Civil Rights or Another Agenda?:
The Probable Motivations and Practical Consequences of Initiative 677

Table of Contents

Part One: CIVIL RIGHTS OR SPECIAL INTERESTS?

Part Two: FINER POINTS

Part Three: ESOTERIC DEBATE & CLOSING REMARKS

ADDENDUM TO: Civil Rights or Another Agenda?

by Sidney Turbyfill
Washington for Traditional Values Coalition

* 12865 NE 85th St Suite 270 * Kirkland WA 98033 * Phone: (425) 821-3341 * FAX: (425) 821-3341 *

Civil Rights or Another Agenda?:
The Probable Motivations and Practical Consequences of Initiative 677

Part One: CIVIL RIGHTS OR SPECIAL INTERESTS?

The Washington Law Against Discrimination: Brief on Initiative 677's Proposed Additions to RCW 49.60 [on the WEB] opens with the following:

WARNING! THERE ARE SPECIAL PROVISIONS IN INITIATIVE 677! IF ENACTED, THESE PROVISIONS WOULD APPLY ONLY TO THE NEW "SEXUAL ORIENTATION MINORITIES" CREATED WITH THIS INITIATIVE! ALL OTHER LEGITIMATE MINORITY PERSONS WOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THESE NEW PROVISIONS!

SEXUAL MINORITIES GRABBING SPECIAL LEGAL POWERS
Consider taking the time RIGHT NOW to sear into your consciousness the fact that what the "not traditional sexual orientation 'minority'" leaders are attempting to do with I-677 is to grab special legal powers UNAVAILABLE to legitimate minority employees. If I-677 becomes law, NEW features of the law will apply ONLY to the newly minted "minorities" -- not to any one else. Again, legitimate minorities benefit nothing at all, are not addressed at all by their proposal. With those powers, so-called "sexual minorities" could purge the workplaces of our state of all dissenting viewpoints, and ultimately run out all but the best closeted of conscientious objectors.

CIVIL RIGHTS ADVOCATES?
Proponents of Initiative 677, the Employment NonDiscrimination Act of Washington (ENDA of Washington), present themselves as "civil rights advocates" and opponents as "anti-gay." This gross mislabeling of the opposing camps in the debate may be rhetorically useful for them but what is reality? Reality is: they label those opposed to the political advancement of a broad agenda for a narrow segment of the culture -- the bisexual, lesbian, homosexual, etc. segment -- as "anti-gay" and those who support the sexual "minority" political agenda as "civil rights advocates." How truthful is that?

"Just what is this 'broad agenda,'" you ask? Proponents freely admit to their twenty-year pursuit of legislation to force legitimate minorities -- those denoted by race, creed, color, national origin, sex, marital status, age or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap -- to move over and make room for another category, henceforth known as "sexual orientation minorities," to share in their special protections. Current law provides legitimate minorities with special protections in regard to the right to: obtain and hold employment; full enjoyment of places of public accommodations; engage in real estate transactions; engage in credit transactions; engage in insurance transactions; and engage in commercial transactions. This type of "rights" advocacy does NOT make them noble champions of the downtrodden, it shows them for what they are: interlopers, trying to jump on board the civil rights bandwagon -- greedy to get a piece of what others sacrificed and even died for.

So, since they have long coveted ALL of the special protections afforded to legitimate minorities, is it not completely obvious to everyone that their current efforts in the employment arena are merely a "jumping in" place for capturing their ultimate goal of total acceptance as a disadvantaged minority -- just like any other disadvantaged minority? If we make an exception to current civil rights law in Washington State and accept "sexual orientation" as a legitimate minority category in the special case of employment non-discrimination, then on what basis might we refuse to extend total civil rights protections in the future?

If they assert that their initiative effort is a response to the political activity of "anti-gay" groups and the State Legislature's twenty-year unwillingness to pass laws that guarantee special protections for their sexual orientation, the question is begged, "But are there good reasons that the Washington State Legislature has turned the homosexual lobby down for twenty years running?" Are we to assume that our elected representatives have themselves been mean-spirited bullies of a people group comprised of the undereducated and economically disadvantaged -- the culturally and politically oppressed?

