Posted on 05/20/2013 9:51:55 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Under President Obama, “justice” is anything but blind. Neither is it deaf. In fact, based on recent revelations, it appears to be watching your every move and listening to your every word. Still, if you happen to be a federal employee, now it’s even listening for your silence.
The only thing this Obama White House seems to generate is scandal. Well, here’s yet another to add to the growing list. In addition to the Benghazi cover-up, IRS targeting of political dissenters and the illegal seizure of media phone records, whistleblowers within DOJ have contacted Liberty Counsel to express grave concerns over this administration’s latest attack on freedom.
Our sources have provided Liberty Counsel an internal DOJ document titled: “LGBT Inclusion at Work: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Managers.” It was emailed to DOJ managers in advance of the left’s so-called “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Pride Month.”
The document is chilling. It’s riddled with directives that grossly violate – prima facie –employees’ First Amendment liberties.
Following are excerpts from the “DOJ Pride” decree. When it comes to “LGBT” employees, managers are instructed:
That’s a threat.
And not even a subtle one.
Got it? For Christians and other morals-minded federal employees, it’s no longer enough to just shut up and “stay in the closet” – to live your life in silent recognition of biblical principles (which, by itself, is unlawful constraint). When it comes to mandatory celebration of homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors, “silence will be interpreted as disapproval.”
This lawless administration is now bullying federal employees – against their will – to affirm sexual behaviors that every major world religion, thousands of years of history and uncompromising human biology reject.
Somewhere, right now, George Orwell is smiling.
The directive includes a quote from a “gay” federal employee to rationalize justification: “Ideally, I’d love to hear and see support from supervisors, so it’s clear that there aren’t just policies on paper. Silence seems like disapproval. There’s still an atmosphere of LGBT issues not being appropriate for the workplace (particularly for transgender people), or that people who bring it up are trying to rock the boat.”
Of course there’s “still an atmosphere of LGBT issues not being appropriate for the workplace.” When well over half of federal employees, half the country and most of the world still acknowledge objective sexual morality (and immorality), “the workplace,” especially the federal workplace, should, at the very least, remain neutral on these highly controversial and behavior-centric issues.
Still, to borrow from self-styled “queer activist,” anti-Christian bigot and Obama buddy Dan Savage, “it gets better”:
Is this the DOJ or the KGB? “[A]ssume that LGBT employees are listening …”? And what are “LGBT allies”? If you disagree with the homosexual activist political agenda, does that make you the enemy?
Yes, in any workplace, language should remain professional, but who defines what’s “inclusive”? Who decides what’s “respectful”? If asked about “LGBT issues,” for instance, can a Christian employee answer honestly: “I believe the Bible. I believe that God designed sex to be shared between husband and wife within the bonds of marriage”? Or is that grounds for termination?
Here are some more DOs:
Are you kidding? Does this administration really think it’s legal to induce managers to “attend LGBT events,” or to “display pride stickers” against their will? That’s compulsory expression. That’s viewpoint discrimination.
That’s unconstitutional.
But there’s more:
Oh, brother.
Sorry. Oh, gender-neutral sibling.
In other words, lie. Engage in corporate delusion.
Who gets to decide what’s an “inappropriate joke [or] comment”? I thought we had a Constitution for that. It sure ain’t Big Brother Barack. Sure, I get it, it’s probably better not to start your work day with: “A lesbian, a tranny and two gays walk into a bath house …” but still, “no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” means no law. No matter how much Obama wishes it so, we don’t leave our constitutional rights at the federal workplace door.
The DOJ edict even addresses cross-dressing man woes:
“As a transgender woman [that’s a man in a skirt], I want people to understand that I’m real. I want to be recognized as the gender I really am [again, you’re a man in a skirt]. Yes, there was awkwardness with pronouns at first for folks who knew me before the transition. But it hurts when several years later people still use the wrong pronouns. And just imagine if people were constantly debating YOUR bathroom privileges. Imagine how humiliating that would be.”
Tell you what, buddy: I won’t “debate YOUR bathroom privileges” if you return to this planet. You’d better stay the heck out of the ladies room while my wife or two daughters are in there; otherwise, we have a problem. Women have an absolute right not be sexually harassed in the workplace – a right to privacy when using the facilities. To constantly worry whether a gender-confused, cross-dressing man is going to invade her privacy creates a hostile work environment.
This “DOJ Pride” directive is but the latest example of the “progressive” climate of fear and intimidation this radical Obama regime has created for Christians, conservatives and other values-oriented folks, both within and without the workplace.
I’m just glad the wheels are finally coming off.
Sounds like North Korea, where if you do not cheer and applaud loud enough for the dictator, in his presence, you are subject to arrest, imprisonment and execution.
You can’t win.
“Susan, that’s a really pretty outfit you have on.”
Susan: “Sexual harrassment! I’m offended!”
The next day, co-worker Jim walks in wearing a skirt. Still smarting from yesterday’s reprimand, you sit there and say nothing.
Jim: “You’re being silent! Insensitivity! I’m offended!”
Look at point no. 7 on the attachment. It is official dogma from the department.
Silence speaks only to those that have have already decided what they want to hear.
