Notice

I am working on the template of this blog today in order to chase down some problems that have developed with my template and widgets.

nullspace for future use

nullspace for future use

About

Monday, November 12, 2007

Carolina Stompers Take On Sexual Discrimination Bill

11/12/2007 10:40:00 AM , , 18 comments

Fasten your seat belts people, this one could get a little rough!

From the Carolina Stompers website:


What people do in the privacy of their own bedroom is their business.
But to push your sex life on others is wrong. Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender groups like Equality NC and Faith in America are doing just that. Their sales pitch is civil rights. Slavery, segregation, and denying women the right to vote was wrong and Americans have come
a long way since those days. But is the way you have sex a civil right?

Six months ago my wife and I sent an e-mail to my step father,
Democrat NC Senator Martin Nesbitt. We asked why he is sponsoring
Senate Bill 1534: Non-Discrimination in State Employment
This bill would protect state workers from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity or expression.

"Gender identity or expression." What does that mean? That means Martin Nesbitt is sponsoring a bill that would allow transsexuals or transvestites to teach his grandchildren and your children in drag in the public school classrooms. Teachers are state employees and in an area where weird homosexual castrations and the gay lifestyle is on the rise, this will happen if this bill is passed and there is nothing you or there employer can do about it.


Source: Carolina Stompers
Senate Bill 1534 [Text] [PDF]
House Bill 1788 [Text] [PDF]
House Bill 1789 [Text] [PDF]
An eagle-eyed reader spotted the error in the General Assembly Page, and shot me an email with a correction.Many Thanks!!! [TP 2.38pm 2007/11/12]

Senate Primary Sponsors: Paul Luebke; Larry Womble;


Senate Cosponsors: Adams; Alexander; Carney; Coleman; Cotham; Cunningham; Farmer-Butterfield; Fisher; Glazier; Goodwin; Hall; T. Harrell; Harrison; Insko; Jones; Martin; Mobley; Pierce; Ross; Wainwright; Weiss; Wray;

The sponsor list has also been modified to reflect the changes. [TP 2.55pm]


House Primary Sponsor: Alma Adams

House Cosponsors: Bill Faison; Mary E. McAllister; Garland E. Pierce


You've read what the Stompers have had to say, now what does the other side say?

From the Equality North Carolina Website:


This bill would protect state employees from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation, broadly defined to include gender identity or expression. It amends the State Personnel Act by adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes for discrimination in hiring; denial of promotion, transfer or training; retaliatory demotion, reduction in force or termination; and harassment. Equality NC secured introduction of this bill by Sen. Charlie Albertson (D-Duplin) and 19 co-sponsors. This is the largest list of senators sponsoring pro-LGBT legislation in North Carolina history.


Source: Equality North Carolina


Susan Fisher August 2007



About ENC:


Equality North Carolina is a statewide advocacy organization that works to secure equal rights and justice for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender North Carolinians.

What we do
Equality North Carolina is your voice for equal rights and justice in state government.
Commentary

Like the Carolina Stompers, I have a problem with the phrase "This bill would protect state employees from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation, broadly defined to include gender identity or expression."

So, this bill, if passed, could result in your children being taught by someone in in drag because of the "civil right" of sexual expression. Tell me this isn't so.


The U.S. Supreme Court has laid down three requirements for a group to receive protected status:

  1. a shared immutable characteristic;
  2. economic deprivation; and
  3. a history of political powerlessness.
I think we can all agree that the subjects of this legislation do not share these characteristics.

More details: Special Rights for Homosexuals

This is all part of a Progressive Agenda that includes dividing people based upon a Group Identity Politics, that threatens to undermine the very things America was founded upon.

Don't let this happen. Call your state representative and ask that they not support the creation of a new special class of separate, but equal people.

Cross-posted at WNC Citizens Blog

18 comments :

So because Chad Nesbitt can imagine a worst-case scenario (ony worst for guys like you and Chad), it means that every other gay and lesbian person doesn't deserve protection from discrimination?

Your sectarian religious beliefs are yours to have. However, it's important that narrow sectarian beliefs don't create a culture of discimination and bigotry.

I find opposition to this bill shameful, as outlined in my post re: Shuler's doubletalk on the issue at ScruHoo. The "progressive agenda" is equal rights for all Americans and a separation of church and state. I like to think it's a Constitutionally supported view. I'm sure you and your homobigoted friends disagree.

well since gordon is against it that is a good reason by itself to be for what Chad is doing.

What I find disturbing from the "anything goes" Lefties is the lack of concern for the "worse case scenario." And if they're not concerned about the cross dressing teachers, then they surely won't be concerned about advocating for polygamy. Or incest between consenting adult family members for that matter. After all we can't discriminate against "any" aberrant sexual appetite. Not even when these radical sexual influences and appetites are effecting our children. It seems the radical sexual behaviors of a small, but vocal minority trump the rights of our children to be free from bizarre, aberrant, sexual influences.

It's not that anyone is opposed to the essence of the bill, that is not the case, it is the fact that the language has been tweaked to change sexual orientation from exactlty what you think it would and should mean to this: (14) 'Sexual orientation.' – The phrase 'sexual orientation' means actual or perceived heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality, or a person's gender‑related identity or expression."

Gordon:

In order for a group to receive protected status, they must prove they share (1) a shared immutable characteristic; (2) economic deprivation; and (3) a history of political powerlessness.

Ad hominem attacks against those who oppose the legislation kinda reminds me of negative campaign ads.

Kathy:

Your finger is indeed on the pulse of where they would have us go...even if they have to practice a bit of incrementalism to get us there.

Anon:

Doesn't matter what I, you, or anyone else thinks it means;
Sexual Orientation is not an immutable characteristic of one's birth.

You still haven't offered anything other than empty rhetoric...there is no substance to your argument.

As to the church thing:
My church has kicked out gays, lesbians, adulterers, drunks, pagans, and others who continue to wallow in their unrepentant sin.

I have also seen people refused a voting membership due to elements of their lifestyle that do not hold up to the standards of our church membership.

I support the expulsion of that church because the refuse to follow the guidelines set forth by their convention.

My empty rhetoric includes this:

Equal rights for all Americans.

What part of equal rights don't you understand? It's alarming that you find this concept "empty".

My argument is this - If some bigot fires a homosexual employee based solely on a sectarian religious belief, then that person has been denied employment based on discrimination.

As to your framing:

a shared immutable characteristic;
economic deprivation; and
a history of political powerlessness.

1. homosexual, bisexual
2. discriminination makes it harder for gays and lesbians to get and keep jobs unless they hide their sexuality.
3. this one's a no brainer

I know that you would rather not admit to discrimination. I get it. Instead, let's say that some folks want their sectarian religious beliefs enshrined in law. Civil rights are for everyone, though, even if they're not Christian heterosexuals.

Americans already have equal rights.

1. Homosexual, bisexual

...ummmm that's two...not one

2. people who display their sexuality on their sleeve should be fired, whether they are homosexual, bisexual, trisexual, heteorosexual, or undetermined. That is not the bad discrimination...that is the good kind. I don't go through everyday thinking, "Hmmm...I'm a heterosexual."

3. Here are some powerful people for you, and puts the lie to some of your other points as well.

Here is a working definition of discrimination:

Discrimination refers to the process of illegally differentiating between people on the basis of group membership rather than individual merit.

I have no problem with gay people. I do have a problem with people acting inappropriately, regardless of their sexual orientation. I would expect a teacher who wore revealing clothing to school to be fired forthwith the same as gender inappropriate clothing.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

In the unlikely event this legislation passed, the Supreme Court will knock it down.

You're the picture of unexamined dominant culture living.

1. Homosexuality is a shared immutable characteristic. There are other possible shared immutable sexual characterisics.

2. Heterosexuals wear their sexuality on their sleeves all the time. Pictures of their wives on their desks. Sexual comments on the job. Talking about their wedding. Talking about their relationships. Wearing their wedding rings.

3. You're saying there are currently "powerful" homosexuals and that therefore homosexuals shouldn't get equal civil rights? Does this mean you're saying there weren't any powerful blacks before the civil rights movement? Of course there were, and I'm sure that well-intentioned ignoramuses were pointing that out back in the early 1900s.

As long as bigoted people are willing to fire people based on sexual orientation then the rest of us are guilty of allowing that discrimination to take place.

We can agree to disagree, but you're wrong.

"gender inappropriate clothing."

?

Does this mean that a woman wearing pants ought to be fired? How about a man with a floral shirt? Who decides gender propriety? A bunch of heterosexuals?

Come on!

There is a reason my culture is dominant...because it is superior to other cultures...despite the loud shrill attempts by the subcultures to bring it down around their ears.

Sexual Orientation is not immutable.
Sex, without surgery, is immutable.
Race, until Jacko, is immutable.

Sexual comments on the job are intolerable, no matter the source, and a good reason for job termination.

By "on their sleeves" I meant out of the ordinary. Talking about sex, or sexual relationships on the job is inappropriate behavior. I have no problem with gay people have a photo of their loved one on their desk, or wearing a "wedding" ring.
This is part and parcel of "group identity politics" that serve to divide and conquer groups for the modern progressive movement...keeping these "groups" subservient" to the movement at the expense of their individual identity.

A person should be allowed to fire someone on the basis of just cause...there are already mechanisms in place for unjust firings.

Women wearing pants is gender appropriate, men wearing sun dresses is not. Men wearing high heels is not.
Men wearing floral shirts is okay, provided it is not a woman's shirt.

What this type of legislation is seeking is something that cannot be forced...approval.
There is tolerance for homosexuality, approval requires that we abandon our beliefs...that we cannot do. This also reveals something else about the motives about this type of legislation; it is an attack on Christianity disguised as protection for "an imagined class of victims."

Your turn.

From Chad Nesbitt
To Gordon Smith

You like that Folsum Street Fair stuff don't you.

You like the fact that people are haveing sex in front of children don't you.

You like those baby Jesus dildos don't you.

Your stupid arguments to support this kind of crap is the way we keep winning!

We showed NC how the Democrats are hipocrits and liers durring the Vance Aycock Dinner and WE WON!

We showed Buncombe County how crazy this town has gotten under liberal leadership and we defeated your wacked out nut job city council canidate. "Priceless"
WON AGAIN!

BRING IT ON! LETS DEBATE YOUR GAY CRAP IN PUBLIC! PLEASE, OH PLEASE, OH PLEASE! Your team against mine!
Let the media cover it all!
I'm serious.

Keep it up! Like I told you and your little friend Peck. You guy's just make our job a lot easier.

Chad Nesbitt

Chad,

So much for that editor you're using over at CarStomp...

I'm very close with a lot of families who have gay kids, parents, grandparents, etc. You try to find the examples of behavior you think are "worst" and you're willing to jettison the vast majority of kind, well-adjusted, productive people in order to feed your bigotry and hate.

That's fine. You're entitled to behave badly and to treat people badly. You don't address any of the argument that TP and I are having. Not that I'd expect it, but I did want to point it out.

TP,

Your view is that sexual orientation is a choice? When did you choose to be heterosexual? How did you make that choice?

Do you believe that someone ought to be able to fire someone else based solely on that person's sexual orientation? If the answer is yes, then you believe in discrimination. If the answer is no, then we need that protection in the law because it does not currently exist.

Anti-discrimination legislation forces approval? So far we've got protections for the disabled, women, blacks, and more. Have those protections "forced" you to accept any of these groups?

The basic deal is this, TP - Your religion says that homos are sinners, so you want to keep the law in favor of your religion. That's not o.k. It's unconstitutional.

Lets make this clear, this is "not" about religion. And it's not about discrimination. It's about what kind of society we want to bring our children up in. We already see the terms Mother, Father, Mom and Dad being taken out of Calf. school text books because homosexual activists, and their supporters demanded gender nurtural terms, and won it through the Calf. legislature. Outrageous! And it's coming to NC starting with these bogus non-discrimination bills.

