Catholic writer unsuccessfully tries to refute my ENDA post

Stephanie Block, founder of the Catholic Media Coalition, took it upon herself to call me out in an attempt to answer my refutations of religious right distortions regarding ENDA.

I'll give her props for the attempt. But she tends to get vague and dance around what was actually said in my piece.

And she made some very bad assumptions. She said the following:

The five “lies” McEwen has gleaned from religious right materials are that this legislation will permit transgendered males to use women’s restrooms. . .

I want to highlight that first claim of hers because I never said that. I said the following:

Distortion - ENDA (H.R. 2981 - H.R. 3017 - S. 1584) has been changed from the "gay-only" version the House passed in 2007 to include language banning job discrimination based on "gender identity" as well as sexual orientation - complete with special protections for the transgendered. It would mean your child's teacher, if he were a male but "felt" like a female, could go into the women's bathroom.

TRUTH - According to the Gay and Lesbian Task Force, over 100 localities (cities and counties) in the United States have trans-inclusive non-discrimination laws. There has never been a problem of a man "claiming to feel like a female" invading women's bathrooms. The claim is a non-issue created to scare people and distract from the true purpose of ENDA.

Not only does she not try to refute what I actually said, but she makes a nasty determination of the issue when she later terms it as "Last but not least: the transvestite male in the woman’s bathroom," thereby displaying a certain ignorance of the transgender community and covertly channeling the religious right claim of "men invading women's restrooms."

In one point, she says that I inaccurately said something was a lie/distortion:

Of these five “lies,” McEwen confirms two, arguing that federal law already protects workers from discrimination of any sort, even when stemming from an employer’s religious beliefs, and as “[n]ot all families are heterosexually-oriented… A national policy regarding families and marriage should embrace this change.” So fears that ENDA would redefine marriage and family seem pretty much on target. A person hasn’t “lied” or distorted the situation just because there are other people with opposing viewpoints.

Oh if it were that simple.

This is what was actually said:

Distortion - ENDA would approvingly bring private behavior considered immoral by many into the public square. By declaring that all sexual preferences are equally valid, ENDA would change national policy supporting marriage and family.

TRUTH - If "national policy supporting marriage and family" is changed, then it is a good thing. Not all families are heterosexually-oriented. Also, several states already offer lgbts either the right to marry or enter domestic partnerships. A national policy regarding families and marriage should embrace this change.

The sentence which I called a distortion is an exact phrase from American Family Association's talking points against ENDA. And it is a distortion because it reduces the lgbt orientation to that of sexual behavior. And this is an inaccurate assumption. Also, my point was that whatever "national policy regarding marriage and family" happens to be, it is already changing via domestic partnerships and lgbt marriages.

ENDA wouldn't lead a changing of a "national policy regarding marriage and family" because the change is already taking place.

Block also says the following:

McEwen argues that ENDA says nothing about sexual behavior and therefore concerns about special protection for gays and lesbians are specious (my word, not his). And furthermore, he says, no one is singled out for “special” protection – the law simply clarifies that sexual orientation and gender identity are no basis for employment discrimination, any more than race or creed are under existing law.

One can appreciate the argument. A person who is behaving appropriately – who dresses according to the workplace code, who speaks professionally, who doesn’t harass other workers, and who does a good job – shouldn’t have to worry about dismissal for “perceived” orientations or being “exposed.” In a professional atmosphere, the nasty divorce, drinking problems, and any host of other unethical aspects of one’s colleagues can be and are overlooked so long as they remain reasonably private.

On the other hand, there are no laws (of which I’m aware) making it unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail to hire or to fire any individual because of actual or perceived alcoholism. If there were, one would want it to clarify the law’s limits – that it protected a worker’s drinking only so far as professionalism and job-related performance standards were maintained. Without that clarification, one can understand that an employer might worry that the discrimination card is played when the issue is actually about fulfilling employment needs.

Is she inaccurately calling sexual orientation a behavior just as the AFA did or is she making the claim that if someone was fired for being an alcoholic, they can claim sexual orientation discrimination? She forgets that someone could make that claim regarding the other job protection categories (i.e. race, religion, etc.)

Either way, her argument here makes no sense. I actually said:

Distortion - ENDA is aimed at providing heightened protections for a particular sexual behavior - homosexuality. It would grant special consideration on the basis of "sexual orientation" that would not be extended to other employees in the workplace.

TRUTH - ENDA says nothing about sexual behavior. Potential employees are already federally protected in cases of race, religion, gender, and national origin. Heterosexuals would be protected under ENDA along with lgbts because adding sexual orientation does not single out gays and lesbians any more than gender singles out solely women or men.

Then she talks about the tax-exemption status of churches and invokes the controversy involving the New Jersey church pavilion:

When a gay couple wished to have a commitment ceremony in the wedding hall, the Association refused to accommodate them. This is very different from the employment situations contemplated by ENDA. ….It should also be noted that, although the Association initially lost its tax exemption, the State of New Jersey reinstated the Association's exemption from property tax for the beach and the rest of the boardwalk, but stated that it could not continue to exempt the pavilion as it was not truly open to the public.” [“Are We Ready? Arguments against ENDA (Part II),” The Bilerico Project, 9-13-09]

One appreciates that this is just one lawyer’s take, but here’s what we’re left with if Dr. Weiss’ logic is indicative of where this legislation is headed: tax-exempt religious bodies must follow the non-discrimination laws that apply to taxed bodies. Or, in other words, a religious body that claims an anti-discrimination exemption for itself will be stripped of its tax-exemption.

Block freely admits that this controversy had nothing to do with ENDA but then she tries to connect the two. In her attempt, she omits the fact that the pavilion was church property but not a part of the church. She also omits that the church knew full well the requirements that allowed the pavilion to receive tax breaks and agreed to them. A better argument is here.

That is a long way off from a "religious body that claims an anti-discrimination exemption."

Geez. You think that if someone was trying to refute my work, they would have the decency to focus on what I actually said instead of strawman paraphrasing.

I'm not one for hypothetical arguments or tangents. I try to deal with what's in front of me. It makes things simple and honest.

If some of these folks who fear ENDA would do the same thing, they would see that they have nothing to fear.