The folks at Alliance Defending Freedom and Family Research Council are not having much fun today. One can only imagine how Ryan T. Anderson has reacted. Perhaps we will know later in the day.
We begin with Alliance Defending Freedom, an anti-LGBTQ hate group. ADF’s missive is titled: Breaking: You won’t believe this! That, in turn, leads to a post at their blog titled: Supreme Court Delivers a Troubling Decision Against Harris Funeral Homes. Troubling for whom?
Seven long years of bullshit:
Americans should be able to rely on what the law says.
Unfortunately, it seems the U.S. Supreme Court does not agree.
Today, the Supreme Court ruled against our client Harris Funeral Homes. In doing so, the Court has delivered a truly troubling decision: Unelected officials and courts can effectively rewrite laws—forcing Americans to guess what the law means—including something as fundamental as the meaning of “sex.”
Alliance Defending Freedom has represented Harris Funeral Homes since 2013. That year, a male funeral director expressed the intent to begin dressing and presenting as a woman at work while interacting with grieving families. This funeral director had worked at Harris Funeral Homes for nearly six years and agreed to abide by the sex-specific dress code throughout that time.
The above is the same crap that ADF has been trotting out for all of those seven years. “Oh, the shocked grieving families!”
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruled that unelected officials and courts do have the authority to redefine the law—bypassing Congress—and that “sex” in Title VII includes “gender identity” and “sexual orientation.”
This is devastating news for Harris Funeral Homes, which has faithfully served grieving families for more than 100 years. Please pray for this family-owned business. And pray as well for all Americans. Because this ruling has implications for us all.
“Devastating?” Devastated by equality. What’s it to them now? The poor woman is dead and never regained her employment. Perhaps he is devastated to learn that he is officially a bigot.
The Troubling Implications
Redefining “sex” to mean “gender identity” creates chaos, with widespread consequences for everyone.
- It undermines dignity, privacy, and equal opportunities for women.
- It could compel professionals from all walks of life to refer to colleagues with pronouns and other sex-specific terms according to gender identity rather than biology.
- It puts employers like Tom in difficult positions—requiring them to treat men who believe themselves to be women as if they are in fact women, even if that results in violating the bodily privacy rights of other employees.
The bottom line is that ignoring biological reality in our laws threatens our freedoms of conscience, religion, and speech.
I simply cannot imagine, considering the above, why ADF is deemed a hate group. Yet deeper they dive.
By ruling in the similar case decided today that “sex” in federal employment law also includes “sexual orientation,” the Court made it more difficult for employers and employees who hold the longstanding, honorable belief that marriage is only between one man and one woman.
After all, it is simply imperative for employers to judge people on matters having nothing to do with workplace performance. And yes, Sarah Kramer (the author of this bullshit), marriage is marriage. It does not require the approval of any third party. All married people are entitled to the same benefits.
I hate to cut this short but let us move on to Family Research Council:
Their little missive is titled: Supreme Court Fails to Exercise Restraint in Employment Cases, says Family Research Council. FRC’s nitwits repeat the losing arguments:
The court’s insistence that a Christian funeral home must retain a transgender employee threatens its freedom to operate according to its understanding of sexuality that is rooted in the facts of science and human history. The Harris Funeral Homes, a family operated business for more than a hundred years, was challenged by a male employee who said that he would no longer follow the company dress code of wearing sex-specific clothes for work. This led to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) suing the funeral home, and the case made its way to the Supreme Court.
The folks at FRC have some rather odd ideas about science and the length of time that the funeral home was in operation is entirely irrelevant. “Male employee?”
Not surprisingly Hate Group Leader Tony Perkins defines religious freedom as the right to discriminate against people one disapproves of:
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins released the following statement:
“The core issue before the Court in this case was whether it is within the legitimate power of judges to suddenly redefine the meaning of words and rewrite a 55-year-old statute. Sadly, the Court answered in the affirmative.
“Allowing judges to rewrite the Civil Rights Act to add gender identity and sexual orientation as protected classes poses a grave threat to religious liberty. …
Peter Sprigg weighs in after noting that it was not the intent of Congress 50 years ago (another losing argument):
“We are disappointed the Supreme Court chose to radically re-write the statute by expanding its meaning to cover ‘gender identity’ and ‘sexual orientation.’ The failure of LGBT activists to achieve their goals through the democratic process is no excuse to simply bypass that process and obtain their goal by judicial fiat instead,” noted Sprigg.
The moronic Mr. Sprigg should have learned through marriage equality that minority rights are never a popularity contest decided by the whims of the voters.