Alliance Defending Freedom will be representing a Christian funeral home at the Supreme Court’s next session. The funeral home has been sued for its “discriminatory” dress policy after a male employee was prohibited from cross-dressing as a woman. While part of the case concerns religious exercise, this issue truly affects all business owners and their ability to set uniform policies of their choosing, setting it up in opposition to postmodern gender ideology.
RG & GR Harris Funeral Homes in Detroit, Michigan, has a reputation for outstanding service. It was voted “best hometown funeral home.” When Tom Rost, the owner, heard that one of his recently widowed clients could not get her groceries, he sent an employee to go deliver groceries to her. Rost has been running the funeral home for 35 years, helping grieving families in their time of need.
Six years after joining Harris Funeral Homes, a male employee decided he wanted to begin dressing as a woman. The funeral home did not want the man’s unusual appearance to distract from the emotional, grieving families they work with every day. Rost would understandably have concerns about it hurting his business as well. Consequently, he made the challenging decision to fire this employee.
The American Civil Liberties Union and other leftist organizations have presented this as a case about religious transphobia. With a devoutly Christian legal firm such as Alliance Defending Freedom representing Harris Funeral Homes, they will probably be able to sell that angle pretty effectively. However, we must note this is not just a concern for religious organizations.
It is unreasonable to argue employers should have no say when employees insist on taking on a peculiar appearance in a workplace, especially in positions that involve customer interaction. For example, Target would be well within its rights not to hire a cashier with obscene tattoos or peculiar body piercings if managers feared the employee’s appearance would negatively affect business. And if an employee were to get these peculiar tattoos and piercings after being hired, Target would be right to fire him.
This is related to the case at hand. If an employee insists on dressing in a peculiar fashion at work — in this case, like a person of the opposite sex — it’s something the employer should have a say in. Employers should be able to consider a candidate’s physical appearance when making hiring and employment decisions. This is not a religious idea at all. And it doesn’t even mean the employer is discriminating against someone for identifying with a different gender. On their own time, when not representing their employer, employees can dress according to whatever “gender identity” they please, just as Target employees don’t need to wear their red uniforms off the job.
And if we examine this issue more closely, we actually find that liberals agree. Liberal news networks and liberal Hollywood are in the entertainment business. When they decide whom to put on screen, you had better believe they consider the physical appearance of their employees. And in fact, unlike in this case, they choose people based on characteristics they cannot alter with a mere change of clothes. They want not only people who dress well, but also naturally good-looking people, because that’s what the consumers want.
One could argue this “discriminates” against less-attractive people. Is this somewhat unfair? Yes. But should the government force Hollywood and CNN to change their hiring practices? Hell no.
There is certainly room for discussion on where ethically to draw the line on this issue, and it’s a discussion that should be had. But for that discussion to be a healthy and productive one, the government needs to stay out of it.
