- Status
C
child630
Guest
I am not quite understanding what the brochure meant whether it means you have to say homosexuality is OK or just keep silent about it at work. I disagree; though I have gay desires; with being gay. But I don't believe that homosexuals should be told they are wrong for being gay at work. They should be treated equally. I mean it's a place of business. Now, if they are trying to make you say their lifestyle is OK, then you have the right to say what you believe. But I know that before I came to Christ, when someone told me I was wrong for being gay, I felt harrassed. I wasn't putting my beliefs on them, they shouldn't put their beliefs on me. That's how I felt.
Upvote
0
E
explodingboy
Guest
That wouldn't actually be the same,
You'd have to have the DoJ pride sending out a brochure on how to treat Christians.. aka, not what they've done.
Upvote
0
ChristOurCaptain
Augsburgian Catholic
True, but not many get singled out for special preferential treatment.
And what? If he says "Ok, whatever rocks your boat", or nothing at all, he should be fired?
Agreed: Negative special treatment should be combatted. But not by introducing positive special treatment. If equality is the goal, then promoting one group over others is immoral.
Same with "affirmative action". It's racist discrimination, pure and simple.
Upvote
0
This brochure really isn't different from the sexual harassment training that has been conducted at my work, which mainly singles out how women are treated. Is that wrong too?
That is not advocated at all.
Upvote
0
Veritas
1 Lord, 1 Faith, 1 Baptism
- Aug 7, 2003
- 17,038
- 2,806
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
"DOJ employees were emailed a brochure called "LGBT Inclusion at Work: "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Managers."
Among the directives is an order for workers to vocally affirm homosexuality.
"Dont judge or remain silent," the brochure read. "Silence will be interpreted as disapproval."They were also told to post "DOJ Pride" stickers in their office to indicate "that it is a safe place."
One gay DOJ employee is quoted in the directive;
"Silence seems like disapproval. Theres still an atmosphere of LGBT issues not being appropriate for the workplace (particularly for transgender people), or that people who bring it up are trying to rock the boat."Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, said every American should be outraged by the DOJ orders.
"This administration is pushing the most radical, immoral agenda on the American people," Staver said. "Christians are not merely required to shut up, but now they are being coerced to embrace immorality that goes against their sincerely held religious beliefs."Barber told Fox News.
"They (DOJ leaders) have said if you are uncomfortable with a man in a skirt using the facilities then tough you need to get over it,"Workers were also told to use "inclusive" words like partner or significant other rather than traditional terms like husband or wife. They were also told to use a transgender persons chosen name and the pronoun that is consistent with the persons self-identified gender.
DOJ employees were told to stop using phrases like "gay lifestyle" or "sexual preference" because those words are "considered by many as offensive."
http://townhall.com/columnists/toddstarnes/2013/05/28/doj-tells-employees-to-verbally-affirm-homosexuality-n1607910/page/full
What does a persons sexuality [should be private] have to do with the mission and purpose of the Department of Justice and how does diverting government resources and time to mandating endorsment of this lifestyle have anything to do with the agencies original charter?
The interesting thing about this is that they seemingly want gay employees to be treated as anyone else regardless if they act like anyone else. Further, when alone together, guys will often expound on their weekend conquests. Should this now include gay encounters?
Upvote
0
kermit
Legend
- Nov 13, 2003
- 15,477
- 807
- 49
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
True, but nothing in that brochure is special treatment. A manager should be concerned if any of his employees sees the workplace as hostile and ensuring that it isn't is in no way special treatment.
Agreed. But unlike efforts like this that ensure equitable treatment for all employees, affirmative action was always meant to be a temporary measure.
Upvote
0
Don't speak for all Christians. Most are not right wing fundamentalists. And if they have a problem with it, they can choose a more appropriate lifestyle instead of being Fundamentalist Christians.
Upvote
0
ChristOurCaptain
Augsburgian Catholic
Meant, schment.
Not many Western countries openly discriminate based on skincolor. America, which is otherwise a shining beacon of freedom and democracy, stands alone there.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
kermit
Legend
- Nov 13, 2003
- 15,477
- 807
- 49
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I've worked in an office environment for 15 years and I have heard someone talking about a weekend conquest exactly 0 times. Contrary to what you see on TV and movies about offices people who work in office don't share the gritty details of their lives. In fact, in most offices, such conversations would be seen as creating a hostile work environment.
Upvote
0
ChristOurCaptain
Augsburgian Catholic
(bolding mine)
Let me guess: Because women would feel "threatened" by it?
So Johnson's executive order 11375 has been repealed, or specified as to mean "No discrimination of any kind allowed"?
Upvote
0
kermit
Legend
- Nov 13, 2003
- 15,477
- 807
- 49
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Conversatons of a sexual nature are seen as creating a hostile work environment regardless of who is involved. It could be hostile to woman, but it could also be hostile to a puritanical Christian man.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
ChristOurCaptain
Augsburgian Catholic
I've had that happen more than once. You know what the solution is?
WALK AWAY - simply order your feet to move you away from the conversation that makes you uncomfortable. It's that easy.
Upvote
0
So homosexuals get to tell Christians how to respond to homosexuals, and homosexuals get to tell other homosexuals how to respond to Christians? Oh yeah, that makes sense.
Surely they get to voice their opinion on what they think other people should do just as you are free to voice your opinion on the very same matter.
Why do you have such a problem with free speech?
Upvote
0
kermit
Legend
- Nov 13, 2003
- 15,477
- 807
- 49
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
But that's the thing, you shouldn't have had to walk away. The very fact that you were uncomfortable enough to feel the need to walk away is an example of a hostile workplace. If you chose not to report the action that's your prerogotive, but you were well within your rights to do so. Often times things are reported without mentioning names at which point a reminder is sent to all about appropriate office converstations.
The company I used to work for allowed causal Fridays. As the weather warmed up some of the younger women would wear some revealing clothing. Some people would complain to HR without mentioning name and a reminder was usually sent mid-June as to what defined business casual.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Status
Similar threads
