The following comes from a July 8 story on Yahoo.com.
You know things are getting weird when a prominent civil rights organization opposes a nondiscrimination law.
In a statement released Tuesday, the American Civil Liberties Union and several LGBT rights organizations withdrew their support for the Employee Non- Discrimination Act, which would protect LGBT people from workplace discrimination. The bill has passed the Senate and awaits response in the House.
Their qualm with the legislation is this: Based on the way ENDA is currently written, religious organizations, the military, and small businesses are not obligated to comply. Meaning, for example, that it could be legal for the principal of a Catholic school to fire a gay teacher because of a religious objection to his sexual orientation. In its statement, the ACLU called this exemption a “blank check to engage in workplace discrimination against LGBT people,” and said that as it is currently written, “ENDA should not move forward in Congress.”
Why now? When the Supreme Court sided with Hobby Lobby last week, it upheld the corporation’s religious objection to providing legal, safe contraception like IUDs and the morning-after pill as part of its company health insurance. Inspired by this ruling, people opposed to advances in LGBT rights are hoping to extend the religious exemptions in ENDA to other contexts, according to Ian Thompson, an ACLU legislative representative working on issues that impact the LGBT community.
For example, last week religious leaders close to the Obama administration sent a letter to the White House requesting a religious exemption to an executive order the president is expected to issue that would ban federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT people.
“We are asking that an extension of protection for one group not come at the expense of faith communities whose religious identity and beliefs motivate them to serve those in need,” said the letter, which was obtained by The Atlantic. Two members of Catholics for Obama and three former members of the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships signed the document.
“We want ENDA to reflect the reality that religious expression is not a license to discriminate against LGBT people,” Thompson said over the phone….
To read the original story, click here.
I saw a piece on the news this week about this and I thought it made a lot of sense. The Civil RIghts Act of 1964 had a carefully crafted religious liberty clause, which has been tested over the years, and has been found to be a pretty good balance between the rights of African Americans and the rights of religious people who want to discriminate. Nobody challenges that compromise, and in fact, thankfully, few people nowadays even come close to violating them. The Church is fully supportive of the Civil RIghts Acts, so far as I know. Insofar as the Church prohibits unjust discrimination against LGBT people, why not use those 50 year old religious liberty protections when drafting modern protections against unjust discrimination today? How simple is that?
YFC, are you speaking against the 1st Amendment to the Constitution – Freedom of Religion ? or Free Speech?
ANDREW, first amendment freedom of religion is not an absolute right that allows people to do whatever they want. The courts have found this over and over again. So the answer is that I am not speaking against the first amendment.
Because race is innate, sexual preferences are not and are changeable. You are blurring the lines between discrimination against race with those with sexual abnormalities, where it should be permissible to morally discriminate when religious liberties are violated….I don’t believe it is ever justified to discriminate based on race which you are born with.
Ronnie, sexual orientation is not changeable, and besides, if changeability of a trait were a sign that something should not be protected, then we would not protect religion, which is quite clearly and often changeable.
YFC – Why should IMMORAL sexual activity be protected by any laws?
Why do those who love and support the mortal sin of sodomy need to state their sexual desires publically?
CCC: ” 2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.”
YFC is like a “broken record”…..he refuses to see any difference between SSA and sodomy (CCC 2396). ACLU and their minions said Whoa, this legislation we’re pushing doesn’t give us the unfair advantage that we were hoping for………….we need to rewrite it so that it conforms to our “in your face” take-over plan. Such a travesty in America.
Beth, the Constitution already protects many of the things you consider immoral. It is not the job of the law to force morality on the private activity of individuals unless it interferes in the rights or harms someone else. Sorry about that, it’s just that we don’t have a theocracy here in the United States.
Judeo-Christian roots of America’s Founding ideals and documents cannot be denied. Our laws…murder,rape,robery…are all based on the Ten Commandments. Yes, we don’t have a theocracy and never should. What people do in the privacy of their home is their business, I agree, but when they force others to violate their religious liberty it is wrong.
Stating that the US is some kind of Judeo-Christian invention is such a ruse. Jews weren’t even allowed to vote or hold office at all until 1787 (1822 in Maryland).
Of the signatories of the Declatation of Indepencence:
Catholics: 1, Jews: 0.
Of the 204 signatories of the Constitution: Catholics 3, Jews 0.
The key Founding Fathers (Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, John Adams, and their muse Thomas Paine) were all basically atheists with vague religious affiliation as Unitatian or Deist Episcopalian.
The founding ideals of the US Constitution were Enlightenment ones: Reason above all, Naturalism (ie., the laws of the physical world). There are dozens of quotes from them about the dangers of mixing religion and governance, or their general take on religion.
Thomas Jefferson made an edited version of the Bible where he removed any reference to Jesus being anything other than human.
At best, the Judeo-Christian roots of the US are that they were all of European descent, with an undeniable culture inherited from Christendom, which in turn inherited the culture of Judaism (yet still persecuted Jews).
I beg to differ: Our nation’s history provides overwhelming evidence that America was birthed upon Judeo-Christian principles. The first act of America’s first Congress in 1774 was to ask a minister to open with prayer and to lead Congress in the reading of four chapters of the Bible. In 1776, in approving the Declaration of Independence, our founders acknowledged that all men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” and noted that they were relying “on the protection of Divine Providence” in the founding of this country. John Quincy Adams said, “The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.” Also, the signers of the 1783 Treaty of Paris, which ended the Revolutionary War, insisted the treaty begin with the phrase, “In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.”
I never claimed that the founders were religious only that the Judeo-Christian roots of America’s Founding ideals and documents cannot be denied.
They were Europeans. There only plurality of religious tradition they would have understood was differing sects and degrees of adherence to Christianity. Even the ones who basically rejected religion were doing do with Christianity as a paradigm.
And a lot of that language is just culture, not reflecting any real belief. Calling a hurricane an act of God doesn’t mean you believe God is micromanaging wind patterns. The language of being endowed by a creator is intentionally vague and sounds nice, but the creator could be physics as easily as a distinct deity. The language is used in a way that is meant suggest “however we came to be”.
What bothers me about Juseo-Christian is that the Judeo part is deceptive and revisionist. It suggests there was some kind of harmony between Jews and Christians, and that Jews participated at all in the political process. It only refers to pre-Christian Jews.
Good discussion Hugh. I believe, and I could be mistaken, what this Judeo in Judeo-Christian was referring to is the ideals of morality ( the Hebrew Bible played a role) as reflected in the Ten Commandments which God gave to Moses and he gave primarily to the Jewish people and on which some of our laws are based. Also you could check out:
https://www.jewishpathways.com/jewish-history/jews-and-founding-america
The problem is that sin is no longer recognized as sin. The moral fiber of our country has been unraveling for decades so that it is hanging on by a few tattered threads. Our bishops and priests may no longer be able to defend our Christian faith, so we must all pray for them and speak firmly and graciously, repeating our support for the religious rights we still have. No compromise on this. Pray and speak out.
I teach in Catholic education and have worked with gay men and women who were good colleagues and kept their private lives private, but that was before gay “marriage” was legal. Is YFC insisting that the Catholic Church could be compelled by law to hire gay teachers who were open about their “practices”? Wouldn’t that create a conflict for the teacher, required by contract to teach against the lifestyle everyone knows he or she is practicing? Why would a gay man or woman want to work in a Catholic school under such conditions, except as an agent provacateur to try and force the state to force the Church to change its teaching or go out of business (which i believe is the activists’ intent?
Tom I don’t think that’s an easy question to answer. I don’t think a catholic schools should be compelled to retain a religion teacher who is in a civil marriage, if they also get rid of any other religion teacher engaged in any public behavior outside the moral or doctrinal teachings of the Church. If the school hires religion teachers who are not catholic (say, a Lutheran New Testament theologian), then it would be harder for that shcool to fire her if she were gay or in a marriage. If the teacher teaches science, harder still. If it is a janitor, harder still. In other words, the school should not be allowed to pick and choose which doctrines are fireable offenses, and the closer the job is to teaching the doctrine of the faith, the more leeway ought to be given the school. This is how the 50 year old Civil Rights Acts have been understood, and it is a compromise that seems to have worked out pretty well.
However, If the school receives federal dollars to fund a position, then my opinion is that it should not be allowed to discriminate at all based on LGBT at all for that program or position, and still get the money. It is only fair that taxpayers not be asked to fund discriminatory positions and programs.
So there we have it, self described “YFC” your God is now and may have always been the Civil Government! Thanks for once again submitting glaring evidence of it!
