?

Log in

BACK DOOR BOY IN A FRONT DOOR WORLD
OUTSIDE OF SOCIETY - THAT'S WHERE I WANT TO BE
WTF, are we all going INFUCKINGSANE???????? 
17th-Mar-2005 03:44 pm
RIGHT NOW

OUR GOVERNMENT

IS DOING THINGS

WE THINK

ONLY OTHER COUNTRIES

ARE DOING...


HRC EXPRESSES CONCERN ABOUT BILL THAT COULD GIVE RELIGION A PROXY FOR DISCRIMINATION

"Religious freedom is an ideal we support and it can be ensured without hanging non-discrimination laws out to dry," said HRC's David Smith.

WASHINGTON - The Human Rights Campaign expressed concern today about a bill introduced in the House and Senate today that could expand religious rights of some employees while failing to preserve protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.

"Religious freedom is an ideal we support and it can be ensured without hanging non-discrimination laws out to dry," said HRC Vice President of Policy David Smith. "We support the goal of securing religious freedom in the workplace, but not without safeguards that should be written into the bill that also ensure it won't be used as a proxy to discriminate against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans. This bill would leave significant room to disregard state and local non-discrimination laws, as well as employer policies, allowing some employees to create a hostile climate for their GLBT co-workers and clients."

The Workplace Religious Freedom Act would expand the rights of some employees in the workplace under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in a way that would require employers to engage in efforts to accommodate an employee's religious practices and observances at the expense of other employees' civil rights.

In a letter sent March 15 to members of Congress, the Human Rights Campaign expressed concerns about the ways in which the bill could be used to evade non-discrimination policies.

"The concern here is that employers would have serious difficulty resolving instances where an employee posts a sign reading 'God hates fags' in his office or cubicle; where workers proselytize on the 'sins of the homosexual lifestyle' over lunch and on breaks; where a social worker proffers a religious objection to being the case manager or counselor for a youth who is gay or transgender; or where a truck driver on 24 hour driving shift who gives a religious reason for refusing to drive with an co-driver who is gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender," wrote HRC's Smith and Christopher Labonte, legislative director. They continued, "WRFA would arguably allow health care professionals to refuse to provide basic health care services to a gay or transgender patient."

"We believe that most religious Americans - including many GLBT people of faith - are fair-minded and this bill is at odds with their values," added Smith. "There is a way to write this legislation so that it's clear that safeguards for non-discrimination are kept in place. We urge members of Congress to address this problem so that the rights of some employees don't infringe on the rights of others."
I really cannot wait for the initial argument that these right wing fucks are going to use that you cannot compare religious freedom to sexuality, because they're going to jump on that "you choose to be gay" bullshit. Fuck that noise, there is evidence to support the genetic basis for inherent sexuality - unlike believing in God, which IS a choice you make. With no evidentiary support to back, only faith.

Fucking FUCK! GAMPAC has more on this.
Comments 
17th-Mar-2005 09:26 pm (UTC)
Hmmm... you sound like me, yesterday.

It makes me want to eat my own teeth, it frustrates me so.
17th-Mar-2005 10:04 pm (UTC) - WTF?
Religion belongs in the home. It only belongs in the workplace if you work at a church or another religion based corporation/facility.

This is to protect people from my buddhist propaganda, so they don't have to see it and be disturbed. It's a 2 way street.

I hadn't seen that study. Thx for linking it.

There is something seriously wrong with people. I'm so sick of 'God hates fags' anyway. It's overused to the point of nonsense. They should come up with a new catch phrase.

I have absolutely nothing stunning or intelligent to say, so I'm ending this with 'blargh' *rude gesture*
18th-Mar-2005 03:30 am (UTC)
IT should be noted that the study was abandoned in 1993 - and for good reason. They didn't want homosexuality to equate to a birth defect - the stigma, they thought, would be changed and not lessened. As such, the necessary follow-up studies to confirm this initial hypothesis were never conducted.
This page was loaded Jul 27th 2017, 4:49 am GMT.