More warnings are pouring from the nation’s capital about a coming U.S. Supreme Court ruling that could redefine the legal definition of “sex” in federal law.
At issue is whether so-called “gender identity” belongs under the word "sex" in civil rights law, in particular in the Title VII non-discrimination law that bars discrimination against women --- but not biological men who say they identify as a woman and wear dresses and high heels.
OneNewsNow has reported on the landmark case, Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which was triggered when a fired funeral home employee, a male who identifies as female, was fired by the owner.
While owner Thomas Rost has said he followed federal laws, EEOC filed a complaint on behalf of the fired employee and a federal court of appeals later ruled in favor of the employee.
"The impact of what the Supreme Court heard yesterday (Tuesday) is going to be extremely far-reaching," warns Victoria Cobb of the Family Foundation of Virginia. "It will have an impact on businesses, churches, athletic programs, bathrooms, you name it, and folks need to be aware and praying over this."
Religious liberty law firms such as First Liberty Institute, and think tanks such as The Heritage Foundation, are also watching the case closely due to a possible landmark ruling that would upend current legal views about men and women.
The other side is predictably watching the case closely following the landmark Obergefell ruling that legalized same-sex marriage.
“Our rights are once again on the line at #SCOTUS,” Human Rights Campaign, a powerful LGBT lobbying group, stated via Twitter in a post that featured TV celebrity Jonathan Van Ness standing before the court in a skirt.
During a rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, Cobb said her sex is female not because she wears a dress and jewelry.
“I'm a female,” she told the crowd, “because I was given by God X-X chromosomes."
A story that mirrors that science-based reality is the case of British physician David Mackereth, who found himself in trouble with the British National Health Service when he admitted during a job interview that he would refuse to call a transgender person by their preferred pronouns.
As both a doctor and a Christian, Mackereth has said he would not lie during the interview and he would not pretend as a physician to believe a lie, either.
“As I’ve said time and again,” Mackereth told National Review, “there are two things here: My Christian conviction, which tells me I cannot lie, and my medical, scientific training, which tells me that there isn’t a doctor, researcher, or philosopher in the world who could demonstrate or prove that somebody could change sex. It’s actually impossible.”
Cobb tells OneNewsNow she stands by her “chromosomes” comment, too, because the issue really comes down to sex is a “biological reality” that was created by God.
“And it's not to say that people don't struggle with true confusion over this,” she says, “But the idea that we would conform all of society around their confusion really has tremendous concerns and downsides for people who continue to want to have bodily privacy in bathrooms and locker rooms, who continue to believe that girls should be able to compete against girls, and not lose their titles and their wins to biological males."