Homosexuality is not a civil right
ENDA (H.R. 2015) likely to voted on this week
by Mychal Massie: While the nation's news outlets are riveted on the Jena 6 and O.J. Simpson, an insidious undermining of the workplace advances virtually unnoticed. That creeping darkness is the federal Employment Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA, H.R. 2015. If the proposed measure becomes law, it will add "actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity" as a category to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It would give special employment rights to homosexuals and the transgendered that would not only harm the integrity of faith-based organizations, but it would specifically undermine an employer's ability to grow his/her business in a productive and profitable way.
Civil rights and homosexual rights are not synonymous. Civil rights focus on the right to vote, the guaranteed access to public accommodations, and the desegregation of public facilities and schools. They have never been, nor should they ever be, about attempting to have the federal government mandate acceptance of a particular lifestyle. Homosexuals and cross-dressers may in fact be a lot of things, but an oppressed minority they are not. And I, for one, resent their temerity in suggesting that a rejection of their chosen lifestyle is in any way equivalent to what truly oppressed peoples in this country went through for the right to vote, sit at a lunch counter and/or stay in the hotel of their choice . . . [Read More]
American Family Association: The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) H.R. 2015 is likely to be voted on this week in the U.S. House. 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. Proponents of the bill quickly point to "religious exemptions" in the bill, but most agree that it is a sham. 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: Urgent! Click here to contact your U.S. Representative. Ask them to oppose the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 (ENDA) H.R. 2015.
Tags: Civil Rights, ENDA, homosexual activism, Mychal Massie To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Civil rights and homosexual rights are not synonymous. Civil rights focus on the right to vote, the guaranteed access to public accommodations, and the desegregation of public facilities and schools. They have never been, nor should they ever be, about attempting to have the federal government mandate acceptance of a particular lifestyle. Homosexuals and cross-dressers may in fact be a lot of things, but an oppressed minority they are not. And I, for one, resent their temerity in suggesting that a rejection of their chosen lifestyle is in any way equivalent to what truly oppressed peoples in this country went through for the right to vote, sit at a lunch counter and/or stay in the hotel of their choice . . . [Read More]
American Family Association: The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) H.R. 2015 is likely to be voted on this week in the U.S. House. 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. Proponents of the bill quickly point to "religious exemptions" in the bill, but most agree that it is a sham. 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: Urgent! Click here to contact your U.S. Representative. Ask them to oppose the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 (ENDA) H.R. 2015.
Tags: Civil Rights, ENDA, homosexual activism, Mychal Massie To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
1 Comments:
how can you possibly say it is not a civil rights issue?
two couples, one heterosexual one homosexual, both bond out of mutual attraction, love ,respect,trust ,and atraction. one is applauded and the other is treated like it is a bane to society. you dont think this interferes with their right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
if you believe this is a christian nation. then show me where homsexuals embrace love of self and neighbor and less than heterosexuals(the summation of all the law)
does this mean that you yourself are guilty of homophobia. that is you treat those of a different orientation differently. not because of the person they are but because the gender that they are attracted to. DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR?
Post a Comment
<< Home