Justice Samuel Alito, appointed to the Supreme Court by George W Bush, thinks the historic LGBT+ ruling could lead to protections for rapists
Supreme Court justice Samuel Alito, who wants LGBT+ people to be legally discriminated against, thinks this week’s historic ruling will lead to protections for rapists.
In a landmark ruling on Monday (June 15) the US Supreme Court ruled that LGBT+ people are entitled to protection from discrimination based on their sexual orientation and gender identity.
The six-to-three ruling said existing provisions under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which outlaw discrimination based on sex, also apply to cases where an employee is fired based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority: “An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex.”
Gorsuch was joined by conservative chief justice John Roberts, as well as four liberal justices: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.
Samuel Alito, one of three who dissented, bizarrely wrote that anti-discrimination protections for LGBT+ people could lead to anti-discrimination protections for rapists.
According to Advocate, Alito, who was appointed by George W Bush, included in his dissent several dictionary definitions for “sex”, with some referring to “sexual urge or instinct”.
He wrote: “Since both of these come after three prior definitions that refer to men and women, they are most naturally read to have the same association, and in any event, is it plausible that Title VII prohibits discrimination based on any sexual urge or instinct and its manifestations? The urge to rape?”
Samuel Alito said a ‘consequence’ of the employment ruling could be that trans people use the correct bathrooms.
More from PinkNews
Justice Samuel Alito then went on to make more strange claims about the “consequences” of the historic ruling.
He jumped onto the widely-debunked, anti-trans “bathroom predator” theory, fearing that a win for LGBT+ rights might lead to more.
Alito wrote: “The Court may wish to avoid this subject, but it is a matter of concern to many people who are reticent about disrobing or using toilet facilities in the presence of individuals whom they regard as members of the opposite sex.
“For some, this may simply be a question of modesty, but for others, there is more at stake.
“For women who have been victimised by sexual assault or abuse, the experience of seeing an unclothed person with the anatomy of a male in a confined and sensitive location such as a bathroom or locker room can cause serious psychological harm.”
He did not explain where one could find women’s public bathrooms that do not have stalls, nor what his point had to do with employment discrimination.
He added: “As the briefing in these cases has warned, the position that the Court now adopts will threaten freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and personal privacy and safety.
“No one should think that the Court’s decision represents an unalloyed victory for individual liberty.”