Posted on 07/30/2019 11:18:42 PM PDT by Impala64ssa
I felt like I had been punched in the stomach. I was just gasping for air.
Thats how Nancy Rost recalls the moments after her husband, Tom, walked through the door of their home six years ago this month.
In his hand, Tom held a letter from a longtime employee. On his face, the easy confidence Nancy had seen from Tom every day since they met each other as children was missing, replaced by a palpable sense of anxiety.
Immediately, Tom and Nancy knew that the contents of the letter had the potential to devastate R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, which Toms grandfather had established in 1910 to serve grieving families throughout Detroit.
As it stands now, Toms five-generation family business is in the hands of the Supreme Court, with oral arguments scheduled for Oct. 8.
No doubt, his case will have sweeping implications across American life.
So, what was in the letter?
Anthony Stephens, a biological male employee who had agreed to and followed the funeral homes sex-specific dress code for more than six years, intended to show up to workas well as to the homes of grieving familiesdressed as a woman.
For years, Toms company had required employees to agree to and abide by a sex-specific dress code that aligned with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission requirements. The regulation-consistent policy ensured that family members of a deceased loved one could focus on processing their grief, not on the funeral home or its employees.
Over the next two weeks, Tom carefully considered his situation. Tom was concerned for Stephensa longtime, valued employeeand for Stephens family. He also had to consider the rest of his staff, including an 80-year-old female employee, who would be sharing the womens restroom facility with Stephens.
Finally, Tom pondered the impact on the funeral homes clients.
In the end, Tom decided that he could not agree to Stephens proposal. That decision was fully in line with federal law. Yet, in a matter of months, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the funeral home. Later, following the commissions urging, a federal court of appeals effectively redefined the word sex in federal law to mean gender identity.
Enacted by Congress in 1964, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act has long protected women, along with racial and religious minorities, from unjust discrimination in the workplace.
Redefining the term sex in that law to mean gender identity would create chaotic, unworkable situations and unjustly punish business owners like Tom while destroying important gains women and girls have made over the past 50 years.
Indeed, Tom Rosts case, in which Alliance Defending Freedom represents the funeral home, is just the tip of the iceberg.
Blurring the legal differences between male and female forces women and girls to endure unequal treatment because some men and boys believe that they are women.
In Connecticut, for instance, two boys competing as girls have set state records in 15 events over the past two years, while costing girls like Selina Soule over 50 chances at next-level races.
In Anchorage, Alaska, city officials have weaponized gender ideology to argue that a womens shelter must allow a biological male to sleep 3 feet away from women who have been victimized by rape, sex trafficking, and domestic violence.
Refusing even to discuss these and other issues that result from redefining sex to mean gender identity, Democratic lawmakers have put forward the paradoxically named Equality Act that would institutionalize these harms under federal law.
While that bill has stalled in the Senate, federal courts like the one that ruled against Harris Funeral Homes have acted to effectively change the law on their own, imposing their own policy preferences and punishing business owners who were simply acting in compliance with the law Congress actually enacted. Tom and Nancy Rost have the right to depend on what the law saysnot what judges or bureaucrats want it to be.
In R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Supreme Court has a golden opportunity to affirm that changing the law is only something Congress can do, particularly in a context as complicated as changing the meaning of sex itself.
Why stop at gender identity? What about species identity?
I want to declare I’m a bald eagle and have anyone that disturbs me arrested.
I suspect the original author meant eradicate, eliminate, terminate, destroy, dispose of, or one of many more euphemisms for kill. I can understand his logic when some members of society seem to use an extremely rare condition for their own advantage as a means of attention gathering it becomes a perversion of nature.
Nature seems to have a way of maintaining its course and eliminating development mistakes. It is a way of safeguarding a species.
If they Left says go this way, you should go the opposite way.
Want to know what to do in foreign policy....the opposite of what the Left says.
” Ithink this has gone way too far already and the Supreme Court or indeed any high courts should step in and resume adult supervision”
Not this SC. We have to endure this madness and pray Trump gets another pick. The current SC will rule for the trannys and then we will have no recourse.
They will never stop pushing the envelope. The next boundary to break is pedophilia. First, they’ll start with age 15 and up. Later, it will be no holds barred.
Our Supreme Court recent records on religious freedom feed Christians to the lions for giggles.
Thats an honor, but imagine a country without a Bible believing Christian in it. In history, that has never been a path to anywhere but deaths of millions.
The Yaniv case in Canada shows these sexual activists have no limits - you will accommodate them in every way.
That case can be summarized as: Wax my balls, bigot, alone in your home, though I publicly sexualize preteen girls.
I hope sanity prevails and the Supreme Court eventually hears a case involving some medical issue where forcing citizens to treat a woman or man against their biological reality is considered harmful.
They could rule that everyone can call themselves socially male, female, asexual, etc. but no law shall incriminate others referring such make-believers as bio male or bio female.
When dealing with disease there is only one solution, eliminate the disease. Is that clear enough?
I hope sanity prevails and the Supreme Court eventually hears a case involving some medical issue where forcing citizens to treat a woman or man against their biological reality is considered harmful.
They could rule that everyone can call themselves socially male, female, asexual, etc. but no law shall incriminate others referring such make-believers as bio male or bio female.
This ridiculous issue about how people can change their gender will go down in history right beside The Spanish Inquisition.
Misguided, stupid and VERY dangerous. And hopefully, short-lived.
100% correct. Modern America will be a perfect future case study of clinical mass hysteria. A phenomenon that has occurred in societies throughout history and one that is occurring right now
As one of the commenters at the site wrote...
“There are 3 sexes: male, female and mentally ill.”
...a man could marry his dog.
It is probably more than five years since I first made that prediction. Still a way to go.
____________________________
Not really.
Another woman married a chandelier
https://nypost.com/2019/07/19/woman-plans-to-marry-91-year-old-chandelier-named-lumiere/
There are no words except: attention whores.
I think they will redefine mental illness in its entirety. Bipolar, schizophrenia, mania ... will be a right. The reason will be to define normal (rejection of their new normal) to be mentally ill. No rights for the new mentally ill. Christian - mentally ill. Wont date a tranny - mentally ill. Wont attend a gay wedding- mentally ill. ....
My guess. Selective definition if mentally ill / unstable in the political narrative combined with red flag laws, 72+ hour forced psychiatric evaluation. Forced medication.
Exterminate those out of closets
Who said I intended to do anything?
I have pretty much had it.
When a Democrat Presidential candidate tells the world that a male can get an abortion, the country is lost.
Listen, insane Bozos! If a man is pregnant, that so called man is a woman who is pretending to be a man. She may feel Masculine, she may even believe she is a male, but she is still a woman, a female who is pregnant. Now, shut up and stop making your damn problems my problems.
About any issues actually. ALL anti-discrimination law that applies to private individuals is a violation of the first amendment. It forces us to assemble with those we may choose to not assemble with.
Sure, people have some limited right to declare their gender as they see fit,
The problem with this statement is the assumption that people have "gender". They do not. Human beings have sex. and sex is determined by genetics (XX or XY, Female or male)
Someone declaring themselves to be a Buick is 100% as accurate as man declaring himself to have a female gender.
We need to retake the language and demand that things be labelled as they are, not as some liberal whack job wants them to be.
My sincere hope is that one day soon a big burly security guard at the House of Representatives will decide that he is now a she and shows up dressed appropriately as a female security officer. Also I hope that a Jesuit priest at Georgetown decides the same. (Just interested in the mischief and PR aspects.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.