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
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Pat Buchanan :: Townhall.com Columnist
Freedom vs. Equality
by Pat Buchanan
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


"Our Enemy, the State" was the title of libertarian Albert Jay Nock's classic that was once widely read by conservatives.

Nock was not an anarchist but a Jeffersonian. Government was necessary, but in its centralization lay the roots of tyranny.

And in 21st century America, Leviathan is indeed rising -- and, oddly, being welcomed by people who talk incessantly of freedom.

Consider the front-page story in The New York Times of Nov. 8, "House Backs Broad Protection for Gay Workers."

It began thus: "The House on Wednesday approved a bill granting broad protections against discrimination in the workplace for gay men, lesbians and bisexuals, a measure that supporters praised as the most important civil rights legislation since the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. ...

"The bill, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, is the latest version of legislation that Democrats have pursued since 1974. Representatives Ed Koch and Bella Abzug of New York then sought to protect gay men and lesbians with a measure they introduced on the fifth anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion, the brawl between gay men and police at a bar in Greenwich Village that is widely viewed as the start of the American gay rights movement."

Our Revolution had Concord Bridge. The French Revolution had the fall of the Bastille. The civil rights movement had Selma Bridge. The gay rights movement has -- a bar fight in Greenwich Village.

What would the new law do? Make it a federal crime for an employer "to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to the compensation terms, conditions or privileges of employment of the individual, because of such individual's actual or perceived sexual orientation."

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer called the measure "historic" and "momentous."

"It's wonderful," burbled Koch. Florida Rep. Kathy Castro exulted, "On this proud day, the Congress will act to ensure that all Americans are granted equal rights in the workplace."

Said Joe Solomese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest gay rights group in the country, "Today's vote in the House sends a powerful message about equality to the country, and it is a significant step forward for our community."

The bill will also do something else -- further restrict individual freedom and further criminalize personal conduct. It would tell an employer: You may not want to hire homosexuals, but you are no longer free not to. For if you fail or refuse to hire or promote a homosexual, we will punish you, fine you, shut you down, break you.

Through Congress, the gay rights activists are seeking to use law to impose their values on society.

A fair headline you will not see in the Times might read, "House Tells Employers: Hire Homosexuals -- or Else!"

In this bill, we see the triumph of the counterculture of the 1960s in making its moral values the basis of law, even as Christians once shaped society when America was a Christian country. In pre-secular America, homosexual sodomy was a crime, not a "lifestyle." The "lifestyle" view is now being enshrined in federal law.

In this homosexual rights law, and the way it is being hailed as progress, as Republicans grumble, we see clearly that the revolution of the '60s has overthrown the old moral and social order and begun to dictate how we must all behave in their new order. Those who think the Right won the Culture War should think again.

Men are no longer free to hire or sell their homes to whomever they wish, or to associate with whomever they wish.

In the 1950s, there were men's clubs and women's clubs, WASP country clubs and law firms and Jewish country clubs and law firms. Black folks had their own restaurants, barber shops, movie theaters and churches.

We were a free country then. Did people use their freedom to discriminate? Undeniably. Did race discrimination need correcting? Undeniably. But in enlisting state power to end discrimination, we harnessed Leviathan. The Left is now using the monster to reshape America. Thus is freedom, the cause of the American Revolution, supplanted by equality, the cause of the French Revolution.

The U.S. Constitution guaranteed freedom by restricting the power of government, the source of tyranny: "Congress shall make no law ..." Civil rights laws restrict freedom. Men are told they will face disgrace, fines, ruin if they act on their beliefs in deciding whom they will hire, whom they will serve in a bar or restaurant, or to whom they wish to sell or rent their homes.

If a man is free to hold beliefs we detest, and speak and write in ways we detest, why is he not free to live according to his beliefs -- if we believe in freedom? Hopefully, we are becoming a better society, for we are surely becoming a less free society.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Pat Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative magazine, and the author of many books including State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America .
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Pat Buchanan's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Frank
As usual, Pat is right. But what to do?

Digger writes
As a 16 year old I had never heard of a Lesbian or gay and was very flatered when an older woman in her 29's or 30's paid attention to me after work. (Summer and after school.)
My husband of 62 years and then my boyfriend used to ride the bus down to meet me andd escort me home from work and said that woman hates me.
I could not understand why he thought such a thing.
It evidently became blantant enouigh that my employer checked up and called my father and toldthis woman was after me and he then explained to me what a Lesbian was. I was horrified.
As an adult we know and like a few Gays but as nice as they are, because of my experience I co not want them as Scout masters or any kind of leaders of children.

