Legislation from the Bench – Supreme Court Rewrites U.S. Law

Redefining “sex” to include “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” undermines equal opportunity for women.

This week the Supreme Court handed down a decision that promises to undermine hard-won equal opportunity protections for women. By ruling 6-3 to expand the sex-based anti-discrimination protections of Title VII of the Civil Rights Law, the justices have expanded the intended scope of the original legislation while redefining the meaning of “sex.” The result is chaos, putting common-sense protections for women at risk in the areas of sports, personal privacy, and, ironically, employment, as well as expanding the power of the LGBTQ community to dictate public and health policy.

Specifically, the Court issued a decision indicating that “sex” as defined by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could also mean “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” The ruling came as a result of their determinations on a group of employment discrimination cases also known as the “Bostock Case.” (Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia, Altitude Express, Inc., et al. v. Zarda et al., and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). Cornerstone joined a legal amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court supporting the funeral home owners in the Harris Funeral Homes case. Harris Funeral Homes had been sued by a former employee who, for the majority of his employment at the funeral home, dressed and identified as a man before deciding to come to work dressed as a woman and justifying his change in dress by claiming he was planning to transition to a woman.

By ignoring the distinction between biological sex and sexual identity, the Supreme Court has not only opened the door for further erosion of protections for women, they have violated the conscience rights of hundreds of millions of Americans. For example, under this redefinition of “sex,” biological males can now push women off the winner’s podium. Catholic hospitals and health care workers could be required to provide gender reassignment treatment/surgery, and religious institutions could become ineligible for state and federal aid if they attempt to exercise their conscience rights. States would have new justification to remove gender-confused children from parents who decline to seek amputation and hormonal manipulation for their kids. And, that’s just the beginning. This puts everyone’s freedom at risk.