Video of the ENDA Press conference last week

by Randy on October 25, 2007 · Comments

 

 

As readers of my blog are aware, I spoke at the FRC/HILC press conference on ENDA last week.

I didn’t know I was going to be at the podium until I was introduced. They had asked me to be there in case someone asked about the “ex-gay” perspective. I think my message is ok… it could have been clearer, but some have said it was totally confusing. I don’t think it is totally confusing. Basically, I was trying to get across that at one time I was a “gay” man who experienced discrimination in the workplace. However, it was taken care of in the workplace…not through bad legislation that is a threat to religious liberty in the workplace.

Well, to be in PFAW’s radar to “watch” is kind of a badge of honor for me.

Keep watching folks. I and the thousands and thousand of folks of like mind aren’t that scary. I’ll try to be more clear in the future.

ENDA is bad public policy. It would have been unnecessary and bad when I was gay and it is unnecessary and bad now that I am not.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Share on ...
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • TwitThis
  • Pownce
  • Print this article!
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • SphereIt
  • Digg
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Buzz

    Related posts (automatically generated)

Tagged as: , , , , , , ,

Viewing 19 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    I get your point about the discrimination being taken care of in the workplace without the need for government intrusion. Granted, this was in the 90s (I think), but did your company have a non-discrimination policy? I can't think of any company I've worked for that hasn't had such that includes sexual orientation. I think that all companies should have such a clause...I don't particularly think that it should be the governments place to enforce such laws. I work for the largest not for profit health care organization in the US (HMO). Diversity is HUGE! We celebrate everyone (it's almost over the top...LOL). And I personally find that great! I guess you could say I support the intent of ENDA, I don't particularly support making it a function of the federal government.

    As for your presentation, I think I mentioned somewhere else that I thought your argument was much weaker than the arguments I've seen you give regarding Hate Crimes Laws. Not that I think you believe it any less, just the argument isn't as strong. I don't think though that I was particularly left confused.

    j.
    • ^
    • v
    I tracked with what you were saying in your impromptu talk. To me it wasn't confusing at all.
    • ^
    • v
    Impromptu? Had me fooled. :-) Your example of the workplace conflict back in 1990 was plain and clear. Good stuff.
    • ^
    • v
    Thanks for your feedback J. you sound like you are a libertarian ... ?

    Susan and Jeremiah - Thank you very much for that. I didn't think it was too unclear. I have gotten great feedback on the whole thing.

    Well, except for some who are only focussed on my having gained some weight. I think the adjective was "fat." Other than that it has all been positive.
    • ^
    • v
    FWIW, your presence before the microphones is somewhat more authoritative than the impression you make on your blogs.

    If a label becomes necessary, I usually pick "center-right."
    • ^
    • v
    Hey Randy. I was surprised to hear your talk was impromptu. I'm impressed--you played it off very well. I don't think anyone in the audience would have known at all.

    I don't think your message itself was confusing. I guess my question for your story is, what if this upper supervisor hadn't been so understanding? What if instead of telling your boss to stop she allowed it to continue or even fired you? I think your story is exactly how things should work and how they usually do work (thankfully). But, what if they don't work that way? What's the recourse then?
    • ^
    • v
    ... But, what if they don’t work that way? What’s the recourse then?


    Quite a number of possibilities exist depending on the circumstance. You could sue, find another job, organize protests, rally the gay activist community, call the local news, write a letter to the editor, get HRC to write a mean press release, live with it (I couldn't do that but some people do and don't care.)

    I am not saying any one of the above is preferable but that list and more is what people are already doing. We don't need the Federal government imposing bad legislation upon private corporations. The corporate world has changed. ENDA is bad and unnecessary.
    • ^
    • v
    Randy, thanks for responding. Fair enough (although I think suing wouldn't work since there isn't anything to sue for since there's no law against it. It wouldn't be wrongful termination...)

    I guess then comes the question as to whether the government should be in the business of providing protective legilsation of this sort at all. All other currently protected classes have those same recourses they could use instead of asking the government to get involved. I know you've already said your side on that, but I thought it was worth pointing out.
    • ^
    • v
    As long as we are pointing things out...

    The key words of your comment are "protected classes." To date the gay identified community has not proven themselves to be a "protected class" according to the standards set forth in the Civil Rights act of 1964; Immutability, Documented widespread pattern of discrimination and economic disenfranchisement.

    ENDA would usurp the Civil Rights Act by creating a protected class out of real or perceived sexual/gender identity/orientation that cannot fit any of the criteria already used by law to determine a protected class.
    • ^
    • v
    Randy, I think the debate itself is over whether or not the gay community can prove itself as a protected class.

    According to the definition you give set by the CRA of 1964, religion should not count because it is not immutable, nor can most religions show a widespread pattern of economic disenfranchisement. For that matter, a whole lot of protected classes can't fulfill those obligations, but they still get Federal protection.

    This "definition" has a whole lot of ambiguity, and a lot is open to interpretation. That's why many in the gay community are arguing for protections. If white male Christians can get protections Federally (which they can--the updated CRA does not speficy which races or religions are protected--all are), why can't gays?
    • ^
    • v
    I don't agree. The religious argument is false in that freedom of religion is protected by the constitution itself.

    I think a LOT of lawyers would disagree that the freedom of religion and CRA of 1964 are ambiguous. Plus, religion doesn't just cover white males. Your polarizing an argument instead of seeing the obvious.
    • ^
    • v
    I didn't think your message was confusing. What really shocks me is peoples comments to the video on YouTube. I forget how much personal attack and verbal crap you deal with ALL THE TIME. I know I only see a small portion of it. It grieves me. But I'm not grieved for you. I know the One you serve and I know He is worth it. I'm grieved for the ones who feel they must speak to you, or about you, venomously.
    • ^
    • v
    Randy, I'll let this go since we're obviously arguing in circles, but I believe your statement that I'm trying to polarize an argument is exactly how I view what you are doing.
    • ^
    • v
    I didn't see any circles. In my video I say that we should be talking about homosexuality in the workplace and the dynamics that presents. Because there can be problems. We just don't need to pass bad legislation out of good intentions. I also empathize with the gay community having once been a part of it.

    that's polarizing? I don't think so. Making this a matter of white religious males versus gay identified people... that would be polarizing.

    It's obvious that the gay identified community do not warrant protected class status conferred through shoddy legislation that not even the GLB and T communities can agree on.

    But, if you want to let this go ... that's cool with me.
    • ^
    • v
    We need to keep our brother and friend lifted in prayer.
    • ^
    • v
    Thank you :)
    • ^
    • v
    Randy,

    I think I might not have been clear. Either that, or I've been taken out of context.

    My point about white Christian males (which I am) was that they enjoy full Federal protection from discrimination in the workplace because of their race, sex, and religion. You said earlier that only groups that can show immutability, a history of discrimination, and economic disenfranchisement can become a "protected class."

    I used white Christian males not to try to polarize (it wouldn't make sense since I identify as all of those) but to show that protected class distinctions aren't so narrowly definted and that they should cover all groups that show the possibility of discrimination.

    Also, Randy, I agree that these issues should be handled in the workplace and in a capitalistic society as a whole. However, my initial point was that sometimes that doesn't work, which is why the government gives protections out. I'm just saying that we've admitted that some groups need protections, and I think to deny protections from gays, a group that has shown that it is discriminated against at a fairly regular rate per capita, (compared to other groups) seems unequal.

    This isn't an us versus them it's a comparison of two groups two show that both are deserving of the same. I don't see how that's polarizing.
    • ^
    • v
    Thanks for the clarification Brady. But... the gay identified community has not proven immutability (everything from my testimony to Anne Heche) they have not proven a widespread pattern of discrimination and they are hardly economically disenfranchised.

    Protected classes aren't just one group as opposed to another. If that were the case I would need to be in a protected class from all the abuse and threats I get from gay activists.

    ... but existing law already protects me. I don't need protected class status and neither does the gay identified community.
    • ^
    • v
    And you are kept and lifted before the Lord in prayer. I didn't mean to trivialize your experience by saying that I don't grieve for you. I did grieve for you when I first read those hateful responses but the Word of the Lord came to mind and my grief found a new target.


    The Beatitudes came to mind. 'Blessed are the persecuted... Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you...' My prayer is that you will have joy in it; gladness and rejoicing; that the strength of the Lord will be visible in your weariness; that you will soar with wings as an ealge and, like Jeremiah, that you will gain deeper experience of His new mercies everyday, great is His faithfulness. You are a lifegiver. May you be full of the Spirit of Wisdom and Understanding, Counsel and Power, Knowledge and Fear of the Lord and may you find your singing voice as did Paul and Silas in prison...and Brother Yun. May you sing Psalm 18. Be blessed and encouraged.
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)