: Supreme Court: Drag Queens Will Now Teach Your First Graders (Bostock v. Clayton, 6-15-20)
Bostock v. Clayton (U.S. Supreme Court, June 15, 2020)
Chip Field
7-19-20
The American Psychiatric Association lists 103 sexual deviancies in its Diagnostical and Statistical Manual.1 After the Bostock v. Clayton decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 15, none of these deviancies will disqualify an otherwise qualified candidate from being hired as the teacher of your kindergartener or first grader, nor will any of the deviancies be grounds for firing such a teacher.2
In their omniscient omnipotence, the Supreme Court of the United States has usurped Congress’ legislative jurisdiction, expanding the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s prohibition against discrimination because of one’s sex to now include the prohibition of discrimination because of one’s sex preference. Henceforth in America, there is no sexual deviancy which will disqualify an individual from employment nor justify the dismissal of any employee.
“Impossible”, you say?
It is not only possible, it is now law.
Even more astounding is the fact that the majority opinion was authored by Trump-appointee Neil Gorsuch and joined by supposed conservative Chief Justice John Roberts. Equally disappointing was the dissenting opinion by Trump-appointee Brett Kavanaugh who found technical reasons for dissenting but used the opportunity to offer dictum in full support of gay and lesbian rights, writing, “It is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans (who) have worked hard for many decades to achieve equal treatment in fact and in law…. They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in today’s result.” In other words, Kavanaugh agrees with the Bostock outcome but believes that it should be Congress and not SCOTUS that achieves it.
So, what is the Bostock result, what are its effects, and why did three of the Court’s erstwhile conservatives (two of the three being Trump’s only two appointees) lead and cheer that result?
The case involves three separate claims by homosexual and transgender employees, alleging that they were fired from their jobs in violation of the antidiscrimination provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Supreme Court found in favor of these three employees and against their three employers.
Held: An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII, Pp. 4-33. Bostock v. Clayton
But the cited statute (Title VII) says NOTHING about homosexuality, transgenderism, or any other sexual deviancy. What it does say is this:
“SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]
(a) Employer practices
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”
So, what does “sex” mean, given the history and context of the statute?
In order for the majority to have arrived at the result it did, it was necessary for them to first rule that and individual’s anatomical “sex” and that individual’s “sexual preference” are, effectively, the same thing. They achieved this equivalency by a contorted, labyrinthine logic by which they concluded that homosexuality/transgenderism are not really “sex”, but are related to sex, and, because they are related to sex, they must be protected by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as follows:
“When an employer fires an employee for being homosexual or transgender, it necessarily intentionally discriminates against that person in part because of sex.” Bostock, page 3
The majority is saying that any behavior that is related to a sex act of any kind cannot be grounds for not hiring a person, nor can it be grounds for firing a person.
The Court acknowledges that neither the 1964 Congress nor the American people at that time, understood one’s “sex” to mean anything other than male/female. “Sex” was a binary term: male or female. Furthermore, the phrase “because of sex” is a defined term in the statute and it does not include any sexual deviancy.
So, where did the majority get the idea that “sex” should now include sexual deviancy? Here is the answer: the majority decided that it was time for a new moral code in America and if Congress was not going to get that done, then the Supreme Court would get it done.
The grotesque irrationality of these supposedly intelligent justices is made clear with internally contradictory statements like this:
“We agree that homosexuality and transgender status are distinct (different) concepts from sex. But discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily entails discrimination based on sex.” Bostock, page 19
What the….?
Homosexuality and transgenderism are not sex, but discrimination based on homosexuality and transgenderism is discrimination based on sex?
This statement is insane, is it not?
The majority states that “gender” and “sexual preference” are the same thing. (pages 21, 26). What fount of knowledge issued this proclamation? This is pure legislative invention by the majority. As Justice Sam Alito writes in his dissent: “In 1964 it was as clear as clear could be that ‘because of sex’ meant because of the genetic and anatomical characteristics that men and women have at the time of birth. Determined searching has not found a single dictionary from that time that defined ‘sex’ to mean sexual orientation, gender identity, or ‘transgender status’.” (Alito dissent, page 4)
Alito continues:
“The arrogance of (the majority opinion) is breathtaking.” (Alito dissent, page 6)
“Until 2017, every single Court of Appeals to consider the question interpreted Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination to mean discrimination on the basis of biological sex.” (Alito dissent, page 7)
“The Court’s argument is not only arrogant, it is wrong.” (Alito dissent, page 7)
“Title VII prohibits discrimination because of sex itself, not everything that is related to, based on, or defined with reference to, sex.” (Alito dissent, page 13)
“If Title VII prohibits discrimination because of anything having to do with sex, then it is unlawful for an employer to refuse to hire an employee with a record of sexual harassment in prior jobs.” (Alito dissent, page 13)
“Any honest effort to understand what the terms of Title VII were understood to mean when enacted must take into account the societal norms of the time. And the plain truth is that in 1964 homosexuality was thought to be a mental disorder, and homosexual conduct was regarded as morally culpable and worthy of punishment… Sodomy was a crime in every state but Illinois….A law enacted by Congress made sodomy a felony punishable by imprisonment up to 10 years …Homosexuals were barred from the military…Homosexuals were excluded from entry into the United States.” (Alito dissent, page 28-29). Therefore, it is wildly irrational to say that Congress’ intent in 1964 was to include “sexual preference” in their definition of “sex”.
