Real Arguments
Dear Editor,
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will hear cases regarding LGBT employment. This issue is loosely about homosexuality and religion. It is mostly about the constitution and democracy.
Days after being elected, without discussion, President Barack Obama rewarded his base by adding homosexuality to list of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) protections. So, an employee disagreeing with gay marriage could have been fired for creating a hostile work environment. The president again rewarded the base by writing a letter to SCOTUS regarding changed beliefs on gay marriage before a tight re-election. Obergefell v. Hodges was decided undemocratically behind closed doors with few individuals allowed to debate.
The constitution clearly outlines the process to protect individuals from government action is to amend the constitution. Voters are in the best position to make these decisions and understand the repercussions. Placing the word “rights” in front of a word and claiming a personal advocacy group is a civil rights group is great marketing. It does not make the issue a civil right.
Actual enumerated civil rights are being attacked. Disagreement is eliminated as hate speech. The ability to invent “minorities” is being used as a political tool to reward support and punish opposition. Civil rights commissions, appointed by politicians, shielded from voters, should not be able to invent protections. Presidents, governors, and mayors, should not be allowed to reduce opposition freedoms. It is far too easy to abuse this power to generate donations.
The cases in front of the court are very different than presented. One case involves a transgender individual working in a mortuary. Ideologically biased judges argued that this is not a religious environment (If this isn’t nothing is) and this is simply a man wearing a dress. Reality is, this is objectively a man demanding coworkers treat him as a woman. What is the next objective reality we are forced to ignore? Are we to treat everybody as a politician requires? Another case involves desire to disclose personal issues without disagreement. This case involves a teacher who told students about her wife after repeatedly being asked to stop. If she had been an NRA member told to stop talking about hunting, she would have been fired without attention. Should hunting or gun owning be granted protection from disagreement?
Abusing laws and government for ideology is a dangerous precedent that threatens everybody. The pendulum always swings.
Alan Burke
