Attack on First Amendment Liberties? I don't think so

Following the same pattern of lies they have been engaging in, members of the anti-gay industry is trying to frame ENDA, the law that would protect lgbts from discrimination, as a piece of disciminatory legislation:

Matt Barber, Policy Director for Cultural Issues with Concerned Women for America (CWA), warned, “This bill would force Christian, Jewish or Muslim business owners to hire people who openly choose to engage in homosexual or cross-dressing behaviors despite a sincerely held religious belief that those behaviors are dangerous, sinful and not in keeping with basic morality.

So exemptions for religious institutions is not enough for these groups. They are trying to break it down to the fact that business owners who have a personal aversion to homosexuality should be able to discriminate?

Sorry that just doesn't make sense.

What's the next step? Christian business owners with a "sincerely held religious belief" against Islam or Judaism should discriminate? And that crack about "behavior" won't help Barber's argument. Defining homosexuality by what one does rather than who one is actually hurts Barber's argument. After all, people choose to follow a particular religion. Should they be discriminated against because of it?

I think that Barber's poor argument for allowing discrimination against lgbts underscores just who we are dealing with here. Barber's group, Concerned Women for America, and other so-called pro-family groups aren't interested in fairness or any values that don't embrace their world view of things.

They have a right to believe that homosexuality is a sin but the way they go about trying to justify ways to codify their beliefs into public policy just goes to prove how un-Christian they are.

The next argument Barber brings up further insinuates my point:

For instance, female employees would have to endure both systematic sexual harassment and a hostile work environment by being forced to share bathroom facilities with male employees who get their jollies from wearing a dress, high heels and lipstick.

Barber's claim is a prime of example of anti-gay industry technique number five as outlined in my upcoming book - dire consequences, or predicting that pro-gay laws will cause all sorts of mayhem to take place. Barber offers no proof of his predictions because he is relying on the ignorance and fear that many have of the transgender community to quantify his lies.

The fact of the matter is that I really don't think that Matt Barber actually believes what he writes. I think he believes that homosexuality is a sin and therefore any technique or claim that keeps lgbts from being more protected and visible is permissible.

In other words, I think that Barber is looking at what he is doing as the job of a political operative trying to win an election.

Now for a political operative attempting to win an election, Barber's techniques are tolerable; awful, shameful, but tolerable. Politics is a world of compromises where sometimes the ends do have to justify the means.

But for a man such as Matt Barber and a group (i.e. Concerned Women for America) who puts themselves on a pedestal as being pro-family and the purveyors of morality, if the means are not pure then the ends cannot be pure. God does not like ugly, even if it is done in his name.

Using evasive claims about "sincerely held religious beliefs" and horror stories of abnormal crossdressers is yet another hole in Barber's and Concerned Women for America's careful built wall of integrity.

They obviously did not learn anything during their unsuccessful fight to keep the House from passing hate crimes legislation. How long will they continue to dig their well of lies before they fall in?

Framing the argument

An important part of winning an argument is the ability to frame the argument. Sometimes speed is of the essence.

That is how the anti-gay industry has beaten us time and time again.

With that in mind, I turn to an old canard; Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth (in name only):

Fast on the heels of the “Hate Crimes” bill (H.R. 1597, recently passed by the House) is the second of two top homosexual activist priorities: ENDA, the “Employment Nondiscrimination Act,” H.R. 2015, recently introduced by homosexual Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). Please read at the bottom of this story the homosexual newspaper Washington Blade’s analysis of the ”transgender” provision of this radical bill.

. . .Several giant corporations have already settled on pro-”transgender” bathroom and dress policies — probably the same companies who would subject their employees to biased, pro-homosexual “diversity” lectures – but can you imagine inflicting these “transgender” regulations on small and mid-level companies through federal law via ENDA?

This is one of the most perverse applications of “civil rights” to date – and it’s headed straight for your business if you have 15 or more employees. What female employee wants to share the company restroom with a big-boned man claiming to be “transitioning” to “womanhood”? Will companies have to build “transgender male” and “transgender female” restrooms (or “Designated GLBT Restrooms”) to accommodate the various “orientations” and avoid government prosecution?

So according to Peter, lgbts should not have protection from job discrimination because a "big-boned" man who is transitioning into a woman would have to share a bathroom with other women.

Or as his colleague Matt Barber said:

Imagine, if you will, a 280 lb linebacker who likes to wear a dress and high heels and lipstick, you know comes to church wanting a job at the front desk as a receptionist and they turn him away because they don’t feel that that represents their values or the image that they’re trying to hold at that church, under ENDA they could be held accountable for discrimination against that individual.

Comments like these are not funny, especially if they are coming in a huge amount by constituents to their area Congressmen as reasons why the said Congressman should vote against pro-gay laws.

Before our eyes, the anti-gay industry is forging an ugly argument against ENDA. No matter how untrue it is, I am willing to bet that by this time Monday, almost every so-called pro-family web page, blog, etc. will be repeating the transsexual fear stories.

And these people will encourage others to spread these lies around, as well as call their Congressmen repeating these lies.