“It defies belief to suggest (as the majority does) that the public meaning of discrimination because of sex in 1964 encompassed discrimination on the basis of a concept (transgenderism) that was essentially unknown to the public at the time.” (Alito dissent, page 35)
“The Court makes the jaw-dropping statement that its decision exemplifies judicial humility.” (Alito dissent, page 44)
Bills to add ‘sexual orientation’ to Title VII’s list of prohibited grounds have been introduced in every Congress since 1975, and rejected. How then can the majority say with a straight face that it was Congress’ intent to include it? Insane.
Effects of the Bostock decision:
The majority dismisses any risk of ripple effects from their decision: “We do not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms, or anything else of the kind.” (Majority opinion, Page 31)
But:
Justice Alito understands that a boulder has been dropped into the pond: “What the Court has done today – interpreting discrimination because of “sex” to encompass discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity – is virtually certain to have far-reaching consequences…. The Court’s brusque refusal to consider the consequences of its reasoning is irresponsible.” (Alito dissent, age 44)
Alito continues: “The position that the Court now adopts will threaten freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and personal privacy and safety.” (Alito dissent, page 45)
Bathrooms: “Under the Court’s decision, transgender persons will be able to argue that they are entitled to use a bathroom or locker room that reserved for persons of the sex with which they identify, and while the Court does not define what it means by a transgender person, the term may apply to individuals who are “gender fluid”, that is, individuals whose gender identity is mixed or changes over time.” (Alito dissent, page 46)
Women’s Sports: The Court’s decision also supports “the right of a transgender individual to participate on a sports team or in an athletic competition previously reserved for members of one biological sex…. The effect of the Court’s reasoning may be to force young women to compete against students who have a very significant biological advantage, including students who have the size and strength of a male but identify as female.” (Alito dissent, page 47)
Housing: The Court’s reasoning may easily lead to colleges assigning students of the opposite sex as roommates. Title IX of the U.S. Code allows schools to maintain “separate living facilities for the different sexes”. But after Bostock, a student’s “sex” is the gender with which the student identifies, not his anatomical sex. (Alito dissent, page 48)
Employment by Religious Organizations: “The position adopted by the Court will trigger open conflict with faith-based employment practices of numerous churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious institutions”. (Alito dissent, pages 48-49)
Employment by Public Schools: Because “discrimination because of sex” now means “discrimination because of sex acts, gender fluidity, and gender preference”, it will be impossible for school districts to disqualify candidates because of their sexual deviancy. (Alito dissent, page 49-50)
Healthcare: The Court’s holding will have the effect of requiring sex-reassignment surgery to be covered by insurance and Medicare. (Alito dissent, page 51)
Freedom of Speech: Employers will now be required to address their employees , and, School districts will now be obligated to require teachers to address students, and students to address students, by their preferred gender-preference pronouns, or, their preferred gender neutral pronouns. Some jurisdictions, such as New York City, now have ordinances making it a criminal offense to refuse using a person’s preferred gender pronoun. (Alito dissent, page 51)
Constitutional Claims: The Bostock decision now opens the door for sexual deviants of all kinds to claim Constitutional protection for their deviancies. (Alito dissent, Page 53)
Conclusion: After Bostock, a person’s “sex” is not anatomical. Rather, one’s “sex” is now the gender, or genders, or non-genders with which the person “identifies”, and more, “sex” is now any activity which is in any way related to any sex act.
Henceforth in America, there is no sexual deviancy which will disqualify an individual from employment nor justify the dismissal of any employee.
Bostock marks the end of husbands, the end of wives, and the end of families. Bostock marks the end of the moral order. Bostock marks the end of human civilization.
The United States Supreme Court, in conspiracy with all the demonic forces of Modernism, can truthfully boast, “Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” 3
Chip Field
“We must love them both, those whose opinions we share and those whose opinions we reject, for both have labored in the search for truth, and both have helped us in the finding of it.” - Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle
Footnotes
1 103 sexual deviancies listed by The American Psychiatric Association, in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fifth Edition (DSM) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
3 Robert Oppenheimer’s comment on seeing the first test of a nuclear bomb at Alamogordo, New Mexico on July 16, 1945, borrowing from the Bhagavad-Gita, a700-verse Hindu scripture (2nd Century B.C.)
No comments:
Post a Comment