Ex-gay activist and Exodus executive vice president spoke at a press conference last Friday to oppose the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
Video courtesy of People For the American Way.
Here are some excerpts.
I know what it is to be an out and proud gay-identified man … I was out and proud in the workplace …
I know what that’s like first-hand.
But I also know what it’s like to say … If I’m doing a bad job, then I definitely need correction, but if I’m not, she does. And it was taken care of right then. And I actually got promoted over her. What I’m trying to point out is this was 1990.
I do respect civil rights. I do respect Dr King. And for ENDA to create a special class, or a protected class, undercuts civil rights to the core.
As a former gay man, I see this from the perspective of knowing what it’s like to be a gay man in the workplace … But I also see it from the perspective of “I want my religious liberties protected.”
Update: Commenter Emproph provides a transcript of Thomas’ full remarks.
Thomas’ argument has no logic. His line of reasoning jumps from admitting that homosexuals can be discriminated against, admitting that it’s wrong to discriminate, to “but I want my religious liberties protected.” Which is it? He wants to have his cake and eat it.
Did he really just defend a right of Christians to commit wrongs — sins — against others?
Its funny, but this guy sorta has a good point.
Now let me make it clear, i’m an out gay man myself… not ex gay, ha ha. It is sad when people have a hard time in their workplace because others know about their sexual orientation. But its sad that we need to jump twenty spaces ahead on the map to prevent any possibility of this.
The gay community is very well represented in this day and age, and many people would RUN to our rescue if we were being persecuted. But we need to cover our own tracks too. Say an ex gay man wanted to work at HRC like he said in the video. Would HRC want him to work there?
Heres what i think.
What a beautiful world it would be if we could put aside our differences and work together. How awesome would it be if a sincere ex gay person wanted equality for others, working in the HRC or otherwise.
Yes i will be the first to say that reparitive therapy is the worst thing int he world. And i do question the sincerity of ex gays. That video above left me feeling sick to my stomach too. But if we could love them as they are… It would be a good mission no?
To my beloved bros and sis’s in the GLBT world… Lets be consistent before we point fingers or move for federal action.
If I am off base in any of this please let me know. I’ll admit i’m still young and idealistic. But it seems good to me.
Much love
Mike G.
Wouldn’t this scenario necessitate claiming ex-gay as a sexual orientation? I believe PFOX is the only group that even tries to make that argument, and they do so only when it is convenient. If some actually can change their orientation from gay to straight, then would they not be, well “straight”? I don’t see that HRC would have a problem there.
However, don’t ex-gays more often appear to define themselves, not by what they are but by what they are not – by what they are against? And in many cases we have seen that they are indeed gay, i.e. they are still sexually attracted to the same sex, but actively work against this in their own lives and the lives of others.
For such a person to approach HRC for a job, one would have to consider their motivation and if they actually wanted instead to work against the stated goals of the organization. This seems like apples and oranges, a Red Herring to draw attention away from the obvious.
It seems to me that if Randy wanted to work for HRC and they refused to hire him, it wouldn’t be because of his sexual orientation (i.e. “straight” or “ex-gay”). It would most likely be because of all the nasty things he’s on record writing and saying about gay folks, and the fact that he would have to work shoulder-to-shoulder with gay people and promote gay rights as part of his job.
If IBM refused to hire a gay man just because he was gay, I think that would be wrong (though not currently illegal, in many states). However, if they refused to hire him because he made a habit of making rude and disparaging remarks about straight folks, Christians, or IBM products, then I wouldn’t have any trouble with it.
Full transcript:
BISHOP HARRY JACKSON: We only have two more speakers, and then we’ll open it up for questions.
We’d like to have Randy Thomas, executive Vice President of Exodus Internationals (sic)
He‘s all going to share with you his feelings on ENDA. And if you could share with them what Exodus is.
RANDY THOMAS: Yes my name is Randy Thomas, I’m the executive vice president for Exodus. Exodus is the largest Christian resource in the world helping people with unwanted homosexuality, to overcome that, as an identity, and a worldview, through a relationship with Jesus Christ.
We have almost 200 member agencies in Canada and north–uh, United States, as well as affiliated with about 200 more around the world.
In 1990 I worked for a fortune 500 company. And I know what it’s like to be an out and proud gay identified man, I was not raised in the church, I did not have a moral conflict with being gay at that time. And I was out and proud in the workplace. And in 1990 in this fortune 500 company I did have a supervisor who when she found out that I was gay, um, didn’t really particularly care for that. And she started to make my life a little difficult, in the workplace. So I know what that’s like first hand.
But I also know what it’s like to say, you know what, I know who I am. I went to her supervisor and I said, if I’m doing a bad job, then I definitely need correction, but if I’m not, she does. And it was taken care of right then. And, I actually got promoted over her.
What I’m trying to point out is, this was 1990. HRC, the Human Right’s Campaign, which is the largest gay lobby in the world, is bragging all the time about the gay buying power. About the corporate equality index. There is a lot of tolerance in this country. There is a lot of freedom in this country. And those who identify as gay, are exhibiting that.
To pass ENDA, and create a protected class – and I’m not black, and I’m not a woman, and I’ve never been a woman – but I do respect civil rights. I do respect Dr. King, and for ENDA and hate crimes legislation, to create–a special class, or a protected class, undercuts civil rights–to the core.
Now is there an issue of homosexuality in the workplace? Sure, let’s talk about that. Let’s have a dialogue about homosexuality in the workplace. And the dynamics that that causes inside the workplace. Valid concerns, absolutely. And where there is a problem, like I experienced, we should take care of it. But as a former gay identified man, and I say former, because I am no longer gay. I did experience a change in my identity, as well as my sexuality. But as a former gay man, I see this perspective. (Crowd applauds) Thank you. I see this from the perspective of knowing what it’s like to be a gay man–in the workplace, but I also see it from the perspective of, I want my religious liberties protected.
Speaking of HRC, they’re a 501c3. I very much doubt that they’re going to hire me, because of my sexual reorientation. This law would open up the possibility for me to be able to say, you know what, you didn’t hire me, because of my sexual REorientation. And if that’s confusing to you, good. Because this public policy is very confusing. It is bad public policy. And on that merit alone, morality aside, this public policy is terrible. It should not be getting to this place.
I say, respect, get to know your gay identified neighbor. They deserve respect and dignity, every human person does. But don’t pass bad public policy, out of a good intentions (sic). Thank you.
