Here is the court's response to this argument[0]: > "The employers contend that few in 1964 would have expected Title VII to apply to discrimination against ho

Here is the court's response to this argument[0]: > "The employers contend that few in 1964 would have expected Title VII to apply to discrimination against homosexual and transgender persons. But legislative history has no bearing here, where no ambiguity exists about how Title VII’s terms apply to the facts. See Milner v. Department of Navy, 562 U. S. 562, 574. > "While it is possible that a statutory term that means one thing today or in one context might have meant something else at the time of its adoption or might mean something different in another context, the employers do not seek to use historical sources to illustrate that the meaning of any of Title VII’s language has changed since 1964 or that the statute’s terms ordinarily carried some missed message. > "Instead, they seem to say when a new application is both unexpected and important, even if it is clearly commanded by existing law, the Court should merely point out the question, refer the subject back to Congress, and decline to enforce the law’s plain terms in the meantime. This Court has long rejected that sort of reasoning. And the employers’ new framing may only add new problems and leave the Court with more than a little law to overturn." (emphasis added) --- From my understanding, the court is looking at this law as it is interpreted in "plain terms", which is from the point of view of "how would an average Joe or Jill on the street understand x?", in this instance, x being title VII's concept of "discrimination based on SEX". The way the court sees it, if you fire a GUY for liking GUYS, but don't also fire a GIRL for liking GUYS, that is different treatment based on sex. They then state that if you respond, "Woah, that may be a valid interpretation of the words, but its never been APPLIED like that before", tough luck. Its the court's job to re-interpret and clarify rules and fully within their ability to do so. (Edit: I re-read the opinion and found a different summary more appropriate.) [0]:https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf