(from here (

What does a judge do? Well, judges read laws. Supposedly, they try to understand what the writers of a law intended. Then they apply the meaning of a law to an actual situation. Unfortunately, some judges do not have the wisdom to read the law as written. Instead of just applying the meaning of a law as written, some judges “rewrite” a law by changing the meaning of words. What follows is an example of judges changing the meaning of one word, in this case the word “sex”.

Here are some news articles on the big, earthshattering, milestone, landmark case.

The Fox News article summarized the decision this way.

The Civil Rights Act bars employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of race, sex, color, religion or national origin.

“What the court had looked at is whether or not that generic term ‘sex’ — say you hire only men and you won’t hire any female employees. That seems like a pretty clear cut case for people,” Bream explained. “So what we’re asking in 2020 now is the question of whether that word ‘sex’ means LGBTQ employees, whether it specifically extends [to] if you take adverse employment discrimination against someone because they are transitioning, [or] because they are gay.

“In a 6-3 decision authored by one of the newer justices, Neil Gorsuch, he said, ‘Yes, Title VII does apply to those situations.” (from here (

Since dictionaries are “living documents”, I decided to go back to one published 1956, Funk & Wagnalls New Practical Standard Dictionary of the English Language. Here is how Funk & Wagnalls defined “sex”.

sex noun

  1. The biological distinction between male and female; the character of being male or female.
  2. Males or females of a group, collectively; especially men or women.
  3. Women in general; womankind: usually with the definite article, The Sex.

There are two sexes, and we distinguish between the sexes primarily to protect the rights of women from men. What is LGBTQ all about? Well, here is how Merriam-Webster ( defines it LGBTQ.


lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (one’s sexual or gender identity)
//the city’s LGBTQ community
//LGBTQ individuals

Does anyone seriously think that in 1964 Congress intended the 1964 Civil Rights to protect protect gay, lesbian, and transgender employees from discrimination based on sex? What do the categories of gay, lesbian, and transgender have to do with the definition of sex?

What this decision does is conflate the traditional, plain and simple definition sex with the weird and convoluted modern definition of gender ( Therefore, read the definition of gender. Then wonder. How is anyone going to do anything as simple as putting together a girls softball team? Or imagine advertising for a roommate. You want a female roommate? Will it be legal to refuse a guy who calls himself a gal?

Don’t agree? Don’t think this foolish judicial decision will create trouble? Check out SCOTUS’s Transgender Ruling Firebombs The Constitution ( and Supreme Court Validates LGBT Protections On Grounds LGBT Activists Reject ( Because such decisions confuse the meaning of words, they produce confusion and chaos, not clarity.

This entry was posted in Constitutional Government and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Salvageable says:

    Go back and look at some of the editorials and opinion pieces from 1964. Many people feared that passing the Act as written would result in the kind of perverse thinking and actions that are happening today. The majority told those people that they were overreacting, that they were creating a straw man to oppose the legislation for insincere reasons, and that civilization would never allow such perversity to happen. Now we know. J.

  2. sklyjd says:

    I would believe that whatever the gender of a person if they can physically do a job and they are qualified to do so it should not be an issue. If you want a female room mate and a guy turns up with or without his dick still attached you use your own discretion like using an excuse such as another candidate was more far desperate for the room or a friend of a friend has applied etc, just like employers do when they do not want oldies working for them, I have heard all the excuses.

    • Tom Salmon says:


      People cannot be trusted very much. We tend to do whatever we can get away with.
      Take a look at this.

      Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

      Section 1.
      All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

      This is the portion of the Constitution which allows Congress to make laws protecting the Constitutional rights of American citizens from STATE GOVERNMENTS, not private businesses. In the 1960’s the Supreme Court let Congress get away with sticking its nose into private businesses because that is what the self-righteous wanted. Now the self-righteous want to expand the law to the LGBTQ community even though the law clearly doesn’t have anything to do with the LGBTQ agenda. And we are supposed to trust your sense of right and wrong? When you don’t even have the honor to respect the law you want enforced as written?

      All you are doing is using the ends to justify the means, and the end you want is just foolishness. That is the kind of nonsense that throws the baby out with the bathwater.

      Frankly, private businesses have to make a profit. When a private business makes bad decisions about hiring and firing employees, that business loses money. So, the government doesn’t have to do anything.

Comments are closed.