Hate Crime Bill

[Booklover]

cont.

Employers will be forced to hire libertines and cross-dressersAnd H.R. 2015 is a big step in this direction. Moving on from the relativistic equalizing of homo- and bisexuality with heterosexuality, the bill provides for the punishment of those citizens who do not share the philosophical or religious convictions of the homosexual anti-Christian worldview. This punishment includes the full panoply of enforcement and compliance procedures currently authorized to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commision and the Attorney General under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.).
Likewise, H.R. 2015 would punish an employer who refuses to hire or tries to fire a notorious libertine, an adulterer, or a womanizer, even if his wife, sisters, and daughters are among his employees, for such action would be deemed discriminatory, albeit against a heterosexual “sexual orientation.”
Besides avowed homosexuals or libertines, the employer will also have to employ transvestites, for H.R. 2015 bars an employer from refusing to hire, and forbids his firing an employee based on the latter’s “perceived… gender or identity.”
“Perceived gender” or “identity” does not refer to the person’s actual gender but the sexual “identity” the person fantasizes he or she has. Having adopted the philosophical principle that the “sexual orientation” a person chooses is an absolute and supreme value to which society must conform, H.R. 2015 draws the logical consequences. If one is justified in practicing homosexuality or bisexuality, why not also in choosing to live as a member of the opposite sex? From the absurd, any conclusion is possible. One thing alone is not tolerated by the proponents of the homosexual revolution, namely, to follow the norms of sound reason and morals based on natural law.

Besides avowed homosexuals or libertines, the employer will also have to employ transvestites, for H.R. 2015 bars an employer from refusing to hire, and forbids his firing an employee based on the latter’s “perceived… gender or identity.”
“Perceived gender” or “identity” does not refer to the person’s actual gender but the sexual “identity” the person fantasizes he or she has. Having adopted the philosophical principle that the “sexual orientation” a person chooses is an absolute and supreme value to which society must conform, H.R. 2015 draws the logical consequences. If one is justified in practicing homosexuality or bisexuality, why not also in choosing to live as a member of the opposite sex? From the absurd, any conclusion is possible. One thing alone is not tolerated by the proponents of the homosexual revolution, namely, to follow the norms of sound reason and morals based on natural law.

H.R. 2015 dictates how employers must handle transvestites and transgendered individuals who demand access to common showers and locker rooms where nudity might occur. And, almost cynically, it stipulates that employers will have the right to demand that the transvestite or transgendered individual “ adhere to reasonable dress or grooming standards” of the sex he or she is fantasizing about.

There is an exception for religious organizations whose primary goal is to teach or practice a religion, or for organizations not completely designated as religious, but whose primary duty is to teach or propagate religious doctrines, or to participate in and/or supervise religious rites.

cont.

 

[Booklover]

cont.

It would seem that the purpose of this exemption is simply to divide the opposition, for the sad truth is that many religious organizations who are duty bound to oppose H.R. 2015 will not do so, or will do so weakly, since they are not immediately concerned. No religious organization should be fooled into neutrality. If H.R. 2015 becomes law, this exemption will be eliminated a few years from now.
This religious exemption is one more proof of the bill’s bad faith. For in half-recognizing the violence it perpetrates against religion, it nevertheless tramples underfoot the religious beliefs, regardless of how sincerely held, of employers who are not structured as a “religious organization.” This means every Ten Commandments American who employs 15 or more people.

H.R. 1592 – the federal “hate-crimes” billLooking now at H.R. 1592, the so-called “Hate Crimes” bill, one finds it intends “to provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.”
This bill does not define “sexual orientation,” simply listing it among the protected categories. These can be broken down into two groups, those where one has no choice, such as “race, color… national origin, gender… or disability” and those where one does, “religion, sexual orientation, gender identity.” Thus, “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are given the same protected, privileged status as “religion.”

**Perceiving “Gender Identity” **
H.R. 1592 does define “gender identity,” stating that “the term ‘gender identity’ for the purposes of this chapter means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics.”
Just what are these “perceived gender-related characteristics?” It is such a vague and generic concept that one can understand it as one wishes. It is not clear who must perceive these characteristics. Is it the individual claiming “gender identity?” Is it the government? A parent? A neighbor? A classmate? How clear must these characteristics be?

The bill establishes fines and imprisonment for anyone who, “whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person…”

Obviously, except in legitimate self-defense, law enforcement or just war, to wound, or, worse yet, to kill someone, is a crime contrary to the natural moral law.

cont.

 

[Booklover]

cont.

When hatred is the motivating factor for a crime, the latter becomes even more detestable and this hatred is usually taken into account, as a particularly aggravating circumstance, when the judge hands down the sentence. This judicial prerogative to hand out stiffer or more lenient sentences based on the circumstances is our unquestioned tradition. Why then does H.R. 1592 wish to add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to existing laws, placing them on the same footing with religion, gender, national origin and disability?
H.R. 1592’s sole purpose seems to be giving the homosexual movement a psychological victory, while intimidating those who are opposed to its agenda. It is one more example of the judicial and legislative offensive that is imposing on the nation by decree, the principles and ways of being of an anti-natural ideology.

The “New Class”: those who embrace the homosexual revolution
Both H.R. 2015 and H.R. 1592 will have a tremendous chilling effect on the expression of faith and morality in the public square, while granting special status and privilege to homosexuals.
It is hard not to see here the legislative creation of a “new class.” Actually, a book was written during the Cold War by Yugoslav author Milovan Djilas, with this very title. He denounced the emergence of communist rulers as a new privileged social class.
H.R. 2015 and H.R. 1592 suggest that the lastest new privileged class consists of those who embrace the homosexual moral revolution.

tfp.org/TFPForum/TFPCommentary/the_hate_crime_bills–imposing_an_anti-Christian_worldview.htm

I just cannot understand how anyone can see these bills as “good”.!

Vickie

 

[KarenNC]

** The first bill is H.R. 2015, known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007;**

Non-discrimination is not the same as a hate crime. Text of the bill is at thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2015:

** the second is H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.**

There are 4 versions of this one. Which one do you mean and which particular section?
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.+1592:

**“Sexual Orientation,” a Set of Norms Linked to a Worldview
Let us first examine the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007.
This bill, introduced April 24, 2007 by openly homosexual Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), applies to everyone who employs 15 or more individuals. For these employers, the bill would make it illegal to refuse to hire, or to fire someone, “because of such individual’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender or identity.” **

Not correct. Read Section 6—Exemption for Religious Organizations and Section 7—Nonapplication to members of the Armed Forces, Veteran’s Preferences
thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c1109AShG7:e11850:

Difficulty with the bill starts with this definition. Since law should only deal with external, verifiable acts, not merely inner proclivities, the bill should not legislate on “sexual orientation,” “perceived…gender,” or “perceived… identity,” but simply “actual gender” or, alternatively, sexual “practice” or “behavior.”

Then we should remove “religion” from the non-discriminatory wording as well? It is also “used to indicate a choice one makes, a direction one follows. It implies a set of norms,”

 

[KarenNC]

H.R. 2015 and H.R. 1592 suggest that the lastest new privileged class consists of those who embrace the homosexual moral revolution.

How in the world is saying that, unless you are a religious institution, employ fewer than 15 workers or are the military you should hire based on qualifications for the job make people into a “privileged class”? It does not require preferential treatment, simply equal consideration based on actual skills.

 

[KarenNC]

** If H.R. 2015 becomes law, this exemption will be eliminated a few years from now.
This religious exemption is one more proof of the bill’s bad faith. For in half-recognizing the violence it perpetrates against religion, it nevertheless tramples underfoot the religious beliefs, regardless of how sincerely held, of employers who are not structured as a “religious organization.” This means every Ten Commandments American who employs 15 or more people.**

What is the basis for your statement that the “exemption will be eliminated a few years from now?” The religious exemption (which, btw, applies to the rest of the non-discrimination practices as well—if you are a religious institution you are welcome to be as discrminatory as you like) has not been eliminated. Non-discrimination laws also protect Catholics who cannot be barred from employment by those who disagree with their religion.

**This bill does not define “sexual orientation,” simply listing it among the protected categories. These can be broken down into two groups, those where one has no choice, such as “race, color… national origin, gender… or disability” and those where one does, “religion, sexual orientation, gender identity.” Thus, “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are given the same protected, privileged status as “religion.” **

Then we should remove religion as well from protection against discrimination? Do you truly desire to return to the days when signs like “Catholics need not apply” would have been legal, or when Catholics were actually barred from holding public office solely because of their faith?

 

[Jerusha]

The key word for us is perceived. It protects Catholics and celibates.

Sexual behavior is a bedroom issue, and should be irrelevant to the discussion. Obviously, I like the old military policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” If more people followed that, and minded their own business, there would be fewer problems with homophobia and heterophobia. This bill should help.

