Donald Trump, for whatever reason, has nominated an openly avowed lesbian and activist to run a commission that could repress religious liberty in every workplace in America.
Her name is Chai Feldblum and the Commission she would run is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The chilling mission of the EEOC (emphasis mine) is to “enforc(e) federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or employee because of the person’s race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation)...”
The immediate problem here for homosexual activists is quite simply this: there is no law against discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation. Such a law does not exist. The EEOC tries to defend its radicalism on sexuality by citing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But that law - an actual law passed by Congress - only forbids discrimination based on sex, meaning male or female.
And the EEOC knows this. They reveal this guilty knowledge by admitting that their draconian policies against discrimination on the basis of transgenderism and sexual orientation are entirely a matter of an interpretation they have invented out of the ether. The language they use makes this clear. On discrimination against transgenders, the best the EEOC can do is to say (emphasis mine), “The EEOC has held” or “The Commission has also held” that their creative reading of the word “sex” in Title VII forbids transgender and sexual orientation discrimination.
But this interpretation is clearly and unambiguously and flagrantly wrong. The word “sex,” according to the dictionary, means “either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.” You can look it up.
Every attempt to pass ENDA (the Employment Non-Discrimination Act) which would add “sexual orientation” to discrimination law has failed. But that hasn’t stopped the EEOC from substituting its own will for the will of Congress. After all, if the Supreme Court can ignore the plain meaning of the Constitution, why can’t we ignore the plain meaning of the law?
What makes Ms. Feldblum a threat to religious liberty is that she has already decided that the prohibition against religious discrimination is meaningless - Christians in her view can be discriminated against at will and without restriction. In every case in which homosexuality comes up against Christianity in the workplace, homosexuality must win every time, even though homosexuality does not have protection in law and Christianity does.
Lest you think I exaggerate, here are Ms. Feldblum’s views in her own words (emphasis mine):
- “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.”
- She treats the conflict between religious liberty and the homosexual agenda as “a zero-sum game: a gain for one side necessarily entails a corresponding loss for the other side.”
- “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’s view is bone-chilling in its scope. By “pockets of resistance” she means you and me and all Americans who believe in natural marriage and normative sexuality. If there is a conflict between homosexuality and Christianity in the marketplace - say regarding bakers, and florists, and wedding photographers - she can’t think of a single situation in which religious liberty ought to be protected. She is adamantly opposed to any “exceptions based on religious beliefs.”
There is not an individual in America who holds a more dangerous view on religious liberty than Ms. Feldblum because of the horrific damage she can cause. She is the Dragon Queen of Religious Bigotry, a one-woman Spanish Inquisition, who does not, in fact, believe in equality at all. What she believes in is homosexual supremacy. For her, it’s homosexuality uber alles.
Her original nomination by President Obama was so controversial that he gave up trying to get her confirmed by the Senate and appointed her as a recess appointment. In 2013, she got just two Republican votes, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
This woman’s nomination must be stopped. You can make your voice heard by signing a petition to President Trump that has been prepared by the American Family Association, which you can find here.
This is not a time for good men to do nothing and allow evil to triumph. This is a time for all good men and all good women to make their voices heard and to petition our president to protect religious liberty. He promised on the campaign trail that he would be a champion for religious liberty. This is an opportunity for him to keep his word.
