Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Pamela Royce's avatar

As an appeals court in the U.S. recently noted in a case now headed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the “trans” community is not politically powerless. As such, it hardly needs special protection. Allison’s case is unnerving because, it seems to me, her former chambers, upon learning that an employee was a devout adherent of a religious denomination that Stonewall deems anti-trans, would also terminate that person’s employment to appease the petulant Stonewall. As a lawyer, I feel that I can adequately and equitably serve people whose beliefs or views I do not share. I certainly wouldn’t lurk behind the potted plants to leap out and attack “trans” people. Their concern for “feeling safe” is hyperbolic on a juvenile scale.

Expand full comment
Paul Cassidy's avatar

Even if we accept for the sake of argument that the “protest” made by Stonewall to GCC did not meet the threshold for inducing GCC’s breach of EA, that same threshold does not apply to the evaluation of Stonewall’s conduct by parties such as GCC who have ended up severely penalised, with trashed reputations, for acting the way they did. They know perfectly well that it was Stonewall ‘wot dun it’.

In a rational world you would expect that any business that has acted illegally having been the recipient of a Stonewall nudge & wink would immediately terminate relations with them. Ok, that doesn’t get Stonewall humiliated in court, which would be nice, but it should be terminal for them as a trusted adviser.

Expand full comment
41 more comments...

No posts