Seven reasons to take hope from Bostock

In a 6 -3 opinion by delivered by Trump appointee Justice Gorsuch, the Supreme Court held that "an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII."

The sweeping opinion begins, "Sometimes small gestures can have unexpected consequences. Major initiatives practically guarantee them." And it fans out from there.

1. There is nothing more satisfying than a great, subtle argument and Bostock's was just that. Bostock argued that his employer fired him because he is a man who loves men, but would not have fired a woman who loves men. Therefore, they were treating him differently than they would have treated a woman, in violation of federal law. The Court accepted this argument and then some.
2. The Court rejected the employers' "naked policy appeals, suggesting that the Court proceed with out the law's guidance to do what it thinks best," noting for the record, "That is an invitation that no court should ever take up."
3. The 6 - 3 opinion is rock solid in that in addition to the usual liberal suspects - Kagan, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Breyer - it included Roberts and the conservative Gorsuch, who wrote the opinion. The Chief Justice assigns authorship of opinions and it was no accident that Roberts assigned this one to Gorsuch. First, an overtly liberal opinion coming from a conservative justice carries more weight. Second, I can't help but wonder if Roberts was sending a message to the president, with whom he has sparred over judicial independence, that the Court is an independent branch unmarred by politics.
4. The Court relies on old dictionaries, which is always fun.
5. The opinion is reasonable, generous, and correct, and provides a balm - a little bit of good news in a rancorous time
6. The Court distinguishes between discrimination against a class and discrimination against individuals and finds that discriminating against an individual is enough to violate the law.
7. The Court writes that it is enough that the employer fired or discriminated against the individual based on sex. It doesn't have to be the only reason or the primary reason - just a reason.
8. And one regret: it is truly a shame that Antonin Scalia wasn't around for this one. I can almost see his apoplectic dissent - the railing about definitions and 1954 dictionary definitions of sex and all kinds of argle bargle. It would have been an awe-inspiring spectacle and I, for one, would have enjoyed it.