What if her supervisor was… say, randy thomas, I guess since he wants his “religious liberties protected” then even though making it a ‘little bit harder’ was out of the question…, not hiring the gay guy would be the solution, yes? After all, how do you hire an evil, morally depraved, and misguided human to work for you?
I don’t see the downside to the EDNA thing, specially after it SEEMED like he was just upholding it.
” It is bad public policy. And on that merit alone, morality aside, this public policy is terrible. It should not be getting to this place.”
Maybe i missed it, but WHY is it a bad public policy? Other than christians having the right to discriminate vs gays even if they had done nothing wrong(except existing of course).
Isnt that like saying if a religion says some group of ppl is immoral then we should definately let them treat that group of ppl as they wish?
Randy looks strange–I would not know it was him in the video except that they introduced him. Did he change something about himself? Hair, etc.? This is not a knock–it is just not the Randy I am used to. Did anyone notice some of the uncomfortable frowns in the background when Randy discussed respect?
I was fired from a job in 1991 because I was gay. I was working for a car dealership, and everyone knew I was gay except the owner. At company dinners (not related to work hours), I was forced to bring a female date. Finally, I decided to bring a guy I was dating. The manager called me in angry the next work day and told me that the owner (who is a very religious man) was very unhappy. The manager gave me a Bible and told to me to quit sinning or else I would not acheive heaven. I was fired the following week without notice, but I was later told it was because I brought a male date. I considered legal action at that time, but I realized I do not like when people use the system. I feel that the owner is wrong, but it is a private business. He is free to do what he wants with his employees, and I had a right to stop customers and others from buying from his shop. I used free speech and that was fine.
ENDA is kind of a joke–and from what I understand it is only for the federal jobs. I could be wrong about that. Also, it would only protect a small number of people. By all accounts it is more of symbolic act than anything else. While I think that if one group is listed, another should be too (so if Christians, African-Americans, physically challenged are on the list, so should sexual orientation). However, I don’t really support the bill. Fine–I am fired for being gay. I will find another job then. Most jobs would be fair. Anyhow, I can’t be fired from my job as gay, exgay, or anything since I have tenure. That may sound selfish, but I found a job in the first place that would support my situation.
A question. Could I fire a fundamentalist or evangelical Christian because their religious beliefs offend my religious beliefs? Could I claim that my faith teaches me that they are wrong because of sola scriptura and I have the right to fire them if I find their own beliefs offend me?
If religious conservatives can claim by highering or keeping on a gay worker offends their religious beliefs couldn’t I claim because of my own religious beliefs I did not want to employ an evangelical or fundamentalist? It may sound like a dumb question but I’m curious to know if it would be possible. It would be one belief system vs. another belief system. I wonder how the courts would decide in such a case if one went to court.
Thank you, Mike, for crediting People for the American Way for making available this video. The public has a right to know that the “ex-ex-gay” side of this dispute relies on left-wing, partisan organizations and networks with agendas that go well beyond the purview of a specifically “ex-ex-gay” point of view.
How does it feel to be more valuable to People for the American Way as ex-ex-gays than you ever were as ex-gays?
Ken R’s question bothers me too. Can a Christian employer refuse to hire a Jew on religious grounds? (For instance?)
Willie,
The law is very clear on your question. A Christian employer who refused to hire someone soley because the job applicant was Jewish or just because the person’s name sounded Jewish would be violating the law in this country. There might be exceptions if you were hiring a minister for your church, but certainly not for a clerk in your hardware store.
Randy talked about this incident in a Fortune 500 company. What protections are there for the guy/gal working in a small town in a red state? There is none. That is why this law is needed. You shouldn’t have to live in a large city and work for a progressive large company to be protected from basic job discrimination.
Aaron, I noticed Randy looked different too, but you’re being waaaay too nice. He’s gotten fat, plain and simple – must be nice to get a paycheck for suggesting the execution of gays, if they don’t go through “REorientation”.
Perhaps he was a skinny untreated drug addict around when he first discovered he was an “ex gay” (like many “ex gays” when the first appear on the scene)?
By the way, if anyone knows where Michael Bussee is, could you please have him read my latest blog post (sorta kinda an open letter to him) Thanks 🙂
Come on, we can discuss the issues here without bringing someone’s physical features into it. I realize it’s easy to do at times but let’s try to steer clear of it here.
Randy can’t work for HRC for the same reason that a committed Coca-Cola drinker can’t work for Pepsi, and I do believe he understands that.
Jeremayakovka prefers to criticize the available photographer, rather than discuss the topic: the statements of the ex-gay activist being recorded.
David, I agree completely. His weight doesn’t affect anyone else. His words do.
This is one of the biggest problems I have with these so-called ex-gay groups like Exodus. They are lapdogs of the religious right, and little more.
Where does politics fit the charter of supposedly helping persons with “unwanted homosexuality?” How does actively working to promote and maintain cultural prejudice and bigotry help anyone other than right wing bigots that pay their salary? It certainly doesn’t do one thing for “strugglers!”
It is hard for me to take Alan or Randy seriously when they are exposed like this as the kapos they are. Disgusting!
And Jeremayakova, what’s your point? On one hand your post is such a non-sequitur that I don’t want to engage, on the other hand I struggle to understand if are you saying that the video is somehow doctored or not factual because it came from PFAW?
If I were aligned with the political ex-gay machine, I wouldn’t exactly be casting stones about others’ political affiliations!
I wonder if Randy would feel differently if he didn’t work in an environment that was so supportive of his chosen way of life. I’ve heard Randy argue against the inclusion of sexual orientation in Hate Crimes and, while I disagree, his comments, at least for me, convey much stronger reasoning. The arguments, at least the ones I heard from Randy here, seemed much weaker. I’m sure that Randy feels equally as strong about ENDA as he does about Hate Crimes, but the argument is much softer and could easily be [mis]construed as quasi-supportive.
j.
I just told my personal story in a video interview for Truth Wins Out. If any of my old friends see it, they’ll be saying the same thing.
Gaining weight is just one of the many ways in which life doesn’t discriminate between straight, gay, ex-gay, ex-ex-gay or even triple-x-gay. Too bad that Randy Thomas doesn’t think the right to hold a job belongs in that category.
Well, let me first state that I support ENDA, but only because we define other protected classes regarding employment (religion, race, etc). With that said, philosophically I think that ENDA and other laws that restrict employers ability to hire and fire are bad policies even if they’re encouraging something that is good business practice.