 

[Booklover]

The key word for us is perceived. It protects Catholics and celibates.

Sexual behavior is a bedroom issue, and should be irrelevant to the discussion. Obviously, I like the old military policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” If more people followed that, and minded their own business, there would be fewer problems with homophobia and heterophobia. This bill should help.

I disagree! Homosexuals don’t want it to be just a bedroom issue as you call it! They want their immoral lifestyle approved by law and made “normal”!

Vickie

 

[Jerusha]

Homosexuals don’t want it to be just a bedroom issue as you call it!

You are arguing a point that I cannot and will not argue with you. Heterosexual married sex is also a bedroom issue, and should stay there, private. Do you think I support pornography? (just to use one of your debate strategies against you )

 

[Booklover]

You are arguing a point that I cannot and will not argue with you. Heterosexual married sex is also a bedroom issue, and should stay there, private. Do you think I support pornography? (just to use one of your debate strategies against you )

Your reply is not funny and is completely absurd. Here is a link to a book that you and KarenNC shoud read about the homosexual agenda and its goals. It’s called “Defending a Higher Law” Why we must resist "same-sex"marriage and the Homosexual Agenda.

This paragraph from the book deals with the nonsense you believe in.

"What we do in the privacy of our homes is nobody’s business"

The privacy of the home is undoubtedly sacred, but it is not absolute.

When an evil act is done in public, the ensuing scandal compounds its intrinsic evil. However, an evil act does not become good just because its performed in private. Its evil nature remains unchanged.

Though homosexual acts are graver when they are public, they continue to be intrinsically evil when done in private. Likewise the inviolability of the home does not protect immoral and socially destructive acts such as child protitution, polygamy, incest and any other such acts."

Vickie

 

[Jerusha]

No sense of humor, no understanding of absurdity.

 

[Booklover]

Nope, sorry, don’t get that from that quote at all. I don’t see any consequences of allowing consenting adult same sex couples who wish a monogamous lifelong committed relationship the same benefits and responsibilities under civil law as those given to consenting adult opposite sex couples who wish a monogamous lifelong committed relationship that would be detrimental to society or to the marriages of those opposite sex couples.

Nonsense! Homosexual “marriage” is in no way comparable to heterosexual marriage. It isn’t marriage at all!

"As a “basic human right”, the right to marriage stems from human nature, and thus its existence precedes both Church and state. Nevertheless, that same human nature which gives rise to this “basic human right” also requires that marriage be the union of man and woman since the cooperation of both is required in accomplishing the primary purpose of marriage, which is the procreation and education of children. The civil “marriage” of two individuals of the same sex is not based on human nature. Therefore, it is not marriage, so there is no “basic human right” to same-sex “marriage”.

“Homosexual love” is impossible because it seeks to transform the love of friendship between people of the same sex into conjugal love.

Since conjugal love requires psychological and physical complementarity, it can only exist between opposite sexes.

“Homosexual love” is only a sentimental attraction of a sexual nature or a psychological dependency due to a lack of emotional or sentimental self-control. It is, therefore, a neurotic sentimentality.

Indeed, “homosexual love” is neither conjugal love nor can it stay on the level of love of friendship without erotic connotations. Hence, homosexuality undermines the family and social life.

The family is the foundation of society, and marriage is the condition that gives rise to the family. Homosexuality undermines marriage by seeking to usurp its rights: Conjugal relationships are only possible between a man and a woman.

Likewise friendship is the mortar of social life and the foundation of social accord. Without friendship, it is impossible to avoid social discord, which opens the gates to chaos and anarchy. Since homosexuality is focused on sexual intercourse, it thereby destroys the possibility of true friendship between people of the same sex, turning friends into objects of desire or competitors in the market of passions. This destroys friendship which makes social life safe and amenable.

By weakening the family and friendship in society, the homosexual offensive destroys the foundations of society and leads it into disintegration and anarchy.

This reality is obfuscated by the homosexual movement’s use of words like “love” and “tolerance”.

From: “Defending a Higher Law” by the TFP committee on American Issues.

Vickie

 

[Jerusha]

Now that is a well-chosen quote!!!

 

[Booklover]

Now that is a well-chosen quote!!!

Wow! We actually agree on something!

Vickie

 

[KarenNC]

Since homosexuality is focused on sexual intercourse, it thereby destroys the possibility of true friendship between people of the same sex, turning friends into objects of desire or competitors in the market of passions. This destroys friendship which makes social life safe and amenable.

Is it possible for a man and woman to have true friendship?