West Point Hosts Gay Wedding »« Local ABC News ‘Journalism’

WND: No Job Protection for ‘Sexual Perversion’

The Worldnetdaily has an article about the Senate’s schedule vote on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and they’re putting their usual absurd spin on it. “It’s back! Job protection for sexual perversion” says the headline on the front page, though the headline on the article when you click on it is “It’s ba-a-ack! Job protections based on sex preference.”

The U.S. Senate is expected to vote Monday evening on the “Employment Non-Discrimination Act,” legislation that supporters say offers basic workplace protections for homosexuals and transgendered Americans, but critics warn it will force businesses to cater to bizarre behaviors and force anyone who disagrees with those lifestyles to keep their mouths shut.

The legislation, also known as ENDA, would forbid employers from firing or refusing to hire anyone because of their sexual orientation or for asserting a different “gender identity” than their anatomy suggests. Supporters say protections in those areas are no different than longstanding bans on employment decisions made on the basis of race, sex, ethnicity, religion or disability.

But others contend there is a vast difference between judging a person on their skin color versus their sexual behavior.

“There’s a reason why we don’t allow discrimination based on race, which is that it’s a characteristic which is inborn, involuntary, immutable, innocuous and in the Constitution,” Peter Sprigg, senior fellow in policy studies at the Family Research Council, told WND in a radio interview. “All of those criteria apply to race. None of them applies to the choice to engage in homosexual conduct or in cross-dressing behavior, which is what gender identity deals with.”

So how about religion? Federal law has long forbidden discrimination on the basis of religion, which means you can’t be fired for being a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Wiccan and so forth. OMG! You mean we have “job protection for religious perversion”? Yep. You can’t fire someone because you believe they worship a demonic God? Nope. Religion is not inborn, involuntary, immutable or innocuous. And no, the constitution does say anything at all about race other than what the government can do, not what companies can do. So much for Sprigg’s absurd criteria.

Of course, Sprigg is also the guy who says he wants to “export homosexuals from the United States” because “homosexuality is destructive to society.” But remember, he’s in favor of “smaller government” and “freedom” (the freedom to impose his religious views on others, of course).

Comments

  1. smrnda says

    I have run into people who understand that religion is not immutable or voluntary, but who argue that it deserves protection and not sexual orientation just because it’s already in the laws.

  2. bushrat says

    @1 Busterggi That’s only because they have so little of it, that isn’t for procreation, what with all the bible thumping that needs doing.

  3. matty1 says

    …critics warn it will force businesses to cater to bizarre behaviors…

    What behaviours do they imagine people will engage in? I’m really struggling to think of anything gay or trans people are likely to do in a workplace that would be different to what their co-workers do.

  4. LightningRose says

    I keep hoping some openly gay CEO would announce he plans to fire all known heterosexual employees and replace them with openly gay workers, just to watch the bigots heads explode.

    And if it’s in a state without marriage equality, said CEO could point out it would save the company a ton of money from not having to insure employees spouses.

  5. dugglebogey says

    As much as they think about gay sex, WND must be crawling with latent homosexuals. It’s probably not safe to bend over in that joint, just in case one of them “goes over the edge.”

    Oh shit, was that a homophobic comment criticizing homophobes? What have I done?

  6. stever says

    I wonder what the Talibangelical position is on asexuality. Someone with no libido isn’t going to commit any sexual sins, but he shouldn’t get points for resisting a temptation that isn’t there. Meanwhile, Christianity, from the Vatican to the smallest storefront church, glorifies that most unnatural of perversions, chastity.

  7. John Hinkle says

    “There’s a reason why we don’t allow discrimination based on race, which is that it’s a characteristic which is inborn, involuntary, immutable, innocuous and in the Constitution,” Peter Sprigg, senior fellow in policy studies at the Family Research Council, told WND in a radio interview.

    So what. Even if gayness was uh, outborn, voluntary, mutable, and nocuous, those still are not reasons to discriminate against gay people. How is anyone’s gayness anyone else’s business? Oh wait, my god is obsessed with other peoples’ private parts, and therefore I am. Wait, did I say that in the right order?

  8. says

    dugglebogey “As much as they think about gay sex, WND must be crawling with latent homosexuals. It’s probably not safe to bend over in that joint, just in case one of them ‘goes over the edge.'”
    Look, I focus on gratuitous girl-on-girl action, but I’m not a lesbian. I don’t know much about art, but I know what I like. Topless baking, mostly. I’m classy like that.

    Just because they have a bizarre, throbbing focus on The Gays and how they’re forcing homogay mansex down our throats doesn’t mean that they’re secretly deeply repressed homosexuals. For one thing, it might not be much of a secret. Or they could just be assholes.

  9. John Pieret says

    But others contend there is a vast difference between judging a person on their skin color versus their sexual behavior.

    Well, sure. If an employee, gay, straight or anything in between, engages in sexual behavior on the job, they can be fired. Oh, you’re talking about their sexual behavior in the privacy of their own home? So, you’d be OK with your employer peeking into your bedroom window to see if you are doing something s/he thinks is icky and fire you for that? I didn’t think so.

  10. says

    John Pieret “Well, sure. If an employee, gay, straight or anything in between, engages in sexual behavior on the job, they can be fired. Oh, you’re talking about their sexual behavior in the privacy of their own home? So, you’d be OK with your employer peeking into your bedroom window to see if you are doing something s/he thinks is icky and fire you for that? I didn’t think so.”
    Have the Religious Freedom arguments taught you nothing? What employees do on their own time, in privacy, behind closed doors deeply, deeply effects their employers. It’s like quantum entanglement, but with cocks.

  11. John Pieret says

    Modus:

    Apparently, you’re right … according to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:

    Why is the absence of a distinction between same-sex sexual conduct and same-sex attraction in ENDA problematic?

    While the Church is opposed to unjust discrimination on any grounds, including those related to same-sex attraction, she teaches that all sexual acts outside of the marriage of one man and one woman are morally wrong and do not serve the good of the person or society. Same-sex sexual conduct, moreover, is categorically closed to the transmission of life and does not reflect or respect the sexual difference and complementarity of man and woman. Therefore, opposition to same-sex sexual conduct by the Church (and others) is not unjust discrimination and should not be treated as such by the law. In contrast to sexual conduct between a man and woman in marriage, sexual conduct outside of marriage, including same-sex sexual conduct, has no claim to any special protection by the state. Therefore, although ENDA may forbid some unjust discrimination, it would also forbid as discrimination what is legitimate, moral disapproval of same-sex conduct.

    http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/petermontgomery/7384/u_s__bishops__sexual_activity_justifies_anti_gay_discrimination/

    So, basically, they are claiming the “right” for anyone to discriminate against anyone who has sex outside of marriage.

  12. lofgren says

    I find it interesting that somebody can argue that they need to be allowed to discriminate against gay people in because Jesus might punish them with natural disasters otherwise, yet vehemently rejects the idea that environmental damage by corporations needs to be regulated in order to prevent man-made disasters.

    Because a company dumping tons of toxic chemicals into the air is none of your business, but penises touching is everybody’s business because it might cause hurricanes.

  13. dingojack says

    What this ol’ chestnut again?*
    So Peter, when exactly did you decide to be straight? And could you suddenly decide to be ‘gay for pay’?
    Even if sexuality were a choice, why should it make any difference? You choose to be christian, would it be fair to fire you from a job because of your private beliefs and behaviours? If not why?
    Dingo
    ——–
    * ‘insanity’ – doing the same thing over and over in the hope of a different result

  14. B-Lar says

    Modusoperandi said:

    Topless baking, mostly. I’m classy like that.

    … and upon hearing these words, B-Lar was enlightened.

  15. matty1 says

    I don’t know about the ‘in the constitution argument’ but the moral reason we don’t discriminate in employment based on race is not because race is unchangeable, it is because it is irrelevant.

    People discriminate (choose between options) all the time including in hiring decisions and a lot of examples no one objects to. No one thinks a hospital hiring a new doctor should avoid discriminating in favour of those who have been to medical school. This discrimination is fine because it is related to the job the person is being hired for but only interviewing medical graduates for a job as office manager would be wrong because it is not related to the job.

    The number of jobs where race is relevant is very small (the classic example is casting for Othello, unless you have Patrick Stewart) so it makes sense to put the burden of proof on the employer if they want to discriminate in this way. Sexuality is similar, in fact I can’t think of any case where it would affect a persons ability to do a job.

  16. says

    “So, basically, they are claiming the “right” for anyone to discriminate against anyone who has sex outside of marriage.”

    Which is why I HATE everyone of my Cath-O-Lick nieces and nephews who lived with/are living with their loved one sans the “benefit” of MAWWIAGE! Oh, wait, no, I don’t.

    “I don’t know about the ‘in the constitution argument’ but the moral reason we don’t discriminate in employment based on race is not because race is unchangeable, it is because it is irrelevant.”

    Hey, there’s an idea…

    Dear Mr. Peckerwood Sheethead:

    You don’t gotta look at it the way you’re lookin’ at.

    Why not just apply the same sorta thinkin’ that you used when you had to start hirin’ them OTHERS.

    “Look, JimBob, we gotta give somethese people jobs, else’n we don’t get noneothat sweet, sweet, gummint contract money. Just keep tellin’ yoreself that they cain’t HELP bein’ teh GAY, just like them other OTHERS couldn’t help bein’ less than white. Oh, and you wanna be drinkin’ a lotta squeezins so’s you can get the taste outta your brain.”.

  17. eric says

    Sexuality is similar, in fact I can’t think of any case where it would affect a persons ability to do a job.

