The Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects LGBTQ employees from being discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

The court on Monday issued opinions on two major decisions with far-reaching implications for the civil rights of transgender and LGBTQ individuals.

It was a 6-3 ruling, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch joining the four liberal justices in the majority.

Writing for the majority, Gorsuch argued that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is fundamentally no different than discrimination based on sex.

An individuals homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions, Gorsuch wrote. Thats because it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.

We agree that homosexuality and transgender status are distinct concepts from sex, he added later. But, as weve seen, discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily entails discrimination based on sex; the first cannot happen without the second.

The rulings rest on a pair of arguments the court heard in October in which justices considered whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal law that prohibits workplace discrimination, applies to LGBTQ and transgender workers.

While Title VII bars discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, and religion, the original bill didnt define sex as a term. The Trump administration used that ambiguity to argue that lawmakers original intent focused solely on protecting womens rights and, therefore, shouldnt be extended to include sexual orientation or gender identity.

The issue is not whether Congress can or should prohibit employment discrimination because of sexual orientation, Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco, who represented the Trump administration, argued. The issue, rather, is whether it did so when it prohibited discrimination because of sex.

Questions posed by members of the courts conservative majority in October suggested they largely agreed and believed the remedy should be legislative, not judicial.

If the court takes this up and interprets this 1964 statute to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, Justice Samuel Alito said, we will be acting exactly like a legislature.

Justice Alito returned to that theme in a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.

There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation, Alito wrote. The document that the Court releases is in the form of a judicial opinion interpreting a statute, but that is deceptive.

Near the end of arguments in October, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a member of the courts liberal bloc, appeared to argue that Title VII should indeed be used to protect groups that historically have faced discrimination.

We cant deny that homosexuals are being fired merely for being who they are and not because of religious reasons, not because they are performing their jobs poorly, not because they cant do whatever is required of a position, she said, but merely because theyre a suspect class to some people.

The Supreme Court reached the decision after considering a trio of cases all filed in 2018.