In 2002, the Christian support ministry, Parents and Friends of Ex-gays (PFOX) applied to the National Education Association for a booth in their annual convention exhibit hall. Despite having space at the convention and initially cashing the PFOX check for the application fee, the NEA rejected the PFOX application. The NEA said PFOX’s views of sexual orientation were at odds with those of the NEA.
Given that the NEA is based in Washington DC, PFOX filed a discrimination complaint against the NEA with the DC Office of Human Rights. The basis of the alleged discrimination was the sexual orientation of the members of PFOX. To support its action, PFOX relied on the fact that in DC, sexual orientation is included in the Human Rights Act. The definition of sexual orientation in the DC HRA is
“Sexual orientation” means male or female homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality, by preference or practice.
In May, 2005, the DC OHR ruled that there was no discrimination in the NEA action. However, with an appeal from PFOX, the OHR allowed a review. After another denial, PFOX filed suit in the Superior Court of DC in May, 2008. On June 26, 2009, Judge Maurice Ross affirmed the decision of the DC OHR that there was no probable cause for PFOX’s discrimination complaint. According to Ross, the NEA had not unlawfully discriminated against PFOX by excluding the group from the NEA exposition hall.
Despite losing the case, PFOX issued a press release claiming victory. In his ruling, Judge Ross evaluated the claim of discrimination in light of the DC statute. Ross found that ex-gays are covered by the DC law due to the inclusion of sexual orientation. Ex-gay as a term did not need to be included in law since the term, however defined, relates to an adult sexual practice or preference.
Regina Griggs lauded the ruling saying,
“We are gratified that the ex-gay community in Washington D.C. now has the same civil rights that gays enjoy,” said Regina Griggs, executive director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX)…
Even though the court ruled that the NEA was allowed to forbid space to PFOX, the court disagreed with the DC OHR about criteria for being covered by the DC statute. Ex-gays are covered by virtue of sexual orientation being included in the DC law, however, they were not discriminated against, since the NEA has a right to reject views with which they disagree. To be clear and explicit, ex-gay as a term was not added to the law, nor did the ruling add any rights not previously posessed. Judge Ross opined properly that sexual orientation as defined in the DC law includes everybody.
Now here is an irony. Despite the fact that PFOX declared victory based on the presence of sexual orientation in the DC law, they oppose the same plank in federal law. One might assume that since DC law covers and protects what PFOX calls the “ex-gay community,” then PFOX would support the same policy for the “ex-gay community” elsewhere. However, they do not.
On their blog, PFOX posts several articles (e.g., here and here) which strongly oppose the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. ENDA proposes to prohibit job discrimination based on one’s sexual orientation. Thus, if an ex-gay was discriminated against based on status, there would be some recourse.
Despite the fact that PFOX claims to be the beneficiary of a landmark ruling based on the inclusion of sexual orientation in DC law, at least three of PFOX’s board members have gone on record as opposing ENDA. They are Peter Sprigg, Matt Barber and Bob Knight.
Peter Sprigg’s group, the Family Research Council, opposes the bill and here Sprigg speaks directly about it. Liberty Council’s Matt Barber opposes ENDA and recently published this op-ed in the Washington Times. Finally, Bob Knight has spoken out against ENDA in WorldNetDaily.
A fair question is why does PFOX oppose at the federal level that which they favor in the District of Columbia? PFOX would not need to trouble Disney or Pepsi or other employers any longer regarding ex-gay discrimination with the passage of ENDA. At one point, PFOX seemed to agree. After the ruling from Judge Ross, PFOX spokesman, Greg Quinlan, said
All sexual orientation laws and programs nationwide should now provide true diversity and equality by including former homosexuals.
PFOX could celebrate that “true diversity and equality” by including the DC language in federal statute. The DC law does not include ex-gays by title but instead covers them by language similar to ENDA. PFOX lauds the DC law. ENDA does what the DC law does on a national scale. Why would PFOX celebrate rights in one jurisdiction but not want to do the same nationally?
Jayhock,
That’s right. You don’t have the same rights as married people. Neither did any of the examples I gave. Nor should you. That’s the point.
The gay and incest argument for marriage is exactly the same: right to love who you want = right to marriage. Wrong–you can love whoever you want. Nobody can marry whoever they want unless it falls within the definition of marriage for that society.
You apparently believe gays are different when it comes to marriage rights, i.e. not the same as polygamy, incest, polyamory, and so on. Wrong: the argument for legal sex and marriage is exactly the same.
You know it is has nothing to do with illegal or legal. I gave many examples of both. Incest is illegal only because society says so…just like homosexual sex was. Everyone has a right to love someone other than their spouse. Adultery is not illegal but that doesn’t equal right to marry…until after a divorce.
Once an apartment is rented, it becomes the renter’s private home. That’s why cops can’t search your apartment without a search warrant just because you don’t own the place.
I appreciate your passion but gays will never achieve the true equality they sense is missing no matter how many laws they can get passed. It’s not about everyone else.
TK:
Religion is at the core of America’s founding principals, documents, and laws. That’s why it was “selected” as an explicit enumerated constitutional right. Hardly the same class as a variant sexual behavior that has been shunned for thousands of years and still rejected by the large majority around the world. (And whether LGBT is chosen, innate, controllable, changeable or all the above is irrelevant.
The only question is:
“Does discrimination against gays in hiring practices rise to the level requiring federal status as a protected class and justify the curtailment of at least some other citizen’s existing rights in order to do so?
Research published in The American Journal of Economics and Sociology concludes that “Gay activists paint a bleak picture of employment discrimination against homosexuals” but “the relative success of gays suggests that occupational discrimination against them is either mild and ineffective or that it is counterbalanced by other factors.” It concludes “Gays are much more successful than heterosexuals…It is undeniable that gays do suffer from bigotry and legal discrimination…but employment discrimination would seem to be a relatively minor matter.