ENDA is not about transsexual men using the ladies room. For a Christian to say this knowing fully well that he or she is appealing to fear and ignorance is a sin. ENDA is about ensuring that lgbts are able to enjoy the protections and freedoms that this country affords every citizen in pursuit of doing their jobs.

Other distortions the anti-gay industry repeat are:
.
ENDA will cause gay quotas

The boy scouts and religious groups will be forced to hire gays and lesbians

We need to get on the ball and stop these lies before they start. These are the provisions of ENDA:

This Act shall not apply to any of the employment practices of a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society which has as its primary purpose religious ritual or worship or the teaching or spreading of religious doctrine or belief.

this Act shall not apply with respect to the employment of individuals whose primary duties consist of teaching or spreading religious doctrine or belief, religious governance, supervision of a religious order, supervision of persons teaching or spreading religious doctrine or belief, or supervision or participation in religious ritual or worship.

Under this Act, a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society may require that applicants for, and employees in, similar positions conform to those religious tenets that such corporation, association, institution, or society declares significant.

In this Act, the term `employment' does not apply to the relationship between the United States and members of the Armed Forces.

This title does not repeal or modify any Federal, State, territorial, or local law creating a special right or preference concerning employment for a veteran.

And just who would be prosecuted in Janet Folger's version of a perfect world?

Janet Folger is going all out against the recent hate crimes legislation that passed through the House of Representatives. Even after losing that fight, she is bringing her hysteria to the Senate fight:

Janet Folger of the ministry Faith 2 Action says the hate crimes bill passed by the House is aimed at pastors or anyone else who has the "audacity" to disagree with the homosexual agenda. "Mike is standing at a football bar, or he's standing at a restaurant, watching a game," she posits; "Bruce comes out of the restroom, and he's touching up his makeup. He's a cross-dresser with red-nail polish and a five o'clock shadow. He comes out and hits on Mike. Maybe he puts his arm around him or maybe he brushes or puts his hand through his hair."

The average man would "maybe want to push off such unwelcome advances," Folger observes. However, she warns, "That, if you touch him, is a hate crime.

I think it's safe to assume that girlfriend has lost her damned mind.

But let's look at Ms. Folger for a second. She is so intent on stopping what she sees as Christian persecution, that I have to wonder just how she feels about other forms of persecution under the law.

In 1998, Folger voiced her opinion on the now defunct sodomy laws:

Forrest Sawyer, substituting as host of ABC's Nightline on July 30, moderated a debate between Andrew Sullivan, editor the New Republic and Center for Reclaiming America Director Janet Folger, who engineered the ad campaign. Sullivan asked repeatedly whether Folger supports laws allowing imprisonment for having sex with someone of the same gender. After Folger gave several non-responsive answers, Sawyer pressed, "Ms. Folger, forgive me. He is asking the direct question, 'Do you support laws that advocate the imprisonment of people who engage in homosexual behavior?'" Folger answered, "I guess if you're looking at sodomy laws, there are sodomy laws on the books that I very much support."

In other words, while Folger now feels that hate crimes legislation will lead to Christians being unfairly jailed for voicing their opinions, she obviously felt that it was not a problem for gays and lesbians to be jailed for private sexual behavior that heterosexuals also partake of.

Now there are those who would correctly say that her comments about sodomy laws were over 10 years ago and that her opinion could have changed.

As far as I know, Folger has not said whether or not she feels the same way.

I personally think that someone should ask her.

More lies about ENDA courtesy of Janet Folger

Janet Folger must be trying to win a special award for distortions. Case in point, her take on the recent controversy that Republican presidential candidate Tommy Thompson caused during a recent debate:

Then Thompson had a right answer for the loaded question about the freedom of conscience – at first. Asked if a private employer should be able to fire a homosexual because of their homosexual behavior, Thompson said yes; however, the next day on CNN, he retracted it . . .

Folger distorted the question given to Thompson. This is what was actually said:

Thompson was asked by the moderator: “If a private employer finds homosexuality immoral, should he be allowed to fire a gay worker?”

Therein lies the distortion. No one asked Thompson about behavior. He was asked about orientation.

Janet Folger is lying again. It is starting to become a common occurrence for her.

She is slyly inferring that ENDA will deal with sexual behavior rather than sexual orientation. The two are not the same:

I am gay - that is a sexual orientation.

I am typing this blog - I am engaging in any type of sexual behavior, be it gay or straight.

Phrasing the discussion over ENDA as one of sexual behavior rather than orientation seems to be the game plan the anti-gay industry wants to follow. It is an old one for them.

The following transcript of Robert Knight (formerly of Concerned Women for America) sparring with commentator Bill O’Reilly on The O’Reilly Factor is an example of this. This transcript is included in my upcoming book:

O’REILLY: Let me stop you there. Hold it. If a guy’s in a workplace [and] he gets fired because the boss doesn’t like gays, you think that should be legally allowed?

KNIGHT: I don’t think that’s what’s happening in the workplace. People are more likely to be hired [because they’re gay].

O’REILLY: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. I just asked you a very direct question.

KNIGHT: Do you have any evidence of [people who were fi red for being homosexual]?

