RECENT  POSTS:  » Miami-Dade Circuit judge rules state marriage ban unconstitutional; stays ruling » Video: With marriage equality, Texas could put in a pool at the Alamo » CWA ably demonstrates ludicrousness of American Christian right's persecution complex » Video: CBS News hosts '50 Years Later, Civil Rights;' includes marriage equality, obviously » Audio: White House? Nah. But in race for most anti-gay House member, Bachmann a strong contender » Brian Brown is the victim, y'all. How many times does he have to tell you? » Congrats, gay activists—Bryan Fischer has found new group for his weekly 'Nazi' branding » Maggie Gallagher: Sexual orientation is 'more akin to religion' than to race » NOM is totally popular (*in Ethiopia) » What constitutes 'absolute pure evil' in the eyes of Liberty University dean?  

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

11/20/2009

Their bullcaca will never ENDA

by Jeremy Hooper

The religious right is simply unbelievable in the way that they take any sort of bone that our side might throw to them, and flip it so that it instead sounds like a bomb. Like take this quip, attributed to longtime foe of the 'mos Robert Knight. he's speaking about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and the religious exemption that has been placed within the legislation:

"If this law is so immoral that churches have to get an opt out, why would we impose it on everyone?"

See what we mean? He is taking something that was put into the bill for the purpose of appeasing evangelicals, and he is flipping the script to make it sound as if it's an Robert-Knightadmission of "immorality" on the part of the measure's drafters. Rather than thank lawmakers for including religious language that, truth be known, they did not have to include in this church/state-separated nation, Mr. Knight is instead spitting in their faces!

And of course he's far from alone when it comes to bulldozing the lay of the land. The writer who printed the above quote, Baptist Press contributor Penna Dexter, says the following about supposed gay quotas:

"Homosexuals tend to be more highly educated and to have, according to some surveys, higher disposable incomes than heterosexual couples. Many companies court homosexuals for hiring. The government does not force those companies to hire Christians. Neither should it require religious and moral people to bring into their organizations workers who openly flout God's standards."

We thank her for the "highly educated" concession. But we have to wonder: If our side truly is more educated, then why do Penna and her pals refuse to believe our education on LGBT issues and how they fit into civil law?!?! If she would, she wouldn't set up these straw man arguments about forced hirings, since nothing in ANY civil law requests any kind of Penna-Dexterquote regarding any kind of employee! Nobody on our side wants this! What we want, nay, DEMAND, is fairness in terms of public companies' employment decisions! Most of us our 100% fine with these prescribed religious exemptions, as well as the ones that apply to small businesses with fewer than fifteen employees. But we are not fine with the religious right's one and only negotiable, which undeniably boils down to: "Let Christians discriminate against gays at will, in any setting, for any reason that they see fit."

Perhaps its just our pesky education and insight getting in the way. But we will never be okay with their endgame!

Piece with Robert and Penna's quotes: FIRST-PERSON: ENDA VS. religious liberty [BP News]

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


Your thoughts

The religious exemptions are actually more substantial than just appeasement, but not really that much. Because of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the constitution, organized religions have a lot more leeway with regard to the implementation of laws that might otherwise impinge on their right to exercise their religious views.

In practice, it turns out that religious orgs are basically accountable for obeying all laws that are on the books. For example, if my religion forbids me from driving at speeds less than 90mph, I would pretty quickly lose my license to drive (among other liberties), because my religion can't trump the speed limit laws.

Going back as far as the Seventies, religious universities that accepted federal grant monies (and some other federal funding), were, by federal law, obligated to institute hiring practices that favored qualifications over religious beliefs. For that reason, many of them ended up being effectively forced to hire atheists (among a whole host of other undesirables). In that case though, their ability to "opt out" did (and does) exist simply in their decision not to accept any of that federal funding - which for an educational entity, is a bitter pill to swallow.

But it is highly conceivable that the religious could carve out their own "exemption" from certain laws simply by challenging the law in court. For that reason, certain limitations are routinely placed into certain types of legislation, simply to preempt some of those law suits. But, even then, those religious affiliated organizations that accept federal grants or other funding might still find that they are now fully accountable to any federal ENDA law - their "religious" exemption notwithstanding. By accepting federal funding, they may cease to remain solely religious in nature, and thereby no longer exempt.

And, while I have yet to read the ENDA legislation, I will say that generally when employment non-discrimination laws have been enacted, they have also protected the religious, the disabled, the racial and ethnic minorities as well as the homos. That they continue to lie about not being part of the "protected" groups (because they can't claim to be "persecuted" if they are also "protected"), is simply another in the long list of lies from the lying liars. And, the mere fact that they throw around more lies about "mandated quotas" does not make them true either - they are so pathologically inclined toward lying, they simply can't stop themselves.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Nov 20, 2009 4:06:49 PM

By the way, I did just read the bill, and it basically adds Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity to the EEOC list of protected classes of employees which currently includes:

* Age
* Disability
* Equal Compensation
* National Origin
* Pregnancy
* Race/Color
* Religion
* Retaliation
* Sex
* Sexual Harassment

Posted by: Dick Mills | Nov 20, 2009 8:03:03 PM

Oh yea, DIck: There is no debate that they are and have been protected. Same way with hate crimes.

The constant refusal to acknowledge their own "special rights/protections" is among the "pro-family" community's most shocking bits o' fallacy.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Nov 20, 2009 8:26:28 PM

I was aware that religion was protected from workplace discrimination in California, but then, in California, so is sexual orientation. Previously, I wasn't aware that religion was also protected by federal non-discrimination laws. It is the height of hypocrisy, that the religious, who are protected by employment non-discrimination laws, have no shame in seeking to ensure that LGBTs are not protected.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Nov 22, 2009 1:36:11 PM

Ya know what we need, Dick? Our democratic leadership to start helping us point out this hypocrisy!!

Posted by: G-A-Y | Nov 22, 2009 1:48:25 PM

The lying liars spout these outlandish lies in one-way forums where they can't be challenged. They obviously know that they are lying out of their asses, because they never repeat this lie (and similar ones) if there is any chance that someone could immediately refute them. If they repeat this lie on a news broadcast, it more than likely would be blow up in their faces. Same for repeating the lie on the floor of the Congress, because someone there would make a point of ensuring that the liar was refuted.

They only use this (and some similar) outlandish lie(s) when they're speaking to their choir. So, what does it tell you when they purposefully reserve their most blatant, bald-faced lies only for their supporters?

Posted by: Dick Mills | Nov 22, 2009 8:19:32 PM

"Many companies court homosexuals for hiring."

Ummm... they do?

Posted by: Bearchewtoy75 | Nov 22, 2009 10:48:09 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails