FRC: ENDA Pushed by ‘Totalitarian’ LGBT Lobby

The Family Research Council sent out a mailing to their followers recently railing about the evils of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would add sexual orientation to the list of unlawful forms of discrimination in federal law. It was full of all the usual illogical claims, hypocrisy and hyperbole.

Like a B-grade 1950’s horror-movie, ENDA is coming back from the dead.

ENDA-the Employment Non-Discrimination Act-is dangerous. It feeds on freedom, primarily the freedom of religion and speech: not in theory, but on a practical, everyday level. It leaves few freedoms behind.

Yes, the bill has a fair-sounding name, but in fact, ENDA would give special rights to men and women who engage in homosexual behavior.

Only in a mind that has been marinated in Christian privilege could one claim that extending a right that they already have is giving “special rights.” Federal law has long prohibited employment discrimination on the basis of religion. You can’t be fired for being a Christian. But when gay people want that same protection, that’s a “special right.”

If you object to homosexuality, too bad.

You can’t fire a cross-dresser even if his behavior hurts your business.

You can’t decline to hire a homosexual for religious reasons.

You can’t openly share your Christian faith in the workplace as homosexuals find biblical morality offensive.

In fact, under ENDA biblical morality becomes illegal.

Absolute bullshit, of course. It’s true that, if ENDA is passed, you can’t refuse to hire a homosexual for religious reasons, just like you can’t refuse to hire a Christian for religious reasons. If they really believed their position, they’d be demanding the end of all anti-discrimination laws because they all forbid religious-based discrimination (yes, there are religious people who would refuse to hire women, or non-Christians, or blacks, etc). But they don’t. Because — ironically — they want the special right to discriminate while denying that right to others.

Certainly to you and me, the very idea of ENDA-giving special rights and protections to people based solely on their sexual behavior-is outrageous. But to this pro-homosexual President and the totalitarian homosexual lobby, it’s a reasonable way to advance their cause-and crush the biblical view that stands in their way of fundamentally transforming America. ENDA is massive leap forward in redefining America, undercutting traditional morality, and investing unprecedented power in the homosexual minority.

Yeah, that same argument was made against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which launched the anti-discrimination laws. It was wrong then and it’s wrong now.

"He's doing the same thing now that he did before he became a felon. So ..."

Bakker: God Sent Two Scientists to ..."
"Hating Obama. There was no room left for JC."

Corsi Invents Another Ludicrous Claim
"Of course he didn't. That'd be narrowing it down way too much.He's not stup...[re-reads the ..."

Corsi Invents Another Ludicrous Claim

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • markr1957

    They were right all along, eh? Way back in the late ’70s and early ’80s when I was in the (British) Army, and there were discussions about allowing Teh Gheyz to openly serve in the military, the talk was all about how eventually being Ghey would be compulsory – and now it is happening everywhere !!!111elebenty!!11!

  • Gvlgeologist, FCD

    It would be interesting to go back to newspaper opinion pages of 1964 and find these arguments, then post them in reply as agreeing, without noting that they’re referring to African-Americans rather than gays. As I recall, sometime in the last several months, a video by a preacher was posted in FTB who did exactly that.

  • As far as I know, this claim at least

    You can’t fire a cross-dresser even if his behavior hurts your business.

    is false, at least in states with very weak employee protection schemes (‘right-to-work’ states, for example).

    Even in states with more stringent employee protection schemes, as far as I am aware employers can enact dress codes as part of their employment contracts and discipline or even dismiss employees who contravene them (although perhaps not on the first offence).

    All of the above comes with the caveat that I am not up to speed on employment regulation in any given state, so I could just be overreaching the limits of my knowledge here.

  • “Special rights” is one of those really phrases I find irritating. I’d even say it’s Orwellian. We want everyone to have the same rights. If non-heteros lack a right, that means there effectively is no right, only a privilege for heteros.

    I think I’m on the border between hetero and asexual. Wingnut rhetoric like this makes me worry about my rights, since I can imagine being turned down for a job if I mention that I’m still single at my age. It’s not hard to imagine some employer with the wingnut mindset assuming I’m a serial fornicator who’s going to get into serious trouble with paternity suits or that I’m inherently afraid of commitment just because I haven’t felt the urge to be in a relationship.

  • tomh

    Of course, like many American laws, ENDA contains a broad religious exemption that covers churches, religious non-profit organizations and religious schools. Even though the FRC press release says the exact opposite, Christian schools, for instance, will still be able to fire a gay janitor without fear of reprisal. Saddleback Church can fire a lesbian accountant and any organization that qualifies as religious is still free to discriminate. The press release simply lies about this.

  • gshelley

    If you object to Christianity, too bad.

    You can’t fire a Christian, even if his behavior hurts your business.

    You can’t decline to hire a Christiant for religious reasons.

    You can’t openly share your objection to Christian faith in the workplace as Christians find rational based morality offensive.

    In fact, under ENDA non Christian morality becomes illegal.

    Do they not even try and see how their argument would look if it was used for something they support, such as religious belief? I know some, a very small minority would say that businesses should be able to fire people simply for their religion, but most don’t even see their double standard.

  • You can’t fire a cross-dresser even if his behavior hurts your business.

    Also bullshit. An employer would still have the right to make reasonable demands on his/her workers in terms of clothing, cleanliness, etc. Actually, it is worse in the case of religious rights, where it can get murky in matters of religious clothing … yarmulkes, Sikh turbans, cross jewelry, etc. … but sexual orientation (even transgender) does not have a religious-like imperative to wear certain clothing. Any employee that interacts directly with the public can be told to wear certain clothing, including ugly matching outfits on wait staff or uniforms on commercial airline pilots. There is almost no likelihood that telling an such an employee not to cross-dress on the job would be considered discrimination by any court. Of course, if the employee doesn’t interact with the public, just offending the boss’ sensibility isn’t the same as hurting the business … but even there it might be a reach to equate telling a worker not to cross-dress with discrimination.

  • LightningRose

    I keep waiting for someone to be fired for being heterosexual just to watch the reichwing outrage.

  • eric

    The clothing issue also has practically nothing to do with sexual preference. Any office that makes it about sexual preference is doing it wrong. Its about what you wear, not who you do.

    if the employee doesn’t interact with the public, just offending the boss’ sensibility isn’t the same as hurting the business … but even there it might be a reach to equate telling a worker not to cross-dress with discrimination.

    Most of the time its perfectly justified to have a dress code even for workers whose job will not put them in front of the public or clients. If your office space can be visited by the public or potential clients, for instance, your employer can reasonably say that anyone in that office should dress to some minimal code. And “can be visited by potential clients” probably applies to the majority of offices.

  • psweet

    I don’t have a problem with the idea of a dress code, per se, but would it be possible to fire, say, a man for following the dress code for women? In other words, is it discriminatory to have different dress codes for men and women?