The U.S. Supreme Court has been told that Justice Samuel Alito’s warning about discrimination against supporters of traditional marriage, which came when by the narrowest of margins five lawyers on the bench created same-sex marriage for America, appears to be coming true.

In 2015 the five decided, without support from the Constitution, according to the chief justice, that same-sex marriages must be recognized, even though centuries of tradition and precedent did not support such a move.

At the time, Alito issued a dire warning in dissent.

“I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools,” he warned.

Those are the very circumstances in a case submitted to the court for possible review.

In it, a man who worked for a funeral home decided he is a woman and began dressing that way. But he was dismissed because he failed to follow his job’s required dress code.

He sued, and since the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission decided that in federal law “sex” now means “gender identity,” an appeals court affirmed the man’s complaint of discrimination.

Now the Foundation for Moral Law has submitted a brief asking the high court to take up the case.

It explained: “In this case, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. EEOC, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued a funeral home, owned by Christians, that refused to allow a male funeral director to dress as a female. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that Title VII’s prohibition of sex discrimination applies to transgender individuals and that the funeral home owners’ religious objections did not protect them from liability.”

The foundation continued: “In October 2016, the Supreme Court had granted certiorari to consider whether federal regulations required public schools to allow students who claimed to be transgender to use the bathroom of their choice. However, when the Trump administration came to power in 2017, it changed positions from the Obama administration, holding that schools may segregate students based on their biological sex in bathrooms and locker rooms. The Supreme Court therefore declined to decide the issue at that time. Now, the Supreme Court is being asked to consider the transgender question in the workplace instead of in schools.”

Kayla Moore, the foundation president, said: “Religious liberty is an unalienable right given by God. The courts cannot force the funeral home owners in this case to surrender that right.”

Foundation Senior Counsel John Eidsmoe added: “By allowing a funeral director to cross-dress, the Sixth Circuit forgot about the rights of the deceased’s family members, who often want a funeral to be conducted in accordance with their religious beliefs or the religious beliefs of the deceased. When saying goodbye to a loved one, family members should not have to face an additional issue that could cause tension.”

Matt Clark, the foundation lawyer who submitted the brief, said that if the Sixth Circuit’s decision is allowed to stand, “employers will probably make everyone in their workplace respect the pronoun and bathroom preferences of the transgender employees.”

“Religious employees who have objections will then be forced to choose between their jobs and their faith. They should not be placed in such a dilemma,” he said.

WND reported the Alliance Defending Freedom appealed to the Supreme Court.

“No court or federal agency has the authority to rewrite a federal statute. That power belongs solely to Congress,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jim Campbell. “Replacing ‘sex’ with ‘gender identity,’ as the Sixth Circuit and the EEOC have done, is a dramatic change. What it means to be male or female shifts from a biological reality based in anatomy and physiology to a subjective perception.

“Far-reaching consequences accompany such a transformation.”

It was worker Anthony Stephens who decided he was a woman.

Karen Moore – a federal judge who once ruled that judges have nearly absolute immunity from claims over their behavior, even when they are “petty, unethical and unworthy” – wrote the opinion that the funeral home must allow a man to dress in skirts, nylons and high heels.

The foundation brief said: “Failing to correct the Sixth Circuit’s decision will lead to the real Title VII violation: discrimination against religious employees whose rights to object to transgenderism are actually protected by statute instead of judicial fiat. If this court does not correct the Sixth Circuit’s error, then Justice Alito’s warning from Obergefell v. Hodges will prove true here as well.”

That the next major cases over the conflict between special rights for alternative sexual lifestyles and constitutionally protected religious right will focus on transgenderism was illustrated just days ago when the state of Colorado brought a complaint against Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips.

He was the baker who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex duo because it violated his faith and was vindicated by the Supreme Court.

Now the state of Colorado is punishing him for refusing to bake a cake celebrating transgenderism.

WND reported when James Dobson, the noted Christian psychologist and founder of the Dr. James Dobson Family Institute, reacted, asserting the state of Colorado is running a “biased” Civil Rights Commission that exhibits hostility to “people of faith.”

And he wants lawmakers to fix it.

“We strongly condemn the decision of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to allow this new claim of discrimination to move forward,” Dobson’s statement said. “This is simply a continued attack on the First Amendment and religious freedom.

“We call upon the Colorado legislature to provide unbiased, fair, constitutional due process for all Coloradoans, including people of faith, and to prevent future hostility by this biased government agency.”

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.