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.”
That’s 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 Tom’s grandfather had established in 1910 to serve grieving families throughout Detroit.
As it stands now, Tom’s 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 home’s sex-specific dress code for more than six years, intended to show up to work—as well as to the homes of grieving families—dressed as a woman.
For years, Tom’s 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 Stephens—a longtime, valued employee—and 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 women’s restroom facility with Stephens.
Finally, Tom pondered the impact on the funeral home’s 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 commission’s 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 Rost’s 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 women’s 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 says—not 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.
> Yet, in a matter of months, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the funeral home.
Sounds like an orchestrated hit.
When will folks say “Enough already!” to this sh!t??? This is sheer, pure idiocy. Decent peoples’ lives are being ruined by a small, vocal minority who somehow command the attention of the powers-that-be.
Schon genug...enough already!!!
I think this has gone way too far already and the Supreme Court or indeed any high courts should step in and resume adult supervision. People running businesses or managing public facilities should be free to use their best judgement about trans-gender issues. Sure, people have some limited right to declare their gender as they see fit, but I think there is a stronger countervailing right to public decency and predictable social behavior. Most of us would probably agree that in borderline cases, gender should be determined by sexual characteristics, testosterone levels, and commonly perceived details like body type, voice, mannerisms etc.
Rather than pushing the limits in the direction of unsupportable transgender behavior the law should be pushing back on the side of an orderly and morally uncompromised civil order. The analogy would be in terms of assault, if the law concentrated on enabling what people felt like doing (assaulting other people), and not on protecting people from being assaulted, then that part of the law would have degenerated like this part seems to be doing.
Business owners should have rights to manage their business as they see fit. All of this interference from the state is fundamentally opposed to the concept of liberty, and as for pursuit of happiness, that cannot be just a one-way street for transgendered individuals, at the expense of the happiness of others (I think the founders used the term happiness more as contentment than a big smiley face).
Common sense law will follow the election of common sense politicians and the appointment of common sense judges.
As for lawyers, that might be a bridge too far.
we got concerns documented on this very site going back 20+ years now, that the feds have not bothered to address
yet some faggot engaged in an outrageously disrespectful planned provocation gets EEOC to actually file suit on his behalf in mere months
this situation simply cannot continue - people will come to understand that the simplest solution is to do away with the faggots, and not only the simplest but perhaps the only sure way of protecting ourselves from faggot impositions
Re: “people will come to understand that the simplest solution is to do away with the faggots”
<>
Please clarify what you intend to do to carry out your “solution”. Thanks.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, have been used as gigantic camels’ noses under the American tent to force radical egalitarianism upon the citizenry in violation of their Bill of Rights. It all really began with these two legislations.
The former could have been addressed in a way that did not destroy freedom of association, and the latter should never have been allowed.
It is no surprise that these took place under the administration of the truly evil Lyndon Baines Johnson, who seduced and suborned the American clergy with the Johnson Amendment and its 30 Pieces of Silver in the previous decade.
The bad new's the same United States Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held that the U.S. Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for black people, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and therefore the rights and privileges it confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
There’s got to be a baseline somewhere connected to physical reality. The person can think whatever he or she wants to think, but biologically they are still male or female as they were born. This is why some states are now being pressured not to list the biological sex on the birth record.
This is a very important case and the Supreme Court needs to come down on the side of reality. I think a good case could be made for the state’s need to know the biological sex of a person for security and other legitimate reasons. Sex is not “assigned” but simply observed (through automatic DNA testing if necessary) and noted on the birth certificate. The doctors don’t make it up or randomly “assign” it, and the biological reality must be the starting point.
So the he/she, under someone’s guidance, is willing to destroy this families business that has employed him for years. Obviously the he/she wasn’t the star employee that the owner thought he was. Set up from the word go.
If I were involved, I’d be getting phone records and warrants for every electronic communication device that the he/she had. Then trace it as far back as needed. Somewhere in those records there is evidence that can prove this is a setup.
I posted this comment on the thread re female who hacked Capital 1 accounts really being a male: “Transgender ex-Amazon employee, 33, is arrested for huge Capital One hack.”
My comment on that thread fits here too:
What’s really ticking me off is I’ve been cruising the cable TV channels, Fox, MSNBC, CNN, and none of the newscasters are saying that “she” is really a “he”. They are all calling “it” a she, misleading the viewers that this is really a woman that did the hacking (hackers are almost always men so an instant red flag was raised) which is an outright lie. It’s a flat out con job on the public.
This is another mentally troubled (as in whack job) male bragging about how he did this hacking, another sicko that the politically correct MSM cover for by feeding into the meme that a Trannie is “normal” and not all screwed up. The first clue to those that have figured it out might be that Trannie deviancy is less than 1 percent of the U.S., in fact world population in numbers. Talk about the PC tyranny over the majority by an infinitesimal minority.
The PC media feed this lie and deception to their audiences and then wonders why no one trusts this “fake” news that is presented to them as truth on TV and in the Press. And the Libs always portray themselves as being rational science based folks while these elite secularists (that is their religion, secularism) are the sane ones whereas the rest of fly over country is not. Liberalism is truly a mental disease. They prey on the ill educated, politically ignorant and easily brainwashed populace who don’t bother to figure out how they are being snookered and thus allow for so much of this deviant behavior.
The elitest Socialists/Dems/MSM/Commie pinkos lay in wait for the day that they can finallyy tip the demographics far enough to the socialist left so that they can gain total control over the levers of government and thus rule over their globalist world. Over my dead body and conservatives must fight back with all we’ve got. No more Mr. Nice Guy.
This is a fight for the survival of the fittest. Wake up everyone, your way of life is in dire jeopardy by these very sick in the head, power hungry totalitarians.
That was only five years ago.
So, now that this issue is being settled, what will they come for next?
I predict it will be "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones."
Everybody I talk to says I am a nutcase, and that the very idea is ridiculous. I should stop being paranoid.
Insanity has ravaged this nation.
Next up will be equal rights for animals.
So, for example, a man could marry his dog.
It is probably more than five years since I first made that prediction. Still a way to go.
Just yesterday on this very site, I saw an article about a women marrying her dog. Don’t know what country she was in, and don’t have time to research it now, but I know what I saw.
The keyword trannytyranny is incredibly appropriate.
Controlling words is Newspeak from 1984.
Oy!
It’s already happening with the Desmond is Amazing child transvestite/transgender cavorting at gay events and having money thrown at him for doing so. It’s extremely sick, but no one is doing anything about it. And there are other examples.
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.