So, the Traditionalist social conservatives are so twisted up over ENDA that they can't even make an internally consistent case against it. Nevermind that it's blatant scare tactic nonsense since the House won't touch it with a 2,000 foot pole, there's fear-mongering to be done!
With every passing month my willingness to cut these folks some slack in the "sincere but wrong" department fades. At this point it would take an electron microscope to measure how little I have left.
Let us consider two examples. First, the ever-vigilant Tony Perkins, who's service to FRC is so vital that the website he pimps on the radio where you can find his valuable contributions is described as"tonyperkins.com" instead of "FRC.org" even though both lead to the same page. Perkins weighed in with a sky-is-falling rant about ENDA Friday:
Life hasn't exactly been rosy for the business community under this administration. First, the President's policies kept the economy in the tank. Then he strangled the financial and energy sectors by passing a health care law that's trampling employers' freedom and crushing their bottom lines. Now, as if those burdens weren't enough, the President's party wants to tell companies how they should run their business, who they should hire, and what they can and can't believe.
It's all part of the agenda called the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, an innocuous-sounding, but republic-altering piece of legislation that has the power to fundamentally destroy Americans' First Amendment rights. Under this bill, the same community that said it wanted to keep the government out of its bedroom would be bringing their bedroom to work -- where employers would be forced to reward workers based on their sexual preferences.
Right, because clearly ENDA enshrines the right to have sex in the workplace...right? And "reward"? what's the reward again? Being able to eat and pay rent?
Through ENDA (which FRC has blocked for a decade)...Single handedly? our heroes!!
Only in Traditionalist-obsessives' logic is forbidding an action the exact same thing as requiring that very action.
Thanks Tony, you're a prince.
~T. Perkins, circa 1963
Something amiss here Tony...
Do you favor the employer having that right or do you not? Pick a fucking side.
In Perkins' ideal world, assuming I could somehow manage to be employed anywhere being trans, any "Christian" co-worker could spend all day telling me what a horrible abomination before God I was under the umbrella of "religious liberty." If he were asked not to, he would clearly be a victim of discrimination. Not, of course, that people like Perkins think that people like me should ever have jobs at all. Nevermind the spouse and children that having no support become wholly dependent on the welfare system - no wait, he's against that too. Let's just put them under the bridge rather than fool with that icky trans employee, eh?
So...you are not in favor of discrimination for ANY reason, and you just wrote a couple thousand words advocating for the right to do JUST THAT, capping things off with a quote from a person who specificaly says, in som many words, "I have to discriminate on behalf of my bigoted customers."
Look, hero, just come out and be HONEST, okay? Isn't that a Christian virtue? Just SAY "I think that the law should protect our right to discriminate against gay/trans people for no other reason than that they are people we don't like."
You'd still be wrong, in my view, but I could completely respect your honesty in standing your ground. but violating one universal christian value in the process of defending your sneaky attempt to avoid a different one (that whole pesky "love they neighbor" business)?
Yeah. that's pretty much total fail.
Oh, but it gets better! You have gotten John Boehner all confuzzled.
So let me walk through this John...on the one hand, protecting LGBT people will directly cause the loss of jobs and an explosion of frivolous lawsuits....BUUUUUUT.....this protection already exists???
Howzat again?
By the way - if these protections already exist, what's tony shitting his pants about again? oh yeah, he's not - he's just manipulating poor ignorant suckers who think he can be trusted to tell them the truth. I grow increasingly ashamed I was ever one of them.
So,
the Traditionalist social conservatives are so twisted up over ENDA
that they can't even make an internally consistent case against it.
Nevermind that it's blatant scare tactic nonsense since the house won't
touch it with a 2,000 foot pole, there's fear-mongering to be done!
With
every passing month my willingness to cut these folks some slack in the
"sincere but wrong" department fades. At this point it would take an
electron microscope to measure how little i have left.
Let
us consider two examples. First, the ever-vigilant Tony Perkins, who's
service to FRC is so vital that the website where you can find his
valuable contributions is "tonyperkins.com" instead of "FRC.org" or any
similar variant. Perkins weighed in with a sky-is-falling rant about
ENDA Friday:
[quote]
It's the ENDA the World as We Know It...
