During a period of momentous change, black Americans fought for the right to be treated as first-class citizens in the country of their birth and to which they paid taxes. They wanted to go through the front doors of businesses and to sit where they wanted to sit on trains and buses.
They wanted to be judged based not on their race but their character.
Appealing to Christian ideals in the struggle to be free from racial discrimination by their own government, black Americans sought mere equality before the law, as every American citizen expected.
One important consequence of the movement was the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, which barred discrimination against individuals based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in public accommodations. Title VII of the Act protects individuals from discrimination in employment. A federal court recently handed down a ruling on the interpretation of this section of the law.
An adjunct professor at a community college claimed the school declined to renew her employment because she was living openly as a lesbian. She contended that Title VII protects her from “sexual orientation” discrimination. Whatever the merits of her case, a court ruled that Title VII does no such thing. She also lost on appeal.
The courts rejected the Obama administration’s attempt (via the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission) to redefine the Act to include so-called sexual orientation. From LifeSiteNews:
Gary McCaleb, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), told LifeSiteNews that with this important ruling the courts have finally recognized President Obama is advancing an agenda as if it were in the law but which in fact is not. “This decision is a blow to the Obama administration distortion of Title VII regulations to mean something other than prohibition of discrimination based upon biological sex.”
Put in a positive light, the court said its hands were tied because the law is the law and not what someone wants that law to be. But the judges of the appellate court simultaneously opened the door to amending Title VII to include homosexuals and transgenders.
The court paved the way for legal remedy by suggesting that the U.S. Supreme Court, or Congressional legislation, could fix the problem and explicitly include homosexuality and transgenderism under anti-discrimination law.