"If you’re a conservative Christian, you now have serious reason to fear for your livelihood."

Amici,

An excellent column by John Zmirak on the ridiculous Bostock decision, and the all-too-obvious ramifications. But first, one of the comments at Edward Feser's blog here. 

A comment which says in part (highlights mine):

As for the merits of Gorsuch's approach, Justice Alito addresses that, but of course he thinks it actually is necessary to opine what the word "sex" means for purposes of determining how the prohibition against discrimination of the basis of sex is to be understood and applied. Again, I am just puzzling over this. I understand that an intelligent ivy league trained lawyer like Gorsuch can perform the mental and lingual gymnastics necessary to convince himself and others that firing a male for having sexual intercourse with his wife at work presents no plausible case of sex discrimination because the male's sex is not involved but firing a male for having sexual intercourse with another male at work presents a plausible case of sex discrimination because the male's sex is involved. It's all about categories and controlling the question, as are most if not all equal protection cases. And clever lawyers can frame that question as much as necessary to make the favored answer virtually inevitable. But what is the truth of the law? Or perhaps I should stop looking for the truth of the law and just focus on winning positions and the rationale necessary to get there?

Meanwhile, showing utter contempt for women, Democrats promote boys competing in sports as women: That's twenty-eight Democrat members of Congress voting to destroy Girls' sports. Just incredible. Attorney General William Barr opposes. 

Of course it is "fundamentally unfair." It's actually insane. There's no "truth" in any of this, not even common sense. These Dems are either possessed, certifiable, or (far more likely) just playing their endless game of "whoring after" special interest groups. (Idolatry is alive and well, it seems.) There's no "truth" in how far too many legal elites manipulate the law, either, nor common sense. It's just a charade of cleverness, a game by sly, guileful, cunning lawyers practicing mental contortions to build fantastical architecture "where the angles are all wrong" as Lovecraft described the sunken city of R'lyeh. (One of his more diabolical creations.)

And there's no out for any of us who stand up for traditional morality and the ancient anthropology it is so closely associated with. No out, except, that is, to fight. The good news is that as human nature is in fact immutable, after a lot of chaos, blood, and evil, the survivors will be back to square one.

"Beware the beast man...": Dr. Zaius explains humanity

Here's excerpts from Zmirak's article.

An excerpt (Highlights are my own):

And on June 15, the current Supreme Court performed the same operation on “sex.” It snipped off its real world meaning and biological function, and redefined the word to produce … the political outcome it wished for. Six out of the nine justices agreed, including “conservative” appointees John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch. They ruled that the Civil Rights Act outlaws discrimination against homosexuals and “transgenders,” because that law has the word “sex” in it. No, seriously.

It was bad enough that the Congress outlawed sex discrimination in 1964. That provision, adding “sex” to “race,” went in as a poison pill from segregationists hoping to kill the law. That’s because most Americans knew that treating men and women exactly the same, and enforcing that by law, is absurd.

But Congress decided that the poison pill seemed tasty, and bit. That helped produce the family-shattering feminist movement. It  eventually forced most moms out into the work force — and their kids into daycare.

…

The Congress in 1964 had no notion whatsoever of including “sexual activities” or “imaginary sexual identities” when it passed the Civil Rights Act. Laws banned homosexual activity in 49 of 50 states. No member of Congress suggested the law had such implications. Till the Obama administration got the bright idea of outflanking an unwilling Congress, no court ever ruled so.

The new Supreme Court ruling is such an instance of sophistry, I really do worry that animal rights activists could get this court majority to apply the 14^th Amendment to any mammal. The argument would simply be that our “evolving notion” of “person” now includes our furry friends.

No More Ladies’ Rooms or Women’s Sports

Justice Alito has written a stinging, shocked dissent from this decision. I won’t try to reproduce it. He shows all the threats to religious liberty and liberty in general posed by this latest torturing of the law. Every institution, sporting event, rest room or changing room in America will now be open to men who claim to “be women.” (Whatever on earth that even means anymore.) Goodbye women’s sports. They’re over now, thanks to the final, insane extension of the logic of “equality,” applied with no reference to reality or human biology.

Good luck to Christian schools that don’t want to make a mockery of their own teachings. Now they’ll have to hire teachers who blatantly, publicly defy the teachings of scripture. Now Christian scout troops will have to hire cross-dressing scout troop leaders, and fight in court for the right to disagree. If you don’t have millions of dollars, I don’t recommend it.

We’re All Bob Jones University Now

But I do have a recommendation. Let me start by reminding you of the territory we’re in now. If you’re a conservative Christian, you now have serious reason to fear for your livelihood. The nation’s highest court has ruled that sexual activities and identities which the bible teaches are evil, are part of the public good. In other words, faithful churches now stand in the same position that Bob Jones University did in the 1980s, when it banned interracial dating.

The entire Christian tradition of sexual morality has just been dumped in the same flaming dumpster as crude racial prejudice. Will the courts even respect churches’ liberty to teach the old morality? They didn’t respect Mormons’ right to teach and practice polygamy, since that went against “significant state interests.”

An Préachán