I think everyone is reading this as NPS not allowing Jane Employee to show up in uniform at Pride and hang out. Maybe they’d frown on that. But what appears to be happening is that employees are petitioning to march in Pride parades, or otherwise somehow participate, as they have in years past, and which supports the LGBTQ+ Special Emphasis Program of federal agencies, and NPS is letting those requests sit.
For anyone wondering why NPS or any federal agency might participate in external events or allow employees to attend events in uniform: LGBTQ+ is one of several areas of special emphasis for federal agencies in recruitment, retention, and awareness. Others include, for example, women in government; Asian, Black, Native American, or Hispanic heritage; and people with disabilities. Special Emphasis Programs (SEP) are codified by executive order. The major intents are to dispel stereotypes, promote inclusion, and recognize the advances made by and contributions of people belonging to these groups.
As an example of the kind of participation agencies have shown under SEPs in the past—a local office may attend and set up a booth at a career fair for a Historically Black College or University. This serves employment-related outreach efforts under the SEP for the agency while also observing and recognizing this group. There is no similar Big Gay Hiring Event at a large scale, so Pride participation makes sense to further efforts under this SEP. Even apart from recruitment, the recognition of LGBTQ+ individuals—which NPS already explicitly supports through their management of Stonewall National Monument—and outward displays of inclusion for this group are equally important for prospective and current employees, as part of the culture of the agency.
What NPS has done is allow requests to participate in local Pride events as a form of observance and outreach to languish on the desks of NPS leadership.
While I’m all too happy to criticize SCOTUS, and I’m aghast at the judge shopping that is going on, these straight numbers don’t mean anything. We need to know proportions. If 10 cases are accepted from the 5th Circuit out of 100 that apply, that’s 10%. If 3 are heard from another circuit where 5 apply, that’s 60%. From the article, it seems judge shopping in the lower courts is the real issue.
Wikipedia | Argument from anecdote