For Immediate Release: June 15, 2020
Contact: Diane Gramley 1.814.271.9078
US Supreme Court Wrong in Allowing Men in Women’s Bathrooms
(Harrisburg) – Today a majority of the US Supreme Court proved once again they do not know their proper role of interpreting law and have instead acted as lawmakers. A 6-3 majority changed the meaning of the word “sex” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity.’ The American Family Association of Pennsylvania (AFA of PA), a statewide advocacy group, condemns this judicial activism and questions why we fought so hard for Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation, one of the six judicial activists.
“Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on any of five specified grounds: ‘race, color, religion, sex, national origin.’ In 1964 everyone knew, as anyone with any common sense today knows, there are only two sexes — male and female and a Supreme Court decision will never change that. In 1964 the supporters of Title VII never intended for sexual orientation and gender identity — both relatively new terms — to be included. These six are not lawmakers, yet they have taken on that role. They have unconstitutionally redefined the language of a decades old law,” reacted Diane Gramley, president of the AFA of PA.
The role of Congress is to change law and recent attempts to add ‘sexual orientation and gender identity’ to the 1964 Civil Rights Act of 1964 have failed — reflecting the views of the majority of Americans that they represent. Members of the US Supreme Court are not accountable to the voters, so are unscathed by their outrageous decision.
The Supreme Court does not address the far-reaching implications of this ruling — male employees who consider themselves women using the women’s bathroom and shower facilities in workplace settings, the destruction of all business dress codes requiring men to dress as men, the trashing of the rights of religious organizations to only hire those who adhere to the Biblical view of male and female, only name a few problems created by this outrageous ruling.
“Justice Antonin Scalia’s replacement, Neil Gorsuch, was defended by conservatives because of his promise of adhering to the original text — the original meaning of the writers — he has not done that, but instead hijacked and redefined the very words written in 1964. He is not what he promised to be!” further commented Gramley.
# # #