Quantcast

«

»

Jan 09 2013

Fischer: ENDA = Jim Crow Laws

Bryan Fischer continues to deliver declarations from the bizarro world he lives in, where up is down and black is white. After Paul Ryan said he supported the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, Fischer says this would destroy religious liberty and bring back the Jim Crow laws.

If ENDA goes into effect, no Christian employer could ever make a values-based personnel decision again. If a man wearing a dress, stilettos, and dangly earrings came into his Christian bookstore looking for a job and didn’t get one, the owner would be subject to a gigantic, business-ending discrimination lawsuit.

There is no reason to think that the homosexual lobby would not deliberately select values-driven businesses, and then send flamboyant homosexuals in to apply for advertised vacancies, just so they could use this law as a bludgeon to further pummel Christians into becoming the newest minority utterly deprived of their civil rights.

In fact, ENDA would represent the return of Jim Crow laws. Only now the people victimized would not be victimized based on the color of their skin but on the content of their character.

Nonsense. The Jim Crow laws are what prompted the passage of the Civil Rights Act, which already forbids employers from discriminating on the basis of race, religion, gender, and other things. ENDA would only add sexual orientation and gender identity to that list. If doing so turns Christians into “the newest minority utterly deprived of their civil rights,” then they are already deprived of those rights. A “values-driven business” can’t refuse to hire a Muslim or an atheist, or a woman, or a black person, even if their religious beliefs say that they must. So their rights, by Fischer’s premise, are already destroyed.

As I’ve said many times, if they really believed this they would be pushing to allow businesses to discriminate on the basis of religion. But they’re not. Because they’re engaged in special pleading.

24 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Modusoperandi

    It must be awful being a white Christian male in the USA.

  2. 2
    Wes

    There is no reason to think that the homosexual lobby would not deliberately select values-driven businesses, and then send flamboyant homosexuals in to apply for advertised vacancies, just so they could use this law as a bludgeon to further pummel Christians into becoming the newest minority utterly deprived of their civil rights.

    Yeah, ’cause gay people really love working for bigots who hate them and treat them like second class citizens. All they care about is Christians (isn’t that all anyone cares about? It’s all we care about, so it must be) and undermining their “values”. They couldn’t be concerned with things like living their lives like a normal human being, seeing as they’re not human to begin with, right?

  3. 3
    timberwoof

    This bit… 

    There is no reason to think that the homosexual lobby would not deliberately select values-driven businesses, and then send flamboyant homosexuals in to apply for advertised vacancies, just so they could use this law as a bludgeon to further pummel Christians into becoming the newest minority utterly deprived of their civil rights.

    is projection. The Scientologists did that to Cultwatch. They eventually sued them into bankruptcy, bought their assets (the mailing list), and harassed its former members. Now Cultwatch is a front for the Scientologists.

    So we’re all drag queens? First of all, fuck you, Bryan Fischer. Second, it’s really the same argument as has been pressed against legalizing gay marriage, which would cause Christian churches to suffer endless lawsuits for refusing to marry gay couples. In the years that gay marriage has been legal, has there been even one case of that sort of thing?

  4. 4
    scienceavenger

    If a man wearing a dress, stilettos, and dangly earrings came into his Christian bookstore looking for a job and didn’t get one, the owner would be subject to a gigantic, business-ending discrimination lawsuit

    How about a man wearing a dress and a big funny hat?

  5. 5
    tommykey

    OMG, this ENDA hyperbole is still going on? I did a post about it in October of 2006 based on a letter I got in the mail from Concerned Women of America.

    From my post:

    LaHaye warns that once ENDA is the law of the land, “even churches and religious organizations, such as Christian-owned bookstores, TV and radio stations, childcare centers and camps” will be forced to hire gays, pedophiles and all manner of perverts. Yeah right, a gay man who has to pay rent, phone and electric bills every month is going to actively seek to work at a Christian bookstore for seven bucks an hour out of sheer spite.

  6. 6
    IslandBrewer

    “How about a man wearing a dress and a big funny hat?”

    The pope already has a job.

  7. 7
    Rip Steakface

    Yeah, ’cause gay people really love working for bigots who hate them and treat them like second class citizens.

