Special preference to homosexuals

savedfromdistruction · May 1, 2007

April 30, 2007

Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your entire email list of family and friends.

New bill would gives special preference to homosexuals

Call your representative today!

A new bill, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), has been introduced in the House of Representatives by homosexual Congressman Barney Frank. The bill (HR 2015) would force organizations such as the Boy Scouts, Veterans of Foreign Wars, day care centers, Christian business owners, adoption agencies, public schools, municipalities and a host of other businesses and organizations to hire homosexual applicants.

ENDA would make it illegal to fire, refuse to hire or refuse to promote an employee based on his or her sexual orientation or "gender identity." Such acts would be considered crimes subject to severe penalties. For a list of the co-sponsors of ENDA, Click here .

The same day that ENDA was introduced, another bill — commonly called the Hate Crimes Act (HR 1592) — cleared committee for a full vote by the House. The Hate Crimes Act criminalizes a vast array of state and local acts and threatens religious leaders with criminal prosecution for their thoughts, beliefs, and statements.

The intent of the Hate Crimes Act is to give special status to homosexuals. Republicans tried to expand the “protected class” in the bill to include senior citizens, pregnant women, prior victims, children under 18, the unborn, court witnesses, the military and more. Democrats defeated all amendments, projecting the welfare of homosexuals above other classes of citizens. The House Judiciary Committee then passed the bill on strict party lines —20 Democrats for and 14 Republicans against.

Take Action
Send an e-mail to President Bush asking him to veto ENDA (HR 2015) and the Hate Crimes Act (HR 1592) bills.
Call your representative and ask him or her to vote against ENDA and the Hate Crimes Act. You can reach your representative at 202-224-3121. If you don’t know your representatives name, simply give the operator your address and you will be given his or her name and connected with his or her office.
Forward this e-mail to your pastor, family and friends. Ask your pastor to urge members to send this e-mail and to call your Representative.

Send an email to President Bush

Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association

ContentInHim · May 1, 2007

I did already.

Traitor1 · May 1, 2007

I'm quite confused, how would this give homosexuals special preferences? I read it as merely saying that employers may not fire, refuse to hire or unfairly pass up a homosexual for promotion. I've heard horror stories from gay and lesbian individuals about how they had to keep their orientation under wraps in the workplace b/c as soon as they're employers found out it didn't matter how good they were at their job or their job performance, they were canned.

Frankly, I think this legislation is looooong overdue.

Traitor1 · May 1, 2007

As an addition, the hate crimes legislation on the books in most states today do not include protection for sexual orientation.

ContentInHim · May 1, 2007

Traitor1 said:
I'm quite confused, how would this give homosexuals special preferences? I read it as merely saying that employers may not fire, refuse to hire or unfairly pass up a homosexual for promotion. I've heard horror stories from gay and lesbian individuals about how they had to keep their orientation under wraps in the workplace b/c as soon as they're employers found out it didn't matter how good they were at their job or their job performance, they were canned.

Frankly, I think this legislation is looooong overdue.

So a Christian-run nursery school should not be able to refuse to hire a drag queen to work as a teacher of toddlers?

KarrieTex · May 1, 2007

ContentInHim said:
So a Christian-run nursery school should not be able to refuse to hire a drag queen to work as a teacher of toddlers?

I would think that if it is a Christian organization, there must be some leway. You can not have a religious organization hire outside of their stated beliefs.

ScottBot · May 1, 2007

ContentInHim said:
So a Christian-run nursery school should not be able to refuse to hire a drag queen to work as a teacher of toddlers?

And private organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America could not refuse a man a leadership role based on his sexual orientation.

ScottBot · May 1, 2007

Hmmm kinda telling. I counted 79 sponsor, and only 2 of them Republican. Can we say partisan politics? And I notice Keith Ellison on the sponsor list. I wonder what his imam has to say about this, considering Islam's stance on homosexuality.

ScottBot · May 1, 2007

I read the corpus of the hate crime act. It looks to me more like cover for illegal aliens.

Traitor1 · May 1, 2007

ContentInHim said:
So a Christian-run nursery school should not be able to refuse to hire a drag queen to work as a teacher of toddlers?

You still have me confused here. How is this giving special preference to homosexuals? Surely if you applied to me for a job and I refused to hire you (a qualified applicant) because of your religion, hair color or sex you would cry discrimination. Why then is sexual preference not given equal protection?
It's a red herring anyhow, religious organizations already do not have to comply with tax or insurance laws, can't see how this will be any different...

HannahBanana · May 1, 2007

Definitely not forwarding this to anyone. You see, I actually follow the part of the Bible where it says to "love your neighbor" and to "do to others what you want them to do to you."

ContentInHim · May 2, 2007

Traitor1 said:
You still have me confused here. How is this giving special preference to homosexuals? Surely if you applied to me for a job and I refused to hire you (a qualified applicant) because of your religion, hair color or sex you would cry discrimination. Why then is sexual preference not given equal protection?
It's a red herring anyhow, religious organizations already do not have to comply with tax or insurance laws, can't see how this will be any different...

Because it is absolutely an abomination to subject young children to deviants like drag queens when they are too young to interpret those deviant behaviors.

Religion is protected in the USA because it is publicly acknowledged (in the past and for the near future at least) that religion is beneficial to society. Race is unchangeable. Drag queen-ism is optional. Sorry - I would not hire a drag queen. Neither would I hire a hip-hop idiot who had the use of only one hand because the other was holding up his stupid pants! K?

HannahBanana · May 2, 2007

ContentInHim said:
Because it is absolutely an abomination to subject young children to deviants like drag queens when they are too young to interpret those deviant behaviors.

So teaching children to accept those who are different from them is a bad thing, then?

it is publicly acknowledged (in the past and for the near future at least) that religion is beneficial to society.

Proof please. Seems like history would have to disagree with you. The Crusades, the Israel-Palestine conflict, the 9/11 bombings...all of those occurred because of religion. And yet none of those events were beneficial to society.

Race is unchangeable. Drag queen-ism is optional.

Actually, transsexuality/transgenderism is nowhere near "optional." Try again.

Sorry - I would not hire a drag queen. Neither would I hire a hip-hop idiot who had the use of only one hand because the other was holding up his stupid pants! K?

So you're comparing a person with a documented mental condition to a derilect? Yeah, cause that makes sense. *rolls eyes*

Traitor1 · May 2, 2007

ContentInHim said:
Because it is absolutely an abomination to subject young children to deviants like drag queens when they are too young to interpret those deviant behaviors.

Religion is protected in the USA because it is publicly acknowledged (in the past and for the near future at least) that religion is beneficial to society. Race is unchangeable. Drag queen-ism is optional. Sorry - I would not hire a drag queen. Neither would I hire a hip-hop idiot who had the use of only one hand because the other was holding up his stupid pants! K?

Well, you could change your sex, if you wanted to. But in all seriousness, sure you can refuse to hire certain people. It's illegal but you can do it. I would also volunteer that it's rather un-Christlike too, but if you don't mind...

imind · May 2, 2007

traitor1 said:
I'm quite confused, how would this give homosexuals special preferences?

it doesn't. unfortunately, many christians and, ironically, many organizations with 'family' in their name have no problem lying to achieve their goals.

contentinhim said:
So a Christian-run nursery school should not be able to refuse to hire a drag queen to work as a teacher of toddlers?

if the only qualified applicant a christian run nursery school can find is a 'drag queen', i would suggest broadening their search. it says nothing of not being able to refuse them employment. just that you cannot refuse them employment on that criteria alone.

KarrieTex said:
I would think that if it is a Christian organization, there must be some leway. You can not have a religious organization hire outside of their stated beliefs.

if they receive federal funds, i do not know that they are able to refuse employment for non religious positions based on religious beliefs. if they receive federal funds, i do not support a church's ability to discriminate based on a person's religious beliefs, again, for non religious positions. for example, bookeeping. some churches already hire outside of the church, as it is. in fact, i believe there is an atheist on this very board who words for a catholic church in some capacity. don't quote me on this, though.

Amor Vincit Omnia said:
And private organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America could not refuse a man a leadership role based on his sexual orientation.

and why should they be able to discriminate, if he is qualified? to my knowledge, boy scout leaders do not teach their charges sexual education, so why would this be problematic? when would sex ever come up between a scout and his leader?

Hmmm kinda telling. I counted 79 sponsor, and only 2 of them Republican. Can we say partisan politics?

please elaborate.

And I notice Keith Ellison on the sponsor list. I wonder what his imam has to say about this, considering Islam's stance on homosexuality.

much like christianity, islams adherents treat homosexuals much worse than their holy books allow for.

contentinhim said:
Religion is protected in the USA because it is publicly acknowledged (in the past and for the near future at least) that religion is beneficial to society.

not true at all. religious beliefs are indeed protected, but its inclusion in the constitution really had nothing to do with it 'benefiting society'. our forefathers witnessed how poorly religion worked with govt in europe.

its a complex issue, and off topic.

hippieforchrist said:
Definitely not forwarding this to anyone. You see, I actually follow the part of the Bible where it says to "love your neighbor" and to "do to others what you want them to do to you."

agreed. this has nothing to do with hiring drag queens to watch over our children.

savedfromdistruction · May 3, 2007

The reason that sexual preference, in this case homosexual choice, is not treated the same is because homosexual behavior is a sin and those who practice this lifestyle are immoral and would not be suited for Christian service.

Traitor1 said:
You still have me confused here. How is this giving special preference to homosexuals? Surely if you applied to me for a job and I refused to hire you (a qualified applicant) because of your religion, hair color or sex you would cry discrimination. Why then is sexual preference not given equal protection?
It's a red herring anyhow, religious organizations already do not have to comply with tax or insurance laws, can't see how this will be any different...

MrsJohnDay · May 3, 2007

I do not understand. How do these laws give special treatment to homosexuals? What I read was that you cannot refuse to hire or fire a person because of their sexual orientation. You can decide to not hire them because they're not fit to perform the job or are unqualified, but not because simply because they're gay. This is just like the equal employment protection already in place for women, people of faith, pregnant women, race, and so on. I don't understand why this is special treatment. Am I not seeing something?

savedfromdistruction · May 3, 2007

The reason is that the homosexual is immoral and for a church to hire a person with such a bent on improper sexual relations and be around children is improper. Also to have them on the payroll makes a statement that their immoral lifestyle is acceptable at least in some part.
Also it is not the same for equal employment. The types you mentioned have nothing to do with immoral acts. Homosexual acts are a choice and the church has to protect what God stannds for.

MrsJohnDay said:
I do not understand. How do these laws give special treatment to homosexuals? What I read was that you cannot refuse to hire or fire a person because of their sexual orientation. You can decide to not hire them because they're not fit to perform the job or are unqualified, but not because simply because they're gay. This is just like the equal employment protection already in place for women, people of faith, pregnant women, race, and so on. I don't understand why this is special treatment. Am I not seeing something?

MrsJohnDay · May 3, 2007

savedfromdistruction said:
The reason is that the homosexual is immoral and for a church to hire a person with such a bent on improper sexual relations and be around children is improper. Also to have them on the payroll makes a statement that their immoral lifestyle is acceptable at least in some part.
Also it is not the same for equal employment. The types you mentioned have nothing to do with immoral acts. Homosexual acts are a choice and the church has to protect what God stannds for.

I still don't understand. Non-Christians are afforded the protections of equal employment even though their religions are not the true faiths. Isn't it immoral to reject the One True God?

If the reason for denying equal employment was moral, then surely nobody would be appropriate for any job in the church because we are all sinners in the eyes of God.

I do not know that homosexuals are not qualified to be around children because of their sexual practices. Studies have shown there is no link in homosexuality and improper conduct with children because homosexuality and child abuse are two very different things. Even good Christians are prone to sexual immorality like sex before marriage. If we were to single out homosexuals because of sinful sexual practices, wouldn't that also mean we should single out unmarried people who have premarital sex or people who use birth control?

I guess I still don't understand why equal employment rules for people to not be discriminated against is a bad thing.

savedfromdistruction · May 3, 2007

I suggest that you hire a homosexual baby sit your children or grandchildren and see how things go.

MrsJohnDay said:
I still don't understand. Non-Christians are afforded the protections of equal employment even though their religions are not the true faiths. Isn't it immoral to reject the One True God?

If the reason for denying equal employment was moral, then surely nobody would be appropriate for any job in the church because we are all sinners in the eyes of God.

I do not know that homosexuals are not qualified to be around children because of their sexual practices. Studies have shown there is no link in homosexuality and improper conduct with children because homosexuality and child abuse are two very different things. Even good Christians are prone to sexual immorality like sex before marriage. If we were to single out homosexuals because of sinful sexual practices, wouldn't that also mean we should single out unmarried people who have premarital sex or people who use birth control?

I guess I still don't understand why equal employment rules for people to not be discriminated against is a bad thing.

Special preference to homosexuals

Regular Member

ContentInHim

Guest

Junior Member

Junior Member

ContentInHim

Guest

HOOK EM HORNS

Revolutionary

Revolutionary

Revolutionary

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

ContentInHim

Guest

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Member

Regular Member

Member

Regular Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency