Source: 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) – 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 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 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 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, 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 (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, 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. 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, someone believed to be more reliably conservative than Gorsuch or Kavanaugh.

If my company tries to lay me off, I'll just self-identify as a woman so they can't touch me. 

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

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).

It goes to show that republicans are just as bad.   Trust no one.  

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. 

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.

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.

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.