Thursday, June 20, 2013
your wife/girlfriend/daughter/granddaughter is finishing up at the gym and heads to the shower. In her sanctifiably-feminine retreat within that public facility, in her most private state, she is exposed to the sight of a man's penis.
your daughter/grandaughter/niece is finishing up practice in her school athletics program, and goes to her locker room to shower and get changed. What she could never have been prepared for was the sight of a male faculty member standing in the shower she was just about to get into. This "male", as it were, has surgically-augmented "breasts", and a penis to go with them. Fantasy scenario? Hardly: http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/college-allows-transgender-man-to-expose-himself-to-young-girls.html
a young female family member of yours has signed up for one of her school's athletic programs, only to find that she will be competing against "transgendered" boys- unfairly robust and physically dominating in relation to your young family member and the rest of her teammates. Perhaps she'll be knocked around hard on the basketball court by this robust male. Or perhaps manhandled in girls' wrestling.
Your young family member is about to meet the new teacher at their school. What they could never have been prepared for was the sight of a man in a dress, or a short-haired woman in men's attire. Far from learning a curriculum that day, their young minds cannot get over the bizarre sight masquerading before them, and they mostly snicker and mock quietly amongst themselves to this thoroughly-distracting spectacle, at the expense of their attention spans. Or perhaps it was an open homosexual teacher they met that day, proudly displaying photo frames of them and their same sex partner, as has happened in cases past, where gay and lesbians will openly display such photos, along with gay-affirming posters on the classroom walls.
a church legally forbid to deny a position within their church to aforementioned exemplars of immoral, "alternative" lifestyles (this is currently being voted on by National courts in conjunction with Federal employment nondiscrimination policies). Or perhaps, a Christian bookstore owner forced out of business for not hiring a cross-dressing employee.
These above cases have, and will be played out if employee nondiscrimination is affirmed. Even if they include some of their requested provisions initially taken out, they have an uncanny knack for forcing them back in at a later time, as experience has shown.
you are being approached by proponents pushing LGBT employee nondiscrimination, who promote a superficially-coherent-and-logical rationale as it's merit; who fire off impressive amounts of communications to persuade you, and to distort the magnitude of their numbers.
LGBT employee nondiscrimination is, simply put, a solution in search of a problem. Think: affirmative action on steroids. For there have been no studies which conclusively prove a climate of lgbt discrimination in housing and employment.
I study the people lobbying these kinds of Nationwide efforts, and the reality of their motives is a world away from their stated rationale. They pay lip service to universal values and down-home sensibilities, replete with victim-card buzzwords. They, through the media, locate and enshrine gays who seem to exemplify and justify the need to pass the bills their pushing. So-and-so was slighted at work. Yes, maybe, BUT WHO HASN'T BEEN?
"The objection will be raised, and raised, and raised...that our ads are lies...Yes of course we know it....but it makes no difference that our ads are lies, not to us." - passage from "After the Ball", a book long considered the 'gay activists' bible', or 'the gay rights playbook'".
Within the gay community are a minority of activists - militant, counter-cultural renegades with deep roots originating in Marxism, occultism, and the Nazi Party. They are world-class propagandists, with the Media, Corporate America - and by extension, it's Politicians - in a serpentine strangle-hold. They are polished liars -public relations aces- and they purport to represent your constituents. Don't buy it. "Gay rights" are not "human rights". They are gratuitous, unnecessary provisions which serve to molly-coddle a tiny segment of the population, and bestow upon them superior rights by a process that ostracizes and abolishes free speech and religious liberty
Recently, a young black woman from San Antonio was fired from the Macy's she worked at for asking a cross-dressing man not to return back into the women's fitting room: http://www.christianpost.com/news/macys-fires-christian-worker-for-not-allowing-transgender-in-womens-fitting-room-64237/
As we speak, there is an active policy in Washington State permitting a cross-dressing man -penis and all- to move freely about a girls' and womens' locker room in the nude - a locker room used by girl swimmers as young as 6. He was originally reported to the police by horrified women in the locker room, but upon reviewing the ordinance, the police saw their hands were tied: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/transgender-man-may-continue-using-locker-room-with-six-year-old-girls/
As we speak, there is a "woman" MMA fighter (Fallon Fox) who is busting through the competition like nobodies business. Indeed, 'like nobodies business', because that "woman" had previously refused to disclose to the MMA and her opponents she had only recently been a "woman". [Side note: when UFC champion Matt Mitrione went on a rant criticizing Fox, calling her a freak who signed up to beat on women, he was suspended from fighting - indeed, this intolerant, free-speech-corking climate of political correctness has even the baddest of the bad deferentiallly walking on eggshells]. http://www.inquisitr.net/682032/transgender-mma-fighter-fallon-fox-wins-again-audience-boos/
And as we speak, in Massachusetts State schools and public facilities, there is a policy in place which grants male boys and faculty members full access to the girls'/womens' facilities, and vice-versa. They don't even have to have the surgery, only the declaration of "change", as is so often the case with these bills.
Our laws are designed for the prosperity of the masses, not the molly-coddling of the few. Homosexuals are estimated to only be about 3.5 % of the U.S. population, but in terms of sheer numbers of communications to lawmakers, the impression left is that they are an enormous constituency. They're not.
Scott Lively, the world's foremost expert on homosexuals' influence on the culture, had this to say about employee nondiscrimination-type bills,
" They're the seed that contains the tree of the entire homosexual agenda with all of its poisonous fruit."
What these bills essentially do is codify and enshrine homosexuality/transgenderism into an incontrovertible validation which would criminalize anyone's disagreement with it, codifying Christian bias into law. The architects of these bills will often shroud the malicious, overreaching aspects within dubious, deceptive phrasing/terminology. Don't be deceived. Read what's actually inside the bill, because they're tricky by design.
And that's what this gay movement is all about. Not just laws to reflect societal affirmation, but to punish people who dare disagree with them. The gay agenda could better be expressed as a "Christian-punishing agenda", or "morality deconstruction agenda".
People are getting fired for a tweet: one's expressing disapproval of homosexuality.
Oxford City soccer player, Lee Steele, also fired for anti-gay tweet.(Mind you, both of those are from U.K., who, people say, is way ahead of us on the gay "rights" issue.)
Rutgers Coach Mike Rice, fired for yelling anti-gay slurs at slacking players during practice.
CNN anchor Roland Martin was suspended for gay-critical tweets.
A Sprint Cup racing crewman, also fired for gay-critical tweet.
Brooklyn NY D.A. fired head of gang bureau over "homophobic" tweets.
Vodaphone just suspended one of their employees over "homophobic" tweet.
Our Constitution grants us freedom to say offensive things, so long as it's not a threat, and so long as it doesn't demonstrably damage a person's livelihood. It's called "freedom of speech", the one thing that separates us from intolerant dictatorships in the world.
What is it about this lifestyle which would merit anyone to disagree with it? Plenty.
The LGBT lifestyle is a demonstrably disordered lifestyle, so typified by a vast roll-call of destructive pathologies and proclivities. Higher rates of smoking, substance abuse, promiscuity, and impulsive behavior. Drastic overrepresentation in almost all sexually-transmitted diseases. For lesbians, higher rates of obesity and breast cancer, substance abuse and psychiatric problems. And with gay men, the fact which everyone hates to acknowledge the most - an overrepresentation in total cases of child molestation.
Suppose your son/daughter/neice/nephew/ grandchildren have to find housing when they go away to college. What LGBT nondiscrimination bills like this would ensure is, they couldn't refuse to cohabitate with persons who exemplify sexual deviancy and all the unhealthy behaviors and diseases it accompanies. Perhaps you've instilled good values in that loved one, and now they have no choice but to be privy to the unavoidable lewdness and sexual corruption that comes with the gay lifestyle. And what if you have an apartment building, rental property, or advertisement for a roomate to live with or in close quarters with your young relatives. LGBT non discrimination removes your ability to screen applicants who may exemplify the laundry list of unhealthy behaviors which come with the gay lifestyle.
Next, we have the issue of an LGBT persons who exhibit poor job performance. Yes, they are susceptible just as anyone else of being a screw-up at work. What non discrimination policies do is enshrine that employee to such a status that it is very, very difficult to fire them for fear of a lawsuit.
And far from being individuals with a fixed, permanent sexual identity, lgbt folks are abandoning the lifestyle all the time: Little Richard, for instance. Anne Heche. Sex and the City's Cynthia Nixon, to name a few ex-gays. Ellen DeGeneres used to date men.
This is very much a transitory, changeable lifestyle, which for that reason, hasn't the merits to alter public policy to accommodate it. There is no scientific evidence, no standard, to conclusively show a gay person is even gay, unlike blacks and females, for example, so how can you prove discrimination based on invisible characteristics of the purported victims?
Here, we have "Exhibit A" showing how nondiscrimination-type bills are ripe for abuse, with this Ohio homosexual suing his employer http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/08/21/720111/ohio-judge-recognizes-sexual-orientation-discrimination-under-title-vii/?mobile=nc .
This gay man was clearly too thin-skinned and hypersensitive, making him choose to skip days and just stay home because of his paranoid delusions, resulting in his firing for unexcused absences. Also, in Kentucky recently, a man named Kevin McCaffrey sued his employer for what he perceived to be a gay-discrimination firing. The company in that case had to make employee cutbacks for economic reasons.