Who's Afraid of Equal Rights?
Dear Mr. Buchanan,

Wow, that we have passed an amendment for equal rights for homosexuals. Maybe they will fare better than women who have no equal rights.

Since 1972 women have been lobbying for an equaul rights amendment. In 2003 the National Association for Femal Executives survey shed that year round fulll time females were earning 76% of their male counterparts. Between 1991 and 2001, the salary gap between men and women closed by only 2% ((The Salary Gap Between Men and Women, Google, Nov. 9, 2007). Now that's what happens when you don't mandate equal rights.

Who is it hurting? Women. When you talk about single mothers going to work, and the pay is fully 25% less than men, who are you hurting? The children. And you haven't done a thing about it in a quarter of a century, although you've been quick to discuss women's issues and put women down for that same quarter of a century, and want to take away women's rights, too.

Well, for me, I'm glad that homosexuals will be protected. Apparently if they're not, they might fall into the same lot as women, who in a conservative world are supposed to be defended and protected by the men. And you call yourself a real conservative! Only until it hurts...

Great job Pat
Albert is great reading, even if he were not correct on almost every aspect of American political history. He, like you, seemed to tell it like it is without necessarily casting blame. It is just the way is was and is and has been throughout history.

U particularly appreciated his separation of the homo sapien from the human in another work. The point being that it takes more than being born to become a human being.

Best to you Pat.

Jeanne=marie Tien
Have you taken an economics course? If so, you should know that *the labor theory of value* was shown by Neoclassical economics to be wrong. There is no such thing as a "just price" because no objective value can be assigned to someone's labor.

If you run regression analyses, accounting for factors such as experience and the industry women and men choose to work in, that fabled 75 cents for every $1 myth disappears to being closer to about 95 cents on every dollar. What accounts for that extra 5 cents? Bias?

No. It's known as a difference in men and women's *willingness to accept* compensation for their services. Their supply curves are different, with men being more inelastic but also less willing to accept lower wages, while women are quite elastic and often willing to accept lesser wages.

When you think about stereotypes, this makes perfect sense. Men tend to be viewed as aggressors, and women as compromising. As such, women will on the whole by their nature be willing to accept a lesser wage.

Want higher pay for women? Urge them to become more finicky. It'll raise their wage, but be warned -- it will also raise their unemployment.

A few questions that should be asked
Will this mean that men will be allowed to use the women's room at work?

What will happen to the military's don't-ask-don't tell policy when (not if) a male soldier shows up for duty in a dress?

Will the Catholic Church be able to remove priests who engage in pedophilia?

What will happen to the Boy Scouts policy that prevents openly homosexual men from holding leadership positions?

I think it is time
to consider legislation protecting heterosexuals
from the ever expanding demands of homosexuals.

I will never understand why some people feel it neccessary to enact laws to force the rest of us to accept their personal lifestyle choices.

I am thankful
Hillary will be the last of the 60's generation trying to shove their so-called values on all of us. If she is not elected, better yet.

Doris, not a smart statement
Doris, think...
The last sentence of your post begs the question: Have you been missing the crime blotter on heterosexual child predators?
Guess you missed all the news items where male AND female school teachers have been having sex with their students, resulting in pregnancies, suicide, homicide and incarceration o
Women pedophiles aren't often convicted because boys aren't thought of as victims unless their attacker is a man.

How many times do people have to be told that homosexuality isn't pedophilia?And how many times do people have to be told that such orientation and gender bias in sex crimes doesn't help justice or law enforcement?


PB is wrong
This is what happens when prejudice against a group goes on too long. Fairness the work place is important, because the damage to ANY career over a person's characteristics they have no choice over IS unfair.
And there isn't a heterosexual on this thread in any place to argue whether being gay is a choice.
Talent, competence and motivation for the job is the qualification, period.
And if someone objects to gay employees for RELIGIOUS reasons, to be consistent they would then have to inquire on the sexual activity of ALL employees.
If the objection to gays in the workplace isn't what they ARE, but what they DO...then no employee has the option of privacy.
And the religious statement on gay conduct is an empty, prejudicial one.
Heterosexual employees don't have to put up with that treatment, why should gay people?

And THIS is why amendments like this get put before the government, people can't be consistent, right or fair no matter WHAT their backgrounds or beliefs are.
None of us can live without a job, none of us. So reason and fairness in the workplace is an extremely important thing to consider. And employers benefit from that fairness as much as their employees do when they do right in the first place.

Silly argument
"In the 1950s, there were men's clubs and women's clubs, WASP country clubs and law firms and Jewish country clubs and law firms. Black folks had their own restaurants, barber shops, movie theaters and churches.

"We were a free country then."

No we weren't. It was a apartheid state! To be sure, whites male heterosexuals had things pretty much their own way, but that is precisely why we weren't free! We are more free now, and it's because of the Civil Rights movement, and that includes protecting the rights of gays and lesbians.

pedophillia
If the posters think that homosexuals have no interest in pedophillia, I suggest you take a moment to view gay porn. It is very much oriented toward young boys-they younger the more enticing. Do not believe what people say, watch what they do.

Labor Theory of Value
Stoic Patriot wrote, "Have you taken an economics course? If so, you should know that *the labor theory of value* was shown by Neoclassical economics to be wrong."

First, neoclassical economics did no such thing. They simply rejected classical political economy's proper distinction between use and exchange value. They had to in order to distract people from the reality of capitalist exploitation. In other words, at its core, neoclassical economics is the product of bourgeois ideologues who had to manufacture a new worldview because Marx proved Smith and Richardo's thesis.

Second, the US Census of Manufactures, which has been in existence since the dawn of the country, measures value-added the same way the classical political economist did. It's the objective measure of surplus value and productivity in the United States. So while the neoclassical propagandist reduces everything to psychology, people who work in the real world of industry continue to measure things the way Marx did.

Re: pedophilia
Wolfman writes, "If the posters think that homosexuals have no interest in pedophillia [sic], I suggest you take a moment to view gay porn."

And heterosexual porn is very much oriented toward young girls - the younger the girls look the better. That's why they have disclaimers ensuring that their models are at least 18 years old.

(Think before posting. It will save you embarrassments like this.)

WE ARE NOT FREE

.....If we ever were ...we are certainly less free than before ...

.....Everytime the Federal Government enacts a law that is not about protecting our borders ...ratifying treaties ...maintaing an Army and regulating inter-State commerce ...we lose freedom ...

....Our Government has become the Tyrant our Founders tried to protect us from .....COLOSSUS

Why should we know
who is homosexual and who is not? Are they having sex in the office? (Contrary to programs like "LA Law", lawyers do not have time to have sex in the office; they are busy doing paperwork and answering e-mail).

Except for the fact that their presence will run up the cost of the medical insurance the same way the No Fault Pregnancy Law did, I can't see who cares what they do at home, as long as they do their work at the office -- or why they should feel it necessary to tell us they are homosexual in the first place. I mean, who cares?

It doesn't mean anything
How do you go about proving you were not hired because of your sexual inclinations??? Impossible. Also, the thing that proves to me that this was an empty ritual is the fact that MOST rich businessmen don't get punished or sent to jail for hardly ANYTHING...including murder as we have seen. Plus the fact we already have discrimination laws on the books that are not rigidly observed by the employers. I have been mostly impressed with your writings Mr. Buchanan, but this is just making mountains out of mole-hills. You can do better. Have a great Thanksgiving.

Where is the balance?
Since when does our society/government provide gaurantees of happiness and acceptance to every individual/sub-group/congregation/club/social deviation/etc.?
Freedom of expression? Yes.
Freedom from government oppression? Yes. But it should be applied equaly to all sides of the issue.
Freedom from individual oppression? No. Not at the expense of individual rights of expression.
Where is the balance in any of the above discussions?
The solution lies in the "balance".

Zena P
You are incorrect about not being able to prove that employment was denied because of sexual orientation.

A church that chooses not to hire an avowed homosexual, precisely because he is homosexual and makes an issue of it, would be prosecuted under this law.

This law would make it illegal for conservative Christian, Jewish, and Muslim organizations to deny employment to people who openly violate the tenets of their faith. The law provides no exception for religious organizations.

Lawsuits involving exactly this situation would be brought immediately, if the Senate were to pass this law and the president sign it. For what it's worth, I don't think Bush would sign it, or that either house of Congress could override a veto.

And don't start with the argument that it's silly to think of courts ruling that churches or synagogues or mosques must give redress by hiring homosexual plaintiffs. Of course it is -- but it's perfectly accurate to expect that courts would award DAMAGES to homosexual plaintiffs. Such damages would not only enrich lawyers and the plaintiffs, but could also, in many cases, financially ruin religious organizations.

The cynical could construe that as the objective all along.

