SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]
(a) Employer practices
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer –
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964
How did corporate America become so woke? We can point to higher education as is done in Luttwak: The End of the Long March, but a more direct cause is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Many conservatives pilloried Justice Gorsuch for his opinion and there have been efforts that attempt to show how he was wrong both from a close textualist perspective (https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/justice-gorsuch-title-vii-cases-half-way-textualism-surprises-disappoints/) as well as from a Natural Law one (https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2020/07/conservative-jurisprudence-without-truth). While the textualist argument is a scintillating discussion on the meaning of phrases and the natural law argument is a wonderful defense of the natural sexes, they both avoid the 800 pound gorilla: Title VII is tyrannical and unconstitutional. In plain language, Title VII gives government control over every hiring, firing, and promotion decision in America, including those of religious institutions. Yes, there are exceptions, but in practice, such exceptions shift the burden of proof from the state to the employer. If it honks, walks, and smells like a goose, it is fascism.
Employment is a contract between employer and employee. By definition, the parties enter into contracts are entered into voluntarily. That is, the sole authority lies with the parties and, until there is a contract, government (any government) has no authority to interfere, second guess, override, or other wise stick its nose in their business. Entering into a contract requires trust from both parties. If either party chooses not to enter into a contract for any reason, that is it. There is no recourse for the other party or the state. If one or both of the parties chooses not to enter a contract for racist, sexist, ageist, religious, or some other bigoted rationale, it is between the conscience of the party and his or her Creator.
The Republicans had fought Jim Crow and the bigotry of the Democrats for a century with little success because the “northern”, sophisticated Democrats routinely sided with their compatriots from the south to defend Jim Crow in general and lynching in particular. After World War 2 pressure for civil rights legislation gained momentum and the Democrats faced a crisis. Where the southern democrats saw a threat, the northern and other socialist democrats saw an opportunity. Why oppress a minority when you can enslave everyone? In the name of ending racism, pass legislation that prohibits “discrimination” in hiring and firing and put the means of enforcement in a special commission unaccountable to “politics”. Who could object? Well, some Republicans saw the danger and did object, but not enough. Despite promises and plain language in the law to prevent quotas and other abuses, these parchment barriers quickly fell to where today every one who submits and application is asked to disclose their race, sex, and other protected classes so that the government can monitor and enforce “diversity.”
The result is that corporations have learned to use wokeness to protect themselves from the government and even to leverage it to their advantage. Enforcing diversity gives both large corporations and the government the rationale for controlling every thought.
When Title VII was passed many thought that it would outlaw only bad discrimination and many today still cling to this hope. Read it again because it does not distinguish between bad and good discrimination. To discriminate between man and woman includes discriminating between manly and womanly behavior. The biological fact that boys grow up to be fathers and little girls grow up to be mothers helps define the differences in moral behavior between the sexes. To outlaw discrimination between the sexes is to outlaw the humanity of both sexes and the logical consequence is a whole host of depravities. Further, to outlaw discrimination on the basis of religion is to outlaw all morality. If you think outlawing sexual discrimination does not lead to sexual depravity, outlawing religious discrimination surely does. And, by the way, this notion was in common usage of socialists in 1964.
It is too early to say if Justice Gorsuch intended his opinion to shine the light of truth on the inherent totalitarianism of Title VII or if he just got seduced by the sophistry of the argument, but there is good reason for a textualist and a socialist (Justice Sotomayor, for instance) to arrive at the same conclusion of the meaning of Title VII. After all, if you want to know the meaning of the text of socialist legislation, ask a socialist. Giving Justice Gorsuch (and even Justice Roberts) the benefit, though, these rulings highlight a hard truth, the simple solution is the repeal of Title VII.