7th Circuit Court creates new LGBT civil right

Yesterday, I shared how the US Air Force had become the latest casualty of the culture war launched by the Gay Mafia against morality and Christianity after it was announced that the Air Force Academy was about to make an openly homosexual woman the next commandant. Unfortunately, I have another casualty to report following a recent ruling by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals concerning the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In a 8-3 decision, the court ruled in the case Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana to unilaterally amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to include homosexuals—and eventually the entire sexually confused and sexually deviant individuals that comprise the LGBT—QRSTUVWXYZ agenda.

This isn’t a court stacked with justices appointed by democrats . . . 8 of the 11 were named by Republicans. This fact alone should remind us that the party affiliation of the president making the nomination is irrelevant if the judge isn’t someone who strictly adheres to the Constitution.

Title VII prohibits discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.” “Sex” in this case means biological sex (i.e., male or female). Yet Kimberley Hively’s suit was based on the contention that she was denied an employment opportunity by Ivy Tech because she was a lesbian. As such, she claimed that this was a violation of her civil rights. The activist judges agreed, and they created protections under the law that didn’t existed when the law was written.

In his opinion, Judge Richard Posner who has a questionable history concerning his attitude toward the Constitution—he once ruled that the Fourth Amendment was “overvalued”—justified his activist conclusion and concluded:

“I would prefer to see us acknowledge openly that today we, who are judges rather than members of Congress, are imposing on a half-century-old statute a meaning of “sex discrimination” that the Congress that enacted it would not have accepted. This is something courts do fairly frequently to avoid statutory obsolescence and concomitantly to avoid placing the entire burden of updating old statutes on the legislative branch.

“We should not leave the impression that we are merely the obedient servants of the 88th Congress (1963–1965), carrying out their wishes. We are not. We are taking advantage of what the last half century has taught.”

In a piece written by Daniel Horowitz at Conservative Review about this decision, he reminds us that the Civil Rights Act was perhaps the wrong solution for the real problems facing black America in the 1960’s. But he added that for the 7th Circuit to take the law beyond its textual meaning is indefensible. And I might add, it’s a textbook example of politically correct judicial activism in favor of the LGBT agenda.

This 7th Circuit ruling needs to serve as a reminder that we need to stop looking to the courts to protect our Constitutional rights. When we allow the courts be the final say, we have allowed the courts to become the tyrannical branch of government that Thomas Jefferson warned us about:

“… there is no danger I apprehend so much as the consolidation of our government by the noiseless, and therefore unalarming, instrumentality of the Supreme Court.” – Letter to William Johnson, Mar. 1823

As the US Senate edges closer to confirming Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court this week, I think it would be prudent for Conservatives to consider Jefferson’s words. And we should also remember that just because a Republican nominated him, and a Republican-controlled Senate is attempting to confirm him, it doesn’t mean that Gorsuch will be another Antonin Scalia. He could just as easily be another Anthony Kennedy.


Don't Feed The RINOsDavid Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative, your source for opinion that’s politically incorrect and always “right.” His articles are also featured on RedState.com.

His daily radio commentary is nationally syndicated with Salem Radio Network and can be heard on stations across Am

9 comments for “7th Circuit Court creates new LGBT civil right

Comments are closed.