Good job Pat!
It's just so sad that only a few people like Pat have the courage to take on the gay mafia lobby and their corrossive agenda that they continue to force on the Ameican people.

for dyerje
dyerje claims: "The law provides no exception for religious organizations."

Oh yes it does. Section 6 of the proposed bill says:

"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."

http://tinyurl.com/3afbq4

In fact, they had to put that in there. Forcing a religious organization to do anything would instantly invite a court challenge on the grounds of First Amendment violation.

I don't see the problem, frankly. Being gay is not a subversive act. In a profit-making corporation that is not devoted to religious issues, what counts is your productivity on the job, not what you do with your own time.

Jeanne-marie writes
"Who's Afraid of Equal Rights?"

The statistics you quote have been quoted by "femnists" since the EARLY SIXTIES, they are out of date!
I don't know what it's like in YOUR world, but in America, women ARE equal in the eyes of the law. THAT IS WHAT COUNTS. What you seem to be advocating is "equality of results" which is impossible.
The ALEDGED femnists of the past forty years have been advocates of closet (and sometimes open) communism, demanding government-mandated social equality. "Equality" is NOT freedom, it is PRIVLEDGE and thus can be taken away by the government at any time, without warning or explination.

As for all those who see nothing wrong with this law, an applicant can simply write on the application that he/she is gay and the job will be garenteed, all they have to do is mention while at work that they are gay and they can't be fired. They can't be fired no matter how incompetent they are, or even if they DON'T WORK. This has happened in France with their "garenteed employment" law. NO ONE can be fired in France unless they are paid TWO YEARS wages!
Is that what you want?

don't drag libertarians into this
I'm unhappy to see Pat Buchanan try to leverage libertarian ideals to argue against equal rights for gays in the workplace. An employer should not be allowed to discriminate by race, sex, because they are accidents of birth. Nor should an employer be allowed to discriminate by religion or sexual orientation, because they are private.

Unfortunately we can expect this law to be abused to extend to behavior on the job that the employer doesn't agree with too. That's a real downside.

http://freedomistheanswer.blogspot.com/

du writes
That homosexuality (or lesbianism) does not equal pedophilia, which is true. However, one must ask why fully one third of child molestations are same sex, when only about 2% of the population practices that lifestyle? The disproportionate numbers beg explaining.

As for the article, was light but good. It has been evident for a number of years that Americans are bound and determined the legislate and litigate themselves into slavery, throwing away everything that our Founding Father fought for in order to gain some perceived equality of results or merely to poke each other in the eye.

Furthermore
I have no problem with gays in the workplace, and from my experience, neither do any employers, at least none that I have worked for. Now however, if it comes down to crunch time, which often happens in the present economy, and a company feels the need to tighten the belt, with the passing of this law, guess who's gonna get the pink slip first; the gay guy who's planning his next trip to Boca Raton or Key West or the working stiff trying to support his family and pay for braces? The decision will be made without regard to quality of work as the working stiff presents the least complications or possible lawsuits. The gay guy could be showing up one day out of 5 and doing nothing but whacking off in the restroom when he is there, but he will not be the one let go.

Some animals are more equal than others.

Alex, be happy too, but
Alex, I'd be happy to explain it, but would you listen or what to believe what I tell you?
I worked in law enforcement in Los Angeles and could access databases from other agencies as well as from our own on the demographics regarding criminal's backgrounds.

Here's the real deal. Your information is way off. Not all gay people are accounted for, but the estimation is about 7-8% of populations WORLDWIDE and about 10-12%here in the US.
And they DON'T account for one third of child molestation, but more like a quarter. There is however, the other three quarters of that number.
Heterosexual females are an average of 15%, but like most sex crimes, especially on the young, they are unreported and as I stated before, aren't considered a crime as it should be.
Heterosexual males make up 78-90% percent of sex offenders and about the same number in VIOLENT offenders resulting in major injury or death of their victims.
Homosexuals are less than .6& of that number.
There is a determined and preemptive vigilance regarding gay people and access to the young, whereas in the same environments, there is little scrutiny of heterosexual pedophiles.
The gender bias on whether it's considered a crime is very frustrating to law enforcers as is prejudice against homosexuals in general. It helps the bad guys, not us and not children.


