In a 6-3 ruling of Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court expanded the definition of “sex” to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ignoring authorial intent, the Supreme Court ruled that sex – which meant biological gender – would also refer to sexual behavior.
Because of this woefully unconstitutional opinion of the Supreme Court which seeks to rewrite law from the judiciary, it is widely assumed that it is now illegal to discriminate against those who engage in sexually immoral behavior or practice deception regarding the representation of their gender.
The Montana Daily Gazette proudly affirms the original 1964 Civil Rights Act, which says that employers may not discriminate “on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Most of these descriptors relate to immutable aspects of humanity either made by God or ensured by his providence.
However, in Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court has effectively added behaviors to list of protected qualities of a human being.
Let this serve as public notice of our intent to defy this Supreme Court opinion and any orders of lesser magistrates to enforce it.
Our publication maintains the right to practice our religion according to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Our religion requires representing ourselves in a fashion that is above reproach in regards to our personal character and conduct. Because our publication cares about personal character, morality, and integrity, we will not hire employees who admit to engaging in behavior – sexual or otherwise – that we believe is repugnant to civility, common decency, or contrary to family values.
And while we pray for those with gender dysphoria, we will not hire employees who are confused regarding their gender because it does not bode well for their grasp of reality, their devotion to science and reason, or their understanding of basic educational issues like human biology. If the gender-dysphoric cannot accurately represent themselves, we do not believe they can adequately represent our company. And as a company, we alone have the right to determine who or who is not hired based upon our perceptions of their moral qualifications or disqualifications.
While it is highly supposed that “religious organizations” (like churches and religious non-profits) will be exempt from the new reading of Bostock v. Clayton County, businesses – like this one – will not be. However, the First Amendment was not given to churches or religious organizations, but to every individual American. While the Montana Daily Gazette is not a “religious organization” it is run by devoted Christians who have First Amendment rights to the freedom of conscience in all matters of life, including trade and commerce.