SCOTUS: 1964 Civil Rights Act now applies to transgenderism and sexual orientation. Soon: Christianity labeled "hate" group.

Magnus Stout

Magnus Stout

Woodpecker
Orthodox
"Conservative" Supreme Court (6-3) backs radical redefinition of sex discrimination in Bostock v. Clayton County. Court could (and should) have easily ruled, "no" and let Congress implement such changes. Nope. Justice Gorsuch put on the skin-suit of "originalism" and conservatism to redefine a term as old as humans--sex.

Interesting: this is the same Court that recently refused to enjoin California's ridiculous restrictions on Christian worship: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19a1044_pok0.pdf

So, compare and contrast what a plurality of supremely arrogant justices declared:

Christianity - OK to heavily restrict due to WuFlu; but
Transgenderism and gender "expression" - "Civil Right" supported by the full weight of the Feds.

Now, we wait for a grifting "transperson" to be declared "Conservative of the Year" followed by a "tasteful" pedophile (in the vein of the late & closeted William F. Buckley).
Writing for the majority, Gorsuch claims that when the statute uses the term “sex,” it can apply to sexual orientation and gender identity. “An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII” of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, concluded Gorsuch. He was joined by the four Democrat appointees, as well as Chief Justice Roberts.

Well, it’s good to know that gender and sex are indeed not separate things, as the rainbow jihad lobby has indicated for so many years! But either way this ruling is absurd beyond belief.

Here is the relevant paragraph from Justice Alito’s dissent, joined by Thomas:
The Court tries to convince readers that it is merely enforcing the terms of the statute, but that is preposterous. Even as understood today, the concept of discrimination because of “sex” is different from discrimination because of “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.” And in any event, our duty is to interpret statutory terms to “mean what they conveyed to reasonable people at the time they were written.” A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 16 (2012) (emphasis added). If every single living American had been surveyed in 1964, it would have been hard to find any who thought that discrimination because of sex meant discrimination because of sexual orientation–not to mention gender identity, a concept that was essentially unknown at the time.

The Court attempts to pass off its decision as the inevitable product of the textualist school of statutory interpretation championed by our late colleague Justice Scalia, but no one should be fooled. The Court’s opinion is like a pirate ship. It sails under a textualist flag, but what it actually represents is a theory of statutory interpretation that Justice Scalia excoriated––the theory that courts should “update” old statutes so that they better reflect the current values of society.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I hate to post a real BlackPill, but this is it. For the promised "Revolution," "Q" now needs to arrest SCOTUS, pack the Court, or have POTUS become a Caesar. Once culture become this deranged, collapse or Divine Judgment is necessary.

Prediction: Churches are going to be sued (like the bakers in Masterpiece Cakeshop) in less than 10 years. They will be targeted the same as the KKK was and accounts and assets will be seized--not if, but when. Real Christianity will be labeled a "hate" group and rainbow flag "churches" will attempt to wear its skin-suit.

www.conservativereview.com

Horowitz: Conservatives get massacred by fake ‘conservative’ SCOTUS

Within 35 minutes today at 10 a.m. Eastern, what some thought was the most conservative Supreme Court of all time concocted a fundamental right to transgenderism in the context of labor law, erased the Second Amendment, and interfered with a state death penalty case, but declined to interfere...
www.conservativereview.com www.conservativereview.com
 
Last edited:
R

R.G.Camara

 
Banned
Predictable. I am just shocked that that Supreme Court still polls with such high respect with the public. Traitor Roberts is clearly completely owned now, as is Gorsuch. Trusting the Federalist Society to save us was throwing money and hope away.

After Roe v. Wade, Obergefell v. Hodges , and Obamacare, etc., if you're a Christian and yet still believe in the Supreme Court, you're Charlie Brown running for the umpteenth time to kick the ball held by Lucy. And it'll serve you right when she pulls it away and you fall on your ass again; you should've kicked her in the head. The Communists have used our trust in American institutions against us, by corrupting them from the inside and wearing them as a skinsuit.