Civil rights law is tailor-made to help out the helpless. As it came into being in 1964, there was common agreement in America that blacks were being systematically shut out from participation in the American Dream -- the dream that most of the rest of us took for granted. They were pervasively and systematically being discriminated against with devastating effect. So we determined to submit the nation to federal intrusion into what would otherwise be affairs that fall outside of their scope of authority -- affairs of state governments and private businesses.

Regardless of what one believes the successes and failings of this federal (and later state) government intervention have since been, no one disagrees that the basic motivations - pervasive deprivation for an entire group of people - were real. Now, let's take a comparative look at the latest group demanding government intrusion, the "sexual orientation minority" group.

WHAT A MINORITY REALLY IS - 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS LAW
"Civil rights do not exist in limited quantities," say proponents. " Laws prohibiting discrimination against the one group cannot hurt another group that should also be treated fairly." This is not the point of I-677. Civil rights law is intended to make special provisions for true minorities -- those who truly are suffering. Current civil rights law extends special protections to qualified minorities only, because their claims of pervasive, systematic and unfair discrimination are long established. Bisexual and other sexual orientations do not qualify for these special provisions because they do not meet the three part legal litmus test:

  1. As an entire class they have suffered a history of discrimination as evidenced by a lack of ability to obtain economic mean income, adequate education, or cultural opportunity.

  2. As an entire class, they exhibit obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics, like race, color, gender, or national origin, that defines them as a distinct group.

  3. As an entire class, they clearly demonstrate political powerlessness.

DISCUSSION OF THE HOMOSEXUAL POPULATION:

EQUAL JOB RIGHTS?
Initiative 677 or ENDA of Washington, is supposedly designed to guarantee the same job rights to all. But, what I-677 actually guarantees is oppression in the work place. Proponents fully understand that THE PEOPLE will not tolerate laws that threaten both their jobs and their freedoms. Since their polling data shows that people are heavily in favor of "equal rights in the workplace," supporters hope to win a majority using catchy and disarming phrases. Scrutinizing the language of the initiative is not to be encouraged.

When confronted with the initiative's obvious liabilities to personal freedom, proponents insist that the wide-open legal phrasing would not be used to deny freedoms in the workplace. They say, in effect, "Trust us. We have only the best of intentions and we're personally guaranteeing you that your ability to speak your mind freely, associate with whomever you like and act on the dictates of your conscience are perfectly safe with us." Take a look at I-677 for yourself. It doesn't take a lawyer to see frightening possibilities for loss of workplace rights.

The Family Research Council has done an excellent job of corroborating abuses in their booklet, The Other Side of Tolerance: Victims of Homosexual Activism (TOST). It is a brief compilation of cases of everyday people being targeted by "sexual minority" activists across America. Cases include trampling of rights in a variety of workplaces. Along with the discussion of the Initiative itself, I have included herein (with permission) a number of those stories in order to illustrate for you the trend of unintended consequences that have resulted from yielding to the political arguments of this most potent of special interest lobbies.

An account of viewpoint discrimination is that of a California county government employee, Rick Knickerbocker. From TOST, p. 15, here's his story of employee "heterocentric" views costing a deserved promotion in a sexual "minority"-affirming local government:

The Double Standard Applied

Asserting his right to free speech cost Rick Knickerbocker a promotion three times.

Rick Knickerbocker was denied a promotion three times by a California county government employer for his stance against homosexuality. Mr. Knickerbocker had written two letters-to-the-editor of a local newspaper rebutting facts in articles concerning homosexuality. A lesbian co-worker noticed the letters and contacted the city’s personnel department, advising them not to consider him for promotion due to his view on homosexuality.

Mr. Knickerbocker had a positive, eight-year work performance record and received the highest score on a test for possible promotion. However, he was told that unless he stopped writing letters, he would not be considered.

The lesbian co-worker wrote a letter to the editor of another paper and specifically named Mr. Knickerbocker. Personnel declined to take any action against her, however. 

