Bostock v. Clayton County Case

Instructions: Do you agree or disagree with the response below and Why? add additional points or ideas would you want to bring up?

Even though there was no precedent for the justices to rely upon; they never appeared to get out of the mindset of "Stare Decisis", and fully embrace their duties as the legal supreme decision makers! Time after time, hypotheticals were introduced by counselors for both Plaintiff and Defendant alike, but some of the most interesting, "What if's" were introduced by justices themselves. Justice Alito brought about the most interesting question when he asked the counsel (Ms. Karlan) to answer in her opinion this hypothetical question: What will the people say "if this court rules in your favor?" And what they will say is that whether Title VII should prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a big policy issue, and is a different policy issue from the one Congress thought it was addressing in 1964. At this point "Critical Theory" should have been introduced to flesh out the facts related to Mr. Bostock being fired. In other words, the injury caused when his sexual orientation became known.

Justice Sotomayor also raised concerns about BFOAs that on the surface appeared to get glossed over, but were totally relevant to Mr. Bostock work related history. Mr. Bostock had no relevant negative events related to job performance which would have made BFOQs a consideration, and as also stated by Justice Sotomayor if (They are doing their jobs satisfactorily and not bothering you, they should basically be left alone)!

It is interesting that BFOQ's which are the only exception to the Title VII prohibition outlining discrimination based on sex, religion, or national origin; had no relevance in the decision-making process amongst the highest judicial body in the land.

One may also note that the early onset mindset of the court was rooted in deciphering between language meaning(s) written in 1964 and current day values relevant to todays social and political landscapes.

In my opinion, the Supreme Court failed to apply any semblance to the facts which they themselves introduced and then discarded as meaningless. Such an example would be the factually based statement that it would be "impossible to separate sexual orientation from sex" when discovering causal facts.

This case is just another example that sometimes those with high levels of expertise can still come up short or even miss the mark altogether!

I