‘Equality’ Supersedes All Other Rights, Right?

by on

Files these under signs of the times.

Say as we say, or else:

Greeting customers as “Mr.” or “Mrs.” — or even not using the pronoun “ze” or “zir” — could prove costly for New York City businesses under rules drafted by Mayor Bill de Blasio’s bureaucrats.

The Gotham mayor’s Commission on Human Rights says entities that fail to address customers by their preferred gender pronouns and titles are in violation of the law and could be subject to penalties of up to $250,000.

Law professor Eugene Volokh comments:

this isn’t just the government as employer, requiring its employees to say things that keep government patrons happy with government services. This is the government as sovereign, threatening “civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct” if people don’t speak the way the government tells them to speak.

I hope there aren’t any Quakers in NYC who still would like to refer to folks by “thee” and “thou.”

Our message on your (church) property:

Greg Bourke and Michael De Leon, who also were among the plaintiffs in the Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court case creating a constitutional right to gay marriage, are accusing the Archdiocese of Louisville of discriminating against them for rejecting their headstone design celebrating gay marriage.

The two men bought a joint burial plot in St. Michael Cemetery, which is run by the Catholic Cemeteries of the Archdiocese of Louisville.

They later submitted a design of a headstone for the plot, which featured an inscription of the couple’s wedding rings interlocking and an image of the Supreme Court building.

In a letter marked March 30, the Archdiocese denied the headstone design request, saying it goes against Catholic teaching on marriage. … The Archdiocese said other designs on the headstone, including “both your names and dates of birth and of course the religious symbol of the cross,” were acceptable. “However, we cannot approve the depiction of the Supreme Court building and the use of wedding rings.”

in another account:

Bourke said the Archdiocese is exempt from the local Fairness Ordinance that prohibits discrimination against members of the LGBT community, and the “Archdiocese has every legal right to do what they’re doing,” Bourke said. “We have no protection whatsoever in a situation like this.”

Which suggests he thinks they ought to have such “protection” to force the archidiocese to allow symbols and statements on church property that it finds at odds with the Catholic faith.

In both these stories, those pursing their objectives in the name of equality think what they want trumps the expressive, property and faith rights of others.

More. Via the Wall Street Journal’s Notable & Quotable, remarks by Cuban poet and human-rights activist Armando Valladares on receiving the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty’s Canterbury Medal in New York, May 12:

Just as there is a short distance between the U.S. and Cuba, there is a very short distance between a democracy and a dictatorship where the government gets to decide what we believe and what we do. And sometimes this is not done at gunpoint but instead it is done one piece of paper at a time, one seemingly meaningless rule at a time, one silencing at a time. Beware young friends. Never compromise. Never allow the government—or anyone else—to tell you what you can or cannot believe or what you can and cannot say or what your conscience tells you to have to do.

His full remarks can be viewed here, or read here.

11 Comments for “‘Equality’ Supersedes All Other Rights, Right?”

  1. posted by Tom Scharbach on May 20, 2016

    I represented Catholic Cemeteries of Chicago at one point in my career. The chances of Greg Bourke and Michael De Leon prevailing in a lawsuit against Catholic Cemeteries of Louisville is exactly zero, and the chances are that they know it.

    Bourke is a long-time activist within the diocese. He’s butted his head against the Catholic wall before, and will not doubt do so again in the future.

    I haven’t looked at the NYC guidelines, and don’t intend to do so. The courts can sort that nonsense out, and will, no doubt have ample opportunity to do so.

  2. posted by Kosh III on

    Yes, please. No PC, no common courtesy of addressing people the way they want to be addressed.
    Right Mrs. Shixhead Miller?

  3. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Which suggests he thinks they ought to have such “protection” to force the archdiocese to allow symbols and statements on church property that it finds at odds with the Catholic faith.

    I don’t think that holds water, based on the Courier article you cite:

    De Leon and Bourke, both 58, belong to a group called Catholics for Fairness that held a news conference with the theme “Freedom to Bury” along with the Fairness Campaign Wednesday outside St. Michael, 1153 Charles St., to call attention to what they consider to be an unjust situation. … They hope to set up a meeting with Archdiocese officials to try to reach a compromise but haven’t taken action yet. … Bourke and De Leon “might have a more receptive audience with the Vatican than with the Archdiocese.”

