When words lose their meaning, the people lose their freedom — Confucius
The Court’s Madness
The most disastrous soul-destroying decadence-guaranteeing family-wrecking society-ravaging legislation ever passed was the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Its tenets were, are, and will continue to be in direct contradiction to the Constitution. As has been pointed out by Christopher Caldwell among others, this Act has become our new and reigning Constitution.
Title VII of this abomination (and I’m quoting from SCOTUS’s new ruling, ellipses original) makes it “unlawful…for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual…because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” After 1964, you could not hire or fire or disassociate from whom you would, Freedom of Association be damned.
Sex meant what it always meant: male or female and their mating. Gorsuch and Roberts and the Court’s diversity hires instead subscribed to gender theory, and the word has lost its meaning. G-Sex now means “sexual orientation” and fantasy, as in you are or become any G-sex you imagine yourself to be. The “G-” prefix indicates not sex, which is immutable, but government-defined gender fantasy. Just as G-marriage does not mean marriage, which can only be between the sexes, it is government-defined unions incorrectly called marriage.
Heed Confucius! Never use the enemy’s language. If you do, you are lost.
Gorsuch et al. said “The straightforward application of Title VII’s terms interpreted in accord with their ordinary public meaning at the time of their enactment resolves” the cases brought before the Court. At the time of their enactment public homosexual displays were proscribed, and people still thought a man fantasizing he was “really” a woman was delusional.
Here’s the ballet move the Court uses to step around the commonsense meaning of words. “The parties concede that the term ‘sex’ in 1964 referred to the biological distinctions between male and female” but then it depends on what the definition of is is. I jest, but only slightly. “[T]he ordinary meaning of ‘because of’,” the Court intoned, “is ‘by reason of’ or ‘on account of'”. That was followed by several academic-style references, which intimidate the weak. They continued, “That term incorporates the but-for causation standard…”
The Court began by admitting sex, tossed in a dozen Clintonisms (“Just as sex is necessarily a but-for cause…” , and after a blizzard of postmodern paragraphs, G-sex emerged. A Jesuit could not have done better.
The Court’s dissembling and equivocal path to insanity is not important, however, because the result was foreordained. If you think you can find wiggle room in their argument and so submit new legislation to effect an end-around, they will simply toss another stinking pot of word trash at you.
What must instead be done is the excision of the entire Act. It must be removed as a malignant cancer is removed: hacked out in haste.
It won’t be.
Our Coming Doom
Globohomo is a neologism for good reason. This new ruling won’t change much behavior at MegaCorp Inc. Big Business has long since surrendered their sanity on these matters; they all employ zampolit, a.k.a. HR, to enforce political correctness.
Nevertheless, the slippery slope is still with us. And if anybody anywhere out there says slippery slopes are fallacious, I will reach out from behind their screens and slap them silly. We have a prime example of one right in front of us!
Here’s another: the Court in its ruling called a man she and her.
Do you feel that? That’s you losing your foothold, dear reader. You, too, will be made to call men women, and women men. The precedent has been set. You must undergo this legal humiliation, you must use the enemy’s language. You too will love Globohomo.
Don’t believe it? There is a case right now, Meriwether v. Francesca Hartop, in front of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, about whether employers (here a university) can force employees (here professors) to call other employees (students) by their preferred pronouns. The outcome cannot now be in question.
Thinking about objecting to a demonic tranny reading to the kiddies at the library, or at your kid’s school? Want to complain that Gary, who sometimes wears a dress, is taking the kids camping? Don’t. The would be discrimination, another good word that has been legally twisted into its opposite meaning.
Don’t want to hire an atheist who is “oriented” to the young as a teacher at your Catholic school? Change that to a BLM terrorist, also, of course, with the same “orientation”. “Suppose an employer’s application form offered a single box to check if the applicant is either black or Catholic. If the employer refuses to hire anyone who checks that box, would we conclude the employer has complied with Title VII, so long as it studiously avoids learning any particular applicant’s race or religion? Of course not”.
Orientation is specious. It means, now, any perversion that occurs in the minds of its holders. There is no biological, scientific, or natural law justification for orientation. Once you let one in, you must hold your nose, and cinch up your butt cheeks, and allow them all. If you accept orientation, you have no basis whatsoever to discriminate against any of them.
Down the slope we go. Every proscription against perversion will fall.
Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh kept their wits. Alito and Thomas said in their dissent, “There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation.” Kavanaugh’s separate dissent expands that argument. The more relevant dissent is from Alito and Thomas, who said, “Neither ‘sexual orientation’ nor ‘gender identity’ appears on [Title VII’s] list”, and they remind the Court that several bills attempting their additions were proposed, and that all were rejected.
The Court farted on this reasoning. Our men said “A more brazen abuse of our authority to interpret statutes is hard to recall.” “The Court’s opinion is like a pirate ship.”
They said the “arrogance” of the Court’s “argument is breathtaking.” That there “is not a shred of evidence” relevant to original legislation. They said “The Court’s argument is not only arrogant, it is wrong. It fails on its own terms. ‘Sex,’ ‘sexual orientation,’ and ‘gender identity’ are different concepts, as the Court concedes.” What the Court concludes is “demonstrably untrue.” “To call this evidence merely feeble would be generous.”
As comforting as these excoriations are, they have just as much legal force as an angry tweet, which is to say, none at all. We have gone from “the plain truth…that in 1964 homosexuality was thought to be a mental disorder, and homosexual conduct was regarded as morally culpable and worthy of punishment…Sodomy was a crime in every State but Illinois,” to the Court declaring fantasy is more real than Reality.
Alito and Thomas feel their purchase on Reality giving way. The know, like Gorsuch and Roberts do not, that men in girls’ bathrooms is now inevitable. “The Court’s brusque refusal to consider the consequences of its reasoning is irresponsible….No one should think that the Court’s decision represents an unalloyed victory for individual liberty.”
Under the Court’s decision, however, transgender persons will be able to argue that they are entitled to use a bathroom or locker room that is reserved for persons of the sex with which they identify, and while the Court does not define what it means by a transgender person, the term may apply to individuals who are “gender fluid,” that is, individuals whose gender identity is mixed or changes over time.
Delusional men competing with women in sports may now be “forced”. Single-sex dorms are out.
Religions different than our State’s religion? Alito dryly writes, “[I]f a religious school teaches that sex outside marriage and sex reassignment procedures are immoral, the message may be lost if the school employs a teacher who is in a same-sex relationship or has undergone or is undergoing sex reassignment.”
Healthcare is another term that now often means the opposite it commonsense definition. We’ll soon have to call it G-healthcare.
We saw above G-pronouns are likely to be forced. Alito agrees. He also says, “The Court’s decision may also pressure employers to suppress any statements by employees expressing disapproval of same-sex relationships and sex reassignment procedures.” Karen in HR is already enforcing this.
Scholars don’t record whether Sodom and Gomorrah had a Supreme Court, but I am willing to believe Ruth Bader Ginsburg secreted herself in Lot’s luggage and, surviving on the untainted blood of virgins and children, inflicts her dark aura on the Court to this day. I am also willing to believe conspiracy “theories” about Gorsuch and Roberts. Either they’re much dumber than we were led to believe, or they have something on those guys.
The reasoning Gorsuch employs is so bad it wouldn’t convince a Gender Theory graduate. He had to have known, and Roberts had to have known, that what Gorsuch wrote was calculated gibberish. (Rod Dreher thinks Roberts’s defection may have been strategic.) His argument didn’t even reach Justice Kennedy girlish feelings “reasoning”. This was a dictated solution in search of any justification, no matter how weak or transparently illogical. The diversity hires are just happy to be there and will sign what’s put before them.
I don’t know. Conspiracies take intelligence, and there is a distinct paucity of it flowing from government these days. Stupidity and perversion are better explanations. But I must admit I find it more comforting to believe we’re being led by evil geniuses than by cowards, the complicit, and nitwits who glean their deepest ideas from television.
There is no cheering news, or room for hope, in this latest discovery of hidden “rights”. Not one good thing will flow from it, and much bad. The only possible way to eliminate its results or reduce its effects is by legislation, and there are no more than a handful of men left in Congress.
To support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal (in any amount) click here