ENDA will force employers with 15 or more employees to implement the homosexual/transgender radical agenda in businesses across the nation.
Fall 2009 — Once again, homosexual legislator Barney Frank (D-MA) has introduced the “inclusive” H.R. 3017, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) to create federally-protected minority status for homosexuals and transgenders in employment.
Democrats held a three-hour hearing on ENDA on September 23.
Democrats had the rest of the panelists: A male-to-female transgender person; the Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a gay researcher, a gay law professor; a liberal Jewish leader; and gay activists (pretending to represent the people in their districts) Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI).
The hearing was an orchestrated propaganda event promoting the gay lifestyle and Gender Identity Disorders.
Feldblum has written that incrementalism is the best way to achieve LGBT objectives. They are willing to put meaningless religious exemptions into ENDA. They are doing this to neutralize the opposition. They will return later to remove whatever exemptions were in the bill. The tactic is used so that they can get the votes from uninformed legislators to pass ENDA. Then, they will demand more at a later time.
Chai Feldblum has openly stated: “… when push comes to shove, when religious liberty and sexual liberty conflict, I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.” (Maggie Gallagher, “Banned in Boston: The coming conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty,” 5/15/2008)
Once Feldblum is on the EEOC, she can be expected to implement her ideas against religious liberty. She will enforce ENDA with a vengeance.
ENDA is proposing newly invented rights for individuals who engage in a variety of bizarre sex acts. ENDA pits constitutional rights of religious freedom and free speech against individuals who cross-dress or engage in dangerous sexual activities.
The most important thing we can do right now is we got to … secure the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act … I believe that if we all concentrate our efforts where it needs to be concentrated, which is on the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, we can get the job done."
If we can get ENDA enacted and signed into law, it is only a matter of time before all the rest happens. It is the keystone that holds up the whole bunch, and so we need to focus our energies and attention there.
ENDA, (H.R. 3017) includes coverage of “gender identity.” The term “gender identity” is code for drag queens, transvestites, and transsexuals. The umbrella term “transgender” is used to describe these individuals. H.R. 3017 describes “gender identity” as “the gender-related identity, appearance or mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.”
ENDA describes “sexual orientation” as homosexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality, but also adds “gender identity” as a protected class. This is code for someone who thinks he’s the opposite sex or likes to wear opposite sex clothing. It also includes she-males, individuals who undergo only half of a sex-change operation. They are male from the waist down and female from the waist up.
By making “gender identity” a federally-protected class under the law, this normalizes what are mental illnesses, known as a Gender Identity Disorder and/or Transvestic Fetishism. It elevates what a person “thinks” he is over what he actually is.
Congress should not be passing a law that affirms special minority protections for individuals who believe they are trapped in opposite sex bodies. This mental disorder is a treatable condition, not a fixed identity that must be accorded federally-protected class status.
Congress is equating this mental disorder to being equal to African-American or Hispanic under the law. If ENDA passes, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 will be amended to include gays, lesbians, bisexuals, cross-dressers, and she-males under the law.
During the hearing, no one discussed GID; they only discussed “gender identity” as if this were a normal variation of sexuality. It isn’t. It is a mental disorder, still listed in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR).
Dr. Paul McHugh has been a critic of the idea that GID is normal and that so-called sex changes are normal and medically necessary. He became the psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins University in 1975 and put an end to the practice of providing sex-change operations for patients. Writing in his essay, Surgical Sex for First Things in 2004, McHugh observed: “We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it [GID].”
Dr. McHugh believes that psychiatrists are collaborating with a mental illness by approving sex change operations on individuals. The problem is one of the mind, not the body. A person who has a gender identity disorder needs therapy, not surgery. Mutilating your body is an ultimate act of self-hatred.
-
YouTube - Gay law professor testifying at ENDA hearing, September 23, 2009
-
YouTube - ENDA Hearing -- Acting Chairman Of EEOC Speaks In Support of ENDAYouTube – ENDA Bradley Sears
Lawyer Notes Problems With ‘Gender Identity’ In ENDA
During the September 23rd hearing, one panelist was a lawyer who pointed out serious problems with ENDA as it relates to gender identity (Gender Identity Disorder).
Camille A. Olson, with the firm of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, noted that, as written, ENDA fails to define if an employer is required to modify existing restrooms and shower facilities to deal with transgender employees (those who have “undergone” or are “undergoing gender transition).
