Federal law distinguishes the two. In the end, the employers are left to retreat beyond the statute’s text, where they fault us for ignoring the legislature’s purposes in enacting Title VII or certain expectations about its operation. Then try writing out instructions for who should check the box without using the words man, woman, or sex (or some synonym). The document that the Court releases is in the form of a judicial opinion interpreting a statute, but that is deceptive.It is easy to utter such words. Political groups distinguish the two. And because that jobseeker would be refused too, this must not be sex discrimination.Exactly right and exactly on point in this case.Because the opinion of the Court flies a textualist flag, I have taken pains to show that it cannot be defended on textualist grounds. No one should think that the Court’s decision represents an unalloyed victory for individual liberty.Thus, when textualism is properly understood, it calls for an examination of the social context in which a statute was enacted because this may have an important bearing on what its words were understood to mean at the time of enactment. 1) (1933) (“Either of the two divisions of organic beings distinguished as male and female respectively”).2. However framed, the employer’s logic impermissibly seeks to displace the plain meaning of the law in favor of something lying beyond it.But how these doctrines protecting religious liberty interact with Title VII are questions for future cases too.
When the people can no longer respect the law — can no longer predict or understand the law — the regime cannot survive.Under the Court’s decision…transgender persons will be able to argue that they are entitled to use a bathroom or locker room that is reserved for persons of the sex with which they identify, and while the Court does not define what it means by a transgender person, the term may apply to individuals who are “gender fluid,” that is, individuals whose gender identity is mixed or changes over time. State law distinguishes the two. If the employer refuses to hire anyone who checks that box, would we conclude the employer has complied with Title VII, so long as it studiously avoids learning any particular applicant’s race or religion? And how can he dodge Alito’s scathing criticism? "Gorsuch took direct aim at those arguments in his opinion, rejecting concern about "social upheaval." Citizens and legislators must be able to ascertain the law by reading the words of the statute. How specifically or generally should we frame the “application” at issue? & G.R. Consider an employer eager to revive the workplace gender roles of the 1950s. Even in this example, the individual applicant’s sex still weighs as a factor in the employer’s decision. '"Before the decision, LGBT job discrimination was still technically legal in much of the nation. Ann. In 1964, discrimination meant “treating [an] individual worse than others who are similarly situated,” Gorsuch explains.Now comes the most important five words: “because of such individual’s . By intentionally setting out a rule that makes hiring turn on sex, the employer violates the law, whatever he might know or not know about individual applicants. They warn, too, about consequences that might follow a ruling for the employees.