USCCB concerned by Supreme Court ruling on sex discrimination
The President of the USCCB has issued a statement on the decision of the United States Supreme Court concerning the legal definition of “sex discrimination” in civil rights law.
By Vatican News
Archbishop José Gomez of Los Angeles, the President of the USCCB, has said he is “deeply concerned that the U.S. Supreme Court has effectively redefined the legal meaning of ‘sex’ in our nation’s civil rights law.” He described the Court’s action as “an injustice that will have implications in many areas of life.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling
In a ruling issued on Tuesday, the Supreme Court held that an employer who fires an individual merely for being homosexual or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That statute prohibits employment discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex, and national origin. The judgment concerned three cases: two dealing with “sexual orientation” and one with “gender identity”.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion of the court, ruling that an employer who fires someone “for being homosexual or transgender” is discriminating against them “in part because of the applicant’s sex” and thus constituted discrimination based on sex.
The meaning of “sex” discrimination
Various religious organizations, including the USCCB, had argued that the term “sex” as used in Title VII does not include “sexual orientation” and does not mean “gender identity.”
In amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefs filed before the Supreme Court, the USCCB noted that the various cases involved “values of particular importance,” including “protection of the religious freedom and other rights of faith-based organizations and their adherents, and the proper development of the nation’s jurisprudence on these issues.”
God’s plan for creation
In his statement following Tuesday’s ruling, Archbishop Gomez recalled that “Every human person is made in the image and likeness of God and, without exception, must be treated with dignity, compassion, and respect.” However, he continued, “Protecting our neighbours from unjust discrimination does not require redefining human nature.”
The USCCB President focused on “God’s plan for creation and for our lives,” which includes “the beautiful differences and complementary relationship between man and woman.” He explained, “As Pope Francis has taught with such sensitivity, to live in the truth with God’s intended gifts in our lives requires that we receive our bodily and sexual identity with gratitude from our Creator.”
He concluded his statement with the prayer that the Church “will be able to continue her mission to bring Jesus Christ to every man and woman.”
11 comments:
Cry me a river, USCCB. You built that! The irony of the ruling is that in 1964 when the Civil Rights legislation was passed, homosexual acts were oftentimes criminal in most states. So I seriously doubt that CONgress intended to protect this conduct.
TJM, you just need to catch up with the times. The Constitution is a "living, breathing document" which "evolves" with the times! Come on...where have you been?
Seriously...like I have said, it just goes to show, liberal-appointed justices to the Supreme Court are always reliable votes on social issues. Abortion restrictions? I challenge anyone to find a single abortion ruling where the 4 liberals disagreed with each other. Just one. Uno? Solid as a rock. And what have we gotten with Republican appointees?
The author of the infamous, composed out of thin air Roe v Wade decision, Harry Blackmun, was appointed by Richard Nixon.
In 1992, a Republican-majority appointed Supreme Court reaffirmed Roe v Wade. The Republicans who saved Roe? Kennedy, O'Connor and Souter.
Some years ago---maybe around 2003---the Supreme Court overturned sodomy laws? Care to guess which party had the majority of appointees back then?
A few years ago, we got same-sex "marriage". Republican-majority court. And who was the swing vote? Republican appointee Anthony Kennedy.
Now we get yesterday's decision---again, majority Republican court.
And all this means Roe is unlikely ever to be reversed---although to be honest, even if I am wrong about that, it would probably remain legal in many states thru the political process---think like the entire Northeast (except maybe Pennsylvania), California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Alaska. Unfortunately, the cat is out of the bag...
And I wonder, what happens when a Catholic school fires a gay teacher who is in a same-sex relationship? What now under this ruling?
Bee here:
Ah, and now the USCCB discovers just what useful idiots they actually are. I doubt they will break with their masters though, because that's where the money comes from. So guess who is going to have to change? Why, it's the pew sitters! They must be the ones who are wrong and need to understand the new spin on the gospel, the poor ignorant backward neanderthals they are. Such dolts. Not like the modern progressive types who can see the huge loopholes, er, I mean enlightened viewpoints in God's Word. It's all how you interpret it, you see.
God bless,
Bee
Anon at 12:30,
The only way to fix the problem is to have Catholic schools fully staffed by Religious Sisters, and to have the parents of non-Catholic students sign a form consenting to having traditional Catholic values taught in the classroom.
There were some hard fought battles for equality for women and minority races to be equal before the law and show that genetics could not be used to descriminate.
That just went in the toilet with this ruling, equating a desire to be of a sex no different than actually being that sex.
This also means those of us yearning to be another race need only claim it as our own, and it is done. My advice is to claim whichever is getting the most free stuff. That seems to be how this game is played.
Just another press release by corporate PR saying what expected, while a huge swath of their membership actually quite pleased with the decision, and am suprised they issued a statement even that strong.
Just over a year ago the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education issued a 31-page document 'Male and Female He Created Them', which is the most detailed condemnation of 'gender theory' to have emerged so far. 'America' magazine sought to downplay it as merely a basis for discussion and suggested Pope Francis was unaware of its contents and might not have agreed with them. The NCR was strongly disapproving. James Martin and other pro-LGBT activists were dismayed, not least because it was released in 'pride month'. The NYT covered it in some detail, as did the Tablet (which took a more balanced view - is the Pill becoming less bitter of late?)
Actually, PF has condemned 'gender theory' on several occasions, describing it as 'evil'. That he talks about 'accompaniment' of 'transgender' people does not, as the media suppose, imply any inconsistency. Bishops in the countries most infected by the craziness of 'gender politics' need to send a clear message. In this case Catholic moral teaching coincides with what most sensible people think, so why not take advantage of a favourable situation?
You may in conscience object to how someone expresses their sexuality or gender orientation but is it right that you can legally discriminate against them in the area of employment.... Answer: No, I can’t see how that could be justified!
If their lifestyle goes against Catholic teaching the Church should have the legal right not to hire.
Anon 7:32 - the Church in America does have that right and this ruling does not change that as there is a specific exemption for church ministers, military services and other specific areas.
So assuming that your concern about the impact upon churches has now been clarified as unfounded, you no longer object to the Supreme Court ruling? Catholic teaching in this area is quite clear that there should be no unjust discrimination.
UK-Priest
At the risk of sounding pedantic, discrimination by its nature cannot be just or fair. One person gets the job, the other does not. However, the grounds for discrimination have to be lawful.
Post a Comment