{"content":[{"text":"Notwithstanding this author’s jurisprudential concerns as to the reasoning of the","bbox":{"left":0.235294,"top":0.09303,"width":0.627549,"height":0.015151999999999999}},{"text":"majority opinion written by Justice Gorsuch, it is now the law of the land.","bbox":{"left":0.117647,"top":0.128788,"width":0.57802,"height":0.015151999999999999}},{"text":"His Honor writes","bbox":{"left":0.705471,"top":0.128788,"width":0.13505900000000004,"height":0.015151999999999999}},{"text":"plainly, as follows:","bbox":{"left":0.117647,"top":0.164545,"width":0.14923599999999998,"height":0.015151999999999999}},{"text":"Few facts are needed to appreciate the legal question we face. Each of the \n three cases before us started the same way: An employer fired a long-time \n employee shortly after the employee revealed that he or she is \n homosexual or transgender—and allegedly for no reason other than the \n employee’s homosexuality or transgender status. . . .","bbox":{"left":0.176471,"top":0.218182,"width":0.592627,"height":0.08727299999999999}},{"text":"The only statutorily protected characteristic at issue in today’s cases is \n “sex”—and that is also the primary term in Title VII whose meaning the parties \n dispute. Appealing to roughly contemporaneous dictionaries, the employers \n say that, as used here, the term “sex” in 1964 referred to “status as either male \n or female [as] determined by reproductive biology.” . . .","bbox":{"left":0.176471,"top":0.326061,"width":0.6102350000000001,"height":0.08727299999999999}},{"text":"In judicially rewriting Title VII, the Court today cashiers an ongoing \n legislative process, at a time when a new law to prohibit sexual \n orientation discrimination was probably close at hand. After all, even \n back in 2007—a veritable lifetime ago in American attitudes about sexual \n orientation— the House voted 235 to 184 to prohibit sexual orientation \n discrimination in employment. H. R. 3685, 110th Cong., 1st Sess. In \n 2013, the Senate overwhelmingly approved a similar bill, 64 to 32. S. 815, \n 113th Cong., 1st Sess. In 2019, the House voted 236 to 173 to amend \n Title VII to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual \n orientation. H. R. 5, 116th Cong., 1st Sess. It was therefore easy to \n envision a day, likely just in the next few years, when the House and \n Senate took historic votes on a bill that would prohibit employment \n discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It was easy to picture a \n massive and celebratory Presidential signing ceremony in the East Room \n or on the South Lawn.","bbox":{"left":0.235294,"top":0.467879,"width":0.5858040000000001,"height":0.26545500000000005}},{"text":"(Emphasis added).","bbox":{"left":0.235294,"top":0.753636,"width":0.145941,"height":0.015152000000000054}},{"text":"-2-","bbox":{"left":0.488627,"top":0.893333,"width":0.022863000000000022,"height":0.015152000000000054}}],"images_bbox":[],"images_bbox_not_text_overlap":[]}