urban legends...
Urban legends, not hard evidence and serious critical thinking on pedophilia is what generates bad information feeding more of it. A good deal of what is written here is false, or feeds the fantasy that gay people are a specially threatening stealth enemy and incapable of having the same protective and loving feelings for their own children as heterosexuals do.
Gay parents are more invested because the scrutiny is much tougher on gay parents.
But the issue here is the workplace and it's no opinion that EVERYONE needs a job, and certainly should have the jobs they want, are motivated to do and have the interest and talent for. Period.
We lost a lot of good gay and lesbian soldiers because of the very issue ENDA needed to address and no amount of rationalization will justify their dismissal when they are so badly needed in an all volunteer military.
Their training was expensive, their commitment to service without question. And OTHER soldiers pay the price in lack of support as does our nation's security in general.
And because the duty was and is already done with coalition forces having open service, the question of unit cohesion is academic and BEYOND redundant at this point.

in the court
in the court of TH's opinion, it's so much easier to not have another side present evidence or respect that there IS another side with evidence. To so many who are regulars here, the evidence has mostly come from one source, one opinion.
The opinions, feelings and information on gay people has literally flowed from ONE source, that of heterosexuals.
And enough people have without irony said the ultimate evidence and source is their Bible and so therefore there is no other reliable or truthful information they will accept that doesn't square with that ancient observation.
Which when I think of how we've aligned ourselves for our comfort around huge quantum leaps in study of ourselves to greet the new millenium, people want to stick this issue in an old trunk and forget it as if gay people aren't traveling along with us.
Well, plenty of cultures have accepted gay people and for very simple and important reasons, which ENDA points out.
What is the value in humiliating, isolating and dehumanizing a compelling and distinct group of people who are ENOUGH like heterosexuals not to justify that treatment?
Talent and compassion are important human characteristics that no one can deny gay people don't have and never did.
So which will we preoccupy ourselves with, gay sex?
Or the talent to commit much of merit to society regardless of same sex attraction?
It would be more productive to disregard same sex attraction the way we disregadless opposite sex attraction as being a disability or liability to one's ability to cooperated and integrate into life as we know it now.
Our whole culture is obssessed with sex, true enough, gay or not.
It's more unhealthy when it comes to what some heterosexuals THINK they know about gay people, rather than what reality reveals.




by the by
There are gay parents who, without the benefit of marriage have to struggle with alternative ways to protect their loved ones. Many are called to care for children of incompetent relatives, or the elderly in their families. The unintended consequences are, like it or not, gay people can and do have DEPENDENTS.
And if they have a partner to share those duties with, why is this a PROBLEM for the family values agenda?
Since few care to acknowledge the three beautiful children and big, hairy dog the lesbian in the next cubicle has and supports, denying that gay people ALSO have the nurturing gene doesn't pay their kid's dental bills either, does it?

This still goes back to consistency. Christian objection would also require them to invade the privacy of OTHER employees who are heterosexual on issues of marital or contraceptive sex, wouldn't it?
So this objection is a fallacy to rationalize discrimination against gay people that straight folks wouldn't put up with if THEY were treated that way.
It's that simple, treat people the way you'd want to be treated, have that law reflect it in the workplace, and the rest WILL take care of itself.

It's the hemming and hawing and trying to get out of THAT, which messes things up.
So those who assert it's on religious grounds, STILL have an obligation to that golden rule, and our laws have been evolving into a reflection of it.
And also a way to see who is REALLY committed to that rule, or just pays it lip service.


SteveL 1
That's excellent information -- thanks. You'll have to pardon me for still not being reassured about the trend of this legislation, for the freedom of religious organizations. A law that seeks to compel private organizations' financial endorsement of sexual orientation is a law that imposes a moral judgment and demands comformity with it.

In fact, the necessity to insert a clause exempting religious organizations ought to raise our suspicions about whether the government should be doing this in the first place. The possibility of infringing on religious freedom is also the possibility of infringing on conscience and freedom of individual thought.

This legislation would also further undermine freedom of association. An employer should be able to refrain from hiring someone who wants to make recognition of his open homosexuality a condition of employment. It's one thing for government organizations to set "discrimination" rules; another for government to demand that private individuals and organizations be financially obligated to "approve of" employees' or potential employees' sexual practices.

I don't care, and I don't think most people care, what other adults do in the bedroom. In most workplaces there is no reason for anyone to ever have to know. In most workplaces, even when "everyone knows," most people don't make a big deal of it; certainly not employers. In a practical sense, this legislation is not a matter of finally getting homosexuals a foot in the door of equal employment -- they have the same foot in the door everyone else has: the foot that leaves information about sexual practices outside.

SteveL 2
This legislation is, rather, a method of forcing private employers to recognize homosexuality, rather than simply not address it one way or another. It will also be a basis for lawsuits, many likely arising from behavior that a heterosexual employee would be counseled, reprimanded, or fired for. Don't tell me that won't happen. Everything predicted by long-time opponents of social engineering legislation has come true; this will too.

