Many years ago, a leftist attorney I know thought he had a trump card to play, showing how hypocritical churches were when it came to gay marriage: They never complained about abortion infringing on their constitutional rights, he said. Their constitutional complaint in the face of gay marriage showed they were homophobic.

I gently reminded him that churches don’t perform abortions, but they do perform marriages. In other words, anything that allows the government to force doctrinal changes on religious institutions and believers infringes on their First Amendment rights. Thus, the moment the Supreme Court decided its misguided Obergefell decision finding an imaginary right to same sex marriage in the Constitution, I worried about a clash between that imaginary right and the real First Amendment right to religious freedom.

Image created using AI.

I reiterated my concern when the Supreme Court issued Justice Gorsuch’s utterly misbegotten decision in Bostock v. Clayton County. That decision insisted that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents employers from discriminating against employees based on, among other things, sex, extended to sexual preference and so-called “gender identity.” Of course, by sex, Congress in 1964 clearly meant only the XX/XY binary. Homosexuality was not at issue, and “gender identity” had not yet been birthed in leftists’ fertile imaginations.

It was obvious from the moment the Bostock decision hit the streets, though, that it would set up a confrontation between people of faith, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, people of fantasy demanding that their employers and colleagues recognize their mental illness as reality. And, just to emphasize the mental illness part, here is a representative of the so-called gender identity movement:

BREAKING: MORE TRANS VIOLENCE

Zayn Edward Arcand a “genderfluid, polyamorous sometimes female” person was just arrested for allegedly trying to BURN DOWN Dickinson County, MI Republican Committee headquarters

Arcand admitted to throwing the Molotov cocktail at the Republican… pic.twitter.com/qQxpooAMVE

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) July 15, 2025

Newsweek is reporting a perfect example of the inevitable confrontation, because it involves a library that forces “inclusive” language on its employees and a pastor who was fired for refusing to use that language. And while the library may have voluntarily created the speech code because its leftist management buys into so-called transgenderism, the reality is that the Bostock decision requires it—and all other businesses—to do so as a matter of law:

A Louisiana pastor said he was fired from his job at a local library after he refused to use a co-worker's preferred pronouns.

Luke Ash, the lead pastor of Stevendale Baptist Church in Baton Rouge, said he was sacked from the East Baton Rouge Parish Library after a conversation on July 7.

[snip]

Libraries, schools and other institutions have implemented policies to create respectful environments for all employees, including protections for those who identify as transgender or non-binary.

But some may feel that such policies may conflict with employees' religious beliefs, resulting in disciplinary action or job loss.

Here’s a video of Ash describing what happened:

"I said, I'm not going to lie."

Pastor Luke Ash, Lead Pastor of Stevendale Baptist Church in Baton Rouge, shares how he was fired from his job last week at the local library for not using preferred pronouns. pic.twitter.com/xZqv8MSr3r

— Tony Perkins (@tperkins) July 15, 2025

According to Newsweek, what comes next is all very nuanced and requires a lot of balancing:

The outcome of this case could hinge on the interpretation of anti-discrimination and religious freedom statutes in Louisiana and may contribute to ongoing discussions about the balance between workplace inclusivity and individual convictions.

That’s true only if the Supreme Court continues to insist that Bostock was correctly decided. And keep in mind that, as happened with the Supreme Court’s 1896 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, which articulated the “separate but equal” principle, the Supreme Court can reverse itself.

However, there’s nothing nuanced here. On the one hand, we have a decision that chose to interpret a 1964 statute in a way that Congress clearly never intended, which makes the decision invalid right off the bat. On the other hand, we have a matter of pure religious speech and conscience.

It’s not even close. Bostock needs to be overruled. I hope Ash—the perfect plaintiff because he’s a man of the cloth—finds a conservative legal aid society to take up this case, and that the case makes it to the Supreme Court.