Congress to Consider Pro-Homosexual Bill After Recess

imagesbannerscp_150x601Reprinted by permission of the Christian Post

By Jennifer Riley
Christian Post Reporter
Fri, Aug. 21 2009 02:44 PM EDT

A bill that could force religious groups to hire gay employees will be debated in Congress when lawmakers return from their summer recess.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is a proposed bill in the U.S. Congress that would make it illegal for employers to make decisions on hiring, firing, promoting or paying an employee based on sexual orientation.

If the bill passes, “sexual orientation” would be added to a list of federally protected classes under a 1964 act that prohibits job discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

Though supporters of the bill contend it is simply protecting the rights of a minority group of Americans from discrimination in the work place, its opponents argue that it is in fact religious employers who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle that are being discriminated against.

“It’s just a very dangerous situation when we start passing laws based on people’s behaviors,” said Len Deo, president of the New Jersey Family Policy Council, to Focus on the Family’s CitizenLink.

(Credit: Creative Commons)

(Credit: Creative Commons)

Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr., a church leader from the Washington, D.C., area, argues “sexual orientation” should not be included in the federally protected class list because unlike the other characteristics, a person’s sexual orientation can change.

“I find it is an insult for myself as an African American that you are granting through this law special protection for sexual orientation that might only be imagined,” said the senior pastor of the 3,000-member Hope Christian Church, during a press conference opposing ENDA.

If ENDA is passed, church-related organizations and facilities can lose their tax-exempt status if they refuse to hire a gay employee, Deo of the New Jersey Family Policy Council warned.

He pointed to a case in 2007 when a New Jersey Methodist-owned camp facility refused to allow a gay couple to use one of their buildings for a civil union ceremony. The result of a court battle was the church losing its tax-exempt status for the beachfront property.

“This bill will put para-church organizations and people of faith who own secular, for-profit businesses in jeopardy of liability if they hire or fire based on their religious beliefs or moral convictions about homosexual behavior,” said Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst for Focus on the Family Action on Friday. “This is yet another attack on religious liberty in a long string and must be stopped.”

Copyright 2009 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark
  • preradstudent
    I say let employers & businesses discriminate with one caveat: require them to be upfront and honest about it...

    Make them plainly post their hiring practices on the premises at the front door, at registers, in bathrooms and break rooms, and in any advertising they may do.

    This way potential customers and/or employees are extended the exact same right to be more discriminating about what sort of person/organization they want to work for or do business with.
  • colindcrowe
    This is NOT true. The NJ case is, at best, improperly cited. The entire article is hyperbole, because 1) the 1964 Act is not re: employer / employee relationships and 2) the Court has held that religious orgs cannot be required to hire those outside their chosen faith.
  • They can't...unless some judge declares an edict stating they have to.

    How quickly you forget: the Constitution--and even law itself--is subject to the whim of legislators and judges.
  • DCM
    If homosexuals become enough of a protected class, we may end up with people pretending to be gay in order to get protections that they otherwise wouldn't get! There is no "gay test," you know, because homosexuality isn't something inherent. (There isn't a "religious test" either, but religious people aren't such a protected class!)
blog comments powered by Disqus