Title VII and Ignorance

So God created man in his own image,
    in the image of God he created him;
    male and female he created them.

Genesis 1:27
Given where we are as a nation (and where we are headed), combined with months of so-called quarantine, I suppose it’s only natural one would become a little calloused, so I’ll beg your pardon if my patience in this post has worn a little thin. I’m going to do my best here to maintain the spirit of Speaking the Truth in Love, but I’m caught somewhere between the apostle Paul’s dilemma of bringing a rod vs. love and a gentle spirit (1 Cor. 4:21).

It is quite enough to see so-called Christians virtue signaling from the mountain tops their support for the pagan, family-destroying, LGBTQ promoting, black suppressing movement of Black Lives Matter, but it is quite another thing to see them championing victory for “equality” with the recent Supreme Court ruling on Title VII. As I have shared here before Gay is NOT the New Black, yet here we find ourselves once again with the equivocation of the two in the recent Title VII Supreme Court decision, as well as a redefinition of the immutable word ‘sex’, along with the overstepping of boundaries by a judicial body into legislative authority.

Briefly, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. While I am currently reading a book by Thomas Sowell in which he points out the misdirection of the Civil Rights movement, having started well but finishing poorly, most of us would agree that discrimination is wrong. There is an (libertarian) argument that could be made here that a business should be allowed to operate how they so choose, but that discussion for another day. The hinge statement for Title VII above and the latest Supreme Court ruling as we alluded to earlier revolves around one single word, sex.

As one who affirms the authority of Scripture as God’s holy, inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word, the definition of sex is quite simple: male and female. I’m tempted to say GAME OVER here, however, even some who hold to a secular worldview admit that sex, on the basis of biology and science, is broken down into only two categories: male and female, as has been the case in the example made recently of J.K. Rowling who took the stance against the liberal definition of the sex spectrum and has received quite the backlash. This isn’t rocket science, there are male chromosomes (XY) and female chromosomes (XX) exactly how God designed it. The entire command of “be fruitful and multiply” hinges on the design of God the Creator to make them “male and female” – in the image of God He created them, which I take to mean yes man was created in the imago Dei and yes woman was created in the imago Dei, but together, clinging to (Genesis 2:24) one another as it were, the two become one flesh and collectively represent the imago Dei. Together they are able to image God and one aspect of this is by creating life together.

Back to the Title VII decision and the display of ignorance. Perhaps in their zeal to support the criminalization of discrimination or to uphold the equality of imago Dei (as they understand it), many professing believers denounced the fact that this case should have even happened and proclaimed victory with Skittle rainbows for all to see. I suspect there is more going on here than simply sleeping through high school Civics class, rather there is a fundamental rejection of almighty God’s declaration that homosexuality, sexual immorality, and fornication of any kind is sin which certainly encompasses the ever-growing acronym of LGBTQ+. Now, this does not mean there is no hope for those enslaved to these sins. To the contrary, any and all regardless of the sins that have been committed may be cleansed, washed (1 Cor. 6:9-11), forgiven of their sins and reconciled to God through the blood of Jesus Christ which is a sufficient covering for all and any sins.

As mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court case hinged on the definition of the word sex. It should be clear to all that at the time of the 1964 decision, sex was not designed to be an inclusive term shorthand for whatever a person felt on a particular day, rather the inference was for the biological definition. Perhaps this is a monument for how far our society has degraded in such a short time. As we have seen, this definition is not up for debate, rather it is concrete and immutable. Allow me to repeat that: the definition of sex to include only male and female is concrete and immutable. However, what we witnessed recently with respect to the Title VII hearing is that a group of men and women can and did decide to define – or shall we say redefine, sex on the basis of so-called sexual orientation or gender identity. Though we might point out that this ruling from the highest court in the land is referred to as an Opinion, and rightly so. This redefinition of sex seemingly got lost in the shuffle as many professing believers were instead focused on the thought that there could ever be discrimination of LGBTQ+ in the workplace. This was a Love Wins moment for them.

While there are more problems related with this decision, including the overstepping of a judicial body to, in effect, create law, the primary issue was indeed this redefinition of sex. The fallout from this could be massive, not just for religious liberty, but for female athletes and the aforementioned equivocation of black rights now with LGBTQ+. A recent Washington Post article highlights the dangers of this decision for women and girls. They write
For one thing, Title VII has always allowed sex-specific policies for a reason. Without such policies, women could be compelled to compete with men for job opportunities under the same physical strength requirements before they could become police officers or prison guards. Only by acknowledging the differences between the sexes can Title VII treat women fairly and increase the number of career opportunities available to them. Businesswomen have also benefitted from Title VII, but redefining “sex” in the law could harm them. The Small Business Administration, for example, has helped increase the number of women-owned businesses by delegating money to entrepreneurs based on their sex. But if those funds are distributed according to gender identity, more women will be shouldered aside. Washington Post
Hardly writing with the authority of Scripture, but did you catch what was said above? “Only by acknowledging differences between the sexes can Title VII treat women fairly….” What actually happens when you redefine the definition of sex is that you obliterate important God-designed distinctions between men and women. Further, in blurring these distinctions it gives an explicit endorsement to those who men who ‘identify’ as women and vice versa. If we can’t see the disastrous consequences of this, then God help us.

Furthermore, as Justice Samuel Alito pointed out in his dissenting opinion, this redefinition of sex can and will have disastrous consequences across the board, as witnessed in three other cases that he cited. As one example is the case of Hecox v. Little, where a university and a high school student have filed a lawsuit against a state law prohibiting transgender athletes from competing in sports based on their so-called gender identity (1). In it’s application, this Supreme Court redefinition has massive implications effecting the distinction between male and females as it relates to sports. We are already seeing this to some extent, but now any and all legal restraint has been lifted. What this means is that males identifying as female can participate in female sports, share female locker rooms, school bathrooms, etc. and vice versa. Women, conservative and liberal alike, but particularly feminists should be outraged! But alas, such is the black hole of liberalism as it operates through the funnel of Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality.

Decisions such as these shouldn’t surprise us as the world continues to act and operate as the world. However, when professing Christians join in the celebration of the world’s depravity and sing the chorus of sin’s affirmation alongside them, they are in reality exhibiting, not the love of Christ, but the declaration of Romans 1:32, “Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.”

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

Romans 1:28-32

About the author

Christian saved by grace through faith.

Click in the box below to subscribe and get new content delivered straight to your inbox. Or leave a comment to join the discussion.

%d bloggers like this: