No. It's evidence of disrepectfulness.

Hmmm. I wonder if we could make this retroactive and use it against the liberals who used such nasty language against Larry Craig?

When is the bill to protect hatred and mocking of white, heterosexual, Christan males going to be passed? I am "feeling" very put upon by all the bashing of my subculture. Just look at all the commercials that make fun of us! How about adding Southern in there, too! And those who like to fish!

When is the Dem Congress going to get off their fannies and protect me? Oh, wait, sorry, went and read that Declaration of Independence thing, and realized what their intent was in saying all Men are created equal.

Respect and tolerance are something people earn. Hey, another concept liberals do not understand!

Respect and tolerance are something people earn.

These things are also each a two-way street. Gay rights advocates demand "tolerance" (which to them means that one must not merely tolerate homosexual behavior, but accept it as morally good), but will not tolerate expressions of views that differ from theirs, as shown by the use of the term "homophobia" to silence debate.

"Gender identity" isn't difficult to define at all. It is the internal sense of maleness or femaleness felt by every human being above the age of 2 or so. Human beings also quite automatically and unconsciously assign a gender to virtually every living thing they see. How many times have you ever referred to a dog as "he" or "she" without knowing anything about it's actual anatomy? In fact, this process of automatically assigning gender to other persons is so powerful a process that it became the comedic force behind the "Pat" character on Saturday Night Live. As such, gender identity is not something peculiar to those who suffer from Gender Identity Disorder (GID), where a person feels at odds with the gender they were assigned at birth, but is intrinsic to you, me and everyone who reads your blog.

The term "homophobia" is a neologism that simply refers to the emotionally-charged response that many people experience and express as actual hatred of people who are gay or lesbian. Many people, especially men, can become quite angry about it beyond any intellectual or moral objections. However, it has arguably become too loose in its usage in labeling those whose objections are more rational.

The House version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 (ENDA) passed yesterday had gender identity pulled from it because of a lack of votes. If it became law it would have no effect on employment practices related to those whose gender identity was at issue. It would affect those who identify themselves as gay or lesbian. The idea that people can be charged with a crime for expressing objections to homosexuality is a red herring to generate support for blocking ENDA. ENDA is an employment law just like the Equal Pay Act of 1963, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 and the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994.

What the red herring is also used as bait for is objection to the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (LLEHCPA) which would expand the already existing 18 U.S.C. § 245 and the Hate Crime Sentencing Enhancement Act of 1994. The 1994 statute served to increase the penalties for hate crimes committed on the basis of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person. The House version of the LLEHCPA contains a Rule of Construction that "Nothing in this Act... shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution."

As such, ENDA and the LLEHCPA are hardly as unprecedented and radical as often characterized by their opponents. They are part of a natural progression of expanding access to employment by Americans who want to work. It is not a question of whether gays and lesbians or those who suffer from GID are in the workforce. They are. It is a question of protecting them, just like the descendants of African slaves, people of Irish heritage, women, Americans over the age of 65, those who serve in the National Guard or Reserves, parents of newborn children and everyone you know and love from invidious employment discrimination.

This law has nothing to do with a criminal indictement, it is a civil rights laws, so a priest can say homosexuality is inherently disordered without fear of indicetment. Would it be okay for me to not hire a qualified person who feels they are a Christian because I feel uncomfortable around Christians?

When is the bill to protect hatred and mocking of white, heterosexual, Christan males going to be passed? I am "feeling" very put upon by all the bashing of my subculture. Just look at all the commercials that make fun of us! How about adding Southern in there, too! And those who like to fish!

You are protected, doofus, by race and sex anti-discrimination laws.

A Hate Crimes bill has nothing to do with making sure our troops have food, ammo, and the thickest armor we can provide them. A few years back Keith Butler wrote a article in the Detroit News on Canada's Bill C250. It was a great article. The democrats are going to push through a similar bill with this hate crime bill. I belive a hate crimes bill attacks freedom and people should be very concerned after looking at C250 and other hate crime bills you will see the government will be trying to criminalize your beliefs and opinions. To illustrate,
There was a story in the news last Summer. An English man was visiting Austria and in conversation he denied the holocaust, the law over there sentenced him to a year in prison. My Grandfather got a purple heart fighting the Nazi's. I don't, by any means support them. But look at it for what it is. The Law was punishing him for his opinion. This kind of Thought Control has no place in the U.S.A.

