Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Politics and World Leaders => Topic started by: StLouisIX on June 15, 2020, 01:13:39 PM
-
Source: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/supreme-court-votes-6-3-to-redefine-sex-write-transgenderism-into-1964-law (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/supreme-court-votes-6-3-to-redefine-sex-write-transgenderism-into-1964-law)
BREAKING: US Supreme Court votes 6-3 to redefine ‘sex,’ write transgenderism into 1964 law
Conservatives say this ruling could force churches to recognize same-sex 'marriages'; force photographers, florists, and bakers to participate in same-sex 'weddings'; compel employers to fund drugs and surgeries to help people imitate members of the opposite sex; and make women and girls to share sleeping quarters, showers, changing areas, and restrooms with gender-confused males.
Mon Jun 15, 2020 - 11:43 am EST
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 15, 2020 (LifeSiteNews (https://www.lifesitenews.com/)) – Republican-appointed Justices John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch joined the U.S. Supreme Court’s liberals Monday in ruling that longstanding anti-discrimination law should be reinterpreted to cover ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and gender confusion, in a case that will have drastic ramifications on religious liberty and force Americans to adopt a “fluid” understanding of biological sex in scores of policies.
Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s first addition to the nation’s highest court, wrote the majority opinion (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf) for the 6-3 ruling, which concluded that “sex disicrimination” in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act should be interpreted to mean sɛҳuąƖ orientation and gender identity, in addition to its original biological meaning.
The case consolidated (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/supreme-court-to-hear-major-lgbt-discrimination-case-october-8) several suits into one, including that of a Christian funeral home that fired a male employee who insisted on dressing as a woman on the job; a skydiving instructor who was fired after informing a customer he was gαy; and a county child welfare services coordinator who was fired after his employer learned he was gαy.
“Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ or transgender,” Gorsuch wrote. “The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual for being ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”
The majority’s reasoning flies in the face of both the plain statutory meaning of “sex” in 1964 and the clear legislative intent of the lawmakers who drafted and passed the Civil Rights Act, as explained by (https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/scotus-must-reaffirm-the-meaning-of-sex-in-antidiscrimination-law/) Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) senior counsel John Bursch. “There is little dispute that, in 1964, the term ‘sex’ was publicly understood, as it is now, to mean biological sex: male and female,” he writes. “After all, the term ‘gender identity’ wasn’t even part of the American lexicon at the time. Its first use was at a European medical conference in 1963. And no semblance of it appeared in federal law until 1990.”
But Gorsuch’s opinion panned the notion of authorial intent, a bedrock principle of judicial originalism, by declaring that judges “are not free to overlook plain statutory commands on the strength of nothing more than suppositions about intentions or guesswork about expectations. In Title VII, Congress adopted broad language making it illegal for an employer to rely on an employee’s sex when deciding to fire that employee.”
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, panning the majority opinion as “legislation” written under the “deceptive” guise of “interpreting a statute,” reminding the majority that the court’s duty “is limited to saying what the law is” rather than adding to it.
Trump’s other appointee, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, wrote his own dissenting opinion, in which he noted that the “responsibility to amend Title VII belongs to Congress and the President in the legislative process, not to this Court.”
Kavanaugh also wrote, however, that the majority opinion represented an “important victory achieved today by gαy and lesbian Americans,” who “advanced powerful policy arguments,” displayed “extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit,” and “can take pride in today’s result”... “notwithstanding my concern about the Court’s transgression of the Constitution’s separation of powers.”
Conservatives warn that today’s ruling will not merely protect ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ or gender-confused Americans from tangible harm. Rather, it will require churches to recognize same-sex “marriages”; force photographers (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/virginia-lesbian-couple-accuses-photographers-of-discrimination-for-rejecti), florists (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/supreme-court-sends-back-case-against-christian-florist-sued-for-rejecting), and bakers (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/christian-baker-sees-outpouring-of-support-after-supreme-court-win) to participate in same-sex “weddings”; compel employers to fund drugs and surgeries (http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/wisconsin-to-cover-state-employees-transgender-treatments-board-votes) to help people imitate members of the opposite sex; and make women and girls to share sleeping quarters (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/lgbt-lobby-outraged-as-trump-admin-saves-womens-homeless-spaces-for-real-women), showers, changing areas (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/high-school-student-files-civil-rights-complaint-over-boy-in-girls-locker-room), and restrooms (https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/female-students-rebel-against-transgender-bathrooms-refuse-to-use-same-facilities-as-boys) with gender-confused males (or men simply claiming trans status to get close to vulnerable women).