These “conversations” inflict harm on religious people and everyone else.
These afflicted people’s need to have these “conversations” is a form of Sexual Addiction. We should file a class action suit for Sexual Harassment.
Forcing others to participate in their sexual practices is Exhibitionism. Take names and file suit for Sexual Harassment.
This is straight out of “A Man for All Seasons”:
Cromwell: Now, Sir Thomas, you stand on your silence.
Sir Thomas More: I do.
Cromwell: But, gentlemen of the jury, there are many kinds of silence. Consider first the silence of a man who is dead. Let us suppose we go into the room where he is laid out, and we listen: what do we hear? Silence. What does it betoken, this silence? Nothing; this is silence pure and simple. But let us take another case. Suppose I were to take a dagger from my sleeve and make to kill the prisoner with it; and my lordships there, instead of crying out for me to stop, maintained their silence. That would betoken! It would betoken a willingness that I should do it, and under the law, they will be guilty with me. So silence can, according to the circumstances, speak! Let us consider now the circumstances of the prisoner’s silence. The oath was put to loyal subjects up and down the country, and they all declared His Grace’s title to be just and good. But when it came to the prisoner, he refused! He calls this silence. Yet is there a man in this court - is there a man in this country! - who does not know Sir Thomas More’s opinion of this title?
Crowd in court gallery: No!
Cromwell: Yet how can this be? Because this silence betokened, nay, this silence was, not silence at all, but most eloquent denial!
Sir Thomas More: Not so. Not so, Master Secretary. The maxim is “Qui tacet consentire”: the maxim of the law is “Silence gives consent”. If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented, not that I denied.
Cromwell: Is that in fact what the world construes from it? Do you pretend that is what you wish the world to construe from it?
Sir Thomas More: The world must construe according to its wits; this court must construe according to the law.
I would advise you to go back and reread post #3 to which I was replying. I understand that dealing with the “in your face” attitude of the LGBT community should certainly be fiercely resisted. What I am concerned about is that the attitudes of post #3 should be applied to the homosexual community in general including those who are “not flaunting” their sin in peoples faces.
I just spent 10 months as a contract Program Manager at a Fortune 500 company. It was an ubber-politically correct company where, among other things, all jokes were forbidden. Employees had to sign a 10 page “ethics” statement mostly forbidding political incorrectness. Basically, all non-work related conversations were frowned on, if not outright banned. In 10 months I can’t remember any occasion to speak one way or another about gayness. It just doesn’t come up in the workplace. There were several religious Christians, but they spoke in whispers when speaking to each other. (They were the superior go-to employees.)
Missionary position rights!!
Doggie style rights!!!!
and so on and so forth.
While it's likely to morph over a period of time, at this juncture, it's probably an accurate statement whether one can stomach homosexuals becoming more overt or not. It is not a threat to managers as it shows up in the pamphlet.
“Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.”
Savage Dan better not ask me if his dress makes his ass look big...
they are angry because no amount of others’ approval stamps out the feelings inside that tells them they are doing wrong, they are not normal, they are not right.
this is why they are implacable. nothing ever is enough, because no amount of anything will ever make them think they are normal and right.
its like when you know you failed at something and everyone is telling you you’re awesome. it doesn’t help, it makes it worse most of the time, because it doesn’t change the fact you know inside you screwed up and you’re not awesome and people saying you are doesn’t help.
I am a government employee. I refuse to comply with this. Deal with it.
don’t know which woman you are referencing, the one that was to be stoned, or the one at the well.
in either case both of these women knew they were being sexually immoral, they didn’t have slut pride parades and laws forcing people to commend them for their immorality. they were ashamed and embarrassed by their sexual sins. they were glad for forgiveness, and knew they needed it.
not so with today’s homos. they have government saying their sin is awesome, and anyone who doesn’t tell them they’re awesome is in trouble. no need to be forgiven for anything, and if you think they do, you’re the one with the sin problem - of judging others.
we do judge others. we are not warned never to judge. we are warned to not judge hypocritically. in other words if we have the same weaknesses and we aren’t addressing our own, but condemn others for doing what we’re still doing, we are not judging righteously.
“no, but the dress makes you look like a fruit.”
They didn't disobey God, as they weren't commanded to sell their possessions; what they did do was lie to the Holy Spirit:
Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”
As you can see, the man had full control of the property and the monies from selling it. The problem wasn't therefore a failure to obey, for if it was these would not be admitted; it was because they were posturing as though the monies given were the full price of the property... I suspect that Ananias could have been utterly truthful and still divided the money (Paul says that those who do not provide for their families are worse than unbelievers, keeping a portion for his wife after his death could be just such a provision).
Good verse. Now read it carefully. Note that from this account Peter did not call down God’s wrath. Peter merely spoke truth. Also note, that this was Church discipline, NOT dealing with unbelievers.
In order to match the tone of your post you will have to find us a passage where some Christian called down judgement from God on unbelievers. You might be able to find such a passage, but I am not aware of it.
Christians are not called to call down judgement on this world. That will come later at Christ’s return.
There were people pointing fingers at sinners in the New Testament. They were referred to as Pharisees.
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.