It will be hard to enforce,

Let's say two guys get in a fight at a bar, they are calling each other names and one calls the other a queer before punching him. Is this a hate crime?

Every night people get killed in Detroit. Is it not as offensive if the person getting murdered is straight.


If a mugger was to randomly mug five people and one was Gay. Is it a hate crime because the one victim is gay?

Where are the statistics stating all these anti-gay crimes I've heard of one in the past year. Does this really require new laws?

Are Gays an endangered species that really need special protection?

Is a straight guy defending himself if he punches out a homosexual that is intimidating him by aggressively propositioning lewd acts?

The Homosexual Agenda wants to pass these laws so anyone who politically or religiously opposes them will be breaking the law. By even referencing the scriptures from the Holy Bible that condemn those acts you will be commiting acts of hate, your bible will have to be changed because it is hate propaganda. Your freedom of religion gone. Stolen by the liberals in the name of political correctness.

Someone's sexuality is their business, But to have them try to make everyone else, approve and be supportive of it and change the norms and traditions, and values of our society is wrong.
I don't think anyone cares what they do in their bedroom. Most of us don't want to know about it or even think about it. When someone takes a stand out against it and say's I don't want my kids beign taught by homosexual men or Gays should not be in the military because 60 guys taking showers together, Abu Graib situations, There are situations where people get uncomfortable and have the right to have the reasons be heard instead of beign streamrolled under a democrat hate crimes bill that creates a special new class of protected citzens that can sue companies into bankrupcy every time they are offended. At a joke or anything else

"Would it be okay for me to not hire a qualified person who feels they are a Christian because I feel uncomfortable around Christians?" - sleepygene

Sure, if someone forced you to to hire and employ them, or to serve them in your establishment or educate them, that's called involuntary servitude.

Read your constitution

Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

I'm completely not racist, I don't even have any problems with gays, but alot of civil rights legislation violates this. But I guess we've been ignoring the constitution for a while now...

Robert-

Good point, I never thought of the US government as the slaveholder. I bet you are a big Ron Paul fan, huh? Though I think in order to provide for the common good the courts have rightly interpreted the 14th amendment to protect individuals from discrimination, discrimination which is based upon characteristics which the individual has no control over. Overall, it aids in our societal need to have a real meritocracy. The best person gets the job no matter who or what they are. That is my simplistic view of it.

When is the bill to protect hatred and mocking of white, heterosexual, Christan males going to be passed? I am "feeling" very put upon by all the bashing of my subculture.

When you are the majority of America, the term subculture does not apply.

"Good point, I never thought of the US government as the slaveholder. I bet you are a big Ron Paul fan, huh?" - sleepygene

As someone that's almost idealogically anarchist, I seriously can't tell if your just being fesicious or you've just never though about government before. But yes, I am a big Ron Paul fan.

sleepygene, at the restaurant I work at, the owner's son runs alot of stuff, and I'm pretty sure he's not the most competent person. Do you think the government should step in and make sure someone more qualified and deserving gets that job?

What if you have multiple jobs, and one's just a small hobby one you enjoy and you happen to make a little money, should you be able to hire your slacker friend just so you can keep the job fun?

And what if you absolutely dread christians, why do you have to surround yourself with them? It's not like your actively hurting them, just disassociating yourself from them. A buisness is just people doing stuff on their own private property, why is anyone entitled to have you include them into this stuff and then have you give them money?

You are protected, doofus, by race and sex anti-discrimination laws.

Yes, I am, but others are protected more. Why should someone of "gender" be given more protection then me? Why should Blacks be given more protection then me? Why should women? We are all supposed to be protected equally under the law, but it seems some are more equal then others.

Robert and Gene,

You guys must live in a completely different universe than I do. I managed a family business with around 20 employees for over 20 years. We had one black employee for most of that time, and, of course, everyone could tell he was black because, well, his skin was black. Beyond that I couldn't tell you which employees were Christian, which were Jewish, agnostic or atheist. I suspected one guy might have been gay, but he worked hard, did a good job and never propositioned any of the other employees, and the subject just never came up. The only employees that I ever fired either didn't do their jobs or stole from the company.

Yes, I am, but others are protected more. Why should someone of "gender" be given more protection then me? Why should Blacks be given more protection then me? Why should women? We are all supposed to be protected equally under the law, but it seems some are more equal then others.

Apparently you missed the point. Gay and transgendered people can legally be discriminated against in the workplace. If YOU are more qualified for a job, you cannot be discriminated against due to religion, race, or sex.

Get over yourself. Whiny white males make the rest of us look bad.

I do not believe hetrosexuals oppress homosexuals. I beleive this because a homosexual couple does not threaten a hetrosexual.

I beleive homosexuals are oppressed by repressed homosexuals. How many preachers that have preached against gays have been discovered to be gay? How many politicians that deny gays equal rights are discovered to be gay themselves?

I beleive religion teaches people that being gay is a sin; so the homosexuals raised under that faith hate themselves and then project that hate upon homosexuals that have the freedom to live openly.

"Gender identity"

Isn't that what occurs when a baby is born.. if it the baby has a penis.. it's a boy if not it's a girl.

Don't get me wrong, I have no issues for anyone choosing to live their life as they chose and it should not prohibit them in professional and/or personal pursuits.

I just think the term "gender identity" is odd to use for TV/TS, cross dressers .. etc.

I just think the term "gender identity" is odd to use for TV/TS, cross dressers .. etc.

Not at all, gender identity is what every person has in their head. Everyone in their head thinks to themselves, "I am male" or "I am female" just as they think "I am human" as opposed to being a cat or a dog. Almost all the time that gender identity matches the body that head is sitting on. However, sometimes it does not and that person has some degree of Gender Identity Disorder.

Apparently you missed the point. Gay and transgendered people can legally be discriminated against in the workplace.

Really? How so? If I am protected, why aren't they? Are they not Americans, entitled to the same equal protection under the law?

In fact, the Dems in Congress are creating special classes which get extra protection, which is the point you are missing, despite all your personal attacks, which, to take it to your level, makes you look like a juvenile idiot unable to argue like an adult.

Really? How so? If I am protected, why aren't they? Are they not Americans, entitled to the same equal protection under the law?

Just off the top of my head, I would direct your attention to Ulane v. Eastern Airlines, Oiler v. Winn-Dixie and the recent highly-publicized case of Susan Stanton, former city manager of Largo, Florida.

Yet, the plaintiffs were vindicated, correct? Meaning that the Law dealt with the issue correctly, meaning, there is no need to protect any group above another.

Yet, the plaintiffs were vindicated, correct? Meaning that the Law dealt with the issue correctly, meaning, there is no need to protect any group above another.

Not at all. Plaintiff Karen Ulane lost her case allowing Eastern Airlines to fire her as a transsexual despite having previously been rated highly as a male pilot. Plaintiff Oiler lost his case allowing Winn-Dixie to fire him for being a cross-dresser in his non-work time. Susan Stanton elected not to file suit against the City of Largo because Florida lacks legal protection for such forms of invidious discrimination.

Yet, the plaintiffs were vindicated, correct? Meaning that the Law dealt with the issue correctly, meaning, there is no need to protect any group above another.

William, why don't you clarify for us dunces exactly how a bill that makes it "illegal for employers to make decisions about hiring, firing, promoting or paying an employee based on sexual orientation," protects "one group above another."

Diana,

You are joking, aren't you? "Gender Identity Disorder"?

Diana,

You are joking, aren't you? "Gender Identity Disorder"?

Mark,

Not a bit. Here is a link to an excerpt from the DSM-IV describing the diagnostic criteria:

http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/genderiddis.htm