Supreme Court votes 6-3 to outlaw Christian for-profit organizations

Gay activist vandalizes pro-marriage sign
Gay activist vandalizes pro-marriage sign

I was hoping that we could hold off the Equality Act until at least 2021, if Biden won the election. I did not expect that we would get a light version of the Equality Act in 2020 from the Supreme Court. (Although I did something anyway last year to anticipate it). Anyway, let’s get a reaction from the scholars at the pro-marriage Daily Signal, and then see Alito’s dissent.

Excerpt:

In what dissenting Justice Samuel Alito called one of the most “brazen abuse[s]” of the Supreme Court’s authority, a six-member majority of the court led by Justice Neil Gorsuch has rewritten Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sexual orientation and gender identity in the definition of “sex.”

Why bother trying to pass the proposed Equality Act when you can get the justices to make law for you?

Title VII prohibits an employer from failing or refusing “to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual … because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

Gorsuch—joined by the four liberal justices, along with Chief Justice John Roberts—decided that employment decisions that take any account of an employee’s sexual orientation or gender identity necessarily entail discrimination based on sex in violation of Title VII.

I care about what this will do to me as an employee of a for-profit company. I can foresee myself having to work for an aggressive LGBT boss or co-worker, and being forced to affirm their lifestyle choices, even as they were allowed to disagree with mine.

Things would be different if I worked for a religious non-profit though, according to Christian News:

The Supreme Court, however, did express that it is “deeply concerned with preserving the promise of the free exercise of religion enshrined in our Constitution” and pointed to a congressional exception in the law for “religious organizations.”

It is not clear if those organizations include for-profit businesses or if the protections only extend to churches and non-profit charitable and educational groups.

However, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. suggested in his dissent that: “The scope of these provisions is disputed, and as interpreted by some lower courts, they provide only narrow protection”. So even if I had cleverly moved to a non-profit in anticipation of this decision, it would only be a temporary bit of safety before the LGBT fascists take over everything, and squash all dissent from the top down.

Part of me wonders how long it will take LGBT people to understands that their success in the area of sexual autonomy, (at the expensive of our religious liberty), hasn’t really obtained the satisfaction that they believed it would. Even if they manage to force all dissenters to publicly celebrate their rebellion against chastity, marriage and self-sacrificial love for children.

I think people who choose to stray away from chastity, natural marriage and self-sacrificial love for their children THINK that they will somehow end up happy in their old age. But there is no winning end game for sexual radicals. Once you lose your appearance through old age, you’re done. And trying to make a relationship last between self-centered people doesn’t work in the long run. There is no path to a stable commitment that goes through secular leftist self-centeredness.

Women’s sports is now effectively over, because transgender women (biological men) will dominate.

An ADF person wrote about that in Christian Post:

In February, three high school women athletes sued the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference after they were forced to compete against biological males in track. The two male athletes, who identify as girls, swept 15 Connecticut state titles that were previously held by nine different women. Because of the presence of male athletes, women have lost out on the opportunity to compete and win, as well as the potential scholarship opportunities that come from competing in front of college scouts.

It should not be surprising that biological males outrun females on the racetrack. After all, men have more muscle mass, greater bone density, and lung capacity. But when “sex” is redefined, the law’s recognition of this is important distinction may be lost.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court took a step to redefine “sex,” further jeopardizing legal protections for women and girls and failing to uphold the law as Congress wrote it.

It’s always interesting to see what happens to progressives who lose their privileges (e.g. – athletic scholarships to prestigious universities) because their own progressive convictions get enacted into law. When liberal women say “male-female distinctions are social constructs” it sounds so good to them – until they see what it really means. But now that SCOTUS has ruled, there is no going back. Any man who identifies as a woman will be able to grab up any benefit that was reserved for women, and also invade their spaces.

In cases like this, where the consequences (end of women’s sports), are so far removed from the cause (radical feminism which denies male-female distinctives), it may be hard for young feminists to even understand how their own worldview is what’s taking away their benefits and entitlements. It’s such a terrible thing when people get what they want, and it destroys them. But this happens a lot to people who deny God…. just look at all the aging, man-hating women who can’t find husbands. They won the Sexual Revolution, and they thought that post-feminism men would want the devalued version of marriage (no-fault, egalitarian, two working spouses, daycare, public schools, etc.) that they inherited as much as we liked the pre-feminism marriage of the 1950s. How foolish.

