Friday, November 8, 2013

NOM claims that homosexuality is a vague concept

Predictably, National Organization for Marriage's Brian Brown is upset over the passage of ENDA in the Senate with a number of Republican votes. I am not at all sure what this has to do with “defending marriage” but I am reasonably certain that Mr. Brown could come up with some illogical explanation. I am almost amused by this part of NOM's press release, quoting Brown:
While protecting people against <sic> discrimination is a very important goal, this legislation is problematic because of its broad and unclear definitions. Concepts like 'sexual orientation' and 'gender identity' are too vague to be a basis for such a law which could lead to individuals facing reprisals or even criminal action simply for expressing their values in the workplace.
Translation: NOM believes in protecting Catholics from discrimination. Queers, not so much. I can assure Mr. Brown that when someone is terminated, denied employment or passed over for promotion because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, the person making that judgment finds no ambiguity in either “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.” In point of fact, most people have no problem defining those terms.

To the extent that terminating someone for being gay is “expressing their values,” suppose those values include a disdain for Jews or “papists?” In a civilized society, people are free to believe whatever they want. However, we have already determined that, when those beliefs affect others, they are not given absolute license.

You have to seat the interracial couple and you have to hire the qualified Muslim. Federal civil rights laws have been in effect for nearly 50 years. It's about time that they addressed discrimination based on sexual orientation and sexual identity.

No Jews Allowed
A half century is long enough to wait.
Enhanced by Zemanta

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.