The problem is that Bostock was ruled incorrectly, and created a new protected class based on gender and not disability, according to the neo-liberals.
I wrote about this on my blog, WolfeOut.com:
“If a man wants to dress like a woman, and even act like a woman, when there’s nothing at stake it should be okay. This would be an accommodation. It is provided for under the Americans with Disabilities Act, regardless of the impairment.
The problem is that when people who are gender-impaired demand extra rights because of their behavior or belief, and claim they are not disabled, it’s harmful to all people with disabilities. To separate out transgender people into a unique category , and say they deserve special employment rights is not fair to other people with disabilities and it’s harmful to our society.
Bostock goes way beyond granting a particular accommodation, based on their disability and the balancing of rights. The accommodation they’ve been granted by the Supreme Court in the Bostock Decision infringes on the rights of people with disabilities, biological women, and employers, with no rational basis. This decision was wrong. and Hopefully, it will be reversed.
The Bostock decision involved two homosexuals, Gerald Bostock and Donald Larka, and one transgender case, involving a man who identified as Aimee Stevens. While the homosexuals may have had a good argument, since they weren’t petitioning the court to fundamentally change the business, but rather demanded that the employer not discriminate against them based on sexual orientation. However, the third case did make this argument.
In that instance, Stevens claimed he had the right to greet customers wearing a dress and lipstick because he identified as a woman, which not surprisingly offended most of the mourners.
If this transgender employee were only working in the back of the funeral home, or answering phones, or perhaps working on an assembly line, it would be different. But, once serving or greeting the customer became part of the case, the employer had a fundamental right to object, and defend his customers and business.”