Susan's Place Transgender Resources

House plans to resurrect law requiring 'gay' hires
Fresh off health-care victory, Dems target Christian employers
Posted: April 03, 2010
9:35 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=135757 (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=135757)

Now that the health-care fight has proven House Democrats can muscle through legislation without a drop of bipartisan support, plans are underway to resurrect a bill that would make employers susceptible to lawsuits for refusing to hire "gay" or transsexual employees.

H.R. 3017, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009, or ENDA, makes it unlawful for government agencies or businesses with more than 15 employees to refuse hire or promotion of anyone based on "gender-related identity, appearance or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual's designated sex at birth."

The bill does make exceptions for the U.S. military, religious organizations and some businesses with non-profit 501(c) designations, but makes no provisions for business owners' consciences. A small construction company that wanted to maintain a Christian reputation, for example, could be sued if it refused to hire ->-bleeped-<-s.

Oh noes!!!  ::)

 :o How dare they infringe on the Christian values of hate and discrimination!  :o

The title is misleading.  As the content of the article explains, it mandates equal opportunity, not a quota.

And looking at its subtitle, I'm sure there are a handful of non-Christians who are actually employers who discriminate (likely also for religious reasons), and there are heaps of Christians who actually don't discriminate on GLBTetc.  It's to target discriminators, not "Christians."

The content of the article "clarifies" these issues, but the titles lend the bill to being attacked on unfair grounds.

In the article, there is a line of "...the bill holds no exemption for an employer's faith or conscience, an omission that has drawn heavy criticism."  If the article had an exemption, the bill would be meaningless.  Most people who discriminate on GLBTetc do so for religious reasons, and those who don't would just use religion as justification anyway.

Overall, the journalism quality leaves something to be desired.

Quote from: Kaelin on April 04, 2010, 06:31:09 PM
Overall, the journalism quality leaves something to be desired.

Yeah, it's from WingNutDaily, it's to be expected. Only reason to read the garbage posted there is to keep up-to-date on the lies/talking points being fed to the gullible.

Yeah, and like most of the stuff they print I bet its wrong, I'm thinking it's "50" not "15" because most federal laws use 50 as a dividing line.

A few thoughts:

I love the scrunchy-faced, sinister, slightly angry photograph of Barney Frank.
Why do they put "gay" in quotes, but not "lesbian," "bisexual" or "transsexual?"
Have they forgotten that the "genuine civil rights movement" was opposed by the right wing at the time, and that the same people, including such conservative luminaries as William F. Buckley, generally supported McCarthyism and were prone to conspiracy theories?

I wouldn't take WorldNetDaily seriously at all if it didn't play such a big role in stoking the flames of madness that keep all of us oppressed.

I refuse to click on their links and help them make money.