    I think what Fischer is trying to say is that LGBT people would deliberately apply to businesses they know are run by moralist types, get denied, and then sue them for discrimination to shut them down or at least get a lot of money.

    Not a bad, idea, to be quite honest.

  8. 8
    raywhiting

    “There is no reason to think that the homosexual lobby would not deliberately select ….” Well, there is common decency, and the idea that people just want a job.

    “In fact, ENDA would represent the return of Jim Crow laws. Only now the people victimized would not be victimized based on the color of their skin but on the content of their character.”

    Whoa, now THAT is rich!! the “content of their character”??? Claiming to be Christian, running a secular business under religious principles of discrimination, trying to prevent equal pay for equal work … these are not values to be promoted, these are not marks of virtue on anyone character.

  9. 9
    eric

    If a man wearing a dress, stilettos, and dangly earrings came into his Christian bookstore looking for a job and didn’t get one, the owner would be subject to a gigantic, business-ending discrimination lawsuit.

    Well, if that employer is telling its employees or prospective employees how they can dress outside of the workplace, then yes, they very well ought to be subject to a big lawsuit. You can’t do that. Or you shouldn’t be able to – it seems that lately there have been a lot of schools firing teachers for what they say and how they dress when not on the job. I think that’s wrong too.

    But, if you want to tell your employees they must wear socially conservative professional attire at work, go for it. I’d be fired for wearing that stuff too, but not because I was a man wearing it.

  10. 10
    The Lorax

    If I was hiring a typist, and a male wearing a 1950′s pinstripe suit, tie, and fedora with neatly combed hair competed in a typing competition against a slender male wearing a lovely dress, lipstick, stiletto heels and earrings, I’d pick the one WHO FUCKING TYPES BETTER.

    By the gods, is it really that fucking complicated?

  11. 11
    tommykey

    Lorax, you reminded me of perhaps the only funny scene in Schindler’s List, which shows Schindler interviewing a number of attractive women for a secretary position and they all type very slowly. Then you see this heavy set woman with a rather severe face typing very rapidly while Schindler’s face looks sad. He then ends up hiring all of them.

  12. 12
    fifthdentist

    Honestly, if I were a Christian, I’d be more fearful of being killed by gay-induced natural disasters. From reading statements by fundamentalist ministers and watching people like Pat Robertson, it’s obvious that when an area is “overgayed up” their invisible man in the sky sends horrific weather and other deadly phenomena.
    Teh ghey horde could take advantage of this easily by moving in large numbers to places like New Orleans; Birmingham, Ala.; New York and New Jersey; the Florida and Carolina coasts as well as the coastal areas along the Gulf of Mexico; Kansas and other Midwestern states; and along fault lines in the United States. Then they could just sit back and wait for the righteous smiting that will occur in all of those places in the next few days, or next week, or in 2017 or a century or more from now.

  13. 13
    Gregory in Seattle

    It’s funny how the people screeching about a supposed return of Jim Crow are always people who would have had the clean end of the stick under racial segregation.

    Actually, it’s not very funny at all.

  14. 14
    jnorris

    The Lorax at #10, what’s typing?

  15. 15
    Doug Little

    There is no reason to think that the homosexual lobby would not deliberately select values-driven businesses, and then send flamboyant homosexuals in to apply for advertised vacancies, just so they could use this law as a bludgeon to further pummel Christians into becoming the newest minority utterly deprived of their civil rights.

    I love the smell of projection in the morning.

  16. 16
    jamessweet

    Only now the people victimized would not be victimized based on the color of their skin but on the content of their character.

    Yes, that WAS in fact MLK Jr’s dream, that people would be judged based on the content of their character. HOW IS THIS A PROBLEM?!?

  17. 17
    jeevmon

    It was not that long ago that the Bryan Fischers of the world were saying things like:

    “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

    And justifying the actual Jim Crow laws on that basis.

  18. 18
    tommykey

    Jeevmon, there’s a funny scene from All In The Family wherein Archie Bunker says something similar to Sammy Davis Jr., to which Sammy replies “Well, someone must have told them [the whites] where we were, because they came and got us.”

