Who’ll Stop the Rain for Obama? »« So, This Organization Exists

Barber Lies About DOJ Pride Pamphlet

Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel is clutching his pearls and cranking up the faux outrage machine once again, this time over a pamphlet sent out to management at the Department of Justice that offers suggestions on how to maintain a positive work environment for LGBT employees. And he lies about the content of that pamphlet in order to claim that it’s an “attack on freedom.”

Our sources have provided Liberty Counsel an internal DOJ document titled: “LGBT Inclusion at Work: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Managers.” It was emailed to DOJ managers in advance of the left’s so-called “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Pride Month.”

The document is chilling. It’s riddled with directives that grossly violate – prima facie –employees’ First Amendment liberties.

Following are excerpts from the “DOJ Pride” decree. When it comes to “LGBT pride,” employees are ordered:

“DON’T judge or remain silent. Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.” (Italics mine)
That’s a threat.

And not even a subtle one.

Oh, nonsense. First of all, this is a pamphlet of “practical tips to help managers create a truly inclusive workplace
climate.” It’s not a set of commandments delivered from Mt. Sinai. It wasn’t even sent out by DOJ officials, it was sent out by DOJ Pride, the Association of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Employees of the U.S. Department of Justice and Their Allies. And when you look at this in context, it becomes clear what that little out-of-context snippet means:

Know How to Respond If an Employee Comes Out to You

DON’T judge or remain silent. Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.

DO respond with interest and curiosity. Asking respectful questions will set a positive, supportive tone.

Exactly how to respond will depend on the circumstances. For example:

• If an employee comes to your office, closes the door, and says “I’ve been meaning to tell you this for a while: I’m
gay,” DO thank them for trusting you enough to tell you, ask if they’ve been made to feel safe and welcome in the
workplace, and let them know about DOJ Pride.

• Sometimes the best reaction is a “nonreaction,” meaning not silence but a matter-of-fact, don’t-skip-a-beat response. For example, if an employee mentions her same-sex partner in passing, as in “My partner Janet and I saw the best movie this weekend,” DO react the way you would had she said “My husband Jeremy and I saw the best movie this weekend.” Ask about the movie, where they saw it, if they went out to dinner beforehand, etc.

They could as easily have called this pamphlet “How not to be an asshole.” These are nothing more than reasonable suggestions for how not to make a gay employee feel marginalized merely for being gay. There what any decent, non-bigoted person should do. Only in the fever swamp of the wingnut mind could this be “chilling” and an “attack on liberty.”

Got it? For Christians and other morals-minded federal employees, it’s no longer enough to just shut up and “stay in the closet” – to live your life in silent recognition of biblical principles (which, by itself, is unlawful constraint). When it comes to mandatory celebration of homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors, “silence will be interpreted as disapproval.”

Oh, of course. The next memo will require all Christians to dress up in cheerleader outfits and yell “Give me a G, give me an A, give me a Y — what’s that spell?” He then quotes this text from the pamphlet:

“DO assume that LGBT employees and their allies are listening to what you’re saying (whether in a meeting or around the proverbial water cooler) and will read what you’re writing (whether in a casual email or in a formal document), and make sure the language you use is inclusive and respectful.”

And his hysterical overreaction:

Is this the DOJ or the KGB? “[A]ssume that LGBT employees are listening …”? And what are “LGBT allies”? If you disagree with the homosexual activist political agenda, does that make you the enemy?

Oh for crying out loud. What does this mean? It means that if you make an anti-gay joke in the men’s room, you might very well make a fellow gay employee feel very uncomfortable and unwelcome. Again: How not to be an asshole. ZOMG! Communism! These people really are endlessly ridiculous.

Comments

  1. Abdul Alhazred says

    What if not being an asshole is against their religion?
    What then smart guy?
    :)

  2. scienceavenger says

    None of this should come as a surprise. From their POV, homosexuality is a sin against Gawd, so of course they are going to act this way. The article might as well be titled “Christian reacts true to his beliefs, version XXIII”.

  3. Doug Little says

    This shit just gets me wound up, it shouldn’t, I hate to react to it but you can only take so fucking much. What part of treat your employees with respect regardless of sexual orientation and you will have a better place to work don’t they fucking get? I suppose if the pamphlet was put out by a feminist group suggesting proper etiquette for female employees like don’t fucking grope them would be an attack on their freedoms as well.

  4. cptdoom says

    Is this the DOJ or the KGB? “[A]ssume that LGBT employees are listening …”? And what are “LGBT allies”? If you disagree with the homosexual activist political agenda, does that make you the enemy?

