Sacramento, California (June 15, 2020) -- In response to today's opinion by the U.S. Supreme Court that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act somehow says homosexuality and transgenderism, Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, a leading pro-child, pro-family organization, has issued the following statement: 

 

"The context and legislative history of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is abundantly clear that the word 'sex' is the immutable characteristic of being either male or female. This was clearly understood by previous high courts and even by congressional Democrats who are currently trying to insert 'sexual orientation' and 'gender identity' into the Act. No one should be fooled -- this is legislating from the bench, which violates the Separation of Powers doctrine required in our U.S. Constitution.

"Gorsuch and Roberts have betrayed our written Constitution by redefining 'sex' the way they want to, instead of how the text and legislative history say it's defined. These Republican judges should be ashamed that they joined all four Democrat judges and legislated from the bench, trampling the context, intent, and logic of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and throwing the long-established civil-right standard of 'immutable characteristics' under the bus. Now any behavior can be a 'civil right,' with all the power of the federal government behind it to punish anyone who disagrees. 

"This is a severe attack on religious freedom and private property rights. How dare these judges selfishly impose their own values on the rest of America. They lied when they pledged to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States' and to 'faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me ... under the Constitution and laws of the United States.' These self-centered, revisionist judges didn't uphold the written law -- they made themselves the law."

BACKGROUND:

Throughout Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, an individual's unchangeable, immutable characteristic of "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin" is afforded the highest legal scrutiny; with the exception of religion, changeable attributes and behaviors cannot achieve this status.

Previous Supreme Court decisions, such as Frontiero v. Richardson (1973), Plyler v. Do (1982), Lyng v. Castillo (1986), and Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004), fully recognized and abided by the immutability standard, acknowledging that only characteristics that are impossible to change can be considered for civil-rights status. 

Even honest court-watchers who support inclusion of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" are criticizing this awful opinion.

 

There are tens of thousands of former homosexuals and former transsexuals, and no biological basis for homosexuality, bisexuality, or transsexuality. Therefore, "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" cannot qualify for civil-rights status, which requires immutable characteristics.