May God have mercy on an amoral Amerika and His Church!
Viva Cristo Rey!
Yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Dear Sea Slug, I do, you just don’t follow along. Whenever i post about anything other than homosexuality, commentators immediately jump on me and basically say that a sodomite has no opinion worthy of being listened to. If people could see more for the complete human being than I am, then perhaps I would post on other topics even more often.
You may want to take a step back and ask yourself ‘why’ commentators are seemingly jumping on you. The ‘not worthy’ is in your own imagination, YFC. Please stop projecting Catholics behaving and believing like Catholics as some form of persecution. Unless you enjoy feeling like the victim.
That said, you may want to try representing yourself on this board as more than just one who has given up the fight against SSA and see what happens.
Just a thought.
Ann Malley – If I said the sky is blue, you would say it is green. You are one of the people that disagrees with me regardless of what I post, whether it is on a gay subject or not. In fact, you just disagreed with me that you disagree with me!!!
Poor misunderstood you. If others won’t victimize you, you have to victimize yourself. You must enjoy it.
AM, I don’t claim to be persecuted, you do. And then you project your notion of persecution onto me. You make over the top statements about how gay people who merely want the same legal rights you enjoy are somehow “persecuting” you, which is a complete insult to those martyred for our faith. If I seek fair housing laws, I am somehow persecuting you. If I seek my fundamental right to marriage guaranteed in the Constitution, you are being persecuted. If I seek to be free from hate violence, you see that as a persecution of YOU.
You jump on me every chance you get regardless of the topic being discussed, whether there is a gay element to the conversation, and youargue with me, not based on the content of my comment, but on the fact that I am gay. If you don’t believe me, look at this very thread, in which you jump on me at July 11 2:38 PM. You cannot, or maybe you refuse, to see me as a whole person, but only as a gay person. Just a thought.
God bless you, YFC, for giving me the opportunity to defend the Faith. It is much appreciated and, I pray, being put to good use. You play an excellent Ramses.
And I do see you as a whole person, YFC. That is why I challenge you to stop asserting yourself as if you are the total sum of sexual inclination first and foremost. You’re not, you know, even though that is how you may see yourself.
YFC stop bullying Ann Malley! Stop it already! Its pissing me off You have been asked before to stop!
Dear Abeca, if you don’t like what is written on these pages, especially directed in response to people who are not YOU, then please avoid them. It is entirely your choice. If you don’t read them, maybe you won’t get pissed off! In the meantime, perhaps you should try getting pissed off at the lies spread on CCD that are passed off as truths.
Again, YFC, thank you for proving that CCD is rightfully reporting on militant homofascism. If you seek to make yourself appear benign or just seeking protection under the law, you’ve failed miserably. Much like you have failed in attempting to paint yourself as an average Catholic just trying to save his soul. Or a victim of anything save that which you will not reject. Free will. It’s a kicker.
And yet, “No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other.” Matthew 6:24
Your impassioned support of the same sex agenda shows very clearly which master you serve. And that is why you haunt CCD when you are always decrying how offended you are by the articles here. So take the advice you give to others and don’t read what offends you so grievously. But the truth is these articles does not offend you as you take pleasure in anything that gives you a podium to hawk your wares.
The GILBERT Gaystapo Aliance is a truly queer bunch of bananas – as they Hate Each Other Almost as much as they Hate the Rest of the ‘Vanilla’ (clueless suburban taxpaying voters) and particularly the Catholic Church.
The Homo-Nazi Reich of Pederast Founder Ernst Rohm & his syphilitic prostitute protege Hitler made a similar alliance with Joe Stalin at the start of WW-2, and together in mutual peace – destroyed Poland.
However, as with the GILBERTS so too the fable of the Frog & the Scorpion, and it is only when Attacking Others they Hate More that they join forces.
The website Catholic On-Line had a reprint of a prior CCD Story, worth reprinting again – as the same ole Resident Harpies continue the same old Alinskyite Scams of political thought policing according to the ‘gospel’ of the Gaystapo = Pander or Perish:
SEE
‘Queer nuns’ return to public event at San Francisco’s ‘gay-friendly’ Most Holy Redeemer parish
In late 2006, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, who describe themselves as “the leading-edge order of queer nuns,” and whose official slogan is “go forth and sin some more,” were booted out of… Most Holy Redeemer’s parish hall…
In addition to being a professional pornography director, “Sister Roma” has served as an emcee at the Folsom Street Fair, an annual San Francisco event celebrating the bondage/sado-masochistic (BDSM) and leather subculture that concludes the city’s yearly “Leather Pride Week.”
