• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
Catholic Review

Catholic Review

Inspiring the Archdiocese of Baltimore

Menu
  • Home
  • News
        • Local News
        • World News
        • Vatican News
        • Obituaries
        • Featured Video
        • En Español
        • Sports News
        • Official Clergy Assignments
        • Schools News
  • Commentary
        • Contributors
          • Question Corner
          • George Weigel
          • Elizabeth Scalia
          • Michael R. Heinlein
          • Effie Caldarola
          • Guest Commentary
        • CR Columnists
          • Archbishop William E. Lori
          • Rita Buettner
          • Christopher Gunty
          • George Matysek Jr.
          • Mark Viviano
          • Father Joseph Breighner
          • Father Collin Poston
          • Robyn Barberry
          • Hanael Bianchi
          • Amen Columns
  • Entertainment
        • Events
        • Movie & Television Reviews
        • Arts & Culture
        • Books
        • Recipes
  • About Us
        • Contact Us
        • Our History
        • Meet Our Staff
        • Photos to own
        • Books/CDs/Prayer Cards
        • CR Media platforms
        • Electronic Edition
  • Advertising
  • Shop
        • Purchase Photos
        • Books/CDs/Prayer Cards
        • Magazine Subscriptions
        • Archdiocesan Directory
  • CR Radio
        • CR Radio
        • Protagonistas de Fe
  • News Tips
  • Subscribe
In this 2015 file photo, LGBTQ supporters wave a flag outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington. The court ruled June 15, 2020, that federal anti-discrimination laws protect gay and transgender employees from discrimination. (CNS photo/Tyler Orsburn)

Supreme Court says federal law protects LGBT workers from discrimination

June 15, 2020
By Carol Zimmermann
Filed Under: News, Religious Freedom, Supreme Court, World News

WASHINGTON (CNS) — In a 6-3 vote June 15, the Supreme Court said LGBT people are protected from job discrimination by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“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,” said Justice Neil Gorsuch writing the opinion in the case argued at the start of the court’s term last October.

He pointed out that when Congress enacted Title VII, it might not have expected “this particular result.” But he also said Congress likely didn’t see many interpretations of the federal law coming, including its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees.

“Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit,” Gorsuch wrote.

Dissenting votes were from Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh.

The decision was for two consolidated cases about fired gay employees and a separate case concerning a fired transgender worker who had sued for employment discrimination after being fired.

At issue in this case is the wording in the Civil Rights Act, which prevents employment discrimination based on race, religion, national origin and sex. The court had to determine if discrimination that was not allowed based on sex applied to sexual orientation as well as gender identity.

Federal appeals courts have been divided on this application of the law for the past three years since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit became the first to rule that homosexuals should be protected from job discrimination by the civil rights law.

“Sex means whether you’re male or female, not whether you’re gay or straight,” argued Solicitor General Noel Francisco for the Trump administration on the side of the employers during oral arguments.

But Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the issue of people being fired for their sexual identity had to be examined, noting: “We can’t deny that homosexuals are being fired merely for being who they are.”

Alito, joined by Thomas, wrote more than 100 pages in the dissent and said the court’s majority seemed to be writing legislation, not law, in this decision.

“The question in these cases is not whether discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity should be outlawed,” Alito said. “The question is whether Congress did that in 1964,” and he said it “indisputably did not.”

Kavanaugh, in a separate dissent, said the court was attempting to “rewrite ordinary meaning and remake American law,” acting more like members of Congress than judges.

The decision, hailed by supporters, was questioned by its opponents who wondered how it would hold up in religious liberty cases. The opinion itself mentions this saying: “How these doctrines protecting religious liberty interact with Title VII are questions for future cases.”

It also notes that “other employers in other cases may raise free exercise arguments that merit careful consideration, none of the employers before us today represent in this court that compliance with Title VII will infringe their own religious liberties in any way.”

