The United States Supreme Court killed our beloved constitution, which protected our inalienable rights. This death of our constitution was aided and abetted by a Congress that no longer legislates for fear of the political accountability that comes with a recorded vote.




Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination "because of... sex" within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42U.S.C. § 2000e-2.

This landmark case goes far beyond merely protecting LGBTQ+ individuals from workplace discrimination; it redefines what sex means in legislation to include sexual orientation and gender identity. In essence, nine unelected jurists took it upon themselves to legislate from the bench to re-write a portion of the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964. To create an entirely new class of individuals who can bring time-consuming and costly legal actions against corporations, churches, and other individuals who hire and manage employees.

Indeed, if Congress wanted to modify or extend existing legislation, it would have been a rather simple matter to introduce a bill amending the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and following the ordinary course of legislative action. But they are cowards who refuse to stand up and represent their constituents. It is not that they do not care about the LGBTQ+ community, but are afraid of a recorded vote and the possibility of losing their position, perks, privileges, prestige, and profits.

What is surprising is that the majority decision was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, both widely assumed to be constitutional conservatives, and the four liberal justices to form a 6-3 majority. One dissent was written by constitutional conservatives Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing a separate dissent.

How can there be equal justice under the law for all Americans in the workplace if some individuals are given a protected status to claim special privileges in a wrongful termination lawsuit or if they were not hired in the first place?

This is not the end of the matter; there will be unintended consequences and numerous lawsuits brought to explicitly add sexual orientation and gender identity to a variety of pre-existing laws, especially those areas not covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Bottom line…

My objections to the decision have nothing to do with the LGBTQ+ community because I believe they were already covered under the equal protection clause. I object to the progressive socialist democrats who seek to create divisions in our nation with their class warfare and identity politics. I object to the third-party advocates who owe their political power and profits to their continued disruption of the constantly evolving improvement of our nation.

It has everything to do with the separation of powers between the legislative branch and the judicial branch and their proper constitutional roles.

It has everything to do with Freedom: Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Association, and property rights because I believe you should be allowed to use your private property in any manner you so choose and to hire employees that benefit your business and fire those who detract from your business. If Nuns do not want to pay for abortions, so be it – let the individual seek employment elsewhere. If someone comes to work and presents an image contrary to the wishes of management, let them find employment elsewhere.

I believe that the sexes are, in many ways, different. We should not disadvantage female athletes by allowing biological males to compete unless it is a sex-neutral event such as archery, shooting, etc. We should not make individuals uncomfortable in private spaces such as showers and bathrooms. If you want, build unisex bathrooms with individual privacy accommodations.

But, most of all, I object to the cowardice of Congress who refuses to tackle the problematic issues of our times and outsources the finer points of creating legislation to the Executive or Judicial branch of government. All to avoid a vote that might be unpopular with a segment of the constituency that is likely to hold the legislator accountable in the next election. Which is how it is supposed to work.

We are so screwed by those who violate their oath on a daily basis.

-- steve

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell