As LGBTQ Employment Rights Hits the Supreme Court, on October 8, 2019 there were three cases argued before the United States Supreme Court,

1. Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, R&G & G&R.
2. Harris Funeral Home, Inc. v. EEOC, and
3. Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda.

On one side, it is argued that at the time the law was enacted, those who drafted it did not contemplate sexual orientation/identity as part of the definition.

On the other side, it is argued that the terms of the statute have been expanded throughout the years to include several types of discrimination and that sexual orientation/identity is, in essence, a logical extension of the original statute.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

(k) The terms "because of sex" or "on the basis of sex" include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work, and nothing in section 2000e-2(h) of this title[section 703(h)]shall be interpreted to permit otherwise. This subsection shall not require an employer to pay for health insurance benefits for abortion, except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, or except where medical complications have arisen from an abortion: Provided, That nothing herein shall preclude an employer from providing abortion benefits or otherwise affect bargaining agreements in regard to abortion.

*** QUESTION:

Would discriminate against an employee because of their sexual orientation constitutes the prohibited discrimination 'because of sex' in employment within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Please advocate for both positions, essential present to good legal argument for both side then come to a conclusion.