I-677 Briefing for the General Public: Part Two

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

Part Two: Finer Points

SEXUAL BEHAVIOR AND SEXUAL IMAGINATION "MINORITIES"
Initiative 677 proponents say that employees should be judged by their job performance, not by their sexual orientation and that I-677 would simply provide ALL employees with the same rights. But that's not true. I-677 gives bisexuals, lesbians, etc. the special privilege of legal standing that would hold businesses, government agencies and public schools hostage to allegations of discrimination on the basis of invisible attributes and unverifiable thoughts. It also gives those who think they are NOT straight this special legal privilege and, even those who claim to be straight but think that you (their coworker, supervisor or employer) think they are NOT straight get automatic legal standing in court! [see "real or perceived" language in definition of those covered by I-677]

Considering the actual Initiative 677 language, "Sec. 7. DEFINITIONS. As used in this act: . . . (2) The term 'sexual orientation' means heterosexual, lesbian, gay, or bisexual orientation, real or perceived, or having a self-image or orientation not traditionally associated with one's biological gender, real or perceived" [Emphasis added], Michael Johnston said, "The term sexual orientation has no boundaries." He further elaborated, "It means anything goes. It means whoever you are, whatever you want to do, you're included in Initiative 677." - [Former homosexual Michael Johnston, Political Seminar, Saturday, September 30th, 1997, Bothell WA]

Most employers just want employees that are good workers and could care less what sexual orientation a person claims. In fact, they really prefer that employees keep their sexual interests a private matter. But, with I-677, they will care all right. They will care a very great deal, because their business will depend on it! Looking at the following examples from TOST, pp. 12 & 13, is their any doubt as to why initiative 677 is likely to create a new underclass in the workplace?

Computer Soft-wear

A software company hired a temporary worker. When the company chose not to offer a permanent position, the employee sued on the grounds of "sexual orientation" discrimination -- only then revealing that he was a cross-dresser.

In 1993, a computer software company in California hired a temporary employee. When his temporary employment was at an end, he applied for permanent status. The employer denied the applicant on the basis that he was overqualified for the position.

The employee sued the company, claiming sexual "orientation" discrimination under California's homosexual rights law. After the suit was filed, the employer learned that the temp was really a man dressed as a woman. The inclusion of the word "perceived" in the definition of sexual "orientation" made the employer's case difficult to defend.1

The temp was able to contend that the employer's perceptions kept him from being hired. Advised by attorneys that, regardless of the merits of its case, the company could be tied up -- expensively -- for years in litigation, the employer settled out of court in 1995, paying damages and legal bills in excess of $1 million.

As a result of this costly legal attack, the company was immediately forced to lay off eight employees. The number of people laid off later grew to 20, and the company has still not fully recovered financially.2
1 Based on confidential telephone interviews, February 18, 1997.
2 Telephone interview on July 25, 1996. The employer asked for 
  confidentiality.

Innocence on Trial

Bryan Griggs was accused of "sexual orientation" discrimination. Clearing his name cost him thousands of dollars.

Just what does it mean to discriminate on the basis of "sexual orientation" in employment decisions? Bryan Griggs, president of a small business in Seattle, Washington, has had the misfortune to find out. In 1994, a former employee of Mr. Griggs filed a complaint of employment discrimination with the Seattle Human Rights Department (SHRD), stating that Mr. Griggs had created a "hostile work environment" towards homosexuals.

Mr. Griggs' offenses included playing conservative radio talk shows that carried his firm's advertisements, posting a letter from a congresswoman responding to his inquiry about her views on the military's homosexual exclusion policy, and keeping a note that he wrote to himself on his desk concerning homosexuals and adoption of children.

Due to downsizing, several company employees were laid off. One of them volunteered for a time and then left of his own accord. He later complained to SHRD that he found Mr. Griggs' opinions objectionable, but acknowledged that he had not told Mr. Griggs that any of his views was objectionable or that he was a homosexual during the time of his employment. Another former Griggs employee, who is also a homosexual, filed an affidavit with SHRD stating that he did not feel harassed in any way by Griggs' actions during the time that both he and the plaintiff worked for Mr. Griggs. The SHRD finally dismissed the complaint.

