More lies about ENDA courtesy of Janet Folger
Janet Folger must be trying to win a special award for distortions. Case in point, her take on the recent controversy that Republican presidential candidate Tommy Thompson caused during a recent debate:
Then Thompson had a right answer for the loaded question about the freedom of conscience – at first. Asked if a private employer should be able to fire a homosexual because of their homosexual behavior, Thompson said yes; however, the next day on CNN, he retracted it . . .
Folger distorted the question given to Thompson. This is what was actually said:
Thompson was asked by the moderator: “If a private employer finds homosexuality immoral, should he be allowed to fire a gay worker?”
Therein lies the distortion. No one asked Thompson about behavior. He was asked about orientation.
Janet Folger is lying again. It is starting to become a common occurrence for her.
She is slyly inferring that ENDA will deal with sexual behavior rather than sexual orientation. The two are not the same:
I am gay - that is a sexual orientation.
I am typing this blog - I am engaging in any type of sexual behavior, be it gay or straight.
Phrasing the discussion over ENDA as one of sexual behavior rather than orientation seems to be the game plan the anti-gay industry wants to follow. It is an old one for them.
The following transcript of Robert Knight (formerly of Concerned Women for America) sparring with commentator Bill O’Reilly on The O’Reilly Factor is an example of this. This transcript is included in my upcoming book:
O’REILLY: Let me stop you there. Hold it. If a guy’s in a workplace [and] he gets fired because the boss doesn’t like gays, you think that should be legally allowed?
KNIGHT: I don’t think that’s what’s happening in the workplace. People are more likely to be hired [because they’re gay].
O’REILLY: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. I just asked you a very direct question.
KNIGHT: Do you have any evidence of [people who were fi red for being homosexual]?
O’REILLY: I don’t have any evidence. It’s a hypothetical. If a boss fires somebody because [he’s] gay, should that be allowed?
KNIGHT: Well it depends on what brought that to his attention. If he brought gay pornography into the office.
Knight's words (and Folger's for that matter) show the psychological game the anti-gay industry tries to play on us when it comes to our jobs.
They seem to be saying "gays wouldn't have a problem with being fired for their orientation if they would just shut up about it."
It's a cruel point of view that not only exploits stereotypes but also tells lgbts to put themselves on a different standard than straight employees. While heterosexuals freely talk about their lives and the progression of their families, we are supposed to shut up and isolate ourselves in a bubble.
Two years ago at my job, my boyfriend sent me a dozen roses to commemorate Valentine's Day. When my co-workers asked about them, was I supposed to lie? Too bad because I didn't. If they didn't want to know who sent me the roses, they should have not asked.
A young lady who worked in my building received roses from her boyfriend. She was upfront as to who sent them to her. She didn't have to lie. Why should I?
Across America, many gay couples are raising children. Why shouldn't they be able to put pictures of families on their desks? And even if they don't have children, why shouldn't gay couples be able to put pictures of their significant other on their desks? Heterosexuals have that right and so should we.
See these are the things we are speaking of when we express the need for ENDA, not lies like the following voiced by Concerned Women for America member Matt Barber:
Imagine, if you will, a 280 lb linebacker who likes to wear a dress and high heels and lipstick, you know comes to church wanting a job at the front desk as a receptionist and they turn him away because they don’t feel that that represents their values or the image that they’re trying to hold at that church, under ENDA they could be held accountable for discrimination against that individual
It is one thing for the anti-gay industry to believe that gays have no concept of family or monogamy but it is an entirely different thing for them to try to force that image on us.
We should reject that mental prison every chance we get.