Thursday, April 6, 2017

CNA & ADF: We Promise - No Sex Under the Desk at Work

It is an exceptionally straightforward concept. Workers (employees) provide good service to employers in exchange for compensation. It defines the workplace. Most of the time employees do not come to work to be “saved,” to receive scripture or to be proselytized. Nor, for that matter, are they interested in the rules of the employer's particular flavor of religion.

Thursday, Catholic News Agency wants us to know: “A new civil rights ruling may create religious liberty problems.” Not really but some conservative Christian fetishists sustain a conviction that the Constitution consists primarily of the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment and, perhaps, the Second Amendment. They are then inextricably welded to the idea that their religious beliefs are the most important thing in the whole world. They never give a second of thought to the effects of everyone adopting the same attitudes.

Imagine the orthodox Jew fluttering around the lunchroom, yarmulke held in place with one hand while the other is inspecting the contents of mayonnaise-stained brown paper bags to make sure that employees are not consuming trayf. Hindu bosses are quite diverse. One group insists on vegetarianism on Tuesdays and Saturdays. Could the Scientologist require blood tests to insure that no one is taking Prozac or Zoloft?

Let us suppose that the imposition is a bit tamer than that. The Hasidic Jew notices that someone is eating a roast pork sandwich and he launches into a diatribe about why pork is unclean and revolting. Is that acceptable? Hell no! It is toxic. As Hyman Roth so eloquently stated: “because it had nothing to do with business.”

I am a bit long-winded today. Let us return to the piece in CNA:
“There is a concern that if an employer simply expresses its belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, an employee might complain that the employer created a ‘hostile work environment’ that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation,” Jim Campbell, senior counsel for the legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, told CNA April 5. “This risk poses concerns for religious employers.”
Notice how he gets the word “simply” in there when what he really means is “harmlessly expresses.” It is not harmless and there is an eminently simple solution to this dilemma: Shut the fuck up! What mystical force compels someone to express this point of view at work? Would someone utter something about interracial marriage or Jews marrying Christians in a business meeting? What is so special about gay people that causes conservative Christians to be armed with unique virtual yellow-highlighters? They complain endlessly (and moronically) about gay people wanting “special rights.” Well, stop making us so damned special.

Later on, after a great deal of verbiage:
Campbell said employers who perform secular work will rarely have a religious belief that “precludes them from employing someone who is in a same-sex relationship or is experiencing same-sex attraction.”

“But in limited circumstances, that might happen, and the religious freedom of those employers will be adversely affected,” he added.
If someone ever asked me if I am “experiencing same-sex attraction” I hope that I have the common sense to just walk away. But I digress. There is no legitimate reason for anyone to be denied employment in any situation because they are gay unless the prospective employee would be a “minister” as that term is understood in law. This concern for our private lives that they disapprove of is just remarkable. It is also hypocritical. Are they terminating employees who get divorced? Or, how about this scenario? “Uh, Ms. Drone, I see that you are pregnant. According to our records you are not married. Unless that is incorrect, I am going to have to terminate your employment.” Just how absurd does it have to be to sink in?
He suggested that religious employers not protected by religious exemptions should make a distinction between discriminating against gays and lesbians “because of their status as such.” They could still implement codes of conduct against certain behaviors, which should not be unlawful.
Really? What do they have in mind that would be neutral?
Even these distinctions might not be sustainable under law.

“Unfortunately, however, the U.S. Supreme Court so far has been unwilling to distinguish between status and conduct in the context of sexual orientation.”
What exactly do they fear that gay people will do in the office? Reciprocal oral sex under the desk? Or, heaven forbid, anal sex on top of the desk? What rule could possibly apply to gay people about workplace conduct that does not currently apply to straight people? They continue to define us, not by what we do, but by how we screw. Mr. Roth is correct. It has nothing to do with business. Competent business owners should be more concerned with productivity then the sex lives of their employees. You know — The simple exchange of good service for compensation.

Related content:



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.