'Seismic implications' for religious liberty, church in SCOTUS ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County

I wrote this on my Facebook page this morning:

Some quick thoughts about the Bostock v. Clayton County court decision that came out yesterday. The impetus for the case were three separate instances where employees were terminated for being either homosexual or transgender. The Court consolidated all three cases, and the question before it was whether the definition of “sex” under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act included the concepts of “gender identity” and “sexual orientation.” The Court held that it did. My focus here is not the injustice of the employee terminations; it’s with the question before the Court and the decision to re-define “sex” in anti-discrimination law.

1. Christians who have made an idol of supporting the Republican Party because of the alleged advantage of appointing “conservative justices” now have no leg to stand on. Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, and Chief Justice Roberts concurred.

2. Christians have little meaningful reason to continue to support the Republican Party. We will likely see a wide-scale capitulation to this newest phase of the social revolution. President Trump has already figuratively shrugged his shoulders about the decision.

3. Republican does not equal Christian. This much should have been obvious for a long time, but now it is clear as day. Christians who have looked to the Republican Party as a vehicle for achieving social change should now see the bankruptcy of this tactic. The Religious Right is dead. This is a good thing. The entire endeavor was a mistake. I have believed this for a long time. Read Stanley Hauerwas’ book “Resident Aliens” for a better strategy for the Church.

4. The idea that “textualism” is a bulwark against bad legal interpretation is now dead forever. There is no way on earth legislators in 1964 would have understood “sex” to mean “gender identity” and “sexual orientation.” Yet, Justice Gorsuch wants us to read it in.

5. This decision will open a floodgate of unending litigation against every Christian institution in the country. The very concept of “sex” in the context of non-discrimination law has now been irrevocably altered. This has profound implications, because Christian universities, seminaries, organizations … and churches … will now be targeted by malicious actors. The very expression of reality in this country has now been changed.

6. How you view the world determines how you think. The Judeo-Christian worldview used to be the philosophical foundation from which citizens understood moral values, even if wasn’t a self-conscious foundation. There used to be a residue of that worldview present in society. This Court decision signals that it is gone forever. Everybody has to identify some foundation for moral values. Once you cut yourself off from objective truth, you’re cast out onto the open sea of subjectivism. Sex means gender identity because … well, why not? Forget rationality. Forget history. Forget divine revelation. Forget biology. There are only our own subjective feelings, baptized in the laver of diagnoses from mental health professionals (the new secular priests, dispensing the sacrament on letterhead) by whose mystical incantations people are “declared” to suffer from gender dysphoria.

I’m reading the Court documents, including the transcript of oral arguments and the decision itself, and will write up an analysis in the next month or so. I did the same for the Obergefell v. Hodges decision a few years back. It’ll be an analysis of the arguments and its implications from a Christian perspective. I hope to have it ready by late July.

I thought we had originalists/textualists appointed by W and Trump, now I’m not so sure. I don’t know whether to believe that they weren’t as originalist as believed, whether they’ve “grown” in office, or whether somebody is getting to them with an offer they cannot refuse. I had to wonder the same thing when John Roberts rescued the Health Insurance Deform Act (aka “Obamacare”) by declaring a fine to be a tax, while ignoring the fact that HIDA originated in the Senate, while tax bills must originate in the House.

More or less, what’s been argued by Gorsuch, Roberts, and the liberal wing of the court is that somehow Congress intended to protect behaviors that were either nonexistent or illegal when the Title VII law was passed. It boggles the mind, whatever one things of the result.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

In all fairness, during his confirmation process, Gorsuch said something to the effect that if you are interpreting and applying the law as written, you will come to decisions you don’t like. I won’t claim to know whether Gorsuch’s argument on this case was a good legal one or not. It sounds a little fishy to me, but I haven’t read years and years of case law. But it was no secret that he had no intention of ruling for “good” rather than ruling on how he read the law.

[TylerR] 5. This decision will open a floodgate of unending litigation against every Christian institution in the country. The very concept of “sex” in the context of non-discrimination law has now been irrevocably altered. This has profound implications, because Christian universities, seminaries, organizations … and churches … will now be targeted by malicious actors. The very expression of reality in this country has now been changed.

Let’s not be so over dramatic, Tyler. In his opinion, Gorsuch signaled that religious exemptions will most likely continue for organizations with a clear religious mission. Does that mean the funeral home will qualify because the owner is a Christian, probably not. But, Christian universities, seminaries, and especially churches will still be sheltered.

Don’t be naive!

Gorsuch signaled that religious exemptions will most likely continue for organizations with a clear religious mission.

It’s doubtful that Gorsuch should be trusted on this because we have seen the course of history. This very decision would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. There’s a reason why the left was desparately trying to pass bills to include LGBT in civil rights—They knew it wasn’t there already. They weren’t expecting this at all, is my guess.

