Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Chuck Colson :: Townhall.com Columnist
Check Your Faith at the Door
by Chuck Colson
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Imagine you own a small business—let’s say a donut shop—and you have an employee who is late for work everyday and is rude to customers. When you fire him, he claims it is really because he is gay—and sues.

Or imagine you run a daycare center in your church basement. One day a homosexual applies for a job. When you turn him down, he says you broke the law.

Today, both of these stories are simply scenarios. But by the end of the week, they could be reality.

Under intense goading from the gay-rights lobby, the House of Representatives is poised to vote on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, called ENDA. This legislation would add “sexual orientation” to civil rights law. If passed, ENDA would cut deeply into the religious rights and freedoms of all Americans.

For example, an employer with a moral or religious belief opposed to homosexuality or bisexuality would be forced to give up those rights the moment he arrives at his office. No business would be allowed to refuse to hire a homosexual for any reason. Fire a person because of incompetence—he would say it’s because he is gay, or just even perceived to be gay.

That’s right. ENDA would also expand civil rights protections on the basis of a simple perception. Because ENDA includes “real or perceived” discrimination, an employee, or potential employee, could sue an employer for his or her perception of the employee’s sexual orientation. But sexual orientation is not like race, age, or gender; it is behavioral and not empirically verifiable. Can you imagine the license this would give the courts to begin to investigate peoples’ sex lives? It’s astonishing.

If passed, ENDA would place all the power of the federal government in direct opposition to the beliefs of all major faith groups in America regarding the teachings about sexuality. ENDA would also undermine the institution of marriage by pronouncing traditional sexual morality a form of discrimination. This legislation will lead to a flood of lawsuits; employers would inevitably be forced to require marriage-like benefits to homosexual employees.

The bill also includes phony religious protection language that does not exempt all religious schools and universities (even K through 12).

Pro-ENDA lawmakers are being especially disingenuous. Many congressmen are going to the floor to make speeches about the value of faith groups in American life. The idea seems to be to create the appearance of how much they care about religious communities—records they can point to later for cover as they vote for bills like ENDA. It’s astonishing how easily they think Christians can be fooled, isn’t it? Do they still think evangelicals are poor, ignorant, and easy to command, as the Washington Post once said?

The Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual rights group, is having their annual gala (a dinner) this weekend—and congressional leaders want to hand them a big victory. You and I need to get to our telephones immediately, especially if you own a business, and call our members of Congress. We must tell them that we are not fooled by any of this religious protection language, that this bill discriminates against religious business owners, and that we want them to vote against this invasion of religious freedom. If you visit the BreakPoint website, you will find more information about ENDA and how it will cut into the rights of faith communities.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Chuck Colson was the Chief Counsel for Richard Nixon and served time in prison for Watergate-related charges. In 1976, Colson founded Prison Fellowship Ministries, which, in collaboration with churches of all confessions and denominations, has become the world's largest outreach to prisoners, ex-prisoners, crime victims, and their families.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Chuck Colson's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Another fine can of worms.....
and a little more government control = less freedom for all

"orientation"
"Orientation" is apparently equated with "homosexuality" in the proposal. Therefore, let's take a few minutes to reflect on all of the other many and varied "orientations" out there. [For an example, see http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298894,00.html.] Now why should our society "discriminate" against those orientations?

Call me crazy but I will not be a bit surprised to see the emergence of the word "pedophobe" within the next 20-30 years. We're talking major slippery slope.

Oops ... bad link. sorry.
The dot-right bracket was included in that link by TH. Here's one that works:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298894,00.html

my bad. should have seen that coming.

What is the big deal?
If I had a religious belief that said blacks and women should not be allowed to work, should I be able to run my business on that premise, and reject all blacks/women?

If you say yes, I disagree with you, but at least your argument is internally consistent.

If you say no (and I suspect most would) then the ONLY argument in Colson's column that remains standing is this one:

"But sexual orientation is not like race, age, or gender; it is behavioral and not empirically verifiable. Can you imagine the license this would give the courts to begin to investigate peoples’ sex lives? It’s astonishing."

This is an illusionary problem because, as Colson mentions in the same paragraph, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THE VICTIM IS ACTUALLY GAY. He's a victim of discrimination if the employer fires him BECAUSE he is PERCIEVED to be gay. Any investigation of the victim's private life is beside the point.

YES, this opens the door to frivolous lawsuits. Frivolous lawsuits have been a problem since the very first nondiscrimination law was enacted. Loads of such laws have been around for a long time and our judicial system hasn't collapsed quite yet.

Remember that the burden of proof is on the victim to show beyond reasonable doubt that the employer discriminated based on perceived orientation. This requires e-mails, taped conversation, other witnesses, etc. It's not something easy to do.

And if the lawsuit does turn out to be frivolous, the accuser ought to pay the bills for both sides :)

Kahryl Bravo
Loser pays, would solve a great many of our problems. Frankly, I would not be nearly as bothered by law suits if such a system were in play in this nation. We need it badly.

Sexual Orientation
I assume this would preempt state criminal laws. What about statutory rape, rape of a child(where the child consents but is under thirteen years of age for example), polygamy, bigamy?

Oh Great…
“YES, this opens the door to frivolous lawsuits. Frivolous lawsuits have been a problem since the very first nondiscrimination law was enacted. Loads of such laws have been around for a long time and our judicial system hasn't collapsed quite yet.

Remember that the burden of proof is on the victim to show beyond reasonable doubt that the employer discriminated based on perceived orientation. This requires e-mails, taped conversation, other witnesses, etc. It's not something easy to do.

And if the lawsuit does turn out to be frivolous, the accuser ought to pay the bills for both sides :) “ … Kahryl


you feel it is OK to legitimize this quagmire of a law because you think the accuser if found to be wrong, which most likely would be a little sweetie that makes little to nothing, hence the reason for the lawsuit to begin with, is capable of “paying” the thousands of dollars a business owner would be forced to pay out in defending himself.

Here is the real world fact for you. Ninety-nine percent of small businesses are only ONE LAWSUIT away from going out of business.

Yeah, “Mr. lite in the loafers” who probably is only making 30K per/yr has millions to cover unnecessary legal expenses. *rolleyes*

What good comes out of this when the business has been driven out of business because their cash flow dried up from paying lawyer fees?

This sounds to me...
like Congress attempting to make a law respecting the free exercise of one's religion.

TopGun,
None of the (quite legitimate) issues you bring up are unique to sexual orientation anti-discrimination laws. They are possible in ANY discrimination lawsuit by an employee against his/her company, or for that matter just about any serious lawsuit at all.

Have we not done this to ourselves?
Have we not spent the better part of the last century insuring that our children have been taught that there is a strict, inpregnable wall between faith and action? How many Christians are proud of practicing their 'religion' an hour a week in church and not 'forcing it on other people' by actually practicing what they preach? We have been sitting by as generations were taught that our founding fathers best move was being smart enough to act like atheists when they wrote the Constitution. It does not have to be true; it has to be believed.

I have never had a problem with anybody honestly not liking me. Employers can discriminate against me because I belong to no 'endangered species.' As long as I have the same privilege, I have no problem with that. You have as much right to do soemthing stupid as you have to do something brilliant. It is only in allowing both that we learn which is which. Maybe that is the whole point.

Our enemies patted us on the back for giving up our birthright, so we did. We gave our opponents credit for things that we did and they gave us the blame for their actions in return. One side was clearly right and the other side could not stand the competition. Now we are trying to survive in a renewed pagan environment that has been blinded to the truth by its induced rage against us. The name of Jesus should not generate a gut reaction of revulsion greater than the names of Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin.

religion
"But sexual orientation is not like race, age, or gender; it is behavioral and not empirically verifiable.

__________________________________________

Just like religion, which is already protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Last I heard, religion is a choice and a behavior. Why do you think it is ok to discriminate against one group and not another? Why do you think religious people should be allowed to discriminate against those they disagree with but the non-religious can't discriminate against Christians in the workplace? Would you have a problem with the HRC firing someone for being a Christian? I personally have a problem with all employment discrimination that is not based on performance (it's true, I am against lazy employees).

ca, your public education is showing...
ca writes: "Just like religion, which is already protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Last I heard, religion is a choice and a behavior. Why do you think it is ok to discriminate against one group and not another? Why do you think religious people should be allowed to discriminate against those they disagree with..."

Religious freedom is a right enumerated in the Constitution (NOT the Civil Rights Act of 1964). Homosexuality is NOT an enumerated right. Based on that alone, I would say that religious freedom is MORE important than sexual freedom - at least in this country - and is worthy of greater protections than sexual behavior.

Do you value freedom?
Seriously, this is yet another example of what happens when you allow the federal government to determine the morality of its people. Instead of adding more legislation at the federal level, we need to get the government out of our lives and our companies. When you rely upon the government for funding and regulations, you become a slave to its whim.

There is only one candidate who is truly addressing these issues. I know what you all are thinking... yet another "spammer" for Ron Paul. The reason why you hear from us so often is because we are so concerned with where our country is heading, and Ron Paul hits so many of these issues dead on for one simple reason: he supports the constitution. Whether it is our foreign policy, economic reform, or overrun government bureaucracy, his conservative philosophies are offering a real alternative to the same old tired mantras we here from the current crop of Republicans and Democrats.

If you have not done serious research on Ron Paul, I encourage you to do so. He is the best chance our country has had for real change in a very long time.

phileo,
The Constitution only restricts CONGRESS from discriminating based on religion, not independent businessmen. The Civil Rights act of 1964 extended this protection to employees of government-independent businesses.

kathryl
Kathryl, thank you for responding to phileo.
_______________________________
I would say that religious freedom is MORE important than sexual freedom - at least in this country - and is worthy of greater protections than sexual behavior.
_______________________________

I would say that both are important and worthy of protection.

In terms of employment discrimination, which is what this is about, it is not sexual behavior that matters but sexual orientation. It is merely protecting gay people (or people that are thought to be gay by the employer) from being discriminated based on that identity just like religious people are protected in the same way. If I know you identify yourself as (or even just think you might be) a muslim (or mormon or baptist or...) and want to fire you for that, I can't, which is as it should be. It's not a reason to discriminate. Get it? Unless, of course, you think all of those reasons are acceptable reasons to discriminate. In that case, you should be arguing to get rid of all of it.

By the way, I went to both public and private schools, not that it should matter.

So what's new?
I worked for a firm that was terrorized for many years by a militant Black woman who was rude, disrespectful and what we called a "bomb thrower" in less hair-trigger times; she was someone who went out of her way to set people against one another and sat back and laughed.

When our mid sized firm was taken over by a very large firm, she was fired. She instantly filed suit claiming, as she had throughout her career, that it was Racism. The new firm made mince meat of her as an example to the rest.

So it all depends on how tough your lawyers are, as to how far this kind of thing can go...not to mention how frightened the company is of name calling terrorists.

P.S. to Kahryl
"This is an illusionary problem because, as Colson mentions in the same paragraph, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THE VICTIM IS ACTUALLY GAY. He's a victim of discrimination if the employer fires him BECAUSE he is PERCIEVED to be gay. Any investigation of the victim's private life is beside the point."

No, you have stood the argument on its head. What the point of the column is, is that no matter what the reason given for the person being canned (or not hired in the first place), the gay terrorist response is that it was "because I am gay." Even if the employer had no reason to know and in fact did not know that the employee was gay. In point of fact an employer can hire or not hire anybody at whim. Just ask that guy who tried to get a job as a Hooters Girl.

ca, PLEASE explain...
quote from ca: "...it is not sexual behavior that matters but sexual orientation." What is the difference between "orientation" and "behavior"? For instance, I happen to have a circle of acquaintances whose "orientation" is, as far as I know, heterosexual. The reason I hesitate is because their chosen "behavior" is sexual abstinence/celibacy. Are homosexually oriented people ever abstinent or celibate?

I believe heterosexuals in the workplace should either be abstinent or silent concerning their sexual practices. I consider this proper decorum. Why is it discriminatory to expect homosexuals to adhere to the same standard?

AudiR10,
The argument I was refuting in that quote is Colson's parinoia that this law would somehow provoke investigations into peoples' sexual private lives ("Is he really gay?"). I was not refuting the idea of frivolous lawsuits. I address the problem of frivolous lawsuits further down.

Yes, a malevolent gay person (look up "terrorist", it has nothing to do with the context you're using it in) might claim that he was fired for being gay regardless of the actual circumstances.

A black woman might do the same thing (as in your example).

Heck a WHITE MAN could do the same if he was fired by a black.

Or a Christian if he was fired by a Muslim, etc, etc.

The libertarian argument is that none of these people need to be protected - the free market will ensure that companies with sensible hiring/firing policies will beat out the companies with idiotic, racist/sexist policies. I have no problem with this argument. If you think ALL the anti-discrimination laws should be stripped away, go ahead.

It is Colson's singling out of gays to be denied protection that gets my hackles up.

phileo
"Are homosexually oriented people ever abstinent or celibate?"

Yes. I was until well into my 20's while knowing I was gay as early as 12. I believe there is a young and articulate Christian gay man on TH that posts about his experiences as both gay and celibate and Christian. Unfortunately, I can't remember his screen name.

_____________________________________

"I believe heterosexuals in the workplace should either be abstinent or silent concerning their sexual practices. I consider this proper decorum. Why is it discriminatory to expect homosexuals to adhere to the same standard?"

Sounds good to me for both groups in most workplaces. And that is not discriminatory. I don't think that is the point of ENDA or the column, however. What is discriminatory is firing or not hiring someone because of their orientation. Now, if they are constantly talking about their sexual life (gay or straight) at work or having sex in the workplace (gay or straight...and yuck either way) instead of doing their job, there would be grounds to fire because of their work performance.
_____________________________________

AudiR10

If you're so worried that you're going to be accused or discrimination when you fire an employee that is not working up to the required standards of their job or doing something illegal at the workplace or whatever, by all means openly document the infractions and the steps taken to terminate the employee. That is how one will make "mince meat" of the employee.

Homos Making a Push

All of this is just a long term plan of the Homos to continually push their unhealthy lifestyles upon the public in the hope of it becoming more and more acceptable as they continually push it in our face while “normal” people do not push their orientations in our face.

Here is where the homo’s rights STOP.

A business owner has the right NOT TO HIRE people who will make their customers uncomfortable or make their customers think the owner supports this despicable and unhealthy lifestyle which could cost the business owner lost revenues from losing customers, not that the homos could give a damn.

A business owner has every right to choose who he hires that will be the face of his business as long as they do not break hiring laws.

The simple truth is homos do not act like normal people. They go out of their way to MAKE SURE everyone around their vicinity knows what they are all about with their mannerisms. Colored people, religious people and others that the Civil Rights ACT protects DO NOT do this. And this is where the owner has a right to not have this forced upon HIS business or HIS customers.

What you do outside in the streets and out on the town is your business as long as it does not have a negative affect on the place of business you work at.

A business has a right to fire a child molester once discovered. Keeping someone like this employed would hurt his business if customers found out he had a child molester working their. It is the same thing with a Murderer, or any other type of disgusting human that normal people in society look down upon as harmful to our country’s morals and ethics.

Again, the business owner HAS THE RIGHT to choose who will be the face of his business being that person is part of branding his business to the public.

Chuck Colson can you tell teh diffrence?
Imagine you own a small business—let’s say a donut shop—and you have an employee who is late for work everyday and is rude to customers. When you fire him, he claims it is really because he is a jew and sues.

Or imagine you run a daycare center in your church basement. One day a jew applies for a job. When you turn him down, he says you broke the law.

Today, both of these stories are simply scenarios. But by the end of the week, they could be reality.

Under intense goading from the jewish rights lobby, the House of Representatives is poised to vote on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, called ENDA. This legislation would add “faith” to civil rights law. If passed, ENDA would cut deeply into the religious rights and freedoms of all Americans.




TopGun
Are you saying that Nazi business owners have the right to not hire Jews?

ca
"...gay and celibate and Christian," is the ONLY way one can be gay AND a true Christian. By the way, straight and celibate is the ONLY way a heterosexual can be a true Christian outside of marriage.

The Bible is very clear that any sex ouside of marriage is ticket to Hell unless one repents. ENDA is being proposed because the Biblical standard for sexual behavior is considered "hate speech" by mainstream gay advocacy groups.

phileo
I'm not Christian nor am I trying to be a Christian.

uber
Since when is Nazism a religion?

yawn
Maybe if the day care center in the church basement hires the gay staff person, they'll learn that gay people are pretty much just like everyone else. (My son's kindergarten teacher was gay. Big yawn.) Hopefully the day care center will learn that there are far greater worries in life.

We Christians should worry about the things Christ worried about like caring for the poor and healing the sick. All this hateful stuff is an embarassment.

Why Change the Topic?

“Are you saying that Nazi business owners have the right to not hire Jews?” … Uber

My latest information tells me Jews do not flaunt around like a bunch of queen bees in the workplace pushing their mannerisms on everyone in site. This is what this whole issue is about. The homos resent religion for its facts stating how sinful and unhealthy their lifestyle is. They have to attack religion through a different angle by labeling it a civil rights issue like the minorities do, categorize everything a civil rights issue so they can get the race baiters and MSM behind them, to achieve their goal of pushing their sick and unhealthy lifestyle.

As usual, the left take a post and try to twist it into something it is not.



TopGun
Do you actually even know any gay people? Your stereotyping puts you squarely in the "Bear false witness" column. Judge not lest ye be judged. I live in the region of the country where nearly every place else has scared their gays to. Very few "flaunt their mannerisms." Gays actually formed their own church, the Metropolitan Community Church.

Just the Facts Mam

“Do you actually even know any gay people?” … Cam

Yes. Where do you think I obtained the “facts” I posted, out of thin air?

“Your stereotyping puts you squarely in the "Bear false witness" column.” … Cam

No, my stereotyping hits the nail dead center on the head and as usual you liberals cannot dispute the facts so you resort to your standard protocol of twisting a person’s post around to fit your agenda. You guys never can debate facts when they are overwhelmingly truthful.

“Judge not lest ye be judged.” … Cam

Judging a person and pointing out people who break God’s laws that are harmful to society are two different things. You should get educated so you recognize the difference.

“I live in the region of the country where nearly every place else has scared their gays to. Very few "flaunt their mannerisms." … Cam

You say very few flaunt their mannerisms? Do you really think the whole country is stupid to believe that just because you decided to print that lie? So when the light in the loafers crowd has their public parade and open orgies in San Francisco, I guess that is considered not flaunting their mannerisms too.

“Gays actually formed their own church, the Metropolitan Community Church.” … Cam

Yeah, how convenient to form your own church so all of you feel “righteous” together in supporting your sinful and unhealthy lifestyles so you do not have to answer to others who do live by God’s word. I guess you feel if enough gay churches are started then you can change the meanings in the Bible too. Of course that is your MO, change everyone to accept your sick and unhealthy lifestyles.

What a bunch of hypocrites, but then hypocrisy is the lefts idol.

Hey next time you might want to actually think before you dispute well known facts most people are aware of.


Exactly
The government should have no right, in any way, shape, or form, to tell private businesses who they can hire or fire. Here in Los Angeles, there are entire law firms of only Asians, who only work with Asians, and will only hire Asians. Do you think I, being white, would *ever* prevail in a lawsuit? Not a chance.

The simple fact of the matter is that if a gay-run business only hired homosexuals, you can bet your bottom dollar that they wouldn't be shut down or fined for not hiring, or firing, someone who was heterosexual. There are also a lot of black-owned business that only hire blacks.

If it's a private business, then the business should be able to hire and fire whomever it pleases. If the government refuses to hire that business for any contracts - fine, great. That is the STATE government's choice. The idea that the government, however, at any level, can tell us what to think and what to believe to this depth of interference is ridiculous.

I've been told I wasn't going to get scholarships (when I applied to colleges) because I was white (always off-the-record, or through back channel) and I have been told I wouldn't get hired because I was white. Know what? Couldn't care less. That is the decision of those institutions and those businesses.

This kind of law is a DIRECT violation of the Constitution, which is supposed to protect the free practice of religion. (And, yes, there are protections against "religions" that call for murder or physical attacks against others. That is not an analogous situation to this).

the sinner,

Charles

Chuck
How would we Christians feel if an amployer was accused of firing someone because they got a divorce in an un-biblically justified manner...meaning without biblical grounds?
Until the church addresses the divorce epidemic it lacks standing on this! I am a Christian conservative, and I am offended by hypocrisy.

for Kahryl
Lahryl asks: "If I had a religious belief that said blacks and women should not be allowed to work, should I be able to run my business on that premise, and reject all blacks/women?"

The Catholic Church already does that. You won't see a woman as Pope any time soon. And openly gay men aren't allowed to become priests or Cardinals or Popes either.

And you wouldn't REALLY insist that a Jewish synagogue must allow a Muslim to serve as their rabbi, would you? Religious organizations have the right to discriminate. Always have, always will.

What can go wrong
The ENDA bill is ostensibly written to try to exempt religious organizations. But the problem is that religious organizations in America do a lot of things in the civil arena too.

Here's an example from Massachusetts a couple years ago:

Catholic Charities ran the oldest and most successful program of child adoption services here in Massachusetts. Then a couple years ago, gays sued them because Catholic Charities wouldn't allow a gay couple to adopt one of the children.

Catholic Charities protested that their faith prohibits them from placing children with gay parents. The gays would not back down. So in the end, Catholic Charities just shut down their entire adoption service in disgust. They said if they can't run adoptions the way they believe is morally best, they won't do any more adoption services at all.

And so Massachusetts lost a valuable adoption service because of this absolutist idea that even religious organizations must handle civil services (like adoption) without regard to the teachings of their own faith.

SteveL,
Correct me if I'm wrong (I think it varies by state?) but you're allowed to discriminate based on your religion if you're

1. Nonprofit, and

2. Apolitical.

And that suits me fine. This bill is about mainstream, for-profit businesses.

Sorry Catholic Charities' adoption services had to shut down. I think those who are genuinely working for charity ought to be able to direct their charity as they please (even to the exclusion of homosexuals, etc).

However it gets complicated when those charities accept government funding - their services then indirectly represent the government. I don't know if CC was government-funded or not (and couldn't find out, looking around) but that may be a reason behind its conflict with the state.

Exactly when
was the last time a "minority" (black, Hispanic, gay, female) was prosecuted for discrimination? I guess they must be incapable of commiting such an offense.

conservativation
I'm not exactly sure *what* you're trying to say. I would only reiterate: the proposition that any government entity has the right to tell a private business who that business can and cannot fire is ludicrous. It is mindless state control.

In effect, it is the state saying "if you believe this, you are bad, and will be punished. You cannot behave in ways that conform to your belief system if the state doesn't like this."

Again, I would warn against the attempts to use ACTS of racial violence (like murder) as an example of why my position might be wrong. There is an entirely other set of laws for murder that don't require additional belief systems to be behind them to make the acts criminal (which is why the state of mind elements in said crimes are not, in fact, comparable).

the sinner,

Charles

All this may be moot anyway...
...since apparently Bush is poised to veto this dopey bill.

Gee whiz
Solution:
Let government set any rules for employment it wants. Churches and other such groups simply need to make all such positions voluntary and filled from within the membership. Then vote a 'suitable honorarium' for each volunteer, who must be vetted and voted on by the entire congregation.


Three people or more can fall in love
If two people can fall sexually in love so can three (Polygamy), so can four(Polyamory) so can a hundred or more (Tribalism). Now we are just like the Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan)and this lifestyle evolves to destroying democracy.

What right do Gays have to spread HIV and other communicable diseases?

Gay is first a health issue as their life span is 25 years less than the norm as their immune systems succumb to every disease imaginable.

If we have a flu pandemic they will be the first to get it and pass it on in the work place.

Gays will have to be avoided like the plague.

Gay is a health hazard to EVERYONE and most of all to themselves.