The Tranny ruling is just another step towards martyring more Christians. Be prepared, they are going to come for you. But be happy; martyrdom in the name of Christ ensures a heavenly reward.
 
kamoz

kamoz

Kingfisher
Gold Member
Good article. Makes you realize that it is Ridiculous how companies can fire you for saying something (which is protected by the first amendment, written in 1776) but can’t fire you because you happen to be black, gay, or trans - protected by something written in 1964 and now 2020.
 
A

Athanasius

Pelican
Protestant
When everyone was raving about Gorsuch after his selection, I noted to friends that he was a member of a very liberal Episcopal church (St. John's) in Boulder, CO with a woman rector. The church web site spoke about gun control and the head rector attended the Women's march. Gorsuch's wife gave sermons. Who would sit through this week after week? The average member of this forum wouldn't last a half hour at it. I've never trusted Gorsuch as a result and predicted he'd eventually be another Roberts.

Democratic nominees to the court have been uniformly awful for decades. The Republicans hit an occasional winner. But I think it's by design. Rock-ribbed guys like Scalia, Thomas, and Alito have always been counterbalanced by squishy Republican nominees like Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Roberts, and I'm guessing eventually both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. It seems like when globohomo needs something major to go its way, the call goes in and they find someone to peel off that deciding vote. One pattern you'll notice with the squishes-- the first few years they are OK, then slowly (or quickly in Souter's case) they start tracking left.

Daniel Horowitz noted it well-- yesterday was the Federalist Society's Waterloo. At least it should be. It was formed to prevent this kind of thing.

The court is a weak reed to depend on. When public opinion veers left, the court will veer left too. For a long time, the court has seemingly just existed to uphold unconstitutional laws or, in the case of Roe and Obergefell, to kick things along by pure fiat when the legislatures are advancing too slowly.
 
Last edited:
Stonewall Jackson

Stonewall Jackson

Robin
Athanasius said:
When everyone was raving about Gorsuch after his selection, I noted to friends that he was a member of a very liberal Episcopal church (St. John's) in Boulder, CO with a woman rector. The church web site spoke about gun control and the head rector attended the Women's march. Gorsuch's wife gave sermons. Who would sit through this week after week? The average member of this forum wouldn't last a half hour at it. I've never trusted Gorsuch as a result and predicted he'd eventually be another Roberts.

Democratic nominees to the court have been uniformly awful for decades. The Republicans hit an occasional winner. But I think it's by design. Rock-ribbed guys like Scalia, Thomas, and Alito have always been counterbalanced by squishy Republican nominees like Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Roberts, and I'm guessing eventually both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. It seems like when globohomo needs something major to go its way, the call goes in and they find someone to peel off that deciding vote. One pattern you'll notice with the squishes-- the first few years they are OK, then slowly (or quickly in Souter's case) they start tracking left.

Daniel Horowitz noted it well-- yesterday was the Federalist Society's Waterloo. At least it should be. It was formed to prevent this kind of thing.

The court is a weak reed to depend on. When public opinion veers left, the court will veer left too. For a long time, the court has seemingly just existed to uphold unconstitutional laws or, in the case of Roe and Obergefell, to kick things along by pure fiat when the legislatures are advancing too slowly.
Click to expand...
It's probably really, really hard to find any judges who attend conservative Protestant churches. If I were President it's one of the things I'd look for.
 
P

paninaro

Pelican
kamoz said:
Good article. Makes you realize that it is Ridiculous how companies can fire you for saying something (which is protected by the first amendment, written in 1776) but can’t fire you because you happen to be black, gay, or trans - protected by something written in 1964 and now 2020.
Click to expand...

First amendment applies to government controlling speech, not private companies.
 
B

BigFellow

 
Banned
I believe it was wrong to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the first place.

But in any event, this was one of the worst Supreme Court rulings I have seen. Get ready for businesses to ramp up their diversity policies and start ramming homosexuality and transsexualism down your throat. Employers will start banning homophobic and transsexualphobic comments and try to force employees to describe homosexual couples as "married" and refer to a man in a dress as a "woman." They will do this because they don't want to get sued for homophobia or transexualphobia. If you're the boss of your own company, well, you can now get sued by your employees for homophobic and transsexualphobic comments. I think this is going to apply to public accommodations and colleges too. This will now apply to all states even if you move to a state with right-wing conservative politics.