Having had to spend several thousand dollars in attorney's fees and in loss of business while defending himself, *Bryan Griggs now knows firsthand what gay job discrimination laws mean to employers. Griggs' innocence did not protect him from legal harassment of this kind, which potentially threatens virtually every business in America if a federal "gay jobs bill" becomes law.
*"Reaching to Redefine 'Hostile Environment,'" The Seattle Times,
  June 20, 1994, p. B4.

Before employers and workers in Washington state are going to give up their free speech rights for eight hours a day, the sexual "minority" lobby must demonstrate an urgent need. Are there tidal waves of complaints against employers for ousting sexual "minorities" from their jobs for no good reason? Are there tens-of-thousands of homeless, unemployed homosexuals living in poverty as were blacks and Hispanics in times past (and oftentimes today)? The answer is 60. In a recent Town Meeting debate, the proponents of I-677 admitted that they had only 60 cases in all of Washington state -- 60 cases of claimed sexual orientation based employment discrimination. And those cases are the net of a twenty-year search -- that's three cases per year! That is not a crisis, it's an excuse for grabbing power.

_____________________________________

For empirical evidence on how voting I-677 into law may stimulate court actions that radically reshape policies in private, governmental and public school workplaces, get a briefing paper on the demographics of sexual orientation "minorities" from WTV Education Foundation at 360-693-2603.

_____________________________________

QUOTAS OR EMPLOYEE PARTNER BENEFITS NOT REQUIRED - BUT?
The claim that I-677 does no more and no less than giving everyone the same workplace rights is fallacious. Although, for legitimate minorities, the promise of civil rights legislation may not be completely fulfilled, adding so-called "sexual minorities" to the list of those desperately needing employment help will do NOTHING to improve the lot of blacks, Hispanics and women. Tell me, how will giving cross-dressers, lesbians and bisexuals (and those who think they are) legal standing on the basis of their sexual choices, better the plight of real minorities?

The Employment NonDiscrimination Act of Washington proponents say that no quotas or employee partner benefits will be required by the initiative if enacted. This is true enough. With Initiative 677, "quotas or employee partner benefits" are not "required" under Section 4 of the Act: "Nothing in this act requires an employer, employment agency or labor organization to provide benefits to an employee's partner . . . Nothing in this act requires an employer, . . . to give preferential treatment to any person on the basis of his or her sexual orientation." The operative word here is "requires," because none required means quotas or partner benefits are not prohibited either.

But one of the ways to satisfy homosexual activists that efforts and attention will be given to their demands is through court-mandated workplace accommodations. The fact that schools, businesses and government agencies are not specifically forbidden from providing these privileges, virtually guarantees that they will be used as inducements to keep homosexual activists happy -- and employers out of court.

Says Robert Larimer, Spokesperson for N.O.P.E., "I-677 claims to establish no homosexual quotas but its passage would provide a launching pad for requiring complete acceptance of homosexuals by society: I-677 would force employers to take preemptive, active measures to ensure that they can convince a court of law that they are not guilty of so-called "discrimination," should a disgruntled employee or job applicant file a lawsuit."

Proponents steadfastly deny it, but the evidence militates against them -- sexual "minorities" are currently given preferential consideration for hiring in much, if not all, of state government. Strength of numbers in government employment was virtually assured for them with the Executive Orders of two consecutive prior governors (Booth Gardner's EO 85-09 of 12/24/85, EO 91-06 of 09/06/91 and Mike Lowry's EO 93-07 of 09/27/93). Under the current EO 93-07, Governor Lowry "required" that "the state executive agencies and institutions of higher education shall not discriminate in employment on the basis of an individual's sexual orientation." For teeth, the politically powerless? "sexual minority" lobby got the Governor to "Identify a liaison within the Governor's policy office to work with the community and appropriate agencies and institutions as an advocate on issues specific to gay men and lesbians in the state."

The outworking of these preferential provisions are still being gauged. Without belaboring the point here, suffice it to say that the promotion of sexual "minorities" within the largest state department, the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS), is sufficient that, in some offices, they command total proprietary control of essentially ALL cases involving "sexual minority" youth, a.k.a. "emerging" gays, lesbians transsexuals, etc. At least, the impression one gets from cases such as Alma Kidd and her daughter Hope is that these children are "identified" by erstwhile mental health "professionals" -- who claim qualification on the basis of their preferred method of achieving sexual gratification -- and judgment of the "prospective child client's" permanent sexual "orientation" is rendered by these "sexual minority" "experts" themselves. How convenient?

