Comments on: What’s Up with This?

By: T

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:01:42 +0000

I’m still unsure how this bill results in a loss of religious and economic freedoms. I think it makes a lot of sense to defer to employers to decide under what circumstances termination of employment is appropriate. I believe in free market principles and am confident that employers would make the best decision as determined accordingly.
However, our Constitution has laid out several, specific rights that individuals in the United States are entitled to. The first among these special rights, is the Right to the Free Exercise of Religion. This entitles individuals to practice their religion of choice “(with a few limitations), free from government interference.
The ENDA requires no violation of the Free Exercise Clause (or the Establishment Clause for that matter). It simply requires employers to provide a work environment that is free from discrimination based on sexual preference – there are already countless statutes protecting against other forms of discrimination in the work place.
Most importantly, this statute does not prohibit employers from terminating employment where an employee is disruptive in the workplace, it only requires that an employer not terminate employment or refuse to employ a person based on sexual preference, just like an employer could not terminate employment or refuse to employ a person based on skin color or religious preference.
“If the gay lobby had its way, employers might well be required to fire people who had Christian beliefs â€” or that least forbid them to discuss those beliefs.”
I was unaware that the “gay lobby” was so hostile towards Christian beliefs. Also, unlike the ENDA, requiring employers to fire people who have Christian BELIEFS would clearly violate the First Amendment right to free exercise. The legislation also would not require employers to fire employees for discussion Christian beliefs, as long as they were not harassing another employee, creating a hostile workplace, or impermissibly discriminating against a group.
Finally, I am surprised at your willingness to not only claim to both be a good Christian while being so insensitive to an innocent group of people, but I am appalled at your use of Christianity as a justification for this hostility.

By: PaulNoonan

PaulNoonan — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 04:18:28 +0000

Who is us?

By: Jacob

Jacob — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:47:05 +0000

ZC says, “Hang out with gay people sometime, theyâ€™re just like us.” What he neglects is the fact that they are, for quite obvious reasons, not just like “us.”

By: dekerivers

dekerivers — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:39:51 +0000

So if you oppose this bill how would you end discrimination against an individual on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation? Are gay people just expected to accept discrimination? Discrimination is not very becoming of someone who showcases himself, as you do, of being so ‘Christian’.

Instead of writing a long piece about gay people and religion I think you might have a more enlightened time with a book. In college I read, and learned much from, “Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century”.

John Boswell’s National Book Award-winning study of the history of attitudes toward homosexuality in the early Christian West was a groundbreaking work that challenged preconceptions about the Church’s past relationship to its gay membersâ€”among them priests, bishops, and even saintsâ€”when it was first published twenty-five years ago. The historical breadth of Boswell’s research (from the Greeks to Aquinas) and the variety of sources consulted make this one of the most extensive treatments of any single aspect of Western social history.

You must be aware that a large majority of people in poll after poll state that they know gay people and favor the end to discrimination. Those who used the Bible decades ago to somehow show that various races should not marry each other have as much sway as you do on this topic. Might your thinking about the Bible and it’s teachings be flawed? Might your limited view on gay people, given your age, play a factor in your views?

And I would be curious what your fellow students who are gay have to say about this bill which you have so much to write about. As a college guy you must have gay friends.

By: John

John — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:14:01 +0000

This exists already for religious protection, so I do not see how this would be unworkable or unreasonable for employers to follow.

By: PaulNoonan

PaulNoonan — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:29:30 +0000

Prof. McAdams, I was merely asking the question to get an idea about the poster’s (and commenters’) intellectual consistency. I think you should be able to fire someone for almost anything (although I don’t think you should, and that if you do you will probably lose out to your competition). If you are against something like ENDA, you should also be in favor of forfeiting any such protections that you enjoy. It is my understanding that under current law, you cannot fire someone because of their religion. If you want to be able to fire someone for being gay, certainly you should also be able to fire someone for being religious.

By: Brandon Henak

Brandon Henak — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:02:16 +0000

Way to throw in some unsubstantiated homosexual victimization hearsay downer. When you get right down to it, if this hasn’t been used at the state level why waste time enacting it at the national level?