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]


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.


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.

John R
John R

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?


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