SCOTUS decision on LGBT and Title VII

This was a bad decision, not because workers with special sexual interests and behaviors should be fired without cause, but because SCOTUS redefined the clear meaning of a law passed over 50 years ago.  It’s a terrible precedent.  Sex meant biology and gender meant grammar when Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed; orientation was an introduction to college or a new job.  Now sex means anything I want it to mean. With this ruling, SCOTUS can reach back and change the clear intent of a law while keeping it.

What if other aspects of law like contract law, or property law, membership law or education law, or health law or family law also becomes, “Your truth is not my truth.”  What if Elizabeth Warren really can decide on her own truth about her tribal heritage? Why should her truth she’s believe all her life be less important than tribal membership laws? What if you demand Catholic communion/eucharist because today you’re feeling Catholic instead of Methodist?  What if you decide age restriction for sexual relationships are meaningless if a child appears to be a different age?  What if you claim residency outside your school district even though you don’t pay taxes there, but today you believe  you are a resident?  These “what ifs” are no more ridiculous than denying biology, the original intent of Title VII was to protect women and minorities.

And the ruling provides no religious protection, which is in the Bill of Rights and should take precedent over the ever changing societal mores and fascination with all things sexual. The ruling leaves open the can of worms on whether transgender individuals who have not had gender-reassignment surgery or counseling can be considered members of the opposite sex — an issue at the forefront of women’s athletics. In fact, this ruling can destroy the gains and protections women have won the last 50 years.

This is an issue that belongs in Congress, where they make laws, not in the Supreme Court.