    No, asshat, it means that 1) you don’t always know who’s gay or lesbian and 2) you don’t always know when a straight person actually believes that gays and lesbians are equal human beings, so if you don’t want to sound like a d*ck (which everyone but Barber and his fellow travelers would like to avoid) don’t talk like one.

  5. cheesynougats says

    I think the part that set Barber off was the “Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.” Since telling your employees they are Satan’s spawn is viewed poorly at this time, silence or changing the subject was the only socially acceptable way to show disapproval. They can say, “But I didn’t condemn them to their face! Aren’t I being respectful?” This pamphlet makes them confront their passive-aggressiveness.

  6. timpayne says

    Matt Barber is a complete asshole, but the pedestrian treacle in this pamphlet should be an embarrassment to all DOJ employees. If I was one of the managers receiving this tripe, I’d be checking to see if it was written on company time, sequester furlough in hand.

  7. gopiballava says

    If you just replace “gay” with “shoplifter” or similar, their outrage makes more sense. Of course you’re supposed to register your disagreement when somebody tells you they’re a shoplifter. Continuing without skipping a beat and asking “so was that handbag the right color? It sounded like you didn’t have the time to look at it very carefully…” would seem very wrong if somebody had explained how they quickly stuffed a bag down their trousers in a store.

    At some level I can understand why these people are outraged. We’re asking them to ignore dangerously immoral actions that will force God to show his love by torturing people forever. How could you sit idly by and let somebody condemn themselves to that?

    People who share their views – active disapproval and a belief in damnation for homosexuality – are going to either have to somehow rationalize keeping quiet about their beliefs when they encounter people destined for hell, or they are going to be marginalized. They will be marginalized because the majority of people don’t believe that gays will go to hell.

    If I recall correctly, an impressive percentage of Christians don’t think that atheists will go to hell. Presumably, they have tried to resolve the “loving god” and “eternal torture” dichotomy and the traditional definition of love / loving won. For those Christians, anti-gay comments to somebody’s face will make you look like an asshole.

    So, I sort of disagree with Ed here. This isn’t “how not to be an asshole” because it’s the fundamental underlying belief that matters. If these guys were right, they’d be doing the right thing. They’re wrong, so they’re acting like assholes. Materials about inclusiveness just aren’t going to convince the extremists.

  8. D. C. Sessions says

    They could as easily have called this pamphlet “How not to be an asshole.”

    Precisely — and how do you think this will make asshole-Americans feel? Does anyone think of how to create a positive workplace environment for them?

    Consider how many Americans are being made to feel unwelcome due to their religion, when you have the Federal Government leading intolerance and rejection of so many people’s religion. They may give (as it were) lip service to freedom of religion, but there’s never any respect shown to assholiness.

  9. D. C. Sessions says

    What part of treat your employees with respect regardless of sexual orientation and you will have a better place to work don’t they fucking get?

    The relevance of “better place to work.” Since when did that have anything to do with management?

  10. cptdoom says

    At some level I can understand why these people are outraged. We’re asking them to ignore dangerously immoral actions that will force God to show his love by torturing people forever. How could you sit idly by and let somebody condemn themselves to that?

    Well, it’s simple, really. You simply remind the fundamentalists that, according to Christianity, they are all going to hell for turning their back on God and worshipping Satan. Because, you know, every single person in this country lives a religious lifestyle choice that some other American finds immoral, yet somehow we’re all able to work together.

  11. Karen Locke says

    I wish there were a hell I could consign such bigoted people to — or failing that, I wish I could believe in karma. But Matt Barber will go through life getting away with saying bigoted things, though hopefully to a shrinking audience. And some people will cry at his funeral.

  12. says

    Oh, of course. The next memo will require all Christians to dress up in cheerleader outfits

    Matt Barber in a cheerleader’s outfit …

    Thanks, Ed. Now I’m going to have to take my brain out and burn it!

  13. says

    Look, the universe has a natural order, and treating the gayhomos as equals upsets that order (as it did with women and African-Americans before). What next, the last shall be first and the first shall be last? I mean, come on! If this keeps up, the meek shall inherit the Earth!
    Oh, woe! Won’t someone think of the assholes?!

  14. kantalope says

    Where can I get me some of these “Don’t be an Asshole” pamphlets? Those need to be handed out way more than they are.

    We need Asshole awareness – could be linked with rectal exam week
    Asshole Abstinence Only Education
    A-Whole Campaign against A-Holes…

  15. Doug Little says

    The relevance of “better place to work.” Since when did that have anything to do with management?