Support the Gay lifestyle and you are wishing death on your loved ones. You are doing them no favor you are aiding in their early painful death. Encourage them to leave this self destructive promiscuous SEX CULT.

If this bill passes...
...ALL of us straight folk should immediately declare ourselves bisexuals coming out of the closet. Then we could retain our relationships with our significant others and make this puppy null and void, for if everyone is covered by this law, then it becomes useless.

Okay, Kahryl, I'll take the bait ...
I believe that the civil rights acts have actually denied many their civil rights. I have a right to freedom of association. If I'm narrow minded enough to want to associate with people of my own ethnicity, sex, or faith, I should have the right to do so. I believe the free market ramifications of bad publicity would cause business owners to think otherwise.

Now, if I contracted with the federal government, then I'd have to meet their requirements to obtain those contracts. Similarly, customers could choose to take their business elsewhere if they didn't agree with my business practices. But no one should be able to coerce me, through an unconstitutional law, to operate my business in a way I choose not to.

porchtoad
ENDA does cover you "straight folk" since the terminology is "sexual orientation" but if you want to declare yourself bisexual, by all means go ahead.

Homos
are a menace to society & any pushing of this dirty life style by liberals is grounds for secession.
Let the liberals & homos have what WE allow them to have and nothing more.

Kahryl writes:, 02, 2007 12:15 PM


If I had a religious belief that said blacks and women should not be allowed to work, should I be able to run my business on that premise, and reject all blacks/women?

DESKJOCKEY WRITES

I don’t think religion need be required. I should be able to enter into transaction with my labor and assets with anybody I please. Of course if my labor and therefore I belong to the state then naturally the state should tell me who I can transact my labor with.

independent Thinker, 02, 2007 1:05 PM

This sounds to me... like Congress attempting to make a law respecting the free exercise of one's religion.

DESKJOCKEY WRITES

They are protecting the free exercise of the religion of Analtheism.

Christians CAN'T check it at the door
Jas 1:8
A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

Jas 4:8
Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.

Mark

minorities
The usual suspects have learned nothing. The one's choice in religion still cannot have the government hedge the laws against minorities in this country.
I can't believe how it's still argued that being gay is a choice or that celibacy over a lifetime is a preferable choice STILL for those who aren't members of that religion.
All I'm seeing is convoluted Catch 22 circular laws that cram gays and lesbians into unrealistic legal labyrinths.
When it comes to ANY issues on LGBT, sermons are inevitable.
There is no elected official who can uphold the laws of the Bible precisely because it's personal and so is interpretation which has been abused and abusive before. So caution is fair when it comes to QUALITY OF LIFE issues for minorities.
Minorities are wholly dependent on fairness and goodwill in a country like this.
Being gay isn't strictly about a behavioral issue. Even if it were, I don't see justifying workplaces issues on this as if gay people aren't intellegent, fair, dedicated or trustworthy.
And to see these postings, being gay is synonymous with all things bad and inferior the way black skin was considered to make someone that way.
Why sow distrust and dishonesty and bad faith...and then expect to never reap it upon yourself?
You know you have benefitted from the power structure in this country. At this point in time, all this mytholizing ENDA make Chicken Little look like General McArthur. Is there NOTHING you can't argue that isn't based on a sermon or exaggerated conjecture about what YOU won't get to have?

du writes: 09, 2007 7:53 PM

The one's choice in religion still cannot have the government hedge the laws against minorities in this country.

DESKJOCKEY WRITES

This is new to us, what law are you talking about.

du writes: 09, 2007 7:53 PM

I can't believe how it's still argued that being gay is a choice.

DESKJOCKEY WRITES

I think the reason that this choice myth continues is that so many, if not most, in the religion of Analtheism convert. High priest Michael Glatze was on TV, radio, putting out magazines weekly for the Analtheist and one day he said this stuff smells and converts. These converts are keeping the myth going.


du writes: 09, 2007 7:53 PM

…or that celibacy over a lifetime is a preferable choice...