A number of religious groups including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops weighed in with friend-of-the-court briefs in favor of the employers in this case. The USCCB brief said the added employee protection could impact faith-based schools, health care providers and homeless shelters that operate by “religious and moral convictions.”

Dozens of companies and advocacy groups filed briefs in support of the employees.

Currently, more than 20 states and the District of Columbia have laws in place to protect against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity with exceptions for religious employers.

Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel of Becket, a nonprofit religious liberty law firm, told reporters before the Supreme Court’s term began that if the court views these employee cases as discrimination, there will likely be new lawsuits and “massive liabilities with churches, schools and religious organizations” that expect their employees to follow certain standards.

He said there are exceptions for those in ministerial roles with a religious function. But no matter how these exemptions are interpreted, there is likely to be a lot of confusion, he said.

Alliance Defending Freedom, a nonprofit legal group, which supports religious freedom and other issues, said in a June 15 statement: “Americans must be able to rely on what the law says, and it is disappointing that a majority of the justices were unwilling to affirm that commonsense principle. Redefining sex to mean gender identity will create chaos and enormous unfairness for women and girls in athletics, women’s shelters and many other contexts.”

Also see:

USCCB president ‘deeply concerned’ about impact of court’s LGBT ruling

Print Print

Primary Sidebar

Carol Zimmermann

Click here to view all posts from this author

For the latest news delivered twice a week via email or text message, sign up to receive our free enewsletter.

| MOST POPULAR |

  • New interim Hispanic, Urban delegates ready to serve Archdiocese of Baltimore

  • Catholic school academic honorees return to lead alma maters at Bishop Walsh, Archbishop Curley

  • Father Patrick Carrion offers blessing before Preakness

  • Peruvian priest in Baltimore crossed paths with Pope Leo

  • Pope names new chancellor of institute for marriage, family sciences

| Latest Local News |

Bishop Lewandowski installed as bishop of Providence

Bishop Lewandowski adopts new coat of arms

‘Bishop Bruce’ forged strong bonds with Baltimore in challenging times, had heart of a pastor

Deacon Thomas O’Donnell of Catonsville experiences power of papal transition in Rome

Radio Interview: Grow in your relationship with the Blessed Virgin Mary

| Latest World News |

Catholic University cuts 7 percent of workforce amid $30 million deficit

Trump, Vance meet Pope Leo XIV’s brother in Oval Office

Basilian sister in Ukraine to Pope Leo: ‘Thank you’ and ‘come to us’

Mexican bishops condemn slaying of 7 young people at parish festival

Experts flag concerns over EPPC study on dangers of pill used in miscarriage care, abortion

| Catholic Review Radio |

CatholicReview · Catholic Review Radio

Footer

Our Vision

Real Life. Real Faith. 

Catholic Review Media communicates the Gospel and its impact on people’s lives in the Archdiocese of Baltimore and beyond.

Our Mission

Catholic Review Media provides intergenerational communications that inform, teach, inspire and engage Catholics and all of good will in the mission of Christ through diverse forms of media.

Contact

Catholic Review
320 Cathedral Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
443-524-3150
mail@CatholicReview.org

 

Social Media

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Recent

  • Catholic University cuts 7 percent of workforce amid $30 million deficit
  • Trump, Vance meet Pope Leo XIV’s brother in Oval Office
  • Basilian sister in Ukraine to Pope Leo: ‘Thank you’ and ‘come to us’
  • Mexican bishops condemn slaying of 7 young people at parish festival
  • Experts flag concerns over EPPC study on dangers of pill used in miscarriage care, abortion
  • Bishop Lewandowski installed as bishop of Providence
  • Bishop Lewandowski adopts new coat of arms
  • God’s love is generous, not calculating, pope says at first audience
  • Bishops praise, criticize federal actions affecting human life amid budget debate

Search

Membership

Catholic Media Assocation

Maryland-Delaware-DC Press Association

The Associated Church Press

© 2025 CATHOLIC REVIEW MEDIA, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED