From the "It's never a problem until your own ox is gored" file.

Glen Reynolds links to this article on "anti-discrimination and free speech". According to the article:

Two former editorial writers at The Indianapolis Star have gone to court, charging that top newsroom managers "consistently and repeatedly demonstrated ... a negative hostility toward Christianity."

And:

According to a story in the Star today, Patterson and Coffey claim in the lawsuit that Ryerson and Henry were hostile toward Christianity and Christian employees at the paper. They also assert that Henry and Ryerson strongly disagreed "with anyone who had a biblical view of homosexuality."

Reynolds notes: "I suspect that we'll see more complaints like this. I also hope that they'll lead to a considerable pruning-back of "hostile environment" doctrine."

I think he may be right on both counts, but not, I hope, with the development of a sui generis rule that excludes "Christians".

I think he may be right because the once the "movable feast" which the possession of "victim status" affords is extended past the Democrats' clientele, a large sector of the civil rights industry will begin to wonder if "we've gone to far." Similarly, most Republicans think the whole thing went to far a long time age. I personally think we were past that point long before Aguilar v. Avis, which upheld prior restraints on speech in the name of anti-discrimination principles. (Aguilar was the case for which Justice Brown has been demonized because of her dissent in favor of free speech.) Apparently, though, no one is very concerned about such aberrations as long as it doesn't benefit Christians.

Well, the best way to undermine support for a bad law is to give the law impartial enforcement, so lets hope Patterson and Coffey score a victory.