16 thoughts on “Supreme Court votes 6-3 to outlaw Christian for-profit organizations”

  1. Remember the OBERGEFELL v. HODGES case brought before the Supreme Court back in 2014? It is easier to remember it the day Homosexual marriage became legal in the US.

    Reading this reminds me of what Justice Scalia said in his powerful dissent and what I used in my argument paper;

    “Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I think my most important takeaways from this are 1) never get married, and 2) save money for a rainy day. I think happy-clappy leftist women think they can ram their permissive compassion agenda down my throat, and that I’ll still pony up dough to court them and marry them. Well, no. If liberal women want to vote for my home to be ruled by godless leftist elites, and for my earnings to pay for this, then they are sorely mistaken. I cannot do much, but one thing I can do… Let liberal woman find their own way in the world they’ve created. Without my help.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. I am going to pick your brain here. Do you remember a nighttime soap opera way back in the late 70’s called All That Glitters?

        From Wikipedia;
        All That Glitters is an American sitcom by producer Norman Lear. It consisted of 65 episodes and aired between April 18 and July 15, 1977, in broadcast syndication. The show, a spoof of the soap opera format, depicted the trials and tribulations of a group of executives at the Globatron corporation. The twist of the series was that it was set within a world of complete role-reversal: Women were the “stronger sex,” the executives and breadwinners, while the “weaker sex” – the men – were the secretaries or stay-at-home househusbands. Men were often treated as sex objects.

        The point is, and as Norma Lear pointed out, even if women controlled the world, the very thing they hated about men is the very thing they become.

        Norman Lear was brilliant in all the shows he created. He gave us a view into society and poked fun at with class. Sadly, today’s snowflakes, those who are so intellectually weak it would make C.S. Lewis scratch his head in wonderment, couldn’t handle his shows.
        https://www.ranker.com/list/norman-lear-tv-shows-and-series-created/reference

        Like

        1. No. I’ve never heard of it.

          My only concern is that young, unmarried women vote 77% Democrat. And this makes it impossible for me to provide for and lead a Christian home. This SCOTUS decision is what young. Unmarried women – including church attending “Christians” – want. So they got what they want, but they can’t have me. And pretty soon, I’ll be retired, so they aren’t even going to get taxes from me.

          Liked by 1 person

  2. Hopefully this abomination didn’t truly surprise anyone. It has long been obvious that all of the black-robed Rogues Gallery of Nine are compromised. One doesn’t rise to the position of Supreme Judicial Tyrant without the Deep State having its hooks firmly embedded in you.

    Like

      1. I would say that Alito is also good. He won me over when he visibly responded against something Obama said in a SOTU address. I don’t know how Gorsuch came to believe as he does on this issue. It totally surprised me. Roberts didn’t surprise me at all. From the start he demonstrated he was a bad selection. So far so good with Kavanaugh, but it’s still too early tot tell with him. But due to his body of work during his time on the bench, I agree that Thomas is clearly the best of the bunch.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. The headline is a bit hyperbolic (but only slightly); a more accurate one would be “SCOTUS ruling holds disturbing implications for for-profit Christian organizations and threatens religious liberty.”
    Gorsuch’s decision noted that this ruling may create conflict with religious liberty, but declined to discuss the issue since it was not before the court in this case. It’s pretty much inevitable that a case specifically about religious liberty and business will come before the court in the next few years (I’m sure LGBT advocacy groups are already on the lookout for test cases).
    There is still a small hope that, when such a case comes before the Court, they will carve out an explicit exception regarding for-profit religious organizations. It’s not entirely hopeless but still extremely discouraging. In the words of Bob Dylan “It’s not dark yet but it’s getting there”

    Like

  4. You said in your post, “there’s no going back”. I don’t think we’re stuck with any SCOTUS ruling without recourse. This very same court could reverse it’s own decision given a better argument put before them. The greatest impediment is the great deference to precedent, the devotion to which I believe is just covering their own butts. No one wants their rulings ever overturned and in doing so have a perceived failure marring their legacy. But a different court faced with a better counter-argument could indeed reverse even the concept that employers of any kind are obliged by law to hire those they’d prefer not to hire…for any reason whatsoever.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You are correct, I’m mistaken. I just look at the church following the culture and I get depressed. I’m not white. Why is the church talking about race, when they should be telling blacks to stop having sex before marriage. That solves everything right there.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s