In DSHS, if you're a sexual "minority," the fast-track vehicle for hiring and promotion is the Sexual Minority Initiative (SMI) -- dubiously renamed the Sexual Orientation Initiative. It found its authority in Governor Lowry's Executive Order but, like all truly zealous agencies of government, the Department "liberally construed" EO 93-07 and generated a truly generous program for "helping" sexual "minorities." You may want to peruse portions of the original SMI Progress Status Report in the appendix to my briefing on Alma's case. The parts where those companies that are interested in doing business with Washington State government are "encouraged" to advertise for sexual "minority" workers in "gay" and lesbian newspapers may interest you, along with the "suggestion" that companies post notices of openings on their boards of directors with gay, lesbian, and other advocacy organizations like the ones listed as resources to the DSHS Task Force on Gay and Lesbian Concerns in their "Final Report 1993."

In addition to the blatant bureaucratic promotion of sexual "minorities" by DSHS and other agencies of our state government, Initiative 677 will institutionalize preferences within the broader business community as well. The legislature proved this past spring that they are unreliable for defense against regulatory "minority" advocacy when they reinstated funding for this program [per 10/22/97 interview with State Representative Marc Boldt]. Actually, the sexual "minority" lobby is anticipating legislative assistance in their ever-expanding program of special legal considerations, assuming they succeed in passing I-677 [see Hands Off Washington Executive Director Jan Bianchi's legislative perspectives on the WEB at <http://www.nwlink.com/~equality/jan.html>].

Of course, under I-677, the Judicial branch of our state government can be anticipated to augment the damage already begun by the Executive branch. Suffice the following examples of judicial activism to illustrate from whence the source of tyranny will emanate once "sexual minority harassment" cases begin to hit the courts of our "fair" state. From TOST, p13, comes the following story of common pilfering that was excused by California judge's affirming views.

Anything Goes -- or Else

Shell Oil lost millions for firing an employee who used company equipment to advertise a sex party for homosexuals.

In 1991, Shell Oil was fined $5.3 million by a judge for dismissing an executive, Jeffrey Collins, who had used company equipment at a Shell subsidiary firm, Triton Biosciences, to produce and copy a flyer advertising a "safe sex" party for homosexual men.* Superior Court Judge Jacqueline Taber ruled that the California company violated a policy that employees would be judged only on job performance and not on activities unrelated to their work.

The ruling effectively means that employers in California must ignore even the most outrageous outside activities of employees, even when those employees use company-owned equipment to promote them. Taber cited a 1979 California Supreme Court ruling that employees cannot be fired for off-the-job political activities. Promoting "safe sex," she reasoned, constitutes a political activity. Taber's ruling explored, in her words, "the relatively new issue of how far a corporation may go in demanding that its managerial staff, in their respective private lives, deport and conduct themselves in a manner acceptable to and meeting the corporation's concept of propriety."*

By deciding against Shell, the judge ruled that private companies cannot restrict employees from using company property to promote immoral behavior.
* All quotes Jeffrey Collins v. Shell Oil Co., Triton Biosciences, Inc.,
  et al., No. 610983-5, Appellate Department, Superior Court of California,
  Alameda County, filed June 13, 1991.

In another anecdote, from TOST, p. 7, activist judges "out" themselves as opponents of freedom of association.

Bench Pressed

Judge John Farrell never thought aiding the Boy Scouts could get him into so much trouble.

In 1993, San Fernando Superior Court Judge John Farrell was accused by fellow judges of unethical behavior and asked to resign from the bench. His "unethical" behavior involved volunteering to chaperone hikes and drive a car-pool for his two sons' Boy Scout troop outings. The Boy Scouts have been accused of "bigotry" for not allowing homosexuals to serve as scoutmasters.

Judge Farrell's troubles began in 1992 with the introduction of proposed amendments to the state's Code of Judicial Conduct offered at the annual meeting of the California Judges Association, the voluntary professional group of the state's trial and appeals judges. The judges voted to outlaw words or conduct within the courtroom that showed prejudice -- including bias based on sexual orientation. An amendment to extend the rule to a judge's out-of-court activities was later introduced. A raging debate ensued.

