Thursday, November 19, 2009

Family Research Council gearing up to fight ENDA with distortions

I don't know why the Family Research Council continues to keep me on its email list. I received one today about ENDA.

Like so many things put out by the Family Research Council, the email is full of distortions and doublespeak. I want to highlight two of the most egregious:

President Obama wants to punish Christians by . . .
November 19, 2009 | Share with Friends

Dear Alvin,

A grave threat to your traditional values and religious freedom is resurfacing.

Deceptively, it's called the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). Truthfully, it should be called the "Discrimination Against Christians in the Workplace Act."

I know that sounds far-fetched, but this is what ENDA will do . . .

ENDA will redefine your faith as illegal workplace bigotry . . . make the government a full partner in the homosexual rights movement . . . and force churches, small businesses run by Christians, and faith-based charities to hire nonbelievers or face federal investigation.

Apparently FRC hasn't learned anything from the unsuccessful attempt to make it seem that hate crimes legislation is an attack on Christianity. Now its making the same inaccurate case about ENDA.

First of all, as I understand it, ENDA does have an exemption for churches and faith-based charities. But as for small businesses run by Christians, I find that argument weak.

What's next - allowing a small business to discriminate in the case of race, gender, or religion?

I'm betting that FRC wouldn't appreciate that last point.

But here is where FRC trips up in its email:

This law would punish anyone in the workplace who dares oppose homosexual behavior, cross-dressing and other unhealthy behaviors. The liberals intentionally want to define "discrimination" very vaguely so that their allies in the courts and federal and state agencies will have broad latitude to silence traditional moral viewpoints about sexuality.

Just how would someone "oppose homosexual behavior in the workplace?" And should they be defended no matter how scurrilous the opposition?

We have just seen a case of a young man in Massachusetts fired for calling his fellow employee (a lesbian) a "deviant" simply because she was bragging about her upcoming wedding.

Should his type of  "opposition to homosexuality in the workplace" be defended? I don't think so.

Seems to me that the threats resurfacing here has less to do with the lgbt community and more to do with a christian (small "c" intended) group pulling out fear tactics  in order to scare people about a simple law that will allow lgbts to work and live freely.
You know, like normal people do because in terms of wanting to work, be free from discrimination, and provide for our loved ones, we are normal people.

Despite what FRC says.

Contact your Congressional leaders and tell them to support ENDA.

Related posts

Should the right to call a fellow employee 'a deviant' be protected under law?

Traditional Values Coalition distorts marketing statistics to attack ENDA

Family Research Council head misrepresents credible information to hurt ENDA

Bathrooms, Church Exemptions, and Lies: Five ways the religious right misrepresents ENDA

Exposing an anti-gay ENDA lie before it gains traction

Bookmark and Share

Anti-gay marriage governor facing ethics charges regarding visits to his mistress and other Thursday midday news briefs

Panel finds probable cause for charges against Sanford - Sorry Marky Mark but I haven't forgotten your eagerness to sign that dreary anti- marriage equality amendment. Apparently you think marriage should only be between a man, his wife, and his mistress.

Wave of anti-gay mailers attack Parker in Houston mayoral race - It just got ugly in Houston.

Exporting the Anti-Gay Culture War - While the religious right lies about not being able to preach against homosexuality in this country, they are also sowing the seeds for anti-lgbt violence in other countries.

Adam Lambert: 'I Don't Want to Be a Gay Poster Child' - Honey, you are sooo late in declaring your intentions on that one.

House Committee Passes Partner Benefits Bill - This is good news.

Bookmark and Share

Some people don't know the difference between criticizing Obama and hoping for his destruction

Not necessarily an lgbt issue per se but still an important one.

I am so sick of people minimizing the nasty rhetoric against the President. The hateful rhetoric emanating from supposed mainstream venues such as television shows and radio talk shows, the nasty signs at those teabagging rallies, the constant comparison to President Obama and dictators of the past such as Hitler and Mao, the taking everything he does and making a huge issue out of it; all of it is going in an ugly direction.

And while this is happening, you have the other group playing that straw man argument - "waaah, I am being accused of being a racist because I am simply criticizing the President. Why can't you criticize the President without being thought of a racist"

It's nonsense. Maybe if they were as quick as to condemn the hateful rhetoric against the President as they are to making stupid jokes regarding him receiving a Nobel Peace Prize or whatever else, their comments would have more credibility.

To me, these folks playing the straw man argument are just as bad as those who would carry the ugly signs and make the ugly comments. They see the nastiness taking place and more often than not, they try to overlook it.

And that whining about "well they did it to Bush too" is ridiculous. I personally don't agree with anyone calling for or inferring for the death of a President.

But let me ask you this - just when did you ever see a commentator on a major news network compare Bush to Hitler or Stalin?

Whiny comments made about how Bush was treated intended to lessen the impact of ugly things said about Obama merely proves my point.

And it only proves my point about the abject absence of decency coming from some circles who attack Obama.

Bookmark and Share