  19. 19
    billdaniels

    I bet a homosexual lobby would have fabulous decor. Especially since we are all interior decorators. And ice skaters.

  20. 20
    cptdoom

    There is no reason to think that the homosexual lobby would not deliberately select values-driven businesses, and then send flamboyant homosexuals in to apply for advertised vacancies, just so they could use this law as a bludgeon to further pummel Christians into becoming the newest minority utterly deprived of their civil rights.

    Well, I suppose you could look at the states that have passed similar laws (about 21/50, IIRC) over the last few decades to find, you know, actual facts on which to base your statements, but that would be too difficult for dear Bryan. For the record, the number of lawsuits filed due to anti-LGBT discrimination, once laws have been passed (and most of the state laws are actually broader than ENDA, and include anti-discrimination protections for employment, rental/home sales and public accommodations), has been minimal. In fact, the fundies LOVE to bring up the very few examples to prove how horrible such laws are (e.g., the now infamous New Mexico photographer case).

  21. 21
    Robert Bauer

    Only now the people victimized would not be victimized based on the color of their skin but on the content of their character.

    Uh, yes. Yes, that is exactly what’s going on. The law is discriminating based on the content of your character, in that you are not allowed to be a bigoted asshole by evicting LGBT people from the economy.

    Weren’t we supposed to judge people by the content of their character? Wasn’t that the point?

  22. 22
    Glenn E Ross

    I’ve said it before but I think what these bigots fear the most is not that their churches will be forced to marry same sex couples, it’s that they will be seen in the larger society as the bigots they are. They will lose the privilege they possess when speaking as a person of faith when their faith is seen as bigoted.

    Their victimization is that they will no longer hold the special place in society given to the religious. I’ve always wondered why in our society does someone with personal beliefs based on religion somehow have more gravitas than someone who has personal beliefs based on other criteria.

  23. 23
    theguy

    “no Christian employer could ever make a values-based personnel decision again.”

    Judging from the Barton thread a few days ago, it seems the only value Fischer and Barton have is their own hatred.

    “the people victimized would not be victimized based on the color of their skin but on the content of their character.”

    Note the conspicuous absence of Fischer’s “character.” If there’s a worse liar in America, I haven’t heard of him.

    I recall first hearing of Fischer when he de facto defended the enslavement and mistreatment of Native Americans. So, to get the record straight, Fischer is fine with slavery and genocide against others, but thinks Christians are being discriminated against because they can’t discriminate?

  24. 24
    Michael Heath

    Glenn E. Ross writes:

    I’ve said it before but I think what these bigots fear the most is not that their churches will be forced to marry same sex couples, it’s that they will be seen in the larger society as the bigots they are. They will lose the privilege they possess when speaking as a person of faith when their faith is seen as bigoted.

    I agree; but it’s also ironic conservative Christians haven’t previously suffered from a correlative amount of public condemnation for nearly 2000 years of misogyny towards women. I think because a sufficient number of authoritarian adult females submit to this bigotry by remaining members of misogynist churches and effectively submitting to and even promoting the very policies which discriminate against females.

    Such submission is not feasible for unrepentant and out gays along with their families; precisely because they can’t even be second-class members of such churches like women have long been. Conservative Christian churches have no second-class slot for gays like they do for females; instead their interpretation of dogma has painted themselves into a corner with few options.

    The most viable option conservative Christians seem to sense given their behavior, is to collectively promote getting gays back in the closet and get society to hate gays to the level they hate gays. There are many examples, one is their fight to deny public educators the ability to acknowledge gays and their families even exist and opposing anti-bully laws. Success in continuing to culturally ostracize gays and their families is of course no longer happening, while gays are instead rapidly becoming accepted. I think this phenomena is why we see the vast majority of conservative Christians acting out as they do, particularly in voting against equal rights for gays. They have no defensible arguments and no path to avoid people increasingly recognizing them for the repugnant bigots they’ve always been. So they are correct they’re in a conundrum with no viable way out if they’re going to continue to defend their bigotry while dishonestly projecting that bigotry on their critics.

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site