Olson also points out that ENDA doesn’t define what it means for a person to have “undergone” or who is “undergoing” gender transition. These terms can mean anything.
Does a man who dresses like a woman but has not had a sex change meet the criteria for “undergoing” transition? If so, does he get to use the women’s restrooms?
A She-Male is a mentally disordered person who “undergoes” only half of a sex change operation. Typically this is a male who takes hormones to grow breasts but maintains his male sex organs. Gay/Tranny porn sites are filled with grotesque photos and videos of She-Males engaged in disgusting sexual antics.
How is a business to handle a She-Male? What restrooms or shower facilities will they use?
News Stories Illustrate Problems With Protecting ‘Gender Identity’
A so-called ‘transgender’ teenager in Texas won the right to wear girl’s clothing to school.Rodney Evans, who calls himself Rochelle, was a 15-year-old at Eastern Hills High School in Fort Worth, Texas. Evans fought for the right to wear make-up, fake breasts and women’s jeans to school. In a Dallas News (May 19, 2007) interview, Evans told the reporter: “There was never a day when I was Rochelle for the whole day. I love makeup. I started wearing makeup because it helped to complete me more. It made me feel more like a girl. With the help of makeup, you can create your own kind of life.”
The article quotes Simon Aronoff, who served at the time as deputy director of the National Center for Transgender Equality in Washington, DC: “Transgender teens are demanding acceptance in all facets of society including school.” (Aronoff is a young woman who thinks she’s a man. She came out to her parents as a lesbian as a teenager, but is now taking male hormones and sports a goatee.)
How will businesses deal with Rodney Evans when he enters the work force? He claims that there was “never a day when I was Rochelle for the whole day.” If Evans can determine his “gender identity” from day to day, how will his behavior impact employment policies if ENDA passes?
Will Evans be a woman on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays at work and a man on Tuesdays and Thursdays? What restrooms will Evans use if he doesn’t undergo a sex change operation? What shower facilities? Will businesses have to provide separate facilities for him? If Evans applies to a school to become the women’s gym coach, will the school have to hire him?
A second story out of Duke University also illustrates the problems of providing federal protection for the ephemeral term “gender identity.”
In August, 2007, the Duke University Chronicle reported that a young gender-confused male student at Duke University (who thinks he’s a woman) was given permission to use the women’s restroom at a dorm on campus. The man has not yet had a so-called “sex change” operation. (Even if he did have the operation, he would still be genetically a male, not a female.)
Lee Chauncey, a father of one of the female students said he was outraged by Duke’s willingness to permit this man to use a woman’s restroom. He contacted Duke University officials and the national media over this situation. (The gender-confused young man was eventually moved off campus.)
Chauncey told a local ABC affiliate that he didn’t think it was appropriate to have a man living like a woman and using women’s “shower and bathroom facilities.”
This incident at Duke University is a microcosm of the social chaos that will result if ENDA is passed. ENDA, by providing federally-protected status for “gender identity,” will be creating not only a third sex, but will be normalizing a whole range of bizarre sexual orientations.
A third story out of Seattle also shows the serious problems that will be created by ENDA. Transgender women invade men’s restrooms at Seattle mall.
On August 31, 2007 at a Seattle mall, two women who are taking male hormones were kicked out of a men’s restroom. They were attending a Gender Odyssey Conference at the Washington State Convention and Trade Center and were staging a “pee-in” at the 4th floor bathrooms. This was clearly a set-up.
Washington state passed a “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” protection law in 2006. These gender confused women filed a lawsuit against the mall to test the law.
According to Sean (who only wanted her last name used), “Peeing is basic. Anyone who feels a need to use a bathroom should be able to do so without something [sic] rapping on the stall while your pants are down around your ankle.” Sean and her friend Simon want to use whatever restrooms they choose.
If ENDA passes, businesses will be forced to permit “transitioning” men and women to use opposite sex restrooms. Or, face EEOC lawsuits.
Attorney Fees Problem & Due Process Violated
During the Q&A session, Republican Representative John Kline (MN) questioned Ms. Olson about the attorney fees and fines that can be levied by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under ENDA.
Olson pointed out that ENDA says that it doesn’t intend to deal with attorney fees in any way other than what is available under Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, however, it does just that.
ENDA says that procedures and remedies will permit the EEOC to levy fines and grant attorney fees to the alleged victim of sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination. According to Olson, the EEOC is supposed to be an investigative body where the rules of evidence do not apply and where employees and employers share information with the hope to be able to resolve issues without litigation.
