In a brief filed with the Supreme Court this week, the Department of Justice argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should not be applied to those facing discrimination based on their “gender identity.” Lawyers for the DOJ urged the high court to stick to the actual words of the law when ruling in the case of Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and leave it to Congress to change the law if they saw fit. Until then, they argued, there was no legal reason to assume that newfangled concepts like “gender identity” should be considered a protected class.
“Aimee Stephens, a biological man who identifies as a woman, filed a complaint with the EEOC in 2014 for wrongful termination against R.G. and G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, claiming unlawful discrimination based on sexual identity,” reports The Western Journal. “The funeral home dress code has certain requirements in accordance with industry standards for men and women. Nevertheless, the EEOC determined the funeral home discriminated against Stephens by requiring its employee to dress as a man.”
The funeral home is now suing the EEOC based on its contention that their firing of Stephens is allowed under the law and has nothing to do with the Civil Rights Act as it was written.
“In 1964, the ordinary public meaning of ‘sex’ was biological sex,” wrote Solicitor General Noel Francisco. “It did not encompass transgender status, which Stephens and the Sixth Circuit describe as a disconnect between an individual’s biological sex and gender identity. In the particular context of Title VII — legislation originally designed to eliminate employment discrimination against racial and other minorities — it was especially clear that the prohibition on discrimination because of ‘sex’ referred to unequal treatment of men and women in the workplace.”
As unusual as it may be to see the Trump administration actually take a stance against another agency of the Trump administration, you have to remember that this ruling by the EEOC was handed down in 2014, well before Trump came to power. And this administration has been clear-headed in its efforts to erase the unconstitutional, illegal, social justice nonsense that ran rampant during the Obama years. This is another step in that direction.
Not only is it absurd to read the Civil Rights Act as pertaining to an issue that was as underground as transgenderism was in 1967, female groups like the Women’s Liberation Front believe that redefining sex discrimination to include nebulous “gender identity” issues does a disservice to women.
“WoLF’s interest in this case stems from its interest in protecting the safety and privacy of women and girls and preserving women’s sex-based civil rights,” the group wrote in their own amicus brief. “Legally redefining ‘female’ as anyone who claims to be female results in the erasure of female people as a class. If, as a matter of law, anyone can be a woman, then no one is a woman, and sex-based protections in the law have no meaning whatsoever.”
The recognition of transgenderism as a real phenomenon and not simply a mental aberrance is already infecting our laws and our culture. But if we’re going to have a country based on logic and reason, we have to draw a line in the sand. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will see that when they rule on this case.