Does that mean the funeral home will qualify because the owner is a Christian, probably not.

And this should cause serious problems for us. The idea that a government can coerce religious belief and religious practice should be troubling.

brings into stark relief is something that has been true for a while. Christians have no positive influence on the larger culture. None.

[Larry]

Does that mean the funeral home will qualify because the owner is a Christian, probably not.

And this should cause serious problems for us. The idea that a government can coerce religious belief and religious practice should be troubling.

not really. Hiring someone for a non-religious organization does not coerce religious belief and religious practice for either the owner or employee.

just like renting your home to an lgbt person doesn’t coerce religious belief or practice.

….since there are cases coming up regarding religious institutions. It’s not just him, we need Roberts, as well, to support the 1st amendment exemption.

[Larry]

Gorsuch signaled that religious exemptions will most likely continue for organizations with a clear religious mission.

It’s doubtful that Gorsuch should be trusted on this because we have seen the course of history. This very decision would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. There’s a reason why the left was desparately trying to pass bills to include LGBT in civil rights—They knew it wasn’t there already. They weren’t expecting this at all, is my guess.

Does that mean the funeral home will qualify because the owner is a Christian, probably not.

And this should cause serious problems for us. The idea that a government can coerce religious belief and religious practice should be troubling.

Hiring someone for a non-religious organization does not coerce religious belief and religious practice for either the owner or employee.

just like renting your home to an lgbt person doesn’t coerce religious belief or practice.

It does if you believe, for religious reasons, that you should not hire that person or rent to that person. You would be forced to hire someone against your religious beliefs.

No one should be surprised at this decision. The Sup Crt often reflects current culture and interprets based on the culture. Future cases will show to what degree the Court applies First Amendment rights to other “rights”. Don’t forget the results of the BJU case: Public policy takes precedent over religious liberty.

Concerning Republicans: The Republican Party has usually been the political party which Bible-believing Christians could depend on to generally support traditional moral beliefs. Although less true today than in the past, it is still true. Those who are upset with Republicans for capitulation on sexual/gender issues do not have any other viable political party to support. Third party candidates will not win. Don’t forget the large number of federal judges that the Trump administration and Republican-controlled Senate have confirmed. The danger is that Christians will be so upset with Republicans and President Trump that they will not vote and Joe Biden (and his very important/influential Vice President) gets elected, putting people in office who are much worse than Trump and most Democrats.

[WallyMorris] Concerning Republicans: The Republican Party has usually been the political party which Bible-believing Christians could depend on to generally support traditional moral beliefs. Although less true today than in the past, it is still true. Those who are upset with Republicans for capitulation on sexual/gender issues do not have any other viable political party to support. Third party candidates will not win. Don’t forget the large number of federal judges that the Trump administration and Republican-controlled Senate have confirmed. The danger is that Christians will be so upset with Republicans and President Trump that they will not vote and Joe Biden (and his very important/influential Vice President) gets elected, putting people in office who are much worse than Trump and most Democrats.

I won’t vote for Trump this November. Conservative Christian voters are viewed similarly to black voters. The republican party knows Christians won’t vote democratic and they rely on scare tactics like the above to keep Christians voting republican. Democrats know blacks won’t vote republican and they rely on scare tactics to keep blacks voting for democrats.

As my friend Flavor Flav says, “Don’t believe the hype!”

The idea that “This world is not our home” doesn’t really help here. We are citizens of this kingdom. It’s a two kingdom kind of world. Being citizens of heaven does not absolve us of responsibility to be good citizens here.

And remember, for all the complaints about Gorsuch and this decision, most judicial decisions are made at lower court levels and Trump has had an apparently good record there. Don’t let the publicity of one decision override the overall good that is done.

We cannot throw a temper tantrum that will lead us into unwise decisions. Withdrawal from society is at least unwise and perhaps even sinful.

[Larry]

The idea that “This world is not our home” doesn’t really help here. We are citizens of this kingdom. It’s a two kingdom kind of world. Being citizens of heaven does not absolve us of responsibility to be good citizens here.

And remember, for all the complaints about Gorsuch and this decision, most judicial decisions are made at lower court levels and Trump has had an apparently good record there. Don’t let the publicity of one decision override the overall good that is done.

We cannot throw a temper tantrum that will lead us into unwise decisions. Withdrawal from society is at least unwise and perhaps even sinful.

This world is not my home allows me to as much as possible lead a quiet and peaceable life with all men regardless of politics. Being a good citizen of America doesn’t require I vote for a republican. A democrat as president will only do what God allows him to do. I’m not worried. Will I have to suffer for my biblical convictions and beliefs in my lifetime? Probably. Guess what, Christians have been doing that for 2,000 years. We American Christians are so spoiled and soft.

If by withdrawal from society you mean being cloistered, I agree. If by withdrawal from society you mean not being an active republican voter, I disagree.