You have a socially-conservative employee. You are a ‘woke’ organization; or you would like to ‘wokewash’ the public into thinking so, just to stay in business. You can’t outright fire them, because of those pesky anti-discrimination laws, pushed, for the most part, by Progressives, Hey, they can do good. But a {persons} got to know their limitations, and those of their beliefs.

So, will a legal shakedown cottage industry emerge, as organizations look to avoid litigation? You know: I won’t take you to court, for some consideration?

Huhhh. A nice fantasy, but would require people actually remembering what ‘American’ stands for. And the intestinal fortitude to follow through. Good news is, the odds, and the law are in the plaintiffs favor; but no one likes inconvenience.

“I’m sorry. Are you inquiring after my religious views, as concerns my work?”

Yeah, even the firm understood that its position was not legally tenable -and, obviously, that she damned well knew it. Thus, the seven figure buyout that she obtained from them.

But as Lat notes, that’s really the remarkable thing about this whole incident. The firm didn’t even bother trying to take it to litigation. They found her continued presence in the firm, even as lucrative as it was for them, so deeply distasteful that they were willing to shell out millions, up front, just to get rid of her.

Alas, most people who run into this political woodchipper don’t have that kind of pull.

More unapproved language that is being forbidden by your “Betters” :

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11558067/Woke-Stanford-University-publishes-list-harmful-language-want-eliminate.html

This is the Democrat party machine / Globalist road map of world restructuring.

George Orwell: https://youtu.be/8LQFMO6FrqY

“Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.”

The goal?

Destroy what is in order to rebuild it, reprogram it as they say it should be, more “Inclusive”, more “Equal”. (Its all an Orwellian / Marxist psyops)

They are attempting to redefine normal? This is “Fundamental change”, accent on mental.

You cannot force humanity to think in such a manner under the banner of “Equality”.

You want to break culture and redefine it for real? Then you must force it and conquer it and destroy using violence and it being bathed in blood, old school. And they are very well capable of it.

And again, I blame the weakness of the Republican / RINO party in America. Weak is weak and you will then be dominated and owned.

Leftardism cannot survive in the light of common sense and critical thinking ability, so the only option is brutal censorship of all thoughts, opinions, speech and writing that is out of sync with the political narrative du jour. It is why woketard/leftard midwits resort to shrieking disruptions of speakers trying to present opposing opinions, because they cannot present a cogent justification for any leftist idea. Hence their extreme play on emotion over reason.

The ideological grooming has been going on for more than 80 years. All the degenerate grooming threatening to overwhelm normal people is just one of the slippery slope waves of ever increasing insanity designed to corrupt people and turn them away from God, family and nation.

J&B SCOTCH THIS CHRISTMAS ?

https://youtu.be/LEshVJ1IECw

The J&B company in its attempt to connect to the “Woke” / “Progressive” agenda is IMO destroying its entire brand.

Men, hairy, image building, testosterone pumping, cigar smoking, women chasing, masculine men in my experience are the primary consumers of scotch in America for the most part. And now J&B scotch will be associated with this “Woke” makeup wearing man political agenda?

A very dangerous politically correct business move by management, IMO of course. Maybe it’s a genius move on the part of J&B’s CEO? Who pitches this to corporate leadership, and they say, yeah that’s a great advertising campaign concept.

(Is someone getting fired for Christmas? I hear the Balenciaga company might need some new management)

Let’s see what happens. Maybe because the commercial is in Europe it will be a raging business promotional success?

Which is not to say that there is “anything wrong” with men wearing makeup, if that is what makes you happy :)

What’s better than a grandfather passing down his makeup wearing tradition to his grandson? Makes you want a drink!

https://apis.mail.aol.com/ws/v3/mailboxes/@.id==VjN-_95qz8vtNQnj2guvJpSi615JXjYizy9bcZuM2MCqJDk8zBIwKj0CmLH_qmCDE5NsTJVJXmOu9vG5vVhaOWavzw/messages/@.id==APpKjTwgxQ_OY6HHkAQmgDeuV8U/content/parts/@.id==2/thumbnail?appid=AolMailNorrin&downloadWhenThumbnailFails=true&pid=2

“I’m sorry. Are you inquiring after my religious views, as concerns my work?”

there is increasingly no place for social conservatives inadequately fundamentalist Progressive church members in many large law firms
FIFY

cthulhu
December 20, 2022 at 4:46 am
The old expression, “don’t make a Federal case out of it”
I haven’t actually heard that phrase used in a couple of decades.

Here’s what happened, according to this partner. After she declined to take on pro-bono work of a pro-choice bent or to get involved in other reproductive-rights initiatives post-Dobbs—saying she was too busy, not mentioning any opposition to abortion or to Dobbs—her office managing partner asked her, “Am I correct in assuming you’re pro-life?” After she didn’t deny this (because she actually is pro-life), he called her racist (because of the disproportionate impact of Dobbs on minority communities), let her know she was not going to be working with his clients, and started undermining her in various ways, large and small.

Some might be skeptical of this account, but in the current day and age, I’m not surprised.

https://davidlat.substack.com/p/biglaws-latest-cancel-culture-controversy

I guess this is the woke jacobin equivalent of “Some people choose to wear more flair.”

Lat draws this conclusion: “I don’t know if I’m entirely there yet, but I think I’m coming around to the following view: Biglaw isn’t a big tent, and it’s naive, maybe even downright silly, to believe otherwise. It’s fine to be economically or fiscally conservative—Biglaw defends Big Business, after all—but there is increasingly no place for social conservatives in many large law firms, as well as elite circles more generally.”

The Dobbs decision merely confirmed the common-sense impression that such powers (as generally found in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution) did not include the right to regulate the termination of pregnancies. As the Tenth Amendment holds, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Regulation of pregnancies is clearly up to the States.

The old expression, “don’t make a Federal case out of it” has been eroded by decades of Federal overreach, and Roe v. Wade was an example of the worst of such overreach. If “emanations and penumbras” are sufficient for Federal apparatus to be empowered, then any limitations of Federal power are meaningless.

I would have serious doubts regarding the competence of any law firm that would maintain otherwise.

““You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” –

Inigo Montoya ‘The Princess Bride’ 1987