| |
| A loss at the U.S. Supreme Court will not just affect Tom… |
| |
|
|
|
Dear John,
What if the word “sex” in federal law was changed to mean “gender identity”?
This isn’t a theoretical question.
It could really happen.
Whether or not it becomes a reality depends on what the United States Supreme Court decides in our upcoming case: R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
If the Supreme Court rules against Tom Rost and his business, Harris Funeral Homes, it could have widespread consequences for us all, especially by undermining equal opportunities for women and girls.
|
|
|
|
How Tom ended up at the U.S. Supreme Court fighting for his freedom — and yours
Tom is the owner of the award-winning R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes in Michigan. The 100-year-old business has employed five generations of Tom’s family.
Harris Funeral Homes has a sex-specific dress code as part of its professional codes of conduct. Those policies help ensure that families can focus on the grieving process rather than the funeral home or its staff.
The dress code is consistent with industry standards and federal law. Every employee agrees to follow the dress code upon being hired.
But one day, a male funeral director handed Tom a letter. The letter informed Tom that after nearly six years of employment, this employee planned to begin dressing and presenting as a woman while working with the grieving families Harris Funeral Homes serves.
Tom was surprised. But not even the shock of that moment could prepare him for what would come next.
When Tom decided he could not go along with the employee’s plan to violate the dress code, the employee filed a complaint against Tom with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
The EEOC then sued Tom and Harris Funeral Homes for sex discrimination!
It didn’t matter that Tom was acting consistently with existing laws, which allow small businesses to have sex-specific dress codes. The EEOC believed that “sex” should mean “gender identity” in federal employment law, and it imposed this view on Tom in its efforts to punish him.
John, for many years, your prayers and financial support have helped provide a strong legal defense for Tom free of charge.
Now, his case is set to be argued at the U.S. Supreme Court on October 8.
This is Tom’s last stand. It’s his final shot to win for freedom. He needs your help.
Already, a group of generous Ministry Friends have answered the call and provided a $2 million challenge grant to inspire you to join the fight and help defend Tom and others like him. Will you give today to further the impact for freedom during this critical time? |
|
|
|
Changing the definition of “sex” to mean “gender identity” would cause chaos
“Sex” defines whether someone is male or female as an objective fact based on biology. But “gender identity” is a fluid concept that is hard to define and based on subjective perceptions.
Replacing “sex” with “gender identity” should not be taken lightly. Only Congress has the authority to make such a drastic shift. And for good reason. A change like this in federal law would cause chaos.
- It could undermine equal opportunities for women and girls like Selina Soule, a high school athlete who is being forced to compete against biological males who identify as girls — producing an unequal playing field for girls. In fact, the boys who identify as girls have taken 15 girls’ track-and-field state titles in the past two years.
- It could result in women’s shelters being forced to allow males who identify as female to sleep mere feet away from women who have been raped, trafficked, or abused. Recently, a federal court in Alaska had to stop the city of Anchorage from doing that very thing.
- It could force employers and schools to open locker rooms, restrooms, and showers to men who claim a female identity — making the dignity and privacy of women everywhere contingent on others’ beliefs about their own gender.
- It could require doctors to participate in (and employers to pay for) hormone blockers or surgical attempts to change sex in violation of religious beliefs — sacrificing freedom of conscience.
- It could compel professionals from all walks of life to use pronouns and other sex-specific terms according to identity rather than biology or risk losing their jobs — threatening freedom of speech.
- And it would put employers like Tom Rost and Harris Funeral Homes in impossible situations where they are forced (in the former funeral director’s view) to decide who is masculine or feminine enough to present a certain way — forcing employers to stereotype their own employees!
John, if the Supreme Court rules against Tom, he isn’t the only one who will suffer.
This case is about much more than sex-specific dress codes at your local funeral home. This is about your freedom too.
Please stand with Tom today to provide the strong legal defense he needs at the U.S. Supreme Court. Because of the blessing of the $2 million challenge grant, you’ll join others in making an even greater impact for freedom. |
|
|
|
This is urgent — Oral arguments at the Supreme Court are October 8
While the federal government has since changed its position and now agrees with Tom that “sex” in federal employment law refers to biological sex, the ACLU is still pursuing the case against Harris Funeral Homes in an effort to rewrite the law.
Now the Supreme Court must decide: Can unelected government officials bypass Congress and change the law to advance their own political interests?
There’s so much at stake, John.
A loss at the High Court could be a direct threat to your freedom.
That’s why your help is so urgently needed.
Through God’s blessing (John 15:5) and the generous support of people like you, we’re winning nearly 80 percent of our cases, including nine victories at the U.S. Supreme Court since 2011.
Together we have an opportunity to secure another important win at the Supreme Court — for Tom and for us all.
If you give today, your gift will further the impact of a $2 million challenge grant.
Thank you for standing with Tom and others like him with your best gift today. |
|
|
|
|
