Federal Lawsuit Seeks License to Discriminate In opposition to LGBT Employees Based mostly on Faith, Anal Intercourse, Grindr Use

June 15 marks the one year anniversary of the landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in Bostock against Clayton County that federal law prohibits discrimination against LGBTQ workers in the workplace.

As on the occasion, a group of anti-LGBT activists and churches based in Texas this week asked a federal judge to issue a sweeping ruling that could seriously undermine Bostock.

In its June 6 ruling last year, the Supreme Court confirmed that the prohibition of sex discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 extends to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The ruling confirmed a position held by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which administers and enforces civil rights laws, since 2015.

The Texas-based group, which includes hate group leader Steve Hotze (pictured) and the US Pastor Council, is seeking exemptions from Bostock and EEOC policies that would allow employers to target LGBT workers based on sincere religious beliefs discriminate. in accordance with the Federal Law Restoring Religious Freedom and / or the Free Exercise First Amendment Clause.

“Plaintiffs have sincere and ingrained religious beliefs that marriage is restricted to a man and woman, that the sex should be reserved for marriage, and that men and women dress and behave in accordance with God-determined biological conditions are supposed to be sexual identity, ”the plaintiffs wrote in a letter submitted on Monday. “Title VII, as interpreted in Bostock, requires plaintiffs to conduct their business contrary to their religious beliefs by denying them the opportunity to impose standards of conduct and behavior on their employees. At the same time, the plaintiffs believe that they are called by God to obey civil authorities. So you have fallen into a trap, and until this court grants declaratory relief requested by plaintiffs, plaintiffs have no way of avoiding violating their religious beliefs. “

In addition, plaintiffs allege that Bostock should not prevent employers from issuing guidelines, for religious or non-religious reasons, aimed at “practicing homosexual and transgender people” based on “homosexual or transgender behavior”.

“It is easy to imagine that rules that conform to Bostock could apply equally to men and women and still serve to exclude homosexual or transgender people from employment,” the plaintiffs wrote before proposing the following examples:

• “No employee, neither man nor woman, is allowed to enter a gay bar or a gay bathhouse.”

• “No employee, neither man nor woman, is allowed to participate in sexual practices related to homosexuality.”

• “No employee, male or female, may engage in deviant sexual intercourse, as that term is defined in Section 25.02 of the Texas Penal Code.”

• “No employee, male or female, is allowed to use Grindr (or any other dating app primarily used by homosexuals).”

• “No employee, male or female, should seek or receive hormone therapy unless it is prescribed for an illness other than gender dysphoria.”

• “No employee, male or female, may undergo an operation to change their genitals unless the operation is required for a disease other than gender-specific dysphoria.”

Elsewhere in the brief, plaintiffs argue that Bostock should only apply to gay and transgender workers and should not prevent employers from discriminating against people of other sexual orientations, including bisexual people.

In addition to a summary judgment and an injunction against the EEOC, the plaintiffs are seeking class action status for their lawsuit. And unfortunately they seem to be gaining ground – at least at the district court level.

The case is in the Fort Worth division of the Northern District of Texas, which is headed by U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor, one of the most notorious right-wing federal judges in the country. O’Connor had previously made high profile decisions that crushed the Affordable Care Act and gutted the Obama-era transgender protection.

LGBTQ advocates slammed the decision back in February, after O’Connor initially allowed the Bostock religious exemption lawsuit to move forward.

Adrian Shanker, executive director of the Bradbury-Sullivan LGBT Community Center, told the Philadelphia Gay News: “Judge O’Connor’s decision represents the clarity that the Bostock Supreme Court has created in favor of unnecessary and harmful religious exemptions from basic civil rights protection has, wrong. Conservatives like to complain about judicial activism. But Judge O’Connor is the figurehead for it, with its repetitive marginal rulings that only a far-right zealot would find useful. His decision is a reminder that it is so important that Congress pass explicit federal non-discrimination protection this year. “

Justin F. Robinette, a civil rights attorney, told the newspaper he was awaiting “another adverse decision from Judge O’Connor and possible appeals”.

“The underlying lawsuit is part of a worrying trend by suspected Christian groups who are redefining the enforcement of LGBT inclusive antibiotic laws as a form of discrimination against their religion,” said Robinette. “They want to create a right to discrimination that exempts them – to the extreme – from all civil rights, including civil rights laws and the recent ruling by the Bostock Supreme Court.”

Attorneys representing the EEOC of the Department of Justice have not yet provided a response to the plaintiffs’ request for summary judgment. You can read the plaintiffs’ pleading in support of the motion below.

US Pastor Council against EEOC by John Wright on Scribd