A thread on the significant unknown variable facing religious liberty: After Bostock, how will "sex" be understood for the possibility of religious exemptions throughout its application in federal law?

Title VII's religious employer exemption allows religious employers to discriminate based on religion. But they may not discriminate based on other protected grounds, such as race or sex.

For example, consider a Christian non-profit. It cannot discriminate based on race or sex. Applicants of all races, ethnicities, and national origins must be considered equally. Same with male and female applicants.

The non-profit cannot provide a religious rationale for discriminating based on race. The non-profit could not argue that what boiled down to racial discrimination was really "just" screening applicants out on a religious basis.

This is because the courts recognized, rightly, that this is cloaking racial discrimination in religious language. But now consider SOGI. After Bostock, a faith-based non-profit holding to Christian belief about both could be guilty of "sex" discrimination.

If the non-profit refuses to hire a gay or transgender applicant who affirms all other elements of their statement of faith, is that discrimination based on religion (which is allowed under the Title VII religious employer exemption) or discrimination based on sex?

The question: Is their statement of faith cloaking invidious discrimination under the guise of religion? That's what we do not know yet. We can hope religious institutions receive a charitable interpretation, but I don't trust the long term direction of culture, politics, & law.

If I'm wrong about this (and I hope I am sincerely wrong), I will flag this thread later and admit my error. Intellectual honesty demands it. But I join Justice Alito in his concerns that there's little limiting principle to the impact of this ruling.