Studies actually show that gay Americans are twice as likely to have graduated from college, twice as likely to have an individual income over $60,000 and twice as likely to have a household income of $250,000 or more.”
Not bad for an oppressed minority who claims its gay rights movement is comparable to Africa-Americans!
Of course, African-Americans rank at the other end of the spectrum in affluence, education, and influence, have no choice whatsoever on being in or out of any metaphorical closet, and make no demands regarding “rights” to an identifying sexual behavior that requires society to redefine family, gender, and morality to accommodate.
(Not to mention, of course, that Blacks were once kidnapped to be bought and sold as property, counted as a fraction of a person, never paid for their labor, banned from voting and education, and could only eat, drink, or even relieve themselves in places designated for ‘coloreds.’
Other than that, the similarities of the gay and Black struggles for civil rights are truly striking!
Totally. For decades, gays have bullied and boycotted Fortune 500 companies into submission on sexual orientation policies based on gay economic might. Their median, average, individual, and household incomes, education, and % of higher level jobs exceed almost all other groups.
Suddenly, we are all supposed to believe they can’t get good jobs and need protection?
Yes, it says a great deal: ENDA is not really about needed protections. It’s more about social engineering–particularly the legal and social nightmare of codifying an ever burgeoning assortment of ‘gender identities.”
The issue of non-discrimination laws comes down to some very simply questions:
Do you support non-discrimination laws based on innate and immutable attributes such as race or gender?
Do you support non-discrimination laws based on entirely selective characteristics such as religion?
Do you think that gay people are subject to hiring, promotion, and compensation discrimination?
Do you think that gay people could just “be straight” and then they wouldn’t have to worry about discrimination? Do you think that is a reasonable expectation?
For those who support race and religion based non-discrimination laws but who oppose those based on orientation, how comfortable are you with the reasons why you may support non-discrimination laws for some but not for others? Does it not say a very great deal about your own attitudes, prejudices, and biases if you expect one group of people to make miraculous (and, perhaps, impossible) changes in order to be treated the same as other people?
Untwisted,
No minority is the same as the other, but the discrimination against them and the way the discrimination is dealt out does tend to be the same
Incest is illegal, being gay and having and forming loving relationships with a person of the same sex is not – Being gay is not illegal and no they do not have the same rights as other legal couples to marry
Often times despite the wishes of the patient, and when the patient can’t speak for themselves in the hospital, the same sex partner is often not allowed visit – because gay people cannot often marry, even if theyve been in a relationship longer than married couples, they cannot visit their partner in the hospital – so no, they do not have the same rights as married couples
Problem is, gay people are often singled out for discrimination because of who they are – in much the same way as AFrican Americans – and as long as the discrimination is happening simply because of who someone is, then extra protections need to be in place to ensure they are treated fairly
I’ve never heard of a case where a a private home was forced to accommodate gay people – Apartments normally aren’t owned by an individual and if they are open to the general public to rent, then gay people should be assured, that they can live there – just as any other minority should have that protection and assurance
Oh, I agree – the issue you seem to be having is acknowledging that being gay is not illegal. Gay people simply want equal treatment and sometimes to attain equality you have to have laws that protect minorities from the majority- if it weren’t for those people who felt compelled to discriminate against gay folk then there would never have been a need for the creation of laws to address this discrimination.
More than just gay people think this is unfair – a host of straight people believe it is unfair as well – Society can say no, it did to interracial marriage for a long time, but that sure doesn’t make society right – and you better believe gay people and their friends and families will keep pressing for change until true equality is achieved.
That’s just plain crazy. Because without ENDA you couldn’t look at any case of discrimination against any person based in their sexuality as a reason.
The only way any truth to that matter were correct is if heterosexuals were being regularly discriminated against for being straight. And I’m sure you can pull some few examples out. But then the question becomes should straights be denied their jobs because of being straight? Of course not, thus ENDA is needed to protect their right based in their sexuality also.
Jayhuck:
Then let’s also look at discrimination against gays on an individual basis rather than pass big blanket stuff like ENDA.
Such an accusation against Eddy might be valid if homosexuality and race were the same which they are most definitively not. Homosexuality can only be defined by its associated behavior.
Many groups of people are not allowed to marry–like brothers and sisters, the underage as arbitrarily defined by the state, and so on. Gays have the same rights as all those people.
Boy/girlfriends, fiance(e)s, and non-immediate family are also sometimes not allowed to visit without the express wishes of the patient. This is not exclusive to gays. Gays have the same rights as all those people.
In most places, employees can be fired (or not hired) for even the most trivial reason if it is not designated as protected by EEOC regs… ugly, poor dresser, smoker, or just not deemed a good fit. Gays already have the same employment rights (or lack thereof) as every other American not named in EEOC. Again, this is not exclusive to gays.
I will not argue that owners should be able to arbitrarily boot gays from where they live. On the other hand, that is far from saying accommodating gays should be forced on the girl in California not wanting a lesbian roommate or people with bona fide religious convictions. My first boss was gay and I shared his apartment for a year but I guess the line I would draw is that no private home or apartment should ever be subject to forced compliance in this area.
By the very nature of society, laws prohibit some behavior (even if it is perceived as rights by a group) and protect others (even if the Constitution does not enumerate them as rights).
Gays even have the right to believe this is unfair and press to change all the above specifically for themselves. Just as they did with sodomy laws. But society also has the right to say NO…just as it has to polygamy and underage sex (or voting or gambling or drinking).
