What the 6th Circuit Just Ruled About Transgenderism is Chilling

This is why the danger inherent in the sexual revolution isn’t just a threat to religious conscience, though it is that.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against people on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. In other words, if your boss at the factory finds out you are a Jew, he can’t fire you. The categories have always seemed pretty self-explanatory…until now.

The latest implosion in America’s ongoing cultural collapse occurred in ruling from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ironically issued the day before International Women’s Day a couple weeks ago. In it, the federal judges decided that a man who pretends to be a woman was protected from being fired on the basis of Title VII.

Regardless of how you feel about transgenderism or the pseudoscience that defends dangerous practices like “transitioning,” this is a pretty flagrant example of judicial activism. That is, the judges decide what they want the law to say, abuse the meaning of the original words until they have beaten them into the shape of their preconceived biases. That’s what is happening in federal courts now relative to transgenderism.

Nowhere does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protect a person from being fired for their medical or psychological condition. Yet the 6th Circuit, like the 7th Circuit and 2nd Circuit before them, has expanded the word “sex” – obviously written with the intent of referring to the biological manhood or womanhood of an individual – to include their psychological feelings about themselves.

What does this mean? It means when Tim, your 3rd grade son’s summer league basketball coach decides to start wearing high heels and lipstick, demanding that your child call him Tina, the league has no recourse to can him. It means that in the eyes of the law, Tim is Tina. The far-reaching implications of this vacuous presumption are numerous and devastating.

This legal nonsense will affect everyone, but no doubt it will be specifically detrimental to people of faith. The case that led to the ruling is but one example of what will soon become commonplace:

After working five years as a funeral director for R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes in Detroit, Mich., Anthony Stephens informed owner Thomas Rost in 2013 he intended to have sex reassignment surgery, which required he live and dress as a woman for a year. Stephens told Rost he would return from his two-week vacation “in appropriate business attire” as Aimee Australia Stephens and requested a clothing stipend to offset the cost of a new wardrobe.

Rost testified he could not “in good conscience” permit Stephens to present himself as a woman to grieving clients. And his convictions about God-designed manhood and womanhood prevented him from paying a clothing stipend to help facilitate Stephens’ transition.

Rost fired Stephens because “he was no longer going to represent himself as a man,” prompting Stephens to file a sex discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 2014.

This isn’t sex discrimination and everyone, including the esteemed judges that ruled in Stephens’ favor, knows that. This is discrimination based on behavior; if that becomes illegal, terminating anyone from a job for any reason becomes illegal.

This is why the danger inherent in the sexual revolution isn’t just a threat to religious conscience though it is certainly that. Laws are written to protect a moral order in civilized society, but the heart of the sexual revolution is disorder and moral chaos. Once laws begin to be tailored towards achieving that end, there is no more civilized society.

Comments
No. 1-23
Jack_Krevin
Jack_Krevin

Shrug. I disagree. Anthony was fired because he was transgendered. I don't see how he had anymore choice in that then he would have on being born black. So unless he did something a woman would be fired for I can certainly see his argument for discrimination. And in that sense I don't see how the law has been changed or expanded. It has always been about infringing on the rights of some to protect and advance others.

Dave wr
Dave wr

Jack Krevin I completely disagree with the way the law has become. My only point is that rights have now being overtaken by choices in terms of importance.

Jack_Krevin
Jack_Krevin

@[Dave wr] : Did he do anything you would have fired a woman for? Because the reason that seemed to be cited was that it was improper for grieving families to be consoled by a man in drag. Which while I would agree with that sentiment would still be discriminating against Anthony here. And you complain about your rights being subsumed to others' choices but that was already in the law. Which told employers who they had to hire, regardless of their own personal opinions, casting aside concepts of private property in the name of social justice.

ekay
ekay

I have never seen a "uniform" on an attendant in a funeral home, other than most wear black clothing. If this "woman" doesn't have appropriate clothing because she no longer considers herself a man, then that is her responsibility to purchase a proper wardrobe for work purposes. I have yet to be hired for a job and expected my employer to buy the clothing I wear to work. What kind of a country are we becoming. I will remind her that this country was founded on the premise that the people will be free to do as they please, but also take care of themselves.