October 8, 2019 | IFA Staff
Today, arguments are being made to the Supreme Court on two critical cases. These cases could change the designation of civil rights protections to include special protections for homosexuals and transgenders in employment. This has not been enacted in Congress–it is being litigated by the Supreme Court. These cases bring to the Court the question of whether LGBTQ persons, because of their sexual preference and gender identity, will be afforded special protections under the Constitution. the same as race and birth gender. The potential ramifications of a change in this designation on businesses, churches, schools, and everyday people of faith are frightening.
Pray with us today for each of the Supreme Court Justices as they hear these cases. Pray for those arguing the case in the Court and that God’s values and the Constitution would be upheld and not skewed to fit an ideology. This Special Report offers prayer points and scripture to pray.
From Attorney William Olson who has been intimately involved in the cases, representing religious freedom:
Both cases involve the same statute, and there is complete agreement that the U.S. Congress, in enacting Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, never intended the prohibition on employment discrimination “based on … sex” to cover anything other than biological “men” and “women.” However, Social Justice Warriors do not let the meaning of words get in the way of serving their favored constituencies.
These cases will reveal whether the Supreme Court believes that it has the same liberty to re-write and re-interpret Congressionally enacted statutes as it does Constitutional provisions. If so, the Congress need no longer meet, since the Supreme Court may do as it pleases — having not only hijacked our Constitution, but our Statutes as well.
Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Our briefs in the Harris case tried to bring a dose of realism to the courts, addressing issues, such as — can a man really become a woman? Strangely, this question was almost never even touched upon in the litigation of the Harris case.
Since the Harris Funeral Homes was owned by Christians and run according to Biblical principles, a loss in that case would constitute another massive attack on Christians in the professions or owning businesses of any kind.
Altitude Express v. Zarda (consolidated with Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, decided by the Eleventh Circuit).
We pointed out in our Zarda briefs that both his employer and all his coworkers had known for years that he was homosexual. He was not fired because he was homosexual, but because he seemingly had a need to share with everyone the fact that he was homosexual – including customers. When a customer finally complained about his oversharing, his employer was forced to take action and terminate his employment.
However, as we pointed out in our briefs, even if Zarda’s termination was based in part on his sexual orientation, that still does not mean he is able to sue under the statute. Our brief disputed the idea that sexual orientation is so closely tied to sex that it should be considered the same thing.
Finally, we attacked the idea of an “evolving legal landscape,” wherein judges feel free to create new law based on how they perceive society, and how they believe the law should be read to fit that ever-changing society. Rather, as Justice Gorsuch has noted, it is up to Congress to change federal statutes through legislation; it is not up to courts to do so by fiat. And in this situation, Congress numerous times has refused to enact into law new protections for “sexual orientation.”
COURT UPDATE AVAILABLE HERE: https://www.ifapray.org/blog/supreme-court-appears-divided-on-lgbtq-civil-rights-designation/