“The core issue before the Court in this case was whether it is within the legitimate power of judges to suddenly redefine the meaning of words and rewrite a 55-year-old statute. Sadly, the Court answered in the affirmative,” commented Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.
“Allowing judges to rewrite the Civil Rights Act to add gender identity and sɛҳuąƖ orientation as protected classes poses a grave threat to religious liberty. We've already witnessed in recent years how courts have used the redefinition of words as a battering ram to crush faith-based businesses and organizations,” concluded Perkins.
Today’s ruling also largely relieves congressional Democrats of the need to enact the so-called Equality Act (https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/the-equality-act-is-the-biggest-threat-to-religious-freedom-in-us-history), a bill that would legislatively impose those same requirements on the country (though some of the details and specific applications may vary, meaning some LGBT activists will likely still demand that the act be passed to codify today’s ruling).
Gorsuch and Roberts’ support for the decision has appalled numerous conservative legal observers, and vindicated voices who argued that Senate Republicans were too quick to confirm Gorsuch’s nomination without further vetting (https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/trump-appointed-judge-defends-fundamental-right-to-abortion-how-did-we-get-here). It also raises grave concerns over the caliber of jurists being groomed and promoted by “conservative” legal institutions such as the Federalist Society.
It remains to be seen whether this ruling will have any bearing on conservative enthusiasm to turn out for Donald Trump’s reelection in November. It is widely speculated, though not confirmed, that Trump’s third Supreme Court nominee would be Judge Amy Coney Barrett (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/clarence-thomas-condemns-attack-on-scoutus-contender-amy-barretts-faith-i-thought-we-got-away-from-religious-tests), someone believed to be more reliably conservative than Gorsuch or Kavanaugh.
-
Yes, Gorsuch turns out to be a great conservative judge that Trump appointed to replace Scalia.
And Dubya gave us Roberts, the gift that keeps on giving. He's been on the liberal side of pretty much every issue since his appointment.
-
If my company tries to lay me off, I'll just self-identify as a woman so they can't touch me. :laugh1:
-
Good thing people voted the "lesser of 2 evils" so often, so that the Republican presidents could install these "conservative" Supreme Court justices. ::)
-
Gorsuch also sided with the liberals twice within a few days last year.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-pornography/conservative-u-s-justice-gorsuch-again-sides-with-liberals-in-criminal-case-idUSKCN1TR2WD (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-pornography/conservative-u-s-justice-gorsuch-again-sides-with-liberals-in-criminal-case-idUSKCN1TR2WD)
With these great judges Trump is appointing, we might as well have had Hillary in office. Only difference is all the puerile tweets Trump keeps issuing (while doing absolutely nothing).
-
Gorsuch also sided with the liberals twice within a few days last year.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-pornography/conservative-u-s-justice-gorsuch-again-sides-with-liberals-in-criminal-case-idUSKCN1TR2WD (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-pornography/conservative-u-s-justice-gorsuch-again-sides-with-liberals-in-criminal-case-idUSKCN1TR2WD)
With these great judges Trump is appointing, we might as well have had Hillary in office. Only difference is all the puerile tweets Trump keeps issuing (while doing absolutely nothing).
.
Another difference might be that conservatives are not on guard (https://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Articles/tabid/109/ID/4009/Trump-Fast-Tracking-Forced-Vaccinations.aspx) so much with Trump (https://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Articles/tabid/109/ID/4018/Constitutional-Scholar-Says-Trump-Is-Carrying-Out-The-Globalist-Agenda.aspx) as they would have been with Hillary. One would hope there might have been more push-back had the last few months happened with her in the White House. FWIW
-
It goes to show that republicans are just as bad. Trust no one.
-
It should be appealed. We are in lock down and chaos while these overpaid scuмbags are sneaking in rulings. They should be closed down without pay like everyone else. What a great injustice. This is why the world is in turmoil.
-
And they aren’t being discriminated against. In fact they are in Hollywood, politics, and media. Hired before other two sexes.
All of sudden, Supreme Court is working overtime. And even voted to give power to government to shut down churches which are seeing the abuse now.
Republicans and democrats are together working for nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr.
-
All thanks to the sodomites in the Catholic Church.
-
Gorsuch's and the liberals' ruling is consistent if you accept the 1960's civil rights acts. Since "conservatives" and even many Traditional Catholics do, they should either not complain or start getting "red pilled." The mistake the mainstream right made long ago was compromising and caving to the left's frame on race and sex, leading them to make no effort to repeal those acts. The ruling today is just one of the time bombs of those 1960's civil rights acts going off.
Conservatives say this ruling could force churches to recognize same-sex 'marriages'; force photographers, florists, and bakers to participate in same-sex 'weddings'; compel employers to fund drugs and surgeries to help people imitate members of the opposite sex; and make women and girls to share sleeping quarters, showers, changing areas, and restrooms with gender-confused males.
There is only one type of Catholicism of structure that has a chance of surviving in such an environment, Guerilla Catholicism. The large scale bureaucratic kind will sink even further down in part because it is dependent on the state and will therefore be prone to cutting deals to keep its status or structure.
-
There is only one type of Catholicism of structure that has a chance of surviving in such an environment, Guerilla Catholicism.
Lord, come soon!
-
Republicans and democrats are together working for nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr.
This is what the masses fail to grasp. The GOP and Faux News are simply different routes to the same destination.
-
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves" - Lenin
The US is essentially a one party state, with the GOP being allowed to exist in order to give the illusion that this is not the case. However, as other posters have noted, this is an utter sham since they fundamentally agree with the same false principles as the Democrats. Alas, the "conservatives" aren't even capable of preserving the status quo in our already wretched society. Hopefully this action, and others like it, will wake up Traditional Catholics such as ourselves to the fact that the system is rigged against them, and that mass martyrdom is coming in the near future.
-
We don’t hate the sinner. We love all of our neighbors. We are to love God. The Church leadership has done very little to spread the gospel instead they promote multiple gods to worship, stealing social justice while promoting communist agenda sins like divorce, living together without marriage, sloth, ѕυιcιdє, gluttony, murder of babies, etc has been condoned by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. We now know that these wolves not only funded but have been fighting to promote mortal sin. And yes, the novus ordo and even sspx and other traditional groups, they live double lives. They tell you what you want to hear from the pulpits while doing the work of satan. They will do minimal to protect the faith. Anal sex being taught in schools with zero protest or court battles from sspx or novus or do. Next up at the Supreme Court will be to legalize adults to have sex with children and incest.
Now we are faced to see mortal sin as the new norm.
-
BREAKING: Trump accepts sweeping pro-transgender SCOTUS decision, calls it ‘very powerful’
The ruling could force churches to recognize same-sex 'marriages' and open restrooms and changing rooms to gender-confused individuals.
Mon Jun 15, 2020 - 5:14 pm EST
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 15, 2020 (LifeSiteNews (https://www.lifesitenews.com/)) – President Donald Trump suggested Monday that the administration would not be moving to challenge or mitigate the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling writing “sɛҳuąƖ orientation” and “gender identity” into a longstanding law meant to prohibit discrimination on the basis of biological sex.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s first addition to the nation’s highest court, wrote the majority opinion (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/supreme-court-votes-6-3-to-redefine-sex-write-transgenderism-into-1964-law) for the ruling, which concluded that “sex disicrimination” in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act should be interpreted to mean sɛҳuąƖ orientation and gender identity, in addition to its original biological meaning.
"An employer who fires an individual for being ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex,” Gorsuch wrote. “Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids."
"I’ve read the decision, and some people were surprised," the president told reporters at the White House this afternoon, The Hill reported (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/502812-trump-says-we-live-with-scotus-decision-on-lgbtq-worker-rights). "But they’ve ruled and we live with their decision. That’s what it’s all about. We live with the decision of the Supreme Court. Very powerful. Very powerful decision actually. But they have so ruled."
Trump’s reaction did not discuss any of the details of the ruling, and did not address the fact that his own administration weighed in against (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/trump-admin-files-scotus-brief-against-redefining-sex-discrimination-to-bar-trans-hiring-decisions) the position Gorsuch ultimately chose, by filing an amicus brief that argued that Title VII “simply does not speak to discrimination because of an individual’s gender identity or a disconnect between an individual’s gender identity and the individual’s sex.”
The majority’s reasoning flies in the face of both the plain statutory meaning of “sex” in 1964 and the clear legislative intent of the lawmakers who drafted and passed the Civil Rights Act, as explained by (https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/scotus-must-reaffirm-the-meaning-of-sex-in-antidiscrimination-law/) Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) senior counsel John Bursch. “There is little dispute that, in 1964, the term ‘sex’ was publicly understood, as it is now, to mean biological sex: male and female,” he wrote. “After all, the term ‘gender identity’ wasn’t even part of the American lexicon at the time. Its first use was at a European medical conference in 1963. And no semblance of it appeared in federal law until 1990.”
