'Flaming Homosexuals Wearing Stilettos' Will Apply For Jobs In Christian Bookstores If ENDA Passes Says Fischer

by David Badash on January 5, 2013

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/flaming-homosexuals-wearing-stilettos-will-apply-for-jobs-in-christian-bookstores-if-enda-passes-says-fischer/politics/2013/01/05/57742

Bryan Fischer yesterday on his radio program threatened that "flaming homosexuals... wearing stilettos, a dress and dangly earrings" would apply for jobs in Christian bookstores if ENDA passes into law. Fischer, the public face of the certified anti-gay hate group, American Family Association, claimed "the homosexual lobby" would purposely target religious businesses, including "Christian bookstores," if the Employment Non-Discrimination Act were passed by Congress and signed into law.

Claiming "ENDA would represent the return of Jim Crow laws" in a blog post accompanying his radio rant, Fischer ludicrously rips former GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan:

[...]

    If ENDA goes into effect, no Christian employer could ever make a values-based personnel decision again. If a man wearing a dress, stilettos, and dangly earrings came into his Christian bookstore looking for a job and didn't get one, the owner would be subject to a gigantic, business-ending discrimination lawsuit.

------


Fischer: Businesses Threatened by 'Flaming Homosexual' Job Applicants and the 'Return of Jim Crow Laws'
Submitted by Brian Tashman on Friday, 1/4/2013 4:45 pm

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fischer-businesses-threatened-flaming-homosexual-applicants-return-jim-crow

American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer today blew up over the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), warning in a blog post that "ENDA would represent the return of Jim Crow laws." On his radio program Focal Point, Fischer warned that if ENDA is signed into law businesses will be faced with a barrage of "flaming homosexual" job applicants. "The homosexual lobby," Fischer said, "will send a guy in there wearing stilettos, a dress and dangly earrings" in order to provoke Christian business-owners "not to hire him."

I love Brian Fischer! I'm actually beginning to think that he's a double-agent, planted to further ridicule the Right-Wing.

LOL loved this but it if this ENDA back fires like my countres labour laws the amount of anti-gay protests will just get worse :/ for now tho seems nice.

You mean I can be the bookstore manager?

Because I will bring the needed power!

I could careless what the bigot has to say.

Because some people obviously think that stilettos are appropriate interview attire.

Quote from: Zythyra on January 06, 2013, 02:00:37 PM
   If ENDA goes into effect, no Christian employer could ever make a values-based personnel decision again.

Can Mr. Fischer explain how I, simply by being born transgender, go against Christian values?

I wonder if all the members of anti-homosexual hate groups know that everybody assumes they're gay?

You're gay.  Be gay.  Nobody cares.  Stop hating.  Stop acting like cartoon villains.  Sheesh!

Quote from: agfrommd on January 06, 2013, 06:48:58 PM
Can Mr. Fischer explain how I, simply by being born transgender, go against Christian values?

Explaining isn't exactly an ability these religious types have.

They still cant explain all those iron age myths they believe actually happened...

Quote from: agfrommd on January 06, 2013, 06:48:58 PM
Can Mr. Fischer explain how I, simply by being born transgender, go against Christian values?

They use the Book of Leviticus that has scripture against people wearing opposite gender clothing...and Mr. Fischer would see you as a man wearing women's clothing

I know of the ones in Dueteronomy, what does it say in Leviticus out of morbid curiosity?

In any case, it's so interesting how people pick and choose verses from the OT and ingore the rest.  Or interesting which ones they pick, rather.  It betrays their true purpose of using the bible a lot of times.

Quote from: toxicblue on January 06, 2013, 06:23:14 PM
Because some people obviously think that stilettos are appropriate interview attire.

They aren't?

Darn! I was thinking about ordering a pair for my new-found passion of Bible selling...

Quote from: Sadie May on January 06, 2013, 02:07:25 PM
I love Brian Fischer! I'm actually beginning to think that he's a double-agent, planted to further ridicule the Right-Wing.

Agreed. Even if he isn't a double agent and he really is that ridiculous, he still ridicules the right wing.

Flaming Homos in Stilettos Will Destroy Christianity, and Other Things Not Likely to Happen

    by Steve Williams
    January 8, 2013
    5:00 am

http://www.care2.com/causes/flaming-homos-in-stilettos-will-destroy-christianity-and-other-things-not-likely-to-happen.html

The American Family Association's Bryan Fischer, anticipating the introduction of federal LGBT employment protections in the new Congress, has decided to once again spread the lie that banning anti-gay workplace discrimination means the end of Christian liberty.

[...]

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act Would Not:

    require religious institutions or affiliated businesses to hire LGBT people because, contrary to Fischer's assertions, there has been as a matter of course a provision in ENDA that says the Act shall not apply to a corporation, association, educational institution or society that is exempted on grounds of religious conviction
    require religious institutions to hire homosexuals wearing stilettos or any other such items of clothing as there is a clause that makes it explicitly clear a company is free to set its own grooming and dress standards, making allowances only for when employees who are transitioning genders, and even then giving power to an employer to require said employee to adhere to the same dress or grooming standards for the gender to which the employee has transitioned or is transitioning

Quote from: Annah on January 08, 2013, 10:52:34 AM
They use the Book of Leviticus that has scripture against people wearing opposite gender clothing...and Mr. Fischer would see you as a man wearing women's clothing

The thing is, that passage is specifically referring to women dressing as men in order to go to war, and men dressing as women to avoid war. I looked at a concordance for the key words of the verse myself.

Quote from: toxicblue on January 22, 2013, 12:04:53 PM
The thing is, that passage is specifically referring to women dressing as men in order to go to war, and men dressing as women to avoid war. I looked at a concordance for the key words of the verse myself.

On another couple of web sites, the translators also come up with the idea that the guys were doing it to sneak into another man's harem -- yes the Jews had concubines, and daughters, etc.

I can't really comment upon US employment legislation, but we have pretty strong anti-descrimination legislation here.

However, if someone is unsuitable for a job, they can be be rejected at interview or dismissed.

For example, we have legistaltion meaning that people with disabilities will be given equal rights. Indeed, all building built or extensively revovated after a certain date, (I think it is 1990 or there about), must have disabled access and disabled toilets, even if there is no possibility of a disabled person being there.

But equally, if someone who is not capable of fulfilling the functions necessary to do a job, can be discriminated against. Turning up in unsuitable attire is most definately unacceptable. Having hair styles that are not appropriate is also unacceptable.

I know also, that many people are employed by political parties, who are not supporters. I personally knew a woman who worked for the SNP information store in Edinburgh. She was a paid up member of the Labour Party. (Totally opposed to SNP Policy in other words). She did her job well and was very successful. She remained in that job for about two years.

I don't know much about US Employment matters. But here, at least, it is the ability to do a job that matters.

Quote from: LilDevilOfPrada on January 06, 2013, 02:08:50 PM
LOL loved this but it if this ENDA back fires like my countres labour laws the amount of anti-gay protests will just get worse :/ for now tho seems nice.

Any time there is progress on a civil rights issue -- there will always, always be regressives amping up their protests against the group who's basic rights are being advanced. However, we must not allow that to intimidate us from pursuing progress.

Quote from: spacial on February 19, 2013, 07:22:28 AM
However, if someone is unsuitable for a job, they can be be rejected at interview or dismissed.

Quote from: spacial on February 19, 2013, 07:22:28 AMBut equally, if someone who is not capable of fulfilling the functions necessary to do a job, can be discriminated against. Turning up in unsuitable attire is most definately unacceptable. Having hair styles that are not appropriate is also unacceptable.

Problem is -- deeming someone to be unsuitable just because who they are.

If a transwoman's hairstyle is deemed "inappropriate" when it is one that would be considered perfectly appropriate were only it on a cis-woman --- that is unjust discrimination --- and in a sensible society would be met with the fullest force of the law.

Yes --- I admit that if I were to go into a Christian bookstore looking for a job, and were wearing five-inch stilletos and an outfit skimpier than the one worn by women of the original STAR TREK series - they'd be well in their right to reject me because of that. (Of course, this assumes that they would similarly reject a cis-woman who does the same thing --- but that assumption isn't too far-fetched if we're talking about a Christian bookstore.)

However, if I were in a situation where I was worried about being evicted because I can't pay rent --- and in desperation combed the classifieds and applied to that same Christian bookstore wearing an extremely conservative attire -- yet a female one --- sorry, but I shouldn't have to face eviction from my home because someone else believes that me being trans is anti-God.

Likewise, I can see justice if someone won't hire a person on a wheelchair to do a job who's function involves carrying stuff on two feet. However -- if someone believes that being wheelchair-bound is a punishment from God -- well, they have the right to believe that, but not the right to make the job-applicant who is in a wheelchair bear the brunt of said belief if the job in question is, say, a desk-job. And if the law permits such nonsense -- then it is a toothless joke of a law.

Quote from: spacial on February 19, 2013, 07:22:28 AMI don't know much about US Employment matters. But here, at least, it is the ability to do a job that matters.

Here, they are way too lax on discrimination --- and the burden-of-proof put on victims of discrimination is way beyond what anyone in their right mind would consider "realistic".

What? Jim Crow Laws? He does know that those seperated people based on race, right?