Thursday, September 27, 2007

Stripping Down The Opposition To ENDA

Let's take a close look at what exactly the opposition is saying. These are my unprofessional opinions, however I did glance at HRC's web site to learn a little more before I finished typing this up.


ENDA is aimed at providing heightened protections for a particular sexual behavior- homosexuality. It would grant special consideration on the basis of "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" that would not be extended to other employees in the workplace. That could spell trouble for Christian business owners, churches and faith-based groups.

ENDA grants protection. It does not grant special rights to anyone. It ensures that specific groups are protected from unfair treatment.


The issue is not job discrimination: It is whether private businesses will be forced by law to accommodate homosexual activists' attempts to legitimize homosexual behavior.

This is an attempt to confuse the issue. There is no mention of accomodating anyone. Wait a minute: let me pull out my pocket version of The Idiot's Guide To The Gay Agenda out of my ass.. ;-)


The first "religious exemption" clause is very narrow and offers no clear protection to church-related businesses: Religious schools or charitable organizations, religious bookstores, or any business affiliated with a church or denomination fall outside this narrow definition, and could presumably be required to hire homosexual applicants.

Look! Another attempt to confuse the issue. The law does not apply to religious organizations. If any given entity says they are for everyone and THEN bans gays, or any specific group for that matter, then I start getting a little upset.


The second "religious exemption" clause fails to offer protection for all hiring by church-related organizations or businesses. The position of a teacher of religion at a church-related school would be exempt, but, e.g., that of a biology teacher would not. Thus, most of the teachers and staff at a religious school would be covered by ENDA, which means that the church would be forced to hire homosexual applicants for such positions-despite the fact that their lifestyle would be in direct opposition to the religious beliefs of the organization or company.

This doesn't look very true either. Again: if an entity such as a religious business, religious organization, or private organization mission visibly bans gays, why would I want to join them? Its when you say that you're for everyone and THEN treat any specific group unfairly that gets me going.


It is unlikely that the "religious exemption" included in the bill would survive court challenge: Institutions that could be targeted include religious summer camps, the Boy Scouts, Christian bookstores, religious publishing houses, religious television and radio stations, and any business with fifteen or more employees.

There's a true statement hidden here. The law does apply to businesses with 15 employees or more. They bring up the Boy Scouts: this is a private organization, freely able to have, interpret, and apply their mission. The problem here is this: their mission visibly states they serve all, and have Supreme Court backing to discriminate against gays. AGAIN: see above.


ENDA violates employers' and employees' Constitutional freedoms of religion, speech and association. The proposed legislation would prohibit employers from taking their most deeply held beliefs into account when making hiring, management, and promotion decisions. This would pose an unprecedented intrusion by the federal government into people's lives.

Anyone need a reminder of what Supreme Court did regarding the Boy Scouts? Again, another blatant attempt to confuse the issue. Oh, and by the way: there is already an unprecedented intrusion by the government into people's lives. Let's not forget that some governments still ban gay sex between consenting adults. And, not everyone is allowed to establish the civil contract portion of marriage.


ENDA would approvingly bring private behavior considered immoral by many into the public square. By declaring that all sexual preferences are equally valid, ENDA would change national policy supporting marriage and family.

ENDA is not about changing national policy towards religious beliefs. It is about protecting a group of workers from discrimination.


Clearly, this is an enormous threat to the freedom of religion and also places unfair burdens on businesses, which should be allowed to make employment decisions based on their religious convictions and business needs.

Wow. Gay people are a threat. Love the power that the opposition wields us. Need I say more?


Click here for an objective view for and against ENDA, and here for a Wiki page.

ENDA And Discrimination: What Side Are You On?

Did you know that lawmakers are pushing an effort to make it illegal to discriminate against gays in the workplace? The Employee Non-Discrimination Act, aka ENDA (H.R. 2015) is moving its ways through Congress.

PFLAG has prepared resources in support of this effort.

Find your House Member on the
PFLAG Take Action page
.

Check out the PFLAG page on ENDA.

Would someone care to remind me why who we sleep with makes us qualified or unqualified for most jobs? Of course, there are those who want to keep it legal for firing someone just because they are gay. Take the American Family Association and the Family Research Council:

ENDA affords special protection to a group that is not disadvantaged.
The issue is not job discrimination: It is whether private businesses
will be forced by law to accommodate homosexual activists' attempts
to legitimize homosexual behavior.

The first "religious exemption" clause is very narrow and offers no
clear protection to church-related businesses: Religious schools or
charitable organizations, religious bookstores, or any business
affiliated with a church or denomination fall outside this narrow
definition, and could presumably be required to hire homosexual
applicants.

The second "religious exemption" clause fails to offer protection for
all hiring by church-related organizations or businesses. The
position of a teacher of religion at a church-related school would be
exempt, but, e.g., that of a biology teacher would not. Thus, most of
the teachers and staff at a religious school would be covered by
ENDA, which means that the church would be forced to hire homosexual
applicants for such positions-despite the fact that their lifestyle
would be in direct opposition to the religious beliefs of the
organization or company.

It is unlikely that the "religious exemption" included in the bill
would survive court challenge: Institutions that could be targeted
include religious summer camps, the Boy Scouts, Christian bookstores,
religious publishing houses, religious television and radio stations,
and any business with fifteen or more employees.

ENDA violates employers' and employees' Constitutional freedoms of
religion, speech and association. The proposed legislation would
prohibit employers from taking their most deeply held beliefs into
account when making hiring, management, and promotion decisions. This
would pose an unprecedented intrusion by the federal government into
people's lives.

ENDA would approvingly bring private behavior considered immoral by
many into the public square. By declaring that all sexual preferences
are equally valid, ENDA would change national policy supporting
marriage and family.


Take Action

Clearly, this is an enormous threat to the freedom of religion and
also places unfair burdens on businesses, which should be allowed to
make employment decisions based on their religious convictions and
business needs.

Urgent! Click here to contact your U.S. Representative. Ask him or
her to oppose the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 (ENDA)
H.R. 2015.

Thanks for caring enough to get involved. If you find our efforts
worthy, would you consider making a donation to help us continue?


Sincerely,

Donald E. Wildmon, Founder & Chairman
American Family Association

Thursday, September 20, 2007

Greenspan Retracts And Sad About Political Process

tick, tock.. tick, tock.. tick!!

Hear that? That would be the sound of a stopwatch timing how fast Greenspan retracts his statement on the war in Iraq. Not only that, now he says he may not vote because he is saddened by the political process. His politics seem unusual - perhaps he should run for president.

Read more here.

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Bullies Beaten By Pink

Here's a story that falls under the "hope for the future" category. I confess I'm not a fan of the color pink and I've been picked on for my "anti-pink" attitudes. ;) Seriously, I just don't like the color but on some people it does look nice.

According to the bullies at this school I must not be gay -- "pink on a male (is) a symbol of homosexuality."

Umm.. right.

To summarize: a new freshman at a high school gets beat up by bullies just for wearing a pink shirt. This elicited a response from a couple seniors who wanted to peacefully protest the bullying. They got students and faculty to wear pink in response, and the bullies childishly threw hissy fits about the whole situation.

Read more here.

Saturday, September 15, 2007

Greenspan: "The Iraq war is largely about oil."


Finally! How refreshing!

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan has put together his memoirs. His book, "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World" is scheduled for release Monday. In it, he apparently bashes some of President W's policies. Read about Greenspan's book and comments here.

By the way: did anyone catch W's address? I thought he made a statement like, "I support troop reductions but we must keep enough troops there to protect U.S. interests."

Coincidence that oil is among the U.S. interests in the region? I wish I knew the context of Greenspan's statement about the war. The only thing that can make this more interesting is to watch how many people quote this online.

"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

Kansas Issues Executive Order On Non-descrimination

Interestingly enough, a quick search on the Associated Press web site does not return any results on this bit of news - even though its from them.

Kansas is in the new wave of issuing protections to lesbian, gay, bisexuals, and transgenders. Milwaukee has quietly added transgender protections. This is quite hopeful given the progress of the gay marriage bans sweeping the nation.

Full text of the executive order itself is here. Click here for the full story.

Walks Don't Cut It - My Gaydar Is Broken

Maybe I'm hanging out in the wrong crowd. That, or I'm taking notice at the wrong times. My gaydar has been broken and its not like I can ask for a new one! Maybe something else is at play.. ;)

Seriously, its not just about the walk. I know plenty of straight people have slightly feminine mannerisms. But, in the never ending quest to learn about and understand homosexuality, in comes a study which looks at the way we walk.

Friday, September 14, 2007

The Amazing Blenderphone

I never fully understood why this brought my attention. All I know is, I first heard about it years ago and something got me to put it on my personal web site. Perhaps it was the eccentricity of the thing? It was good for a quick chuckle. And, I never removed it from my web site.

Gaze in wonder here. :-)

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Military Seeks Translators - As Long As They're Not Gay

Imagine this: the military is dealing with the consequences of letting go of translators JUST because they are gay.

The military is forced to use a non-tested translation machine for Arabic. A machine just can't get the nuances that a human being can pick up. Too bad for them - they've let go of qualified Arabic translators just because they're gay.

Now they must resort to recruiting and then training new translators.

Your tax dollars at work.

Full story here.

Leonard Nimoy Kicks Ass


I'm jealous, and in a good way. What a lucky kid. Leonard Nimoy has invited a remarkable young man and his family as his guests to the premiere of Star Trek XI, scheduled for December, 2008.

Check out Trekmovie.com and Imagecomics for more.

Ann Coulter, Jesus, and Sarcasm


Guess what!! Did you know that both Ann Coulter and Jesus have sarcarsm in common? Ann Coulter made an appearance at Xavier University which - to no surprise - may have drawn little attention.

To all you sarcastic folks out there: you too can compare yourself to Jesus!

Monday, September 3, 2007

More Civil Rights Sillyness


This just in: In Polk County, Iowa, its now legal to..
(blink)
For two hours, it was legal in Polk County, Iowa for gays to marry.

Thank you, judge, for declaring the state's gay marriage ban unconstitutional and then caving under pressure.

Read more here and here.

 
Tornado Rainbow Triangle