    Yeah, let’em eat cake (specifically Abby’s @7 kind of cake).

  16. truthteller says

    I must have missed the place where he lies. He quotes directly from the pamphlet – something both you and he link to so anyone here can verify. What exactly is the lie? Are you making the normal liberal statement/assumption that simply because it has not happened yet it will not happen – totally ignoring the weight of historical data that counteracts that view?

    If a person truly believes that homosexuality is a wrong way to live – and yes, many people still believe in absolute rights and wrongs – then to tell them they should respond a certain way is to infringe upon their Constitutional rights. As a federal employee, I can confirm that It doesn’t matter if the pamphlet was produced by the DOJ or not. If the DOJ allowed it to be distributed it is the same as condoning the contents.

    http://www.lgbt-truth.com

  17. gopiballava says

    @truthteller:
    “He quotes directly from the pamphlet”

    He lies when he claims that the pamphlet was issues by the DOJ.

    “If a person truly believes that homosexuality is a wrong way to live – and yes, many people still believe in absolute rights and wrongs”

    Non-sequitur. I don’t believe in moral relativism. I also don’t believe that homosexuality is wrong. I think you mean that many people share your particular views about what constitute absolute rights and wrongs.

    “then to tell them they should respond a certain way is to infringe upon their Constitutional rights”

    Employees are told all the time about how to respond to their co-workers and subordinates.

    “As a federal employee, I can confirm that It doesn’t matter if the pamphlet was produced by the DOJ or not.”

    Confirm? You mean, opine, I think. Even if it doesn’t matter, Barber is being very inaccurate in his statements.

    “If the DOJ allowed it to be distributed it is the same as condoning the contents.”

    Couple problems with that statement. Earlier, you say that demanding a particular type of response is an infringement of constitutional rights. Now, you say that *not prohibiting* a statement is nearly the same as making it official policy. I see a double standard here.

    What do you mean by “condone”? Barber doesn’t say the DOJ condones the statements in the pamphlet. He portrays it as a direct command. If you can’t see the difference between the DOJ implicitly saying “we don’t have a problem with this” and the DOJ saying “we insist our employees do this”, then I can see why you’re confused.

  18. gopiballava says

    @truthteller:

    On your web site, you claim:
    “Homosexually active people are more likely to molest children than heterosexuals”
    Your first bullet point backing that up is:
    “The reality is that most men who molest boys self-identify as homosexual or bisexual.”

    I’m somewhat confused – how does that bullet point back up your claim?

    According to this:
    http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/factsheet/pdf/CSA-FS20.pdf
    78% to 89% of child sexual abuse victims are female. 90% of perpetrators are male. So, most people who sexually abuse children are men abusing girls.

    This also backs up the claim that gay men are not more likely to abuse children:
    http://www.apa.org/pubs/info/brochures/sex-abuse.aspx

  19. dingojack says

    Note the last sentence on page three of gopiballava’s second link:
    Despite a common myth, homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are.” – American Psychological Association.
    Dingo

  20. lofgren says

    I love truthteller’s site, particularly his dystopian fantasy in which the Scouts were started by Margaret Sanger, instead of the fascist-sympathizing repressed homosexual who actually invented them.

  21. dingojack says

    Margret Sanger was a nurse in White Plains, NY when Robert Baden-Powell published the first installment of Scouting for Boys in Janurary 1908.
    Bang goes that theory.
    :) Dingo.
    ———–
    PS: ‘fascist-sympathizing repressed homosexual’ [Citations required]

  22. lofgren says

    Baden-Powell described Mein Kampf as “A wonderful book, with good ideas on education, health, propaganda, organisation etc.” and spoke admiringly of its ideals. Also, he founded a nationalist paramilitary organization for young men.

    The repressed homosexuality is considerably more controversial. It’s a theory put forth by one of his biographers, based on his very close relationships with men and that he had rather a lot to say about the beauty of the male form.

    But I think you may have misunderstood me. Truthteller is not positing that Margaret Sanger founded the Boy Scouts. He is imagining a world in which Margaret Sanger’s racist attitudes were embraced by the Boy Scouts, and arguing that because that would be bad, therefore the Boy Scouts should not allow gays. It’s an argument as solid as if I were to write a novel about a world where dinosaurs still inhabited the hollow center of the earth and arose every thousand years from their slumber in order to consume millions of humans in their fire-breathing fury, and then said that because such an imaginary world would be horrifying you should really bake me some cookies right now.

  23. steffp says

    @19 – truthteller
    Your site, I mean the one you linked to, the one that contains that inane rant about homosexuals, females, and what manly men do with boys… I beg permission to use it in my design class as an example for perfect unison of form and content. The eyes hurt, and one wants to throw up. Chapeau.
    I especially liked the part about female employees causing endless troubles because hey need an extra shower house.
    For a group that has chosen to deny membership based on homosexual beliefs
    Classic Freudian slip. Thanks.

  24. slc1 says

    Re truthteller @ #19

    Actually, pedophiles are neither particularly hetero or homo. They look for targets of opportunity. Classic case, Jerry Sandusky. There is no evidence that Sandusky was gay. The only reason he abused boys was that they were available. If girls had been available, he would have abused them.

  25. dingojack says

    I’m also fond the bit on ‘Truthteller’s’ blog that says;

    Homosexuality is not a biological or hereditary condition – it is a human choice, one that in this culture of pervasive porn and sexuality (TV, movies, commercials, video games, magazines, & more), as well as the lack of a father and mother influence in a loving home, will only continue to be pushed and experimented with in the culture. Of the top 10 myths about homosexuality, this is #1

    [emphasis mine for clarity].

    I think you you should get a friend to read through your copy before posting it. Or, more realistically, consider hiring an editor. It will stop you from posting statements that contradict your own ‘argument’ (such as it is).

    Dingo
    ——–
    I also, am going to pass this on as an example of how not to design a web-page (unless it’s for the visually impaired)

  26. says

    lofgren “It’s an argument as solid as if I were to write a novel about a world where dinosaurs still inhabited the hollow center of the earth and arose every thousand years from their slumber in order to consume millions of humans in their fire-breathing fury, and then said that because such an imaginary world would be horrifying you should really bake me some cookies right now.”
    To be fair, there are few problems that can’t be solved with fresh cookies.

  27. Doug Little says

    They could as easily have called this pamphlet “How not to be an asshole.”

    Truthteller sounds like an asshole, maybe he could benefit from the information in the pamphlet.

  28. Ichthyic says

    then to tell them they should respond a certain way is to infringe upon their Constitutional rights.

    so, i tell you to fuck off because you’re trying to legislate MY right to marry who I want… and that’s persecution in your eyes?

    you fail logic.

  29. Ichthyic says

    If the DOJ allowed it to be distributed it is the same as condoning the contents.

    so… when the Feds started distributing literature explaining why bigotry is wrong, and lynching a black man for wanting to marry a white woman is wrong…

    you wouldn’t call that trying to educate the population, you’d call that interfering with bigot rights?

  30. Ichthyic says

    If a person truly believes that homosexuality is a wrong way to live

    I demand you explain how one goes about “truly believing” such a thing.

    go on, show your work from start to finish.

  31. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    Ichthyic@35,
    “Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” – The White Queen

  32. davids says

    I agree that certainly the homosexual should not feel intimidated in his place of work, whether his/her boss is a Christian or not. But the language you quote in this article implies that the Christian, or any manager, is to accept their lifestyle. In the pamphlet, the manager is encouraged to put up Gay Pride stickers around their office. They are told to accept conversation about a same-sex partner in the same way that they would accept conversation about the opposite-sex partner of another. How is that not coercion? How is that not being bigoted towards the person who believes in absolute standard of right and wrong? Demand that I ensure acceptance and fair treatment of all employees, yes, but force me to say that I accept a behavior that I do not, no.

    I am a Christian and if I were a manager, certainly I should never intimidate a homosexual or imply in any way that he/she is not fit for a certain task because of his/her sexual orientation. But it does violate my sincerely held religious beliefs to TELL me that I am to accept that person’s behavior as normal, and that I am to actively endorse a lifestyle and behavior which I do not agree with. I do not and I cannot based on Christian teachings.

  33. gopiballava says

    @davids:
    “How is that not being bigoted towards the person who believes in absolute standard of right and wrong?”

    This sort of statement confuses me. I do not believe in moral relativism. I believe in objective morality. I disagree with you about what is and isn’t moral. But your assumption that the dispute is between absolute morality and moral relativism is silly.

    ” But it does violate my sincerely held religious beliefs to TELL me that I am to accept that person’s behavior as normal, and that I am to actively endorse a lifestyle and behavior which I do not agree with.”

    Are you aware that this pamphlet was put together by a group of employees, and is not an official policy document? It was not binding upon anybody. Do you still object to them putting out this *request*?

Leave a Reply