[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
LEFT WING LOONS Title: EEOC and left-wing judges strike a blow against religious freedom The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has agreed with the EEOC that a funeral home engaged in unlawful discrimination when it fired a male funeral director who was transitioning to female and dressing as a woman at work. The case is EEOC v. Harris Funeral Homes. The opinion is by Karen Nelson Moore, a Clinton appointee and one of the most left-wing federal appeals court judges in America. She was joined by Bernice Donald and Helene White. Donald, an Obama appointee, is also a far leftist. White was nominated by Clinton but blocked by then-Senator Spencer Abraham. Later, Bush nominated her in one of those deals that generally favors Democrats. The case is the handiwork of Chai Feldblums EEOC. Feldblums desire to run roughshod over religious liberty in order to maximize LBGT interests is well-documented. As we reported, Feldblum has said Im having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win over gay rights and that in almost all cases sexual liberty should win because thats the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner. Sen. Mike Lee quotes Feldblum as saying no individual exceptions based on religious beliefs should ever be allowed if they conflict with the goal of liberty for gay people. EEOC v. Harris Funeral Homes is the Feldblum EEOCs latest effort to impose this vision. As a threshold matter, I doubt that, correctly interpreted, federal anti-discrimination laws the ones Congress actually passed prohibit a funeral home from requiring a male funeral director (transitioning or not) to wearing a mans suit. I question whether these laws say anything about transgender issues. Certainly, the lawmakers who passed them didnt imagine they do. I want to focus, however, on the treatment by the EEOC and the court of the defendants assertion of religious rights. The district court had held that the EEOCs discrimination claim must be considered in light of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which prohibits the government from enforcing a law if that law substantially burdens the individuals religious exercise and is not the least restrictive way to further a compelling interest. The EEOC tried to short-circuit the owners reliance on RFRA by effectively reading that act into oblivion. It argued that because Congress intended RFRA to apply only to suits in which the government is a party, and because the funeral home director (represented by the ACLU) intervened in the case, RFRA cannot apply. This argument was too much for even the leftist Sixth Circuit panel to stomach, and for good reason. The EEOC can always ask the ACLU and like-minded groups to intervene in EEOC cases whenever a defendant raises a RFRA defense. Such groups will be oh-so willing to comply, especially since little work will be required of them they can simply piggyback on the governments prosecution. If such intervention eliminates RFRA from the case, as EEOC argued it did, RFRAs protections would become a virtual dead letter. Having rejected the EEOCs attempt to repeal RFRA, the Sixth Circuit considered the merits. It held that, as a matter of law, permitting the transitioning funeral director to dress like a woman did not substantially burden the religious exercise of the funeral home owner. The owner, a practicing Christian, believes that that God has called him to serve grieving people and that his purpose in life is to minister to the grieving. His company website declares that its highest priority is to honor God in all that we do as a company and as individuals. Clearly, then, the owners operation of his funeral homes is a religious exercise within the meaning of RFRA. The Sixth Circuit panel did not dispute this. However, the court viewed the RFRA issue as whether the Funeral Home has identified any way in which continuing to employ the [transitioning director] would substantially burden the owners ability to serve mourners. In my view, the issue is whether allowing the director to dress as a woman would substantially burden the owners ability to serve mourners consistent with the companys religious mission, as the owner sees it in other words, consistent with his mission to honor God. It seems clear that the EEOCs demand would substantially burden this right. The owner plainly does not believe he would be honoring God at funeral services in which the director, a man in transition, dresses like a woman. Rather, he believes he would be dishonoring God by violat[ing] Gods command[] that gender is an immutable God-given gift, not a changeable social construct. Thus, the EEOCs position presents the owner with the very dilemma RFRA was intended to prevent. He must either violate his religious faith or abandon his business. The Sixth Circuit reasoned that RFRA doesnt apply because tolerating [the transitioning directors] understanding of her sex and gender identity is not tantamount to supporting it. This is sophistry. The director can understand his or her sex and gender identity anyway he or she wants; the owner has no say over that. But if a man, biologically speaking, handles a funeral service dressed like a woman where company rules require that men wear a suit, the owner is supporting the directors understanding. RFRA is triggered in this case for the same reason it was triggered in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. There, the business owners had a sincere religious belief that life begins at conception. Thus, they object[ed] on religious grounds to providing health insurance that covers methods of birth control that. . .may result in the destruction on an embryo. The Supreme Court held that by requiring [the owners] and their companies to arrange for such coverage, the HHS mandate demands that they engage in conduct that seriously violates their religious beliefs. That was enough to trigger RFRA. In the funeral homes case, the owner has a sincere religious belief that gender is a God given gift, not a changeable social construct. Thus, he objects on religious grounds to having his companys funeral services handled by a man dressed as a woman. Requiring him (if he wishes to stay in business) to permit this amounts to a demand that his company engage in conduct that seriously violates the owners religious belief. If RFRA is triggered, as it should be in this case, thats not the end of the inquiry. The EEOC would still prevail if it could show that its demand is (1) in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and (2) the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. The district court ruled against the EEOC on the second point. It found that the agency failed to explore accommodation of the funeral homes competing rights under the RFRA and to pursue the alternative least restrictive of the employers legitimate religious interest. The Chai Feldblum EEOCs unwillingness to search for an accommodation comes as no surprise. As noted above, Feldblum has a hard time imagining how religious concerns might offset, however slightly, LBGT interests. But Congress didnt just imagine accommodation of religious concerns; Congress mandated it. The Sixth Circuit has three new judges, all nominated by President Trump. With the addition of these three, the liberals are now in the minority, I believe. Thus, its possible that a request for review of EEOC v. Harris Funeral Homes by the full court might produce a different outcome. It seems worth a shot. Poster Comment: The opinion is by Karen Nelson Moore, a Clinton appointee and one of the most left-wing federal appeals court judges in America. She was joined by Bernice Donald and Helene White. Donald, an Obama appointee, is also a far leftist. White was nominated by Clinton but blocked by then-Senator Spencer Abraham. Later, Bush nominated her in one of those deals that generally favors Democrats. Nutty leftist judges belong sitting on park benches all day long in order that the pigeons shit on them. Judges like these morons have been shitting on America and its Constitution for eons. The system of courts needs to be violently shaken and completely revamped with 'clerks' being eliminated. AS far as LGBT is concerned this association of freaks needs to be disbanded and labeled 'subversive' and the very act of homosexuality needs to be re-criminalised. I can see why the homos like this outcome for funeral homes. The fags can drop in for a cold one whenever they feel the urge. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest
#1. To: IbJensen (#0)
Reminds me of the old movie Night Shift Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
In all honesty, it's a stretch to use RFRA to defend their actions. But a man in a dress is a distraction (and an insult) to the mourners. If the EEOC is not willing to compensate the funeral home for their loss of business, then the funeral home should act in their best interest.
So I assume he waited until he was hired before doing this. I wonder why he didn't say something before he was hired.
How will eliminating clerks help? The judges are dumb enough as it is. |
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|