    The job you’re looking for is “anti-gay preacher.” ;) I’m not saying its impossible (or even improbable) to have a gay anti-gay preacher, but if you’re the person doing the hiring, orientation is a criteria you could legitimately consider.

  18. caseloweraz says

    But others contend there is a vast difference between judging a person on their skin color versus their sexual behavior.

    So, then, based on their Christian moral outlook, the WND is going to argue that David Vitter deserves to be expelled from the Senate because of his immoral sexual behavior?

    No, I didn’t think so.

  19. freehand says

    dingojack: What this ol’ chestnut again?*
    So Peter, when exactly did you decide to be straight? And could you suddenly decide to be ‘gay for pay’?

    I have talked to Fundies on this very subject, and the ones who respond say that “Yes, I could decide to like fat old men sexually instead of lithe, young (but properly dressed) women. I simply choose not to.” usually said with a smugly self-righteous look on their face.

    I find this appalling but not surprising. Fundamentalists lack introspective insight, and are very confused about what they themselves mean by “free will”. They do not understand the difference between discovering something about oneself and choosing to have different emotions or desires. They usually think that if they try a new ice cream flavor which they turn out to really love, they chose to like it more. They will tell you that they could decide not to like it.

    They cannot imagine what it is like to have different desires. They can’t imagine that folks born and raised as Muslims would want to be Muslim rather than Southern Baptist. They cannot entertain the thought that some folks have no need to worship anything. So they think that Muslims are perverse deliberately, and only need to hear about Jesus one more time, and atheists must think that they are gods, for what else would they worship?

  20. Ichthyic says

    They cannot imagine what it is like to have different desires. They can’t imagine that folks born and raised as Muslims would want to be Muslim rather than Southern Baptist. They cannot entertain the thought that some folks have no need to worship anything. So they think that Muslims are perverse deliberately, and only need to hear about Jesus one more time, and atheists must think that they are gods, for what else would they worship?

    In short, they’re authoritarians.

  21. dingojack says

    Which is why I included the second part of the question:
    ‘If you chose to be a christian, would it be OK to fire you from your job because of that choice? Why or why not?’
    Dingo

  22. Nihilismus says

    Sexual orientation is often an in-born immutable trait. And even if the discrimination was on the basis of sexual conduct, one could argue that it also constitutes discrimination based on gender and religion.

    An evangelical might sue a private employer for not hiring him because he is likely to be anti-gay, arguing that it essentially was discrimination on the basis of religion. Likewise, a lesbian might sue an evangelical employer for not hiring her because she doesn’t think anything is wrong with being gay, arguing that it essentially was discrimination on the basis of her particular religious views, which don’t condemn gays.

    A gay man might sue a private employer for not hiring him because he engages in sexual conduct with a man in private, arguing that it is essentially gender discrimination because he is being treated differently from potential female employees who also might be engaged in sexual conduct with men. Likewise, a lesbian might sue for not being hired because she engages in sexual conduct with women, arguing that she is being treated differently than men who also engage in sexual conduct with women.

    As for transgendered persons, they can also sue for gender discrimination. For example, a person born with typical female characteristics who lives as a man is being treated differently from persons with typical male characteristics who also want to live as men. Some people are born with both typical male and female characteristics, which are inborn characteristics that, if factored in to an employment decision, should constitute gender discrimination.

    And even if a person has gender realignment surgery, that person now has physical characteristics (external and internal) that would make discrimination on the basis thereof equivalent to gender discrimination. Though it might be argued that the surgery was “conduct”, and that it shows the new look is not immutable, it is really no different than saying that a genetic female born with typical female characteristics is not immutable because she could get realignment surgery to look more like a typical male. Even though her external characteristics are theoretically not immutable, we still would call that gender discrimination, and we should likewise call it that if she decided to go through with the surgery.

  23. khms says

    @15 John Pieret:

    according to the U.S. Conference of Catholic
    Bishops:

    Hmm … let’s try this one for size:

    Why is the absence of a distinction between chaste sexual conduct and
    chaste attraction in $law problematic?

    While the $organization is opposed to unjust discrimination on any grounds, including
    those related to absence of sexual attraction, she teaches that all sexual acts outside
    of the marriage of one man and one woman are morally wrong and do not serve the
    good of the person or society. Chaste sexual conduct, moreover, is
    categorically closed to the transmission of life and does not reflect or
    respect the sexual difference and complementarity of man and woman. Therefore,
    opposition to chaste sexual conduct by the $organization (and others) is not unjust
    discrimination and should not be treated as such by the law. In contrast to
    sexual conduct between a man and woman in marriage, sexual conduct outside of
    marriage, including chaste sexual conduct, has no claim to any special
    protection by the state. Therefore, although $law may forbid some unjust
    discrimination, it would also forbid as discrimination what is legitimate,
    moral disapproval of chaste conduct.

Leave a Reply