Olson notes that all other employment anti-discrimination laws give the EEOC no power to grant attorney fees in connection with any of its administrative proceedings. Under ENDA, the decision of the EEOC is not reviewable by a court and does not have to be based on any written, reasoned decision. Due process is being violated by ENDA.
Rep. Biggert Interviews EEOC Chairman
During the hearing Rep. Judy Biggert (IL) interviewed Stuart Ishimaru about attorney fees and fines. Biggert is a co-sponsor of ENDA. Ishimaru claims that ENDA permits the EEOC to do what they are already permitted to do under Title 7 for federal employees. He denies that ENDA has any of the concerns expressed by Camille Olson.
Biggert admitted that ENDA grants power to the EEOC to grant attorney fees – a power not given under other anti-discrimination legislation.
ENDA Will Normalize ‘Transgender’ Teachers & Students
The passage of ENDA will help promote Gender Identity Disorders among teachers and students. Students will be forced to accept the idea of having “transgender” or cross-dressing teachers in their classrooms.
Students at a high school in Batavia, New York faced this in 2006. The earth sciences teacher decided he was a woman and began wearing dresses to class. Students and parents who thought this was abnormal were vilified by school officials. Students were forbidden from opting out of his class. In addition, the students had to refer to him as “Mrs.”
A similar outrage occurred in 2008 in Vacaville, California. In an elementary school, a music teacher decided she was really a man and began teaching children as a man at the start of the school year. Parental objections were rejected and students were forced to be taught by a gender confused woman pretending to be a man.
In addition, sexual anarchist pediatricians are now claiming that children who are gender confused are really just being who they were meant to be. Pediatricians are suggesting that children who think they are the opposite sex should be given hormones to prevent puberty – so they can choose what sex they want to be!
Children who cross-dress will be considered “normal” in schools and anyone objecting will be considered a bigot.
ENDA will make it illegal for any parent to object to having their children taught by cross-dressers, transsexuals or she-males.
Will these gender confused individuals be swimming coaches, football coaches – and freely access opposite sex restrooms and shower facilities?
Transgender activists are actually pushing for a “restroom revolution” that will impact every school and business in America!
ENDA Includes Misleading Definition Of ‘Sexual Orientation’
Under ENDA, “sexual orientation” is loosely defined as “homosexuality, bisexuality, or heterosexuality” in Section 3: Definitions. This makes homosexual and bisexual behaviors on an equal par with heterosexuality, which has been the norm throughout human history. Behaviors like homosexuality, bisexuality, and cross-dressing are expressions of gender identity confusion and should not be equated with heterosexuality as being “normal.”
However, in Section 4, Employment Discrimination Prohibited, ENDA says that an employer cannot discriminate against an employee “because of such individual’s actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.”
The inclusion of “perceived” in the definition of sexual orientation in ENDA is a recipe for legal disaster for businesses. There is no condition of sexual abnormality that may not be perceived to fall within one of these categories, including all those excluded by the ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act]: transvestism, transexualism, pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, gender identity disorders, and sexual behavior disorders. Without containing an explicit exclusion, persons with these conditions will have a certain degree of protection under ENDA.
In fact, the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) lists at least 30+ sexual orientations, which includes incest, pedophilia, and coprophilia (sexual pleasure from feces). Individuals who engage in these activities can claim protection under ENDA under Section 4.
“Gender identity” is described in Section 3 as “the gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics or an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.” This vaguely-worded definition can mean someone who:
-
cross-dresses
-
is undergoing a sex change operation
-
thinks he or she is the opposite sex without a sex change operation
-
lives as a she-male. These are sexually-confused individuals who undergo only a partial sex change operation. Usually males, they are female from the waist up and male from the waist down.
If an employee who is “undergoing” or “has undergone” a so-called sex change operation can wear a dress to work because this is his supposed “gender identity,” he can expect to be protected by ENDA. It will prove to be a nightmare for employers and normal employees who will be forced to remain silent as their cross-dressing co-workers press for the right to wear dresses to work. Employer or employees who believe that this person is mentally disordered will eventually be forced into reeducation classes to encourage them to affirm homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexualism.