These bills give this demographic a licence to punish the system anytime they feel uneasy out in the cold, cruel world. You can see the broad subjectivity in codifying the alleged abuse in this man's complaint. THIS is the type of frivolous lawsuit you can expect bogging down your local courts if you approve of employee nondiscrimination. For example, a current LGBT discrimination lawsuit against Exxon-Mobile, where much of the basis of the complaint fell upon the plaintiff's insistence that his employer made it a point to turn his gaze toward him anytime he verbalized disagreement with gay marriage. What we have, essentially, is a baseless assignment of blame(s), where lgbt employees feel jilted by some perceived slight, vibe or innuendo, and demand public policy codify this subjectively-interpreted feedback into the standard of law. Problem is, American Justice does not work that way - it demands more tangible, objective standards of evidence.
Also very troubling is that grey area: Christian-themed, Christian-based businesses who are not protected like a nonprofit Church might be in the exemptions clauses. Think - a Christian-based publishing company sued for not publishing a book affirming transsexualism.
Our Nation is of Judeo-Christian heritage- the inspiration behind the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. People of faith have never taken policies to affirm and enshrine exemplars of sexual immorality. As people of faith, we cannot affirm and promote certain indiscretions. Shrouded in some versions of these bills is language which would cause churches to lose tax exempt status for not allowing gay events at their church. Here are a couple of cases which confirm the damage in the wake of these types of bills:
And here, a ruputable Christian business is attacked for refusing their printing service for gay pride t-shirts: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/christian-t-shirt-company-faces-boycott-investigation-for-declining-service-to-gay-pride-group/
And here, implications relevant to these kinds of bills which punishes Christian Bed and Breakfast owners doing business out of their private homes [it should be noted that these business owners also reject cohabitation to unmarried straight couples]: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/19/bed-and-breakfast-owners-fined-for-turning-away-gay-couple/ , and here this conservative commentator gives the definitive analysis of how these kinds of bills affect everyone: http://www.frc.org/testimony/testimony-in-opposition-to-hr-3017-employment-non-discrimination-act [it should be noted that these business owners also reject cohabitation to unmarried straight couples]
What these types of bills achieve is render our Constitutional right to Freedom of Association -freedom to do business with like-minded people- null and void. It's like forcing PETA to hire the President of the American Cattle Association.
I realize you may very well have a family member or an acquaintance who are homosexual or gender confused, but translating your feelings for them into legislative bias would be like voting to lower the local drinking age because of your loyalty to an alcohol-dependant 19-yr-old. Particularly on an issue such as this, which seeks to redefine the very foundation on which any society is built around - the nuclear family. Also, the redefining of gender roles to impressionable young children. And it's possible to love and affirm lgbt people you know without having to reinvent public policy to enshrine them. You may feel you are simply voting on a single-issue bill, but the nature of the gay lobby everywhere is like the incremental tightening of a noose - each action closes the circle more tightly, restricting more and more breathing, resulting in an oppressive climate of political correctness where everyone has to walk on egg shells. In this case, the prevention of people's Constitutional rights to freedom of association, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion - all things that have long been under siege -with varying degrees of success- by the incremental, non-stop lobbying by the gay "rights" people, a feverishly driven, implacable army of hedonistic revolutionaries, hell-bent on deconstructing this Nation's moral identity and re-casting it in their own sexually-freewheeling, morally-optional image. Just look at the gay pride parades - all the snapshots of outrageous excess, lewdness, nudity and crude and vulgar messages. When bills like non-discrimination become the law of the land, that scale of outrageous behavior will be applicable everywhere.
This lifestyle does not merit the same perks of the Civil Rights movement. Homosexuality has no tangible, scientifically-verifiable standard to distinguish it, only subjective self-reporting to form the basis of an "identity". There is no scientific evidence to conclusively show a gay person is even gay, unlike blacks and females, for example, so how can you prove discrimination based on invisible characteristics of the purported victims? What you're doing is legislating feelings into law, and by that standard, my imagination could come up with innumerable conceptions for which to demand changes in legal provisions to unjustly accommodate me and my subjective 'feelings'. But the law doesn't work that way.
Recently I saw yet another "family" out in public which was comprised of several young boys, a mother and her "partner". The "parents", as always seems to be the case, exuded dysfunctionality in their manner and behavior, and almost always overweight, covered in tattoos/piercing. The children with them had that look about them I've seen so often when witnessing these "families": a listless, wary, self-conscious look of embarrassment. Perhaps they never got the memo - the politically-correct, dishonest media propaganda which purports these "families" are as normal and healthy as all others. My heart grieves for these boys, who's identities will be built around the absence of a father. By design. Perhaps the Mark Regnerus study, the study showing such children fare worse in 77/80 developmental areas, will magically not apply to them.