Homosexuality is not a civil right

[Bass v 2.0]

Homosexuality is not a civil right


Posted: September 25, 2007
1:00 am Eastern


By Mychal Massie
© 2008




While the nation's news outlets are riveted on the Jena 6 and O.J. Simpson, an insidious undermining of the workplace advances virtually unnoticed.
That creeping darkness is the federal Employment Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA, H.R. 2015. If the proposed measure becomes law, it will add "actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity" as a category to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It would give special employment rights to homosexuals and the transgendered that would not only harm the integrity of faith-based organizations, but it would specifically undermine an employer's ability to grow his/her business in a productive and profitable way.

Civil rights and homosexual rights are not synonymous. Civil rights focus on the right to vote, the guaranteed access to public accommodations, and the desegregation of public facilities and schools. They have never been, nor should they ever be, about attempting to have the federal government mandate acceptance of a particular lifestyle.

Homosexuals and cross-dressers may in fact be a lot of things, but an oppressed minority they are not. And I, for one, resent their temerity in suggesting that a rejection of their chosen lifestyle is in any way equivalent to what truly oppressed peoples in this country went through for the right to vote, sit at a lunch counter and/or stay in the hotel of their choice.

Homosexuals are not immutable – there is a difference between refusing to change one's behavior and being unable to change the color of one's skin. They are no more economically deprived than others, and they certainly do not have a history of political and historical powerlessness. Ergo, sexual orientation is not a civil right. Homosexual activists represent one of the most powerful lobbies per capita in the country. But I digress.

ENDA would apply to businesses with 15 or more employees and would make it illegal for employers "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 individuals' actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity."

In layman's terms, said lawyer-speak means, if ENDA becomes law (and I am in no way attempting to inject humor here), the branch manager of your local bank could, without fear of penalty, come to work looking like "Boy George in Liza Minnelli 1980s drag makeup, complete in his working girl commuter-friendly disco sneakers." And there wouldn't be a thing the bank could do or say about it – no matter how offended its customers might be or how uncomfortable it would make the other employees.

Passage of ENDA means that the surgeon scheduled to perform your operation could decide to do same in his blond wig with full mascara and his Playtex plus-size bra, and there wouldn't be a thing the hospital could say or do.

It means that your child's second-grade teacher could decide she was going to dress like a man, complete with makeup to simulate facial hair, and the school would have no recourse. And it goes without saying that the owner of a local Bible bookstore would be powerless to prevent a homosexual employee from holding hands with his or her homosexual lover within the workplace. Any attempt to prevent said behavior would result in immediate litigation.

Some may say, "That wouldn't happen – Massie's citing ridiculous and imaginary examples simply to scare the public." My response to that reasoning is that if the examples I have delineated are not intended and expected outcomes of those supporting ENDA, then why is there a need for such legislation? Businesses are already prohibited from hiring, firing or making employment decisions based on race, sex, color, national origin, age, religion or disability.

Business owners and companies are in business to be successful, and, accordingly, there are acceptable protocols pursuant to same within the martinet of said business culture. To legislate the undermining of this culture is unprincipled, but obviously not out of character for many of today's legislators.

Homosexuals enjoy the same basic rights and privileges of heterosexuals within the context of the mores and traditions of civilized society, but that doesn't mean everyone must love, cherish or ingratiate themselves to every other group within that society. It is perfectly legitimate to disapprove of someone for whatever reason.

To disapprove of an individual's aberrant sexual proclivities is not synonymous with rejecting the individual. In all of the countless discussions and debates in which I have participated, I have never heard it once said that homosexuals are xenobiotic or xenogenetic – the discussions center on the act itself and an unwillingness to be forced into an acceptance of said act as natural.

ENDA is the latest attempt to have the federal government enforce what businesses and individuals overwhelmingly reject, i.e., mandated acceptance of a particular lifestyle to the exclusion of their core beliefs and principles. Homosexual activists are demanding the government mandate that rational Americans reject the reality they know to be true and believe that men can be women and vice versa.