What's at stake is, will we, as a society have "any" sexual boundaries concerning what society puts the stamp of approval on? If homosexuality is okay, then what about incest? What about polygamy? What about bestiality? What about self-mutilation? As with homosexuality, thousands of people practice self-mutilation every day, by superficially lacerating their arms and legs. And then there's the growing number of folks that cut off a limb because they just don't feel like a whole person unless they removed the offending appendage. And they also say they've had this desire since childhood. It's called "Body Integrity Disorder." It's now being compared to "Gender Identity Disorder", and they use the same descriptive language as homosexuals, and transgendered in describing their discomfort with how they were born, and how society perceives them. Like homosexual sex, self-mutilation poses obvious risks to bodily health that careful practitioners can nonetheless minimize or eliminate. Like homosexualtiy, it does no immediate harm to anyone else, unless someone is given a sexually transmitted disease. And those practicing it say it relieves anxiety, stress and makes life bearable. Like homosexuality, some people feel strongly compelled to practice it. If the Lefties are consistent in their argument then all these compulsions will have their sanctioned support as a worthy societal practice to be emulated and encouraged. What society approves of, is what will be taught to our kids in the gov. schools, as a practice to be encouraged and aspired to. And it's also about the homosexual agenda of victimization. I can't wait for the Scrutiny Hooligans of the world to come to the defense of the ugly and plain people seeking jobs. It's been proven that, considering all things equal in the applicant, attractive people are overwhelmingly hired over the unattractive. Where are their civil rights sir?? Just how far are you willing to take your manufactured moral outrage in all "other" perceived discriminatory actions by employers? This nonsense about discrimination is just a smoke screen for normalizing and mainstreaming every aberrant sexual appetite and compulsions, as it instigates sexual confusion, in our children to their detriment. To act like the Left does not discriminate is hypocritical. The Left is continually discriminating. They discriminate against people of conscience, faith and the freedom of those people to hire job appropriate employees for their business. Why do the Left not stand up for these folks freedoms and rights? The left is not more tolerant, they just have different targets of intolerance. The Left now shows its intolerance by pronouncing traditional sexual morality a form of discrimination. The Left now 'must be consistent in their support of all the before mentioned appetites and compulsions, or be called hypocrites, and agenda driven opportunists.

The high jacking of the civil rights movement by homosexual activists and their supporters is another bogus argument. As Colin Powell testified to Congress about gays in the military, when the comparison of race and gender came up. He said... "Skin color is benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics." The comparison of the two is a convenient and invalid argument. Skin color and moral behavior are two different categories of things and to compare the two is like mixing apples and oranges. While there are many "former" homosexuals, I don't know of any "former" blacks.

You're a peach, Kathy.

Let's do a thought experiment.

"What's at stake is, will we, as a society have "any" sexual boundaries concerning what society puts the stamp of approval on? If heterosexuality is okay, then what about incest? What about polygamy? What about bestiality? What about self-mutilation? As with heterosexuality, thousands of people practice self-mutilation every day, by superficially lacerating their arms and legs. And then there's the growing number of folks that cut off a limb because they just don't feel like a whole person unless they removed the offending appendage. And they also say they've had this desire since childhood. It's called "Body Integrity Disorder." It's now being compared to "Gender Identity Disorder", and they use the same descriptive language as heterosexuals in describing their discomfort with how they were born, and how society perceives them. Like heterosexual sex, self-mutilation poses obvious risks to bodily health that careful practitioners can nonetheless minimize or eliminate. Like heterosexualtiy, it does no immediate harm to anyone else, unless someone is given a sexually transmitted disease. And those practicing it say it relieves anxiety, stress and makes life bearable. Like heterosexuality, some people feel strongly compelled to practice it. If the Lefties are consistent in their argument then all these compulsions will have their sanctioned support as a worthy societal practice to be emulated and encouraged. What society approves of, is what will be taught to our kids in the gov. schools, as a practice to be encouraged and aspired to. And it's also about the heterosexual agenda of victimization."

Here's hoping that's enough to illuminate the absurdity.

And as far as former blacks go, maybe you've never heard of Michael Jackson? He's an avowed heterosexual, too.

Yeah your a piece of work as well.

Absurdity? How so? I always thought it was absurd to even think that two men or two women would be getting married and equated as the same as the societal foundation of man woman marriage.

If you think there are not organizations for each one of the compulsions I listed, then you are naive? Look on the net and see for yourself. And they want the same acceptance and recognition as gays. Once boundaries have been breached there remains no abjections that can be sited for refusing these other groups the same so called "rights" as homosexuals. Equal protection under the law will always be sited. Wake up to the adverse consequences of going down this road.

Kathy,

Did you read the thought experiment? Notice that I replaced the word homosexual with heterosexual.

And notice how the dominant culture is always busy trying to ensure that minorities stay underfoot.

I have posted the second part here that goes a little forward to explaining what is behind this effort. There will be more after that.

Post a Comment