A Children's Treasury Of Bigots Who Will Really Miss Doing Employment Discrimination To LGBTQ People

Kiss today goodbye, and point them toward tomorrow.

As you may have heard, the Supreme Court ruled today that gay and transgender people are covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, meaning that an employer cannot fire someone for being gay or transgender. Or, more realistically, an employer cannot explicitly tell an employee they are being fired for being gay or transgender, unless they have fewer than 15 employees (federally, although some states have lower thresholds). Now, so long as a gay or trans person has a rock solid case, the time and the money to file a Title VII lawsuit, and a lawyer willing to take them on, they can sue a former employer who fired them for being gay or trans. America!

Alas, this has made some people — the kind of people who fwould really enjoy explicitly telling someone they are being fired for being gay or trans — very, very sad. To ask them to at least pretend they are firing them for no reason, or because they have a headache that day or because they don't like the employee's socks would be a violation of their religious freedom. Unfair!

Let's laugh at their pain, shall we?

This guy is feeling super discouraged because now he's feeling like they probably won't even take people's reproductive rights away!

Nothing comes next. It's over. We're done here. What a miserable failure. Does anyone actually believe these peopl… https: //t.co/5v0ShLvCqy

— Jon Schweppe 🇺🇸 (@Jon Schweppe 🇺🇸) 1592230555.0 

The Hillbilly Elegy guy feels betrayed, but frames it as the Supreme Court betraying "social conservatives and traditionalists." "Traditionalist" is the politically correct term for "bigot."

The next (and perhaps most important) step is for social conservatives to realize that donor economics is not merel… https: //t.co/r2xDgXCwNV

— J.D. Vance (@J.D. Vance) 1592233286.0 

Carrie Severino is the wife of Roger Severino, the director of the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Health and Human Services. You know, the same HHS that just put out a notice on Friday saying it was okay for doctors to discriminate against trans people.

She is also the head of the Judicial Crisis Network, a super gross dark money group that spent millions of dollars to get Neil Gorsuch on the bench. Now that he has betrayed them, she is no longer happy with her purchase. Sadly, the Supreme Court is not Nordstrom's.

While the question of whether to amend Title VII to add more categories may be a difficult one as a matter of polic… https: //t.co/l5Nka9xLL2

— Carrie Severino (@Carrie Severino) 1592231542.0 

Ben Shapiro also has a sad, because he knows that when people were writing the Civil Rights Act, they wanted to preserve the rights of religious bigots to be able to discriminate against people they don't like in their employment decisions, so long as the reason why they didn't like those people was because they were gay or trans.

This Gorsuch decision is not originalist in any way; he acknowledges as much. It is simply a bad, outcome-driven le… https: //t.co/38gpIfUTnE

— Ben Shapiro (@Ben Shapiro) 1592233134.0 

Out: Textualism means interpreting a statute according to the meaning of its verbiage when written. In: Textualism… https://t.co/F47LljzPvb

— Ben Shapiro (@Ben Shapiro) 1592237766.0 

Oh, of course someone was gonna get TERFy about it.

This isn’t just a tragedy for religious liberty; it’s also a tragedy for women. It basically reverses the law’s exp… https: //t.co/OMJVmyCJ4O

— Amy Hall (@Amy Hall) 1592235535.0 

Rod Dreher is worried religious schools and churches that like discriminating against people for their sexual orientation or gender identity will lose their tax-exempt status, like Bob Jones University did when it simply wanted to ban students from having interracial relationships. Weirdly, he does not explicitly mention what that ruling was about!

Thanks to two GOP appointees -- Roberts and Gorsuch -- churches and schools that discriminate against LGBTs stand… https: //t.co/gCq29kdnFK

— Rod Dreher (@Rod Dreher) 1592232446.0 

Daniel Horowitz, editor of the Conservative Review, got weird.

So if i create a sexuality called "killer whale" and demand that i be placed in a fish bowl at my place of employme… https: //t.co/IWAEoLJjGg

— Daniel Horowitz (@Daniel Horowitz) 1592230506.0 

I say, if Daniel Horowitz can do his job just as well from a fish bowl, then no, he shouldn't be fired. He also should not be fired for claiming his sexuality is "killer whale," or for any reason unrelated to job performance.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council hate group seems to have things very backwards and is convinced the only reason people are pushing for these laws is to "crush" faith-based businesses. To what end, he does not say.

Allowing judges to rewrite the Civil Rights Act to add gender identity & sexual orientation as protected classes po… https: //t.co/KwzQfcCXhj

— Tony Perkins (@Tony Perkins) 1592237357.0 

There's a whole lot of crying about religious liberty going on, and I have to wonder — do people think discrimination against black people and women was secular in nature? Because it absolutely was not. It was very much justified as being part of people's religious beliefs. Slavery, too, was justified by people quoting the Bible. Bob Jones University claimed banning interracial relationships was part of its religion. In fact, there weren't really a ton of secular justifications for any of those things. Well, except the theory that educating women was very dangerous because if they tried to learn while menstruating, their reproductive organs might explode or something. That was just science .

But as much scientific racism was going on back in the day (and there was a lot of it), no one was using it to justify Jim Crow laws. They were separate things. The arguments used to keep discrimination legal were always about "religious freedom."

These people may want to consider that the "original" Civil Rights Act they want everyone to be very originalist about also bans employers from discriminating against people because of their religion. If a boss wants to fire someone because they are gay or trans and his religion says that is wrong, he is also technically discriminating against them for not following his religion, which he is not allowed to do, as per the "original" Civil Rights Act.

It looks like all of these people are just going to have to find something else to make them feel good about themselves.

Wonkette is independent and fully funded by readers like you. Click below to tip us! Also if you are buying stuff on Amazon, click this link !