Zarda v. Altitude Express

Michael Harless Statutory Construction, U. S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Today, we filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit sitting en banc, where we are opposing efforts by radical homosexuals to convince liberal judges in New York to re-write the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit discrimination against homosexuals in employment.

Currently, the 1964 federal law bars discrimination in employment on the basis of “sex” and “race.”  However, in Zarda, lawyers for a homosexual skydiving instructor (since deceased from a skydiving accident) are claiming “sex” includes “sexual orientation,” and that Zarda was fired from his job because he was gay.

We pointed out in our brief that both his employer and all his coworkers had known for years that he was gay.  He was not fired because he was gay, but because he seemingly had a need to share with everyone the fact that he was gay — including customers.  When a customer finally complained about his oversharing, his employer was forced to take action and terminate his employment.

However, as we pointed out in the brief, even if Zarda’s termination was based in part on his sexual orientation, that still does not mean he is able to sue under the statute.  Our brief disputed the idea that sexual orientation is so closely tied to sex that it should be considered the same thing.

Next, we countered the homosexuals’ argument that sexual orientation is like race — and thus a relationship between a man and a man is no different than a black woman and a white man. Contrary to what the homosexuals claimed, a homosexual relationship is not capable of “doing exactly the same things” as a heterosexual relationship.  Two men simply do not “do the same things” with one another as do straight people.  But between the races, people are exactly the same, and two white people have no different a relationship than a white person and a black person.

Finally, we attached the idea of an “evolving legal landscape,” whereby judges feel free to create new law based on how they perceive society, and how they believe the law should be read to fit that society.  Rather, as Justice Gorsuch has noted, it is up to Congress to change federal statutes through legislation; it is not up to courts to do so by fiat.  And in this situation, Congress numerous times has refused to create new protections for “sexual orientation.”

Lastly, we discussed how a move away from morality is not a move toward a secular state, but a move toward idolatry, and idolatrous nations do not end well.

We are pleased to report that the Trump Justice Department also filed an amicus brief in this case supporting the employer.

Link to brief