Defending the family

Neil Gorsuch joins Chief Judge Roberts in Betraying Conservative Values in America today

Public Advocate anticipated the abandonment of the conservative values embraced by most Americans two weeks ago with the launching of the LMNOP+ movement. Our organization will continue standing for conservative pro-family values even while the Supreme Court majority with traitors John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch forget they are not legislators. Even Supreme Legislators can be held to account ultimately and Congress can restrict the court's jurisdiction by simple majority votes as described in the constitution, " says Eugene Delgaudio, president of Public Advocate.

Public Advocate filed an amicus brief in two of the three cases consolidated. Here are the briefs posted, The Harris Funeral Home brief here and, the Zarda Sky Diving company here.

Public Advocate Agrees with the Family Research Council response here: (in part)

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that the federal prohibition of employment discrimination based on sex in the 1964 Civil Rights Act also prohibits discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity." The court's insistence that a Christian funeral home must retain a transgender employee threatens its freedom to operate according to its understanding of sexuality that is rooted in the facts of science and human history. The Harris Funeral Homes, a family operated business for more than a hundred years, was challenged by a male employee who said that he would no longer follow the company dress code of wearing sex-specific clothes for work. This led to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) suing the funeral home, and the case made its way to the Supreme Court.

The court consolidated the funeral home case with two other cases, Bostock v. Clayton County and Zarda v. Altitude Express, in which employers were charged with discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation."

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins released the following statement:

"The core issue before the Court in this case was whether it is within the legitimate power of judges to suddenly redefine the meaning of words and rewrite a 55-year-old statute. Sadly, the Court answered in the affirmative.

"Allowing judges to rewrite the Civil Rights Act to add gender identity and sexual orientation as protected classes poses a grave threat to religious liberty. We've already witnessed in recent years how courts have used the redefinition of words as a battering ram to crush faith-based businesses and organizations."

More News Articles