I’ve always believed that you should always judge people based on their ability. Since I’m openly gay I’ve always been concerned that I’ll find out an employer happens to be anti-gay and discriminate against me, but I’ll admit I’ve been lucky enough that that has not happened so far, I also recognize that some people are not so lucky. With that said though I believe that tolerance and acceptance are good business practices. Obviously I and everyone else believes that if performance is an issue employees should be terminated, and if that is not an issue there isn’t any particular reason for an employee to lose his or her job.
Yet why can’t an employer fire someone for a non-performance related issue? What gives the government, either at the federal or state level the right to tell a business that they must keep employees they no longer wish to remain employed? Why would an employee want to work with someone with a bigoted problem with them? Frankly I lost or nearly lost a couple of friends when I came out and while I regretted that I can say that I’m glad they chose not to be fake about it, they simply couldn’t deal with it. I think I”d feel the same way about an employer that fired me because they found out about my orientation.
I wouldn’t challenge it if my employer fired me because of my sexual orientation, because I wouldn’t want to work with someone that I would feel uncomfortable being myself around. I would be angry, I’d be upset, but I know my skills and I would look for a company that wished to hire me and respect who I am.
So in that sense I want all the bigots to come out as I had to. I want to know companies so foolish as to not want me because I am gay so I can avoid going to them in the first place, if they don’t want me I do not want them either. I want the public to know these companies as well, I want their bigotry advertised so that consumers can make informed choices and hopefully reject the bigoted practices of some of these companies.
Anyway, I hope that makes it clear why I think that employment non-discrimination laws are bad policy to ME, as an out gay man.
While I agree that employers need some hiring flexibility, I also think that employers that discriminate don’t just harm lower-income workers, they also harm the economy, the taxpayers, and families.
The economy is harmed as unproductive workers are promoted over productive workers.
Taxpayers are harmed as fired workers collect unemployment and other public benefits while seeking other work.
Families are harmed as breadwinners are fired through no fault of their own.
Exodus has thus far refused to explain how its promotion of discrimination and its defense of violent felons helps people struggling with “unwanted homosexuality.”
David, sorry–I was only commenting that I didn’t recognize Randy. I meant nothing other than that.
Kendall, you expressed my ideas 100%.
I was thinking about that Mike, and I agree with you, it IS the poor that are disproportionately affected by finding out their employer is anti-gay. My answer is not perfect, and I admit it is unsatisfying, but as much as I have sympathy for the poor… that’s probably one situation where you don’t want to be openly gay. By that I don’t mean an employee who is poor shouldn’t be openly gay at the work place, i can think of several situations where a poorer employee who isn’t making it obvious would be outted, the most obvious being a boyfriend/girlfriend coming to the workplace and greeting you with a kiss. Instead what I mean is that in the context of most low end jobs (fast food industry, cashier, janitor, etc) your sexuality is less relevant than say when you have an office and can display pictures of your significant other. I think it’s fair to say that generally speaking employers who have a problem with gays (from talking to a couple of friends who experienced just those problems) care more about things like pictures “shoving it in their face” (as opposed to heterosexuals displaying their significant other being “normal”) than a stray word or brief encounter at the end of the day which might from the bigoted employer get a disgusted look.
I know my answer isn’t satisfying to low income employees, though I will say that many businesses that hire low income workers (McDonald’s, Wal-Mart) have non-discrimination policies that protect sexual orientation. And in THAT case I think it’s a great idea to complain to corporate headquarters that someone is discriminating against you. In the mean time it’s a lot easier usually to find another low income job than it is if you’re working for a higher end job and get fired for a non-performance related issue.
You’re also right that the economy might suffer if unproductive workers were promoted over productive workers. Yet businesses that discriminate would suffer more than businesses that do not, and frankly if a business discriminates on someone on the basis of a non-harmful, non-performance related characteristic I don’t care much if they suffer.
Let me ask this hypothetical though. Let’s say Randy or someone like him was working for HRC at a time when they were identifying as gay. Then lets say that it was while they were employed by HRC that they decided that being gay was “wrong” or “immoral” and incompatible with their beliefs and so they identified as ex-gay (think: Charlene Cothran). If they were willing to continue on and do their job and promote the HRC while they were publicly also ex-gay could they be fired if ENDA passed?
Mike said:
Exactly!!!!
My guess is it’s simply prostitution for a paycheck.
Aaron – I’m glad we agree on the issue :).
Sharon – You’re probably right. Just to be clear I’m NOT defending exodus generally. Even a broken clock is right twice a day after all (even if I think their reasoning is poor, there ARE good honest reasons to oppose ENDA).
Alan and Randy: I am simply in shock. Appearing before the government as an individual is one thing… but appearing as a representative of Christ and then asking for political judgment against your opponents… wow… what ever happened to First Corinthians 5:12-13?
Here is the quote: “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside.”
What happened to Matthew chapter 5? Jesus said that he had “not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill them.” [v. 17] And then, He adds detail to His statement of how to fulfill the Law in the remainder of the chapter — to accept insult, accept legal action against you, and even accept abuse of the state law [v. 38-41].
Second Corinthians 10:3-4 states rather bluntly, “For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.” Why is your organization mixing in weapons of this world – congressional appearances as a Christian representative – with prayer and fasting and other more potent spiritual weapons?
In my world-view, your organization can exist as a spiritual living-enterprise assisting those that have internal conflict. Or, your organization should clearly state that it represents political views and is not primarily a Christ-based enterprise. But your views may be entirely different, and defensible.
Please clearly reply and defend your actions based on scriptures. I need to be able to refer people to you and to your affiliated ministries with a clear conscience that articulates your position accurately. Sincerely; Caryn
Kendall, I agree there are valid reasons to oppose nondiscrimination laws; Exodus simply hasn’t expressed them.
Mike – I agree, I just don’t want someone to misunderstand my position (not that anyone has) and think that I think Exodus is right in their reasoning (even if I agree with their basic premise that the law is bad policy).
I’m not sure at this point what Kendall means or what he thinks we will think he means. But if he or Randy Thomas seriously questions whether gay people suffer harm from employment discrimination (other than those unlucky gays in low paid jobs) , a new study from researchers at the University of New Hampshire Whittemore School of Business and Economics should put the issue to rest:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUKN2450662120071024
NickC – I never questioned that we face discrimination, and I never questioned whether we were affected by it. That doesn’t mean legislation is the answer. The article also notes, incidentally that women have a greater wage disparity than gays in any case… and they’re already a protected class. No matter what legislation is passed bigots will STILL be bigots and will still push bigoted policies. I simply want to know which businesses have discriminatory policies so I can avoid them.
There is a difference I think between a view which says that legislation is not a good answer to certain problems, and one that says the problem does not exist. Some disagree with bias crime laws for the same reason. Libertarians as a rule regard such solutions as undue state interference into the private lives of citizens.
I can disagree with someone over such views without thinking less of the person — it’s a difference of approach. The problem for me would start when someone believes in such legislation but not for gays, etc. This is like what we see from Exodus on bias crime laws — they fight against the inclusion of sexual orientation (perceived or real) but do not work to recall existing protections for faith, race, etc.
In the discussion above, I saw two points that need clarification:
1) ENDA does not cover only Federal employment, it covers ALL employment, with the exception of churches (what’s being debated right now is the extent to which churches and their subsidiaries will be covered by ENDA).
2) Nowhere, in any law, federal, state, county, city) does any person or any group have a right not to be offended by an idea or by the existence of a group he/she/they don’t like or agree with. Can you imagine the detrimental effect that would have on free speech?
The way I see it, opponents of ENDA want to enjoy their right to the free practice of their religion, even to the extent of denying those who don’t agree with them their basic rights. Yet they dare to claim their rights are being trampled – what a bunch of hypocrites!
Phil – Doesn’t that assume that everyone that opposes ENDA does so on religious grounds like Exodus? Incidentally, “freedom of speech” only applies to discrimination from the government. Just as it is perfectly within Exgaywatch’s right as a site if it wants to censor speech. They could for example edit out any profanity or any other word if they wanted to without violating free speech.
Mike Airhart had it right on the nose. The leadership of Exodus has told me that their mission is to “help people who have unwanted same sex attraction.”
So, how does interfering in my personal life — by opposing marriage or any other kind of legal standing, etc. — help those people over there? Why do they divert their slim resources of time and energy to fighting a war against people who have WANTED same sex attraction?
Why does Randy Thomas need to put his big nose in my business? Interfere with MY family? Oppose MY civil rights? What has he got against ME?
When I asked him this question, his response was “You gays think everything is about you.”
He actually said that. He has yet to justify his political advocacy in any rational way except that “it’s what I believe.” Well, pick a job, Randy. Either be a minister or be a politician, but if you think you can do both and not screw the other one up, you’re so very mistaken. Politics is war. Ministry is love. Politics means win at any cost. Ministry means getting down on your hands and knees to create healing.
If he wants to be a politician, that’s fine. Then he should join some political organization and quit using his 501 (c) 3 as a bully pulpit for his politics.
Somehow, I think that’s not going to happen.
Kendall, the only ones I hear screaming about ENDA are religious right organizations. They lament the fact that they might lose another implement to persecute gay and lesbian human beings. They fear this loss because it takes away (or at least diminishes) the possibility that a gay/lesbian person might lose their job by coming out.
They really are afraid more of us might and will come of the closet when we don’t have to be afraid we’ll lose our jobs because of it.
They fear our coming out and living openly and truthfully.
They fear our finding happiness and love on our own terms.
They fear our speaking out against and challenging their views without our having to be afraid of their bullying tactics.
They fear our not being afraid of them.
They fear the loss of their ability to use fear as a tool against us.
They fear the loss of power.
You are absolutely correct that free speech only applies to speaking out against the government. But the passage of ENDA takes away some of our fear. Isn’t anything that takes away fear as a tool beneficial?
I agree that legislation should be the last resort to solve this problem, but I haven’t seen any other means at this point. Are you aware of something that I’m not?
I find this opposition to ENDA perplexing. Employers should not be able to fire people due only to the emloyee’s race, religion, national origin, sex, or sexual orientation.
Perhaps there are many people in this national debate who are independently wealthy with no concerns about abruptly loosing their jobs through no defect in their work ethic. The number of people in this country who live paycheck to paycheck is staggering. Abrupt termination for no cause can cause incredible hardship on the victim and their family. They could lose their home. They could lose their car further limiing their ability to get to a job. They might be forced to move, creating hardship for the entire family.
This isn’t about some abstract concept. Real people and real families are in the crossfire.
Further, I would encourage people to think about this with relation to race, rather than sexual orientation. Do you really think it proper for employers in a region to effectively block Asians, African Americans or others as a class from certain jobs? Perhaps all the well paid management jobs in a particular industry? Of course not. So then, why is it okay to do that to people who are gay?
Phil – I’m actually shocked that you seem totally unaware of non-religious based arguments against ENDA. Since you seem unaware of what most libertarians believe regarding ENDA I’ll very briefly give you my perspective on it slightly differently than above.
As a libertarian (note the lowercase, I’m referring to the political philosophy not the political party) I oppose ENDA because of the “Freedom of Association” which is a right found somewhat indirectly in the first amendment (mostly a combination of free speech and freedom of assembly). To me this is the right which allows me to form private consensual sexual relationships, yet also gives people the right to freely form or terminate relationships in various ways from professional to personal with me. I don’t disagree that some of the loudest voices opposing ENDA are religious, but I resent the implication that I must be a Christian Fundamentalist because I oppose a bill. I am neither a Christian nor a fundamentalist of any description. As a libertarian I also hold other non religious views you would probably oppose (I’m against hate crime laws for everyone, whether based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc, I’m also against smoking bans, I’m against the war on drugs, I’m against laws that criminalize sexual behavior while I support states rights to pass them, I’m against all marriage laws while at the same time supporting marriage equality for gays as long as marriage exists as a legal institution. I’m against most forms of taxation, I’m against laws criminalizing prostitution even though I’d never go to one, etc).
John – WHY shouldn’t people be able to fire people based on race, religion, or sexual orientation (or whatever quality?) I would agree they SHOULDN’T fire people based solely on these characteristics, but the argument “because it’s wrong” begs the question.
Oh, and in answer to your question, no it’s not “proper” to block people from certain jobs based on race. That doesn’t mean I think it should be illegal. If people want to discriminate and I don’t I’m more likely to have a better business because I’m getting the best people from ALL races, rather than just whatever race (or other characteristic) I’m choosing not to discriminate against.
Moderator Action: Comment deleted for containing continued petty personal attacks in spite of request to stop.
Moderator Action: Comment deleted for containing continued petty personal attacks and speculation of personal sexual habits — in spite of request to stop. Additional comments of this type will result in banning.
