Lgbt employment protection? Absolutely not. Ugly anti-gay comments at work? Sure.

Apparently the idea that lgbts should be afforded decent job protections scares the right-wing Family Research Council.

I recently received an email from the organization about ENDA(the Employment Non-Discrimination Act) which reads in part:

The House Education and Labor Committee will soon begin debate on a bill that could do permanent damage to American liberty as we know it.

Under the so-called "Employment Non-discrimination Act" (ENDA), the government will order businesses -- including faith-based businesses -- to cast aside their personal beliefs and hire homosexuals and cross-dressers, even if the business or organization considers the lifestyle immoral.

Even groups like the Boy Scouts and child care providers aren't exempt from the bill's oppressive provisions.

Followed to its logical conclusion, ENDA is likely to result in reverse discrimination -- against anyone who disapproves of homosexual conduct, especially if they exercise their freedom of speech to say so. Will you add your voice to help stop ENDA?

Essentially, Congress would be establishing a caste system where the "rights" of homosexuals trump the First Amendment freedoms of employers and employees. At the very least, it will force people out of business because owners will be forced to spend huge sums of money on litigation if employees file lawsuits under ENDA.

There are so many inaccuracies in this claim. First of all, ENDA would contain an exemption for religious organizations. Secondly, FRC provides no proof regarding the potential lawsuits which would take place under ENDA. Thirdly, we have seen that cross-dressing claim so many times that it no longer has an impact.

But it's these portions of the email - "ENDA is likely to result in reverse discrimination -- against anyone who disapproves of homosexual conduct, especially if they exercise their freedom of speech to say so" and "ENDA is likely to result in reverse discrimination -- against anyone who disapproves of homosexual conduct, especially if they exercise their freedom of speech to say so" - which intrigues me.

Is the organization saying that any verbal statement against gay employees, no matter how rude or how demeaning, should be overlooked because it is simply a "religious objection to homosexuality?"

Is FRC saying that if I was employed in a state which legalized gay marriage and a fellow employee called me "deviant" because of my marriage, then I have no rights to complain?

Is the organization saying that if my fellow Christian employees started an organization and harassed me by placing the organization's anti-gay flyer at my cubicle that I should just take the abuse?

Or how about if I am harassed and called derogatory names by my co-workers simply because my sexual orientation?

These examples are not hypothetical situations. They actually took place and luckily the businesses in question had a policy which would protect their lgbt employees.

All businesses should have policies to protect their employees.

It seems to me that someone is trying to establish a caste system, but it's not Congress. It's the Family Research Council.

Related post:

Giving you $15 lies for free: The one time we *do* wanna use ENDA to put FRC out of business

 

Comments

[DrJillianTWeiss]

09:29 AM on 05/09/2010

Thanks for this great article on the right-wing opposition to ENDA. The point FRC raised about Boy Scouts and child care providers is interesting. Boy Scouts volunteers wouldn't be covered because only paid workers are covered. However, I think (but am not entirely sure) that the Boy Scout corporate office, where they pay people to do a job, would be covered, despite the Dale v. BSA SCOTUS decision. That decision involved a volunteer position covered by a far-broader NJ state law, and I think that distinction is important, though I don't think the decision clearly stated it.

Child care businesses pose an interesting question. There is still a certain gendered component to child care in our society, despite progress towards gender neutrality. As in a somewhat-similar situation in Canada involving a rape-crisis center, child care businesses could be covered by the "bona fide occupational qualification" exception in the bill.

[talkstocoyotes]

10:56 AM on 04/28/2010

"Is the organization saying that any verbal statement against gay employees, no matter how rude or how demeaning, should be overlooked because it is simply a "religious objection to homosexuality?"

Is FRC saying that if I was employed in a state which legalized gay marriage and a fellow employee called me "deviant" because of my marriage, then I have no rights to complain?"

Of course that's what they're saying. I'm on their mailing lists too, and it's clear that the FRC and other Christianist hate groups don't even want gays regarded as human beings, let alone citizens. They can't get away with burning people at the stake anymore but they'll do their damndest to get as close as they possibly can.

[hackerblaster]

05:10 AM on 04/28/2010

The difference between a cross-dresser and a transsexual is this:

The cross-dresser can't wait to get home to put a bra on and the transsexual woman can't wait to get home to take hers off.

I doubt very seriously that the job market would be flooded with cross-dressers if ENDA passes.

I

[DrJillianTWeiss]

09:19 AM on 05/09/2010

That's hilarious. I never heard that one before.

[FlexSF]

02:02 AM on 04/28/2010

First, the Family Research Council is nothing more than an obsessed christianist organization hell bent on opposing gay equality. They should be reported as being a religious organization.

Second, nobody gives a damn about gay legislation. The individuals who identify themselves as progressive simply don't give a shit about it.

Gay equality, in my opinion, must be taken in the federal court system!

[talkstocoyotes]

10:58 AM on 04/28/2010

Court decisions is the route that equality for gays will most likely take. If it weren't for Brown v. the Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act would have had to wait for decades.

"Individuals who identify themselves as progressive" do give a damn but don't wait for those nice liberal churches to speak up about the lies of Christianist hate groups. Bumper stickers and "vision statements" is about as far as any of them are willing to go.

[FlexSF]

11:40 AM on 04/28/2010

Yes. I agree. Republicans have passed an extremely discriminatory law in Arizona that specifically targets people based on their race. They sure as hell are not anywhere near passing progressive legislation that benefits everyone based on their sexual orientation.

Gay rights leaders need to wake up to this pathetic reality! We must sue in federal court for everything now, and we needed to do this decades ago!

[Thabor]

12:29 AM on 04/28/2010

It seems to be a common misconception these days that freedom of speech is supposed to protect you from the consequences of that speech. They can still be however ugly they choose to be, they'll just have to deal with the outcomes of that choice.