But Gorsuch’s opinion panned the notion of authorial intent, a bedrock principle of judicial originalism, by declaring that judges “are not free to overlook plain statutory commands on the strength of nothing more than suppositions about intentions or guesswork about expectations. In Title VII, Congress adopted broad language making it illegal for an employer to rely on an employee’s sex when deciding to fire that employee.”
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, panning the majority opinion as “legislation” written under the “deceptive” guise of “interpreting a statute,” reminding the majority that the court’s duty “is limited to saying what the law is” rather than adding to it.
Trump’s other Supreme Court appointee, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, wrote his own dissenting opinion, in which he noted that the “responsibility to amend Title VII belongs to Congress and the President in the legislative process, not to this Court.”
He also wrote, however, that the majority opinion represented an “important victory achieved today by gαy and lesbian Americans,” who “advanced powerful policy arguments,” displayed “extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit,” and “can take pride in today’s result”... “notwithstanding my concern about the Court’s transgression of the Constitution’s separation of powers.”
A few conservative voices raised doubts about the reliability of both Gorsuch (https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/gorsuch-hearings-day-2-impressive-but-two-red-flags-need-answers-op-ed) and Kavanaugh (https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/pro-lifers-should-be-very-very-concerned-about-susan-collins-kavanaugh-spee) during their respective confirmation hearings, though their warnings fell largely on deaf ears among conservative pundits and pro-life, pro-family organizations.
Conservatives warn that today’s ruling will not merely protect ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ or gender-confused Americans from tangible harm. Rather, it will require churches to recognize same-sex “marriages”; force photographers (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/virginia-lesbian-couple-accuses-photographers-of-discrimination-for-rejecti), florists (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/supreme-court-sends-back-case-against-christian-florist-sued-for-rejecting), and bakers (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/christian-baker-sees-outpouring-of-support-after-supreme-court-win) to participate in same-sex “weddings”; compel employers to fund drugs and surgeries (http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/wisconsin-to-cover-state-employees-transgender-treatments-board-votes) to help people imitate members of the opposite sex; and make women and girls to share sleeping quarters (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/lgbt-lobby-outraged-as-trump-admin-saves-womens-homeless-spaces-for-real-women), showers, changing areas (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/high-school-student-files-civil-rights-complaint-over-boy-in-girls-locker-room), and restrooms (https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/female-students-rebel-against-transgender-bathrooms-refuse-to-use-same-facilities-as-boys) with gender-confused males (or men simply claiming trans status to get close to vulnerable women).
Counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway addressed the ruling (https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/white-house-kellyanne-conway-reaction-supreme-court-lgbtq-ruling) a bit more directly on Fox News, praising Alito’s dissenting opinion and declaring that “it’s very important though to stick to a statute or a law as it is written when that is before the United States Supreme Court. If people want to change the law, they should go to the Congress.”
-
I knew the Justices appointed by Trump would flip.
Wait until infanticide cases come before the court. Same thing will happen.
-
Good thing people voted the "lesser of 2 evils" so often, so that the Republican presidents could install these "conservative" Supreme Court justices. ::)
Sitting it out would have gotten here sooner.
-
wake up Traditional Catholics such as ourselves to the fact that the system is rigged against them, and that mass martyrdom is coming in the near future.
I think most of us are aware of that.
-
I took out the italics and shortened it a little.
Bostock v. Clayton County (2020). In a powerful dissent joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel Alito condemned the ruling as “preposterous” and betraying “breathtaking” arrogance. . . . the Supreme Court usurped the power of Congress by creating “legislation.”
. . . the position that the Court now adopts will threaten freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and personal privacy and safety. No one should think that the Court’s decision represents an unalloyed victory for individual liberty,” Alito warns. His dissent lays out seven different realms of American life that will be affected by this ruling.
1. Bathrooms and changing rooms
Alito warns, “the Court may wish to avoid this subject, but it is a matter of concern to many people who are reticent about disrobing or using toilet facilities in the presence of individuals whom they regard as members of the opposite sex. For some, this may simply be a question of modesty, but for others, there is more at stake. For women who have been victimized by sɛҳuąƖ assault or abuse, the experience of seeing an unclothed person with the anatomy of a male in a confined and sensitive location such as a bathroom or locker room can cause serious psychological harm.”