Ummm… teachers are not restricted in answering a religous question if a student asks one. They are only restricted from teaching their own religious views. Additionally, I find it incredible that Christians are all upset about this as if this is the only question a student would ask.. Just FYI .. I am a licensed minister of the gospel in the Church of the Nazarene so I am not anti-Chrisitan here .. I am, however, quite disturbed at how we (mis) represent ourselves in public
Warren doesn’t know why an ex-gay wouldn’t be covered to the extent that a cross-dresser would. If a teacher’s ex-gay status became known to students and students inquired of the teacher about it, the interpretation of our laws re religion in the schools would restrict the teacher’s freedom to answer the question in any depth.If they did explain their motivation for becoming ex-gay: “I believe that the Bible says that homosexual behavior is wrong and, as a Christian, I try to live according to the Bible” even that statement could be considered ‘too much’. Any further discussion trying to clarify their position would only lead deeper into risky religious talk. In our real world, the student would likely already have been coached that homosexuality is somehow innate and would naturally wonder why on earth someone would reject their own homosexuality. (Imagine the student coming home to tell their parents of the interesting discussion they had at school that day. Imagine the phone calls and disciplinary action that would likely follow.) The teacher wouldn’t be fired or disciplined ‘for being ex-gay’ but for ‘bringing religion into the classroom’.)
Re the gay employee at McDonald’s. No one has a problem with that. Do you have evidence that PFOX does? They oppose ENDA and, in the comments I’ve read from them, they’ve expressed no concerns about McDonald’s or the insurance company or the construction crew….and instead focussed on how that law might go astray in the classroom.
While I agree that hate crimes legislation, discrimination and employment discrimination legislation are separate entities, they share much common ground in the way that existing laws, thought to be clear and respectful of the rights of all, are open to interpretation AND, especially when involving the two polarized groups…the conservative religious and the gays, they lead to a collision of rights and interpretations sometimes go either way…an evidence of the lack of clarity.
For this reason, I didn’t feel that we were all as far off-point as we’ve been known to go. I reviewed Lynn David’s comment at 3:05 that went more towards hate crimes legislation. It was followed by Untwisted’s rebuttal that included a list of legal responses that was a mix of hate crimes legislation, discrimination and employment discrimination cases that seem to justify conservative concerns. Subsequent comments picked up on some ‘hate crimes legislation’, discrimination and employment discrimination. (I’m sure we have a catch phrase for things like the eHarmony situation other than simply ‘discrimination’ but my pre-coffee mind is drawing a blank.)
I’m going to check out now…hopefully for good. I’ve become convinced that my views are somewhat disruptive and run counter to the views of the site moderator.
Who has a problem with it?
AFTAH, FOTF, NARTH, PFOX, the Traditional Values Coalition, MassResistance, The Thomas More Legal Center, Citizens for Good Public Policy,. Citizens for Good Government, Coral Ridge Ministries,
• Rev. Andrew Wesley, pastor of St. Ladislaus Church and co-chair of the group Hamtramck Citizens Voting NO.
• Masud Khan, president of the Al Islah Islamic Center.
• Abdul Latif Azom, imam of Al Falah mosque.
• Abdul Salam, imam of Masjid Un Nur mosque.
• Adbo Zindani, secretary of Eiman Islamic Complex.
• Amin Alwagah, representing Algalazali mosque.
• Saleh Algahaim, president of Eiman Islamic Complex.
• Dzenan Kalanac, imam of Bosnia Islamic Center.
• Mohammed Shehab Khan, imam Baitul Islam mosque
(The meeting was conducted under the auspices of the Knights of Columbus in Hamtramck), every spokesperson for the Catholic Church who has ever commented on the subject, the legislatures of 38 states which have rejected such legislation – including recently the New Hampshire Senate, where the bill to give Trans people the same employment rights as Gays was rejected unanimously on the same day they voted in favour of same-sex marriage, the Washington Times, who wrote an editorial saying Discrimination is Necessary – Subjecting kids to weirdos undermines standards of decency., At least 178 representatives in the House and 38 in the Senate… shall I go on?
ENDA’s been languishing in the House Education and Labor Committee since August. There was supposed to be a markup in November, but this was “postponed” the day before it was to happen. Literally.
Though being fair, it appears that many of them wouldn’t have a problem if the McDonalds employee was gay. They just don’t want the transgendered or intersexed to be protected too. The 2007 version – passed by the house – only protected gays, not trans people. That version didn’t even make it to a vote, and neither version made it to a vote in the Senate.
ENDA was first introduced in 1994, and in 1996 the legislation reached a near victory in the Senate, coming within one vote of passage. It also to get to a vote in 1997, 1999, 2001, and 2003.
While the 2009 version may possibly get to a vote in the House in 2010, it’s considered unlikely it will get to a vote in the Senate – and if it does, will face a filibuster.
So the short answer is – a LOT of people, Warren. Every single Christian group even slightly to the right of centre, Matthe 22:39-40 notwithstanding.
Eddy,
I’m not sure what it is you don’t get about there being a problem with a group of people offering services to the general public but excluding a certain group of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens?
With your line of reasoning Eddy then separate water fountains for whites and colored would be ok
This is patently false – if you’re gay, then you don’t necessarily have the same rights as everyone else – but its the conservatives that want to make you believe that you do – being gay implies “homosexual behavior” as you put it. Gay people often cannot marry the person they love, sometimes they are prohibited from visiting that loved one in a hospital, for along time they could be kicked out of the place they lived or fired from their job because they were gay – Untwist yourself sir
I don’t
Untwisted,
You miss the whole point of the eHarmony problem – they didn’t just offer their services to people that fit their religious values – so for them to deny gay couples the same access was wrong – I think they knew it was wrong and that is why they ended up settling out of court.
Discussions about E-Harmony and viagra for women are distractions from this post. The issue is job discrimination with ENDA.
I think E-Harmony could have fought, but they decided not to. I think there are a number of issues where someone gets upset because they did not get the treatment they should have but this does not rise to the level of discrimination. These are debatable issues. ENDA however would make it illegal to fire someone from McDonalds because they are gay. Who has a problem with that?
Been away from this discussion so I may not catch everything but there are some things I want to address.
Eddy wrote:
I don’t know why you say the ex-gay would not be covered. According to the DC court ruling, an ex-gay would be covered. Gender identity and sexual orientation are categories covered and ex-gay would be covered as would the cross-dressing person.
Untwisted Truth said:
I do not recall a court ever ruling that ex-gays were not protected. This is one of the first times if not the first that a court has been asked to make such a determination. Ex-gays were always protected and the DC court made that explicit.
You said this a couple of places. There is nothing in ENDA that I can find that supports this claim. Re: the DC law, the court specifically said that a characteristic does not need to be immutable to be considered covered by the anti-discrimination law. Innateness is not the issue for ENDA. As the DC court pointed out, there are other characteristics which are protected and are mutable. One does not need to prove or even assert that homosexuality is immutable in order to include it in law. And once sexual orientation as a category (straight, gay, bi) then you include any combination of these — which ex-gay would be and as ex-ex-gay, or spousosexual. The only group that might be missing out are the asexuals, but I suspect a court would find them in there somewhere.
Pointless and senseless!
Don’t gay dating services exist? Why aren’t they being compelled to cater to heterosexuals as well? Aren’t they discriminating by only catering to a gay clientele?
THE business and THE marketing edge that eHarmony thrives on is ‘being better at connecting people for long-term and lifetime relationships’. Would incorporating gays into eHarmony damage their reputation for ‘long-term and lifetime’…the very point that is their marketing edge? Were the gays wanting to benefit from eHarmony’s services as concerned about the ‘long-term and lifetime’ part of eHarmony’s vision?
Would a gay dating site want straights to have access to their profiles? Would eHarmony’s straight clientele have similar discomforts?
It seems that even though eHarmony should NOT have been compelled to accommodate gays, they did respond–in a thoughtful and reasonable manner. (I’m presuming…I’ll have to research those gay objections.) At this point, it seems the objection was because eHarmony set up a different site for them.
This is a classic example of ‘when discrimination laws go bad’.
Jaychuck,
Thanks for acknowledging the distressing UK example.
On what basis is eHarmony, a site that advertises its services based on years of research into successful heterosexual marriages, guilty of illegal discrimination for the simple reason that they don’t also provide homosexual matching? It didn’t matter that there are already many gay sites out there or that they offer no similar services for heterosexuals.
Your logic requires HRC to lobby for heterosexual rights, Lambda Legal to sue to protect heterosexuals, and GLAAD to pressure the media to always present heterosexuals in a positive light. After all, targeting services to only one sexual orientation like gays and their supporters is automatically illegal discrimination.
How about women’s stores that don’t sell men’s clothing? Gynecologists who refuse to see male patients? Kotex who doesn’t make tampons for men? How about gay marketeers who only consult on the gay market? Viagra was designed for men only–obviously discriminatory against women.
“Gay” people already have all the same rights as everyone else. Its homosexual behavior that is at the crux of the matter.
Separate but equal? Hmmmmm
Eddy,
The issue wasn’t just that they didn’t provide a service for same sex couples, it is WHY they didn’t.
Untwisted,
I have to say though – there was a case in the UK the other day of someone being arrested for saying homosexuality is a sin, and that bothers me greatly. I do not believe these things should happen, I believe there should be clear protections for people who believe that homosexuality is a sin, but it doesn’t surprise me these things are happening as we try to flesh out how to make sure gay people are treated equally and at the same time protect religious freedom:
This is from the article I linked to above – its just a few paragraphs of a great article –
Jayhuck’s latest accusation re conservative tactics:
Jayhuck’s query just prior to the accusation:
What Untwisted actually said:
Hmmm…..
Untwisted,
And it seems to be the policy of some conservatives to use fear to deny gay people equal rights – grab a few examples of what appears to be religious freedom being taken away, but don’t share all the facts about the particular example, lump them all together and then cry epidemic – rather than lump all these issues together, I think such instances of religious freedom being curbed need to be looked at on an individual basis – not all of the examples you bring up are as clear cut as you seem to believe they should be when you look at all the facts
Untwisted,
I get it – in your world its ok to discriminate against gay people, but not ok for them to stand up for themselves or for their to be laws that ensure they are treated fairly and equally in the workplace, in housing, etc?
Untwisted,
And regarding E-Harmony, unless they were turning other people away that didn’t share their religious views, or couples engaging in things that go against their religious views, how is it it was ok for them to discriminate against gay couples by not offering them a service? I don’t ever remember eHarmony being picky about the straight people out their looking for love – or whatever….
As if too often the case in the gay debate, just redefine the facts to fit the circumstances:
Firing a person who holds certain religious convictions regarding homosexuality is now just a legal political firing but firing a gay is discrimination.
Few sexual orientation policies started at shareholder meetings. The vast majority came about from boycotts, media campaigns to blacken the eyes of corporate holdouts, and both internal and external activism. But only shareholder meetings are appropriate for employees pressured by their employer to now accept the celebration of LGBT contrary to their constitutionally protected beliefs.
Gays attack Boy Scouts from all sides attempting to destroy the entire organization but that’s OK because because the Scouts brought it on themselves…by destroying inclusiveness. They have been taken over by the Mormans.
What’s already happened in other countries further down the road than the us on codifying variant forms of sexuality as “rights” is totally irrelevant to the impact in the USA.
This sort of double standard is the standard when it comes to looking at pro-gay policy.
I wholeheartedly agree – it would be nice though to actually hear a new perspective.
I didn’t dismiss them – I addressed them – I agree with you Eddy
Eddy,
I wasn’t telling William anything. What I said is that gay and ex-gay are not orientations. They are social constructs people apply to themselves – Homosexual, Heterosexual and bisexual are the orientations.
A person can call themselves whatever they want – that does not mean they are that thing. I don’t understand why this is such a big issue. All homosexual means is that you are primarily attracted to people of the same sex – It doesn’t say anything about your religious beliefs or about who you are as a person.
William–
Jayhuck said:
Get used to it. He actually thinks he has the right to tell you what you may call yourself…quite an amazing sense of entitlement.
Untwisted–
Jayhuck said:
This coming from a person who brings the topic of gay marriage (that we’ve already discussed here) several times a week. Please don’t consider the things that you brought up as ‘dismissed’. Only a few of them were actual topics; a few more may have been mentioned in passing. And others weren’t discussed in any way at all. Even if they had been discussed in depth, that does not change the merit they have to this particular conversation. Looking at old ideas from a new perspective is one of the ways we learn.
….or NOM, just to name a few
Untwisted,
As for the SPLC – I don’t always agree with them, but they are no more extreme than The Family Research Council or FOTF
Untwisted,
Youre bringing up things we’ve already discussed here. I stand with you that there have been cases where some conservative Christian organizations and individuals have been unfairly targeted – but the issue is MUCH stickier when such an organization offers services to the general public.
In the case of the wedding photographer who offers services to the general public – its all well and good to decline to photograph a same sex marriage service because of your particular religious views, but are you denying people access to your services across the board equally according to your views – How can you deny the gay couple but not the couple on their 3rd marriage, or a couple that might not be deemed appropriate due to other religious views?
Here is a great article on the various cases that have taken place in the last several years regarding equal rights for gay people and religious liberty
Equal Rights and Religious Freedom
I posted this several years ago when we were on this topic and its as pertinent today as it was then
Eddy et al –
I and my friends use gay and homosexual interchangeably too – but Lynn has it correct – Ex-gay and Gay are not orientations, homosexual, heterosexual and bisexual are
Thank you William for your words. You can identify as Ex-gay, but that doesn’t mean you’re a former homosexual.
Well…. first off, Canada and Sweden are not the US, they have differing ways of interpreting rights, which even I do not agree with. And a sacrilege of a church (assuming property damage) is a hate crime, already punishable under federal law. Lastly, I have no idea of the law in California or San Francisco considering renting.
.
As to the other (and even those above), they are not particularly applicable to ENDA. Any employer can get rid of someone for political reasons if they please. It’s not the most appealing of reasons someone might find to fire a person, but I do not believe it to be a problem. Further, companies have policies; employees are expected to uphold them or at least tolerate them on the job. If the policy of the company is abhorent to someone the workplace is not the place to attempt change, that occurs in stockholders meetings (or behind closed doors if privately owned). I’ve never run across news of someone fired for offsite work (unless a contract is somehow involved).
As a former Scout, OA member, and Scoutmaster of our parish Troop, I and many others have been saddened by what has happened to Scouting over the last several decades. Exclusion of gays and atheists was not an issue in my time. And I cannot see the point, we had at least three guys in our Catholic Church affiliated Troop who were gay. Though my Catholic parish was the sponsor of our Troop we admitted others who were not Catholic. Scouting was not at all insular in the past; it has become so under the control of many from the Mormon Church. By destroying the inclusivity, perhaps even a tenet of Scouting (remembering the depictions of Scouts of different ethnicities in the Handbook), the administration of Scouting has brought all of that on their own heads.
I am sure that is your opinion.
…
LOL. The way we ‘mix it up’ around here…I’m surprised that doesn’t happen more often. I think it was even with this topic that I’d be commenting on the one thread and finding my answers on the other one. It got to where I wasn’t sure where to post…or if I should just repeat myself even more often than I sometimes do.
Eh… sorry, I had hate crimes legislation on the mind and thought that was the subject, despite your obvious mention of ENDA.
Stating the obvious about ENDA is proof that ENDA is needed but a group of preachers protesting the impact Hate Crimes legislation is your proof that religious freedom is not being infringed?
Until now, such logic would only be found in Superman’s Bizzaro World.
What of the girl in San Francisco the courts forced to rent her 2nd BR to a lesbian and attend sensitivity training? Would that make sense if she declined a male wanting to share her apartment?
Or the invasion and sacrilege in a Catholic church by Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence? The terrorizing of another Catholic Church in California after Prop 8? Preachers in Canada and Sweden who faced hate speech charges for preaching the Bible from their own pulpit?
The Christian photographer in Fairfax, VA who was successfully sued for discrimination for turning down a job to photograph a gay “wedding.”
EHarmony, owned by a Christian evangelical, being sued in New Jersey for discrimination simply for not also providing homosexual matchmaking services? And then even after agreeing to set up a homosexual site, being sued again by a different set of gays in California for not making it part of eHarmony?
How about the Kodak worker who was fired after 16 years when he finally got fed-up with corporate e-blasts encouraging everyone to participate in gay pride day and coming out day? Teachers fired in various states for off-hours activities or writings deemed politically incorrect by local gay watchdogs?
A national campaign by militant gays to force Boy Scout troops out of schools, parks, and everywhere else? Just how long does the list have to be?
BTW–The SPLC has become one of the most radical left-wing groups in the nation. No one disputes KKK, White Nationalist, and Neo-Nazis but SPLC now routinely adds ex-gays and even several elected U.S. congressman on their “watch list.” They have become a joke.
Such a statement is in itself an acknowledgement that such protections are needed.
I fail to understand exactly how. After the hate crimes law passage a bunch of preachers (including one whose organization is on the SPLC hate group list concerning homosexuality) got together on a street corner with police around them and started preaching to high heaven about homosexuality. Went off without a hitch. No one was arrested. Everyone’s rights were preserved… the Union continues on. The world didn’t end….
…
I’m reminded of my early social activist days back in the 1970’s. Someone asked a man whether he preferred to be called ‘negro’, ‘black’ or ‘Afro-American’; he answered “None of those; I’m Jamaican. Your language hasn’t caught up to reality yet.”
I’m sorry; I can make no sense of that at all. I have always understood, and I think that most others would understand, the term “homosexual” to mean being sexually attracted to people of the same sex as oneself. A reference to the most modern dictionary that I have in the house (Chambers Combined Dictionary & Thesaurus) confirms this. Fowler’s Concise Oxford Dictionary gives the definition as “having a sexual propensity for persons of one’s own sex”. No part of those definitions alludes to “the as yet unproven conclusion that homosexuality is innate”, nor does any part of those definitions express or imply any theory at all about the cause(s) of homosexuality.
Eddy, you seem to be trying, for some purpose of your own, to import into the definition of the word “homosexual” a theory which it simply doesn’t contain or imply. If, as you say, the language game gets very frustrating, it’s because people like you keep on playing it, despite the fact that it does nothing whatever to enhance our understanding.
You are no doubt right in supposing that the purpose of ENDA is to protect LGBT from discrimination – but that’s only because it’s unlikely that heterosexual people will in fact be discriminated against because of their orientation. I say “unlikely”, but it’s not completely unknown: here in the UK some time ago a woman who had been working at a gay nightclub brought a case before an Industrial Tribunal on the grounds she had been discriminated against because she was heterosexual. I can’t now remember the details, but I think that she won her case.
Whatever you suppose the purpose of ENDA to be, its effect will be to protect anyone against employment discrimination on the grounds of their sexual orientation, irrespective of what that orientation happens to be – and quite right, too. If “religious freedom” means the freedom to deprive people of their livelihood because of the sex of those to whom they are attracted, then that freedom needs curbing.
Excellent point, Untwisted!
The language game gets very frustrating and each side accuses the other of playing it. Jayhuck offered no support for this:
And, since it’s been debated without clear conclusion, it’s a rather presumptuous statement. Both sides have admitted to the ambiguous nature of our language. An ex-gay IS a former homosexual when you consider the parts of the defnition of homosexual that apply to identity and behavior; they are NOT a former homosexual when you consider the part of the definition that alludes to the as yet unproven conclusion that homosexuality is innate.
I’ve asked EXODUS to stop using ‘former homosexual’…not because it isn’t true (on the two levels I just cited) but because it confuses those who are only thinking in terms of ‘innate’. One small step towards resolving the linguistics issues.
It’s a tricky semantic area but the ex-gays I know use former homosexual and ex-gay interchangeably. However, they would also strongly agree with you that professing a gay identity and homosexuality are not the same. 😉
So much of the rhetoric is about manipulation of language, values, and concepts I suspect it will remain convoluted for the foreseeable future.
See: http://www.untwistedtruth.com/2010_01_01_archive.html
Ex-gay is not the same thing as former homosexual. Ex-gay doesn’t mean that people are not homosexual, it just means they don’t identify as gay anymore – fyi 🙂
The sole purpose of ENDA is to define LGBT as federally protected behavior and any dissent against that behavior in employment practices as discrimination.
Any protections that might inure to heterosexuals under ENDA are strictly coincidental. Constitutionally anchored religious freedom becomes subservient to protecting LGBT behavior based on what Constitutionally-trumping need exactly?
If an employer wished to discriminate against a “former homosexual”, what would this imply?
So far as I can see, it would imply one of four things:
(1) That the employer accepts the employee’s claim to be a former homosexual and believes that he is no longer attracted to people of the same sex, because he is now heterosexual. Such an employee would be protected by ENDA.
(2) That the employer believes that the employee is still attracted to people of the same sex but that he is now also attracted to people of the other sex. Such an employee would be protected by ENDA.
(3) That the employer believes that the employee is no longer attracted to people of the same sex, because he is now asexual and is therefore not sexually attracted to anyone. Such an employee would be protected by ENDA.
(3) That the employer does not believe the employee’s claim to be a “former homosexual” but believes or suspects that he is still in fact homosexual. Such an employee would be protected by ENDA.
As to whether homosexuality is normal, we could waste weeks, months or even years discussing what exactly is meant by “normal”, and the discussion would get us no forwarder.
Whether it is innate and immutable is another question, but I see no reason to believe that ENDA assumes an affirmative (or a negative) answer to that question. A law prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of religion, for instance, doesn’t assume or imply that religion is innate or immutable. Furthermore it is manifestly wrong to claim that ENDA is “a pro-gay only orientation law”: it would prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual orientation not just on the basis of homosexual orientation.
“Ex-gay” or “former homosexual” is no more a sexual orientation than “ex-Catholic”, “ex-Protestant”, “former Jew” or “former Muslim” are religions.
Its a red herring
Lynn David: your choice of words to portray PFOX is unflattering but has merit. PFOX never pushes for orientation laws for ex-gays. They only insist that when such laws have been successfully enacted on behalf of gays the law also protects ex-gays. Remember that such laws including ENDA are based on the underlying premise that homosexuality is innate, immutable, and normal. That is why gays fight tooth and nail to avoid ex-gays being included–and why ex-gays must be included.
Otherwise, the such a pro-gay only orientation law is in fact saying that individuals who exercise self-determination and leave homosexuality are abnormal.
Dave:
You are missing the point.
