I am no longer a practicing attorney. Frankly, I hated being a lawyer. There were these things called clients and inevitably they were annoying people with easy to solve problems who hated other people so much they refused to do the practical and right thing in favor of being a pain in the butt.
To be clear, I am a Bible-believing Christian who believes that both homosexual and transgender behavior are detestable to God. But the recent Title VII court decision was not about that issue, and it does nothing to change that fundamental reality.
I took the time to read Gorsuch's opinion ( https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf ) to see what he actually wrote. I believe Gorsuch's opinion is consistent with his judicial view that "This Court normally interprets a statute in accord with the ordinary public meaning of its terms at the time of its enactment." Gorsuch's opinion (starting on PDF page 6) isn't based on contorting the meaning of any words or rewriting any law. It is based on the simple premise that the clear language of Title VII prohibits discrimination based on sex, and one cannot determine homosexuality or transsexuality without referring to the sex of the individual.
Gorsuch pointed out that Title VII clearly indicates that it is illegal to discriminate against any individual "because of" sex. He further explained that the "because of" clause has a history of being interpreted as "but for", which in this case means that an individual would not have discriminated against "but for" his/her sex, given the original meaning of male/female. In addition, Gorsuch made clear that the "but for" reason does not have to be the "only reason" or the "primary reason" for the discrimination citing previously decided cases. Because the employers admitted they were discriminating against employees based on either homosexuality or transgenderism, and because one cannot determine that without referring to sex, he wrote that this is a clear violation of Title VII. Consequently, Gorsuch opinion was based on what the Title VII law actually said, and if that violates Biblical morality, the problem is the original wording of the law used very broad language forbidding discrimination, and not Gorsuch's interpretation of the law.
Title VII provides an exception for religious organizations as the freedom of religion enshrined in the first amendment cannot be violated by Congressional law: "This subchapter shall not apply to ... a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities." So while the progressive left is always trying to get court rulings that ignore the first amendment, the legal issue for Christians regarding political appointments is what candidate will appoint judges that will honor the clear meaning of the protections for religious views in the first amendment.
I would also argue that except for religious organizations where doctrinal purity is essential to their function, it is arguably wrong to discriminate against homosexual or transgender employees, regardless of the strict meaning of the law. I think it is hard to justify doing that in line with Jesus parable about the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) which emphasized "Love your neighbor as yourself" as the second most important commandment. The primary function of an employee is to perform duties assigned to him/her by an employer. If a homosexual and/or transgender employee does that, it is really consistent with Biblical morality to discriminate against them? Take for example Richard Grenell, who despite being openly homosexual, clearly represented the policy views of many Trump supporters as Ambassador to Germany and Acting DNI. Is Christian morality really about preventing a homosexual like Grenell from serving in these positions?
The fact is that everything related to power in America is political, and the judiciary is no exception. It is a fallacy that religion and politics are mutually independent, as the people who were forbidden to attend church in their cars because of Corona found out. The Dred Scott decision is pretty solid evidence that until Lincoln, America's Supreme Court was certainly not color-blind, even thought it had some very positive changes in the mid 1900's. Starting with the FDR-era and going into hyper-drive in the Johnson-era, Supreme Court rulings ceased to be blind to political policy views, if ever it were, by effectively writing legislation versus ruling on its constitutional status.
In my opinion. Roberts is not a Constitutional-centric justice with his votes on Obamacare and DACA being prime examples of the various decisions where he has voted with the Democratic block to give them a 5-4 ruling. In contrast, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have both been swing votes on certain issues, but their logic is always based on constitutional grounds that are important to them, even if one disagrees with their view. I believe there has never been a 5-4 decision where one of the Democratic block of justices split off and sided with the Republican majority who lost one of its members. This is pretty solid proof that swing votes are like bipartisanship, in that they only swing to the Democratic side.
To be clear, I am a Bible-believing Christian who believes that both homosexual and transgender behavior are detestable to God. But the recent Title VII court decision was not about that issue, and it does nothing to change that fundamental reality.
I took the time to read Gorsuch's opinion ( https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf ) to see what he actually wrote. I believe Gorsuch's opinion is consistent with his judicial view that "This Court normally interprets a statute in accord with the ordinary public meaning of its terms at the time of its enactment." Gorsuch's opinion (starting on PDF page 6) isn't based on contorting the meaning of any words or rewriting any law. It is based on the simple premise that the clear language of Title VII prohibits discrimination based on sex, and one cannot determine homosexuality or transsexuality without referring to the sex of the individual.
Gorsuch pointed out that Title VII clearly indicates that it is illegal to discriminate against any individual "because of" sex. He further explained that the "because of" clause has a history of being interpreted as "but for", which in this case means that an individual would not have discriminated against "but for" his/her sex, given the original meaning of male/female. In addition, Gorsuch made clear that the "but for" reason does not have to be the "only reason" or the "primary reason" for the discrimination citing previously decided cases. Because the employers admitted they were discriminating against employees based on either homosexuality or transgenderism, and because one cannot determine that without referring to sex, he wrote that this is a clear violation of Title VII. Consequently, Gorsuch opinion was based on what the Title VII law actually said, and if that violates Biblical morality, the problem is the original wording of the law used very broad language forbidding discrimination, and not Gorsuch's interpretation of the law.
Title VII provides an exception for religious organizations as the freedom of religion enshrined in the first amendment cannot be violated by Congressional law: "This subchapter shall not apply to ... a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities." So while the progressive left is always trying to get court rulings that ignore the first amendment, the legal issue for Christians regarding political appointments is what candidate will appoint judges that will honor the clear meaning of the protections for religious views in the first amendment.
I would also argue that except for religious organizations where doctrinal purity is essential to their function, it is arguably wrong to discriminate against homosexual or transgender employees, regardless of the strict meaning of the law. I think it is hard to justify doing that in line with Jesus parable about the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) which emphasized "Love your neighbor as yourself" as the second most important commandment. The primary function of an employee is to perform duties assigned to him/her by an employer. If a homosexual and/or transgender employee does that, it is really consistent with Biblical morality to discriminate against them? Take for example Richard Grenell, who despite being openly homosexual, clearly represented the policy views of many Trump supporters as Ambassador to Germany and Acting DNI. Is Christian morality really about preventing a homosexual like Grenell from serving in these positions?
The fact is that everything related to power in America is political, and the judiciary is no exception. It is a fallacy that religion and politics are mutually independent, as the people who were forbidden to attend church in their cars because of Corona found out. The Dred Scott decision is pretty solid evidence that until Lincoln, America's Supreme Court was certainly not color-blind, even thought it had some very positive changes in the mid 1900's. Starting with the FDR-era and going into hyper-drive in the Johnson-era, Supreme Court rulings ceased to be blind to political policy views, if ever it were, by effectively writing legislation versus ruling on its constitutional status.
In my opinion. Roberts is not a Constitutional-centric justice with his votes on Obamacare and DACA being prime examples of the various decisions where he has voted with the Democratic block to give them a 5-4 ruling. In contrast, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have both been swing votes on certain issues, but their logic is always based on constitutional grounds that are important to them, even if one disagrees with their view. I believe there has never been a 5-4 decision where one of the Democratic block of justices split off and sided with the Republican majority who lost one of its members. This is pretty solid proof that swing votes are like bipartisanship, in that they only swing to the Democratic side.
Analysis that I never considered. Again thank you for your unvarnished and educated points of view.