Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
I posted this in Epstein’s post, but the thread is dead. So far, the assertion is that Gorsuch used the definition of “sex” in a manner that wasn’t appropriate. It occurred to me (and thank you, @saintaugustine — I wouldn’t have gotten here without you) is that he changed how “discriminate” is used.
[The reason why Gorsuch’s premises] are off is because it assumes that there is, in the nature of one’s sex, absolutely nothing that differentiates it from its opposite.
Gorsuch’s opinion is absolutely based on a wrongful (biologically) premise that there is no distinction between male and female.
He takes the CRA, that says you can’t discriminate, and effectively states that discrimination means telling the difference between two things.
Now that is a legitimate definition of the word “discriminate” but it should be quite clear that that was never the intended use of the word in the original law.
There is a reality that he is forcing the population to accept that is a bald faced lie: that there is absolutely no difference between a man and a woman.
It is not true. A man is different than a woman. A homosexual marriage is completely different from a heterosexual marriage. Gay couplings (sex) are fundamentally different from heterosexual couplings.
Nowhere in the law do we refuse to acknowledge that men and women are different. But Gorsuch’s ruling forces us to act as if they are not differentiated in the least.
That’s my case in a nutshell.Published in