Except that, as I gratefully note, I don't think Bush would sign this, or that Congress could override a veto.

the gay folks I know...
Hey, the few straight women who've said a lesbian was attracted to them, and it compromised their work situation.
Get a grip. This is what sexual harassment laws are for. Whether it's from the opposite or same sex.
Gay people are attracted to OTHER gay people, for the most part. There is a very STRANGE schizophrenia that grips heterosexuals regarding this.
On the one hand, there are campaigns by Exodus, FOTF and the like to show that gay people can change by encouraging sex and marriage between heterosexuals and homosexuals.
But on the other hand, are offended if a gay person looks to long at you?
On the one hand you think a sexual encounter or relationship magically turns gay people into straight, but get murderously angry if you are not wanted by gay people.
Gay people DON'T CHANGE. There is pressure to HIDE and fool you.
And when you are thoroughly fooled, and such facades crumble, you want to punish gay people for trying to follow your insane and stupid rules.
Why not let gay people HAVE other gay people?
What's SO important that gay people BE you?
It's not life threatening or disabling or even inconvenient to ANYONE out of proportion to the stupid stuff straight people do in THEIR relationships.
I've had lesbians who didn't know me, ask me out on dates, or ask about my orientation.
So...? So what if it happens? That's life, not an assault.

getting hit on, is...
Getting hit on is very different from getting hit.
I don't find lesbians or any other woman nearly the threat a strange MAN would be.
But I'm of another constitution, my work in forensics takes a strong mind and even stronger sensibility on right and wrong.
And gay folks, you should be so happy to know, aren't nearly the reprobates, nor do they have as much opportunity to be the threat so many here THINK they are.

I have gay law enforcement colleagues...the posts here and the articles show a serious lack of perspective and justification.
But it's always interesting to note and try at least to assure that preoccupying gay folks with attaining protections they should have already wastes a lot of government time.

dyerje, that's inconsistent
dyerje, your last statment about 'no one cares' is actually one of those sticking points in your free association statement.
How many times do the religious say on gay people they dont hate them, but they hate their sin.
Well, then BEING gay, and simply informing your social network is important and IMPOSSIBLE to NOT disclose.
That's not talking about your SEX life, that's stating a FACT of one's BEING.
In the workplace we place walls of assumption and privacy. We also have active imaginations and curiosity.
Married couples are assumed to have sex. When colleagues are presented with a profoundly handicapped person or someone with a serious bodily disability, SOME people do wonder how that person could have sex or bear children.
Some people are bold enough to ASK.
People ask gay people ALL THE TIME about being married, or children. It's free association, it's learning about your colleagues.
What gay people are expected to zip it, and NEVER mention they HAVE a life outside of those workplace walls?
Nobody ELSE has to hide what they ARE, even if they dont discuss what the INTIMATELY do, except to an intimate and close friend and colleague.
How many people, not knowing their colleague is gay, tried to play matchmaker?
Unbelievable how heterosexuals take so much for granted, yet gay people can't behave LIKE you do, even casually.

face it
There are a LOT of overactive IMAGINATIONS when it comes to the subject of gay people.
Revealing you're gay is all of a sudden talking about sex?
How so?
Someone ALWAYS wants to get in a gay person's business. There IS no option of such profound privacy and discretion for gay people.
Been there, done that.
So, the happy medium is just coming right out and saying so.
But do heteros stop there?
No.
If knowing such a simply truth BOTHERS that much, then it's impossible to get along, isn't it?
And please, please, PLEASE everyone, quit calliing homosexuality a 'lifestyle'.
If we don't refer to heterosexuality as such, it's rude to do it with gay people.
Again, religious objection would have to reach beyond the bedroom inquiries of straight people too. But it doesn't, and gay people KNOW it, and are calling those employers on it.
No need for lawsuits, just consistency in discrimination on those grounds.

du 1
No, what I'm saying is not inconsistent. Rather, it's an affirmation of things that can coexist, that you don't believe can coexist.

First, though, I must point out that the following question has no logical meaning:

"Revealing you're gay is all of a sudden talking about sex?
"How so?"

The definition of homosexuality is having sexual attraction to a member of the same sex. Being gay is about sex. If you are reading a world of prurient assumptions into that, you're doing it by yourself here; it's a simple matter of definition.

My fundamental point is that government has very little business limiting the discretion of private entities over their own associations and use of money. Insisting that employers recognize someone's homosexuality in the employment process is doing exactly that.

But the government NOT insisting on that doesn't lead to private employers all seeing homosexuality in some monolithic, discriminatory way. It is simply not the case that in jobs where sexual orientation doesn't matter, masses of homosexuals are being denied employment, or being terminated prejudicially, or even being harassed or mistreated. Most people who might not approve are simply willing to leave things unspoken: be humane, be courteous, tread carefully, avoid making personal judgments actionable for daily interactions in the workplace.

As a matter of principle, government should not have the power to impose costs on these decisions of conscience. This legislation would give government that power, and government should not have it.

As a practical matter, it is absurd to claim that homosexuals are being monolithically discriminated against in employment, and that such intrusive legislation is required to rectify that problem.

du 2
Your persistent reversion to talking about how people "see" homosexuality, as a matter for redress by law, is perfectly informative, however. Advocating this legislation boils down to desiring to have a hammer over people's thoughts and reactions.

That is not something government should be allowed to have. I never thought government (i.e., the states) had any business making homosexual relations illegal, but neither do I accept that government should impose costs -- criminal penalties or civil liability -- on thinking that homosexuality is wrong, and acting on that within the scope of one's own choices, including the use of property.

To accept the idea of this legislation, one must accept the premise that it should be an offense in law to decide not to employ someone, or decide not to associate with him, in one's private capacity. I don't.

Government employment is another matter: it's appropriate for the legislature to set a standard for government hiring practices that reflects the political judgments of the majority. Again, however, it matters whether sexual orientation is relevant to the job(s) in question: for servicemen, who have to live and work in very close quarters, it arguably is (and this legislation specifically excludes the armes forces); as well as for schoolteachers who come in contact with children whom they may be sexually attracted to every day.

Please don't fire up and accuse me of calling all homosexuals pedophiles. Your assumptions about what I think and know seem to be wide of the mark anyway -- but the relevant point is that the law itself would suffer a serious inconsistency if the present legislation were to be passed. On the one hand, we would agree that children must be protected from pedophiles. On the other hand, however, we would insist that sexual orientation not preclude anyone from being hire to teach school.

du 3
Suggesting that KNOWN, convicted pedophiles could be denied classroom employment is ignoring the fact that the prophylactic approach to protecting children from predators is always to be preferred over the retributive.

Where the inconsistency of law becomes so absurd, it highlights the well-established fact that law cannot change hearts anyway. The more intrusive it becomes on decisions of judgment and conscience, the more it has to tie itself in knots to cover every contingency. I would also note that the worst societies in history have been those with too many laws dictating how people must pretend to feel about things, rather than too few.

Du
This thread is probably dead

But maybe not
I agree that not all people who practice homosexuality are bad, however they are all mentally and/or emotionally broken, thus the high rate of suicide, mental illness and other issues, including the disproportionate occurrence of child molestation by those who practice that life style. Read what Du posted, but his numbers don't add up. He may have misquoted or typoed, but still, to use Du's numbers, even if some 10% of the population accounts for 25% of a type of violent crime (and yes, pedophilia and pederasty are violence) it points to something being wrong. And no I don't agree with those numbers, from what I have seen a max of 5% of the population, not including those who experimented, just people living that lifestyle full time, and the victims account for 30%+, but will do some research on the percentages.

The number of homosexuals will change, most likely increasing steadily as the effects of LGBT training for kids in our public schools starts paying off. We have a whole generation that has been taught to embrace and celebrate homosexuality that will be dumped out into the world in the next 3-10 years, will be interesting to see what happens. For my own guess on the matter, think we will see the % of those practicing homosexuality peak at around 25-30 before the birth dirth really starts to take a bite out of the population and the elites start to rethink their position on homosexuality. But that's all some 15-20 years down the road.

I think that Du would agree that homosexuals are not born that way, otherwise how do you explain the variance in your % of the population?

