[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

I'm back

Woman dubbed '#PermitPatty' appears to call cops on 8-year-old girl selling water in viral video

Freedom’s Essential Hierarchy

DOJ gives Congress new classified documents on Russia probe

What Purpose Do Mosquitoes Serve?

Restaurant That Booted Sanders Closes the Next Night

The FR Griftathon Continues

Henry Kissinger’s Kind Words About President Trump: Tactical Strategy Or Hope?

Citizenship Checkpoints Start to Spread Across The Constitution-Free Zone

Poof. There Goes the Mueller Investigation

Lawsuit Argues Honking Your Car Horn Is Protected By The First Amendment

Cops Break Into Innocent Man’s Yard, Kill His Dog, Steal His Body, Then Urinate On His Fence

'I always do my best to treat people respectfully, including those I disagree with': Sarah Sanders slams owner of restaurant who kicked out her and seven members of her family because she 'works for the president'

Three FBI Cadets

Retrospective: UNBELIEVABLE OBAMA GAFFES, Mistakes, Lies, and Confusion (as worshipful MSM still drooled over their idiotic "genius" & "cool" Prez anyway)

Trump Valiantly Tried to Save America

John McAfee says he has been poisoned, and tells culprits: 'You will soon understand the true meaning of wrath'

The Prisoner (All 17 Episodes)

Huge Win for Everyone With a Cellphone (and for the Fourth Amendment) at the Supreme Court

The Best Places To Live In All 50 U.S. States

Mad Dog Mattis, the destroyer of Raqqa, frets about losing moral authority

What Kind of Country Are We?

Will Our Lack of Humanity Be the END of Humanity?

Hypocrisy

Evangelical Nevada Voters Back Trump-Praising Brothel Owner; 'I Want to Hurl,' CWA President Penny Nance Says

Time Magazine Corrects Cover Story on Crying Migrant Girl, Admits Family Was Never Separated

A mystery: Italy seizing migrant rescue ships, but who owns them? [Soros]

Tom Arnold says he's teaming up with Michael Cohen and 'taking Trump down'

Hoops legend Kevin McHale slammed for apparently attending Trump rally: ‘He should never work in the NBA again’

David Hogg Reappears to Take Another Stab at Destroying Laura Ingraham’s Career

Justice Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch levy internet taxes

Bombs Away! US Airstrikes Every 12 Minutes?

VULGAR OPEN-BORDERS MEDIA-HOLLYWOOD LIBERALS-DEMOCRATS DECLARE TOTAL WAR ON AMERICA & TRUMP (**MSM DIVERSIONS CREATED TO STOP SCRUTINY OF 0BAMA COUP INVOLVEMENT**)

Anti-Trump media moves goal posts after executive order in 'shameful' display of bias

Bypassing Facebook on the dark web

Bannon, Salvini, And A Powerful Catholic Cardinal Are Gunning For Pope Francis

DOJ requests military lawyers to help prosecute immigration crimes: report

Canada legalizes marijuana, sales to start on October 17

Will the Real Donald Trump Please Stand Up?

WHY CAN’T WE SUE THE TSA FOR ASSAULT?

WATCH VIDEO: Muslim calls flight attendant a ‘fucking slut*’ and a ‘bitch for serving him what he thinks is pork – “She should have respected my religion”

James Comey And Peter Strzok Walk Into A Courtroom And Meet The America They Sold Out

Barack Obama: Liar And Nation Wrecker

Islamic Takeover Of America!

What Trump Gets Right About Europe

America the beautiful

"I'm 81 and I'm Tired"

Rachel Maddow Breaks Down in Tears Delivering News of Migrant Babies Being Detained

Disability Applications Plunge as the Economy Strengthens

Nazi Media or MSM as we know them


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

LEFT WING LOONS
See other LEFT WING LOONS Articles

Title: EEOC and left-wing judges strike a blow against religious freedom
Source: Powerline
URL Source: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv ... -against-religious-freedom.php
Published: Mar 11, 2018
Author: Paul Mirengoff i
Post Date: 2018-03-11 10:19:19 by IbJensen
Keywords: None
Views: 60
Comments: 4

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 Feldblum’s EEOC. Feldblum’s desire to run roughshod over religious liberty in order to maximize LBGT interests is well-documented. As we reported, Feldblum has said “I’m 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 that’s 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 EEOC’s 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 man’s suit. I question whether these laws say anything about transgender issues. Certainly, the lawmakers who passed them didn’t imagine they do.

I want to focus, however, on the treatment by the EEOC and the court of the defendant’s assertion of religious rights. The district court had held that the EEOC’s 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 individual’s religious exercise and is not the least restrictive way to further a compelling interest.

The EEOC tried to short-circuit the owner’s 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 government’s prosecution. If such intervention eliminates RFRA from the case, as EEOC argued it did, RFRA’s protections would become a virtual dead letter.

Having rejected the EEOC’s 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 owner’s 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 owner’s ability to serve mourners.” In my view, the issue is whether allowing the director to dress as a woman would substantially burden the owner’s ability to serve mourners consistent with the company’s religious mission, as the owner sees it — in other words, consistent with his mission to “honor God.”

It seems clear that the EEOC’s 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] God’s command[]” that gender is “an immutable God-given gift,” not “a changeable social construct.”

Thus, the EEOC’s 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 doesn’t apply because “tolerating [the transitioning director’s] 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 director’s 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 company’s 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 owner’s religious belief.

If RFRA is triggered, as it should be in this case, that’s 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 home’s competing rights under the RFRA and to pursue the alternative least restrictive of the employer’s legitimate religious interest.

The Chai Feldblum EEOC’s 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 didn’t 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, it’s 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  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: IbJensen (#0)

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.

Reminds me of the old movie Night Shift

Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!

CZ82  posted on  2018-03-11   10:53:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: IbJensen (#0)

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.

misterwhite  posted on  2018-03-11   11:00:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: IbJensen (#0)

when it fired a male funeral director who was “transitioning” to female and dressing as a woman at work.

So I assume he waited until he was hired before doing this. I wonder why he didn't say something before he was hired.

misterwhite  posted on  2018-03-11   11:07:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: IbJensen (#0)

The system of courts needs to be violently shaken and completely revamped with 'clerks' being eliminated.

How will eliminating clerks help? The judges are dumb enough as it is.

hondo68  posted on  2018-03-11   12:41:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com