Life hasn't exactly been rosy for the business community under this
administration. First, the President's policies kept the economy in the
tank. Then he strangled the financial and energy sectors by passing a
health care law that's trampling employers' freedom and crushing their
bottom lines. Now, as if those burdens weren't enough, the President's
party wants to tell companies how they should run their business, who
they should hire, and what they can and can't believe.
It's all part of the agenda called the Employment Non-Discrimination
Act, an innocuous-sounding, but republic-altering piece of legislation
that has the power to fundamentally destroy Americans' First Amendment
rights. Under this bill, the same community that said it wanted to keep
the government out of its bedroom would be bringing their bedroom to
work -- where employers would be forced to reward workers based on their
sexual preferences.[/quote]
Right, because
clearly ENDA enshrines the right to have sex in the workplace...right?
And "reward"? what's the reward again? Being able to eat and pay rent?
[quote]
Through ENDA (which FRC has blocked for a decade), [/quote]Single handedly? our heroes!![quote]...businesses would be ordered
to make hiring, firing, and promotion decisions -- not based on a
person's qualifications -- but on their sexual expression. [/quote]
Bullshit.
Only in Traditionalist-obsessives' logic is forbidding an action the exact same thing as requiring that very action.
[quote]
Homosexuals,
cross-dressers, and transgendered workers would automatically qualify
for special treatment that other workers would not.[/quote]
Such as?
[quote]Can you imagine
walking into your child's classroom and meeting a teacher dressed in
drag? Neither can most Americans[/quote]
Fuck you Tony, fuck you right in the motherfucking ear.
[quote]
. But unfortunately, that's just one of
the many consequences of adopting a law as dangerous as this one.
Preschools, daycare centers, summer camps, religious chains like Hobby
Lobby or Chick-fil-A -- they'll all be subject to the law, regardless of
their personal beliefs and workplace standards.
[/quote]
"Can
you imagine walking into your child's classroom and finding a nigger
teacher? Neither can most Americans but that's just one of the many
consequences....
~T. Perkins, circa 1963
[quote]
Obviously, FRC isn't in favor of discrimination against anyone for
any reason. [/quote]
BULL-FUCKING-SHIT!!! YOU JUST GOT THROUGH MAKING THE CASE FOR THAT VERY THING!
[quote]
But a law like this wouldn't stop discrimination -- it would
encourage it against anyone with a traditional view of
morality.[/quote]
The classic your-intolerance-of-my-intolerance-is-intolerant angle.
[quote]
We all know how the activist community works. Homosexuals and
transgenders will use this law to marginalize Christians and take over
the marketplace -- until only their "lifestyle" is promoted. [/quote]
So
the same people that brag Christians are the great majority in this
country, and gloat that gays are a mere "1-3%" (which the latter is
actually true) nevertheless want us to believe that the 3% is going to
"take over the marketplace"
Something amiss here Tony...[quote]
ENDA isn't
about tolerance -- it's about a nationwide celebration of unlimited
sexual expression. And Christians, like fired Fox Sportscaster Craig James, will be the ones paying the price.
[/quote]
Nothing
about ENDA has anything to do with the Craig James matter - and for the
record, if I understand correctly that James was fired for off-the-job
comments, I do agree he was wrong. But he's irrelevant to this issue.
[quote]
The Left wants to equate opposition to ENDA with intolerance, when in reality, this policy would breed real intolerance toward people like Craig, who are already being fired simply for holding conservative
beliefs. Although James never once talked about his views of marriage
on the air, Fox executives didn't care. "We just asked ourselves how
Craig's statements would play with our HR department," the network said.
[/quote]
Seems
to me that James was fired BEFORE ENDA became law, by a private entity
making a private choice to retain or dismiss a person based on their
private judgement about the best business interest of the company - which is precisely the very fucking thing you say ENDA is a threat to!!!
Do you favor the employer having that right or do you not? Pick a fucking side dumbass.
[quote]
Imagine how many conservatives would find themselves in the same
unemployment line if ENDA were the law of the land! The workplace would
be open season on people with religious convictions and beliefs.[/quote]
And
yet, let's repeat - James was fired WITHOUT ENDA and ESPN has suffered
no legal repercussions. How then does ENDA change that for the worse?
How is the imagined "open season" not already open, if indeed it is such
a thing to be feared?
[quote]
Christians (and people who follow most major religions) would be
silenced and forced underground, while homosexuals and transgenders turn
the business world into their strongest political platform.