Based on broad understandings of “transgender status” that could include those who identify as “gender fluid” and those who have not undergone any surgery to alter their bodies. “A person who has not undertaken any physical transitioning may claim the right to use the bathroom or locker room assigned to the sex with which the individual identifies at that particular time,” Alito reasoned.
This is not to say that transgender people are predators, but to note that women have passionately fought for their rights and now their private spaces will be open to biological males. The true concern is not that a male who identifies as a female will abuse women, but that prurient men will abuse this loophole and some women who have experienced sɛҳuąƖ assault will be victimized by being forced to share intimate quarters with biological males.
2. Women’s sports
Alito also warns that “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” may arise under Title VII and Title IX due to the Court’s ruling in Bostock.
3. Housing
Bostock “may lead to Title IX cases against any college that resists assigning students of the opposite biological sex as roommates,” Alito warns. It may also force rape crisis centers for women to admit biological males who claim to identify as women. One such center has already been vandalized with transgender slogans, and some centers have fought long legal battles over the right to allow safe harbor only for women.
4. Religious employment
Alito cites “briefs filed by a wide range of religious groups––Christian, Jєωιѕн, and Muslim–– [that] express deep concern that the position now adopted by the Court ‘will trigger open conflict with faith-based employment practices of numerous churches, ѕуηαgσgυєs, mosques, and other religious institutions.’ They argue that ‘[r]eligious organizations need employees who actually live the faith,’ and that compelling a religious organization to employ individuals whose conduct flouts the tenets of the organization’s faith forces the group to communicate an objectionable message.”
Alito warns that this problem is “perhaps most acute” in the employment of teachers. “A school’s standards for its faculty ‘communicate a particular way of life to its students,’ and a ‘violation by the faculty of those precepts’ may undermine the school’s ‘moral teaching.’ Thus, if a religious school teaches that sex outside marriage and sex reassignment procedures are immoral, the message may be lost if the school employs a teacher who is in a same-sex relationship or has undergone or is undergoing sex reassignment.”
5. Health care
“Transgender employees have brought suit under Title VII to challenge employer-provided health insurance plans that do not cover costly sex reassignment surgery.”
“Such claims present difficult religious liberty issues because some employers and healthcare providers have strong religious objections to sex reassignment procedures, and therefore requiring them to pay for or to perform these procedures will have a severe impact on their ability to honor their deeply held religious beliefs,” he explains.
Indeed, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) just finalized a rule rightly defining sex as biological sex and reversing the Obama administration on these issues. Does Bostock make that HHS rule unconstitutional?
6. Freedom of speech
Alito warns that “the Court’s decision may even affect the way employers address their employees and the way teachers and school officials address students. Under established English usage, two sets of sex-specific singular personal pronouns are used to refer to someone in the third person (he, him, and his for males; she, her, and hers for females). But several different sets of gender-neutral pronouns have now been created and are preferred by some individuals who do not identify as falling into either of the two traditional categories.”
“Some jurisdictions, such as New York City, have ordinances making the failure to use an individual’s preferred pronoun a punishable offense, and some colleges have similar rules. After today’s decision, plaintiffs may claim that the failure to use their preferred pronoun violates one of the federal laws prohibiting sex discrimination,” the justice warns.
7. Constitutional claims
“If the Court had allowed the legislative process to take its course, Congress would have had the opportunity to consider competing interests and might have found a way of accommodating at least some of them.” Instead, the Supreme Court has made law, just like it did in Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges.
-
Why Did Thomas Come Unhinged On SCOTUS Yesterday!? A 19 Page 2nd Amendment Dissent Explains It All!
Tuesday, June 16, 2020 10:17
June 16th, 2020 By: Justus Knight
On today’s broadcast:
Clarence Thomas blows up at SCOTUS in scathing dissent on their refusal to hear 10 gun right appeals. The Supreme Court has once again continued their decade long refusal to hear anything that would remotely clarify and support our 2nd amendment gun rights. The most basic fundamental of our Constitution is left to erode in the sands of a never changing desire to not support the most basis of our rights. Well Thomas had a enough and issues a 19 page dissent that tells them EXACTLY what he thinks of the decision.
God Speed and God Bless,
Justus Knight
https://youtu.be/hMR5d94REcs