O’REILLY: I don’t have any evidence. It’s a hypothetical. If a boss fires somebody because [he’s] gay, should that be allowed?

KNIGHT: Well it depends on what brought that to his attention. If he brought gay pornography into the office.

Knight's words (and Folger's for that matter) show the psychological game the anti-gay industry tries to play on us when it comes to our jobs.

They seem to be saying "gays wouldn't have a problem with being fired for their orientation if they would just shut up about it."

It's a cruel point of view that not only exploits stereotypes but also tells lgbts to put themselves on a different standard than straight employees. While heterosexuals freely talk about their lives and the progression of their families, we are supposed to shut up and isolate ourselves in a bubble.

Two years ago at my job, my boyfriend sent me a dozen roses to commemorate Valentine's Day. When my co-workers asked about them, was I supposed to lie? Too bad because I didn't. If they didn't want to know who sent me the roses, they should have not asked.

A young lady who worked in my building received roses from her boyfriend. She was upfront as to who sent them to her. She didn't have to lie. Why should I?

Across America, many gay couples are raising children. Why shouldn't they be able to put pictures of families on their desks? And even if they don't have children, why shouldn't gay couples be able to put pictures of their significant other on their desks? Heterosexuals have that right and so should we.

See these are the things we are speaking of when we express the need for ENDA, not lies like the following voiced by Concerned Women for America member Matt Barber:

Imagine, if you will, a 280 lb linebacker who likes to wear a dress and high heels and lipstick, you know comes to church wanting a job at the front desk as a receptionist and they turn him away because they don’t feel that that represents their values or the image that they’re trying to hold at that church, under ENDA they could be held accountable for discrimination against that individual

It is one thing for the anti-gay industry to believe that gays have no concept of family or monogamy but it is an entirely different thing for them to try to force that image on us.

We should reject that mental prison every chance we get.

The Emperor Continues to Wear No Clothes

Fresh from last week's battle over hate crimes legislation, the anti-gay industry continues to lie about the bill. Apparently they are determined to claim that the bill will try to hinder Christians from preaching against homosexuality no matter how many times their lies have been refuted.

Chief among them is African-American minister Harry Jackson. Jackson, if you remember from last week, led a group of black ministers in a press conference opposing the bill.

What it amounted to is a group of black folks willing to exploit their status as past victims of discrimination for some face time.

Today, a column by Jackson appeared in the Christian Post. It's the usual amount of claptrap and lies he pushed last week.

However, in the midst of his nonsense, he said something that makes sense of a surreal level:

A growing number of black church goers are aghast that their most powerful institution is being undermined by a handful of autonomous, self-appointed leaders. The black church is the most legitimate grass roots movement in our community. Unfortunately, its voice has not been heard in this debate.

Mr. Jackson, if the black church's voice is not heard in this debate it is only because it has allowed itself to be silent. Too many black churches focus on tithing and minsterial hooping disguised as praise.

That's right. I said it. Too many black churches have members content on dancing in the aisles and shouting about how much they are "praising God" while the problems affecting our community continue unabated.

Fresh from praising and paying their ten percent, some of church members go home and cheat on their husbands, beat their wives, and take drugs.

While other members play an emotional game with themselves because they have been programmed not to embrace their God given gay or lesbian orientation.

Then come next Sunday, they get to do it over again.

Meanwhile, black ministers like yourself get fat on faith based initiatives and move to the front of the arena hogging up media attention.

If the black church is aghast, as you put it, by autonomous self-appointed leaders, then it should take more of an effort to push those self-appointed leaders like yourself aside and start focusing on the issues that affect our community.

Heads up on ENDA

Don't forget to contact your U.S. Senator about hate crimes legislation. The battle is not over yet.

Meanwhile, the anti-gay industry is gearing up to fight ENDA.

I am personally looking forward to this fight more than that of hate crimes legislation.

In fighting hate crimes legislation, the anti-gay industry had somewhat of a ground to stand on, albeit shaky ground.

With ENDA, they don't.

This is what they are claiming about ENDA:

ENDA loosely defines "sexual orientation" as "homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality," and also includes "gender identity," defined as "the gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual's designated sex at birth."

For those who don't recognize this argument, it is a continuation of the ones they used against hate crimes legislation.

They seem to have replaced the hate crimes legislation will allow these nasty things to be protected line of argument to the ENDA will allow these nasty things to be protected line of argument.

Talk about lack of originality but fear tactics rarely do involve originality.

I am surprised they are not using this argument seen here.

As you can see, this argument has holes so big you can ride a truck through them, including the distortion of Robert Spitzer's study on sexual orienation (why do they always use that one.)

I wonder if Concerned Women for America and the rest of the anti-gay industry will focus on the scale down argument or use that larger one. Either way, it wouldn't surprise me.

Flyer Number 2 - The anti-gay industry and Paul Cameron

Enough said

My flyers - a work in progress

While posting on the hate crimes legislation vote, I have also been working very hard to complete the editing of my book.

And I have been working on advertising flyers.

The flyer to the left is the first of four. It is a work in progress that you can click on to see a larger version of. Tell me what you think.

Also, don't leave without reading my take on today's hate crimes legislation vote if you haven't already.