This week, Iowa Congressman Steve King was a guest on Washington Watch Weekly, the radio program hosted by Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council (FRC). George Rekers is one of the FRC’s co-founders…you might be familiar with him. King offered his thoughts on the upcoming Congressional vote on ENDA, or as the FRC affectionately calls it, “The Cross-Dresser Protection Act.” King also had some wise words for the LGBT community, stating that if gays weren’t so open about their sexual orientation, they wouldn’t be discriminated against.
A few snippets of the interview, courtesy of a great HuffPo article by Alvin McEwen:
Tony Perkins: Someone could come in dressed one day as a woman or a man, the next day they come in dressed as the opposite sex.
Steve King: I can imagine someone coming in and interviewing one day in man’s clothes and come back the next day and apply for a job in woman’s clothes, and then setting up a lawsuit in a sting operation to harass our religious organizations.
King’s main issue is with people “wearing their sexuality on their sleeve” (Ed. Note –I have yet to see a gay-sleeved shirt). That ultimately leads to “entrapment legalized by ENDA,” violating the individual rights of employers to decide who to hire or fire at their own discretion.
So, clearly the FRC has major problems with ENDA, stating that it grants special rights to homosexuals, while ignoring those of employers. While I could go on for pages about the FRC and ENDA (particularly that the FRC’s assertion that ENDA would mandate the employment of homosexuals in inappropriate occupations…what exactly is an inappropriate occupation, I wonder?), I’d like to point out two of the FRC’s main issues with ENDA:
- Such legislation affords special protection to a group that is not disadvantaged.
- The issue is not job discrimination.
Now I don’t mean to get all Webster’s dictionary on you, but one of the definitions of disadvantaged is “lacking.” Can we honestly say that the LGBT community isn’t lacking the same advantages given to its non-LGBT counterparts? The ability to marry? The ability for a lesbian couple to send their child to the school of their choice
And the issue absolutely IS job discrimination. LGBT individuals should be afforded the same rights given to their straight contemporaries when it comes to employment, namely that they should not be denied a job or fired from one solely based on their sexual orientation.
When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and subsequent bills) made it illegal to separate school students based on race, was that giving “special” rights to non-whites? What if a teacher didn’t WANT a black student in their classroom? Or how about the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which prohibited wage discrepancies based on sex? What if an employer decided that he/she didn’t want to hire a woman? Based on FRC logic, wouldn’t that fall under “employer hiring discretion?” Yet, I can’t find a darn thing on the FRC website about the Equal Pay Act. Interesting.
While I didn’t mean for this post to focus solely on the FRC and ENDA, I do think that the FRC’s messaging, including King’s comment on being publicly out, continues to further the misconception that sexuality is a preference and that LGBTs are solely identified on the basis of sexual acts or attraction. Fostering the notion that homosexual conduct is harmful to those engaging in it, as well as being associated with negative physical and psychological health, is not only inaccurate – it’s harmful and hateful and strives to keep LGBTs in the proverbial closet.
And because I can’t think of anything better to end this blog with, I shall steal from the ever-wise, previously cited Alvin McEwen, “Closets are for clothes, not people.”
SUBSCRIBE