Mere moments after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision forbidding anti-LGBTQ workplace discrimination, right-wing pundits began freaking out about how the ruling “redefined sex” and would essentially force Christians to treat LGBTQ people equally.
Here’s just a sampling of the right-wing meltdowns.
Get the Daily Brief
The news you care about, reported on by the people who care about you:
The far-right Christian site LifeSiteNews wrote:
“Conservatives warn that today’s ruling will not merely protect homosexual or gender-confused Americans from tangible harm. Rather, it will require churches to recognize same-sex “marriages”; force photographers, florists, and bakers to participate in same-sex “weddings”; compel employers to fund drugs and surgeries to help people imitate members of the opposite sex; and make women and girls to share sleeping quarters, showers, changing areas, and restrooms with gender-confused males (or men simply claiming trans status to get close to vulnerable women).”
None of those issues are mentioned in the ruling and existing law and previous rulings would say the opposite.
Tony Perkins, president of the SLPC-certified hate group, the Family Research Council wrote, “Allowing judges to rewrite the Civil Rights Act to add gender identity and sexual orientation as protected classes poses a grave threat to religious liberty. We’ve already witnessed in recent years how courts have used the redefinition of words as a battering ram to crush faith-based businesses and organizations.”
The right-wing site PJmedia ran the headline, “Supreme Court Redefines ‘Sex’ in Federal Law in Orwellian Ruling” writing that the court, “unilaterally redefined ‘sex’ in federal law to mean ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity.'”
“The ruling represents an utter rejection of the original meaning of the term ‘sex’ in federal law, twisting it to mean something Congress cannot have intended in 1964,” PJMedia proclaimed. “This involves rejecting the Bible’s clear condemnation of homosexual activity as sinful and its clear statement that God made humans male and female.”
John Bursch, Vice President of Appellate Advocacy at the anti-LGBTQ legal hate group Alliance Defending Freedom, wrote:
Redefining ‘sex’ to mean ‘gender identity’ will create chaos and enormous unfairness for women and girls in athletics, women’s shelters, and many other contexts. Civil rights laws that use the word ‘sex’ were put in place to protect equal opportunities for women. Allowing a court or government bureaucrats to redefine a term with such a clear and important meaning undermines those very opportunities—the ones the law was designed to protect.
Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the opinion, went out of his way to note that the judges were not “redefining” anything, but, instead, relied on the plain meaning of the law’s text as written.
The conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch called the ruling “an abuse of power by legislating from the bench…. [which] short-circuited the democratic process and rewrote the law without a vote of Congress but by a vote of six unelected judges…. Today’s radical Supreme Court decision shows that the threat to the rule of law doesn’t only come from leftist rioters in the streets, but also from judicial activists on the bench.
The group neglected to mention that two Republican-appointed Justices cast the deciding votes in today’s landmark court decision.
In a statement, the Judicial Crisis Network (JCN) wrote, “This was not judging, this was legislating — a brute force attack on our constitutional system.”
The JCN said the Supreme Court should have allowed “the people to decide the issue through their elected representatives,” but instead “six judges acting as advocates opted to rewrite the statute themselves, short-circuiting the legislative process and in the process denying the people a decision that should be theirs to make on a major issue… an ominous sign for anyone concerned about the future of representative democracy.”
Yes, whenever the U.S. Supreme Court tells citizens they must follow a national civil rights law written by their elected representatives in 1964, that’s apparently an ominous sign for representative democracy.