ENDA And Restrooms/Shower Facilities
Section 8 of ENDA lays out rules for how an employer must treat a person who has a different “gender identity” than his or her biological sex. The concept of “gender identity” is misleading. Transgender activists think that they’re normal. What gay, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender activists and Congressional sponsors of this bill are not saying is that “gender identity” is actually a Gender Identity Disorder, which is still considered a mental condition by the American Psychiatric Association. Transgender activists who have helped craft this latest version of ENDA, assert that having a sex change operation is a perfectly legitimate way of dealing with individuals who are supposedly trapped in the wrong body.
In veiled language, Section 8 (3) describes how employers will be permitted to establish policies on shower rooms and restrooms for “gender identity” individuals. It states that employers must “provide reasonable access to adequate facilities that are not inconsistent with the employee’s gender identity as established by the employer at the time of employment or upon notification to the employer that the employee has undergone or is undergoing gender transition, whichever is later.”
A plain reading of this section means that an employer must make restroom and shower facilities available to a transgender individual that is consistent with what sex he thinks he is -- even if he’s not yet had a sex change operation. In short, if a man thinks he’s a woman, he must be given access to women’s restrooms and shower facilities – or the business may be forced to modify separate restrooms and shower facilities for a person who thinks he’s the opposite sex or is going through a so-called sex change operation.
As Camille Olson notes, ENDA is vague on whether or not it will force businesses to modify existing restrooms or shower facilities. Section 8 says: “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require the construction of new or additional facilities,” but it says nothing about forcing businesses to modify existing facilities.
Either way, ENDA will be a legal and construction nightmare for businesses that will be forced to provide “adequate facilities” to these seriously confused individuals.
Section 8 (5) deals with “Dress and Grooming Standards.” The section states that the employer must permit “any employee who has undergone gender transition prior to the time of employment, and any employee who has notified the employer that the employee has undergone or is undergoing gender transition after the time of employment,” to “adhere to the same dress or grooming standards for the gender to which the employee has transitioned or is transitioning.”
In plain English, this means that an employer must permit a so-called transgender employee to wear clothing that reflects his chosen sex, not his biological sex. A man choosing to wear women’s clothing is protected under ENDA.
Since “gender identity” is a state of mind in ENDA, a person who thinks he’s the opposite sex but doesn’t want to have a sex change operation, would undoubtedly be protected by ENDA by claiming the “actual or perceived” section of the bill. This would permit a man to use a woman’s restroom or shower because he “thinks” he’s a woman.
Under ENDA, someone like Rodney Evans will be free to pick whatever restroom he wishes to use under the “gender identity” protection section.
This is not a flight of fantasy. This is already happening on college campuses around the nation. The Duke University and Seattle mall cases are good examples.
In October, 2002, for example, a student group calling itself, “The Restroom Revolution,” at the University of Massachusetts, began demanding that the university establish unisex restrooms for so-called “transgendered” students. This is what businesses will face if ENDA is passed.
In June, 2001 a Latino AIDS Agency sued its former landlord for discrimination because the landlord was forcing a transgendered male to use the men’s restroom instead of the women’s restroom. The ACLU was defending the “right” of this man to use a woman’s restroom because he thinks he’s a woman. ENDA will result in endless litigation over restroom facilities.
In 2005, a man who calls himself a “male-bodied woman” and uses the name Pauline Park, won a lawsuit against the city of New York over the use of restrooms. Park’s lawsuit permits any individual to use whatever restroom he wishes, depending on his “gender identity.”
Phony Religious Exemption In ENDA
ENDA is legislation ostensibly designed to forbid “discrimination” against a person’s “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.” The bill covers any employer who is engaged in interstate commerce or has 15 or more employees.
During the September 23rd hearing, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) proposed that the exemption for employers be reduced to companies having only 5 or more employees. He thinks the exemption for 15 is too large. No Democrat challenged him on his desire to have ENDA cover nearly every business, school, and Christian company in America.
ENDA provides a supposed “religious exemption” for religious denominations or organizations operated by religious denominations– but not other non-profit Christian or other religious organizations. The bill says in Section 6, “Exemption for Religious Organizations” that “This Act shall not apply to a corporation, association, educational institution, or society that is exempt from the religious discrimination provisions of title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 pursuant to section 702(a) or 703(e)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e-1(a); 2000e-2(e)(2)).”
This is a phony religious exemption. It is legal gibberish designed to fool legislators into thinking Section 6 protects religious freedom.
ENDA would impose a substantial and crippling burden on religious organizations, both those who are non-profit groups, as well as faith-based institutions and enterprises which operate commercially.
