Six unelected, generally stupid, blind, prejudiced and likely corrupted fools in black robes HAVE MADE LAW. That is not their job. They should be removed. BUT, not only have they usurped elected official’s power they have proven how stupid they are since they clearly do not know the difference between males and females nor that there ARE ONLY TWO GENDERS.
Carrie Severino: SCOTUS LGBT Decision Will ‘Create a Tsunami of New Litigation’ Against Religious Groups
Robert Kraychik15 Jun 2020
The Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) reinterpretation of a federal prohibition against employment discrimination based on sex — which now includes sexual orientation and “gender identity” — will “create a tsunami of new litigation” against religious organizations, explained Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network, offering her remarks on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight with host Rebecca Mansour.
The Supreme Court’s legal redefinition of “sex” to include sexual orientation and “gender identity” opens the door for further left-wing lawfare against religious organizations, Severino noted.
Severino said, “The Supreme Court left a lot of really important issues open, like, how do you balance this with religious freedom? How do you balance it with freedom of speech? If you’ve got a law, for example, saying that using someone’s preferred pronoun is mandatory — or you can be fined [for non-compliance], how do we balance that with some of these other important and even constitutional questions? Those are things that, for the most part, are unfortunately going to be just decided by a whole range of lower courts. and it will be a long time before the Supreme Court even takes up the opportunity to weigh in on that.”
Severino predicted, “These questions are going to create a tsunami of new litigation and create a huge amount of uncertainty going forward.”
The Supreme Court’s decision to extend prohibitions against employment discrimination to include sexual orientation and “gender identity” will place religious and traditional organizations at a legal disadvantage when they are inevitably sued by left-wing outfits.
“You’re going to see these decisions going overwhelmingly in favor of the litigants [and] the plaintiffs who are challenging any religious organization, or any school, or anyone who wants to maintain a traditional, biologically based, scientific-based understanding of sex,” Severino forecasted.
“The logic that the court embraced” sets in motion a legal momentum for lower courts to render future decisions in favor of plaintiffs suing religious and traditional organizations for their personnel decisions, Severino anticipated.
Mansour asked if religious organizations would surrender to left-wing activist groups filing lawsuits based on the Supreme Court’s decision given their insufficient resources to legally defend themselves.
Severino replied, “That’s part of the strategy of the activists because they know that many of these organizations can’t afford to pay for defense. They can’t afford to risk a negative judgment where they could face crippling fines. If you’re talking about individuals, you’ve seen what’s happened with cases like the Masterpiece Cake Shop case, where someone’s entire business and livelihood could be destroyed and where they can face even personal threats and real concern over their own safety if they are willing to carry on litigation.”
Severino added, “I think the intimidation factor of a lawsuit is huge, and when you’ve got the court almost inviting that, it’s going to present a real challenge for a lot of people. Practically speaking, for the most part, this isn’t even going to be an issue because I think there’s the vast majority of businesses don’t have any reason or desire to discriminate on either of these bases, but there are circumstances where it is either relevant to the job qualifications or where it’s going to be an issue of conscience, and those are the ones where you’re going to have people who are going to be forced to make those tough choices between violating their own conscience and possibly losing their livelihood.”
The Supreme Court’s decision amounted to a rewriting of civil rights legislation, Severino stated.
“This had to do with the court interpreting the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” Severino explained. “We’re kind of familiar with this language. It says that no employers can discriminate on the basis of sex, of religion, of natural origin, and other kinds of classic caveats that you have, but what their question was, ‘It says you can’t discriminate ion the basis of sex. Does that also mean you can’t discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity?’”
Severino continued, “It’s kind of a strange question to be asking because in so many states, now, and in many situations in federal law, we already do have laws preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation, but they never phrase it as ‘discrimination based on sex.’ It’s always explicitly written, ‘discrimination based on sexual orientation.’”
“What the Supreme Court did is, in an opinion, they basically just rewrote what that text said because there is a long-standing history where for decades, no politicians [and] no judge said that language meant sexual orientation, as well,” Severino added.
The Supreme Court’s decision usurps the role of legislators, Severino determined.
“That’s really a revisionist reading of the statute dressed up as textualism, and that’s one of the things that is so dangerous because we have laws that courts can effectively rewrite,” Severino concluded. “No legislator who passed [Title VII of the Civil Rights Act] would have thought it meant that.”
Scalia Rolling Over in His Grave: Gorsuch Leads ‘a Brute Force Attack on Our Constitutional System’
By Tyler O’Neil Jun 15, 2020
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court unilaterally redefined “sex” in federal law to mean “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” In Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), a 6-3 majority ruled that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity violates Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination. While a technical error has made the ruling inaccessible, the ruling represents an utter rejection of the original meaning of the term “sex” in federal law, twisting it to mean something Congress cannot have intended in 1964.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, long considered an originalist, wrote the Court’s opinion, with which left-leaning Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor joined. Chief Justice John Roberts also joined Gorsuch’s opinion, while Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
If our senators knew anything they would have known this – Perhaps they did – that makes them culpable.
Warning signs about Gorsuch’s opinion on LGBT issues emerged in January 2017. Gorsuch attended St. John’s Episcopal Church in Boulder, Colo. The church’s rector (the high church equivalent to senior pastor), Susan Woodward Springer, attended the Women’s March in 2017. Gorsuch served as an usher in that church.
The Episcopal Church has shifted hard-left in recent years, abandoning the central claims of the Bible on issues like Jesus’s bodily Resurrection but also embracing LGBT ideology. This involves rejecting the Bible’s clear condemnation of homosexual activity as sinful and its clear statement that God made humans male and female.
“Americans must be able to rely on what the law says, and it is disappointing that a majority of the justices were unwilling to affirm that commonsense principle. Redefining ‘sex’ to mean ‘gender identity’ will create chaos and enormous unfairness for women and girls in athletics, women’s shelters, and many other contexts,” Alliance Defending Freedom Vice President of Advocacy John Bursch said in a statement.
“Civil rights laws that use the word ‘sex’ were put in place to protect equal opportunities for women. Allowing a court or government bureaucrats to redefine a term with such a clear and important meaning undermines those very opportunities—the ones the law was designed to protect.”
Carrie Severino also condemned the ruling. “Justice Scalia would be disappointed that his successor has bungled textualism so badly today, for the sake of appealing to college campuses and editorial boards. This was not judging, this was legislating—a brute force attack on our constitutional system,” she tweeted.
“Today six judges acting as advocates opted to rewrite the statute themselves, short-circuiting the legislative process and in the process denying the people a decision that should be theirs to make on a major issue,” Severino tweeted. “Have no doubts about what happened today: This was the hijacking of textualism. You can’t redefine the meaning of words themselves and still be doing textualism. This is an ominous sign for anyone concerned about the future of representative democracy.”