On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court decided that the provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which outlaw employment discrimination of the basis of “sex,” now also outlaw employment discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation and gender preference”. The case is Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia. 

By including sexual orientation and gender preference within the protections of the Civil Rights Act, the Court has dramatically expanded the reach of the homosexual agenda into our businesses, schools and churches.  We will be feeling the effects of this decision for many years to come.

The decision was a 6-3, with two Justices dissenting.

The majority decision, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, said that discrimination on the basis of sex necessarily includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender preference.

In dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that over many years and in many different instances, Congress has statutorily had to deal with matters of sex, sexual identity and gender preference. In not a single case has it dealt with them under the global rubric of “sex”.  Legally, then, discrimination on the basis “sex” is separate and distinct from discrimination on the basis of “sexual identity” or “gender preference.”

Justice Samuel Alito dissented on the basis that the Court’s decision supplanted Congress’ legislative role.  “There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation. . . A more brazen abuse of [the Court’s] authority to interpret statutes is hard to recall.”

Bostock adds immense uncertainty to employment law. What used to be objectively verifiable and without doubt – an employee’s or employment candidate’s biological sex- has now been replaced by a whole series of subjective explorations into the hearts of employees and candidates with regard to which sex, if any, they would prefer for the moment to identify with. 

One only has to think of the example of a gynecology practice which wants female doctors to treat its patients. Now, after Bostock, that practice may not decide to turn down a doctor seeking employment because the candidate presents as a female but is biologically a male. 

What about religious objections?  Is it now the case because of Bostock that a Bible-believing Christian school cannot turn down a teacher applicant if it finds out she is a lesbian? 

Bostock is perhaps more important and  more far-reaching than the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized gay marriage.