The religious exemption in ENDA gives a false sense of security. The courts will decide that discrimination against homosexuals and transgendered persons is equal to discrimination against a person because of his race. Once this happens, there will be no exemption in the law for religious groups.
ENDA already refuses to protect religious entities not directly affiliated with a church or denomination such as counselors, Christian camps, day camps, publishers, TV and radio stations.
ENDA will require businesses to eliminate viewpoints that are contrary to the promotion of the LGBT agenda. This will be done to eliminate a “hostile work environment” for the newly-protected classes of cross-dressers, transsexuals, she-males, lesbians, gays, and bisexuals.
This will inevitably result in the suppression of free speech by Christians and religious practices such as discussing biblical morality with co-workers or discussing such topics as traditional marriage. The human resources department will function as the thought police to make sure LGBT employees aren’t offended.
ENDA will pit religious employees against activist homosexuals and transgenders in the workplace. The employer will be caught in the middle, trying to balance free speech, freedom of religion issues with the requirements of ENDA.
The employer will have to choose between suppressing the ability of employees to express their religious viewpoints, for which they have relatively little protection in the workplace (religious speech is far less protected then religious observances), and risking costly claims from homosexuals under ENDA’s broad language. Most likely, the employer will impose a rule on the workplace that, in effect, allows no criticism of homosexual or bisexual lifestyles, even among peers.
ENDA forbids any employer from failing to hire or to fire any individual because of his “actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity” (Section 4). It will also forbid an employer from taking any action against an employee because of the sexual orientation of a person he may associate with outside of work. (Section 4[e].)
Advocates Of ENDA Claim Discrimination Impacts Incomes Of LGBT Persons
Bradley Sears, Executive Director of the Williams Institute at UCLA, testified in favor of ENDA (H.R. 3017) at the ENDA hearing.
The Williams Institute is described as a “national research center on sexual orientation and gender identity law and policy.” It is named after gay millionaire Charles R. Williams and LGBT agenda financier, who has given the institute more than $11 million since 2001.
In reality, the Williams Institute is a propaganda arm of the lesbian, bisexual, gay, transgender (LGBT) movement designed to use research to push forward LGBT political and cultural objectives. It’s goal is to legalize gay marriage nationwide, pass ENDA, force acceptance of the LGBT agenda in public schools, and overturn the ban on gays serving openly in the military and more.
Its research is deliberately biased and designed to achieve these goals. It cannot be trusted to give legislators an accurate picture of the lifestyle or employment problems encountered by gays, lesbians, bisexuals, cross-dressers, drag queens or transsexuals.
In 2008, the Williams Institute participated in a National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) conference. Leaders from the institute led workshops, which included “Using Research to Pass LGBT Anti-Discrimination Laws.”
The NGLTF also sponsored a workshop titled “Using the Thinking: How research has a role to play in the fight for LGBT equality.”
Clearly, the Williams Institute exists to push the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender agenda by using “research” as a weapon for cultural change.
Sears’ Vacuous Testimony
At no point during Sears’ testimony, did he bother to define what “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” actually mean. And, no legislator challenged him to define these terms.
Lesbian Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) also avoided defining “sexual orientation” when she was pushing for passage of so-called “hate crime” legislation back in May 2009. Like Baldwin, Sears doesn’t want to be pinned down by a clear definition of terms.
By ignoring clear scientific definitions of these terms, legislators are simply permitting themselves to be used by LGBT activists to impose a radical sex agenda on all businesses, schools and non-profits with more than 15 employees.
A gender identity is actually a Gender Identity Disorder (GID), a mental condition still listed in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR).
There is Gender Dysphoria, where the person believes he is trapped in an opposite sex body; then there is Transvestic Fetishism, where the person dresses in opposite sex clothing, but doesn’t necessarily want to undergo a so-called sex change.
Will ENDA cover cross-dressers (heterosexuals who dress in opposite sex clothing); drag queens (gays); transsexuals (those who have undergone a sex change); and she-males (those who undergo a partial sex change but keep their male sex organs?
The Williams Institute treats homosexual behaviors as safe and GID as merely self-expression instead of a mental condition. Homosexuals are, as a group, far more likely to suffer from serious diseases than their heterosexual counterparts. The evidence is overwhelming. And, individuals who think they are trapped in opposite sex bodies, are truly troubled and clearly mentally disordered. They need professional psychiatric help not surgery.
