Eastman Kodak Company now gives preferential treatment to homosexual-owned “minority” subcontractors, and proudly gives funds to the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network. (GLSEN sponsored the notorious “Fistgate” workshop in 2000 and promotes homosexuality- and transsexuality-affirming lessons for grade schoolers.) Would Kodak be emboldened under an ENDA law to restrict “anti-gay” discussions or speech among its employees?

Pittsburgh Theological Seminary Professor Rob Gagnon, author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice, examines the potential assaults on liberty if the ENDA bill (Employment Nondiscrimination Act, H.R. 3685) becomes law. Gagnon’s paper, “Don’t ENDAnger Your Liberties in the Workplace,” is a must read, as it delves into the potential reactions (and over-reactions) of corporation managers to a federal law that bans “discrimination” based on homosexuality (“sexual orientation”). Check out these scenarios offered by Gagnon:

• Suppose in the lunchroom or at the water cooler you engage in a conversation about sexual ethics. If a fellow employee extols homosexual bonds and you express your moral reservations about such bonds, you or the company could be liable for an anti-discrimination lawsuit for creating an intimidating atmosphere in the workplace that adversely affects the standing of a person who is vocal about his or her homosexual activity.
• Let’s say that, in response to “diversity” posters, you post on your cubicle the text of Rom 1:24-27. Or in response to a corporate directive that you participate supportively in a “Coming Out Day” you respectfully decline because you find homosexual practice to be morally offensive. Or in an attempt to get exempted from the email list of the company’s “GLBT” organization (gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender) you send an email requesting to be removed from the list because you think homosexual practice is immoral. In all these circumstances, you are far more likely to be disciplined or fired, and to have no legal redress, with an “ENDA” in place than without it.
• As a means of protecting the company against “discrimination” lawsuits, your employer may require you to attend indoctrination seminars that stress that homosexuality is as morally neutral as race or sex; and, moreover, to participate in “coming out” celebrations in the workplace that affirm “sexual diversity.” Your employer may further prohibit, under penalty of termination, any conversation, written communication, or act that calls homosexual practice into question.
• While homosexual and bisexual persons will have their jobs protected under this act, your job status and advancement will have no such protections if you manifest “discriminatory” words against homosexual behavior. Indeed, not only will your religious convictions not be protected in a secular workplace, but also they will be treated as “bigotry” akin to racism and sexism. Corporations don’t generally hire or promote bigots. It is not good for business.
• Monitoring of “discriminatory” beliefs toward homosexual and bisexual persons could even extend, at least in the case of white collar employees, outside the workplace. For example, if a school teacher has published in a newspaper a letter that advocates that society not provide legal incentives for homosexual practice, or offers counseling for those seeking to come out of the homosexual life, the courts could rule (as the British Columbia Supreme Court ruled a couple of years ago) that the employer is entitled to take such discriminatory views into consideration in suspending or firing the employee.

Gagnon’s entire paper can be viewed in HTML format HERE or as a PDF document HERE. Also see Americans For Truth’s special report on ENDA, “14 Good Reasons to Oppose H.R. 3685, the ‘ENDA Our Freedom” Bill.”

From Traditional Values Coalition’s website. TVC has led the charge against ENDA, the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, on Capitol Hill: 

October 26, 2007 – Shortly after the White House issued a veto threat on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced she was delaying a vote on ENDA.

Pelosi is delaying the vote because Democrat leaders can’t find enough votes for passage of ENDA with “gender identity” added back into it. However, this supposed delay may only be a strategic move to undermine organized opposition to ENDA.

Click HERE to read the whole article

Janice Shaw Crouse (JCrouse@cwfa.org) of CWA’s Beverly LaHaye Institute deals with the elephant in the room in this excellent article, reprinted from Concerned Women for America’s website (emphasis added). Crouse is one of the few public policy experts to puncture the latest propaganda theme pushed by ‘AIDS activists’ — i.e., “heterosexual women” as the leading growth group for contracting the disease. As she states, “The fine print reveals that the heterosexual category includes persons who have had sex with bisexual men and drug users.” In other words, reckless behaviors including anal sex — not heterosexuality — are the problem. Please help us give this article the widest circulation possible. –Peter LaBarbera 

Anybody Can Get It?    

Published by Concerned Women for America, Oct. 17, 2007

By Janice Shaw Crouse, Beverly LaHaye Institute

The politically correct mantra about HIV/AIDS is that “anybody can get it

The politically correct mantra about HIV/AIDS is that “anybody can get it.” This half-truth is as bizarre as pointing to the tragic death of professional naturalist Steve Irwin, best known as “The Crocodile Hunter,” and saying “anyone can die from the barb of a stingray.” There is an obvious missing piece in both instances. You’re not going to die from a stingray’s barb unless you dive in waters that are home to stingrays. Likewise, unless you (1) Have intimate sexual contact with someone who is infected with the HIV/AIDS virus, (2) Share contaminated needles to do drugs, or (3) Are a healthcare worker who comes in direct contact with the body fluids of an infected person (or as in the heartrending case of Kimberly Bergalis, who contracted AIDS from her infected dentist), you will not, I repeat, you will NOT contract HIV/AIDS.

Another phony slogan foisted off on the public is that women are the “new face of HIV/AIDS.” These myths are among the pernicious efforts to disperse the stigma associated with a disease that is almost exclusively a homosexual male and drug addict epidemic. Insidious myths like these leave today’s young people misinformed, misled and, thus, unprotected.

In fact, Unprotected is the title of an important book that every parent of teenage children needs to read. It exposes the political correctness that leaves college students especially vulnerable to a whole range of health and emotional problems. The author, Miriam Grossman, M.D., is a psychiatrist who has worked for two decades with college students and served during the past decade at the student health center at the University of California at Los Angeles.

Others have commented on various aspects of Dr. Grossman’s exposé of the biases that harm students at university student health centers. I was especially appalled that basic medical knowledge about the transmission of the HIV/AIDS virus is kept from students. In spite of the fact that we are now well past the quarter century mark in the AIDS epidemic, and in spite of the fact that 1 in every 500 college students may be HIV positive, basic HIV/AIDS information is not known by the general public; our students in particular, the very ones most in need of truth to reinforce self-discipline, are not fully informed about the facts.

We treat HIV/AIDS differently from any other public health threat. While doctors are required by law to report nearly 50 communicable diseases (including tuberculosis, measles, syphilis, meningitis), and people with those communicable diseases are ordered by law to get treatment or go to jail, United States laws prohibit disclosure of anyone’s HIV status. Even the HIV tests use a code name to avoid identifying any infected persons. Thus, the only way anyone knows that a person has the virus is if that information is voluntarily given.

 This photo of ACLU activist (or should we say actress?) Sarah Loy crying at the rally where she falsely accused pro-family advocate Larry Cirignano of violently assaulting her, appeared in the December 17, 2007, Worcester Telegram and Gazette’s initial report of the incident. Telegram Reporter Richard Nangle (rnangle@telegram.com) wrote that Cirignano “pushed [Loy] to the ground, her head slamming against the concrete sidewalk.” But a jury rejected this story, which echoed Loy’s account. (The jury found that Loy tripped rather than being pushed.) Nangle, testifying in court, could not find himself among enlarged photos of people at the center of the rally crowd — casting into doubt whether he could have seen what actually transpired.  Nevertheless, a defiant Nangle says he “stands by everything” that he originally reported. Telegram photo is by Paul Kapteyn. 

By Peter LaBarbera

This is a fascinating case involving media bias: a reporter whose story was proven false — or at least not credible — in a court of law is “stand[ing] by everything ” he originally wrote.

On December 16, 2006, the Worcester Telegram and Gazette published a story under reporter Richard Nangle’s byline, regarding a pro-marriage rally in Worcester protested by Sarah Loy and the local ACLU. Nangle, an ACLU Board Member, reported that Catholic family advocate Larry Cirignano had “pushed [Loy] to the ground, her head slamming against the concrete sidewalk.”

Nangle’s vivid depiction of the alleged attack echoed Loy’s own charges of assault and battery against Cirignano, and helped created an impression in the public’s mind that she was a victim of violence (and that he was violent man who attacks women). A photo accompanying Nangle’s story (see above) showed Loy in tears at the rally scene. However, on October 22, a jury found Larry Cirignano innocent of assault and battery against Loy, a week after presiding Judge David Despotopulos had thrown out Loy’s “civil rights” complaint against him. See our story relaying MassRessistance’s account of the case and trial.

Here are the first three paragraphs in Nangle’s story, under the headline (which he did not necessarily write), “Worcester Rally Takes Ugly Turn; Gay Marriage Backer Pushed,” with emphasis added:

WORCESTER- Tempers boiled over at an anti-gay marriage rally yesterday when the executive director of the Boston-based Catholic Citizenship emerged from behind a lectern outside City Hall, rushed toward a female counter-demonstrator, and pushed her to the ground.

 

Sarah Loy, 27, of Worcester was holding a sign in defense of same-sex marriage amid a sea of green “Let the People Vote” signs when Larry Cirignano of Canton, who heads the Catholic Citizenship group, ran into the crowd, grabbed her by both shoulders and told her, “You need to get out. You need to get out of here right now.” Mr. Cirignano then pushed her to the ground, her head slamming against the concrete sidewalk.

 

“It was definitely assault and battery,” said Ronal C. Madnick, director of the Worcester County Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts. Police interviewed Mr. Madnick and several others moments after the incident.

Larry Cirignano (with yellow tie in bottom photo) with attorney Mike Gilleran, after their triumph over ACLU activist Sarah Loy’s harassing lawsuit. At top, ACLU Board Member Loy (in middle, holding sign) describes her phony “assault” to police after she disrupted Cirignano’s rally and then lied about him pushing her down. If you look closely, you can see Loy’s nose growing in the photo — not really. You can congratulate Larry for his court victory over the ACLU at larryvote@aol.com.

“That’s what hate does!”
— Massachusetts activist Sarah Loy’s chant after she had fallen to the ground at a pro-family meeting she was disrupting; a judge and jury found no basis for her claim that Larry Cirignano had pushed her in an attack on her “civil rights.”  

By Peter LaBarbera

Every freedom-loving American owes a debt of gratitude to Larry Cirignano and all those like him who refuse to give up or “settle” in the face of the radical Left’s lies, dirty tricks and intimidation tactics. Cirignano is a Catholic family advocate who was “set up” by an ACLU activist at a pro-marriage rally in Worcester, Massachusetts, turning the pro-family event into a 10-month personal nightmare. (See below, or go HERE to Mass Resistance’s excellent background story on the case; their final write-up is HERE.)

You simply won’t believe this case: alleged “victim” and pro-homosexual protester Sarah Loy invaded a pro-marriage rally on December 16, 2006; then, as Cirignano was leading her away from the rally that she was trying to disrupt, she fell to the ground and started screaming about “hate” as if he had attacked her! (You can view a sample of the leftist tripe on this website, which identifies Loy as a Board Member of ACLU.)

Loy claimed that Cirignano shoved her to the ground but the jury found that she tripped and fell. You can watch some amateur video footage of the rally HERE. (The video, which is of low quality, might be called, Anatomy of a Smear; a longer version of it, along with still photographs, was used in court to show that some of the government’s key “witnesses” to the alleged assault — including Richard Nangle of the Worcester Telegram and Gazette, who reported it as fact — were not in the crowd but standing dozens of feet away.) 

The whole case is further proof — as if we needed it — that nobody lies like the pro-homosexual, pro-abortion Left, whose members are so consumed with hatred for those defending life and the natural family that they will stoop to evil tactics like this in their ends-justify-the-means crusade to destroy them.

Loy’s story was a complete fabrication, but Worcester’s prosecutors — in bed with the ACLU, the liberal media, and the state’s powerful “gay” lobby — took it seriously, wasting tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars and smearing a good man’s reputation in the process. 

 After AFTAH’s report that White House officials gave advice on crafting the religious exemption language in homosexual Rep. Barney Frank’s radical ENDA bill, H.R. 3685, the Administration moved to publicly distance itself from the special-privileges-for-homosexual-employees legislation. Call Congress (202-224-3121; www.congress.org) to oppose H.R. 3685 and call the President to urge a veto (202-456-1111; www.whitehouse.gov/contact). See our paper, “14 Good Reasons to Oppose H.R. 3685, the ‘ENDA Our Freedom’ Bill.”

By Peter LaBarbera 

In a manner similar to what it did regarding the “hate crimes” bill, the White House has issued a “Statement of Policy” raising constitutional and policy objections to H.R. 3685, the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA), sponsored by homosexual Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). The Administration statement states, “The bill raises concerns on constitutional and policy grounds, and if H.R. 3685 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.”

REMAIN VIGILANT: please keep those calls and letters coming to the White House (202-456-1111 or -1414; www.congress.org), urging President Bush to do so — regardless of the form the bill takes.

Also, even some key Republicans are supporting ENDA, so call Congress today (202-224-3121; www.congress.org) and urge your U.S. Representative and both Senators to oppose ANY form of ENDA. A House vote on H.R. 3685 could come tomorrow. Homosexuality is not a “civil right” — period, and H.R. 3685’s “religious exemption” wording in ENDA is still very weak, as this memo from the Alliance Defense Fund asserts. See our paper, “14 Good Reasons to Oppose H.R. 3685, the ‘ENDA Our Freedom’ Bill.”

Americans For Truth’s revelation that a White House official had boasted to pro-family leaders that the White House had helped craft ENDA’s religious exemption language raised concerns among pro-family groups counting on an Administration veto of ENDA. It also touched off a flurry of blog posts on the GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) side, where there is a ferocious battle taking place over ENDA. Barney Frank’s decision to back a version of ENDA that does not include “transgenders” has infuriated the pro-transsexual groups. Meanwhile, Human Rights Campaign, the country’s leading homosexual lobby group, is playing both sides of the fence — backing Frank’s compromise while publicly supporting Rep. Tammy Baldwin’s pro-transsexual amendment to H.R. 3685 to shore up its pro-“T” (transgender) credentials.

Traditional Values Coalition lobbyist Andrea Lafferty, who with father Lou Sheldon has done more than anyone in America over the years to keep the homosexual agenda in check on Capitol Hill, told Americans For Truth that at a recent pro-H.R. 3685 press conference called by Rep. Frank, the various homosexual/trans groups favoring a more radical (they say “inclusive”) ENDA were kept out in the hall, while HRC staffers were allowed in the room. Lafferty said that the homosexual newspaper Washington Blade played down the GLBT infighting.

Regardless, savvy homosexual activists (led by HRC) understand that passage of ENDA in any form is a huge advance for the homosexual cause — which is why we raised concern over talk of Christian leaders looking to craft “acceptable” exemption language in the bill, with White House input.

__________________________

Here is the White House’s statement on ENDA (emphasis added):

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503

    October 23, 2007    (House Rules)

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

H.R. 3685 – The Employment Non-Discrimination Act

(Rep. Frank (D) MA and 9 cosponsors)

H.R. 3685 would extend existing employment-discrimination provisions of Federal law, including those in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to establish “a comprehensive Federal prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”  The bill raises concerns on constitutional and policy grounds, and if H.R. 3685 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

H.R. 3685 is inconsistent with the right to the free exercise of religion as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).  The Act prohibits the Federal Government from substantially burdening the free exercise of religion except for compelling reasons, and then only in the least restrictive manner possible.  H.R. 3685 does not meet this standard.  For instance, schools that are owned by or directed toward a particular religion are exempted by the bill; but those that emphasize religious principles broadly will find their religious liberties burdened by H.R. 3685.

A second concern is H.R. 3685’s authorization of Federal civil damage actions against State entities, which may violate States’ immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The bill turns on imprecise and subjective terms that would make interpretation, compliance, and enforcement extremely difficult.  For instance, the bill establishes liability for acting on “perceived” sexual orientation, or “association” with individuals of a particular sexual orientation.  If passed, H.R. 3685 is virtually certain to encourage burdensome litigation beyond the cases that the bill is intended to reach.

Provisions of this bill purport to give Federal statutory significance to same-sex marriage rights under State law.  These provisions conflict with the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman.  The Administration strongly opposes any attempt to weaken this law, which is vital to defending the sanctity of marriage.

Below is an American Family Association E-Alert responding to the latest example of callous liberalism — the City of “Brotherly Love’s” outrageous act of charging the Boy Scouts $200,000 to use their city-owned headquarters:

AFA: Philadelphia punishes Boy Scouts because of their beliefs

Dear Reader,

The city of Philadelphia has decided to punish the Boy Scouts of America because it will not allow homosexuals to serve as Scout Leaders. City officials said they will charge the Cradle of Liberty Scouts Council $200,000 a year to use the city-owned headquarters. The Council was paying $1 per year (since 1928). The city owns the land on which the Council’s 1928 Beaux Arts building sits.

The city says it is charging the scouts $200,000 a year because the scouts discriminate against homosexuals. But the city finds nothing wrong with their discrimination against the scouts because of the scouts’ belief.

The action by city officials means that 30 new Cub Scout packs won’t be organized, and that 800 needy kids will not be going to the Council’s summer camp if the city charges them $200,000.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that the scouts, as a private group, have a First Amendment right to bar homosexuals from membership. Philadelphia officials, in an effort to appease the homosexual activists, began searching for a way to punish the scouts. The rent increase was the vehicle to do that.

The Cradle of Liberty Council serves about 64,000 scouts in Philadelphia and its suburbs.

Take Action

Send an e-mail to Philadelphia officials protesting their discrimination against the Boy Scouts. Forward this to friends and family and ask them to send the e-mail.
   
Thanks for caring enough to get involved. If you feel our efforts are worth supporting, would you please make a tax-deductible donation to help us continue? Click here to make a donation [to AFA].

Sincerely,

Don Wildmon

P.S. Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your family and friends.

Americans For Truth has adopted the following Political Campaign Policy:

1. In accordance with its Articles of Incorporation, the Corporation shall not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distribution of statements) any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office.
2. The Corporation shall not carry on any other activities not permitted to be carried on (a) by a corporation exempt from Federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (or the corresponding provisions of any future United States Internal Revenue Law) or (b) by a corporation, contributions to which are deductible under section 170(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (or the corresponding provisions of any future United States Internal Revenue Law).
3. The Corporation shall not endorse or oppose either directly or indirectly any candidate for public office.
4. The Corporation shall not donate corporate funds to a candidate’s campaign or participate in or engage in political fund raising events or otherwise soliciting contributions on behalf of a candidate for public office.
5. The Corporation shall not distribute statements for or against a particular candidate for public office.
6. The Corporation shall not engage in any activity that favors or opposes a candidate for public office.

Board of Directors, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
October 15, 2007