I guess they want me to stay on disability for the rest of my life. Christians are really stupid.
At least, that was the impression that emerged after arguments in three cases the Supreme Court heard on Tuesday, where Gorsuch appeared to be the swing vote. Two of those cases, Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda and Bostock v. Clayton County, ask whether a worker can be fired for their sexual orientation. The third, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC, asks whether a worker can be fired because of their gender identity.
The central tension in these three cases arises from the fact that the text of a federal civil rights law — Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — is written expansively, so expansively that even Gorsuch seemed to acknowledge at some points during Tuesday’s oral argument that the text of the law favors a victory for the gay and trans plaintiffs. […]
Title VII prohibits employment discrimination that occurs “because of [an employee’s] race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” As Justice Elena Kagan, the Court’s leading liberal textualist, explained at one point during the argument, this language is broad and it suggests that a simple test should apply in sex discrimination cases.
A plaintiff in such a case should prevail, says Kagan, unless they would have experienced the exact same treatment if they “were a different sex.”
Under this textualist standard, the plainitiffs should prevail. A gay man is a man who wants to form romantic and sexual attachments with other men. But presumably the employers in these cases would allow women to form such attachments with men — and thus these employers allegedly treated these male plaintiffs differently than they would women.
Similarly, the defendant in Harris Funeral Homes, the trans discrimination case, tried to force their former employee Aimee Stephens, a trans woman, to comply with her boss’s understanding of how a man should dress and act in order to keep her job. […]
When Jeffery Harris, the lawyer arguing for the employers in the gay discrimination cases, asserted that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is entirely separate from sex discrimination, Gorsuch balked. “Isn’t sex also in play here, and isn’t that enough?” the conservative judge asked.
The gay rights cases, in Gorsuch’s words, are about “a man who likes other men,” and he suggested that that’s enough to make them cases about illegal sex discrimination. […]
Despite Gorsuch’s textualist leanings, his questions in Harris Funeral Homes hewed to the most contentious issues that arise in the trans rights context: bathrooms, dress codes, and sports.
While Pam Karlan, the lawyer for the gay plaintiffs, was at the podium, Gorsuch skipped ahead to questions about whether trans workers have to comply with sex-specific dress codes — placing Karlan in the awkward position of suggesting that maybe he should ask those questions to a lawyer who actually represents a trans client.
Later, when David Cole — Aimee Stephens’ lawyer — did take the podium, Gorsuch returned to this theme. For “something as drastic” as bathrooms and dress codes, he suggested, maybe the Court should show “judicial modesty” when “interpreting statutes that are really old.”
Gorsuch said that he thought Stephens’s case is “really close” as a matter of textualism, but perhaps the Court should be reluctant to rule in her favor to avoid “massive social upheaval.”’
Um… Meaning that Christians will be in inconvenienced in the slightest? Christians are threatening civil war if they have to learn new words or label bathrooms differently?
What the hell is wrong with Christians that makes them hate LGBTQ+ people so much? Oh, right, Christians are mentally ill. You’d have to be mentally ill to believe that a virgin gave birth.