Giberti: You Can’t Spell LGBT without Sex

 Allan Giberti


​On Monday June 14, 2020, the Supreme Court delivered an unexpected 6-3 ruling concerning Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Title VII, which protects workers from employment discrimination on the basis of gender and also applies to all school districts and private and charter schools., is now interpreted as to include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Both of President Trump’s appointed Supreme Court picks, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, sided with the other liberal Supreme Court Justices in the decision.

With the ruling came down, many people across the nation cheered but not everyone saw it as a step for equality. Reason being? When you take the SCOTUS ruling at face value, most people will agree that the only reason someone should lose their job is because they’re bad at it and not because you’re black, a woman, gay, transgender or belong to, or are mix of these and/or some other demographic.

The simple fact is that most states do not have any such protections in place against that type of discrimination. That being said, what happened that Monday morning was wrong and SCOTUS missed the mark. Bigly. And here’s why.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion for the majority and in it he states, “An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision; exactly what Title VII forbids.”

​No, it does not. On the surface, SCOTUS’s ruling appears to champion equality but the truth is it legalizes discrimination, reverses protections for women and challenges the legal foundation of gay rights.

I want to be perfectly clear here. Being gay has zero to do with being transgender; being gay has everything to do with your sexual orientation, which sex you prefer to be with. Being transgender has everything to do with gender and absolutely nothing to do with your sexual orientation. Biological men and women, who are gay, prefer other biological men and women respectively. It’s pretty straightforward, but when a biological man identifies and/or transitions to a woman, only their physical appearance is altered, not their sexual orientation. A heterosexual man who identifies as a woman still desires women so obviously, the next logical step would be to now identify as a lesbian.

So, no Justice Gorsuch. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender is not firing that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Both men and women can be gay or transgender.

Justice Gorsuch goes on to write, “Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision; exactly what Title VII forbids,” and he is wrong but let’s get down to the brass nuts and bolts of the insanity.

If sex plays a “necessary and undisguisable role” how does it actually apply to people who identify as transgender? If the belief is that gender is fluid and that being male or female is a construct of society, something that you are “assigned” at birth, then how can someone discriminate against a certain sex (male or female)?

The answer is that you can’t. It will, however, finally put to bed some liberal arguments such as the “gender pay gap”. Despite it being debunked to hell and back, people keep bringing up those “inequalities” in the workplace. But if there is no difference between men and women, and sex is something you can change then there can be no discrimination based on sex.

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas argued that this should have come about through legislation and a specific, Congressional change to Title VII, rather than through the courts, and that the word “sex” cannot be read to include “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.

In their dissent they stated, “The Court tries to convince readers that it is merely enforcing the terms of the statute, but that is preposterous. Even as understood today, the concept of discrimination because of ‘sex’ is different from discrimination because of ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘gender identity.’”

In a separate dissent Justice Kavanaugh wrote that the job of rewriting the law belongs to Congress but the decision represents an “important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans.”

Wrong. Giving license to openly discriminate isn’t a victory for anyone.

Everyone remembers the case brought against the Christian baker, Jack Philips the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado, for refusing to decorate a wedding cake for a gay wedding. That case also went all the way to the Supreme Court which ruled in favor of the baker.

Unfortunately, that wasn’t the end of the harassment from some members of the all-inclusive LGBT “community” as more lawsuits were filed, one was even filed when he refused to create a cake celebrating a gender transition.

Let’s be honest and call it what it is. It is harassment, intimidation and bullying all to try and force someone to abandon their beliefs and accept yours simply because you feel you’re entitled to it. Because until you can bend people to your will, you are a victim.

Sadly, this is the mentality of far too many in the mainstream LGBT community. While many lauded last month’s SCOTUS ruling as a victory, some members of the Alphabet Soup see it as a weapon to wield for the cause of social justice.

Many of us are not surprised and in fact we’re embarrassed.

In the wake of the recent SCOTUS decision, Jesse Hammons, a physically healthy 33-year-old transgender man, is now suing the University of Maryland St. Joseph Medical Center. Hammons claimed that she was discriminated against when the hospital refused to remove her uterus because they don’t agree with the diagnosis that gender dysphoria is a valid reason to perform the surgery.

This is also the type of medical care liberals were screaming about when they said President Trump was denying transgender people healthcare. The painfully obvious thing they don’t tell you is that similar medical procedures, such as the one Jesse Hammons is claiming she needs and was denied, can be performed at any other area hospital that is not faith based.

This is just another in the growing number of attacks against faith and religion by claiming victimhood and oppression and then weaponizing it. Whatever you want to call them, Democrats, the radical left, the mob, never had any interest in championing anyone or anything but themselves. There’s an important election coming up and they’re more than happy to ride on the backs of those they themselves have oppressed only to lift themselves up.

This will most likely not be SCOTUS’s last word on this issue seeing how there are a number of lawsuits pending over LGBT “rights” that could come before the Supreme Court as early as next term. This is something that Congress should have addressed a while ago but hasn’t.  So instead of changing the law they push more feel good crap legislation like the “Equality Act” and if you think things are bullshit now, just wait and see what happens if the Democrats actually get a chance to pass it.
 
Allan Giberti is the host of RI Red Radio on 990WBOB.com. You can listen to Allan live on Mondays and Tuesdays at 7pm Eastern.

---

Read More 990WBOB

• Giberti: You Can’t Spell LGBT without Sex
• ​Fox: Top 10 Patriots Players to Watch in 2020
• ​The Illustrated Sports Package
• Ann&Hope: Two Old Ladies Brutally Murdered By Covid19.