the terms of Title VII are clear and fixed, unless and until they are amended. Even absent separation of powers concerns, the term “sex” in Title VII should not be construed so ambiguously as to include sexual orientation or gender identity. The history and common use of the term demonstrates as much. The roots of the English term “sex” can be traced to the Latin sexus meaning sex or gender, a noun itself derived from the verb secare meaning to cut, divide, or sever. This bilateral understanding of the term has not been lost to etymological history and, over the past six decades, dozens of courts consistently have understood “sex” in Title VII to mean biological sex — a division between males and females.

Even the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the executive agency charged with enforcing Title VII, consistently has interpreted “sex” to mean biological sex for at least 40 years, reneging on its position only five years ago.

By the way, whether it is written into law by legislators or by judges, just what exactly does the term “sexual orientation” mean and what types of preferences, predilections, and practices does it include?

The term “sexual orientation” includes:
[ ] preference for the opposite sex in adults
[ ] preference for the same sex in adults
[ ] preference for Coke vs Pepsi
[ ] desire for sexual acts with adults
[ ] desire for sexual acts with self
[ ] desire for sex acts with street cars
[ ] desire for sex acts with vegetables
[ ] desire for sausage gravy vs chipped beef gravy
[ ] preference for same sex acts with boys
[ ] preference for same sex acts with girls
[ ] with babies
[ ] preference for classic rock over punk
[ ] with African pre-pubescents
[ ] with blonde ten year old girls in bondage
[ ] with feathers and oils
[ ] wearing high heels
[ ] using ones feet
[ ] while dressed up as fluffy furry cartoon chars.

Damn near all these are items of “sexual preference.”

"Three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court this term now seek to clarify or extend the meaning of Title VII’s employment provision."

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

With all due respect to institutionally indoctrinated (imo) Ken Starr, please consider the following.

Instead of first checking to see if the states have expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to make a law, post-17th Amendment ratification, institutionally indoctrinated, Supreme Court activist justices must pace around their offices trying to figure out if they can get away with using a case to unconstitutionally expand the already unconstitutionally big federal government’s powers.

”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.

Regarding sex discrimination, the only sex-related right that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect deals only with voting rights issues, evidenced by the 19th Amendment (19A), all other sex-related issues therefore outside the scope of the fed’s powers to address.

"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]."

(The Democratic vote-winning Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its Titles are mostly unconstitutional imo.)

Note that 19A was amended to the Constitution in response to the Court’s decision in Minor v. Happersett, that case dealing only with male and female biological sexes.

And by taking on politically correct cases that grade school children could probably reasonably decide — if children where actually being taught the Constitution — the Court is unthinkingly abridging the 5th Amendment protected right to a speedy trial for others in the queue imo.

Remember in November 2020!

MAGA! Now KAG! (Keep America Great!)

Corrections, insights welcome.

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.