Sex discrimination doesn't translate to pantsuit equality

Confused boys, girls and others who are doing their best to degrade social standards to virtually none at all, it's time to draw the line. The question is whether SCOTUS can sort it out without giving in to popular thought that deconstructs culture. Having just witnessed a close family's anguish as they laid their precious mother to rest, this case of RGGR Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission speaks loudly regarding social standards and employment suitability.

The Harris Funeral Homes case tests this kind of employment suitability as opposed to being a test case for LGBT "rights."

The immediate question that comes to mind is why an individual takes a job that doesn't mesh with their personal preferences and proclivities. Nor is this the first time where a comparable circumstance has been litigated. There has been an underlying agenda behind Muslims taking jobs as drivers for beer distributors and atheists applying for work at Christian ministries. At issue here is whether an LGBT cross-dresser hiring on with a funeral home conforms to the mold. If the first response is to ask "what's the big deal" then one major point is being dismissed. Funeral homes minister to families of multiple religious beliefs during a time of grief and stress. This kind of business relies on employees who are able and willing to provide sensitive and empathetic support to clients. It is more of a calling than just a job, similar to nursing or teaching. Not everyone has the temperament or selfless attitude to fill such a position. The Harris Funeral Homes case tests this kind of employment suitability as opposed to being a test case for LGBT "rights." Whether SCOTUS can make that distinction will carry a great deal of weight regarding hiring and firing practices in that it could tie the hands of employers finding the most suitable individual to fill an opening. It could even throw job qualifications and requirements out the window. At the bottom of this alleged case of discrimination against a biological male, who agreed to the wardrobe requirements upon hiring, is his later decision that he needed to dress as a woman while on the job.

---

The case boils down to whether a self-indulgent employee has the right to endanger the overall business

In some occupations, this may not be problematic. At a funeral home it can be a matter of whether the employer stays in business. Simply put, if a business is constrained from providing appropriate service according to the wishes of the majority religious clientele, they'll be out of business. For a funeral home that caters to families at a time when stress can be overwhelming, confronting clients with a challenge to their social standards adds stress not comfort. Returning to the family mentioned above, the widower is a retired conservative pastor and the grandson a preacher in his own right. Imagine if they had done all the preliminary work with a funeral home only to walk in on the day of the viewing to be greeted by a man dressed in a woman's skirt. There is a real consideration to be made for both the clients and business owners who represent the bereaved at the most vulnerable time of their lives, and it is shameful that the courts denied that argument. The case boils down to whether a self-indulgent employee has the right to endanger the overall business and, consequently, their own job. The fact is they took the position understanding and agreeing to the rules and then refused to live by them. It is understood that people go through changes in their lives but it is unreasonable to expect the employer to redraw the regulations to accommodate them on an issue that affects the lifeblood of the business.

---

Support Canada Free Press

---

Pitting special interest groups against an individual's right to freely conduct business

Stretching a point, visualize the situation if this were a halal butcher and the employee wanted to wear hot pants (for those who recall the 70s) to work because he identified as a woman. It's doubtful the case would have been taken by the EEOC in the first place due to cultural sensitivity, which apparently doesn't apply to Judeo-Christian oriented businesses. In the initial court case brought by EEOC against the funeral home, the case ended with the district court siding in part with the defendant along the lines of a Religious Freedom Restoration Act claim rather than rightfully recognizing their argument of the crucial importance of a dress code in this type of business. Upon appeal, the Sixth Circuit went further by ruling the government has a deeper role to play... "Where the government has developed a comprehensive scheme to effectuate its goal of eradicating discrimination based on sex, including sex stereotypes, it makes sense that the only way to achieve the scheme's objectives is through its enforcement." (So, what are they going to do about "Hooters?") The current case is not about employment discrimination or even sex stereotypes. It is about pitting special interest groups against an individual's right to freely conduct business especially in a field where the "customer is always right." Free enterprise is the core of this nation's economy, not the fluctuating feelings of an employee.   Despite the Sixth Circuit's opinion, the real crux of the matter is that the individual initially took the job agreeing to the business' strictly stated dress code and rules of decorum. If the employee breaks the agreement that is vital to conducting business, they are subject to losing their job. Should a construction worker not wear a safety vest because it doesn't match their emotional status (which is essentially what transgenderism is--an emotional/mental state called gender dysphoria according to the American Psychiatric Association) they may be subject to termination. The employee's identification as LGBT, male, female or any other sub-group never had any bearing on their hiring or their firing. It was their action in repudiating the employment contract that put them in danger of losing their job by not fulfilling their commitment.

---

Folly of the EEOC suing the funeral home for sex discrimination

It is in response to the folly of the EEOC suing the funeral home for sex discrimination that the Supreme Court must now undertake consideration of the limited question: "Whether Title VII prohibits discrimination against transgender people based on (1) their status as transgender or (2) sex stereotyping under Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U. S. 228 (1989)." EEOC is attempting to change the definition of "sex" in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to make it apply to sex (commonly and incorrectly called 'gender') identification, which was never intended by the Congress that enacted the law. However, this is a misapplication of the law to begin with in that the employee, whom the commission represents, was hired without discrimination and in accordance with his own contractual agreement to the rules of employment. Once more, the courts are being forced to rule on scientific issues although they have no expertise to do so, thus nullifying free enterprise just as SCOTUS did in deciding that CO2 was a poisonous gas in Massachusetts v. EPA, 2006. The discharged employee, despite his transgender identification was hired without discrimination. Only later did he expect the circumstances of employment to shift to suit his changing identity. The funeral home hasn't changed nor was its hiring or firing practice biased. This is about nothing except the employee's breach of contract. SCOTUS should recognize the difference.