Connect with Point of View   to get exclusive commentary and updates

Family Leaders Discuss Supreme Court Ruling

texas values logo

Reaction to the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v Clayton County Georgia has been swift and resounding from all corners of the pro-family, conservative sphere. The egregious ruling redefined the meaning of “sex” in the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include “sexual orientation and gender identity.” The implications of this for religious freedom could be far reaching.

View below a video of Texas Values team members discussing the ruling and how we can respond.

The following are quotes from conservative scholars, commentators, and elected officials:

Texas Values President and Attorney Jonathan Saenz said“The Court’s ruling redefining “sex” to mean “gender identity” or “sexual orientation” creates chaos. This type of rewrite of the 1964 Civil Rights Act has been repeatedly rejected by Congress and the Texas Legislature. This judicial overreach will be devastating for America; including healthcare – such as forcing employers to pay for sex change operations, issues of free speech – punishing people for the use of the wrong pronoun, a loss for amateur and professional women in sports; and finally, this ruling could jeopardize longstanding religious liberty protections for churches and religious nonprofits. Elected officials must respond and correct this political power grab by the unelected judiciary immediately.”

Senator Josh Hawley from Missouri said “The bargain which religious conservatives have been offered is not tenable. So I would just say it’s not time for religious conservatives to shut up. We’ve done that for too long. No, it’s time for religious conservatives to stand up and to speak out.”

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins released the following statement: “The core issue before the Court in this case was whether it is within the legitimate power of judges to suddenly redefine the meaning of words and rewrite a 55-year-old statute. Sadly, the Court answered in the affirmative. 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.”

Peter Sprigg, FRC’s Senior Fellow for Policy Studies, said: “We are disappointed the Supreme Court chose to radically re-write the statute by expanding its meaning to cover ‘gender identity’ and ‘sexual orientation.’ The failure of LGBT activists to achieve their goals through the democratic process is no excuse to simply bypass that process and obtain their goal by judicial fiat instead.”

Ryan T. Anderson, William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow in American Principles & Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation said “In fact, Congress has repeatedly rejected legislation that would have added sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes in federal law. The Supreme Court has simply legislated from the bench. This is pure judicial activism.”

Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented Harris Funeral Home in one of the cases before the Supreme Court said “The Court has delivered a truly troubling decision: Unelected officials and courts can effectively rewrite laws—forcing Americans to guess what the law means—including something as fundamental as the meaning of “sex.”

Joy Pullman, executive editor of The Federalist said “The ruling will lead to a tsunami of polarizing court cases and further degradation of Americans’ natural rights to free speech, to free association, and to worshipping God as their consciences require. All this in the name of “equality,” a word that has become a totalitarian weapon.

Hans von Spakovsky, a Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation with Ryan Anderson wrote in The Daily Signal: “In their dissents, Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh got it right, and the majority got it wrong. The word “sex”— still today as when Congress passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964—refers to our biological reality as male or female. It doesn’t refer to our sexual orientations or malleable gender identities as some see it.”

Franklin Graham, CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and of Samaritan’s Purse, said “I believe this decision erodes religious freedoms across this country. People of sincere faith who stand on God’s Word as their foundation for life should never be forced by the government to compromise their religious beliefs. Christian organizations should never be forced to hire people who do not align with their biblical beliefs and should not be prevented from terminating a person whose lifestyle and beliefs undermine the ministry’s purpose and goals.”

To see this article and the video, click read more.

Read More

Source: VIDEO: Texas Values Discusses SCOTUS Ruling & Reaction from Pro-Family Leaders | Texas ValuesTexas Values

Viewpoints Sign-Up

Flattening the Curve

Flattening the Curve