The Discriminatory ‘Non-Discrimination Act’
Image via WikipediaToday’s Democratic 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 Democrats mean versus what they say one need merely apply the “forked-tongue test.”
If Dems say “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 (S. 1584 in the Senate and H.R. 3017 in the House). 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” as in “stoned”) 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, 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.
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 twisted analysis?)
When asked about the Christian business owner or religious organization that morally objects to hiring people openly engaged in the homosexual lifestyle, 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,” Feldblum has admitted having “a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.” Of course 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.”
