Thursday, July 25, 2013

All you need to know about Paul McHugh's piece on Witherspoon's blog

Paul R. McHugh
Paul R. McHugh has posted his opposition to ENDA on Witherspoon Institute's blog. It's a shame because 82 year-old  McHugh, a psychiatrist, used to be a highly regarded professor at Johns Hopkins. Nevertheless, as we have seen before, religious belief trumps science. He would not be posting an article to the blog of an organization affiliated with Opus Dei were he not a zealot — a defender of the faith and would be Knight Templar. McHugh writes:
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act would equate sexual orientation and gender identity, ambiguous and malleable concepts, with immutable features like race, color, and ethnicity as classes worthy of special legal protection.
Notice how he kind of forgot to add religion to his list. McHugh included similar nonsense in an amicus brief before the Supreme Court in the marriage cases. That bit of sophistry was co-authored by Gerard V. Bradley, Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School. But I digress.

Once these clowns claim that sexual orientation is malleable (in spite of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary), that pretty much does it for me. Apparently, McHugh must also believe that religion is "immutable."

Under current federal law, it is illegal:
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
So what on earth is this guy writing about?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.