For Judge Farrell, it was a matter of defending his right to privacy and freedom of association. "I'm not trying to tell anybody they're doing anything wrong -- and I don't want somebody to tell me I'm doing something wrong, that there's a perfectly legal organization I can't belong to," Farrell said.*

For Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Stephen Lachs, one of several openly homosexual judges in California, the answer to Judge Farrell's dilemma was simple: "Go ahead, participate in the Boy Scouts, stay in it, but resign your judgeship."*

Tulare County Municipal Judge (and former Boy Scout) Glade F. Roper sided with Judge Farrell: "It really is not a sexuality issue. It's a question of: 'Can I think a certain way, and in my own home and my own circle of people?'"*

After months of heated debate, in 1993, the entire judges association voted on the out-of-court activities amendment. It failed by 745 to 415. In November 1994, voters approved Proposition 190, a judicial reform initiative that removed authority to write the Code of Judicial Conduct from the judges association and gave it to the state Supreme Court.

Judge Farrell, who remains on the bench, said that the irony of the situation was that homosexual judges, who say they don't want to be discriminated against, were telling him, "You're not fit to be a judge if you're involved in the Boy Scouts."*
* All quotes Alan Abrahamson, Los Angeles Times, February 8, 1995, p. B1.

The political ideology that drives SMI-type governmental invasions of the freedoms of speech, association and conscience and intrusions into the private business arena is clearly NOT unknown to judges in California and elsewhere. It permits judges, such as these in California, who outed themselves as ideologically opposed to the absolute ethical position of the Boy Scouts in barring homosexual Scout Masters (maybe Scouts administrators think that homosexuals are, perhaps, not the "best" models of manhood for young boys?), to stamp out "heterosexism" everywhere without compunction.

I-677 guarantees not the "same job rights to all" but that lesbian and bisexual behavior, etc. will become a superior determinate to race, nationality, disability and the other current minorities for purposes of special workplace provisions. Confirm this by examining I-677 Additions to Washington's Civil Rights Law - WTV Education Foundation.

MYTHICAL CLAIMS - LEGAL LIABILITIES?
Current investigations [conducted by the Human Rights Commission (HRC)] of alleged violations of civil rights law consist of a determination of the facts of the case. Relevant facts, like what was said or done to whom, by whom are either verifiable or they are not. Facts like the ethnic origin, nationality or disability status of an individual must be demonstrated conclusively. If the facts cannot be substantiated, the claimant has no case. However, were I-677 to become law, substantiation of the sexual orientation status of a claimant, an obviously impossible task, would still be required. After all, what would constitute convincing proof of bisexuality? Would as much evidence be required by a court of law to prove one's cross-dressing orientation as the military commanders demanded of Corporal Klinger on the M.A.S.H. movie and television show? After all, if Klinger couldn't make it with his wardrobe of gowns and dresses, pray tell, what would constitute sufficient evidence today?

Also, does it not seem strange that the most critical item of information to the initial investigation -- that of qualifying status -- is rendered unnecessary through the act eliminating the Washington State Human Rights Commission from the process? Although sexual orientation ("real or perceived") is irrelevant in the workplace -- insist initiative supporters -- under normal HRC procedures, it is the one and only relevant qualifier for special government protections, it is (through any civilized means) impossible to verify, but, as it turns out, it's rendered irrelevant after all by virtue of a change of venue to civil court only where even excuses of unquantifiable (ergo unverifiable) over-consumption of Twinkies during childhood is regarded an adequate defense to get a murderer off scot-free!

HETEROSEXUALS PROTECTED - LAUDABLE? OR LAUGHABLE?
Say proponents, heterosexuals are protected, too. ENDA of Washington is supposed to protect heterosexuals who are incorrectly assumed to be gay or lesbian. Hypothetically speaking, under I-677, it may be just as illegal to fire, pass over for promotion or fail to hire "heterosexuals who are incorrectly assumed to be gay or lesbian" as it would be if they were truly of a non-traditional sexual orientation. However, you are not likely to find a bevy of attorneys jockeying for a chance to litigate the next heterosexual discrimination case. Perhaps you proponents could tell us, "What self-respecting heterosexual would be caught dead suing an employer because, as a man, they weren't masculine enough or, as a woman, they were not feminine enough?"

"Under I-677," they say, "it would be just as illegal to fire someone for being straight as it would be to fire someone who is gay." I realize that "heterosexuals" are included in the verbiage of the initiative but, while I can imagine a judge and jury being coaxed into sympathy for a homosexual who was fired because of their sexual practices, or even foresee them siding with a heterosexual who claims he was mistaken for a homosexual and fired, it is a stretch to believe someone who says, " I was fired because I am a not a homosexual," or "I was fired because I'm not a lesbian," or "I was fired because [insert any absurd example you can imagine here]."