dyerje, I didn't accuse you of anything
Let's be clear about something, please.
I've never said that there was monolithic discrimination against gay people.
However, BECAUSE there is no clear definition in the law, there is arbitrary discrimination in places where even the employer WAS a government entity. Such as in the case of Susan Stanton in Florida.
And I didn't accuse YOU of saying all gay people were pedophiles, that was directed at Doris, I think her name was.
And when, when WHEN did I EVER defend ANY convicted pedophiles in the classroom?!
When did I EVER defend any kind of criminal.
I am saying that preventive measures should be EQUAL among adults. Banning gay people is prejudicial and unnecessary and won't help anything.
And the ball of assumption is squarely in the court of heterosexuals, who assume that gay people aren't even meant to exist at all, starting with using the Bible as a template.
Alex...homosexuality is NOT a condition that creates suicidal tendencies or dangerous emotional disturbance exclusive to gay people.
You are speaking of the results of harsh treatment, inculcation of anti gay values and violence and threats and emotional abuse of gay children that causes such problems.
That would happen to ANYONE who is attacked in spirit as gay children are.
Straight people ABUSE gay children to make them conform. Being gay isn't being broken, being broken to fit another unrealistic and UNNECESSARY mold is what happens.
I already explained the variance. Considering the averse environment a gay person is raised in, fooling straight people is a survival tactic, not a matter of varying gay behavior.
And again, it's not a lifestyle. It's an orientation the same as yours.
Think what it would take to make YOU gay, what would YOU do to avoid mental, emotional and physical abuse and discrimination?





rhetoric
Well, Alex, your information (and questions) sound like rhetoric.
And if you're only here to assert your opinion, why ask questions?
Mores the point, why only take your answers from MORE heterosexual people with the same assumptions you have?

My numbers will never add up for someone determined to have the same common opinion most ignorant straight people have.
The words you use like 'lifestyle' and 'practicing homosexual' and 'celebrating' denote that ignorance.
Gay children don't have any special needs. And I don't know your family situation, but most families make terrible mistakes in getting their information on how to deal with that.
And gay children grow into gay adults who want what any normal person would want. A decent and fulfilling job, a loving and supportive life companion, nurturing children or perhaps service for one's country.
And to say that a gay person is wrong to want those things or protect them if they have them is wrong...well gee...why is this a confusing and confounded or even controversial thing?
You have NO idea how exhausting it is to defend your humanity.


considering how sensitive
Considering how sensitive many straight people get about being called prejudiced or bigoted, or even ignorant.
Imagine how gay people feel when false witness is born on them and they suffer even physical violence or lose their children because of it.
Being compared to murderers and thieves and adulterers or being told their very existence is an insult to god and man and the world is better off without them.
Hey, if this was YOU being told this, you wouldn't put up with it either.
Gay people would just as soon like to forget they are gay. But not knowing how someone will react to you, is powerful incentive to have the laws protect you.
It's not YOUR hand being forced here, there is no urgency in it for you.
However, since having a gay child in your family is likely inevitable. Which would would you prefer they live in?
Where they can go to work and school without harassment and threat of violence, marry and give a needy child a good home?
If you REALLY thought about it, none of that is at heterosexual's expense. None of it.
And none of it is at a detriment to anyone.
So, if you really thought about what breaks gay people, or what makes gay people happy and secure.
They've already told you.
But were you listening? Or would you?

ANOTHER TRIAL LAWYER BOONDOGGLE!!!
I started thinking about why those members of Congress would give special rights to another group when our constitution already protects them just like everyone else.

Well, if i was a trial lawyer who was in Congress at the present time, I guess I would have to seriously think that my future might be in peril for fear of being voted out of office. Therefore, I guess the only thing left for an ambulance chaser to do is to set things up for plenty of work down the road by giving gays special rights...I mean..come on...all it takes is just one or two good cases against Cracker Barrel and I could retire on go fishing...LOL :O))

Two words. Trent. Lott.
Ha ha ha ha ha!

(See the Kevin McCullough's blog.)

This is just *too* good!
http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/3917

Who's next? Our Kev?

definitions
The definitions of equality, and freedom...rationalization and justification are clear.
Too bad Pat Buchanan, nor sir aslan know what they are.
Equal doesn't mean special. Equal rights means equal rights. If anything, these speculative religious employers want special rights.
They CHOOSE to be religious, gay people do not choose to be gay.
And no heterosexual is in a position to argue that point.
And that straight people insist on arguing it, is remarkably insane.
This isn't about the freedom to be religious, when that's done so selectively and obviously so.
But the discrimination is inherently unfair, as it won't and isn't applied equally either for religious reasons against anyone else.
Fear of lawsuits is an even poorer excuse.
All the employer has to do, is discriminate EQUALLY and consistently against ALL who offend their religious principles.
But they don't.
So what happens is, gay people reveal such Biblical relativism, and oops, THAT is what really offends the conjecture what Buchanan is selling.

Let's all just ...
... declare ourselves gay.

good one sedonaman!
Good one sedonaman! And if the belief REALLY were that gay people are outclassing heterosexuals on special rights, just how BADLY would someone declare they are gay to get all those special rights.
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.