And the Sign Says, “White Cisgender Males Need Not Apply”

With all the histrionics that Democrats have used to scare people into voting against Republicans over the years, there was always a danger that members of the party elite might forget their cynicism and actually start buying into their own propaganda.  Even Barack Obama, the community organizer extraordinaire, wasn’t immune, having once  remarked to a reporter that he sometimes thought his bullsh*t was the real deal.  Surprising?  Not so much.  It’s actually the most natural thing in the world, when you lie so often that it’s the truth that sounds farfetched.  Or, as Rose McGowan put it in the movie Scream, there’s only so many times you can hear that Richard Gere gerbil story before you have to start believing it.

Well, now it seems that the infection has spread to the ranks of the Democrat National Committee’s IT department, where the ironically named Madeleine Leader has sounded the battle cry of the social justice warrior in her capacity as a data services manager.  Unlike the Marines, though, she’s not looking for a few good men.  Point of fact, she’s looking for anybody but men—at least not men of a certain persuasion.

The Daily Wire has the story, which includes a lovely memo that details Ms. Leader’s requirements for the positions she currently has open:

And yes, just in case you’re rubbing your eyes and wondering if you read it correctly, Ms. Leader does indeed make a blatantly discriminatory request:

I personally would prefer that you not forward to cisgender straight white males, since they’re already in the majority.

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that they’re not a majority in the DNC’s IT shop.  I also have to wonder how Ms. Leader treats the wascally white guys under her supervision.  Are they allowed out of their cubicles during office hours—or does that create a hostile an environment?  Can they talk about football, or is that too heteronormative?  Perhaps it would just be best if they were confined to their own table at the back of the cafeteria where they can’t make any trouble.  You know those cisgender types—if they don’t know their place, they’ll think they own the place.

Somebody please pass the duct tape.  I need to wrap some around my noggin before it explodes.

NEW: Federal Court Extends Civil Rights Protections To Gays

In an unprecedented ruling, the full 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago has ruled that the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects gay, lesbian and transgender employees from discrimination. Sexual orientation is not mentioned in the text of the Civil Rights Act and the law has never been interpreted to include sexual orientation.

The Associated Press notes that the 8-3 ruling is unusual for several reasons. The court is considered to be somewhat conservative even though it is in Chicago. Five of the eight judges were appointed by Republican presidents who typically value a literal interpretation of the law as opposed to Democrats who tend to stray from the written text.

The case centers on Kimberly Hively, a former teacher at Ivy Tech Community College in South Bend, Indiana. Hively says that after an administrator saw her kissing her girlfriend in 2009, the school refused to promote her, harassed her and eventually fired her four years later.

The case hinged on the meaning of the word “sex” in the Civil Rights Act, which bans workplace discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, and sex. Hively’s lawyer argued that discrimination due to sexual orientation is illegal under the law’s prohibition of sexual discrimination. This interpretation is based on the Supreme Court ruling in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989) which held that gender stereotyping was a banned form of sex discrimination. Congress has repeatedly failed to add sexual orientation to the list of protected classes under the law.

Judge Diane Wood, a Clinton appointee, said in the majority opinion, “Any discomfort, disapproval, or job decision based on the fact that the complainant — woman or man — dresses differently, speaks differently, or dates or marries a same-sex partner, is a reaction purely and simply based on sex. That means that it falls within Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination ….”

“I don’t see why firing a lesbian because she is in the subset of women who are lesbian should be thought any less a form of sex discrimination than firing a woman because she’s a woman,” wrote Judge Richard Posner in his opinion that concurred with the majority ruling. Posner was appointed by President Ronald Reagan.

“Who will be hurt if gays and lesbians have a little more job protection?” Judge Posner reportedly asked during arguments on the case per New York Magazine. “So, what’s the big deal?” he continued when the attorney did not give an answer, “Are we bound by what people thought in 1964?”

“(Lawmakers in the 1960s) shouldn’t be blamed for that failure of foresight,” Posner wrote in his opinion. “We understand the words of Title VII differently not because we’re smarter than the statute’s framers and ratifiers but because we live in a different era, a different culture.”

“We are not authorized to infuse the text with a new or unconventional meaning or to update it to respond to changed social, economic, or political conditions,” Judge Diane Sykes, who was considered by President Trump for the Supreme Court, wrote in her dissent. “It’s understandable that the court is impatient to protect lesbians and gay men from workplace discrimination without waiting for Congress to act. Legislative change is arduous and can be slow to come. But we’re not authorized to amend Title VII by interpretation.”

Ivy Tech said in a statement that its policies already prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and denies that it discriminated against Lively at all. The factual question of whether discrimination occurred was separate from whether the discrimination was illegal under the Civil Rights Act.

The 7th Circuit ruling contradicts a ruling by a three-judge panel in Atlanta three weeks ago. Because of the controversial interpretation of the law and the fact that different courts are issuing opposite rulings, the case is likely to come before the Supreme Court.

Is Open Discrimination Against Trump Voters A-Okay?

A gas company in central Maine, where the high temperature today is a sizzling 14° Farenheit, and the lows around around -8°, is refusing to sell propane to anyone who voted for President-elect Donald Trump.

“If you voted for Donald Trump for President, I will no longer be delivering your gas, please find someone else,” is the message left for customers that call Turner LP Gas Service, on Canaan Road in Skowhegan.

Basically, if you have a Trump sign in your yard, or on your pickup truck, these guys are going to let you freeze to death. Nice.

The Washington Post, New York Times, and all the leftist media hyping every form of conspiracy theory to keep Trump from taking office are fairly silent on this egregious open discrimination based on a political position.

If this were 2008, and a company refused to deliver gas to Obama voters, you’d better believe the calls of “racism!” and “KKK!” would echo all up and down the Acela corridor. Suddenly, though, it’s not racism or any other -ism to harm people because they don’t look like you, or vote like you would.

Oh, and how do I know that the media would suffer apoplexy if this was 2008 and Obama? Because they did.

As Erick wrote, the left is more concerned that you be forced to think like them than having any actual tolerance. Christians must not only tolerate people who hold opposite views to themselves, they must also participate and endorse those views. They must apply their unique talents and gifts to endorse and support statements counter to their consciences.

But when liberals find themselves opposing that which the American system of government produces, taking a position that California alone should determine the outcome of a popular election for president (which the founding fathers explicitly rejected and prohibited), it’s okay to show that opposition through conscientious acts. Those acts would harm others who need, for example, gas to heat their homes, but it’s A-okay to do that, because tolerance only goes one way in their world.

I don’t believe that people who think this way should run our country. Most of the rest of America–state by state–agrees with me on this. The people who live in the Clinton Archipelago can run things the way they like it, but they shouldn’t impose their bigoted beliefs on me or anyone else.