FACT Signs onto Amicus Brief Upholding Biological Definition of Sex
Aug 30, 2019
An amicus brief was filed last week with the United States Supreme Court on behalf of family policy councils around the country, including FACT in a case that will decide whether the word “sex” as used in Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination in the workplace includes “gender identity.”
The case, Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, involves a male funeral home worker who now identifies as a woman and wanted to dress as a woman while at work. The funeral home declined this request and fired the employee based on its sex-specific dress code and in accord with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission standards. Nevertheless, the EEOC sued the funeral home for sexual discrimination.
The amicus brief, which supports the position of the funeral home, states that interpreting “sex” to include “gender expression” or “gender identity” in Title VII would make any laws concerning “sex” discrimination meaningless and impossible to apply. This would ultimately affect the interpretation of corresponding terms in Title IX, which prohibits “sex” discrimination in education. That, of course, would affect the rights of parentals in regard to their child’s education, women’s sports, bathroom and locker room facilities, medical care, and the like.
As it says in the amicus brief, “The case here involves no children. But it asks the Court to declare, for the first time, that sex and gender–and terms like ‘girls’ and ‘boys’–lack any ‘fixed external referent’. . . Sex would be unmoored from testable ideas of biology and law. . . In one fell swoop, ‘mother,’ ‘father,’ ‘son,’ and ‘daughter’ would lose their legal meanings.”
This Lawsuit Over ‘Sex’ and ‘Gender Identity’ Will Have Sweeping Implications
Daily Signal
NOTE: FACT provides links to external websites for educational purposes only. The inclusion of any links to other websites does not necessarily constitute an endorsement.
The case, Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, involves a male funeral home worker who now identifies as a woman and wanted to dress as a woman while at work. The funeral home declined this request and fired the employee based on its sex-specific dress code and in accord with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission standards. Nevertheless, the EEOC sued the funeral home for sexual discrimination.
The amicus brief, which supports the position of the funeral home, states that interpreting “sex” to include “gender expression” or “gender identity” in Title VII would make any laws concerning “sex” discrimination meaningless and impossible to apply. This would ultimately affect the interpretation of corresponding terms in Title IX, which prohibits “sex” discrimination in education. That, of course, would affect the rights of parentals in regard to their child’s education, women’s sports, bathroom and locker room facilities, medical care, and the like.
As it says in the amicus brief, “The case here involves no children. But it asks the Court to declare, for the first time, that sex and gender–and terms like ‘girls’ and ‘boys’–lack any ‘fixed external referent’. . . Sex would be unmoored from testable ideas of biology and law. . . In one fell swoop, ‘mother,’ ‘father,’ ‘son,’ and ‘daughter’ would lose their legal meanings.”
News Source
This Lawsuit Over ‘Sex’ and ‘Gender Identity’ Will Have Sweeping ImplicationsDaily Signal
NOTE: FACT provides links to external websites for educational purposes only. The inclusion of any links to other websites does not necessarily constitute an endorsement.
