Thursday, July 2, 2020

NOM du Jour

Brian S. Brown
I give Brian S. Brown some credit. Every single day Brown comes up with some reason that people should donate money to National Organization for Marriage. Bri is quite innovative in coming up with new ways to sell bottled air.

Thursday's email from Mr. Brown is titled: gorsuch betrayal fires up the left. Justice Gorsuch does not deserve a capitalized surname in NOM-world. I am truly saddened that Brown feels betrayed.
In the award for the most surprising, unexpected and unprincipled ruling during this Supreme Court term, last week 's betrayal of conservatives and those who hold traditional values by Justice Neil Gorsuch wins the gold medal. Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion in a crucial “transgender” case involving Title VII, and effectively redefined the term “sex” in federal law to mean “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” It was an outrageous ruling, a pure act of legislating from the bench. And it is having profound impacts already.
Why is the word transgender in quotes? The ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County was most definitely unexpected.

Employment discrimination is “unprincipled;” not its elimination. Brian S. Brown fails to explain why the ability to discriminate is so damned important. Perhaps that is because Brown has never held a real job in the private sector.

True talent is a rare commodity. The last thing that an effective manager should do is to introduce factors into the equation unrelated to job performance. In as perfect corporate world it should be entirely unnecessary to discriminate against LGBTQ people in the workplace.

Indeed, the Human Rights Campaign's Corporate Equality Index surveys, for the most part, America's largest companies starting with the Fortune 500 and American Lawyer magazine’s top 200 law firms.
  • In 2020, 686 businesses received perfect scores.
  • 91% of Fortune 500 companies offer gender identity protection.
  • 98% of the entire CEI universe of businesses offer explicit gender identity non-discrimination protections (up from 5 percent in 2002)
  • 65% of the Fortune 500 and 89 percent of the CEI universe of businesses offer transgender-inclusive health care coverage, up from 0 in 2002 and 19 times as many businesses as ten years ago.
While those statistics sound promising, the litigants in Bostock demonstrate exactly why nondiscrimination protections are necessary just to prevent gay and transgender people being fired due to their sexuality.

In one of the cases, a gay skydiving instructor was terminated when his employer learned that he was gay. That was within the diminished universe of people willing to jump out of perfectly good airplanes.

Perhaps Brian Brown has a unique interest in the fate of Catholic secondary schools. (The vast majority of Catholic colleges and universities already offer these protections.)

What has been happening in Catholic schools is that openly gay people, including those who are married, are employed until one of the pampered prelates finds out. The Church was heavily invested in marriage discrimination and the bishops refuse to tolerate a married gay employee regardless of that individual's job performance. Revenge termination of employment?

Justice Gorsuch left some wiggle room in Bostock suggesting that religious employers might be able to litigate the ability to discriminate. That begs the same question. If, say, a teacher is doing a good job; if students are learning what they should learn and if they are appropriately challenged, what difference does it make?

Parents of Catholic school children in San Francisco fought very hard for the rights of LGBTQ teachers when Archbishop Cordileone attempted, though a contract revision, to make them “ministers” which would exempt them from state and municipal nondiscrimination protections. Parents won that fight. They placed the quality of education above religious doctrine.

Brown continues:
Though they were shocked to get this win from Gorsuch, LGBT extremists have wasted no time in doubling down, very substantially ramping up pressure on the US Senate to pass their grossly-misnamed “Equality Act” which would impose vast elements of their dangerous agenda. Citing the ruling from Gorsuch, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts – another supposed conservative, who betrayed conservatives a second time in an abortion case earlier this week – extremist LGBT groups are arguing that “everyone agrees” with their agenda and thus the Senate must pass their special interest “Equality Act” legislation into law.
Brown is unintentionally arguing for passage of the Equality Act which is a dead issue while the Senate is in GOP control and while Donald Trump is in office. What, precisely, is so “dangerous” about nondiscrimination protections. Why are people who seek these protections “extremists?”

When the hyperbole makes no sense then the entire argument makes no sense.

Brian S. Brown is on very “dangerous” ground. Brown's “extremist” Catholicism is a choice. Sexuality is not a choice. Does he really want to argue otherwise? It is abundantly clear to everyone but people like Brown that the choice argument is made, not from science, but to support religious dogma for which there is no evidence in support.

Brian Brown's problem — which he does not realize is a problem — is that, in his orbit, he is unchallenged. Colleagues are not asking Brown tough questions. In the private sector, the most effective managers hire people who will challenge the boss. One of Donald Trump's greatest failings is that he cannot tolerate dissent.

Brian S. Brown's personality disorder has robbed him of empathy. Blinded by religion, Brown does not want to understand the difficulties that others struggle to surmount. The catechism requires people to accept, as incontrovertible truth, the doctrine without evidence and without considering the opinions of others.
The Jewish mother in me:
Our lot improves dramatically if Trump and McConnell are ousted. The alternative is too scary to consider. Justice Ginsburg is 87. Justice Breyer is 81. Were Trump able to replace two justices of the Supreme Court we could face decades of LGBTQ repression; even the possibility of rolling back hard-fought gains.

Clarence Thomas has been on the Court for nearly 30 years. Just imagine another Thomas or two for three decades, or more, in the future. If that doesn't get you registered and determined to vote then nothing is likely to provide an incentive.

Related content:



No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.