You know I never could figure out Libertarians. They seem like the hippie version of Republicans like Tom Hartman once said on a recent Air America radio show, “Libertarians are Republicans who want to get high, smoke dope and get laid.” Libertarian philosophy is a sort of anarchist conservatism which to me is a conflicted philosphy. In the light of hate crimes laws and the ENDA issue the libertarian philosophy would state that people should be given the right to as much freedom of speech (in the workplace, etc.) as possible even if we don’t agree with sexism, homophobia or racism because our employers, bosses, etc. must have the right to not associate with those whom they hate. The question is where is the responsibility here? When someone gets terminated from a job soley because of their color, sex or sexual orientation the results of shame, fear and economic loss can be devastating to the minority. Freedom of speech comes with the price of responsibility including the responsibility to speak the truth as opposed to slandering a person or people because of they happen to be different than the majority.
So have laws against discrimination with regard to race, sex, national origin, religion, etc. worked in our culture? Has the outcome been beneficial and have the laws also been educational and helped the culture become more progressive? I would pose to you that the answer is most of the time yes but public education (school, media, etc.) must support these progressive laws. I could give you many examples. When our laws do not accept job discrimination based on orientation, color, race, etc. the culture must change and it has to eventually fall in line with allowing the minority an equal footing in taking advantage of life’s opportunities. There must be consequences to inequality due to the irresponsible use of freedom of speech (hate speech without consequences for the one who spreads hate) in the workplace.
So their solution is to create a special class of UNprotected citizens in order to protect their “civil right” to deprive GLBT Americans of our civil rights. They’ve redefined treachery as a religious liberty.
___
Or the subliminal version:
___
Even your neighbors who are the moral equivalent of child rapists “deserve respect and dignity.” They deserve the respect of job insecurity and the dignity to be violently beaten with impunity.
Two faced shill.
Benjamin – I find libertarians (both lower and upper case L) to be rather easy to figure out. In general we want to give the most freedom to individuals to make choices while getting the government involved in as few cases and as few ways as possible. with regards to ENDA libertarians DO certainly support people’s ability to say what they want, but free speech does not mean freedom from consequences (apart from governmental consequences, which in almost all cases should never occur) and as much as someone can say what they want at work, employers should be free to REACT as they want, even if I view many pososible responses as harmful.
Given enough time, my firm belief is that a business that engages in discriminatory practices (of any sort) is going to do worse than a business that does not. For a slightly tangential example of racism in action vs. Tolerance, consider the 1966 NCAA basketball tournament, specifically the game pitting Kansas (coached by Bob Rupp, who only recruited and allowed white players on his team) against Texas Western (Coached by Don Haskins, a team that recruited the best players of all races that happened to be all black that year). Texas Western were heavy underdogs in a heavily scrutinized game (both because of the culture in 1966 and because it was the first time an all white squad met an all black squad). Texas Western happened to win that game by 1 point. Racism does not work, and in a free market attitudes asserting one race (or one sexuality) makes a better athlete or employee doesn’t work either.
To your specific question of “whose responsibility is it?” I would argue that it is an employee’s responsibility to be conscious of your boss’s attitudes and moods and whether you choose to associate with them. If you found out that your boss was a white supremacist (I’m assuming for a moment that you’re white and would be hired by them because you’re not a minority) and that they were members of the KKK are you telling me you’d remain employed under them and just ignore that he wears a white sheet in his off hours?
I don’t think you would. I think you’d make a free choice to disassociate yourself with him. And I think he should have the same right regarding you, EVEN IF I think it’s a terrible reason to fire someone.
Kendall wrote:
A society that condones this sort of discrimination will become increasingly divided, increasingly unbalanced and will be faced with tremendous resentments that will make themselves known. In order to preserve the society we live in, we have to do what we can to provide equal opportunity and equal justice to the many groups that comprise our society.
Societies that have allowed or encouraged high levels of discrimination have paid the price (including the United States).
Economic discrimination isn’t a minor issue, and it is a root cause of violence around the planet that has torn countries apart.
I would say this is precisely my point though. Discrimination is bad business practice (setting aside general social concerns) because you’re throwing away valuable, well trained employees based on an inherent characteristic. Frankly if a business wants to do that on a consistent basis and other businesses are freely choosing not do to it I’m going to choose voluntarily to work for the business that wants me (assuming they’re hiring of course, which often, most bigger businesses are fairly regularly).
and, incidentally, “equal opportunity” would not be preserved with ENDA, all it would do is make people who are already bigoted MORESO. It doesn’t change hearts and minds, it just buries resentment under the cloak of other excuses. Employers who want to fire or discriminate against gay employees will still do so, they’ll just blame it on performance.
Libertarianism, at least in the form embraced by Kendall and many other current adherents, is itself another type of fundamentalism, in that it exalts belief in an absolute truth over reality. In this case, the absolute truth is the idea if people are allowed almost absolute freedom to live by their own choices, free market dynamics will correct abuses and keep society healthy overall. Kendall expresses this fundamentalism when he says: “It is my firm belief that a business that engages in discriminatory practices (of any sort) is going to do worse than a business that does not.” Like any fundamentalist, he does not, and cannot, provide substantitve evidence for this truth, beyond a few anecdotal examples that can easily be countered by examples that cut the other way. At the end of the day, this is just his firm belief, and none of us will get anywhere arguing about it with him.
Reality is that in any society or collection of people, one person’s exercise of his freedom inevitably affects other people, whether for good or bad. One role of government is to restrict individuals from exercising their freedom in ways that directly harm others. Even libertarians agree that government should restrict individuals from murder and theft, because in those cases it’s so clear that one person’s free choice deprives another person of his own rights and freedom.
Anti-discrimination laws are based on society’s understanding that the harm caused to minority groups by bigotry and bias far outweighs any harm or loss of freedom caused to those whose behavior is restricted. It’s part of the necessary give and take that allows all of us to live together.
NickC – We certainly agree on one thing, that “none of us will get anywhere arguing” about this. We’re just looking at it from two totally opposite perspectives. But I would submit that if I am a “fundamentalist” then that is no less true of you or anyone else on this issue. You believe the government should step in to tell an employer which employees they must keep or let go based on the government’s standards, I reject that notion.
Here’s the difference, Kendall:
I believe in basing laws and government policy on the real life evidence of what are the actual consequences of various types of behavior. I believe government should indeed provide the maximum freedom for each individual, but should also ensure that one person’s freedom does not create a disproportionate harm to others.
You believe laws should be based on your theoretical view that free market dynamics will inevitably correct all problems, and you don’t care whether the real life consequences confirm your theory or not.