WHAT ABOUT BASIC FAIRNESS?
"I-677 is about basic fairness in the workplace," say its endorsers. "It makes discrimination against homosexuals illegal, just as discrimination against ethnic or religious groups is illegal now." But, I-677 is not fair to blacks. Proving they are black is not generally problematic. Contrariwise, proving you are bisexual would obviously present a problem and would most likely not be debated, investigated or scrutinized very aggressively. That's not being fair to blacks. It is forcing them to share their hard-earned protections unnecessarily. As Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, said in a September news conference in Seattle, "I know ex-husbands and ex-wives and I've met former homosexuals, but I've never met a former African-American."

Also, if basic fairness means taking all those currently protected -- blacks, Hispanics, women, handicapped and devoutly religious folks -- and erecting yet another hurdle for them to jump before they can get workplace equity -- the hurdle of commonsense-denying, intellectual-upending, ethics-rejecting, evidence-ignoring advocacy and normalization of transvestitism, lesbianism, etc. -- then many people confronting true hardships in employment will have to go, not to the back of the bus; they'll have to get off the bus entirely. Actually, they'll be thrown off!

It will not matter if the so-called "homophobe" in the workplace is white, black or red; Hispanic, disabled, or female; Catholic, Protestant or Mormon; under the "new tolerance" of the I-677 workplace, bisexuals, lesbians and homosexuals coming through the front door will push all minority, conscientious objectors out the back door. Do you call that tolerance? I call this "new tolerance" -- government-sponsored and government-enforced bigotry! We proud Americans, judging the policies of other nations in this regard, call it "oppression."

Amendment I to the U.S. Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . . ." But, Ernie Kubr's employer did not feel obliged to honor the most fundamental of rights as a citizen, freedom to believe (in Washington State, it's a called a creed instead of religion) and act on the dictates of one's conscience. As you review Ernie's experience from TOST, p. 9, recall that mandatory "diversity training" is policy throughout all of Washington state, plus many federal and local government workplaces as well.

Subjected to "diversity"

Ernie Kubr endured hours of interrogation before submitting to "diversity" training.

Ernie Kubr had been working in AT&T's Omaha, Nebraska, office for 13 years when the company announced a mandatory "diversity" seminar that promoted acceptance of homosexuality. Mr. Kubr objected to the content of the seminar on the grounds that it was incompatible with his religious beliefs. As a result, the Director of Diversity interrogated Mr. Kubr on three separate occasions (for a total of five hours) to persuade him to attend while demanding reasons why he objected to the seminar.

When Mr. Kubr continued to refuse to attend the seminar, the company threatened him with the loss of his job. Mr. Kubr said he was told that it is "your choice to quit if you don't go. If you don't want to go, you are choosing not to work for us." Mr. Kubr was then threatened with indefinite suspension. Under that status, he would be unable to collect unemployment because, technically, he would still be an employee of AT&T.

Mr. Kubr reluctantly attended the seminar.*
* Kubr v. AT&T, argued by The Rutherford Institute.

I-677 will divide minorities (really everyone) into two categories: one, those who accept sexual orientation "minorities" as legitimate in order to keep their jobs, and two, those who refuse to accept sexual orientation "minorities" as legitimate minorities and forfeit their jobs and careers.

Amendment I to the U.S. Constitution continues, "or abridging the freedom of speech." But, Betty Sabatino's employer was not constrained to refrain from abridging employee free speech rights in their haste to disenfranchise from their job, any who dared question the merit of preferential treatment based on sexuality. Her story is courtesy of TOST, p. 8.

Can I question homosexuality? Don't bank on it.

Betty Sabatino questioned her employer's policy on homosexuality and was fired for it.

Betty Sabatino was a personal trust administrator for Texas Commerce Bank in San Antonio and never thought that a simple question could get her in so much trouble.

On September 17, 1996, Mrs. Sabatino attended a Management Orientation Seminar. During a "Fair Employment Practice" session, she and others were walked through the Texas Commerce Policy Manual. The manual never mentioned the term sexual orientation, but participants were told at the session's end that the term would be added to the non-discrimination policy. What happened next ultimately cost Mrs. Sabatino her job.

