I’m good with protecting against job discrimination, etc., re: sexual orientation.
But I wish the court would be honest and consistent in making Congress rewrite laws if what is trying to be covered by a fair reading of existing law isn’t covered.
Alito calls them out in dissent: “The Court attempts to pass off its decision as the inevitable product of the textualist school of statutory interpretation championed by our late colleague Justice Scalia, but no one should be fooled. The Court’s opinion is like a pirate ship. It sails under a textualist flag, but what it actually represents is a theory of statutory interpretation that Justice Scalia excoriated - the theory that courts should “update” old statues so that they better reflect the current values of society.”