America, now gender dictates the law


To ban discrimination against LGBT workers, the Supreme Court rewrites the legal meaning of “sex”. That’s why it will be chaos

What does protection from unjust discrimination have to do with the redefinition of human nature and its consequences? The president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the United States, Archbishop José H. Gomez of Los Angeles asked it, declaring himself “deeply concerned that the United States Supreme Court has actually redefined the legal meaning of” sex “in the our nation’s civil rights law. This is an injustice that will have implications in many areas of life. ”


America is in chaos and chaos will increase: the demonstrators of New York, Hollywood, Chicago, San Antonio and Boston – who had marched last Sunday for the rights of the trangenders, in particular of the transgender women – had not yet dispersed black, against all forms of “racism, sexism, homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and uncontrolled access to the weapons they conspire to deprive them of work, housing, health care” – when the sentence was issued. “An employer who fires a person because he is homosexual or transgender violates the law” proclaimed Neil Gorsuch, extensor of the majority opinion, judge who will go down in history for having delivered, against all easy predictions, a colossal victory to the world Lgbtq . With a robust majority of six senior judges against three, the Court decided that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the federal law that today prohibits any discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or nationality, it should also be applied to a person’s orientation and gender identity.


Three cases are under consideration: that of a skydiving instructor fired in 2010 after revealing to a client that he is gay, that of a childcare assistant fired in 2013 after joining a gay softball league, that of an employee of a funeral home fired in 2013 after communicating to colleagues that he would undergo such a reassignment. Different cases, however, united by the loss of the job decided due to the homosexuality or gender transition of the protagonists and in which “sex plays a necessary and impossible role to mask in the decision”.


Much has been debated on the decision of Gorsuch, a judge appointed by Trump and a textual school, sided with the liberal togates with which the President of the Court John Roberts has joined, much on Trump’s applause for “his” conservative majority ruling. However, the confusion about the consequences of the decision remains very great, given the high amount of cases brought to courts of every order and degree concerning the clash between freedom of expression and precepts of non-discrimination. If juridically the sentence plays a specific and well-defined method role in the American federal system, many consequences arise on the social level: bathrooms, changing rooms, sports, pronouns, lessons on gender, from the protection of individual rights in the workplace to the implications in every public and private sphere on the right of criticism and expression the step, for many, will be short.


That civil rights legislation conflicts with freedom of expression is nothing new, according to Gorsuch, however, in the three cases referred to by the Court on 15 June, the application of Title VII would not have violated, for example, any religious freedom , and the possibility that “employers involved in other cases may raise free exercise topics that deserve careful consideration” remains open. Judge Samuel Alito, for whom the ruling on transgenderism is equivalent to a real judicial “legislation” that “may have effects that go far beyond the domain of the federal anti-discrimination statutes”, will “completely threaten the freedom of religion”. , freedom of speech, privacy and personal security ». “Transgender people will be able to claim that they have the right to use a bathroom or a changing room reserved for the people they identify with”, or join sports teams similarly separated from sex, gender reassignment surgery may be covered by a health insurance, teachers may be required to change the pronouns with which they refer to students and religious entities may be forced “to employ individuals whose conduct violates the organization’s principles of faith,” he explained.


Many Catholic and Protestant jurists and scholars agree with Alito, fearing “seismic implications” that will trigger a serious infinite of legal actions against institutes and religious organizations or workers of opinions not aligned on gender and, it goes without saying, branded as dangerous homophobes that would contribute to feed a hostile or threatening climate in the workplace. Who would want to hire them? Cases of pastry chefs or florists or business owners who in the name of their beliefs have refused to lend their work to gay wedding banquets or transitional parties (and ended up defending themselves before the judges) are not lacking, there are also cases such as those of the chief of the Atlanta firefighters, Kelvin Cochran, fired after writing a personal book that defended the Church’s positions on sex.


It is easy, in an America capable of banning non-aligned lay universities or gender critics, feminists or university professors, to think that the protections of the first amendment or the rules on religious freedom can become the subject of new and numerous judicial disputes. Over 100 federal laws prohibit sexual discrimination today, how will they be used now? Can the overwhelming victories of transgenders in women’s sports competitions no longer be questioned? Institutes, companies, sports clubs will have to resign themselves to the adoption of gender neural baths? And what will happen in schools? Really the price for anyone to feel discriminated against is the review by law of what is sex and human nature?

Photo Ansa

Source link


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here