During the question-and-answer session that followed, attendees were urged to ask questions and were assured that they were in a "safe zone." This meant they needn't fear retaliation for any inquiries. Mrs. Sabatino raised a question others were afraid to ask. She inquired why the company would choose to give special consideration to someone based solely upon sexual behavior.

After a September 20 regular staff meeting, her boss took her aside. He expressed concern about her question at the seminar. She later was contacted by the bank's Human Resources Department for "counseling."

Her boss tried to set up a meeting with her for October 4, but Mrs. Sabatino's job frequently took her out of town, and she was thus unable to meet with her boss until October 11. During that meeting, her boss again expressed concern about her question at the seminar. On October 15, 1996, less than one month after she had asked a simple question, she was officially terminated from her position with Texas Commerce Bank.

The official reason was: "Management's loss of confidence with employee."*
* Telephone interview with Betty Sabatino, Dec. 5, 1996.

The full consequences are yet to be determined, but who knows how many black people, how many Hispanic people . . . how many handicapped people will dignify their people group -- clinging to their personal integrity and holding to their belief that bisexuality, transsexuality, etc. are wrong, even though it jeopardizes their livelihoods?

SANCTIONING NON-TRADITIONAL SEXUAL ORIENTATIONS
Proponents say that this initiative doesn't "sanction homosexuality any more than current law sanctions a particular national origin or religion." My question is, "What is stifling ALL dissenting views of bisexuality doing if it not sanctioning it?" If I criticize Catholicism in the workplace I may provoke an argument, but I am not likely to be fired for it unless I turn the civil debate into a campaign to "cleanse the workplace" of Catholics. Under I-677, holding critical views of "sexual minorities" will get you fired because it will threaten the financial base of employers to permit a workplace that may be considered "hostile toward non-traditional sexual orientations." Being black or female, Jewish or Hispanic, handicapped or widowed or any legitimate minority will not be adequate to insulate you from the demands of the invisible minorities - those that don't become visible until a job, pay raise, or promotion is demanded. [Don't forget the sexual "orientation" discrimination suit that a cross-dresser at a California-based software company filed after coming out when he/she failed to attain permanent status? On the advice of counsel, it was settled out of court, costing more than $1 million.]

RELIGION, MARITAL STATUS AND GETTING OUT OF THE "AT RISK" GROUP?
For those folks that think that homosexuality is a choice and based on a characteristic that can be changed (not like the history of discrimination against African Americans who cannot change their status (skin color), initiative supporters argue that, even if one agrees that homosexuality can be changed, "discrimination based on characteristics that are a matter of choice" is already prohibited where religion and marital status are concerned. In other words, we break the rule on immutable characteristics already, so why not just keep breaking it? The problem is we don't break the rule already.

Obviously, religion and marital status are both matters of what choice one makes. But they are both categories from which it is impossible to escape. Try to name a religious status or a marital status that puts you outside of the category which still needs special protections at various times and places. It can not be done. Congressional and state legislators have found it necessary to require special protections to rectify the long-standing and pervasive discrimination against Protestants, or Catholics, or atheists, or agnostics, or singles, or marrieds, or divorcees or widows depending on various subcultures or harmful regional attitudes. These abuses have been widespread and severe in their various forms and therefore qualified for special government intervention.

Proponents are correct in saying that homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic, but unlike changes in religion or marital status, which will always place you into a group that somewhere has a history of suffering inordinate discrimination, changing from bisexuality to heterosexuality removes you from the so-called "high risk" group. You still have a sexual orientation -- you no longer have a "high risk" one for wrongful discrimination. The truth is simply, I-677 guarantees "legal standing" in court for anyone who has a beef with their employer. That's just plain wrong.

"DISCRIMINATION" - OFTEN A GOOD THING
Say proponents, "Discrimination against any group threatens all of us and should not be tolerated." Does this mean it is wrong to discriminate against a group of people who are distinguished by the fact that they have murdered someone? Or that we shouldn't discriminate against carjackers, pedophiles and others who undermine the safety and order of our society? This is a false statement. But their argument is that lesbians and cross-dressers have been pervasively hurt by workplace discrimination. How many cross-dressers have lost their jobs because they came to work in drag? Are the numbers so great that we should permit the government's iron fist to strip away the freedoms of everyone else to accommodate their concerns? I-677 is a clear trivialization of civil rights protections.

END Part 2
BACK TO Part 1
CONTINUE TO Part 3
WTV Home Page