Frank and Kennedy are now attempting to placate religious groups by removing
a particularly dangerous section from this bill. Under the original ENDA homosexual
protection bill, religious organizations were covered by ENDA if they engaged
in any business-related activities. This made religious bookstores, radio stations,
and even churches subject to this pro-homosexual legislation if they generated
income that was taxable by the IRS.
The decision to remove this section is designed to lull religious groups into
a sense of well-being, so that ENDA will have a better chance at passage. Once
the bill is passed, homosexual activists will then sue religious groups to force
compliance with the law.
Deb Price, a lesbian columnist doesn't believe that "religion" should
be an excuse for "discrimination." In arguing against the Religious
Liberty Protection Act passed by Congress in 1999, Price noted: "Religion
should not be treated as a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card that lets people pick
and choose which laws to obey." Lesbian activist Price believes that a
person's religious beliefs are irrelevant and should be violated in order to
"protect" homosexuals.
ENDA would certainly violate the religious beliefs of Christians, Jews, and
others in the workplace who believe that homosexuality is a sinful and perverted
behavior. Under ENDA, a person can be punished if he engages in any behavior
that is deemed to "coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere" with
any individual because of his actual or "perceived" sexual orientation.
In short, a religious person commits a federal crime if he drops an evangelistic
tract on the desk of a homosexual co-worker. If the homosexual feels intimidated
by such a benign action, he can sue under ENDA. Likewise, if a Christian or
any other worker verbalizes his beliefs about homosexuality, he can be sued.
ENDA is also being used by Barney Frank as a stealth weapon to provide federal
protection in the workplace for cross-dressers and transsexuals. In a 1999 Transgender
Internet Forum, Frank told his cross-dressing allies: "?I agree absolutely
that transgendered people should be protected from discrimination. But I do
not think at this point we would have any success whatsoever if we sought to
go beyond the current wording of ENDA." Frank then suggested that once
ENDA is passed, the Clinton Justice Department would be used to sue on behalf
of transgendered individuals to provide them with federal protection.
ENDA will most certainly protect homosexuals and cross-dressers from workplace
discrimination-but only by violating the constitutionally protected rights to
free speech and religion of every worker in America. This is far too great a
price to pay to protect the sensitivities of individuals who engage in oral
and anal sodomy-or to protect sexually confused men who think they should be
free to wear dresses to work.