- [Paul] This Supreme Courtterm gave strong support

to religious liberties in the final week,

but an earlier ruling lefta cloud over the future.

June's ruling in the Bostock case

radically redefined what sex means.

Author Luke Goodrich warns thatcreates potential problems,

as the court has nowmade firing homosexuals

or transgenders sex discrimination.

- You know, there's tens of thousands

of religious organizationsacross the country

that expect their employees to uphold

their religious teachingsabout human sexuality.

So in one sense, Bostock could greenlight

a lot more lawsuits by former employees

against religious employers.

- [Paul] Constitutionallawyer Jenna Ellis warns

the ruling goes even further

because it's a clear example

of the court legislating from the bench.

- The Supreme Court read into a 1964 law

knowing that that wasn'tthe intent of that Congress

to define sex to includesexual orientation

and gender identity.

That term, sex, was only meant to be

the biological difference men and women.

And so if the court can read into a term

from a 1964 Congress,what else might they read

into future legislation thatdamages religious liberty

and a free exercise of religion

and the ability for Christians

to follow our sincerelyheld religious beliefs

in the future?

So the precedent here isnot just for employers.

It's a precedent of whether or not

the Supreme Court isgoing to give themselves

overwhelming powerthat's not constitutional

to then read into futurecongressional acts,

and we need to protect against that.

- [Paul] Ellis believesAmericans can do that

by exercising their right to vote.

- To protect religiousfreedom, to protect pro-life,

and to protect the founding

of America's principles,that our rights come

from God our Creator, not our government,

and that it's thegovernment's responsibility,

including the Supreme Court,to continue to protect

and preserve our freedoms.

- [Paul] Paul Strand,CBN News, Washington.