RECENT  POSTS:  » Add 'professional advocate for anti-gay scouting' to list of bygone career choices » NOM to lasso the White House with a rosary. Or something. » NOM's new plan? To beat up its org-crushing loss until it becomes a win. » By the time you read this headline, we'll be ten more seconds beyond stagnant anti-gay 'culture wars' » Video: America cannot wait—to purchase American Family Association radio equipment? Huh?! » Huckabee 2016: 'cause church and state aint gonna marry themselves » EEOC does wonky, under-radar thing that could lay groundwork for definitive nondiscrimination protections » Maggie Gallagher, now that you've lost on marriage, might you lose these deceptive ways as well? » Crowdfunding discriminatory business owners: Perfect statement on anti-gay movement's current affairs » The religious anti-gay crowd: They never understood the marriage fight; now they don't understand their loss  

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

11/08/2013

Supposed 'protect marriage' group continues to protect invasive workplace discrimination

by Jeremy Hooper

The National Organization For Marriage, a once pragmatic organization that was very protective of the idea that it is simply a "traditional marriage" rather than an animus-driven anti-LGBT group, is continue its drift toward full-blown extremism. In yet another piece pertaining to the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, NOM 6A00D8341C503453Ef017Ee73Fdcfb970D-2president Brian Brown, who is on apparent break from stirring up ill feelings toward LGBT people in Russia, goes after the U.S. Senate (and particularly the ten Republicans who backed ENDA) for daring to believe that LGBT workers should be judged on the basis of their work performance rather than who they are or who they love:

We are very disappointed by the Senate's passage of this bill," said Brian Brown, NOM's President. "While protecting people against discrimination is a very important goal, this legislation is problematic because of its broad and unclear definitions. Concepts like 'sexual orientation' and 'gender identity' are too vague to be a basis for such a law which could lead to individuals facing reprisals or even criminal action simply for expressing their values in the workplace."

Brown went on to note that NOM was especially disappointed in the measure's support by several Republican Senators: "We are disappointed with the Republican Senators who voted for this bill for failing to see its dangerous implications for pro-family Americans. Many of these Senators' constituents hold to traditional values like the belief in marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but ENDA could be a Trojan horse that enables the marriage redefinition agenda to be forced on the entire nation through the courts."
FULL: National Organization for Marriage Disappointed with Senate Passage of ENDA; Confident Speaker’s Leadership Will Defeat Measure in House[NOM]

I "love" how sexual orientation and gender identity are supposedly vague, yet Brian thinks the completely chosen, diverse, fluctuating concept of faith is to be protected above all else (*including in workplace protection, where religion is, in fact, protected under federal law).

Now that the cat is so fully out of the bag, we'll have to wait and see if the "for marriage" organization finally changes its name to reflect is patently obvious cause "for discrimination. NOD does have a certain ring to it.

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


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails