Supreme Court and a Funeral Home Can Teach Us About Civics and Dealing with Transgenders
TOWNHALL JAMES GOTTRY WRITES:
"On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The case arose when Harris Funeral Homes, a fifth generation family business, was sued by the EEOC because of its sex-specific dress code. The question before the Court is whether the word "sex" in Title VII and other civil rights laws includes "transgender status.".........................
.............Suffice it to say, the issues presented in Harris Funeral Homes are serious. But the question before the Court is simple.
It is simple because we have three branches of government with three distinct roles. The legislative branch asks what the law should be, and makes the law. The executive branch asks what the law is, and enforces the law. The judicial branch asks what the law means, and applies the law. Notwithstanding the apparent confusion in our current political workings, those are the designated roles. (And kudos to Ben Sasse and others who have attempted to educate the public on this simple but profoundly wise distribution of powers.)
Understanding this separation of powers, the Supreme Court's constitutionally-designated role in this case is one of interpretation: does "sex" include transgender status?
Its role is not to determine whether such inclusion would be preferable, advisable, or beneficial. Such philosophical questions belong to our elected representatives rather than to an unelected super legislature......................"
HAT TIP TO FREE REPUBLIC