[/quote]
so
you are saying that people on the other side of the world are willing
to be put to death for speaking their Christian beliefs, but the noble
American Christian will be cowed into silence by the threat of losing
their job? you seem to think very highly of your sheep, Mr. Perkins.
Again, I support Craig James' right to his views (however in error) and
believe he was wronged. I would say the same about any Christian fired
for their views. but Perkins isn't really worried about people being
free to hold a different view, what he's really advocating for here is
your right as a Christian to harass your gay/trans co-worker or employee
(or reject a potential employee).
In
Perkins' ideal world, assuming I could somehow manage to be employed
anywhere being trans, any "Christian" co-worker could spend all day
telling me what a horrible abomination before God i was under the
umbrella of "religious liberty." if he were asked not to, he would
clearly be a victim of discrimination. not, of course, that people like
Perkins think that people like me should ever have jobs at all.
Nevermind the spouse and children that having no support become wholly
dependent on the welfare system - no wait, he's against that too. let's
just put them under the bridge rather than fool with that pesky trans
employee, eh?
[quote]
A lot of squishy Republicans think they fix the problem with a
religious liberty amendment to ENDA. But as we've seen with the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (which the courts have shot full of
holes), it will take a legislative firewall -- not an amendment -- to
protect faithful Americans.
Meanwhile, Christians wouldn't be the only ones hurt by the law. Just
ask American Eagle. When an employee started cross-dressing, managers
said it made shoppers uncomfortable. But when the store tried to enforce
its standards, the company was sued. As part of a private settlement,
American Eagle had to agree to hire transgenders no matter how
uncomfortable it makes customers -- or employees! Some New Yorkers were
surprised. Shouldn't companies be free to enforce a dress code? Not if
ENDA passes.
[/quote]
Is American Eagle still in business Tony? How's the profit margin? Stlil customers coming through the doors? Yes? then fuck off.
[quote]
In Maryland, one hair salon owner testified that she'll lose business
under a similar "non-discrimination" law. Like a lot of shop owners, she
said the government can force her to hire transgenders, but it can't
force customers who are uncomfortable with them to come into her salon.
Still, Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and the rest of his party are intent
on bringing ENDA up for a vote as early as next week. The only way to put the brakes on this devastating proposal is by speaking out. Contact your senators today and urge them to oppose ENDA -- for freedom's sake.[/quote]
http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/its-the-enda-the-world-as-we-know-it
So...you
are not in favor of discrimination for ANY reason, and you just wrote a
couple thousand words advocating for the right to do JUST THAT.
Oh, but it gets better! You have gotten John Boehner all confuzzled.
[quote]
John Boehner today came out swinging against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
The Speaker of The House issued a terse statement hours before the
Senate is slated to vote today on the legislation that would protect
LGBT Americans from being fired — for being LGBT. Boehner’s spokesman
warned against the bill, claiming it would cost straight Americans their
jobs, and falsely stated that LGBT people are already protected from
being fired — a claim that’s egregiously false.
Boehner’s spokesperson said the Speaker believes ENDA will
“cost American jobs, especially small business jobs,” and added it will
“increase frivolous litigation.” How that is possible was not addressed.
Shortly after his initial comments, came a second attack.
“We have always believed,” an aide from Boehner’s office stated, that
the protections included in the ENDA legislation for LGBT people are
“covered by existing law,” the Huffington Post reported.[/quote]
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/boehner-its-already-illegal-to-fire-lgbt-americans-for-being-lgbt/politics/2013/11/04/78001#.UnhfTlNzAaI
So
let me walk through this John...on the one hand, protecting LGBT people
will directly cause the loss of jobs and an explosion of frivolous
lawsuits....BUUUUUUT.....this protection already exists???
Howzat again?
By
the way - if these protections already exist, what's tony shitting his
pants about again? oh yeah, he's not - he's just manipulating poor
ignorant suckers who think he can be trusted to tell them the truth. I
grow increasingly ashamed I was ever one of them.
So,
the Traditionalist social conservatives are so twisted up over ENDA
that they can't even make an internally consistent case against it.
Nevermind that it's blatant scare tactic nonsense since the house won't
touch it with a 2,000 foot pole, there's fear-mongering to be done!
With
every passing month my willingness to cut these folks some slack in the
"sincere but wrong" department fades. At this point it would take an
electron microscope to measure how little i have left.
Let
us consider two examples. First, the ever-vigilant Tony Perkins, who's
service to FRC is so vital that the website where you can find his
valuable contributions is "tonyperkins.com" instead of "FRC.org" or any
similar variant. Perkins weighed in with a sky-is-falling rant about
ENDA Friday:
[quote]
It's the ENDA the World as We Know It...
Life hasn't exactly been rosy for the business community under this
administration. First, the President's policies kept the economy in the
tank. Then he strangled the financial and energy sectors by passing a
health care law that's trampling employers' freedom and crushing their
bottom lines. Now, as if those burdens weren't enough, the President's
party wants to tell companies how they should run their business, who
they should hire, and what they can and can't believe.
It's all part of the agenda called the Employment Non-Discrimination
Act, an innocuous-sounding, but republic-altering piece of legislation
that has the power to fundamentally destroy Americans' First Amendment
rights. Under this bill, the same community that said it wanted to keep
the government out of its bedroom would be bringing their bedroom to
work -- where employers would be forced to reward workers based on their
sexual preferences.[/quote]
Right, because
clearly ENDA enshrines the right to have sex in the workplace...right?
And "reward"? what's the reward again? Being able to eat and pay rent?
[quote]
Through ENDA (which FRC has blocked for a decade), [/quote]Single handedly? our heroes!![quote]...businesses would be ordered
to make hiring, firing, and promotion decisions -- not based on a
person's qualifications -- but on their sexual expression. [/quote]
Bullshit.
Only in Traditionalist-obsessives' logic is forbidding an action the exact same thing as requiring that very action.
[quote]
Homosexuals,
cross-dressers, and transgendered workers would automatically qualify
for special treatment that other workers would not.[/quote]
Such as?
[quote]Can you imagine
walking into your child's classroom and meeting a teacher dressed in
drag? Neither can most Americans[/quote]
Fuck you Tony, fuck you right in the motherfucking ear.
[quote]
. But unfortunately, that's just one of
the many consequences of adopting a law as dangerous as this one.
Preschools, daycare centers, summer camps, religious chains like Hobby
Lobby or Chick-fil-A -- they'll all be subject to the law, regardless of
their personal beliefs and workplace standards.
[/quote]
"Can
you imagine walking into your child's classroom and finding a nigger
teacher? Neither can most Americans but that's just one of the many
consequences....
~T. Perkins, circa 1963
[quote]
Obviously, FRC isn't in favor of discrimination against anyone for
any reason. [/quote]
BULL-FUCKING-SHIT!!! YOU JUST GOT THROUGH MAKING THE CASE FOR THAT VERY THING!
[quote]
But a law like this wouldn't stop discrimination -- it would
encourage it against anyone with a traditional view of
morality.[/quote]
The classic your-intolerance-of-my-intolerance-is-intolerant angle.
[quote]
We all know how the activist community works. Homosexuals and
transgenders will use this law to marginalize Christians and take over
the marketplace -- until only their "lifestyle" is promoted. [/quote]
So
the same people that brag Christians are the great majority in this
country, and gloat that gays are a mere "1-3%" (which the latter is
actually true) nevertheless want us to believe that the 3% is going to
"take over the marketplace"
Something amiss here Tony...[quote]
ENDA isn't
about tolerance -- it's about a nationwide celebration of unlimited
sexual expression. And Christians, like fired Fox Sportscaster Craig James, will be the ones paying the price.
[/quote]
Nothing
about ENDA has anything to do with the Craig James matter - and for the
record, if I understand correctly that James was fired for off-the-job
comments, I do agree he was wrong. But he's irrelevant to this issue.
[quote]
The Left wants to equate opposition to ENDA with intolerance, when in reality, this policy would breed real intolerance toward people like Craig, who are already being fired simply for holding conservative
beliefs. Although James never once talked about his views of marriage
on the air, Fox executives didn't care. "We just asked ourselves how
Craig's statements would play with our HR department," the network said.
[/quote]
Seems
to me that James was fired BEFORE ENDA became law, by a private entity
making a private choice to retain or dismiss a person based on their
private judgement about the best business interest of the company - which is precisely the very fucking thing you say ENDA is a threat to!!!
Do you favor the employer having that right or do you not? Pick a fucking side dumbass.
[quote]
Imagine how many conservatives would find themselves in the same
unemployment line if ENDA were the law of the land! The workplace would
be open season on people with religious convictions and beliefs.[/quote]
And
yet, let's repeat - James was fired WITHOUT ENDA and ESPN has suffered
no legal repercussions. How then does ENDA change that for the worse?
How is the imagined "open season" not already open, if indeed it is such
a thing to be feared?
[quote]
Christians (and people who follow most major religions) would be
silenced and forced underground, while homosexuals and transgenders turn
the business world into their strongest political platform.
[/quote]
so
you are saying that people on the other side of the world are willing
to be put to death for speaking their Christian beliefs, but the noble
American Christian will be cowed into silence by the threat of losing
their job? you seem to think very highly of your sheep, Mr. Perkins.
Again, I support Craig James' right to his views (however in error) and
believe he was wronged. I would say the same about any Christian fired
for their views. but Perkins isn't really worried about people being
free to hold a different view, what he's really advocating for here is
your right as a Christian to harass your gay/trans co-worker or employee
(or reject a potential employee).
In
Perkins' ideal world, assuming I could somehow manage to be employed
anywhere being trans, any "Christian" co-worker could spend all day
telling me what a horrible abomination before God i was under the
umbrella of "religious liberty." if he were asked not to, he would
clearly be a victim of discrimination. not, of course, that people like
Perkins think that people like me should ever have jobs at all.
Nevermind the spouse and children that having no support become wholly
dependent on the welfare system - no wait, he's against that too. let's
just put them under the bridge rather than fool with that pesky trans
employee, eh?
[quote]
A lot of squishy Republicans think they fix the problem with a
religious liberty amendment to ENDA. But as we've seen with the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (which the courts have shot full of
holes), it will take a legislative firewall -- not an amendment -- to
protect faithful Americans.
Meanwhile, Christians wouldn't be the only ones hurt by the law. Just
ask American Eagle. When an employee started cross-dressing, managers
said it made shoppers uncomfortable. But when the store tried to enforce
its standards, the company was sued. As part of a private settlement,
American Eagle had to agree to hire transgenders no matter how
uncomfortable it makes customers -- or employees! Some New Yorkers were
surprised. Shouldn't companies be free to enforce a dress code? Not if
ENDA passes.
[/quote]
Is American Eagle still in business Tony? How's the profit margin? Stlil customers coming through the doors? Yes? then fuck off.
[quote]
In Maryland, one hair salon owner testified that she'll lose business
under a similar "non-discrimination" law. Like a lot of shop owners, she
said the government can force her to hire transgenders, but it can't
force customers who are uncomfortable with them to come into her salon.
Still, Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and the rest of his party are intent
on bringing ENDA up for a vote as early as next week. The only way to put the brakes on this devastating proposal is by speaking out. Contact your senators today and urge them to oppose ENDA -- for freedom's sake.[/quote]
http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/its-the-enda-the-world-as-we-know-it
So...you
are not in favor of discrimination for ANY reason, and you just wrote a
couple thousand words advocating for the right to do JUST THAT.
Oh, but it gets better! You have gotten John Boehner all confuzzled.
[quote]
John Boehner today came out swinging against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
The Speaker of The House issued a terse statement hours before the
Senate is slated to vote today on the legislation that would protect
LGBT Americans from being fired — for being LGBT. Boehner’s spokesman
warned against the bill, claiming it would cost straight Americans their
jobs, and falsely stated that LGBT people are already protected from
being fired — a claim that’s egregiously false.
Boehner’s spokesperson said the Speaker believes ENDA will
“cost American jobs, especially small business jobs,” and added it will
“increase frivolous litigation.” How that is possible was not addressed.
Shortly after his initial comments, came a second attack.
“We have always believed,” an aide from Boehner’s office stated, that
the protections included in the ENDA legislation for LGBT people are
“covered by existing law,” the Huffington Post reported.[/quote]
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/boehner-its-already-illegal-to-fire-lgbt-americans-for-being-lgbt/politics/2013/11/04/78001#.UnhfTlNzAaI
So
let me walk through this John...on the one hand, protecting LGBT people
will directly cause the loss of jobs and an explosion of frivolous
lawsuits....BUUUUUUT.....this protection already exists???
Howzat again?
By
the way - if these protections already exist, what's tony shitting his
pants about again? oh yeah, he's not - he's just manipulating poor
ignorant suckers who think he can be trusted to tell them the truth. I
grow increasingly ashamed I was ever one of them.