The more I hear news stories like this, the more I just want to secede from the business world and just go live in the woods or on a farm somewhere.
 
B

BigFellow

 
Banned
Stonewall Jackson said:
It's probably really, really hard to find any judges who attend conservative Protestant churches. If I were President it's one of the things I'd look for.
Click to expand...

Gorsuch is the only Supreme Court member who attends a Protestant church. The church in Colorado he attended was a liberal Episcopal church with a woman pastor who supported homosexual marriage. When Gorsuch was a judge in Colorado, he had a homosexual law clerk who said that Gorsuch was very accepting. Here's the news story about that:

christiannews.net

Former Law Clerk for Supreme Court Nominee Says Gorsuch Supported His ‘Gay Marriage’

WASHINGTON -- Discussion is stirring over how Trump Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch might rule on issues such as homosexuality and abortion should he be confirmed. His former law clerk told reporters last week that Gorsuch was supportive of his "gay marriage," but reports also note that...
christiannews.net christiannews.net

All of the other Supreme Court justices are either Roman Catholic or they are non-Christian.
 
infowarrior1

infowarrior1

Crow
Protestant
BigFellow said:
Gorsuch is the only Supreme Court member who attends a Protestant church. The church in Colorado he attended was a liberal Episcopal church with a woman pastor who supported homosexual marriage. When Gorsuch was a judge in Colorado, he had a homosexual law clerk who said that Gorsuch was very accepting. Here's the news story about that:

christiannews.net

Former Law Clerk for Supreme Court Nominee Says Gorsuch Supported His ‘Gay Marriage’

WASHINGTON -- Discussion is stirring over how Trump Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch might rule on issues such as homosexuality and abortion should he be confirmed. His former law clerk told reporters last week that Gorsuch was supportive of his "gay marriage," but reports also note that...
christiannews.net christiannews.net

All of the other Supreme Court justices are either Roman Catholic or they are non-Christian.
Click to expand...

I don't count liberal Protestants as actually Protestant or even Christian. They are practically Atheist.
 
infowarrior1

infowarrior1

Crow
Protestant
pitbullowner said:
I don't know man ...dying of cancer doesn't seem to bad after all at this point
Click to expand...

God uses the trials of this world to refine your character. And for you to accumulate Achievements that determine your seat in God's Cabinet(Revelation 3:21) and Heavenly Wealth:
bible.org

The Doctrine of Rewards: The Judgment Seat (Bema) of Christ | Bible.org

One of the prominent doctrines of the New Testament is the Doctrine of Rewards and the Judgment Seat of Christ. It is a doctrine often ignored or, when taught, it is misrepresented because of the term “judgment” that is used in translating the Greek text. Commenting on this Samuel Hoyt writes:
bible.org bible.org

Keep the Faith and continue in the work of God to get the best you can get once you get to Heaven.

That's why its good to avoid sin in general so that your work for God isn't hindered and you don't end up losing potential rewards.

So don't wish to be taken from the Earth prematurely. If you can do more for God while alive then you can accumulate greater achievements deserving greater rewards.
 
Last edited:
Kona

Kona

Crow
Gold Member
I think you guys are looking at this all wrong. You should be happy.

With all that's going on in the world, the white man is about the biggest group of people currently being discriminated against. I have white friends, and hope that someday soon a leader will emerge amongst them to fight this oppression. Now, when they do, you have a supreme court that truly believes all men are created equal, be they black, white, tranny, or whatever. '

Aloha!
 
G

godfather dust

 
Banned
Gold Member
The much lauded Supreme Court picks will end up being useless. Gorsuch has already failed. Kavanaugh is a male feminist (I am not recalling the details but I remember much talk about promoting and mentoring women etc during the rape accusations.) This will eventually result in some very damaging decisions.

An argument many Trump shills have made is that while Trump has accomplished nothing, his supreme Court picks will delay the destruction of America by a generation/30 years (whatever time frame they believe it will be.)

The truth is, by making zero dent in the demographic war being waged on socially conservative/right wing America, Trump has guaranteed a bunch of seats are added to the Supreme Court to be filled by various communists, queers and devil worshippers.
 
Top