RECENT  POSTS:  » GLAAD: What FRC's exploitation of Robin Williams' death is really about » Scott Lively's new mission: Making America's churches super-duper extra anti-gay » BYU protects the sanctity of pre-printed greetings » Breaking: Supreme Court delays fairness, justice in Virginia » Negligent anti-LGBT voices determined to eliminate *all* nondiscrimination laws » Video: To Focus on the Family's Citizenlink, a simple business request = 'home invasion' » Audio: Former senior NOM official says we'll have 50 state equality by 2015 » Video: Florida AG Pam Bondi advocates for delayed (and denied, if she had her way) justice » Audio: Michelle Duggar robocalls against LGBT nondiscrimination ordinance in Fayetteville, AK » AFA commentator equates homosexuality with blindness, paralysis  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

10/23/2007

Well at least he's not accusing us of firebombing churches

by Jeremy Hooper

 Good As You Images Picture-10-46The Concerned Women For America's Matt Barber has some very long-winded statements to make about ENDA (The Employment Non-Discrimination Act). Unfortunately, the totality of that long wind contains about as much value as the fart that just escaped from the behind of this writer's dog:

"ENDA pits the government directly against religion, which is unconstitutional on its face. It would force employers to check their First Amendment guaranteed rights to freedom of religion, speech and association at the workplace door. It would make federal lawbreakers out of Christian, Jewish or Muslim business owners who honor their faith and would require that newfangled ‘gay rights’ based entirely upon individuals’ sexual choices trump employers’ enumerated constitutional rights.

“ENDA contains an extremely weak religious exemption which would leave individual business owners entirely unprotected. For any religious exemption to pass constitutional muster, it would have to follow the individual business owner. The First Amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. This applies to all individual citizens, not just to a church, religious organization or corporation. It is unconstitutional to prevent, by force of law, an individual business owner from considering his sincerely held religious beliefs while determining how to best own and operate his business.

“ENDA would force business owners to betray their faith and adopt a view of sexual morality which directly conflicts with fundamental tenets of that faith. It would give liberal judges the authority to subjectively determine who qualifies for an exemption. It represents the goose that laid the golden egg for homosexual activist attorneys and would open the floodgates for lawsuits against employers who wish to live out their faith.

But actually, on second thought -- the dog's flatulence might be of greater value than Matt's rhetoric. Because while it did make this particular homosexual momentarily stop working so that he could fan the stink away from his nose, it didn't foster the idea that all homosexuals should be forced to stop working if their boss' personal faith views deem their "lifestyles" unsavory!

CWA Asks President for Veto Pledge on ENDA [CWA]

**UPDATE: Perhaps Matt Barber will soon become a Bush adviser:

White House: No Gay-Centric Veto Left Behind [G-A-Y]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

Why stop with the gays? Why not toss out the fornicators, adulterers, parents with bastard children, etc….

By the their logic any Christian should be able to fire any Muslim or Hindu and vice versa? Where does the religious rights of one person trump the rights of another? I don't see how society will crumble if we protect all people at a basic level and guarantee them the right to work in a job if qualified without the fear of being fired by some arbitrary decision of the employer.

What about all you straight folks who aren't following your bosses interpretation of the Holy Bible? Should you be able to be fired for fornicating (shaking-up) or for having illegitimate children? When you start protecting us; you may just be covering your own asses too.

Posted by: Edward H | Oct 23, 2007 1:08:31 PM

I think there should be religious freedom in hiring and firing. The question is where to draw the line - and the line isn't "which sin?".

One line is "where/when is the sin?" For example, if someone is fornicating in your place of business, you might want to fire that person. If that person is eating a cheeseburger in your place of business, you might want to fire that person.


On the other hand, the better question might be one of safety. For example, someone who fornicates at home will not likely put people in danger in the office. A person who murders at home, however, might murder someone in your place of business.


Yet, I think a better idea is that I should get to decide what people can or cannot do based on my understanding of scripture - especially when I'm the boss - or the customer.

So, starting now, when I hire someone, I'm going to demand they follow my rules. That includes businesses I patronize - grocery stores, pharmacies, auto repair shops, and religious item stores.

I feel empowered already.

Posted by: Cindi Knox | Oct 23, 2007 1:39:48 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails