There is considerable conversation, on all sides of the issue, surrounding a 6-3 supreme court decision today recognizing “gay” and/or “transgender” persons as being protected by the 1964 civil rights act under the definition of “sex”. Factually, the decision authored by Judge Gorsuch writes those terms into the legislative definition; that’s a problem.
However, that said, for all practical purposes and intents, sexual orientation has been a protected employment category -as viewed by the Dept. of Labor and EEOC- since the mid-90’s. So some of the over-the-top exclamations, in both directions, are moot amid the world of practical application.

As to the issue of SCOTUS usurping the legislative responsibility for the practical wording of law, yes, this ruling is an issue, and Judge Alito is absolutely correct in all corners of his dissent. Justice Gorsuch has opened a can of worms for downstream consequences unrelated to employment eligibility; and a myriad of potential future cases based on gender orientation are likely to flow to the court; so the big picture is problematic.
All arguments surrounding the issue of SCOTUS writing legislation through the delivery of opinion are merited and worthy. However, on the specific application of ‘gender’ to employment eligibility, today’s ruling was already in place. Amy Howe has a good encapsulation at SCOTUS Blog:
“Today the Supreme Court, by a vote of 6-3, ruled that even if Congress may not have had discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status in mind when it enacted the landmark law over a half century ago, Title VII’s ban on discrimination protects gay, lesbian and transgender employees. Because fewer than half of the 50 states currently ban employment discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation, today’s decision is a major victory for LGBT employees.”
(more…)
Posted in 1st Amendment,
Activist Judges,
Big Government,
Big Stupid Government,
Dept Of Justice,
Gay Issues,
Legislation,
media bias,
Supreme Court,
Uncategorized,
USA