Holy hypocrisy: When "religious freedom" only protects one religion

"My Administration will not tolerate … unlawful conduct targeting Christians.…My Administration will ensure that any unlawful and improper conduct, policies, or practices that target Christians are identified, terminated, and rectified."

That's the key takeaway from Trump's Executive Order on Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias.

What does that look like in practice? According to Politico, the State Department has ordered employees "to report on any instances of coworkers displaying 'anti-Christian bias.'" The internal memo allows (but doesn't require) anonymous reporting and encourages submissions to be "as detailed as possible, including names, dates, [and] locations (e.g., post or domestic office where the incident occurred)."

Understanding the difference between legal and illegal DEI

If you want to understand the difference between legal and illegal DEI, here's what illegal looks like.

From The Hollywood Reporter: "CBS Studios has settled a lawsuit from a script coordinator for SEAL Team, who accused parent company Paramount of carrying illegal diversity quotas that discriminate against straight white men."

In the lawsuit, Brian Beneker alleged he was denied a job after Paramount implemented an "illegal policy of race and sex balancing" that prioritized hiring less qualified applicants who identified as minorities, LGBTQ+, or women.

Here's the legal reality — Quotas and preferences based on protected characteristics are unlawful. Title VII requires that employers hire the most qualified person for the job, regardless of race, sex, or any other protected trait.

But what if you want to improve representation of marginalized groups in your workplace, and do it legally?

WIRTW #756: the 'iii' edition

You can tell from the tone and tenor of my recent posts that the current state of my country, politics, and democracy has me concerned and scared. Which is why last night was so, so good for my soul.

If you are a fan of rock 'n' roll and have the chance to see Jack White live, just do it. Hard stop. It was an amazing night from start to finish. More next week, as it will be the focus of the next episode of The Norah and Dad Show.

---

Here's what I read this week that you should read, too.

If you wanted to know what a Constitutional Crisis looks like…

What happens when the Attorney General refuses to follow a Supreme Court order? We are about to find out.

Last week, the Supreme Court unanimously ordered the federal government to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the U.S. from his deportation to an El Salvador torture prison. The decision was clear: the deportation was illegal, and the government was required to undo it.

Yet, Attorney General Pam Bondi is refusing to comply. She has made no efforts to return Mr. Abrego Garcia, despite a binding court order. "He is not coming back to our country," according to Bondi.

That is not how the rule of law works.

Heel turn? How a dress code became an ADA problem.

This case started with a pair of Skechers, and will end with a jury trial.

A cocktail server at MGM National Harbor, Rebecca Lopez-Duprey, suffered from foot conditions—Achilles tendonitis and Equinus deformity—that made wearing heels painful and medically inadvisable. Her doctor recommended she wear flat, supportive shoes. Eventually, MGM granted her an ADA accommodation to do just that.

Lopez-Duprey wore Skechers-style black shoes for over two years without issue. Then came a policy change.

In late 2021, MGM issued a memo updating the dress code and specifying which shoes were allowed, even for employees with ADA accommodations. Skechers weren't on the approved list. The company disciplined Lopez-Duprey multiple times, including once for showing up to work in her doctor-recommended sneaker. She protested internally, and her doctor even submitted another note, this time stating she needed those shoes permanently.

MGM terminated her shortly thereafter for violating its appearance standards.

Lopez-Duprey sued for failure to accommodate under the ADA. 

Damage caps for discrimination claims don't work

$75,000. That’s what Morton Salt just paid to settle a lawsuit brought by the EEOC.

The agency alleged that Morton Salt discriminated against a Black employee because of his race and disability—and then retaliated against him for reporting it.

The allegations are disturbing:

• A white coworker allegedly used the n-word repeatedly, including calling employees "worthless [n-words]"—something Morton knew about.

• A Black employee reported the racist behavior.

• Instead of addressing or investigating the harassment, Morton reprimanded and ultimately fired the person who spoke up.

And what did it cost them? Seventy-five grand.

WIRTW #755: the 'seuss' edition

ChatGPT continues to amaze me with what it can do. Last week, I asked it to write a parody of "Green Eggs & Ham" about tariffs. You can read that story — called This Tariff Sham — over on LinkedIn.

This week, I decided to take it a step further: "Can you write a story in the style of Dr. Seuss's 'The Cat in the Hat' about the rise of authoritarianism in the United States and the increasing threat to the rule of law posed by the current Trump administration?" Then, I asked it to illustrate the results in a complete children's book. The results? Simply stunning. Read the story below, or download the fully illustrated book here.

* * *

The Man in the Red Tie
A Cautionary Tale in the Style of Dr. Seuss

The sun wasn't sunny. The news made us frown.
The Rule of Law seemed to be sliding down.

We sat in our house. We felt anxious and stuck.
We read every tweet and just whispered, "Oh… yuck."

Then THUMP!
Something boomed like a cannonball blast.
We turned to the screen — and he strode in fast.

He wore a red tie, too long and too wide,
With a smirk on his face and a puffed-out pride.

"I am the Man!" he said with a grin.
"I'll make us all great by just keeping me in!"

He stomped and he shouted, he pouted and screamed.
He flattered the rich and he schemed while they beamed.

He scolded the courts, he mocked every norm,
He said, "I alone will reform the reform!"

He fired the watchdogs who'd barked at his lies.
He said, "Loyal dogs are the very best guys."

He told folks in uniforms, "Do what you must.
If I tell you it's legal, then you know it’s just."

He roared at the press and he called them "fake."
He branded all truth as a liberal mistake.

He built up a wall, not just out of brick—
But out of division, and anger, and schtick.

He courted the chaos, the proud and the cruel.
He said, "I don't care — I make the rule!"

And some folks just cheered, "He tells it like so!"
(Though what "so" was… they weren't sure they'd know.)

But the skies grew darker, the air full of dread,
As the books stayed closed and the laws grew dead.

Then came the Day — the one we all feared.
The vote loomed large, and the stakes had cleared.

Would the people still matter? Would ballots be true?
Would justice be blind, or just red, white, and blue?

Then YOU stood up tall — yes, you, in that chair!
You said, "This is still our Republic to care!"

"The law is not his — it belongs to us all.
It's strong when we stand, and weak when we fall."

You voted. You marched. You wrote and you spoke.
You called out each lie. You challenged each joke.

And maybe, just maybe, the tide turned again—
The Rule of Law held, with paper and pen.

Now kids, let me tell you — remember this day.
Democracy isn't just kept safe by what we say.

It's guarded by people who act when things tilt,
Who patch up the cracks before freedoms wilt.

So the next time a man comes to town with a grin,
And says, "I alone can make your side win,"—

Say, "Thanks, but no thanks. We've read this old plot.
We're the People. We matter. Like it or not."

---

Here's what I read this week that you should read, too.