The Discriminatory Employment Non-Discrimination Act
Leroy N. Soetoro
4cd827381054.txt
Today�s Democratic Congressional leadership is a predictable lot.
They�ve cornered the market on mass manipulation through semantic
tinkering. It�s a relatively easy code to crack. To decipher what the
Democratic Congress means versus what they say, one need merely apply
the �forked tongue test.�
If the Democratic Congress says �Fairness Doctrine,� expect unfairness
in spades. When Harry Reid tags ObamaCare the �Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act,� we know that the patient gets hosed, and the
�care� breaks the bank. Indeed, if the 111th Congress were to pass the
�No Kicking Fuzzy Puppies Act,� bet your Obama tax hike that Nancy
Pelosi would be first in line to punt Poochie across the Capitol
Rotunda.
And so it goes with the characteristically mislabeled �Employment
Non-Discrimination Act� or ENDA. According to its leftist proponents,
ENDA, which is under consideration in both houses of Congress, would
merely insulate people who choose to engage in homosexual conduct
(sexual orientation) or those who suffer from gender confusion (gender
identity) against employment discrimination. But, in truth, this
legislation would effectively codify the very thing it purports to
combat: workplace discrimination.
ENDA would force, under penalty of law, Christian, Jewish or Muslim
business owners to hire people who unrepentantly choose to engage in
homosexual or cross-dressing behaviors, despite the fact that those
volitional behaviors are in direct conflict with every major world
religion, thousands of years of history and uncompromising human
biology.
This is no different than compelling a deeply religious business owner
to hire and accommodate an �out and proud� adulterous �swinger.� It�s a
direct assault on the inalienable rights of people of faith. It pits the
government directly against the free exercise of religion and is,
therefore, unconstitutional on its face.
During his second term, President Bush issued a Statement of
Administration Policy on ENDA, pointing out its clearly unconstitutional
nature. �[ENDA] is inconsistent with the right to the free exercise of
religion as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration
Act (RFRA),� noted the statement. �The Act prohibits the Federal
Government from substantially burdening the free exercise of religion
except for compelling reasons, and then only in the least restrictive
manner possible. [ENDA] does not meet this standard.�
The fact that our current president both supports ENDA and prefers our
sacred constitution as potty paper for the aforementioned Poochie makes
ENDA no less unconstitutional.
Chai Feldblum (pronounced �high�) is a lesbian activist and sexual
anarchist attorney who supports legalized polygamy and bisexual
polyamory. She has been nominated by President Obama to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This is like having Michael
Moore guard the donuts. In the past, Ms. Feldblum, ENDA�s chief framer
and, if confirmed, one of five commissioners charged with its
enforcement, has candidly summed-up the mindset behind the bill.
Ms. Feldblum believes that the battle between religious freedom and
unfettered sexual license, aka, �gay rights,� is a �zero sum game,�
meaning that the two cannot possibly coexist in harmony. One must
triumph over the other. (Guess who wins in her analysis?)
When asked about the Christian business owner or religious organization
that morally objects to hiring people openly engaged in the homosexual
lifestyle, Ms. Feldblum snapped: �Gays win; Christians lose.� And where
Americans� constitutionally guaranteed right to religious liberty comes
into conflict with the postmodern concept of �gay rights,� Ms. Feldblum
has admitted having �a hard time coming up with any case in which
religious liberty should win.� Of course, Ms. Feldblum�s analysis is
entirely arbitrary and completely unsupported by any reasonable
constitutional interpretation or federal precedent.
In fact, ENDA would, for the first time since the Constitutional
Convention, extend special, federally preferred government status to
individuals based upon a changeable and objectively aberrant sexual
lifestyle, rather than requiring that such status be delineated by
immutable, non-behavioral characteristics such as skin color or gender.
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell put it well when he said, �Skin
color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is
perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics.
Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.�
But, Ken Hutcherson, a prominent, well-respected African-American pastor
from the Seattle area, summed it up even better stating, rather
incisively: �Don�t compare your sin to my skin.�
Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He is
author of the book �The Right Hook � From the Ring to the Culture War�
and serves as Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and
Liberty Alliance Action. Send comments to Matt at
jmatt...@comcast.net.
--
Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact to
Rangel's tax evasion.
Enos Penvy
wrote:
I'm summarizing here just how much it must SUCK to be you:
> Today’s Democratic Congressional leadership
.
> Fairness Doctrine
.
> Patient Protection and
> Affordable Care Act
.
> ENDA.
.
> homosexual conduct
> (sexual orientation) or those who suffer from gender confusion (gender
> identity) against employment discrimination.
.
> Jewish or Muslim
.
> homosexual or cross-dressing behaviors
.
> adulterous “swinger.”
.
> lesbian activist and sexual
> anarchist
.
> polygamy and bisexual
> polyamory.
.
> homosexual lifestyle
.
> Skin color
.
> Sexual orientation
.
> Nancy Pelosi
You poor thing.
Josh
> http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/12/07/commentary/op-eds/doc4b1cb9c52a
> 4cd827381054.txt
>
> Today�s Democratic Congressional leadership is a predictable lot.
> They�ve cornered the market on mass manipulation through semantic
> tinkering. It�s a relatively easy code to crack. To decipher what the
> Democratic Congress means versus what they say, one need merely apply
>
> If the Democratic Congress says �Fairness Doctrine,� expect unfairness
> in spades. When Harry Reid tags ObamaCare the �Patient Protection and
> Affordable Care Act,� we know that the patient gets hosed, and the
> �care� breaks the bank. Indeed, if the 111th Congress were to pass the
> �No Kicking Fuzzy Puppies Act,� bet your Obama tax hike that Nancy
> Pelosi would be first in line to punt Poochie across the Capitol
> Rotunda.
>
> Non-Discrimination Act� or ENDA. According to its leftist proponents,
> ENDA, which is under consideration in both houses of Congress, would
> merely insulate people who choose to engage in homosexual conduct
> (sexual orientation) or those who suffer from gender confusion (gender
> identity) against employment discrimination. But, in truth, this
> legislation would effectively codify the very thing it purports to
> combat: workplace discrimination.
>
> ENDA would force, under penalty of law, Christian, Jewish or Muslim
> business owners to hire people who unrepentantly choose to engage in
> homosexual or cross-dressing behaviors, despite the fact that those
> volitional behaviors are in direct conflict with every major world
> religion, thousands of years of history and uncompromising human
> biology.
>
> This is no different than compelling a deeply religious business owner
> direct assault on the inalienable rights of people of faith. It pits the
> government directly against the free exercise of religion and is,
> therefore, unconstitutional on its face.
Per Employment Division it's Constitutional.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0494_0872_ZO.html
> During his second term, President Bush issued a Statement of
> Administration Policy on ENDA, pointing out its clearly unconstitutional
> nature. �[ENDA] is inconsistent with the right to the free exercise of
> religion as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration
> Act (RFRA),� noted the statement. �The Act prohibits the Federal
> Government from substantially burdening the free exercise of religion
> except for compelling reasons, and then only in the least restrictive
> manner possible. [ENDA] does not meet this standard.�
Firstly, the reason RFRA was enacted was that it is Constitutional to
burden religious exercise if the burden results incidentally (as it does
in ENDA).
Secondly, ENDA explicitly exempts religious organizations.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2015
Thirdly, ENDA does not exempt a non-religious business whose owner
personally is religious. But that in now way violates RFRA because
hiring people in a non-religious organization is not an exercise of
religion.
Josh Rosenbluth
ne...@millions.com
One of the main reasons for putting Pelosi in charge:
She is a safe candidate for re-election after re-election due to the
goony bird mentality of San Francisco voters. Pelosi every now and
then - more often of late - lets her tongue start rattling long before
her brain connects - possible a disease suffered by her constituency -
at the best and guidance of the political extremists. She and the most
intolerant, rude elected officials to te House of Representatives who
likewise has a constituency of buffoons, Barney Frank. He is a safe
bet, so he was pout in charge of a committee who blew every chance to
monitor and correct banking programs and fiscal policies. Those two
are politically conjoined children playing with enough dynamite to
keep blowing up the USA and its character amongst the world's nations.
They are like two most sacred cows standing deep in their own
bullshit.
Enjoy.