The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission | ENDA: Ending an Important Employer Right | Comments http://erlc.com/ This feed provides all comments on "ENDA: Ending an Important Employer Right." en web-master@erlc.com ℗ & © 2008 ERLC Comment 1 http://erlc.com/article/enda-ending-an-important-employer-right#comment1 http://erlc.com/article/enda-ending-an-important-employer-right#comment1 You claim and ethical stance, then LIE?

“SEC. 6. EXEMPTION FOR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS.

(a) In General- This Act shall not apply to any of the employment practices of a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society which has as its primary purpose religious ritual or worship or the teaching or spreading of religious doctrine or belief.”

]]> Wed, 05 Sep 2007 03:03:21 CST Comment 2 http://erlc.com/article/enda-ending-an-important-employer-right#comment2 http://erlc.com/article/enda-ending-an-important-employer-right#comment2 Mr. Carlson says: “ENDA would also chip away at the bedrock of our society, the institution of marriage between one man and one woman, and move government toward acknowledgment of homosexuality as a valid lifestyle.”

Wow!  That’s quite a lot there Mr. Carlson.  Protection in employment discrimination is going to chip away at the very bedrock of society?  Much in the way Plessy vs. Ferguson did? 

At least this author doesn’t hide his sentiments as much as the others writing for this website.  He’s got the guts to come out and say.."Congress should not open the door to the normalization of homosexuality as a valid, alternative lifestyle”

That’s the bigoted fear they have on all of these civil liberty issues.  If we are “normal” how can they keep beating us up?

Mr. Carlson.... I AM NORMAL!

At last a truthful essay that clearly states the fearful foundation of their bigotry.

]]> Wed, 05 Sep 2007 05:55:37 CST Comment 3 http://erlc.com/article/enda-ending-an-important-employer-right#comment3 http://erlc.com/article/enda-ending-an-important-employer-right#comment3 It is a well-established fact that the homosexual lifestyle carries with it an assortment of health risks and deadly diseases that individuals in a monogamous, married, heterosexual, relationship do not ordinarily experience.

It seems to me that if an employer wants to keep his/her healthcare costs down, then he/she should have the right to refuse employment to those who choose to live an extraordinarily dangerous lifestyle.

As Americans, we can do what we want, but our choices carry consequences that impact all of society.  At the very root of it all, it seems to me that EDNA is an economic matter.  It’s just a matter of sound economics to let an employer choose how much he/she wants to increase their healthcare costs (and how much of it they want to then pass on to us, the consumer!).

]]> Wed, 05 Sep 2007 11:30:13 CST Comment 4 http://erlc.com/article/enda-ending-an-important-employer-right#comment4 http://erlc.com/article/enda-ending-an-important-employer-right#comment4 Dear Jack Van Dyk,

As a gay man I have so many issues with your commentary but let me just say for the sake of clarity here:

HIV/AIDS transmission can be substantially curtailed with correct consistent condom use.  Lack of education and empowering knowledge are the biggest risk factors in contracting HIV and other STDs. 

Being gay is not the issue, being ignorant, careless or uninformed are the real risks to one’s long term health. 

Do you assume that all gay couples are not monogamous?

]]> Wed, 05 Sep 2007 12:22:51 CST Comment 5 http://erlc.com/article/enda-ending-an-important-employer-right#comment5 http://erlc.com/article/enda-ending-an-important-employer-right#comment5 Mr. Valdes,

Not all homosexual couples are monogamous.  It is a known fact that most homosexuals have dozens of “partners” in a lifetime.  This is a given.

Being a homosexual is most certainly the issue.  God tells us in His Word not to engage in such behavior.  He considers this far from normal behavior, or rather, accepted behavior.  You say HIV/AIDS transmission can be curtailed.  That does not mean completely avoided.  God is loving and compassionate.  He established these boundaries for the sake of our health - both spiritually and physically.  I think this is what Mr. Van Dyck is trying to say.

Ultimately, God wants what is best for all of us.  Why is this such a hard thing to accept?

I sure hope that laws are passed to guarantee me employment because I wear my shoes on the wrong feet.

]]> Wed, 05 Sep 2007 15:30:05 CST Comment 6 http://erlc.com/article/enda-ending-an-important-employer-right#comment6 http://erlc.com/article/enda-ending-an-important-employer-right#comment6 Dear Mr. Wright,

I asked him if he assumed that all gay couples are NOT monogamous because he seemed to imply that in his commentary. 

As you may know, not all heterosexual couples are monogamous either, serially or concurrently. 

When people say that being gay is a health risk, they show their underlying bias, even when they may not be cognitive of it themselves. 

Risky behavior is not the exclusive domain of the gay male.  If you believe it is, get to know your heterosexual neighbors better.

This thread is about ENDA, however, so it’s best to keep focused on that singular issue. 

This is a civil liberty issue, not a religious one.  It’s the SBC that is trying to commingle religion and political activism in order to achieve their biased ends. 

I don’t understand their motives but one day soon all this will be a non-issue as people see gay persons not as broken but simply as one variant on a sexual continuum.

]]> Wed, 05 Sep 2007 16:29:58 CST Sat, 08 Sep 2007 18:16:19 CST Comment 7 http://erlc.com/article/enda-ending-an-important-employer-right#comment7 http://erlc.com/article/enda-ending-an-important-employer-right#comment7 Dan raises valid points.
How can discrimination continue against those of certain sexual orientation when the courts have said their behavior is not civilly punishable?

The argument can’t be based on health risk.  There are just too many logical holes.  Just to name one.  Suppose in an interview a prospective employer could legally come right out and ask: “are you homosexual because if so, I will not hire someone who is a medical liability”.  How is that so different from “are you promiscuous because if so, I will not hire someone who is a medical liability”.

We all know the Bible carries no authority in any civil way here in the U.S.  Judges have been known to reprimand lawyers who quote Scripture inside the courtroom.  So, that argument, at least in any legal sense, is a dead end too.  So, is there no way to prevent this change to ENDA?  I have written on this in my blog.

]]> Sat, 08 Sep 2007 18:16:19 CST