In a ringing 13-minute denunciation of the Supreme Courts Bostock sex discrimination decision, the youngest man in the U.S. Senate urged Americas religious conservatives to demand a new “bargain” from Republican leaders as a condition for their future support.
“If this case makes anything clear, it is that the bargain that has been offered to religious conservatives for years now is a bad one, its time to reject it,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) declared on the Senate floor June 16.
“The bargain has never been explicitly articulated, but religious conservatives know what it is,” Hawley said. “The bargain is you go along with the party establishment, you support their policies and priorities, or just keep your mouth shut about it, and in return, the establishment will put some judges on the bench who supposedly will protect your constitutional rights to freedom of worship, to freedom of exercise.
“Thats what weve been told for years now, and we were told that were supposed to shut up while the party establishment focuses more on cutting taxes and handing out favors for corporations, multinational corporations who dont share our values, who will not stand up for American principles, who are only too happy to ship American jobs overseas.
“But were supposed to say nothing about that, were supposed to keep our mouths shut, because maybe well get a judge out of the deal.”
Hawleys ire was sparked by the high courts June 15 decision in the Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia case in which by a 6–3 vote, the justices said the 1964 Civil Rights Acts bar against sex discrimination in hiring isnt limited to biologically determined sex but also covers sexual orientation and gender identity (including gender change).
Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts were joined by the courts four liberal justices on the opinion. Opposing it were conservative justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh.
Gorsuch, who was nominated by President Donald Trump, and Roberts, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, pledged during their confirmation hearings to interpret the laws original intent, not rewrite it in the manner of activist liberal judges.
Hawley echoed Alitos criticism of the decision as “legislating” from the bench by redefining Title VII of the 1964 laws definition of sex discrimination to include terms that werent intended by Congress or President Lyndon Johnson when the law was adopted.
“This piece of legislation changes the scope of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, it changes the meaning of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, it changes the text of the 1964 Civil Rights Act,” Hawley said.
“And make no mistake, this legislation will have effects that range from employment law, to sports, to churches,” Hawley continued. “There is only one problem with this piece of legislation, it was issued by a court, not by a legislature, it was written by judges, not by the elected representatives of the people.”
Hawley quoted the majority opinion in predicting the decision will result in a turbulent future of litigation that will extensively redefine the First Amendments guarantee of religious freedom of worship and assembly.
“But as to those religious conservatives, how do they fare in yesterdays decision, what will this decision mean, this rewrite of Title VII, what will it mean for churches, what will it mean for religious schools, what will it mean for religious charities?” Hawley asked.
“Well, in the many pages of the majority opinion, 33 pages to be exact, the majority does finally get around to saying something about religious liberty on one page,” he said. “What does it say? Heres tRead More From Source