Sears’ Plays With Statistics
During his testimony, Bradley Sears made the following claims:
-
A survey of more than 646 transgender employees found that 70% faced workplace discrimination against their gender identity.
-
13% of 1,900 LGBT employees at state universities had experienced discrimination or harassment during 2008.
-
Eleven state government agencies provided 430 cases of administrative complaints of sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination between 1999 and 2007. Requests for data were made to 20 state agencies and 203 local agencies. Most did not respond. Of the 430 cases, approximately 265 were filed by employees of state and government agencies.
-
Wage gaps between heterosexual men and gay men is between 10% to 32%.
-
Studies show that gay men, bisexuals and lesbians who are government employees earn 8% to 29% less than their heterosexual counterparts.
-
Gay men who have partners and work for state governments earn 8% to 10% less than their heterosexual counterparts.
-
The Williams Institute found more than 380 examples of workplace discrimination in state and local governments over the past 20 years.
From this brief summary, Sears claims there is widespread and systematic discrimination against LGBT individuals in state and local governments – and only ENDA can solve the problem.
Out of 20 states, there were a mere 265 discrimination cases between 1999 and 2007. Were these name-calling? And, during a 20-year period, the institute found 380 examples of workplace discrimination in state and local governments. Bradley Sears claims that these statistics show “that discrimination is widespread in terms of quantity, geography, and occupations.”
Sears is wrong. These statistics show that discrimination against LGBT individuals is minor in state and local agencies and that there is no need for federal intervention in every business in America with more than 15 employees.
In the Williams Institute report, it is claimed that a 2009 survey of 646 transgender employees, 11% of whom were public sector employees, 70% of them “had experienced workplace discrimination related to their gender identity.” What does this mean? What kind of workplace discrimination? There were 71 public sector transgenders and 70% of these experienced workplace discrimination. So, 49 transgenders were victims of workplace discrimination in public sector jobs. If this is true, then why were they discriminated against and who were these people?
Were they transsexuals, drag queens, she-males or cross-dressers? We don’t know. Were they men using women’s restrooms? Were they wearing women’s underwear or engaging in obscene sex talk at work? Were they sexual predators? Were they called names? In short, these Williams Institute factoids are meaningless. They tell us nothing of value.
In his written testimony, Sears hedged on the completeness of his research report, saying that “we have concluded that these examples represent just a fraction of the actual discrimination.” That’s a convenient way of avoiding the fact that his research findings are minor and his conclusions are questionable. Any reputable researcher analyzing this information would conclude that his samplings are too small to reach any conclusion about “widespread” discrimination.
Poverty-Stricken Gays & Cross-Dressers?
One of the main goals of the Williams Institute report is to portray LGBT individuals as being denied gainful employment or advancement in the work place – especially in state and local governments. The underlying assertion is that LGBT individuals are being treated like African-Americans in the South before the Civil Rights Movement. As such, they earn less than heterosexuals and are promoted less frequently.
Chapter 11 of the Williams Institute report purports to analyze the “Wage Gap between LGB Public Employees and Their Co-Workers.”
The Institute claims to have discovered a significant pay gap for gay men when compared to heterosexual men who have the “same productive characteristics.” According to the Institute, “Depending on the study, gay and bisexual men earn 10% to 32% less than similarly qualified heterosexual men. Lesbians generally earn the same or more than heterosexual women, but lesbians earn less than either heterosexual or gay men.”
Yet, these statistics don’t seem to square with gay or gay-supportive marketing studies that have shown how well educated and affluent LGBT people are:
-
The National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce notes that LGBT individuals were likely to spend $800 more on business and leisure travel during the summer of 2009 than their heterosexual counterparts.
-
The National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce claims there are 1.2 million LGBT business owners in the U.S.
-
Market researchers state that the LGBT consumers have “deep pockets” and their buying power “is growing.”
-
In 2006, lesbian and gay travelers took a projected total of 53.2 million leisure trips, spending an estimated $40 billion. Another GLBT travel study says that the GLBT population is 5% and its estimated travel market is $65 billion annually.
-
Gays & lesbians are spending between $40-$65 billion year on travel. (harrisinteractive.com, 2007 & ASTAnetwork, Summer 2007)
-
Gay Wired Media claims that gay adults are 6-7% of the population with total buying power of $723 billion.
-
-
14% of gay and lesbian adults are planning overseas travel compared to only 7% of heterosexual adults (harrisinteractive.com, 2007)
-
Annual household income for gays and lesbians for 2007-2008 is $80,000. (communitymarketinginc.com)
Gay Incomes Don’t Justify ENDA
Compare the household income of gays and lesbians of $80,000 a year to the median income of blacks, Asians and Hispanics. U.S. Census statistics for 2008 (published on September 11, 2009) show that the median income for blacks was $34,218; for Hispanics it was $37,913; for Asians it was $65,637. Median income for non-Hispanic white households was $55,530.
The Williams Institute would have us believe that LGBT men and women are homeless, living in refrigerator boxes and eating out of dumpsters at the back of restaurants in our inner cities.
States, universities and local communities that have already passed “sexual orientation” laws are already beginning to feel the severe economic impact of these laws.
-
In July 2007, Fresno State University was fined $5.8 million by a jury for its alleged discrimination against a lesbian volleyball coach, Lindy Vivas. She claimed she was the victim of sexual orientation discrimination because she was a feminist activist and lesbian.
-
In April 2007, a homosexual couple filed a lawsuit against the Rochester Athletic Club for refusing to grant them a family membership. The couple claimed that the club was violating the state’s Minnesota Human Rights Act and “sexual orientation” discrimination law.
-
In July 2007, a jury in Los Angeles awarded a lesbian firefighter $6.2 million in a sexual orientation/harassment case. Lesbian Brenda Lee claimed she was harassed because she’s a black lesbian.
-
In April 2006, a homosexual group, Colorado Legal Initiatives Project filed a lawsuit on behalf of homosexual Richard James Miller against his company, AIMCO. The lawsuit claimed he was the victim of sexual orientation discrimination. Denver has a sexual orientation policy.
-
The decision of the EEOC is not reviewable by a court and does not have to be based on any written, reasoned decision.
These are just a few of the cases that have been fueled by “sexual orientation” ordinances passed by states and cities.
Once ENDA is passed, it will unleash a veritable flood of such cases in businesses, colleges, non-profit organizations and churches. The cost of litigation will potentially destroy many businesses – especially smaller businesses – without the resources to fight against well-funded homosexual legal groups.
Here are important points to consider about ENDA’s impact on businesses:
-
The cost of defending—and winning one discrimination case can be enough to break a small company. Most small companies do not have insurance that covers discrimination claims.
-
The Law of Unintended Consequences dictates that even laws intentionally limited in scope become expanded by the courts, with consequences never intended by Congress.
-
ENDA is not a simple inclusion of sexual orientation into federal discrimination law.
-
ENDA is broader than any federal discrimination law ever passed, both in its definition of discrimination and its protection of different categories of persons.
-
Employers will have difficulty defending themselves against ENDA claims because the protected class is not based on a known characteristic, may be based on a behavior one can opt into and out of, and is subject to interpretation.
-
Employers will be caught in the crossfire between homosexual activist staffers and employees with deeply held religious, moral, or traditional beliefs against homosexual behavior.
-
Employers will have great difficulty in enforcing existing anti-harassment rules once homosexuality becomes a protected category.
-
Employers will be unable to identify and prevent hostile work environments due to sexual orientation, without invading the privacy of employees.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Will Be Involved
During the September 23rd hearing, Stuart Ishimaru testified in support of ENDA. Ishimaru is acting head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a federal bureaucracy that enforces anti-discrimination workplace policies against employers.
If confirmed, Ishimaru may soon be joined on the EEOC by lesbian activist lawyer and college professor Chai Feldblum, who wrote the ENDA legislation. Feldblum will ruthlessly enforce ENDA against businesses and religious entities if she is confirmed for this key post.
Ishimaru began his written statement at the ENDA hearing this way:
Mr. Chairman and members of the House Education and Labor Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you at this important hearing. It is a privilege to represent the Obama Administration and the EEOC at the first hearing this Congress to consider ENDA, to voice the Administration’s strong support for legislation that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. This legislation will provide sorely needed and long overdue federal protection for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals, who unfortunately still face widespread employment discrimination.
During the Q&A session of the hearing, Ishimaru made it clear that he looked forward to crafting government regulations that would enforce ENDA!
In short, it would be the pro-gay, pro-transgender EEOC that would serve as the enforcer for any lawsuits arising from ENDA. The biased EEOC is set up to be judge, jury and enforcer.
