‘Equality Act” Legislation Is Forced Acceptance of Sexual Sin
Nearly 12 years ago to the day, I wrote a nationally syndicated op-ed titled, “Homosexuality Is Not A Civil Right.” As you might guess, I was pilloried by those who were offended that I would say such a thing. Homosexuality and all such behavioral choices are chosen practices. They are no more a civil right than eating, walking or climbing trees are civil rights.
It was 2007 and at that time, I was warning the nation that the then proposed federal “Employment Nondiscrimination Act” or ENDA, H.R.2015, as it was called, would add “actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity as a category to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.”
Homosexual activists, even the Washington Post took exception as did the George Soros funded neo-Leninist front groups who unleashed torrents of ad hominem attacks. But, I wear big boy pants. Men who think holding hands with another man while trying to talk and walk like a woman is no more a civil right than a woman trying to act like a man. And I condemn the codification of a behavioral choice that mandates approval of sexual lunacy. Specific to my point: should the ingesting of razor blades or glass be codified?
As I said at the time, if I were not right the “feral flower children” wouldn’t have been attacking me as they were. I was as relentless in my intractable position that “ENDA” was a stealth act to undermine Christianity and rewrite the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as the attacks against me, accept for the proviso that I was right.
Twelve years later, Starr Parker has validated everything that I said would happen. Parker in an op-ed titled, “The Suicidal Equality Act of 2019.” (May 8, 2019) In it she states: “The House Judiciary Committee has voted out the Equality Act of 2019. It now heads for a vote on the House floor with 240 co-sponsors, which means its passage is virtually certain. … The legislation amends all major civil rights law, including the 1964 Civil Rights Act, to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” along with race, sex and religion as classes that are protected from discrimination…We now have a majority of members of Congress who are prepared to pass into law that the sex individuals are born with – their chromosomal and physical reality – will take a back seat to how those individuals choose to define their own sexual identity. Henceforth, we’ll be done with the idea that there is some objective reality independent of what of any particular individual decides it is.”
Begin reading my 2007 article here:
While the nation’s news outlets are riveted on the Jena 6 and O.J. Simpson, an insidious undermining of the workplace advances virtually unnoticed.
That creeping darkness is the federal Employment Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA, H.R. 2015. If the proposed measure becomes law, it will add “actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity” as a category to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It would give special employment rights to homosexuals and the transgendered that would not only harm the integrity of faith-based organizations, but it would specifically undermine an employer’s ability to grow his/her business in a productive and profitable way.
Civil rights and homosexual rights are not synonymous. Civil rights focus on the right to vote, the guaranteed access to public accommodations, and the desegregation of public facilities and schools. They have never been, nor should they ever be, about attempting to have the federal government mandate acceptance of a particular lifestyle behavior.
Homosexuals and cross-dressers may in fact be a lot of things, but an oppressed minority they are not. And I, for one, resent their temerity in suggesting that a rejection of their chosen lifestyle/behavior is in any way equivalent to what truly oppressed peoples in this country went through for the right to vote, sit at a lunch counter and/or stay in the hotel of their choice.
Homosexuals are not immutable – there is a difference between refusing to change one’s behavior and being unable to change the color of one’s skin. They are no more economically deprived than others, and they certainly do not have a history of political and historical powerlessness. Ergo, sexual orientation is not a civil right. Homosexual activists represent one of the most powerful lobbies per capita in the country. But I digress.
ENDA would apply to businesses with 15 or more employees and would make it illegal for employers “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment of the individual, because of such individuals’ actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.”
In layman’s terms, said lawyer-speak means, if ENDA becomes law (and I am in no way attempting to inject humor here), the branch manager of your local bank could, without fear of penalty, come to work looking like “Boy George in Liza Minnelli 1980s drag makeup, complete in his working girl commuter-friendly disco sneakers.” And there wouldn’t be a thing the bank could do or say about it – no matter how offended its customers might be or how uncomfortable it would make the other employees.