Is there any way we could sue Catholics for Obama to get them to stop using the name Catholic?
For not getting very much traction, I sure do generate a lot of responses from all of you. It almost seems as though some of you go on this site to see what I have said and comment on it. In fact, I can always tell when I’ve actually said something potent by the reactions I get. In general, I look at myself as one of the strains of saccharomyces cerevisea on this site. SOMEONE has to stand up for the dignity and respect due to LGBT people, as it surely isn’t coming from the average commentator. Someone actually has to correct the lies that get told about us on this site.
YFC, you do nothing but underscore the truth in the so-called lies. So the only traction you get is attention in folks counteracting the filth you put forth as Catholic teaching.
If that’s the kind of traction you want, keep on keepin’ on.
I should actually thank you for acting as a foil used to strengthen traditional moral values. Encountering the enemy is a great test of commitment. So thank you! And God bless.
I suppose that blatant lies, easily provable as lies, constitute your version of traditional moral values. That is really sad, Ann Malley. Those are not my values, to be sure.
Your open hostility toward that which you really are, a man afflicted with same sex attraction, not a homosexual incapable of choosing what you will do and will not do is the lie, YFC. But you cleave to it. You honor it seemingly above all else. I don’t. And I cannot as my Faith in God and what He calls me to understand of His creation will not allow it.
If you do not share that value, then mores the pity for you. I do not judge you, but I do judge your values as incompatible with those of the Faith as it comes down from the Church.
God bless.
Self described “YFC”,
Give us one provable example of such a lie! Don’t however even try to claim that the words of Holy Scripture are lies!
May God have mercy on an amoral Amerika and His Church!
Viva Cristo Rey!
Yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Dear Kenneth, I have supplied many times examples of lies, but the most accessible one, the one that doesn’t take days or weeks to investigate, is McDermott’s REPEATED lie that the Dyke march begins on the steps of Misison Dolores Church. It was a blatant lie, told to insinuate that dykes were marching in order to disrespect the sacred grounds of the Basilica and parish Church. I repeatedly proved (and you can see for yourself in the website of the Dyke march itself as well as in press accounts) that the Dyke march started 2 and a half blocks AWAY from the Church. He told this lie over and over again. He even repeated it at least twice AFTER I called him on it. Suddenly, he now admits, that he participated in the Dyke march from the steps of Mission Dolores Church, to watch it process up the public street known as Dolores street before heading to the Castro. Ask yourself, why would he possibly lie about such a simple thing as to where an event took place, except to create the false impression that the purpose of the march was to denigrate the Church.
Ann Malley, your post at 7/12 6:09 PM is yet another example of your psychological projection. I am NOT openly hostile to what I am, a gay man. I do have a choice what I do or do not do. But I am not hostile at all to being a gay man, as that is how I was created, and to be hostile to that would blaspheme my creator.
Again, you underline the issue, YFC. You do not define yourself as a man. You define yourself as a ‘gay’ man. Gay seems to be your life’s filter, your focus.
It is blaspheming the Creator to put ‘gay’ before man, YFC, for you are a man first and foremost. Not same sex attraction. That is why defining yourself according to your sexual attraction and not according to what you actually are is a continuous problem here on CCD with regard to your posts.
You say you are a fellow Catholic, but Catholic seems to be a far lower priority as you view a disorder of nature as your primary identification. That is not projection, YFC, but rather reading your words.
Please do not ascribe our sinful inclinations to the Creator. That is something Satan would have us do much like Adam did…”…it was the fault of the woman YOU gave me!” when in reality it was Adam’s fault for choosing the woman and pleasing her/himself over pleasing the Creator.
What you think, you think, YFC, what you do, you become. So you may think you are a fellow Catholic, but what you are do, you become. And that is one who puts gay before being a man and being what God Himself calls us all to be. We all do this when we sin or get misguided or overwhelmed by passion. So you are not alone by any means.
Self described “YFC”,
You get responses from us because, as real good Catholics” we actually do care for your soul, and where it WILL spend eternity!
May God have mercy on an amoral Amerika and His Church!
Viva Cristo Rey!
Yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher