RLCC comments follow this block quote: "House approves ban on job bias against gays: Tough fight expected in Senate; Bush has vowed to veto legislation," msnbc.msn.com. November 7, 2007.
WASHINGTON - The House on Wednesday approved the first federal ban on job discrimination against gays, lesbians and bisexuals.
Passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act came despite protests from some gay rights supporters that the bill does not protect transgender workers. That term covers transsexuals, cross-dressers and others whose outward appearance does not match their gender at birth.
The measure would make it illegal for employers to make decisions about hiring, firing, promoting or paying an employee based on sexual orientation. It would exempt churches and the military.
After the 235-184 vote, supporters are expecting a tough fight in the narrowly divided Senate, where Massachusetts Democrat Edward Kennedy plans to introduce a similar version.
A veto from President Bush is expected if the proposal does pass the Senate. The White House has cited constitutional concerns and said the proposal could trample religious rights.
Backers of the House bill proclaimed it a major civil rights advance for gays. "Bigotry and homophobia are sentiments that should never be allowed to permeate the American workplace," said House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C.
The decision by Democratic leaders to exclude protections based on gender identity created sharp divisions in the party and among gay rights activists.
Republicans, meanwhile, said the bill could undermine the rights of people who oppose homosexuality for religious reasons and lead to an onslaught of dubious discrimination lawsuits.
"This is, frankly, a trial lawyer's dream," said Rep. John Kline, R-Minn.
Transgender employees off final bill
Protections for transgender workers were in the original bill. But Democratic leaders found they would lose support from moderate and conservative Democrats by including transgender employees in the final bill.
"That's a bridge too far," said Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va. "It's better to take it one step at a time."
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, however, said excluding transgender workers was shortsighted.
"As we have seen in many states, the failure to include the transgender community in civil rights legislation from the beginning makes it more difficult to extend protections later," said Nadler, D-N.Y.
Rep. Barney Frank, one of two openly gay members of Congress and an important supporter of the bill, urged colleagues not to let the dispute over transgender workers doom an important gain in civil rights.
Democrat hopes this sends a message
Frank, D-Mass., said he hoped the bill would send a message to "millions of Americans who are gay and lesbian that they are not bad people, that it is not legitimate to fire them simply because of who they are."
He also pledged to continue to fight for a bill to protect transgender workers.
Job discrimination based on factors such as race, gender and religion are banned under federal law. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have laws against sexual-orientation discrimination.
Only nine states specifically protect transgender people from discrimination: New Jersey, Minnesota, Rhode Island, New Mexico, California, Illinois, Maine, Hawaii, Washington. The District of Columbia has a similar law.
By January, laws also will be in effect in Iowa, Vermont, Colorado and Oregon.
"That's a bridge too far. It's better to take it one step at a time."
What is going on? It is the incremental introduction of decadence. This is not to say that all was good and well before. It wasn't. It was coercive then and now. It is trading sin for sin.
Notice that the line is going farther and farther over. How long will it be before pedophiles will be said in the highest places not to be sick, not to have a disease, not to be any different, deserving of equal rights and equal protections, etc.? Maybe you imagine that's taking it too far and it will never go that far. If you had asked people sixty years ago whether or not this country would ever be debating homosexual marriage or employment rights such as these, they would have thought you insane.
How long will it be before polygamy, incest, bestiality, pederasty, public sex, public orgies, and pedophilia are each not bridges too far? What about anti-homosexual newspapers or political groups, would they be coerced into hiring homosexuals? The list is endless.
The problem is with coercion. The secular state is coercive. It is evil.
Homosexuality is harmful behavior and the proselytizing of homosexuality is a sin. The Real Liberal Christian Church doesn't want that harm to continue. It wants it to stop. It calls upon each soul to search itself to discover the harm done by homosexuality. It is unwholesome, selfish behavior that opens hell. It facilitates greed and violence as well.
Unless martial law is declared and the next election cancelled and that stands, a Democrat will be the next President. That Democrat will not veto this type of legislation. The primary exception will remain "churches" (vague as that can be).
Therefore, you ought to see where the Christian Commons will afford some protection against being forced to work and live constantly in close quarters with people who promote vileness and who endanger and mislead children.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)