And anyone who works for one…
[link removed]
[link removed]
Your help is needed to stand against efforts to replace “sex” with “gender identity” at the U.S. Supreme Court!
[link removed]
Dear John,
“Sex” and “gender identity” are not the same thing.
But if the ACLU and unelected government officials have their way, “gender identity” will replace “sex” in federal law. A change like this would cause chaos for American businesses — and everyone who works for one.
Tom Rost and his business, R.G & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, are standing up to those attempting to rewrite the law. His case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court, and ADF will be arguing on his behalf on October 8.
This is a critical time as we prepare to provide Tom with the best possible legal defense. Will you help?
Replacing “sex” with “gender identity” in federal law would cause chaos. But you can help stop this from happening. Make your tax-deductible gift right now and help support Tom’s stand at the U.S. Supreme Court.
[link removed]
DONATE
[link removed]
What happens to Tom Rost and Harris Funeral Homes could affect all American businesses—and anyone who works for one
Harris Funeral Homes has a sex-specific dress code for its funeral directors. The dress code is consistent with federal law.
As a fourth-generation owner of Harris Funeral Homes, Tom Rost knows how important the dress code is. He’s seen it in action for years. The professional dress and conduct codes help ensure families can focus on processing their grief rather than on the funeral home and its employees.
For more than 100 years, these guidelines have helped Harris Funeral Homes serve grieving families with excellence.
But now, Tom is being sued.
It started when a male funeral director who had worked at Harris Funeral Homes for nearly six years gave Tom a letter.
The letter expressed the employee’s plan to begin dressing and presenting as a woman at work while interacting with grieving families.
Tom agonized over this letter. After thoughtfully considering the interests of the employee, the grieving families Tom serves, and his female employees (who would be sharing a restroom with the employee making the demand), Tom decided that he could not agree to the employee’s plan to violate the dress code.
In response, the employee filed a complaint against Tom with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The EEOC then sued Tom and Harris Funeral Homes for sex discrimination.
John, you may be wondering how this is possible. How did unelected officials in the EEOC justify suing Tom?
The answer is simple and shocking: the EEOC believed that “sex” should mean “gender identity” in federal law, so it imposed this view on Tom in its efforts to punish him!
With your help, Tom is fighting this injustice. 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 help defend Tom and others like him. Will you give today to further the impact for freedom during this critical time?
[link removed]
“Sex” and “gender identity” are not the same thing
“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” in federal law should not be taken lightly. Only Congress has the authority to make such a drastic shift. And for good reason—it would cause chaos.
Consider what it would mean for an employer who runs a prison of solely women inmates. A man claiming to be a woman could demand a female-only position conducting strip searches or supervising the inmates’ showers. Bodily privacy would be sacrificed.
Or consider the dilemma for business owners like Tom. The former employee in Tom’s case has said that employers must treat men who believe themselves to be women as if they are women unless those employees don’t “meet the expectations” of what women “[t]ypically” look like.
But it’s not practical for employers to constantly check in with employees on their preferred gender (one social networking site lists 112 genders!). And it’s even worse to have employers then make judgments about who looks male or female enough to pass for their preferred gender.
John, only a bad law would force employers to stereotype their own employees!
And that’s just the start.
Redefining “sex” in federal law to mean “gender identity” could affect Americans in all sorts of destructive ways.
It could compel professionals to refer to their colleagues with pronouns and other sex-specific terms according to gender identity rather than biology, or risk losing their jobs — threatening freedom of speech.
It could require doctors to participate in (and employers to pay for) hormone blockers and surgical attempts to change sex in violation of religious beliefs — sacrificing freedom of conscience.
It could force businesses, charities, and schools to open locker rooms, restrooms, and showers to men who identify as women — making the dignity and privacy of women contingent on others’ beliefs about their own gender.
It could result in men replacing women in women’s sports. In the past two years, for example, two male athletes identifying as female in Connecticut have won 15 girls track-and-field state titles that previously belonged to nine female athletes.
John, this case is about much more than sex-specific dress codes at your local funeral home. This is about your freedom too.
If the U.S. Supreme Court rules against Tom, it would give government agencies and unelected bureaucrats the power to change the law.
And if that happens, American businesses would be unable to rely on what the law says. They’d constantly be in danger of crushing lawsuits.
We can’t let that happen.
Join the fight against this injustice — help support Tom’s stand for freedom at the U.S. Supreme Court!
[link removed]
Rise to the challenge and stand for freedom
While the federal government has since changed its position and now supports Tom’s arguments in the case, the ACLU is continuing to press the case against Harris Funeral Homes in an effort to rewrite the law.
But no one should be punished for acting consistently with existing laws.
Tom Rost and Harris Funeral Homes should be free to rely on what the law says and focus on serving grieving families without fear of unjust government punishment.
We are hopeful that God will deliver a victory for Tom — and for us all. And we’re praying that He will move in the hearts of countless people like you to see what is at stake and fight for freedom.
Because it’s only through God’s provision (John 15:5) and your generous support that any of this is possible.
And when we stand together, we can WIN.
Thanks be to God, we’re winning nearly 80 percent of our cases, including nine victories at the U.S. Supreme Court since 2011!
Now we have an opportunity to secure another important victory for freedom at the High Court.
Will you rise to the challenge and stand against efforts to replace “sex” with “gender identity”?
[link removed]
When you do, 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.
DONATE NOW
[link removed]
DONATE
[link removed]
© 2019 Alliance Defending Freedom
15100 N. 90th Street, Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
All donations are secure, private, and tax-deductible. Member ECFA.
View this e-mail online
[link removed]
| Privacy policy
[link removed]
| Unsubscribe
[link removed]
