Religious Exemptions Not Clear in SCOTUS Civil Rights Ruling, Legal Experts Say

The Supreme Court of the United States. Creative Commons photo.

The landmark June 15 Supreme Court ruling protecting gay and transgender people from employment discrimination based on sex has raised concern among religious organizations, who say that the religious exemptions are too weak.

In the case presented, the Supreme Court determined that sexual orientation and gender identity fall under the category of sex discrimination outlined in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, granting them a protected status. Traditionally, sex discrimination cases have centered on an employee’s biological sex.

The ruling includes exemptions for religious institutions and employers, but the extent and implementation of these protections is left up in the air for future cases—  an unanswered question that has many religious freedom and gender issue advocates concerned.

The ruling was delivered by a 6-3 decision. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion. Gorsuch was aligned with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. as well as Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.

“Because discrimination on the basis of homosexuality or transgender status requires an employer to intentionally treat individual employees differently because of their sex, an employer who intentionally penalizes an employee for being homosexual or transgender also violates Title VII,” the Supreme Court’s official document explained.

Passages outlining the ruling clarify that there are still exemptions based on religious belief, but the ruling leaves wide-open areas for further interpretation and subsequent rulings by lower courts.

“We are also deeply concerned with preserving the promise of the free exercise of religion enshrined in our Constitution; that guarantee lies at the heart of our pluralistic society,” reads the opinion of the court. “But worries about how Title VII may intersect with religious liberties are nothing new; they even predate the statute’s passage.”

Additionally, the redefinition of the word “sex” has been criticized as under-cutting the intention of the Civil Rights Act and is expected by opponents to cause confusion in past and future decisions.

Alliance Defending Freedom represented a Michigan funeral home in the case that petitioned transgenderism as a sub-category of discrimination based on sex. ADF responded to the Supreme Court ruling in a statement, calling it a “troubling decision.”

“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. Civil rights laws that use the word ‘sex’ were put in place to protect equal opportunities for women,” the ADF stated.

Kate Anderson, ADF’s Senior Counsel, told Religion Unplugged, “Certainly the main issue with today's decision is that it calls into question whether Americans can rely on what the law says, so that has numerous consequences.”

Anderson cited previous local level legal issues related to sex discrimination with a Christian women’s shelter in Anchorage, Alaska. The shelter was petitioned to allow transgender individuals that identified as female access to what was intended as a space for biological women that had often suffered sexual assault or other traumatic events.

“What we hope at all levels is that the court sees that laws need to be interpreted the way that they’re written,” Anderson said.  “So whatever level that’s at, it’s important, because it’s what allows businesses and individuals to rely on the law and know what’s required of them.”

President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), Archbishop José H. Gomez of Los Angeles said that he was “deeply concerned” regarding the recent ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which now protects sexual orientation and transgender identity under “sex discrimination” according to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.In a published statement on the case, the archbishop called this ruling “an injustice,” and warned that it would have far-reaching ramifications in the lives of Americans.

“By erasing the beautiful differences and complementary relationship between man and woman, we ignore the glory of God’s creation and harm the human family, the first building block of society. Our sex, whether we are male or female, is part of God’s plan for creation and for our lives.”

The USCCB weighed in heavily during the trial, offering expertise and opinion on the matter in the form of amicus curiae documents for the court’s consideration.

In one document, the USCCB, supported by many other religious organizations, argued that churches and other religious institutions have always been granted their due exemption from government interference in their legal operation:

“Even ‘[a]n interest as compelling as the avoidance of Communist infiltration [into the United States] at the height of the Cold War’ was insufficient to justify government interference with a church’s right to govern itself and direct its mission, and this right of self-governance has been reaffirmed by this Court time and again,” the USCCB wrote in reference to Red Scare era government interventions.In the same document, the USCCB argued that issues such as new protections against alleged discrimination “can be addressed in plenary fashion by Congress; they cannot be addressed by courts in anything but a case-by-case fashion.”

Archbishop Gomez, a Mexican-born American citizen, is the fifth Archbishop of Los Angeles and has served in the role since 2011. He has served at the President of the USCCB since 2019.

“Protecting our neighbors from unjust discrimination does not require redefining human nature,” Gomez wrote.

Other organizations have spoken out with both tepid support and qualified concern on the outcome of the case.

The AND Campaign is a social justice organization that promotes “biblical values [and] social justice,” and believes “that religious freedom and LGBTQ civil rights are not necessarily in irreconcilable conflict.”

AND stated on its social media that it “supports both religious liberty and the extension of federal protections to LGBT employees,” but pointed out that “there’s still a great deal of uncertainty that needs to be resolved legislatively.”

Timothy Nerozzi is a writer and editor from northeastern Pennsylvania. He covers religious issues with a focus on the Catholic Church and Japanese society and culture.