President Trump has made a bevy of wonderful appointments to bureaucratic and judicial positions. But what would you say about Trump appointing a bureaucratic nominee who believes that it is illegal sex discrimination to fire a woman who shows up one day saying she is a man, or a man who shows up to work one day saying he is a woman, even though this very situation suggests that sex is malleable and thus not protectable; or that it is illegal sex discrimination for a business to refuse to cover the benefits of same-sex couples, even though sexual orientation is not covered by the Civil Rights Act?
What would you say about President Trump appointing a nominee to the powerful Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) who had written these insane things:
- When sexual orientation and religious freedom come into conflict, “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”;
- “Just as we do not tolerate private racial beliefs that adversely affect African-Americans in the commercial arena, even if such beliefs are based on religious views, we should similarly not tolerate private beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity that adversely affect the ability of LGBT people to live in the world”;
- “For all my sympathy for the evangelical Christian couple who may wish to run a bed and breakfast from which they can exclude unmarried straight couples and all gay couples, this is a point where I believe the ‘zero sum’ nature of the game inevitably comes into play. And in making the decision in this zero sum game, I am convinced society should come down on the side of protecting the liberty of LGBT people.”
- “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.”
This is fully radicalized stuff. This is why conservatives worry that the radical left is interested in destroying religious institutions wholesale; these principles have no limits. Why not force a church to perform same-sex marriages, or a religious school to hire transgender teachers? Why not force religious parents to educate their children about the Left’s favorite views of LGBT politics?
So, would Trump nominate someone like this?
He already has.
In December, in a little-noticed story, Trump re-nominated radical Obama appointee to the EEOC: Chai Feldblum.
The EEOC is a massively powerful institution. As Daniel Horowitz of Conservative Review writes:
The same power the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) wields over financial institutions, the EEOC wields over property rights, societal norms, and discrimination laws. It holds unconstitutional quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers to trump up and adjudicate charges against businesses and colleges over quotas and discrimination.
Feldblum should not be anywhere near the levers of power. And it’s particularly inexcusable for President Trump and a Republican Congress to reauthorize her presence there.