- Well the Supreme Court decided today

that it will wade into the thorny issue

of discrimination in the workplace.

It will hear a trio ofcases involving people

who say they were fired because

of their sexual orientationor gender identity.

At issue, whether the 1964federal Civil Rights Law,

that prohibits employment discrimination,

also applies to sexualorientation and gender identity.

One of those cases involves

a male Michigan funeral home employee

who asked for permission todress as a woman at work.

Another involves a gayskydiving instructor

who challenged his dismissal.

And a third case pertainsto a social worker

who said he was fired becauseof his sexual orientation.

Joining us now with more is Jim Campbell

with Alliance Defending Freedom, or ADF.

ADF represents the Michigan funeral home

that is defending itsrefusal to continue to employ

a male employee who identified as a woman

to dress in woman's clothing.

And thanks so much for joining us Jim.

- My pleasure, thanks for having me.

- Talk about the dress codewhich is very important

to the GR Harris Funeral Home,

why is it so important?

- Well it's importantbecause the primary goal

of Harris Funeral Homesis the grieving families

that they serve.

So they put in place these policies

to ensure professionalism,

to ensure that their employeesblend into the background,

and to ensure thatgrieving families can focus

on each other and their grief.

- So why did the funeralhome not allow it's employee

to dress as a woman.

Would it have allowed it

if the employee was fully transitioned?

- Well, in this situation,they have this policy,

it's a sex specific policy.

Men dress a certain way,women dress a certain way,

and they put that in place again

in order to serve theinterests of their customers.

So, under these circumstances,the owner, Tom Ross,

determined that therequest of this employee

was not in the best interestof the grieving families

that they serve.

But, nevertheless, he wantedto do right by this employee,

so he offered him a severance package,

which the employee refused

and instead Harris FuneralHomes has been battling the EEOC

for the last nearly six years

because the federal government'sbeen targeting them,

simply to make a political point.

- Why do you think theSupreme Court decided

to take this particular case

and the other two now?

- Well it's an important question

whether unelected officials at the EEOC

can unilaterally redefine federal law

in order to bring abouttheir political goals.

Here, we're dealing with aterm that's been in the law

for over 50, 60 years.

We're dealing with the wordsex and taking the word sex

and replacing it with gender identity

has widespread consequences in the law.

For example, doing thatwould jeopardize the dignity

and privacy rights of womenby opening privacy facilities

like locker rooms, andrestrooms, and shower facilities

to men who identify as women.

It would also undermine educationaland sports opportunities

for girls by opening thoseopportunities to boys

who identify as girls.

So there's a number ofissues that are raised here

and these are importantquestions that the people

should be able to decide for themselves

and not have unelectedofficials decide it for them.

- Really so much at stake here.

What is the timeline of thiscase at this point in time?

When might it be heard and whatare you looking forward to?

- Yeah the court willlikely hear arguments

in the fall, maybe as late as the winter,

but probably October, November argument.

And then the Court willlikely decide the case

sometime next year in thespring or even in the summer.

- Jim Campbell withAlliance Defending Freedom,

thank you for your time.

- Thank you.