President Trump's Stealth Appointment Of Radical Lesbian To EEOC

Feldblum, originally appointed by Obama, believes that sexual freedom has priority over religious beliefs.

President Trump has garnered much praise for his judicial nominations, but another nomination made by the president has largely escaped notice until now. Last December, in the midst of the fight over the tax reform bill, Donald Trump quietly renominated a radical Obama appointee to the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission.

Newsweek reported at the time that Trump's appointment of Chai Feldblum to a second term at the EEOC means that she will keep her job until 2023. Feldblum, a militant lesbian, was appointed to the agency that polices workplace discrimination by Barack Obama in 2010.

During her tenure so far, Feldblum has worked to expand homosexuality as a protected class at the expense of religious liberty. Bloomberg News once referred to her as “Washington’s strongest champion for the idea that anti-gay and anti-trans biases constitute discrimination ‘because of sex.’”

Ben Shapiro at Daily Wire compiled a list of quotes from Ms. Feldblum that should alarm anyone concerned about religious freedom:

  • When sexual orientation and religious freedom come into conflict, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win… Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.”
  • “Just as we do not tolerate private racial beliefs that adversely affect African-Americans in the commercial arena, even if such beliefs are based on religious views, we should similarly not tolerate private beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity that adversely affect the ability of LGBT people to live in the world.”
  • “For all my sympathy for the evangelical Christian couple who may wish to run a bed and breakfast from which they can exclude unmarried straight couples and all gay couples, this is a point where I believe the ‘zero sum’ nature of the game inevitably comes into play. And in making the decision in this zero sum game, I am convinced society should come down on the side of protecting the liberty of LGBT people.”
  • “I believe granting liberty to gay people advances a compelling government interest, that such an interest cannot be adequately advanced if ‘pockets of resistance’ to a societal statement of equality are permitted to flourish, and hence that a law that permits no individual exceptions based on religious beliefs will be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal of liberty for gay people.”

Feldblum clearly believes that sexual freedom, which is not mentioned in the Constitution, should trump religious freedom, which is clearly defined in the First Amendment. The obvious question is why President Trump, who claims to be a proponent of religious liberty, would make an appointment that would set up such a clear conflict between two competing freedoms.

So far, there are no obvious answers to President Trump's reasons for keeping Feldblum on the job. The White House had no comment on the appointment in December and seems to have had none since.

[Photo credit: USDA/Flickr]

Hey David,
That’s a common misconception. The 14 amendment’s “Equal Protection” clause covers a whole swath of immutable qualities such as sex and sexual orientation.
Furthermore, the first amendment also protects the secular rights of Americans.
While I understand you don’t agree with her on her stance of equal protection vs. religious freedom her take on the constitutionality of equal protection based on sexual orientation is correct.

Biggest and worst assumption is that of immutability of sexual preference. We have "normalized" an "unnatural" behavior, largely through the very successful implementation of their agenda as documented by Erastes Pill and Marshall Kirk in "The Overhauling of Straight America" written for Guide in 1987. The activists found allies in Hollywood to carry their message in mass media, surrounding us with homosexuality and now we have BenjaminD confused as well.

The First Amendment specifically bans the government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That includes the freedom to hold (and act peacefully on) dissenting opinions on homosexuality.


Even so, the freedom to practice religion isn't absolute. If I'm a follower of Moloch, I still don't have the right to practice child sacrifice.

Roe v. Wade?

The bottom line on this is that it is one group saying another group's rights count less or should be ignored AND revoked. The group could be the LGBTQA2's or Christians, Jews and Muslims. It doesn't matter. No one group has the right to "trump" another's. In this specific case though, the religious groups have an explicit protection written directly into the Constitution. Both in concept and constitutionally, Feldblum's statements should disqualify her from holding this position.

Honestly, Feldblum (and even evangelicals) need to go back to Dr. Seuss.


As @Dave R said, as long as the child hasn't exited the birth canal, you are legally allowed to murder away. That aside, child sacrifice is taking the life of another person, where you are directly harming another person. Baking a cake is not. If my religion demanded that I punch every gay person I meet, then I would not be free to practice that. I'm infringing on the rights of another. You have no right to my work product. If providing a service violates my inherent right to the free exercise of my religion, also specifically stated in the Constitution, I may refuse it. It doesn't matter if it's a gay wedding or a Klan party.


Amazing how so called Christians and conservatives praise, laud, thank, honor, glorify and salute comrade trump whenever he accomplishes an agenda they support!! When something as immoral as this transpires, the very same people will either defend him, or morph into crickets!!! What a witness they represent for Christ, America, republicans, conservatives and children!!! SHAMEFUL DISGRACE!!!!

BenjaminD - If you think the people who passed the equal protection clause in 1868 intended to protect homosexual conduct, or intended that homosexual rights pre-empt religious rights, then you need your head examined. The only way the 14th amendment does what you say it does, is if 5 lawyers in robes on the Supreme Court pretend to uphold the Constitution while they radically change it in their opinions, behind closed doors without a vote of We the People


@ Thomas1870 By that logic the authors of the 2nd Amendment only intended for people to be able to keep and bear muskets.

The founders never intended the 2A to include only muskets. That's a common misconception built around a lack of knowledge regarding weapons development. Google the Puckle Gun, belton flintlock, girandoni rifle or Pepper box revolvers.

Muskets were, at the time, simply the most affordable long guns and, therefore, the most common. Want to guess what is today's most common long gun?

To heck with sexual preference liberty or religious liberty! How about private business liberty to do business with whoever they want to do business with or not. The government is not a party to a business transaction, and should require a business to conduct business with anyone. If I don't want to do business with a tall person, short person, bald person, hairy person, old person, young person, straight person, gay person, white person, black person, green person; the government should not force me to under threat of prosecution.

Her position still requires her to follow the law and does now allow her to write law. If she does not agree, she can resign. If she violates or circumvents the law, she can be dismissed.

Absolutely correct!