    Unless the article is misrepresenting the situation, DeLeon and Bourke, both Catholics, seem to be working from within the Catholic Church to bring change. In that effort, they are one with many other Catholics. I don’t see so much as a whiff of a suggestion that either Bourke or DeLeon are seeking any change in the law.

    All in all, this case doesn’t seem much different than your advocacy for schism within the Methodist denomination in the immediately preceding post, “The Methodists’ Time for Choosing“, by Stephen H. Miller on May 15, 2016.

    Certainly you don’t object to internal advocacy by persons of faith with differing views. At least I hope not.

  4. posted by Houndentenor on

    Can someone confirm if the policy really says what Stephen claims it does without referencing a newspaper owned by the Moonies? It sounds like a distortion you’d read at WND.

    As for thee and thou, those are the singular/familiar second person pronouns that sadly went out of practice. What do they have to do with gender? I wish they would come back so that English would have the necessary corresponding pronouns to tu in French or du in German. Most languages have this and it’s ridiculous that English dropped this useful set of pronouns.

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      Volokh provided a link to the guidelines.

      The relevant language appears to be:

      1. Failing To Use an Individual’s Preferred Name or Pronoun

      The NYCHRL requires employers and covered entities to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individual’s identification.

      Most individuals and many transgender people use female or male pronouns and titles. Some transgender and gender non-conforming people prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir. 10 Many transgender and gender non-conforming people choose to use a different name than the one they were given at birth.

      All people, including employees, tenants, customers, and participants in programs, have the right to use their preferred name regardless of whether they have identification in that name or have obtained a court-ordered name change, except in very limited circumstances where certain federal, state, or local laws require otherwise (e.g., for purposes of employment eligibility verification with the federal government). Asking someone their preferred gender pronoun and preferred name is not a violation of the NYCHRL.

      Examples of Violations

      a. Intentional or repeated refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” after she has made clear which pronouns and title she uses.

      b. Refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun, or title because they do not conform to gender stereotypes. For example, calling a woman “Mr.” because her appearance is aligned with traditional gender-based stereotypes of masculinity.

      c. Conditioning an individual’s use of their preferred name on obtaining a court-ordered name change or providing identification in that name. For example, a covered entity may not refuse to call a transgender woman her preferred name, Jane, because her identification says that her first name is John. 11

      d. Requiring an individual to provide information about their medical history or proof of having undergone particular medical procedures in order to use their preferred name, pronoun, or title.

      Covered entities may avoid violations of the NYCHRL by creating a policy of asking everyone what their preferred gender pronoun is so that no individual is singled out for such questions and by updating their systems to allow all individuals to self-identify their names and genders. They should not limit the options for identification to male and female only.

      Notice that the examples of violations generally require a relatively high bar for a trigger. The accounts don’t notice or ignore that …

      • posted by Houndentenor on

        So, you’d need to be aware of what the person wanted to be called and repeatedly call them something else? Why would you call someone something other than what they asked to be called? I can find no defense for the actions that would lead to the fine.

      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        So, you’d need to be aware of what the person wanted to be called and repeatedly call them something else?

        That’s my understanding. That’s what the word “refusal” means in ordinary English. It might mean something different in StephenWorld™.

  5. posted by Tom Jefferson III on

    I would assume that a business would first have to know what a customer wants to be called, unless we are assuming that a business is not only a person, but one with psychic powers.

  6. posted by Tom Jefferson III on

    As for the burial matter, if the land is owned by the Catholic Church and functions as a Catholic “final resting place”, then they get to set up their own rules…..I suspect that most of the lawyers involved in cases like this are well aware of the legal realities.

    Meanwhile, let us talk about something a bit more important

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      More important? You mean like the strongly (and sometimes comically poorly) worded anti-gay statements Republicans are putting in their state party platforms? (see: Texas)

  7. posted by Jorge on

    Greeting customers as “Mr.” or “Mrs.” — or even not using the pronoun “ze” or “zir” — could prove costly for New York City businesses under rules drafted by Mayor Bill de Blasio’s bureaucrats.
    The Gotham mayor’s Commission on Human Rights says entities that fail to address customers by their preferred gender pronouns and titles are in violation of the law and could be subject to penalties of up to $250,000.

    Oh, good. THIS is in the news again. Maybe I’ll have a fighting chance now. That administrative directive just snuck its way in.

Comments are closed.