Justice Department Now Supports Discrimination?

Hello all!

This is something that has been in the news a lot in the past few years, whether it was this case directly or some others that are similar, and I am so very disappointed that the US Justice Department is now siding with the people discriminating.

Five years ago a cake shop in Colorado refused to make a cake for a gay couple who were getting married. The shop owner claimed it was a violation of his religious beliefs, so he wouldn’t do it. The couple complained to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, who found that the cake shop was in violation of the law, with several judges agreeing since. Now, according to the LA Times article, the cake shop owner has filed another appeal, and this time the Justice Department filed a brief in the case stating that they agree with the cake shop owner, that he should not have to violate his religious beliefs to run his business, and that he should be allowed to refuse service to gay people.

Anybody else feel like screaming right now?

This is wrong. This is very wrong. This is so wrong that the Universal Master of Interstellar Wrongness is going to bow his head in awe at how wrong this is.

**sigh**

I’ve talked about this here before, but never before has the federal government given such a statement like this. In their brief they actually are now asking the judges to carve out an exception to the anti-discrimination laws for people’s religious beliefs, but only for sexual orientation.

This is insane.

They are literally claiming that equal treatment is so important for race or sex that it overrides your religious freedom, but that sexual orientation is not. They are saying the religious beliefs of a store owner is so important that this public business, receiving all the benefits and protections of being a public business, that they can discriminate against one of the very people whose taxes pay for the roads that their customers use.

So my tax money is good enough for you to gain from, as long as I don’t ask you to spread some frosting on a cake for me?

When you file all the required paperwork, and go through all the processes involved to become a registered public business, and you buy commercially zoned property, you are using government services that we all pay for. Your sidewalks outside of your store may be paid for by my tax dollars, your police protection when you are robbed or have a shoplifter are paid for by me (among every other tax payer). You have to serve me. Period! If you want to pick and choose who you associate with, do it at home. In fact, don’t even open the business at all, you ignorant jerk!

Do these people really think it’s okay to pick and choose your customer? Their religious views are so important, right? So how many birthday cakes have they sold to unwed mothers? Most religions I know of don’t take too kindly to sex outside of marriage, so by providing a cake for that person aren’t you taking part in their celebration of a sin? Have they at least turned away pregnant women seeking a wedding cake? They obviously didn’t wait until marriage.

No? So you’re saying they only want to worry about that one little thing that they think is sinful, and for all the other sins they are willing to take the customer’s money?

For the Justice Department to specifically ask for this exception to be spelled out is so insulting. I am so ashamed that these people represent my country. This is disgusting. Every person in this administration should resign in shame.

Back To School Time

Hello,

It’s back to school time for lots of little children around the country. Yay for the parents! And really, though they don’t always know it, yay for the kids too. I know when I was a child I felt weird because I actually liked doing school work when other children didn’t, that almost all of my classmates would rather be playing than learning, but there have to be kids like that now days too. I know some of my classmates liked going back to school because they got to see their friends more, but didn’t like the work. I liked the work. I didn’t so much like spending time with classmates.

Anyway, here in the KC Metro there are a lot of little ones going back to school this week or next, so if you’re in this area(or anywhere else where children are starting back) please be extra careful around the schools when driving.

This is kind of unrelated, but I also wanted to mention an article I came across Why ‘Gay’ Isn’t A Bad Word For Children. It kind of sums up a lot of our experiences growing up pretty well, I think.

Have a wonderful weekend!

The US Justice Dept Wrong About Title VII

Hi!

How is everyone? Hopefully good!

I just wanted to briefly weigh in on this.

Just a quick overview: Last Wednesday the US Justice Department sent a brief on their opinion on a case that involved a gay man being fired. He claimed it was because he was gay, the company claims it was because a customer complained that he made her uncomfortable. I take no stance on this particular case, I have no idea what the details are or why they actually fired him.

What I do know is that the Justice Department sent that brief to the court, and that they are arguing that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not cover a person being fired over their sexual orientation. That is just plain stupid, and wrong, and I can back up my argument with their own words. They wrote:

“The essential element of sex discrimination under Title VII [of the 1964 Civil Rights Act] is that employees of one sex must be treated worse than similar situated employees of the other sex, and sexual orientation discrimination simply does not have that effect,”

In that very statement, the acting Justice Department Civil Division chief Chad Readler and acting Civil Rights Division head Tom Wheeler themselves noted that it is discrimination for an employee of one sex to be treated worse than an employee of the other sex. That right there sums it up. Here’s the scenario I envision to prove my point:

Bob works in the IT department of a major company in an Atlanta suburb. Betsy is an attorney working in the same building. Bob and Betsy go out on dates, enjoy their time together, see each other on weekends and evenings, and generally have a normal relationship. For this scenario, let’s assume Betsy lives next door to Bob’s boss, Marco, so Marco sees Bob at Betsy’s house often, and they sometimes chat at the end of the driveway as Bob is heading in. Everything is all peaches and cream, and Marco is happy to see Bob dating a nice lady such as his neighbor Betsy.

Now let’s assume Bob leaves the company and moves to Omaha. He and Betsy decide that their relationship just wasn’t that deep, and they don’t want to continue a long-range relationship, but they end things well and are pleasant to each other about it.

Marco now has to hire a new IT worker to replace Bob, and as luck would have it, Janine is available. Janine’s ex-boss tells Marco that Janine was his star worker, that she’s a real catch for them and that the only reason Janine is looking for a job is because his company merged with a larger company and eliminated the entire division in that state. He says hire her at any cost, she’s an exemplary employee and would be wonderful to have. Marco is convinced, so he hires Janine immediately, and she starts the very next day.

Three months later Marco starts to see Janine coming around Betsy’s house on weekends a lot. He’s glad. Betsy is a great person to have as a friend, and he heard Janine talk about how all her friends had moved away in the past several years. He knows she goes home most nights to her cat and watches television alone, so he’s very happy she’s spending so much time at Betsy’s now.

But one night Marco see Betsy and Janine at the theater, and as they walk out they are holding hands. And then he sees Janine lean in and kiss Betsy. This gets his attention. He starts to wonder about Janine being at Betsy’s so much of the time. He watches, and in the few days that follows he sees them on the front porch of Betsy’s house, Janine giving Betsy a goodnight kiss before leaving.

Janine comes into work one day and finds all her things boxed up. Marco let’s her know that he’s going to have to let her go, that he doesn’t approve of same-sex relationships, and that he would like her to take her things and leave immediately.

–End of scenario–

So Bob dates Betsy and is fine, Janine dates Betsy and gets fired. This is blatantly an employee of one sex being treated differently than an employee of the opposite sex for the very same action. A male employee dated a woman and it was fine, a female employee dated a woman and was fired for it. The Just Department brief specifically says that it is discrimination for an employee of one sex to be treated worse than an employee of the other sex. In this case, that part is obvious. I mean firing someone for an action and not another person for the exact same action would seem worse to most people, anyway.

This happens all the time when an employer fires a worker for being gay. Every single time that they have that as their reason for firing it is because of this. And the Justice Department should know this. Courts are starting to agree, even though in the past they did not. In the past they had all kinds of silly rulings where they would rule women weren’t equal to men, minorities weren’t equal to whites, etc. We’ve moved past most of those idiotic ideas as a society, and we’re in the process of moving past it when it comes to LGBTQ people. It’s time the Justice Depertment catch up to that.

Of course this particular administration has made several moves recently that are anti-LGBTQ, so it shouldn’t surprise us. I hope that one day soon they will see the error of their ways and correct their course.