DESKJOCKEY WRITES

How do you know it isn’t preferable? Paul in the Bible said it is.

du writes: 09, 2007 7:53 PM

All I'm seeing is convoluted Catch 22 circular laws that cram gays and lesbians into unrealistic legal labyrinths.

DESKJOCKEY WRITES

John Gotti had to fight the same world view most of his life.

There is no law cramming gays and lesbians. TX had such laws and removed the label gay and lesbian from the law so that it now properly bans all who engage in Analtheism. I agree with you that certain adherents should not be singled out. Imagine if only Italians were listed in the laws against the Mafia, it would also be discrimination. That is why the entire religion of Analtheism is banned not certain adherents.

du writes: 09, 2007 7:53 PM

When it comes to ANY issues on LGBT, sermons are inevitable.

DESKJOCKEY WRITES

The Analtheism religion is a problem of natural law not theology therefore you will find pagans also against your religion

du writes: 09, 2007 7:53 PM


There is no elected official who can uphold the laws of the Bible precisely because it's personal and so is interpretation which has been abused and abusive before. So caution is fair when it comes to QUALITY OF LIFE issues for minorities.

DESKJOCKEY WRITES

I agree that elected officials can’t uphold the laws of the Bible. Therefore Jesus gave them grace instead of law.

Granted many abuse and misappropriate the Bible. I would suggest that you find some good Bible Commentaries like Matthew Henry that are accepted around the world so you aren’t hoodwinked.

du writes: 09, 2007 7:53 PM

Minorities are wholly dependent on fairness and goodwill in a country like this.

DESKJOCKEY WRITES

That is exactly how John Gotti and Michael Vic felt.

du writes: 09, 2007 7:53 PM

I don't see justifying workplaces issues on this as if gay people aren't intellegent, fair, dedicated or trustworthy.

DESKJOCKEY WRITES

Some folks don’t trust Analtheist because they lack common sense, good judgment and unhealthy life styles that send the health plan cost out the roof. In fact alcoholics,who like Blacks can’t change, also are discriminated against by the airline Pilots association and other employers. Granted many Analtheist are alcoholics but in any case there are many that can perform well on the job, but why gamble if you have a candidate without the baggage.

du writes: 09, 2007 7:53 PM

And to see these postings, being gay is synonymous with all things bad and inferior the way black skin was considered to make someone that way.

DESKJOCKEY WRITES

I guess that is why Blacks have the highest percentage of themselves in Analtheism. They are already discriminated against so there is nothing to loose.

du writes: 09, 2007 7:53 PM


Why sow distrust and dishonesty and bad faith...and then expect to never reap it upon yourself?

DESKJOCKEY WRITES

Do you mean that if I’m not honest about your perversion, I won’t have to worry about one of you trying it on me. So if I lie along with you then you promise to not try that Analtheism on me.

du writes: 09, 2007 7:53 PM


You know you have benefitted from the power structure in this country. At this point in time, all this mytholizing ENDA make Chicken Little look like General McArthur. Is there NOTHING you can't argue that isn't based on a sermon or exaggerated conjecture about what YOU won't get to have?

DESKJOCKEY WRITES

I haven’t benefited at all. I remember growing up in public housing and my first friend Junie Bug (Black nickname) had the same tricycle I had. Then years later dad, a floor sweeper, got $600 dollars from his boss to buy a house and we done moved right in the ghetto and there went the neighborhood. Now they had White honkie trash in a small house half the size of theirs with no car. The Po black folks were thinking they finally had gotten away from the man and then he moves across the street and ruins their property values.

But I looked at my neighbors big two story 1400 sq ft homes and said to myself someday I can be Black and have a home like that. And although I never became Tiger Wood, Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jordan, Parsons of TWC, Raines of Fanny Mae, John Thompson of Symantec, etc. I eventually became a great soul brother and soul dancer and would be the only honkie at the college Black dances with 800 folks. Now I did sun tan all day in the summer so I sort of looked the part. Who says you can't change you skin tell me or Michael Jackson that. And I eventually got my 2 story house without the benefit of giver-ment. They just didn’t believe me when I pleaded I had 1/64th black blood and wanted my helping hand up.

Nope, got no benefit from the man here my friend.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.