What's good for the evangelical goose is good for the gay gander
Desperate for relevancy in this so-called "culture war," Peter LaBarbera has released an ENDA-decrying press release under the umbrella of his Americans For Truth group. In it, Pete gives this potential example to convey why he thinks ENDA is a bad and even dangerous idea:
"Take an orthodox Jewish entrepreneur who owns a large day care center. He can now factor in his morality about homosexuality as a sin. (He rejects the idea of innate, innocuous "sexual orientation.") Under ENDA, if his company were to grow to 15 or more employees, he would lose his right to consider his own religious and moral beliefs in hiring/firing decisions. A bisexual with good credentials who does not get hired might sue him for "discrimination." (If he's an outspoken pro-marriage advocate, he might be targeted for a "gay" lawsuit.) The government's politically correct view of homosexuality could force this man, and hundreds of thousands like him, to violate their conscience. It's Big Government with an amoral twist and, incidentally, a homosexual activist lawyer's dream."
In response, we present an alternate scenario that could already play out:
"Take a proudly gay entrepreneur who owns a large day care center. He does not hold a sense of morality that says homosexuality is a sin. (He accepts the idea of innate, innocuous "sexual orientation.") Under current federal law, regardless of the size of his company, he cannot use his own belief that anti-gay religious Christians are flawed in their mindset in his hiring/firing decisions. A "pro-family" evangelical with good credentials who does not get hired on the basis of his or her religious beliefs might sue him for "discrimination." (If he's an outspoken pro-marriage equality advocate, he might even be more targeted by anti-gay legal outlets like the Alliance Defense Fund) The government's protection of religious people forces this man, and hundreds of thousands like him, to look past religious belief in terms of his business practices. It's a government (rightfully) protecting it's citizens and,incidentally, a civil rights lawyer's dream."
But would Peter want to strip away the religious protections that American workers already enjoy? No, of course not. Neither would we, for that matter. But we refuse -- REFUSE! -- to live in a supposedly church-separated country in which religious freedoms are still placed in a place of precedence that's greater than every other kind of freedom! And those religious freedoms to do not give them the freedom to use their religion to stifle the rights of others. If we can look past an employee's belief that we're going to hell and look only at their job qualifications, then Peter and company can set aside their own biases for their own reasoned considerations of an employee's workplace performance.
Turnabout, contrary to what our opposition would like you to be believe, should be fair play. If only folks like Pete would start accepting the easily understandable definitions of terms like fairness and equality rather than concocting their own convoluted interpretations, then they might grasp the situation a little better.
Americans For Truth Says ENDA, H.R. 3685, Would Lead to Religious Persecution [Christian Newswire]
**SEE ALSO: Daimeon sent a similar idea to CWA's Matt Barber. But we wouldn't hold our breath for either Matt or Pete to actually acknowledge that which thy can't combat.
comments powered by Disqus