Jaychuck is right; same-sex attraction is homosexuality, gay is a sociopolitical identity. As Lynn David points out, gender/preference/identity have been torn from their foundation in biology. Nine variations? Five genders? ENDA has little to do with protecting but rather forced compliance on everyone including Christians to accept this rather bizarre and unproven concept. As you note earlier about a class for ex-gays, why would transgenders need a class either? They claim they are the opposite gender not something in between. It’s not about excuses or Christians but common sense.
I agree Dave. It was in another thread that I said it, but I firmly understand it to be so…. when PFOX wags their tongues about ex-gay rights all they are doing is a caricature of the the gay movement.
Thanks for the reasoning of why exgays might need their own catagory. I certainly would not have a problem with that.
However I find the whole thing to be a red herring. For years I have been hearing Christians complain about ENDA and why we shouldn’t have it. The lines I have heard are: “Gay people can change .. they don’t need protected” or; “If this law is enacted Christan book stores will be forced to hire gay, lesbian, and transgender people” or; “Churches will be forced to hire gay, lesbian, and transgender people.” For more examples see here. I have never seen the: “We object to ENDA because Exgays aren’t protected” excuse until now.
Actually there are 9 different variants based upon this definition in the law. They are based on how you mix preference (affinity) with practice.
1] Heterosexual preference//Heterosexual practice
.
2] Heterosexual preference//Homosexual practice
(Prison, I guess. Although, there are those ‘gay by choice’ people)
.
3] Heterosexual preference//Bisexual practice
(Same as 2 – though how Kinsey said he came up with his 10%)
.
4] Homosexual preference//Heterosexual practice
(Ex-gay in its ‘purest’ form, I guess)
.
5] Homosexual preference//Homosexual practice
(Gay)
.
6] Homosexual preference//Bisexual practice
(Gay with a little extra on the side)
.
7] Bisexual preference//Bisexual practice
.
8] Bisexual preference//Homosexual practice solely
.
9] Bisexual preference//Heterosexual practice solely
.
Or substitute ‘affinity’ for ‘preference’ if you wish.
…
Lynn said that Gay and Ex-Gay are not sexual orientations. Lynn then goes on to give the DC law definition of sexual orientation which is :
Lynn then says:
I agree
I’m confused again. Jayhuck just said “I agree” after my post and then pronounced the three available labels that people must fit into. That was NOT my point at all. I’m guessing he agreed with some part of what I said or perhaps of what LynnDavid said but I want to clarify that the bulk of his comment does not echo what I was trying to convey.
I agree – while I and my friends use gay and homosexual interchangeably, gay, in practice, often means something else –
The orientations are: homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual – Ex-Gays and Gays are often both homosexual or bisexual, the difference is in how they decide to identify themselves.
LynnDavid–
Thanks for bringing that definition into the discussion. I do think that it tends to cover all the bases although I would want to change the word ‘preference’ to ‘affinity’. There’s a slight nuance to ‘preference’ that isn’t contained in ‘affinity’…otherwise they do seem to be sufficiently alike in meaning as to address the issue.
David-
.
The reason some see the need for their own category is that they do experience discrimination…not for being gay, not for being straight, not for being bi…they experience it for being ‘ex’. At times, the perpetrators of the discrimination would likely be gays. When and if that happened, it wouldn’t be gays discriminating against gays…gayness would not be the reason for the discrimination…EX-gayness would. So, it doesn’t really matter what name you give it as long as people who fit that category are likewise protected against discrimination for who they are.
I think Lynn David’s approach might be the best way to handle it. Rather than assign labels, simply maintain that a person cannot be discriminated against based on their sexuality. (Attach this thinking to the spirit of section 2-1401.03 (a) and it would appear that most, if not all, bases are covered.)
It is really simple. Gay and ex-gay aren’t sexual orientations. They are socio-cultural constructs. While some of us might like to have gay mean simply homosexual, it means something more than that in practice. To call oneself gay usually means one recognizes their homosexual attractions/preference and acknowledges them. Being ex-gay is then a rebuttal of that homosexual attraction/preference. The DC law which states this definition (and I wish this were written into ENDA):
Covers everyone in every situation.
Assuming that preference alludes to some innate characteristic, one then need not be innately attracted to gender to act in a sexual way towards that gender. Ex-gays are simply people who might not act on preference but do have heterosexual practices. The law is specific and no ‘orientation’ called ex-gay was added.
…
Sooo….. if exgays aren’t straight and they aren’t gay and they aren’t bisexual then ….
What are they? I am a bit lost here as to why exgays would need their own catagory.
WT: Insisting that the PFOX action didn’t change the law because the words didn’t change is shallow. Courts force same-sex marriage into states by construing that their constitutions require it although no words have changed. Any reasonable person sees that as a monumental change to the law. The PFOX release correctly state that this is the first time ex-gays are protected under sexual orientation laws. The PFOX complaint was filed in DC because the event took place in DC. In order to justify welcoming gay activist groups but banning PFOX, the NEA argued that that the “Boy Scout ruling” and St. Pat’s Parade ruling were correct. PFOX’s action caused one of the biggest gay advocates in the nation to rely on the very ruling that gay activists decried when it was them who wanted the court to force ‘inclusion’ of gays into targeted organizations like BSA and St. Pat;s Day Parade. So, the court did not rule that NEA did not discriminate against PFOX — the court ruled that NEA’s discrimination was legal. That is an important distinction: NEA is now officially on record as pro-gay and anti-exgay. Your headline conflates the issue. PFOX never advocates for sexual orientation laws like ENDA but does insists that if they exist, they must also cover ex-gays. Like all so-called gay rights laws, ENDA is based on homosexuality as innate unchangeable, and thus a protected class. Being against ENDA would not be in conflict with insisting that if so-called gay rights laws are passed that ex-gays deserve equal protection.
There is much less to this story than meets the eye. Civil rights laws are almost always interpreted to protect a given characteristic, whether “real or perceived” and regardless of whether the employee was believed to possess the protected characteristic currently or formerly.
For example, if an employer fired an employee because he believed the employee to be Jewish, it would be no defense if it later came out that the employee was not actually Jewish. “Perceived” religious belief would be protected. Now assume that the employee really is Jewish and is fired for that reason. It would be no defense if the employer argued that he doesn’t discriminate against Jews or employees of any other faith per se, but rather only against those employees who convert from one religion to another. In either case, federal and state laws prohibiting discrimination based on “religion” would make the employer liable. The same principle applies to every other protected category.
Sexual orientation is no different, and one doesn’t have to believe that there really are genuine ex-gays in order to come to that conclusion.
I’m reading between the lines, Warren. In the one piece you linked to, they were concerned about the extremes…about cross-dressers teaching in the schools…and then had a link to the First Lady celebrating diversity. Given the Jennings controversy, I’m sure they are watchful in this area.
Here’s an irony. Without getting into a debate about rightness or wrongness, the cross-dresser would be protected under the anti-discrimination laws (there’s another sub point shortly below 2-1401.02 (28) that addresses gender identity) but the ex-gay would not. Student inquires of a cross-dressing teacher why they do that and the teacher is free to explain; student inquires of an ex-gay why they identify as ex-gay and they can’t answer due to the restrictions regarding religion.
From their website, they also seem concerned that ‘special protections’ might impinge on the rights of Christian organizations re hiring and firing. (I haven’t yet followed the link to the Federal to see if their concerns are warranted.)
The ENDA bill is here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-3017.
There are exception clauses in ENDA. I have not seen any opposition to ENDA from PFOX which says ENDA would be great if it had a better exception clause.
Here is where I’m missing it. The focus of this discussion appears to be about section 2-1401.02 (28) in the DC law. This is the section where PFOX sought to be recognized as included in the protections.
But, I’m wondering if PFOX concerns with the Federal legislation aren’t more centered around 2-1401.03 (a)…whether the Federal proposal doesn’t include such language. (From the index, it also appears that these questions might also be addressed in section 2-1402 under ‘exceptions’ but I couldn’t find section 1402 in the link.
IF the Federal proposal DOES include provisions such as 2-1401.03 (a), then the irony Warren indicated stands. IF the Federal proposal omits such provisions, then I completely understand their responses. It would indicate that they are not seeking protection for ex-gays and denying them for gays but rather that they feel both groups do experience unwarranted discrimination but that they feel the proposed law does not include some necessary boundaries to the anti-discrimination provisions.
William,
No, I am sorry, but I really cannot give any meaningful answer at all.
Can you give any meaningful answer at all?
William,
I’m not sure that anything regarding this is perfectly clear – therein lies the differences of opinions. Where it gets even more fuzzy is trying to distinguish what is said out of confirmation biases and/or vindictiveness and what is said by just reporting the issues and adding fair and balanced commentary. I agree with Eddy – this is Dr. Throckmorton’s blog and I am sure there are many who want to participate on this particular thread – I just cannot add anything of value or try to answer your question with any certitude.
In the light of that definition that Warren has given us, one thing is perfectly clear: if ex-gays are not automatically protected from discrimination under that definition, then “ex-gay” can’t mean “heterosexual” or “straight”; it must mean something else. But what exactly?
Here is the current DC law for anyone who wants to check it out. The definition of sexual orientation is:
The DC case did not modify the law, merely interpreted it. PFOX wants to prevent a definition like this from being added to federal law but celebrated this language in DC law.
I don’t see that conclusion in evidence. We’re obviously missing each other. That’s okay, though. It’s your blog. I don’t care to add to what I’ve said and I don’t care to wrangle the matter further. To do so would only further obscure both your point and my own.
Since you raised the issue and seem to think the law was changed in some way, it was important to point out to anyone who was confused by your claim, that the law was not changed. There was no modification of the law. PFOX relies on the same language as ENDA would add.
The point remains. PFOX wants protections for ex-gays that it does not want to extend to gays.
No, Warren, I’d rather not. It doesn’t change my point…just a needless detour…and a senseless wrangling that only serves to miss the point.
Good luck to you on your mission.
Eddy – Read the court decision – the law was not changed. Ex-gay was not added to any law in DC.
Having ex-gays added as a protected group is a ‘modification’…at least as I understand the definition of the word ‘modification’.
Eddy – PFOX did not attempt a modification. They sued the DC OHR based on existing law and then celebrated when that law was construed to include them. They have not attempted to change it and that is not what this is about. If ENDA passes then they are protected just as they celebrated they are protected due to existing DC law.
This doesn’t strike me as ironic at all. DC has an existing law. Whether PFOX tried to prevent that law or not isn’t stated. But it IS now a law…and the most efficient tactic with an existing law is modification rather than repeal.
The federal law is still a proposal. PFOX recognizes that it is flawed and thus raises their objections hoping to prevent it from becoming law. This tends to be more efficient than either modification or repeal.
If it, in fact, does become law, PFOX’ next step would likely be to pursue some modifications. One modification would be to ensure that it protects ex-gays as well; another would be to address the areas where they feel the protections are too broad. The examples in their link do seem extreme but that does seem to be the way the political game is played.
Being against the proposal as it is now written does not automatically indicate that PFOX is anti-discrimination. It may well be that they envision some ‘worst case scenarios’ and realize that the proposal does not take these into account.
I know of a situation where the music director and worship leader at a Bible college was caught soliciting a male hustler. It seems that PFOX has concerns that the government could interfere with their right to respond to such a situation in accordance with their belief and mission. To dismiss a heterosexual for a similar offense could go unchallenged but to dismiss a homosexual could/would lead to expensive legal wrangling due to the protected status.