With the fight over the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) heating up, we can always count on organizations like the Family Research Council to be the "loyal opposition," even if they have to distort the issue.
The organization has recently announced a special site entitled Stop ENDA in which it lists reasons why it's not a good idea to protect lgbts from employment discrimination. Granted the reasons are highly specious and should lead to more questioning of FRC spokespeople at to their claims. My guess is that Tony Perkins and company will not be asked to speak specifically to them or will dodge if asked:
Between you and me I really want to know what does FRC mean about "the employment of homosexuals in inappropriate occupations." My guess is FRC is implying that gays shouldn't be school teachers.
And then to top it off, FRC includes a video about an alleged incident involving a Christian ministry ordered to undergo "sensitivity training."
But there are several problems with this video, including:
If this is FRC's best effort in its attempt to stop ENDA, then the organization needs to go back to the drawing board. FRC offers no proof that ENDA isn't a good idea, but instead displays the prejudices which prove just why ENDA is necessary.
The organization has recently announced a special site entitled Stop ENDA in which it lists reasons why it's not a good idea to protect lgbts from employment discrimination. Granted the reasons are highly specious and should lead to more questioning of FRC spokespeople at to their claims. My guess is that Tony Perkins and company will not be asked to speak specifically to them or will dodge if asked:
ENDA is a "one size fits all" solution to alleged discrimination that erases all marriage-based distinctions. It grants special rights to homosexuals while ignoring those of employers. The federal government should not force private businesses to abandon their moral principles.
FRC Action opposes this legislation on the following grounds (which by the way FRC offers absolutely no proof of):
Such legislation affords special protection to a group that is not disadvantaged.
The issue is not job discrimination.
The first "religious exemption" clause is very narrow and offers no clear protection to church-related businesses.
The second "religious exemption" clause fails to offer protection for all hiring by church-related organizations or businesses.
It is unlikely that the "religious exemption" included in the bill would survive court challenge.
ENDA would mandate the employment of homosexuals in inappropriate occupations.
ENDA violates employers' and employees' Constitutional freedoms of religion, speech and association.
ENDA would approvingly bring private behavior considered immoral by many into the public square.
Between you and me I really want to know what does FRC mean about "the employment of homosexuals in inappropriate occupations." My guess is FRC is implying that gays shouldn't be school teachers.
And then to top it off, FRC includes a video about an alleged incident involving a Christian ministry ordered to undergo "sensitivity training."
But there are several problems with this video, including:
- it's about a Canadian ministry,
- the video is from a year ago, and
- none of the principal parties are interviewed. FRC's Peter Sprigg interviews an editor from a conservative news organization on the incident.
If this is FRC's best effort in its attempt to stop ENDA, then the organization needs to go back to the drawing board. FRC offers no proof that ENDA isn't a good idea, but instead displays the prejudices which prove just why ENDA is necessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment