|
|
|
|
|
|
by lwheelock
2197 days ago
|
|
|
I take their meaning as; The court’s role is to interpret the law in letter and spirit at the time at which it was enacted. It is not to invent legality or update definitions with modern social norms. The argument in dissent is that none of the members of either house or senate intended “sex” to include orientation or identity in 1964. Despite society having a different opinion on that today, redefining “sex” is not the courts prerogative. |
|
|
I read the court's decision and the test they applied was "if this person's sex was the opposite would they not have been fired ? ". In both the cases of orientation and identity, the answer is a resounding yes. If someone that was gay was female, they wouldn't have been fired, same for a lesbian if she were a man. Also same for transgenders, if their sex was reversed, they would keep the job. I don't see how this is redefining "sex". The decision does not say that sex includes orientation or identity like you claim.