Anti-gay spokesman spins ENDA horror story via distorted comments

Matt Barber

Another day, another religious right anti-gay smear.

This one is coming from an old expert in the field of anti-gay propaganda, Matt Barber of the Liberty Counsel. He recently authored a piece, ‘Gays’ Admit ENDA Game: Outlaw Christian Morality, which spouts the usual nonsense about gays supposedly wanting to "criminalize Christianity."

Based upon comments from various lgbt activists which he freely distorts, Barber spins the old religious right horror story that we are out to put folks like him in jail or take away their freedoms.

One of the folks whose words Barber distorts happens to be Chai Feldblum, head of the U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission:

Chai Feldblum is a lesbian activist and sexual nihilist lawyer who, in the past, has publicly supported legalized polygamy and bisexual polyamory. She is Obama’s recess-appointed commissioner to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). As ENDA’s chief framer, Ms. Feldblum would be charged with its primary enforcement. This is the classic fox-guarding-the-hen-house scenario.

In the past, Ms. Feldblum has repeatedly and candidly summed up the mindset behind the bill. She has publicly stated that the battle between religious freedom and unfettered sexual license (aka “gay rights”) is a “zero-sum game,” meaning the two cannot possibly coexist in harmony. It’s a “winner takes all” approach.

When asked about the Christian business owner or religious organization that morally objects to hiring people openly engaged in the homosexual lifestyle, Ms. Feldblum snapped: “Gays win, Christians lose.” And where Americans’ constitutionally guaranteed right to religious liberty comes into conflict with the postmodern concept of homosexual “rights,” Ms. Feldblum has admitted having “a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

First of all, Feldblum does not support legalized polygamy or "bisexual polyamory." And I doubt she is a "sexual nihilist," whatever that is.

Secondly, let's look at her comment which Barber skimmed. When one reads what she actually said, it is less intimidating than what Barber implies:

Ensuring that LGBT people can live honestly and safely in all aspects of their social lives requires that society set a baseline of non-discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. If individual business owners, service providers and employers could easily exempt themselves from such laws by making credible claims that their belief liberty is burdened by the law, LGBT people would remain constantly vulnerable to surprise discrimination. If I am denied a job, an apartment, a room at a hotel, a table at a restaurant or a procedure by a doctor because I am a lesbian, that is a deep, intense and tangible hurt. That hurt is not alleviated because I might be able to go down the street and get a job, an apartment, a hotel room, a restaurant table or a medical procedure from someone else. The assault to my dignity and my sense of safety in the world occurs when the initial denial happens. That assault is not mitigated by the fact that others might not treat me in the same way.

Thus, for all my sympathy for the evangelical Christian couple who may wish to run a bed and breakfast from which they can exclude unmarried straight couples and all gay couples, this is a point where I believe the “zero sum” nature of the game inevitably comes into play. And, in making the decision in this zero sum game, I am convinced society should come down on the side of protecting the liberty of LGBT people. Once an individual chooses to enter the stream of economic commerce by opening a commercial establishment, I believe it is legitimate to require that they play by certain rules. If the government tolerated the private exclusionary policies of such individuals in the commercial sector, such toleration would necessarily come at the cost of gay people’s sense of belonging and safety in society. Just as we do not tolerate private racial beliefs that adversely affect African-Americans in the commercial arena, even if such beliefs are based on religious views, we should similarly not tolerate private beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity that adversely affect LGBT people.

In other words, Feldblum believes that a business should not be allowed to discriminate against lgbts no matter the so-called "deeply held personal beliefs" of the owner.

Thirdly, Feldblum never "snapped Gays win, Christians lose.” In fact, she never said it.  The claim that Feldblum said "gays win, Christians lose" is a lie which has been already debunked several times, including by yours truly in a post early last year.  In that post, I uncovered that the claim was derived from a deliberate twisting of her words from another religious right spokesperson.

Matt Barber has nothing to worry about because no one in this country can be criminalized or have their freedoms taken away for being a hypocritical liar or a so-and-so who distorts Christianity for their own selfish purposes.

Although he certainly makes a good case for such a criminalization, doesn't he?  (just kidding)