The bishops of the United States have urged the Supreme Court not to “redefine a fundamental element of humanity” by reinterpreting sex discrimination laws.
The bishops’ intervention came as the court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a trio of cases that could decide whether or not federal workplace nondiscrimination law extend to protect sexual orientation or gender identity.
Two of the cases presented on Oct 8— Bostock v. Clayton County, Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda—involve employees who were fired because of their sexual orientation. A third, Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. EEOC, involves a man who lost his job after announcing his intention to undergo so-called gender transition surgery.
Leading U.S. bishops urged the court not to redefine “sex” to mean “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.”
In a joint statement issued on Tuesday, Bishop Robert McManus, of Worcester, who chairs the USCCB’s Religious Liberty committee, Bishop Frank Dewane, of Venice, chairman of the Domestic Justice and Human Development committee, and Bishop James Conley, of Lincoln, who chairs the Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, said that the law must be interpreted in line with the meaning of the text.
“Words matter,” the bishops said. “‘Sex’ should not be redefined to include sexual inclinations or conduct, nor to promulgate the view that sexual identity is solely a social construct rather than a natural or biological fact.”
“Title VII helps ensure the dignified treatment of all persons, and we as Catholics both share and work toward that goal,” the bishops wrote.
“Redefining ‘sex’ in law would not only be an interpretive leap away from the language and intent of Title VII, it would attempt to redefine a fundamental element of humanity that is the basis of the family, and would threaten religious liberty.”
Franciscan University of Steubenville president Fr. Dave Pivonka, TOR, also stated in an amicus brief submitted to the Court in the Harris case that, if the Court defined “sex” to mean “gender identity,” then that could open the door to the school being forced to change its sex-specific dorms, bathrooms, and locker rooms, and its medical personnel having to perform objectionable medical procedures.
Full story at Catholic News Agency.
So proud of our bishops on this one.
When was this photo taken? There are only eight chairs. Has there been a major change at the Court?
Bishops might want to be careful using the word “redefine”. The last time they said people were “redefining” marriage, they lost big time, even among their own people. Nobody is going to believe that the court is now being asked to “redefine” sex, and they really aren’t. All the people they are asking is whether gay and bisexual and transgender people are entitled to the same protections from discrimination on the basis of sex as everyone else. The Civil Rights Acts did not exclude these people from protection, therefore they are presumed to be included. Nobody is redefining anything, except the Bishops who want to say that Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts include only some people, not all the people. Kind of seems like the definition of discrimination to me!
As usual you are wrong about everything.
So YFC, should the Church now bow down the LGBT thugs…. you can both ways YFC you are support LGBT rights or you support Church teaching.. One or the Other not both… no nuance please just yes or no.. on the Church
Bohemond, I support LGBT people AND i support the Church. Thanks for asking!
You cannot do both YFC.. doesn’t work that way…. you cannot support false gay marriage and pretend to be a Catholic. What you want YFC is the Church to change it teaching so you can succumb to your sin and have your conscience appeased. There is no social progress outside the moral order….
Dear Torquemada: Who says I cannot do both? You? Are you now the center of knowledge and discpline for the Roman Catholic Church? By even asking the question in the manner you do, you set yourself up as the Grand Inquisitor. Not a pretty place to be!
These people with messed up sexual identities are mentally defective and need therapy and religious conversion. They don’t need a court ruling that you seem to think will make them ok.
You are not their doctor. How do you know what they need?
The bishops of the United States have urged the Supreme Court not to “redefine a fundamental element of humanity” by reinterpreting sex discrimination laws.
The Bishops (it’s about time) are absolutely right on this. Look what happened when they “redefined” traditional marriage by violating the Natural Law which brought only chaos, with infiltration of the radical homosexual agenda and assaults on our religious liberty. The so-called argument about “discrimination” is nonsense. People with a sexual disorder need our sympathy and compassion but not by condoning their confusion and promoting this disorder. Allowing more confusion and their radical agenda of propagandizing our children into this sickness is more urgent now, and I pray the Supremes do not destroy this opportunity to stay this destruction on our country. People better start praying that God will touch the hearts of those justices and uphold sanity.
YFC error has no rights…..
YFC error has no rights
What about the bishops obeying God the Father who created only man and woman!
Who the heck are they committed to, God or Satan.
The laws should apply equally to ALL people..not just a select few. Some people are “kooky” with regards to sexuality (including many religious people), however, the laws must protect everyone regardless of their race, creed, color, etc. Imagine if someone proposed a law that only Protestant Christians were afforded the rights under our laws because Catholics were assumed to be loyal to the Pope instead of the Constitution? How would Catholics feel?
YFC, wrong again.
As far as I know, there is no indication in the Congressional Record that any of the congressmen and senators who voted on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had in mind the current craziness of publicly-celebrated perverted sexual practices and the transgender madness. There is no way the bill would have passed Congress in the mid-60s if it was thought such evil things would have been promoted by the legislation; our culture had not yet reach the current depravity. Judges arbitrarily changing the meaning of “sex” in the statute fifty years later is definitely a redefinition.
The proper constitutional way to amend the legislation is through the Congress. It is ridiculous that the courts have made themselves a second, superior legislative branch.
I’m sorry, where does perversion even enter into this discussion? The question the Court is being asked is whether the law prohibiting sex discrimination applies to all of the people or only some of the people. Since the law doesn’t exclude any people from protection against sex discrimination, we must conclude it intended to protect ALL of the people.
YFC, do you believe in hell? Do you believe that those who commit mortal sin and do not confess it, go there?
yes, i do. Are you a member of Westboro Baptist Church, by any chance?
The dismissive response of a leftist who cannot stand the fact he has been called out…..
For at least 150 years, Catholic social teaching encourages us to dignify labor and the laborer. The Catechism reflects constant Church teaching that LGBT people are to be treated with dignity and respect. In addition, it admonishes all people that LGBT people should never be subjected to discrimination. In what world can faithful Catholics pretend that to withhold the dignity of work from LGBT people is part of Church teaching?
When were Rerum Novorum and the Catechism repealed? I must have missed that.