RECENT  POSTS:  » AG Holder: 'Marriage equality is an idea whose time has come.' » Viciously anti-gay activist Scott Lively to help us show SCOTUS what animus looks like; thanks, doll! » Audio: NOM prez equates his anti-gay fight with defeating slavery, conquering 'evils that were occurring in the Roman empire' » SCOTUS deals another blow to NOM; more to surely come! » Federal judge strikes Nebraska's discriminatory marriage ban » CA Republicans of 2015 do thing that will make CA Republicans of 2025 say, 'Yeah. Okay. so?' » NC activists choose name that sounds like Lifetime movie, plot that's discriminatory » Video: Man who's directly compared homosexuality to pedophilia will now lecture you on extremism » The 'why can't they take their business elsewhere?' line: Not only offensive but legally meaningless » FRC's ridiculously bunk new poll (*from partisan polling firm)  

« 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