What real life consequences? That people get fired? People lose their jobs all the time. We have laws on the books against racial discrimination in employment. Do you think that stops racial discrimination? Do you think that if ENDA is signed into law that would stop discrimination based on sexual orientation in the work place? Because I sure as heck don’t, they’ll just change their reasons, change their tone, but the result will still be the same.
You have an incredible amount of faith it seems in legislation to fix these social problems that I think is just as naive as you seem to think my faith in a free market society is. The difference is that your policies will do nothing to stop people being fired for being gay (regardless of what an employer claims) and a more hands off approach will at least tell me where I’m wanted in the first place.
Incidentally, one thing I just noticed in your earlier post. You stated: “Even libertarians agree that government should restrict individuals from murder and theft, because in those cases it’s so clear that one person’s free choice deprives another person of his own rights and freedom.” and I agree with that totally. What I fail to see is how you think this helps your case. There is no basic right to work and there is no basic right to not be discriminated against. Working is a PRIVILEGE, that’s why we apply for jobs and aren’t assigned them as a right. That’s also why employers are free to terminate workers, if employment was a right then even poorly performing workers could not be fired.
I hope that I understand the congressional debate — it is not about passing ENDA, but attempting to pass an ENDA that is GLB or one that is GLB and “T”.
Did you notice that Randy Thomas oddly avoided the entire “T” issue concerning ‘gender identity’ and ‘gender presentation’? How I wish I could brag that since “1990” the “T” community could be “out and proud”…. What happened to a so-called “Christian Resource” and their God-given mandate to protect the weak??? The “T” community is one of the most politically-weak groups I’ve come across…. and we are being savagely over-looked by Exodus…. I hope they understand the warnings of Ezekiel chapter 34, seriously, I hope so….
Speaking from the position of a transsexual (born male; live as female), I need ENDA. I was dismissed for complaining of sexual harassment from one job – which took all my courage to even bring up as a complaint, since my past would most likely then be made known, and then, I would be dismissed for having once been ‘male’. (There is no ‘gender identity’ or ‘gender presentation’ protection in Virginia.)
After the abrupt dismissal, I spoke to the VP of the company in person about his ‘ethics’, and then left that injustice in the hands of God. I then lost 3 months of income… not a good thing at all.
When IBM offered me work, I carefully read their ‘diversity’ policy — “transgender” was included! Yes! I would not be dismissed for appearing to be ‘lesbian’, for being bisexual, nor for having once been ‘male’. I even put Bon’s picture on my desk the first Christmas there.
ENDA is the beginning of demanding employers to hire and fire based on work performance, and not hatred of the GLB and “T” reality. Living in fear of being hated, scorned, and dismissed, is a horrible thing… with real effects on productivity. Even if the “GLB” have been ‘out and proud’ since 1990, in my strongest opinion, the “T” is slowly gaining courage… and we live as if it is the 1980’s…. Exodus has refused to ‘speak for those that cannot speak for their own selves’ – which is surely the “T” community. The argument of ‘market correction’ is true, but takes time… and a lot of casualties. I was one. Let’s not have any more, k? Sincerely; Caryn
Do I believe that anti-discrimination laws will actually prevent all discrimination? Of course not. Nor do laws against murder prevent all murders. Legal protection simply gives individuals who are harmed by bias some ability to seek recourse. And these laws do tend to reduce the extent to which discrimination is practiced and the number of people it harms.
Kendall, all the arguments you bring up about employment laws are just as valid regarding anti-discrimination laws governing housing or public accomodation. No one has an absolute right to rent a particular apartment or be served in a particular restaurant. Why should white owners of apartments or restaurants be deprived of their free choice to associate only with other whites? Why should the goverment force them to serve or rent to other races?
You will probably answer, “They shouldn’t be forced. But if restaurants and apartment houses discriminate, that will eventually hurt their business because they will diminish their customer base.” Funny how that didn’t seem to happen back in the days when most apartments and restaurants were segregated. The fact is, when a very large number of people share a particular bias, a business that enforces that bias can do extremely well.
Thankfully, the majority of citizens in this country has recognized that our personal prejudices should not be allowed to impede our fellow citizens in their basic rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. ” That includes the right to live where we wish, or shop in any store we can afford, to be considered for employment strictly on the basis of our abilities, or even just eat out in a restaurant. Laws protecting these rights are already on the books, in regard to bias based on race, gender, age, disability, religion, and probably some other categories I’m forgetting. The struggle now is to see whether Americans can also rise above their personal biases regarding sexual orientation, or whether this will remain the last bastion of legally-sanctioned prejudice.
How do you quantify this though? you can claim that these laws reduce harm, but how do you know harm isn’t hidden? We know for example there is still a wage gap based on race, as well as gender, to me that suggests that things haven’t changed all that much, it’s just more difficult to spot it.
As for housing – Of course no one should be compelled to rent to members of other races. Exactly how would you propose to stop someone from renting to a person based solely on race (or religion, etc)? You can pass any law you want, but it’s hard to PROVE that a particular tenant was denied their status as a renter SOLELY on a particular characteristic or quality.
If you were black would you want to live in a neighborhood that actively tried to keep you out and prevent you from renting an apartment? Maybe it’s just me but I don’t know of many people that WANT to live in neighborhoods that actively want to anything to prevent someone from living there. Is it “right”? well, it’s not how I’d behave. I think a diversity of neighborhood IS probably a good thing. But how do you stop people from forming free associations?
And incidentally, right to “life, liberty, and property” is damaged by ENDA, you’re telling employers who they can and cannot employ. That’s a dangerous precedent even if it is well intentioned. As I said though, because other groups are protected (which I think they shouldn’t be) from employment discrimination I see no rational basis for excluding sexual orientation as a protected class.
Kendall, as I said some posts ago, arguing with you really serves no purpose, so I think it’s time to close this discussion, at least for my part.
But I will say in parting that, as one who was a teenager in Texas during the civil rights era, I have personally witnessed the enormous benefits our society has gained from anti-discrimination laws. It’s not a question of belief. It’s a question of reality.
As you said, there’s no point in arguing, we’re just going to go in circles because we both believe in our positions very strongly.
Marcus’s point.
Randy Thomas bringing up the HRC and their hiring practices in comparison to the most likely type of employer to discriminate is another way he does dish red herring.
RT would deign to try and work in a pro gay activist organization. He wouldn’t deign to work in a place where a gay person would likely be working. What’s he going to do, ask first?
Exodus knows, as do many politicians, how many people in this country identify as being Christian and how much influence that has on ANTI GAY policies. But I would have to wonder if any of these so called Christian employers would also fire or discriminate against the divorced, adulterers and unmarried people who are living together or having pre/nonmarital sex or non procreative sex.
See, what would happen then, is that a potential Christian employer would have to ask and nose into ALL their employee’s sex lives and how they have sex if they are to be CONSISTENT with the Biblical teaching on sex.
Or anything else for that matter, like mentruating women and mixing fabrics and seafood consumption.
The slippery slope isn’t in how a Christian employer would be forced to hire gay people or not fire them, but if the law were applied equally regarding the employer’s religious convictions, they’d have to show that they would fire or not hire any OTHER people for the aforementioned in which there are Biblical objections.
It’s all about how the chili hits the cheese and knowing when someone is SELECTIVELY using religion in their business practices.
BTW, how many banks and lending institutions have Christian CEO’s?
You know, that usury thing.
Thanks for working on the paragraphs, Regan — getting better 🙂
Nick C. I think you have done an awesome job presenting your point. It is also very good to get some much needed and thoughtful dialogue going on here. I disagree with the libertarian party just as strongly as I disagree with most aspects of the republican party (especially Reagan’s economic policies and the republican party practically worshipping the man) which I finally left after being a strong republican for over 20 years.
To me anti-discrimination laws are often stepping stones that discipline society’s and help provide an environment that help us all gain a more equal footing in pursuit of our dreams and goals. When employers know that it bigotry in the workplace (just as sexual harassment) is not acceptable the environment becomes a safer space for employees. Laws tend to create safe places for minorities. I have experienced this in action in my own life and in various places of employement after coming out due to laws that do not tolerate workplace bigotry based on sexual orientation. Eventually even religious bodies do not even tolerate it because it becomes a shameful thing to be a bigot. Anti-discrimination laws, especially when strengthened and supported by potent education can be a powerful force to affect positive change in society changing the tide to where homophobic bigotry is a rare as opposed to a common occurence. The workplace must be a safe place in society.
So it is clear that I disagree with Kendall but I am very glad that he is posting on here as we need a plethora of different points of view. If we all agreed on everything don’t you think preaching to the choir would be a little boring after a while? LOL
What I found confusing about Randy’s comments was that he says he was discriminated against but then says when he went to a supervisor, the supervisor ended the discrimination right then.
Randy doesn’t seem to understand that he basically got lucky. If the upper supervisor had not been so nice or understanding, she could have fired him on the spot or the discrimination could have continued, and he’d have no recourse.
So, basically what he’s saying is that because he was fortunate enough to have an understanding boss, we should just assume everyone will and not offer any protections.
Fortunate indeed. Come to think of it, were fortune 500 companies fortunate enough to have non-discrimination clauses for sexual orientation back in 1990?
I’d like to thank the people involved in this debate. I side with the libertarian position here–nobody is probably going to convince me that it isn’t wrong to try to compel an employer to employ you. Coercion or aggression is never justified except in self-defense.
Why do so many “ex-gay” guys sound so damn gay?
“Sound gay”?
David,
I cannot speak for PatrickP, but I too have been struck by how stereotypically gay many ex-gays seem to be. When you see them on TV or hear them on the radio, they come accross as effeminate or set off the gaydar buzzer in some other way (I wish I had a better way to say that right now).
It also seems to be a common part of their story that they were teased as kids for being gay before they even understood what that meant (examples: Randy, Alan Chambers, Mike Ensley). I often wonder if some of these guys ever had a “closet” phase, or whether it was so obvious to everyone they ran into growing up that they were gay. Their inability to “pass” might also have seriously influenced their decision to enter the ex-gay movement.
There is also this dissonance that really strikes you when you hear Randy say in the above clip that he is no longer gay. It is the same dissonance that you hear when Alan Chambers proclaims himself 100% heterosexual.
I realize that depending on sterotypes isn’t really fair, but sometimes it is very difficult to completely dismiss the stereotype. I am not bringing this up to make fun of ex-gays. I just think that it is one of those large pink elephants in the room that people often try to politely ignore.
NPR reported this morning on a study in a labor journal that documented gay men making 23% less than married heterosexual men, and 9% less than unmarried but partnered heterosexual men. The researcher mentioned that gay men seem to be most disadvantaged in traditionally male dominated fields such as blue collar and managerial positions. Interestingly, lesbians were not found in this study to be disadvantaged compared with their heterosexual counterparts.
The researcher also mentioned that he looked into this area because of a lack of labor research on gays and lesbians. So much for Randy’s blithe suggestions that gays aren’t discriminated against.
John, I think you are correct in some ways. I have always argued that the main existence of the exgay movement is gender related. People seem less bothered by the sex aspect and more by the gender issues–how masculine a male is or how feminine a female is. Notice how on Christian videos and cable shows, homosexual males are often presented in drag.
I saw Stephen Bennett on the 700 Club, and he kept apologizing about how effeminate he is, but he stressed that he was straight. He seemed to constantly be concerned by how masculine he is. We have seen this over and over again with various exgay people (Paulk was someone who would also mention how he would be more masculine now–didn’t he say that gaining weight was something that would help be perceived as more masculine?).
There should be minimum standards of conduct in the work place as it pertains to the expression of prejudice – that is what anti-discrimination legislation is for. We know that people will not treat everyone in a civil manner – so we have to make sure that they do. Not everyone plays nice or fair, so things like ENDA are designed to level the playing field. That is it – no “special” or “privileged” class like Randy Thomas states. People like Randy are being disingenuous and dishonest when they say that legislations creates a “protected” class. My question is – why is there a perception that certain group of people needs protection? ‘Cause they often need it? What about women, African-Americans, persons with disabilities? Are they a “special” class of people because the government has removed the power of wealthy, white, able-bodied, male chauvinists to flagrantly discriminate against them? I find that people who are most opposed to equality and equity legislation are those who are the biggest abusers of power [insert favoured group(s) here]. Legislation like this is not about coercion or aggression. It is about making sure that if an employee is terminated, it is because they do not meet industry expectations – and not the biases of their employer. It is about their employment performance, plain and simple.
This whole discourse about protecting a persons “religious” rights is a red herring, and I call on Randy Thomas to acknowledge that it is simply a diversionary tactic. If anyone is demanding “special” treatment from the government it is Exodus and its Right wing allies – they want the government to enshrine their beliefs and morals as law. Who gave them that right; Isn’t THAT privilege?
“Coercion”? “Aggression”? Good god. So being prevented from discriminating against people based on the color of their skin is having the government act “aggressive” towards you, now? You’re trying to say that mandating that employment choices be facially neutral is “coercing” an employer to hire somebody specifically? That’s ridiculous.