[Note: Knickerbocker v City of Vacaville, argued by The Rutherford
Institute (202) 393-7008.]

What Rick found out the hard way, most government employees, in Washington state at the municipal, state and federal levels, are fully cognizant of (because of pervasive tax-funded "diversity training"): views that are not affirming of sexual orientation "minorities" are a career liability - if you have them, don't express them on the job, or off.

GROUP HATRED?
For those people who define and group themselves according to which types of sexual activities they engage in, where one's sentiments lie along the spectrum of emotions toward them is irrelevant in light of the fact that their political aspirations threaten the freedoms of speech, conscience, and association of all of us. Try as they might to convince you, don't let the sophistry of Initiative 677's proponents sway you into thinking that the struggle is one of hatred of one group for another. The struggle is over how civil rights are to be defined and how they will be administered in the workplace. The homosexual lobby wants to throw out the old definition that was tolerant of the full spectrum of opinions -- protecting them all within the broad envelope of "civil discourse." They want, instead, an extremely narrow redefinition of civil rights that says, "You can believe and express your views any way you want so long as they don't disagree with my views." If your views do differ strongly, rest assured they'll claim, "It's because I'm of a 'non-traditional' sexual orientation and you just hate me," and you'll be looking for a new job. That's not civil rights protection; that's blatant favoritism, pure and simple.

If they have their way, the only people who will have full civil rights protections in the workplace will be themselves - everyone else being demoted to a third-class citizen's place in the pecking order. Actually, the classic "spoiled sibling" scenario is a perfect parallel to what homosexuals will have if they are successful with I-677.

MUNICIPALITIES PROTECTING? OR PROMOTING? "SEXUAL MINORITIES"
According to proponents of I-677, since 1994, several initiatives have been filed which would have repealed "anti-discrimination" measures enacted by municipalities to protect individuals on the basis of sexual orientation. That is entirely true. But, what are these measures besides "in your face" promotion/advocacy of lesbianism, bisexuality and all the rest? It is quite instructive to examine how these "anti-discrimination" policies are implemented in the government workplace because the actions taken by the municipalities are the same ones that I-677 will force on public schools and private businesses.

Over the years, Washington for Traditional Values has been repeatedly contacted by government employees, and even elected officials, all across the state who are responding to the overwhelmingly offensive sexual "minority" component of required "diversity training" with a mixture of outrage, disgust, contempt and fear. Even as they're pressured to maintain production and efficiency levels, precious work-hours -- sometimes even days at a time -- are consumed learning about the various aspects of sexual conduct that many find morally repugnant. Coming out of the "training," they know one thing with certainty, their careers will be in jeopardy if they complain about these affronts to their sense of ethics -- or even fail to use the proper (read "politically correct") terms for so-called "sexual minorities" in their government workplace. The oppressed come from all levels of the worker/management ranks yet they all share a common dilemma -- that of quietly suffering the humiliation and stifling oppression of working where your every utterance must be devoid of all appearances of "wrongful" bias, all associations must be avoided that may "imply" bias towards "sexual minorities."

For obvious reasons, nearly all of our contacts who work directly for municipal governments require anonymity. But the following Kansas City social worker's case amply illustrates what happens when traditional moral concerns confront unrestrained "rights" of "sexual minorities" at work. [From TOST, p. 14 (all notes, *Joyce Mucci, "Kansas City DFS Faces EEOC Suit Over Religious Discrimination," St. Louis MetroVoice, December 12, 1996, p. A1.)]

Family Disservice

A Christian social service worker loses his job for refusing to attend "diversity" training after several run-ins with homosexuals.

Larry Phillips, a Christian who worked for the Kansas City, Missouri, Department of Family Services (DFS), is now out of a job. Phillips was approached by a co-worker who received a "safe sex" brochure from her supervisor, a homosexual member of ACT-UP (one of the most radical homosexual activist groups in the nation). This sexually explicit brochure aimed at teenagers was to be distributed to social service trainees and given to DFS clients. Entitled "Don’t (expletive)-Up--Safer Sex for Teens,"* it promoted homosexuality and suggested several "safe" sexual practices. It warned, "Monogamy, marriage, being on the pill or ‘family values,’ won’t protect you from AIDS," and included detailed drawings showing how to use a condom.

