How Congressional Republicans Can Undo Bostock’s Distortion Of The Civil Rights Act: Republicans Should Take Advantage of the Fact That Democrats are Now Crosswise with the American Public On the Issue of Transgenderism

How Congressional Republicans Can Undo Bostock’s Distortion Of The Civil Rights Act:

In the now famous Bostock case in 2020, Justice Neil Gorsuch set off a new wave in the culture war by imparting a constitutional wind in the sails of transgenderism. In the companion case of Harris Funeral Homes, it came down to these hard findings: When Anthony Stephens earnestly professed to regard himself as a female on everything that matters in life, the people around him, employees or employers, were obliged to respect that judgment. If they didn’t, they put themselves in legal peril for turning him out of his job on the basis of “sex” or preserving a “hostile work environment.”

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, had come to bar discrimination in employment based on sex, along with race, color, and religion. But it was a stretch now to bring under the Act the notion of “gender identity” as opposed to the most objective differences that ever mark the differences between males and females.

Justice Samuel Alito, in dissent, responded at once that this was not a judicial holding in Bostock but a legislative act. Neither “sexual orientation” nor “gender identity” appeared on that list of things barred in the statute. Over the past 45 years, bills had been introduced to add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the list, but none of those had drawn enough support in Congress to amend the law.

As Alito said, “It was as clear as clear could be that [the statute meant to bar] discrimination because of the genetic and anatomical characteristics that men and women have at the time of birth.” But in the meantime, as he warned, the holding would not really be confined to cases of employment under Title VII.

Gorsuch had dismissed concerns about “bathrooms and locker rooms” because those issues were not before the court, but Alito noted that it was indeed “a matter of concern to many people who are reticent about disrobing or using toilet facilities in the presence of individuals whom they regard as members of the opposite sex … the court provides no clue why a transgender person’s claim to such a bathroom or locker room access might not succeed.”

And indeed, in an interval measured nearly in milliseconds, the cases were already appearing in federal courts. A panel of the 11th Circuit astonished Chief Judge William Pryor as it struck the policy of a school board in Florida to confine bathrooms to boys and girls (Adams v. School Board of St. Johns County, Florida). Even more remarkable was the decision of a federal district judge of the 9th Circuit to block a law in Idaho that sought to bar males from entering and dominating women’s sports teams as they sought to transition into females (Hecox v. Little).

As Alito warned in Bostock, these questions were already arising under Title IX for schools receiving federal funds. There were also problems, now foreseeable, of discrimination against the trans-identifying people under the federal Fair Housing Act, and with colleges as they assign roommates or try to preserve dorms restricted to one sex. He continued to unroll the possibilities now emerging.

There was the matter of religious freedom for schools that may be averse to having a trans-identifying teacher standing as a role model before their students, in striking opposition to the religious convictions that mark the character of the school. —>READ MORE HERE

Source

Jesus Christ is King