Is there no ENDA to Peter's fallaciousness?
So we all know that Peter LaBarbera of the Americans For Truth group is no fan of pro-gay rights measures. However, we really wish he wouldn't lie about them.
If passed, how would this vile law work?
-Simply put, ENDA would force employers with deeply held religious beliefs to hire people they know are committing acts that they consider immoral -- and to hire them precisely BECAUSE they are committing these acts.
-The Boy Scouts will be forced to hire homosexual Scoutmasters -- even those who flaunt their perverse and obscene appetites!
-Day-care facilities, adoption agencies and Christian schools will likewise be investigated and targeted for federal prosecution if found to be "discriminating."
If you're still confused, check out this soul-sickening scenario:
For years, Mom and Dad -- church-going Bible-believers -- have operated a candy store on the corner of Main and Reagan. After school and on Saturdays, the place is swarming with children and their parents.
When they advertise for a clerk, the leader of the local "gay rights" movement applies for the job. He is an in-your-face pervert who struts and swaggers around town, boasting of his unnatural behavior with other men.
He tells Mom and Dad: "You're Christian bigots and if you don't hire me, I'll haul you into court, and you'll have to pay a huge fine, if not spend time behind bars."
Mom and Dad have three choices:
-They can hire him, knowing that when they do, the children will stop coming around, and count the days until they lose their business.
-They can fight him in court, spend thousands of dollars in legal fees with no hope of winning. and count the days until they go out of business
-They can decide NOT to count the days and simply take the shingle down and go out of business the next day.
Make no mistake. That is the real purpose behind ENDA. ENDA has nothing to do with ending non-existent "discrimination" against homosexuals. ENDA's ONLY purpose is to punish people who refuse to accept the radical homosexual agenda.
And the above scenario is just an example of exactly how ENDA will work -- in practice -- to punish Christians and destroy small business.
1) We really don't know where Pete is going with the employers will be forced "to hire [gays] precisely BECAUSE they are committing these acts." ENDA is not going to put any sort of quota on the number of 'mos that must be found in any given place of business! It will simply allow those who feel they have been discriminated against because of their orientation or gender identity to take action. And in fact, it is specifically stated in the bill that the measure is NOT to encourage "preferential treatment or quotas."
3) Christian schools and organizations will not "be investigated and targeted for federal prosecution if found to be "discriminating," as religious-based schools, societies, groups, corporations, etc. are SPECIFICALLY exempt from the bill! Christian employers retain the right to hire candidates that fit their moral purview. The measure makes this specific stipulation in order to appease the religious conservatives' fears, yet they refuse to acknowledge and accept them as good enough.
4) Pete's scenario is WHOLLY DUPLICITOUS, unless the mom & pop store in his situation is a business with more than 15 employees. This is because small businesses with 15 or less employees are also specifically exempt from the measure.
5) Taking the bait a bit on Pete's uber-offensive line about an "in-your-face pervert who struts and swaggers around town, boasting of his unnatural behavior with other men": Even this is deceptive! That's because an employer still has a right to distance themselves from any employee, gay or straight, who acts the way this character is described to act while on company time. If a heterosexual woman talks to her customers about all the guys she's screwed in the past week, then that is certainly grounds for termination! And, employers will absolutely retain the right to set and enforce particular dress codes and standards of operation for their business. So while we can't believe we are even acknowledging claims as offensive as this one, the fact is that it's simply WRONG to present the idea that those of any orientation "who flaunt their perverse and obscene appetites" will be protected under ENDA! Presentations that are truly "obscene" or "perverse" are not what are being protected -- orientations and identities are! Though for folks like Peter, this difference is negligible.
6) And finally: YOUR RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS DO NOT TRUMP ALL OTHER FREEDOMS, PETER! Employers in a non-religious business environment should not have the right to refuse employment to someone on the basis of who they are! Plain and simple. Be it because of sexual orientation, gender, religion, race, national origin, disability, age, etc., our society is weakened by discrimination. We support the religious exemptions that are in the measure, as we do truly respect religious freedoms. And we are just as opposed to gay employers refusing to hire someone simply because they are, in their private life, an evangelical Christian, as we are an evangelical Christian employer refusing to hire a gay. But social conservatives like Peter act as if any employers anywhere should be free to hide their disdain for gays behind the veil of faith. This is simply WRONG. W-R-O-N-G.
It is ALL BIAS we are trying to prevent!! ENDA would simply help to thwart the LGBT version of discrimination in the same manner that other classes are already protected. Since folks like Mr. LaBabs have few legs to stand on, they are relying on untruths and half-truths to muddy the waters of this issue. If were our opposition, we might call such blatant lying immoral. However, we will leave the moral judgments to them, and simply call their tactic unfair and mean-spritited.
For many more misrepresentations and bastardizations, Peter's full email is below:
Radical Gay Lobby Wants To Silence You [AFT Email]
You wrote: "And, employers will absolutely retain the right to set and enforce particular dress codes and standards of operation for their business."
Does this include the employer's right to prohibit male employees from dressing in drag at work?
Posted by: John | Jun 12, 2007 10:18:16 AM
John: This is directly from the text of HR 2015:
(4) DRESS AND GROOMING STANDARDS.—Nothing in this Act shall prohibit an employer from requiring an employee, during the employee’s hours at work, to adhere to reasonable dress or grooming standards not prohibited by other provisions of Federal, State, or local law, provided that the employer permits any employee who has undergone gender transition prior to the time of employment, and any employee who has notified the employer that the employee has undergone or is undergoing gender transition after the time of employment, to adhere to the same dress or grooming standards for the gender to which the employee has transitioned or is transitioning.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Jun 12, 2007 10:21:23 AM
And once again, Ms. LaBarbera shows the world that his rather liberal use of the word "Christian" really has nothing to do with his views nor his "deeply-held" belief system.
An employer would (and should) be more concerned with any applicant with a propensity for manufacturing fantasized realities, something which LaBarbera seems to earn his bread and butter doing on a daily basis. The Right's constant attempts to wrap such deliberate deception under a cloak of religious devotion merely underscores that his only "deeply-held" belief is earning money peddling lies - hardly the kind of character a reputable employer would consider a treasure.
Posted by: Kevin | Jun 12, 2007 11:33:33 AM
When was the last time you took your family on vacation to have some quality time?
Posted by: Franc | Jun 13, 2007 12:28:43 AM
This is coming from a guy who's buddy-buddy with all the known loudmouth "ex-gays", and he trolls the gay bath-houses and other gay sex parties as "research" and "experimenting".
Posted by: GayLeftBorg | Jun 13, 2007 5:05:17 PM
As much as Ms. LaBarbera enjoys injecting "christian" into his rhetorical attacks, it might be nice if he would tell the world what denomination he belongs to. . .after all, I sure would be interested in which denomination advocates manufacturing deception as a "christian" tenet.
Posted by: Kevin | Jun 13, 2007 5:40:57 PM
Lies in the name of Jesus. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Oh, Peter, I do hope you enjoy hell. I hear it has quite the leather scene. You should fit right in!
Posted by: MBSF | Jun 13, 2007 6:30:31 PM
"That's because an employer still has a right to distance themselves from any employee, gay or straight, who acts the way this character is described to act while on company time. If a heterosexual woman talks to her customers about all the guys she's screwed in the past week, then that is certainly grounds for termination! And, employers will absolutely retain the right to set and enforce particular dress codes and standards of operation for their business. So while we can't believe we are even acknowledging claims as offensive as this one, the fact is that it's simply WRONG to present the idea that those of any orientation "who flaunt their perverse and obscene appetites" will be protected under ENDA!"
For years. In fact, she was promoted repeatedly, despite her behavior being widely known.
And still is protected; they don't dare fire her, because if she sues the city, nondiscrimination laws could demand that she be restored to her previous position.
"Bleskachek has shown "extremely poor behavior" and committed "deep violations of public trust," Mayor Rybak said Friday to the Star Tribune. He said he wanted to go the route of a settlement rather than running the risk of a lawsuit, which could have left Bleskachek in a position to supervise others.
"I will not risk having her return as a manager in this city," said Rybak, reports the Star Tribune."
In short, if Minnesota's version of ENDA requires that you not only keep on the payroll, but restore to a management role, a person who openly discriminated against straight people and males, who made overtly sexual comments and displays to employees, who demanded sex with her as the price of advancement, and who deliberately sabotaged the careers of those who didn't.....why should that foolishness be extended elsewhere?
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Jun 13, 2007 8:45:03 PM
"He is an in-your-face pervert who struts and swaggers around town, boasting of his unnatural behavior with other men."
Yeah, belonging to the National Guard has got to be kept under control!
Posted by: pbg | Jun 15, 2007 11:22:23 AM
You are not Good as Me.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Jun 15, 2007 4:15:53 PM
Good one, Fred.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Jun 15, 2007 4:18:13 PMcomments powered by Disqus