Breaking down ENDA opposition

Now there may be some who say that I pay too much attention to Peter LaBarbera and Americans for Truth (in name only.)

But sometimes they make things so easy that I can't help but to indulge. Case in point, the lastest entry by Peter about ENDA.

If anything, it underscores that sometimes Peter is so fanatical in his "crusade" against the lgbt community that he undermines his efforts while making our side look good.

This time, he posted a debate that took place on CNN regarding ENDA between Concerned Women for America's Matt Barber and African-American activist Keith Boykin.

Just watch it. Is it just me or did Boykin totally destroy Barber?

Watching the debate got me thinking about the lies put out by Barber and some of those who oppose ENDA.

It allowed me to place their opposition in a true perspective.

Barber and company seem to think that a person's personal religious beliefs should trump the ability to be free from discrimination in any environment, even in secular situations.

It may sound admirable but answer my questions regarding the possible scenarios:

Should a manager of a restaurant who has a religious objection to homosexuality be allowed to fire an employee if said employee is gay?

Should a landlord with a religious objection to homosexuality retain the right not to rent to a person if said person is gay?

Should the manager or owner of a supermarket with a religious objection to homosexuality be allowed to kick out a potential buyer if said person is gay?

And if these things are allowed, where could we draw the line?

Will a physician who has an objection to homosexuality be allowed to not treat a patient if said patient is gay?

Or what about a pharmacist?

Again where do we draw the line?