Monday, April 30, 2007

I TOLD YOU SO! --Dems Wasting No Time --showing their true colors



A new bill, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), has been introduced in the House of Representatives by homosexual Congressman Barney Frank. The bill (HR 2015) would force organizations such as the Boy Scouts, Veterans of Foreign Wars, day care centers, Christian business owners, adoption agencies, public schools, municipalities and a host of other businesses and organizations to hire homosexual applicants.

ENDA would make it illegal to fire, refuse to hire or refuse to promote an employee based on his or her sexual orientation or "gender identity." Such acts would be considered crimes subject to severe penalties.

The same day that ENDA was introduced, another bill — commonly called the Hate Crimes Act (HR 1592) — cleared committee for a full vote by the House. The Hate Crimes Act criminalizes a vast array of state and local acts and threatens religious leaders with criminal prosecution for their thoughts, beliefs, and statements.

The intent of the Hate Crimes Act is to give special status to homosexuals. Republicans tried to expand the “protected class” in the bill to include senior citizens, pregnant women, prior victims, children under 18, the unborn, court witnesses, the military and more. Democrats defeated all amendments, projecting the welfare of homosexuals above other classes of citizens. The House Judiciary Committee then passed the bill on strict party lines —20 Democrats for and 14 Republicans against.

Take Action
Send an e-mail to President Bush asking him to veto ENDA (HR 2015) and the Hate Crimes Act (HR 1592) bills.
Call your representative and ask him or her to vote against ENDA and the Hate Crimes Act. You can reach your representative at 202-224-3121. If you don’t know your representative's name, simply give the operator your address and you will be given his or her name and connected with his or her office.
Forward this e-mail to your pastor, family and friends. Ask your pastor to urge members to send this e-mail and to call your Representative.

Send an email to President Bush


As I predicted --figure skating gay couples in competition with hetero couples may be next. They don't want GENDER as a criterion in hiring either.

The challenge of course will be to prove that failure to hire had something or nothing to do with orientation or gender. The courts will be tied up with the new democrat-created legal messes.

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible


steve said...

I did some research and this bill has actually been around since the 70's. The current iteration is actually much watered down. The current Bill excludes private organizations and religious organizations, and employers with 15 or less workers. I'm a libertarian, so I feel that the government should not be interfering with peoples lives. What people do in private is no concern of mine.. nor should it be of an employer. So I think this act is a good thing. It doesn't give these groups any more "rights" than what you or I have.

But what does this Bill have to do with "Democrats" and "Liberals"? Reading through the sponsers of the Bill, there were a number of republican names on the Bill. Just because Frank is a Democrat and sponsered this Bill, doesn't mean that All Democrats are pushing some kind of homosexual agenda.. Thats just fear mongering on your part.

I just don't understand the conservitive christians obsession with homosexuals. Even if it's a sin, it's no different a sin than say "lying", or "bearing false witness" in God's eyes. "For all have sinned and come short the glory of God". Just about every politician is a habitual liar so fundementalists should forget about the gay people and start focusing on the habitual liers we elect to government.

Barb said...

By the way, Steve, does your last name start with P?

I realize the bill and others being put forth by dems now have been around for a long time in some form or another.

Like I said, Dems are wasting no time reminding us why the majority didn't vote for them for several years --because this kind of legislation scares people of religious belief and common sense. Only Barney Franks' district and San Francisco would vote for him--the guy whose roommate (not him of course --right!) ran a gay brothel out of their house.

Already, as I understand it Christian people have no say about whom they rent to --married or cohabitating couples --straight or gay. I think religious people should have a right to NOT accommodate with our properites, religious institutions and hiring policies people who are by the Bible being blatantly in-your-face immoral.

Bob Jones U. lost religious tax exemption when they refused to allow interracial dating --they pretty much discouraged ALL dating saying there had to be chaperones and no PDA --but it was a religious belief they held (albeit not Biblically well-founded) that God would want the races to retain their distinctiveness --so gov't revoked their exemption --such that anyone donating to that school could not get a tax deduction for it. They got it back, I believe, by dropping the interrace dating ban since it was NOT really biblically defensible-- they could drop their rule in good conscience, since some of their scholars recognized it as a hold-over from southern racial prejudice, which it probably was more than a concern for racial distinctives of all races. (I wonder if they had the ban on asian/caucasian dating as well. If not, then my excuse for them doesn't hold up.)

However, with homosexuality the Bible is clear --also with cohabitating --sex without being married was considered immoral in Biblical times as fornication or adultery. As St. Paul said, the marriage bed is undefiled and he reaffirmed in excellent writing that homosexuality is sin. (Romans 1) --it was the Romans, after all, who became licentious in homosexual activity before the fall of their empire. Jesus talked to Jews who were not condoning homosex --and Paul to Romans who were --which is why Jesus doesn't mention it directly and Paul does.

If you knew your renter was a liar and a cheat, a killer, abuser, pedophile, serial adulterer or any other kind of blatant sinner, you wouldn't want to rent to or hire him either, given a choice of more moral candidates.

You say you don't care what people do in their private lives --the trouble is that private doesn't stay private and sin is catching --influential to the neighborhood kids, to your own kids if you own the adjoining condo --and the more prevalent a lifestyle is, the more we condone, accommodate and celebrate it as we are doing with homosex --to the detriment and confusion of youth --who, in MY youth, never even thought of such a weird idea --and didn't hear of it until our teens --when we had NO one trying to make it popular or trendy, as is the case today.

Last I heard, people who wanted to discriminate regarding immoral lifestyles of would-be renters and employees, were not allowed to do so. BJU a religious institution was punished economically for a stand they believed religiously --they were wrong, in my opinion, but be that as it may, it's very realistic that churches and para-church organizations will not be EXEMPT in the long run in this requirement to hire people of diverse morals and beliefs not in keeping with their mission.

You say they've exempted churches and other groups in the bill --but it's just the slippery slope. If it's deemed wrong by secular society, it will next be imposed on the churches --as interracial dating was imposed on BJU. Because they will start to write it into the tax exemption requirements --that churches must hire homosexuals, not preach the Bible on the subject, or lose their tax exemption.

The more convinced the culture becomes that homosexuality is legitimate, inevitable, congenital, unchangeable --and MORAL, the more persecuted the church will be on this issue.

Church-state separation is limited by majority rule when it comes to funding and exemption status.

Barb said...

PS --steve, you say gov't should not be interfering with peoples' lives. and how about churches? which they would do now if they could --telling us what we can preach --where we can pray --in whose name we can pray at public events on public property., what valedictorians can say about the pursuit of ultimate knowledge/truth and its influence on their lives. Think of the ACLU, epitome of liberal thought and how they fight for laws to interfere with religious expression and features of our judeo-christian heritage.

Gov't DOES interfere when it tells us whom to hire, to whom to rent, and what beliefs we can teach or preach and still be tax exempt as a church--and what students we must admit in order to keep tax exemption. It used to be that some Christian colleges asked students to sign a statement of faith --they were not interested in bringing in students who were blatantly unbelieving and would spend all their energies bucking the school. They wanted to prepare Christian students for Christian service in all fields --and to foster the meeting and mating of Christian students. Other church schools saw their student body as a mission field and were more open.

My church's colleges were open to other races for a long time and even other faiths, I think --as long as the kids would abide by the school rules which included required chapel, church attendance, etc. --but few AFr. Am. had resources to attend there --so in the 70's or 80's our colleges started recruiting Afr. Americans --with some unfortunate pregnancies of whites by the black athletes --which (pre-marital sex and pregnancy without plan to marry) was more common to Afr. American culture. (Stats prove this.) If you are a parent sending your kid to Christian college, this is not the experience you want them to have with anyone of any race--a shotgun wedding or pregnancy by someone who won't marry or who is bent on promiscuity. It's excellent when Christian kids influence others to believe and live godly lives; not so excellent when folks of other cultures erode the faith and morals of the Christians. (Granted there are Christians in every race and the schools' goals have more recently been to find THOSE students and help them attend, rather than just athletes who would be mission fields in themselves, not claiming Christian faith.)

We don't believe in hothouse environment for a plant's whole existance --it has to be transplanted into the world, and get out and bear fruit. Still the Bible warns of poor soil where weeds choke out the young plants who are not yet deeply rooted. the challenge is to ground our children before they go to college. I believe in the Christian college especially, because kids are more likely to be rooted there and not have their foundations of faith and morals eroded as in state schools. They sit at the feet of PhD scholars who believe in Christ and the Bible. More likely to find spouses of common faith and background, also.

steve said...

I went to Baptist Bible college in Clarks summit Pa for 2 years after high school before I joined the Marines. Baptist Bible college is the reason why I am so liberal in my thinking today.. hahaha.

Barb said...

I can understand how some Christian schools would have that effect --I got out of private Christian schools with my kids --until college --partially because of my experience with snooty types --law-driven more than love-driven personalities. a stuffiness. But that wasn't the only reason. There were issues of convenience and the good quality of our public school that inclined us to go public.

I don't know about your Baptist school, but OUr arminian church colleges were overall loving institutions --and very intellectually open, though grounded in scripture. but there was some latitude for questioning and pondering and thinking outside the box. It was permissable.

We had Moody students come to our school for their teaching degrees --and I heard there were great dorm debates in guys' dorms between the Calvinists (the frozen chosen) and Arminians --did you ever hear their theme songs? It was humorously stated that the Arminian/Weslyan theme song was, "Ye must be born again --and again --and again--and again..." So the Weslyans said the eternally secure Calvinist theme was: "I was sinking deep in sin....wheeeeee!"

Of course, an exaggeration of both views --I hope.

By the way, on this legislation, you said the bill excludes private organizations --but what about my source which said boy scouts and day cares (some of which are religious) could not discriminate on the basis of orientation or gender. Isn't boy scouts private? It's not gov't.

Yes, I realize not all dems are liberal and not all GOP are socially conservative--but the majority of dems are socially liberal and vice-versa. The bill is coming up now because the liberals have an edge in the congress.

The private behavior of people is not the issue. The public sanctioning of homosexual orientation and activity is the issue. No one is telling us we must hire adulterers, liars, pedophiles, fornicators, thieves, ex-cons, illegal immigrants, blasphemers, etc. --but we are to hire homosexuals --who also have an abnormal sexual appetite and addiction like the pedophile and the serial adulterer or rapist or incestor. They are COMPELLED to direct their sexual libidos in ways the Bible forbids --which society has forbade. No, we don't go into the bedrooms of adulterers --and we wouldn't go into the Bedrooms of ANYONE --except to catch a predator or an incestor or rapist --if we suspected and got a warrant --where people are either too young to consent or being forced. But we do leave consenting adults alone --but we do not expect them to have pride parades for their predilictions --nor to identify themselves by what they do sexually --saying "I'm gay, so hire me." "I'm gay so let me work anywhere I please or I'll sue you."
We don't insist on hiring any other violators of traditional morals, so why the homosexuals?

Because they have suffered economically as a class? no, they have not.

We are being asked to approve a lifestyle --by law. What we condone becomes more prevalent and acceptable. Like soft porn did in the Playboy and Sports illus. magazines--and now hardcore and kiddie porn are widely seen on internet and we haven't the moral gumption to stop it.