Essentially? Yes, that’s exactly right. The fact of the matter is legislation of this nature does not exist without a club, that is, if you do not follow the law you ultimately will be fined, and potentially sent to jail. Legislation is by it’s very nature generally coercive, especially when you are trying to prevent (or in some cases promote) a particular action from taking place.
While I have some libertarian leanings, I suspect the only place a pure version of that ideology would work is in the laboratory of the mind. Certainly, if it ever did work, we have moved beyond any possibility of returning to such in this world unless we are willing also to revisit many of the evils we have eliminated.
IIRC, he said that gaining weight was a way of subconsciously detaching from issues of sexuality in general, by becoming, as he put it, unattractive and therefore unavailable. I find a certain logic to that actually, and certainly don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility. In fact, a female friend of mine did essentially the same thing though didn’t realize it until later in life.
I suspect that there is no such thing as a workable “pure” philosophy except in the laboratory of the mind. With that said, society has transitioned very well to generally being less likely to discriminate against minorities whether racial or sexual without such laws. The fact that protective laws are being passed with some regularity at various levels from cities to companies to state governments as well as the federal level (for at least some groups) is to me an indication that our society is already recognizing the value both economically and practically in judging people by the “content of their character” rather than the color of their skin (as Dr. King said) without the need to force people to act with threat of consequences if they don’t.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act carried with it some very tangible consequences, as did the laws and amendments that followed. Do you suppose that might have something to do with that transition?
Actually, I think it would be more accurate to say there is a threat of consequences if they violate the rights of another. But then what is the purpose of most of our laws in the first place, if not to provide consequences for acts which either infringe on the inalienable rights of citizens or are deemed unacceptable by our society (the latter always yielding to the former)? This is nothing new.
This feels a bit like learning to speak Latin; interesting but not very useful in real life. If all people could be depended upon to do the right thing in all circumstances, well utopia is even less realistic than a pure libertarian society.
David – It’s conceivable that the CRA of 1964 had a significant impact on normalizing to a great degree race relations. What it did is enshrine the idea that the federal government itself cannot discriminate on the basis of race or other characteristic. I don’t necessarily disagree with that, but I do think that non governmental agencies, companies and businesses should have that ability if they choose.
Also, you mentioned:
And I honestly wonder exactly what right you think ENDA is protecting. There is no right to employment, there is no right against being offended, there is no right not to be fired (unless ENDA creates one of course) so could you tell me what right is so important in your view that we need ENDA to protect it? I think that the right at issue is an employer’s right to determine who is and is not on their payroll.
Really? I wonder how far you will get with your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness in 2007 if all employers took that view. Or to put it another way, no one says you have to offer your house for rent, but if you should decide to then you must offer it regardless of, for instance, the color of the prospective renter’s skin.
Feel free to continue if others want to engage you on this — I lose interest quickly in these kinds of debates. Unless one is living on an island or in the old west, I don’t see how we can escape occasionally being required to do what I would hope we can agree is the right thing, or at the very least the fair thing.
If we start to travel back, unwinding these protections along the way, who will be the one to say stop, this is where we should be?
I think that it is fair to say that most employers today are out to earn a profit. Firing qualified people on the basis of an innate characteristic is bad for business. Look at how the military has dismissed dozens (hundreds?) of translators simply because they happen to be gay. I’m not saying that eliminating protections for workers would not lead to some people to be fired for non-performance issues, I’m sure some employers are that stupid.
But I’m not going to compromise my principles and help them to see the benefit of keeping employees they may not agree with on a personal level (at least until they can invent a “legitimate” reason to fire them). If they want to hurt their business by losing qualified people then I’m sure there are plenty of people that will want them.
You mean how they’re still doing it even though it’s bad for them? Yeah, that really helps your position that the free market fairy will fix everything.
Randy claims to be drunk and on drugs until he sobered up in 1992. He could not possibly have worked for a Fortune 500 Corporation AND nearly faced being fired for being gay. He claims he was out and proud then; OUT, PROUD indicates a person who is comfortable with their sexuality and not abusing drugs and alcohol. I am a purist when it comes to the terms OUT, PROUD.
He has a testimony that I have used against other lies he has recently and publicly told RIGHT HERE
He states, “As the teenage years moved on the pain grew. At the age of 16 I started drinking and had my first homosexual experience. Finally I was making my own decisions. I was dating men at 18 and going out to the bars all the time. As I spent more time in my “escapes” my home life and sober life got neurotic. This was the time when the Adversary tried so hard to kill me, when I subconsciously wanted to die.”
Randy Thomas was never out and proud- he was a drug addict/drunk and started having frequent RANDOM homosexual sex he calls “escapes” — a euphemism that clearly connotes his disdain for homo-sex, before he dealt with the pain his absent/abusive family caused him, I find nothing remotely related to being really OUT and PROUD in his testimony.
He is using Bishop Harry Jackson and the anti-gay, anti-ENDA, anti-HRC and anti-gay civil rights RELIGIONIST lobby to make a name for himself and Exodus. How tragically flawed that makes his Christian testimony look, and to boot, his integrity and credibility are diminished.
What I view as disgusting in this whole media scam is his claim to know what it’s like to be out and proud– when it’s obvious from his personal testimony, that he never WAS. Doesn’t that make his claim FALSE?
Oh and it’s a lot like his constant use of the claim to have been gay-bashed in other public testimony to stand against the Hate Crimes Bill and look like it makes him a better victim. Like either incident can be worn as some sort of ID badge that grants him the right to diminish what WE who are still engrossed in the fight seeking true civil rights are doing.
His whole “I know what it was like, I experienced it, I was once gay and victimized, therefore I have a right to say don’t pass these terrible laws, don’t create a special class of people” his BS-attitude and anti-gay rhetoric is really deplorable!!! Yet seems to be supported by the folks at EXODUS.
It is part and parcel of the sentiment “I am gay or ex-gay, how could I possibly be homophobic?”
Same song and same dance different costume.
If Randy felt protected within his “Fortune 500” company back in the 1990s, he has organizations like HRC to thank for it. If Focus on the Family had had their way he would have been punished for being “out and proud” in the workplace.
And for someone as intelligent as I think he is, it seems a bit disingenuous for him to imply that his justice experience will be duplicated for every gay person in non-progressive companies and communities.
I thought Exodus was suppose to offer people “freedom from homosexuality” through the power of Jesus Christ? What does speaking out against public polices have to do with that? Is Exodus schizophrenic?