The LGBTQ community received an astounding victory Monday. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 known as Title VII that bars job discrimination because of sex, among other reasons, also protects from bias against LGBTQ workers.

LGBTQ workers were worried with a conservative court that the ruling might go against them. However, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch joined conservative Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in supporting the decision.

Keenan Betz: 409-683-5237, or on Twitter @surebetkeenan

Recommended for you

(7) comments

Bailey Jones

If the goal is to gauge how players respond to uncomfortable situations, instead of "are you gay" how about, "have you ever been accused of rape"?

Carlos Ponce

Instead how about "Can you keep your personal politics and orientations off the field and sidelines during the game?" That's what they required of Tim Tebow, wasn't it?

David Hardee

When you require court decisions to get societal special considerations and want to be carver out for special treatment in sports (tans-sexuals) all the LGBTQ etcs should take pride in exceptional questions. That would be GAY PRIDE personafied. tyto

Carlos Ponce

" In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 known as Title VII that bars job discrimination because of sex, among other reasons, also protects from bias against LGBTQ workers."

In Bostock v Clayton County we read:"The parties concede that the term 'sex' in 1964 referred to the biological distinctions between male and female."

In his dissenting opinion Justice Alito states, "Title VII, as noted, prohibits discrimination “because of . . . sex,” §2000e–2(a)(1), and in 1964, it was as clear as clear could be that this meant discrimination because of the genetic and anatomical characteristics that men and women have at the time of birth. Determined searching has not found a single dictionary from that time that defined “sex” to mean sexual orientation, gender identity, or “transgender status.”6 Ante, at 2. (Appendix A, infra, to this opinion includes the full definitions of “sex” in the unabridged dictionaries in use in the 1960s.) In all those dictionaries, the primary definition of 'sex' was essentially the same as that in the then-most recent edition of Webster’s New International Dictionary 2296 (def. 1) (2d ed. 1953): “[o]ne of the two divisions of organisms formed on the distinction of male and female.' See also American Heritage Dictionary 1187 (def. 1(a)) (1969) ('The property or quality by which organisms are classified according to their reproductive functions”); Random House Dictionary of the English Language 1307 (def. 1) (1966) (Random House Dictionary) (“the fact or character of being either male or female'); 9 Oxford English Dictionary 577(def. 1) (1933) (“Either of the two divisions of organic beings distinguished as male and female respectively”). The Court does not dispute that this is what “sex” means in Title VII, although it coyly suggests that there is at least some support for a different and potentially relevant definition. Ante, at 5. (I address alternative definitions below. See Part I–B–3, infra.) But the Court declines to stand on that ground and instead “proceed[s] on the assumption that ‘sex’ . . . refer[s] only to biological distinctions between male and female.” Ante, at 5. If that is so, it should be perfectly clear that Title VII does not reach discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity. If “sex” in Title VII means biologically male or female, then discrimination because of sex means discrimination because the person in question is biologically male or biologically female, not because that person is sexually attracted to members of the same sex or identifies as a member of a particular gender.How then does the Court claim to avoid that conclusion?"

"The Court’s argument is not only arrogant, it is wrong. It fails on its own terms. 'Sex,' 'sexual orientation,'and 'gender identity' are different concepts, as the Court concedes. "

Charles Douglas

Mr. Beltz the author of this Op-ed, acts like somebody died here. If the organization apologized to the offended party, then let it go! "Pobody Is Nerfect!" People make mistakes! Making mistakes are baked into being human! This is What's wrong with this swine pit world we live in, everybody wants you to be perfect in an imperfect society!

Charles Douglas

See! I just made one! I got Mr. BETZ'S name wrong, my apologies. Will there be a firing squad set up? Lololo

PD Hyatt

Wow, no matter where we go or what we are doing perversion has to be brought up in the conversation.... God created male and female, He did not create non-binary, or trans or men who love men.... In fact if you were to read His word you might find out what He says about all of this....

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.