Posted on 07/12/2005 4:32:51 PM PDT by scripter
A group of 11 representatives in the House want Congress to add "sexual orientation" to the list of protected characteristics used in regulating workplace discrimination in federal employment.
Government employment discrimination and whistleblower-protection issues are handed by the Office of Special Counsel, which is empowered to prosecute managers believed to have violated the law. During the Clinton administration, Special Counsel Elaine Kaplan – an avowed lesbian, according to Concerned Women for America – incorporated "sexual orientation" under the "conduct unrelated to the job" portion of the regulation, thus elevating homosexuality to a protected status.
Last year, Scott Bloch, who now heads the OSC, removed the words "sexual orientation" from a portion of the OSC's website dealing with protected categories since Congress had never authorized the addition.
In recent testimony before a Senate panel, Bloch explained why he believes the law is clear and that Congress' listing of categories necessarily limits his jurisdiction.
In response to Bloch's action and testimony, 11 members of Congress, including openly homosexual Reps. Barney Frank, D-Mass., Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., introduced H.R. 3128, the Clarification of Federal Employment Protection Act. The chief sponsor is Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who represents West Hollywood, a homosexual enclave in Los Angeles County. Waxman is the ranking minority member of the House Government Reform Committee.
Other co-sponsors include Reps. Mark Foley, R-Fla., Christopher Shays, R-Conn., Danny Davis, D-N.Y., Eliot Engle, D-N.Y., Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., Steny Hoyer. D-Md., and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C.
"Someone needs to tell these congressmen that creating a special civil-rights status for federal employees based on bedroom behavior is an insult to true minorities," said Jan LaRue, Concerned Women for America's chief counsel. "Who are next, adulterers? And why should federal employees have greater civil-rights protection than ordinary, hard-working Americans?"
Bloch told the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Subcommittee in May: "We do not see sexual orientation as a term for class status anywhere in the statute or in the legislative history or case law, in fact, it is quite contrary to it."
The very existence of former homosexuals and what they have to say is very revealing. Checkout: People Can Change
Ping
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
What Scripter said needs to be repeated over and over again:
"Creating civil rights based on sexual behavior is not just an insult to true minorities, it opens to door to any sexual behavior."
Anyone who hasn't yet, please click his link. There are who knows how many thousands of former homosexuals. Their stories need to be heard.
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
Should you be able to fire somebody for private conduct unrelated to the job? I dont want to be fired for my political views or the car I drive or who I live with etc.
NO. Their salaries will be paid by us - the normal heterosexual tax payer.
I'm not supporting homosexuals who simply choose to engage in a demented sex fetish. I'll make my husband cut back on his work hours enough to fall into a no tax bracket. We're all set up to do that anyway in case of an emergency.
No fags!!
BUMP
Do you think we should base civil rights on sexual behavior?
I don't think we should. Sexual behavior isn't something that people care to know about others.
Of course not (and I assume that was a rhetorical question) - equal civil rights for everybody no special rights for anybody... well I guess I can live with parking spaces for the handicapped but that's about it.
My point was was that I don't think employment should extend to control over private life.
Yeah, that is what is needed to be added if anything.
For heaven's sake, it is a mental illness that was taken off the abnormal psychology books due to political gay activism.
Look newbie, you should do some serious investigating when it comes to these "its". They're disgusting and diseased - by choice!
People shouldn't be forced by law to pay their wages. If they're government, they work for us. They're fired already!!
I will never, ever vote for a Republican that caters to dysfunctional sex fetishes. Never. No one I know would.
Depression is a mental illness. But I wouldn't fire someone because they are depressed in their personal life, only if it effected their ability to do their job.
I agree, I have no problem with the low percentage of gays who DON'T make their sexual appetites the focus of their discussions at work.
Ditto. What would be the point of a having Republican Party if they stood for such insanity? Wouldn't that make them Socialists?
Excuse me, but when was the last time you heard a queer keep his personal life private? They have frigging "I have queer butt sex " parades for crying out loud!
When was the last time you saw a "I have sex with my wife" parade?
Would you want queerdom shoved in your face (literally) every day at work? I sure as heck wouldn't want them around me 8 hours a day.
That's an interesting take - I have a real aversion to the government forcing you to hire ANYONE. If you don't like people who drive sports cars or you don't like people with red hair or even if you don't like a certain race or religion I'm not sure where the government gets the power to force you to hire them.
I was speaking about principle. And in principle I think employers should stick to job performance rather than trying to tell employees how to live. If a persons private life interferes with their work THEN, for me it's an issue. This has served me well in hiring and firing.
BTW, that's a very interesting Marx Quote. Reminds me of a Woodrow Wilson quote "“A nation which does not remember what it was yesterday, does not know what it is today, nor what it is trying to do. We are trying to do a futile thing if we do not know where we come from or what we have been about."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.