Phillips approached his pastor for advice. The pastor contacted State Representative Connie Cierpoit, who launched an inquiry into the incident. Rep. Cierpoit met several times with the Director of DFS and the acting Deputy Director of Children’s Services over the incident. They told her that they would look into the matter.

Phillips soon became a target of harassment. On one occasion, he said, the supervisor paced back and forth outside Phillips’ office while wearing a black leather vest, leather pants and a studded dog collar and wielding a baseball bat.* Later, after denying approval to homosexuals as foster parents, Phillips was told by his supervisor that his "religious beliefs were getting in the way of his job performance" and that he was "too moral."*

Rep. Cierpoit had Phillips transferred to the Independence branch, where he began investigating a child neglect case. On the grounds that she was engaging in sex with another woman, Phillips questioned the wisdom of returning the children to their lesbian foster mother. Phillips’ new supervisor told him that the foster mother’s lesbianism was irrelevant to his investigation. [For an example of just how relevant the lesbian component of "sexual minorities" is considered to be in Washington state, take a look at my briefing on the Alma Kidd/Hope Robbins debacle.] After that, Phillips says, her attitude became hostile. Phillips was asked to sign a "job performance expectations" memo which included the requirement that he attend what he understood to be a "cultural sensitivity training session." Earlier, Phillips had attended a session that consisted of a lecture by his former activist supervisor on acceptance of homosexuality. During that session, the supervisor expounded on the details of his own sex life with the stated purpose of giving those in attendance a "better understanding of the relationships homosexuals have with one another."* Phillips refused to sign the memo.

On November 18, 1996, Phillips was handed a letter signed by the Director of the Kansas City, Missouri, DFS informing him of his termination. He was immediately placed on administrative leave and given 10 minutes to gather his things and leave the office, under threat of arrest.* On November 27, he was officially terminated.

The actual interference here ["his 'religious beliefs were getting in the way of his job performance'"] was perpetrated by Mr. Phillips' employer and the sexual "minority" advocates at his workplace who decided to interfere with the free exercise of his rights by choosing to prefer the morals of "sexual minorities" over those in opposition to them. As legislators often say, "It's not a matter of whether or not we can legislate morality. It's a matter of 'whose' morality are we going to legislate?"

PUBLIC SCHOOLS INDOCTRINATE CHILDREN AND EMPLOYEES ALIKE
Employees in the government workplace by now may be accustomed to having the politically correct "morals" of sundry "sexual minorities" forced on them. But should we force impressionable school children to undergo indoctrination as well? Recent experience with the Seattle School District's promotion of lesbianism, et al., is just the meagerest of beginnings if ENDA of Washington passes on November 4th. With "sexual minority" literature already headed for the kiddie libraries in district elementary schools, administrative personnel are focusing on how to incorporate "sexual minority"-affirming curricula as well. Parents should be outraged. Their children are the guinea pigs as school officials substitute their "enlightened" moral perspectives of "sexual minorities" for the (commonly traditionalist) beliefs parents.

Sadly, Seattle schools are not the only ones in Washington State pursuing this course. Click on the highlighted items below to read more about this pattern from the WTV briefing to Washington’s legislature, How Did Pro-homosexual Policies Find Their Way Into Our Public School System? There are any number of programs run through joint cooperative efforts of the local schools and school districts, the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), the Washington Education Association (WEA), local county health departments and regional health districts, the state Department of Health (DOH), county organizations like Grays Harbor County’s TAPPP Board, Clark County’s REAL theater, the APEX program in Pierce County, CAPE in King County, the traveling GAP theater, and other governmental and quasi-governmental agencies that aggressively promote "sexual minority" behavior to children in the name of "tolerance."

In the next anecdote from TOST (p. 28.), the rights of four parents to be the final arbiters of who and what moral influences they deem appropriate for their children are ignored by the controlling authority (local school board) and forcefully challenged by the state affiliate of the National Education Association.