Passage of ENDA means that the surgeon scheduled to perform your operation could decide to do same in his blond wig with full mascara and his Playtex plus-size bra, and there wouldn’t be a thing the hospital could say or do.
It means that your child’s second-grade teacher could decide she was going to dress like a man, complete with makeup to simulate facial hair, and the school would have no recourse. And it goes without saying that the owner of a local Bible bookstore would be powerless to prevent a homosexual employee from holding hands with his or her homosexual lover within the workplace. Any attempt to prevent said behavior would result in immediate litigation.
Some may say, “That wouldn’t happen – Massie’s citing ridiculous and imaginary examples simply to scare the public.” My response to that reasoning is that if the examples I have delineated are not intended and expected outcomes of those supporting ENDA, then why is there a need for such legislation? Businesses are already prohibited from hiring, firing or making employment decisions based on race, sex, color, national origin, age, religion or disability.
Business owners and companies are in business to be successful, and accordingly there are acceptable protocols pursuant to same within the martinet of said business culture. To legislate the undermining of this culture is unprincipled, but obviously not out of character for many of today’s legislators.
Homosexuals enjoy the same basic rights and privileges of heterosexuals within the context of the mores and traditions of civilized society, but that doesn’t mean everyone must love, cherish or ingratiate themselves to every other group within that society. It is perfectly legitimate to disapprove of someone for whatever reason.
To disapprove of an individual’s aberrant sexual proclivities is not synonymous with rejecting the individual. In all of the countless discussions and debates in which I have participated, I have never heard it once said that homosexuals are xenobiotic or xenogenetic – the discussions center on the act itself and an unwillingness to be forced into an acceptance of said act as natural.
ENDA is the latest attempt to have the federal government enforce what businesses and individuals overwhelmingly reject, i.e., mandated acceptance of a particular lifestyle to the exclusion of their core beliefs and principles. Homosexual activists are demanding the government mandate that rational Americans reject the reality they know to be true and believe that men can be women and vice versa.
If ENDA passes, organizations like the Boy Scouts, youth camps, religious bookstores and faith-based services would immediately fall victim to liberal courts eager to do the bidding of those who seek to alter the accepted sexual construct representative of civilized society.
Organizations and companies that have served the public for decades would be forced into adopting that which they are opposed to, or lose their ability to continue serving the public. Where is the civil right in that?
I do not labor fighting for and revealing the truth because I have nothing better to do. I do not do it for fame or fortune. If I were in it for the money, I would be a sellout ideologue like 99 percent of those you see pontificating on the idiot flat-screen positioned somewhere in your home and office. I would parrot the party line all the way to the bank.
No party ideologue will admit on national programming that the homosexual activists are a rabid group, demonically possessed committed to destroying the family, the church, our laws, and the educational system.
They will not tell you because they either participate in said sexual perversion or because they fear the backlash. Neither is true in my case. Nor is it true that I “hate” homosexuals, not even Obama, but I digress. I hate the sin of homosexuality and I hate seeing my country and the values that made her the envy of the civilized world, submersed and transmogrified into a national den of iniquity.
It is the cruelest form of mental illness that leads a person to believe such sexual behavior is not a lifestyle choice. As I have said before: “The idea that a person can change their sex simply by thinking they are not the male or female they were born is utter foolishness; regardless of the newly created psycho-idiomatic lexicon now being employed to identify the ever-increasing sub-categories of this dysphoria. It is a form of an irrational psychological imbalance that is self-destructive. It is a mental disorder.” (See: Transgenderism Is A Mental Disorder Not A Sexual Identity; 12/31/2018)
About the Author
Mychal Massie
Mychal S. Massie is an ordained minister who spent 13 years in full-time Christian Ministry. Today he serves as founder and Chairman of the Racial Policy Center (RPC), a think tank he officially founded in September 2015. RPC advocates for a colorblind society. He was founder and president of the non-profit “In His Name Ministries.” He is the former National Chairman of a conservative Capitol Hill think tank; and a former member of the think tank National Center for Public Policy Research. Read entire bio here