Gorsuch's hypothetical example is one of the stupidest things a smart person has ever said.

His example is this: Imagine you have two employees--a straight woman and a gay man. You fire the gay man for being attracted to men. You don't fire the woman for being attracted to men. Thus you have discriminated on the basis of sex.

This example is profoundly stupid for several reasons, two of which are: 1. The issue is not actually sexual attraction but sexual behavior. 2. The presumption that all sexual behavior is morally equal.

Let's focus on 2. According to the GorsuchLogic, employers simply are not allowed to believe that there is a difference between a woman having natural relations with, say, her husband and a man have unnatural relations with another man.

Heterosexual intercourse, of course, is how human bodies were designed to work, it makes babies, and it's how the human race continues existing. Sodomy, however, is physically destructive, (very arguably) psychologically destructive, and spreads deadly diseases.

But according to Gorsuch's logic, you're not allowed to notice this. You are not allowed to draw the obvious conclusion that marital sex is good for society while sodomy is bad. You are not allowed to treat two very different forms of sexual behavior differently.

Nor are you allowed to operate your business according to the moral convictions you have about sexual behavior. You are not permitted to accomplish societal good or to reflect certain values with your business if it violates the new LGBTQ dogma.

But, as is always the case in the sexual revolution, there is no consistency when it comes to the principle to which Gorsuch has bound us. To show the folly of his illustration, let's tweak it a bit.

Imagine that you own a business and you have two employees--Uriah and Dave. Uriah is married. Dave seduces Uriah's wife. Now they hate each other and you have to let one of them go.

Under pre-doofus-Gorsuch rule, this was an easy decision to make. Dave is the guilty party. He did something wrong and his sin is harmful to your business. Fire Dave.

Ah, but according to the GorsuchLogic, you can't. How can you fire Dave and not Uriah? After all, they slept with the same woman. And all sexual behavior is the same. Uriah sleeping with his wife is no different than Dave committing adultery with Uriah's wife.

Plus, Dave's heterosexual behavior is intrinsically tied to his sex, and it would be discrimination on the basis of sex to fire him for his sexual behavior!

And yet, we all know that this is not how things will play out. Of course you can fire Dave for his sin of heterosexual adultery. Of course public schools will still be able to fire teachers if they're posting on FB about being swingers or doing porn as a side gig.

Or perhaps they won't, if we're going to follow the GorsuchLogic to its conclusion. Either way, as I said earlier today, this ruling makes it abundantly clear that we don't have the option of not having a theocracy.

Either you get a good theocracy that's guided by Christian principles, upholds justice and mercy, and keeps the heresy trials to a minimum. Or you get a bad theocracy, in this case the Church of LGBTQ inclusion, that seeks to destroy anyone who won't confess its dogma.