ENDA Is Based On A Faulty Premise
One underlying assumption of ENDA is that the ‘sexual orientation’ considered in this bill is ‘fixed,’ ‘normal,’ and ‘healthy’ in the context of American life and human action. It isn’t. ENDA, however, attempts to impose a federal gag order on the crucial question about whether or not homosexual activity is voluntary and whether or not homosexuality has scandalous social consequences.
ENDA is based upon the faulty premise that homosexuality is normal and that individuals are “born gay.” And, now they’re saying that individuals are born bisexual or trapped in the body of the wrong sex. This “born gay” premise has recently been exposed to be a fraud by none other than homosexual researchers themselves who have admitted there is no scientific proof that a homosexual “gene” or “brain” exist.
Psychologists with the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) have recently published “The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science,” which quotes homosexual researchers and philosophers on the “born gay” theory.
In this article, NARTH quotes homosexual researcher Dean Hamer, “There is not a single master gene that makes people gay. . . . I don’t think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay.” Homosexual researcher Simon LeVay who studied hypothalmic differences between heterosexual and homosexual brains noted: “I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.”
NARTH also quotes lesbian activist and philosopher Camile Paglia who had the most blunt words about homosexuality: “Homosexuality is not ‘normal.’ On the contrary, it is a challenge to the norm . . . Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction . . . No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous. … homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait.”
Homosexuality is a behavior and a lifestyle choice. It is not genetically-based nor is it a healthy way to live. AIDS and sexually-transmitted diseases running rampant among this population are clear evidence that this lifestyle choice is not one to be protected nor encouraged by our culture. The federal government has no right to force America’s businesses, public schools , and non-profits to support a poor, unsafe lifestyle choice.
Individuals who consider themselves “transgendered” have a mental condition known as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), also called Gender Dysphoria. These individuals are in need of psychiatric, psychological or spiritual counseling so they will stop rejecting their birth sex. A mental condition cannot be effectively treated by surgery nor should it be.
To put a “gender identity” protection into federal law is to affirm that these individuals are normal and must be protected and accommodated by businesses and non-profit organizations. A serious mental condition must not be accorded specially-protected minority status under the law – nor should American businesses be forced to bend to the wishes of individuals with a treatable mental condition.
TVC’s report, “A Gender Identity Disorder Goes Mainstream” describes the radical transgender agenda and its goal of overturning all concepts of male and female in our culture. Dr. Paul McHugh’s essay, “Surgical Sex” describes the failure of surgery to deal with what is a mental problem.
If ENDA is signed into law, the homosexual/transgender movement will have won a major victory. They will have accomplished a long-term goal of having “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” given federally-protected minority status under the law.
Once this happens, efforts to oppose the LGBT will be considered a violation of federal law.
More serious consequences will ensue. Christians and other religious faiths will be forced to violate their Constitutionally-protected and firmly-held religious beliefs to bend to the will of homosexual and transgender activists. Freedom of religion will be suppressed by ruthless homosexual/transgender activists.
Every public school in America will be a target if ENDA is passed. The LGBT agenda will be implemented as early as in Head Start, pre-school and Kindergarten.
Freedom of speech will be targeted as well. Once homosexuals and gender confused individuals have minority status under federal law, criticism of their behaviors will be considered discriminatory and will be punished. The efforts to pass “hate crime” legislation will increase. So-called “Hate speech” will be considered outside the protection of the First Amendment. Lesbian, bisexual, gay, transgenders are arguing that “hate speech,” (anything critical of LGBT) provokes “hate crimes” and thus can be banned.
What homosexuals are actually targeting is “truth speech” from those who understand the dangers of homosexual sex and the impact that this behavior will have on children and the future of families in America. Transgender activists are, likewise, smearing those who tell the truth about their mental condition as being “transphobic.”
Congress, in the words of Dr. Paul McHugh, is collaborating with madness by considering passage of ENDA.
Neither homosexual behaviors nor the mental condition of gender confused individuals should have federally-protected minority status.
Additional Resources:
If You Hate America You Have a Lawyer — Chai Feldblum
The Agenda: The Homosexual Plan To Change America by Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
A Gender Identity Disorder Goes Mainstream
What Is A Sexual Orientation?
Summary Of ‘Peeing In Peace”
Intersex Report
Homosexuality 101
TVC Legislative Analysis of HR 2232
TVC Special Report S. 1105
Surgical Sex by Dr. Paul McHugh
The Overhauling Of Straight America
