For Immediate Release
Troy, MI (June 30, 2020)
On June 15th 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States decided the case of Bostock v. Clayton County and held that the prohibition of discrimination based on sex contained within Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes a prohibition on discrimination based upon sexual orientation and gender identity. This ruling is problematic from Constitutional, natural law, religious liberty, and public health perspectives.
Jordan Buzza, Director of the Christ Medicus Foundation (CMF) CURO, states, “This decision is troubling because the United States Constitution reserves the ability to pass legislation to the legislature, but here the judiciary exceeded its proper role and usurped that power. Regardless of what one thinks of the outcome, the Supreme Court has violated the doctrine of separation of powers by rewriting Title VII with a meaning that was not intended when the law was passed and which subsequent sessions of Congress have had an opportunity to adopt, but have failed to do so. The Court has created a law that Congress itself explicitly chose not to create.”
“We also have to be concerned with how far the Court’s opinion will extend, and how it will affect religious freedom and conscience rights, particularly in health care. If ‘sex’ includes sexual orientation and gender identity under Title VII, why wouldn’t that apply to other areas of the law? Because of the very real possibility that it would, we have to worry that Catholic doctors and hospitals will not be able to practice medicine without being forced to perform procedures that contradict the natural law and their faith. While it is important to ensure that the inherent dignity of each and every person is upheld, regardless of their beliefs or worldview, and that no one is subject to unjust discrimination, this decision goes too far by violating the separation of powers and setting the stage for inevitable conflict between the free exercise of religion and secular worldviews.”
Michael Vacca, Director of Ministry, Bioethics, and Member Experience for CMF CURO, recognizes a number of problems related to natural law that are created by the decision. He says, “By making sexual orientation and gender identity a protected class in federal anti-discrimination law, the Supreme Court has undermined the natural moral law foundations of our country and failed to protect the religious liberty of employers in their employment decisions. Sexual orientation and gender identity are not scientific or rational designations grounded in the truth of the human person, but rather, a pseudo-designation rooted in gender ideology and the deconstruction of the duality implicit in the nature of the human person. Federal civil rights laws must be based on the fundamental scientific and biological truths of the human person and thus founded in natural law. The necessity of a natural law foundation is particularly important when considering non-discrimination laws that pertain to fundamental truths about the human person.”
Mr. Vacca also notes that this decision will lead to negative health outcomes by saying, “To the extent that Bostock affects health care, we can expect bad health care and a limitation of the medical profession’s ability to provide proper health care to the public.” He cites Dr. Michelle Cretella, a member of the Catholic Medical Association, who said: “[The Supreme Court] has re-defined sex as being the same as sexual orientation and gender identity. This is a lie and a dangerous one at that because doctors will increasingly be sued and forced to harm patients by cooperating with their mental illness.” Mr. Vacca concludes by saying, “Long-term studies reinforce this fact and show that gender reassignment surgery leads to poor health outcomes, including increased suicidality and psychiatric hospitalization. Instead of surgery, the compassionate response to gender confusion is spiritual support and mental health counseling because the problem is not a physical, medical issue; it is a spiritual, psychological issue. Helping someone live a lie is not compassion; it is cruelty at worst and misplaced compassion at best. Our duty is to love others, and we cannot love others if we lie to them.”
The Christ Medicus Foundation urgently hopes that religious freedom will prevail both within and outside the employment context and laments the completely unwarranted expansion of federal anti-discrimination law beyond Congress’ intent to the detriment of all involved.