Classroom Activism

Nickie Tohill was threatened with a lawsuit for defamation after she protested her daughter’s music teacher’s revelation of his homosexuality to the class.

In 1996, in the Pewitt Independent School District in Omaha, Texas, a middle school music teacher announced to a class that he was a homosexual and introduced the children to his lover, who was frequently seen on campus. Nickie Tohill, the mother of one of the pupils, along with three other parents, contacted the school board and complained. Instead of finding protection for their children, they found themselves under fire from the Texas State Teachers Association, a pro-homosexual teachers union affiliated with the National Education Association. The union threatened to sue the parents for defamation.

After the parents’ complaint was filed, the homosexual teacher systematically harassed and ridiculed the children in class. He called one little girl aside for a private meeting to make fun of her and shook his fist at parents in the school parking lot.1

The Rutherford Institute sent a letter to the school board on behalf of the parents demanding that the teacher not come within 50 feet of the children. The letter stated that the district would be responsible for any failure to comply with the request. A letter was also sent to the Texas State Teachers Association admonishing them for showing more concern for their political agenda than for the children.2

The Texas State Teachers Association withdrew its threat of a lawsuit.3

More of these situations may soon arise. A national homosexual teachers organization, Gay, Lesbian and Straight Teachers Network (GLSTN), is working toward introducing children to homosexuality at all ages. Committed to ending "homophobia" in schools, GLSTN is working to establish October as National Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual History Month.

1 Case summary of Tohill v. Stewart, argued by The Rutherford Institute.
2 Telephone interview conducted February 4, 1997, with Kelly Shackleford,
  legal counsel for The Rutherford Institute.
3 Tohill v. Stewart, argued by The Rutherford Institute.

MORAL NEUTRALITY?
Far from being morally neutral, laws such as this essentially place the a stamp of approval on behaviors most parents would rather were not inadvertently endorsed by the authority of government. Bob Larimer, Spokesman for the No Official Preferential Employment Committee (N.O.P.E.) says, "I-677 means children will be exposed to homosexuality: I-677 will legitimize and condone sexual behaviors parents may find inappropriate or immoral, and impose them on their children. Homosexual lifestyles will be openly displayed and "cross-dressing" by teachers will not be prohibited. That's because proponents of I-677 do not really believe that sexual orientation is irrelevant to hiring and firing decisions. If that were so, they would not have conceived of this initiative that has sexual orientation as its sole focus."

In a recent Town Meeting to debate the initiative, openly homosexual Washington State Representative Ed Murray evoked images of Nazism and the holocaust to draw sympathy for economically deprived and politically powerless sexual "minorities" like himself. But not every sexual "minority" seems to sympathize with the Jew. As the following anecdote reveals, religious folk with objections to gross crassness are shoved to the back of the "sexual minority" workplace bus. [From TOST, p. 9 (*Confidential interview during June 1996).]

Privacy as a One-Way Street

An Orthodox Jew objected to co-workers' graphic sexual discussion. His company criticized him for complaining.

In Hollywood, California, an Orthodox Jew, who does not wish to be named, was working at his desk when two colleagues stopped nearby. They discussed openly and graphically a homosexual porn film that one of them had seen. The Orthodox Jew, who says he has nothing against homosexuals but does not approve of open discussion of sexuality, asked them politely not to talk about pornography around him. They refused to stop talking about it.

When he approached the personnel department to voice his concern, he was told to "lighten up" and "quit being such a prude." Apparently, any interference with his colleagues' enjoyment of a sexually-explicit, "gay" pornographic film (even after the fact) constituted prudish disapproval of their "sexual orientation."* Had discussion of a heterosexual porn flick taken place between two heterosexual men within earshot of a female employee, it would almost certainly have been categorized by the personnel department as the potential creation of a "hostile work environment" under sexual harassment law. Whether or not this incident met the legal threshold for harassment under current civil rights law, its dismissal by the employer represents a foretaste of the contradictory situations that ENDA may engender.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.
Thomas Jefferson 1743-1826 / Letter to Colonel Charles Yancey [January 6, 1816]

END Part 1
CONTINUE TO Part 2
WTV Home Page