If ENDA passes, organizations like the Boy Scouts, youth camps, religious bookstores and faith-based services would immediately fall victim to liberal courts eager to do the bidding of those who seek to alter the accepted sexual construct representative of civilized society.

Organizations and companies that have served the public for decades would be forced into adopting that which they are opposed to, or lose their ability to continue serving the public. Where is the civil right in that?

 

[Diuretic]

What a stupid, pointless, illogical article.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

What a stupid, pointless, illogical article.

Make perfect sense to the Bass mate. Instead of attacking the article with ugly words why not say why you feel the way you do? State your opposition to the points.

 

[Diuretic]

Points? There are no points. The whole thing is based on a single premise, that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle. It isn't. A person's sexual orienation is as much a part of them as their gender or their skin colour.

The whole article fails in a spectacular fashion. In fact it's pathetic in its claims.

It suggests an employer can't direct that an employee shouldn't turn up to work in inappropriate clothing. Tosh.

Homosexuals are not immutable – there is a difference between refusing to change one's behavior and being unable to change the color of one's skin. They are no more economically deprived than others, and they certainly do not have a history of political and historical powerlessness. Ergo, sexual orientation is not a civil right.

See what I mean? Don't have a history of political and historical powerlessness? Oh yeah? Sodomy laws ring a bell?

I won't go on and rip it apart, that's a bit boring for readers and as it falls at the first hurdle why would I bother to bore them?

It's trash.

 

[strollingbones]

What a stupid, pointless, illogical article.

\

thanks mate, save me a lot of reading

 

[Diuretic]

\

I feel like a censor now.....

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Points? There are no points. The whole thing is based on a single premise, that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle. It isn't. A person's sexual orienation is as much a part of them as their gender or their skin colour.

Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle, you guys seem to be believing in this unproven myth that homosexuality is equally comparable to skin colour, it isn't. You can take a plane to Africa and or the Caribbean and see whole cities of black people. In fact, dark skin colour was the skin colour of the first human and its an adaptation to RV rays. Homosexuality isn't genetic and serves no purpose for anything other than for sexual pleasure for those who engage in it.

The whole article fails in a spectacular fashion. In fact it's pathetic in its claims.

Lame personal attack, your response is pathetic and lame in its counter claims .

See what I mean? Don't have a history of political and historical powerlessness? Oh yeah? Sodomy laws ring a bell?

Wow, great example, since prostitution is banned and unlawful as well prostitutes equally have a history of powerlessness, the same with pedophiles, they must feel powerless too since sex with underaged children is illegal. As long as homos kept their homosexuality to themselves they were *NOT harassed persecuted by police for committing gay sex acts. Blacks just being being were harassed for being black, whether good or bad.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Its rather ironic that neo-libtard, pro-homo supporters defend homosexuality and gay sex acts but condemn people who have Christian values that stress family, morals, integrity, and moral courage as bigots and hatemongers, simply because the value system of such people rejects homosexual sex acts and all sexual immorality. Their of values and lack of respect for people who have a value system is sickening and hypocritical.

 

[Ravi]

I've always thought that gays should form their own religion just to get the Christians to shut the hell up.

 

[jillian]

Make perfect sense to the Bass mate. Instead of attacking the article with ugly words why not say why you feel the way you do? State your opposition to the points.

There are no points.

But once again, it seems to be the only subject that interests you.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

I've always thought that gays should form their own religion just to get the Christians to shut the hell up.

A religion based on what? All of the major religious books[Bible, Torah, Holy Quran] condemn homosexuality so what will they base it off except that they distort and twist the words of those books?

 

[Bass v 2.0]

There are no points.

But once again, it seems to be the only subject that interests you.

Listen jill, as long as homosexuals keep aggressively trying to force acceptance of homosexuality the Bass will equally fight just as hard against it. People should *NOT* be labelled as bigots and hatemongers for not accepting a lifestyle with sex acts that run contra to their value system and for not changing their value system to accommodate sex acts that run contra to their value system and religious beliefs.

 

[jillian]

Listen jill, as long as homosexuals keep aggressively trying to force acceptance of homosexuality the Bass will equally fight just as hard against it. People should *NOT* be labelled as bigots and hatemongers for not accepting a lifestyle with sex acts that run contra to their value system and for not changing their value system to accommodate sex acts that run contra to their value system and religious beliefs.

of course people should be called bigots and hatemongers when they are. do you think you're different than people who wanted black people separate?

 

[Bass v 2.0]

of course people should be called bigots and hatemongers when they are. do you think you're different than people who wanted black people separate?

People who oppose specific sexual acts are *NOT* the same as people who oppose black people for being black, there's a clear damn different between actions of people and a person's race. Are you to be called a hatemonger and bigot for opposing adults who have sex with underaged children[pedophilia]?


Neo-libetards sure like to attack and accuse people of hate and bigotry when either they disagree without cause with a certain view and or have no real refutation to offer.

 

[Diuretic]

A sure sign of desperation is when the paedo card is played. "Think of the children!" Not going to work Bass, not this time.

That bloke is a bigot and his article is bigoted and the whole weak premise of it is bigoted and it fails miserably.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I've always thought that gays should form their own religion just to get the Christians to shut the hell up.

I always thought so too. That way they can stop bothering the Christains about Homosexual marriage.

A religion based on what? All of the major religious books[Bible, Torah, Holy Quran] condemn homosexuality so what will they base it off except that they distort and twist the words of those books?

But see Bass, if they form their own religion then they will have to write their own "Bible" complete with their own Commandments allowing homosexual behavior and not try to change others religions. It's a win-win for everybody.
I guess their God or Jesus could be Ethel Merman or Donna Summer or someone like that with a great fashion sense.

 

[editec]

the branch manager of your local bank could, without fear of penalty, come to work looking like "Boy George in Liza Minnelli 1980s drag makeup, complete in his working girl commuter-friendly disco sneakers." And there wouldn't be a thing the bank could do or say about it – no matter how offended its customers might be or how uncomfortable it would make the other employees.

Oh my god! That would be just so totally terrible!

Next thing they'll be storing homos money in the same bank vault with my hetero dough..

Then all their homo-cooties will infect me and I'll become as insanely obsessed (and strangely attracted?) by homos as Bass.

 

[cjcord]

It would give special employment rights to homosexuals and the transgendered that would not only harm the integrity of faith-based organizations, but it would specifically undermine an employer's ability to grow his/her business in a productive and profitable way.

I would LOVE to hear more that would justify this statement.

Civil rights and homosexual rights are not synonymous. Civil rights focus on the right to vote, the guaranteed access to public accommodations, and the desegregation of public facilities and schools. They have never been, nor should they ever be, about attempting to have the federal government mandate acceptance of a particular lifestyle.

From what you have posted here, I do not see that this is what the proposition is asking at all. It is asking that people not be discriminated against for not acting as if their life is a secret. They aren't fugitives, they are homosexuals. Being honest about it does not in any way place the employer in a legal or moral bind.

Homosexuals are not immutable – there is a difference between refusing to change one's behavior and being unable to change the color of one's skin.

Hm. I'll read again.

Nope, still getting the same thing. That you are stating if homosexuals could change their behavior, they should. Which, following your next words, means that IF people could change the color of their skin, they should. Wow, that's a bit more racism than I expected this early in the morning.

ENDA would apply to businesses with 15 or more employees and would make it illegal for employers "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 individuals' actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity."

K...so what? Again, hiring a homosexual in no way places legal or moral restrictions on an employer. Maybe I'm just not getting the argument?

In layman's terms, said lawyer-speak means, if ENDA becomes law (and I am in no way attempting to inject humor here), the branch manager of your local bank could, without fear of penalty, come to work looking like "Boy George in Liza Minnelli 1980s drag makeup, complete in his working girl commuter-friendly disco sneakers." And there wouldn't be a thing the bank could do or say about it – no matter how offended its customers might be or how uncomfortable it would make the other employees.

Yes, this IS a ridiculous assertion. Unless the employer runs a business like I do ( I couldn't care less if my staff showed up in tighty whiteys as long as coding is done...), I fail to see how this might happen with issue. Are heterosexual employees allowed to work in the bank looking like ""Boy George in Liza Minnelli 1980s drag makeup, complete in his working girl commuter-friendly disco sneakers." ? If yes, than your argument is moot.

if the bank, like any other ordinary company, has a dress code...than this becomes an issue of violating company policy, with nothing to do at all with sexual orientation.

Passage of ENDA means that the surgeon scheduled to perform your operation could decide to do same in his blond wig with full mascara and his Playtex plus-size bra, and there wouldn't be a thing the hospital could say or do.

Again, are female surgeons allowed to dress like this in the operating room?

If yes, your argument is moot.

if there are dress codes in place that do not allow this, than again- it becomes company policy, not sexual discrimination.

It means that your child's second-grade teacher could decide she was going to dress like a man, complete with makeup to simulate facial hair, and the school would have no recourse. And it goes without saying that the owner of a local Bible bookstore would be powerless to prevent a homosexual employee from holding hands with his or her homosexual lover within the workplace. Any attempt to prevent said behavior would result in immediate litigation.

Schools hire teachers, not genders. I fail to see how what the teacher is wearing has any impact on how they perform their jobs.

And MOST companies have policies in place that prohibit sexual activity in the workplace. (Though if they don't, I may consider changing jobs). if this policy includes kissing, fondling, or even hand holding, than the prospective employee would be informed this before they started. They could then decide if this is where they would choose to work.

Business owners and companies are in business to be successful, and, accordingly, there are acceptable protocols pursuant to same within the martinet of said business culture. To legislate the undermining of this culture is unprincipled, but obviously not out of character for many of today's legislators.

I still fail to see how, when what I posted above is understood, that companies would still feel anything is being undermined. If ANY employee violates a company policy, there is disciplinary action. It makes no difference if the employee is hetero or homosexual at all.

It is perfectly legitimate to disapprove of someone for whatever reason.

Quite true. You may disapprove of my policy to allow my staff to work in their underwear. But you may NOT discriminate against them because of it.

Organizations and companies that have served the public for decades would be forced into adopting that which they are opposed to, or lose their ability to continue serving the public. Where is the civil right in that?

So...you are saying that if the employer is against homosexuality, yet they hire a homosexual who complies with all company policy and does their work satisfactorily, they are having their civil rights violated?

in other words- it is a violation of employer's civil rights to make them unable to discriminate?

Does that REALLY make sense to you?

 

[Bass v 2.0]

A sure sign of desperation is when the paedo card is played. "Think of the children!" Not going to work Bass, not this time.

That bloke is a bigot and his article is bigoted and the whole weak premise of it is bigoted and it fails miserably.

This isn't the paedo card being played, its about people trying to force acceptance of homosexuality on people by labelling them as bigots and hatemongers if they don't accept gay sex acts and trying to make people change and or ignore their core values[Christian values also] to accommodate this acceptance of sex acts their value system rejects.

 

[Shattered]

This isn't the paedo card being played, its about people trying to force acceptance of homosexuality on people by labelling them as bigots and hatemongers if they don't accept gay sex acts and trying to make people change and or ignore their core values[Christian values also] to accommodate this acceptance of sex acts their value system rejects.

WTF.. Are all your gay friends showing up at your place of employment and having sex on your desk? Is THAT what all this is about? If they're not having sex on your desk, nothing they're doing in their private lives has any real impact on you.