Traditional Values Coalition says one major corporation may be a special target of the Obama administration in forcing acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle.

President Barack Obama has announced plans to sign an executive order banning government contractors from discriminating against employees on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. That’s essentially the intent of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would provide special protections for the LGBTQ community. The controversial measure has not passed the U.S. House.

Andrea Lafferty with Traditional Values Coalition tells OneNewsNow the political intent of the proposed executive order is clear – even to some in the liberal press.

“The Washington Post even reports that it is meant to ‘help rally the Democratic base in an election year when voter turnout will be critical,'” she notes. “Another point that’s made is that a number of wealthy homosexual donors did not give money to the Democratic Party because the president had not moved on this issue.”

That same Post article cites gay-rights activists who describe the “executive ENDA” as the fourth and final step Barack Obama can take as president to expand protections for LGBT Americans.

According to Lafferty, about a fifth of the U.S. labor force is government contractors or subcontractors that would have to comply; but one, she believes, is a special target.

“The homosexual advocates have targeted ExxonMobil,” she states. “They do hundreds of millions of dollars of business with the government, and these activists are mad that ExxonMobil will not add the LGBT to their non-discrimination policy – and because of that they want to punish ExxonMobil.”

But at the last shareholders meeting, ExxonMobil officials said there was no need for it since they don’t discriminate. Family advocate Matt Barber predicted after that vote that Obama “may well try to force Exxon to comply with the strong-arm tactics through some kind of executive order.”

Lafferty says homosexual activists and their supporters are after all corporations that won’t protect them, so the executive order is a partial victory.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to your U.S. Representative to express your concerns about the frequent and blatant usurpation of the legislative process by the executive branch.  The president should not make law unilaterally.  The U.S. Constitution requires that our national laws be created and approved by both the House and the Senate.

 This article was originally posted at the OneNewsNow.com website.

On Saturday evening (Feb. 8, 2014), U.S. Senator Mark Kirk (R-Illinois) was presented with the “Freedom” award by Equality Illinois, the state’s leading homosexual pressure group, at a swank fundraising banquet in Chicago. You can watch a video of the presentation below [or on YouTube HERE].

Senator Kirk has become one of the most liberal Republicans in Washington D.C. on homosexual-related issues with ever greater acts of pandering to the LGBTQ Lobby. (He came out for homosexual “marriage” and is pushing for passage of ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act [see homosexual activists release on Kirk and ENDA HERE], 

Read more about ENDA in the Heritage Foundation’s report on the ENDA bill HERE.

You might recall how Senator Kirk – in a capitulation whose cowardice was eclipsed only by its pettiness – recently blocked the respected pro-family organization  World Congress of Families (WCF) from securing a meeting room on Capitol Hill. This towering act in defense of “freedom” (sarcasm) came after the Senator heard complaints against WCF from some homosexual activists. World Congress, affiliated with The Howard Center, is based in Rockford, Illinois.

Thus it appears that Senator Kirk’s conception of “freedom” matches that of his intolerant homosexual activist allies. In 2012, Equality Illinois launched a vicious and slanderous campaign to deny Chick-fil-A restaurants the “freedom” to operate in Illinois. As you can see below, EQ falsely accused C-f-A of “discriminatory policies” because the latter’s Chief Operating Officer, Dan Cathy, had spoken out publicly against homosexual “marriage” as tempting the judgment of God. The Chicago “gay” group launched this “Flick the Hate” petition campaign designed to boot the Christian-owned chicken fast food franchise out of several college towns:

As you can see, Equality Illinois’ malicious campaign smeared Chick-fil-A and its COO, Dan Cathy, as representing “hate”–merely because Cathy disagreed publicly with “gay marriage.” EQ sought to petition stakeholders into cancelling their rental leases to the 19 Chick-fil-A restaurants then operating in Illinois. (Thankfully, they failed; there are now 32 C-f-A franchises in Illinois, according to the company’s website.) The EQ page reads, in part (emphasis theirs):

Chick-fil-A has 19 restaurants across Illinois, mostly on university campuses and in shopping malls.This petition will be give to key stakeholders in Illinois who lease, rent or allow Chick-fil-A to continue to sell their hate-filled homophobic “Chiken,” asking them to cut ties….

That kind of hate has no place in a business, especially in Illinois. It is a shame to be associated with such extreme intolerance and hate.

[Petition:]

…We urge you, as business and institutional leaders in Illinois, to challenge the discriminatory policies of this fast food chain and end all relationships that enable the Chick-fil-A brand to operation on your premises.

This kind of hate has no place in a business, especially in Illinois. It is a shame to be associated with such extreme intolerance and hate. 

I urge you to sever your ties immediately and “Flick-the-Hate!”

Background on Chick-fil-A

It is important to remind the reader that Chick-fil-A as a corporation never “discriminated” against homosexual customers or employees. In fact, one homosexual C-f-A franchise owner defended the restaurant chain and a New Hampshire Chick-fil-A restaurant owner supported a  “gay pride” event. What ignited the LGBT-obsessed Left was that Dan Cathy actually spoke out publicly against counterfeit “gay marriage.” The pro-homosexual/liberal campaign against Chick-fil-A also involved political opposition to proposed restaurant openings in Chicago and Boston–with liberal politicians seeking to banish C-f-A in the name of “tolerance.”

The Left’s opposition to Chick-fil-A led to a massive Christian pro-family backlash in the form of “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day,” organized by Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas governor and 2008 Republican presidential candidate. Americans by the hundreds of thousands nationwide went to their local Chick-fil-A to support the restaurant chain.

Thankfully, the homo-fascists at Equality Illinois–and their Democratic political allies who used their offices to attempt to deny Chick-fil-A the right and opportunity to expand and do business (e.g, in the economically-struggling State of Illinois) did not prevail. In fact, they succeeded only in generating more support for Chick-fil-A among many, many consumers.

As you can see below, Sen. Kirk is still recovering from the stroke he suffered in 2012. We wish him a continued and speedy recovery. Politically speaking, however, we at AFTAH are appalled at Kirk’s pandering to Hard Left activists of the sort usually associated with Democratic politics, and we plead with him to return to supporting the pro-family principles of the Republican Party Platform.

Take ACTION:  Call or write Senator Mark Kirk R-IL)  at his Washington D.C. office (202) 224-2854; or at his Chicago office (312) 886-3506; or through his online Comment Form HERE] and urge him to stop rewarding anti-Christian bigotry. Ask him to return this “Freedom Award” from the hateful anti-Christian homosexual group, Equality Illinois–which in 2012 launched a failed pressure campaign to kick Chick-fil-A restaurants out of Illinois.

More ACTION:  Call or write the Republican National Committee [Contact Form HERE] and its Chairman, Reince Priebus [202-863-8500; choose ext. “1”], and urge them to stand firm against the aggressive Homosexual Lobby, which is targeting Christian leaders and businesses like Chick-fil-A for demonization. Tell Priebus that when Republicans like Senator Mark Kirk embrace Democratic-type social liberalism, it only deflates the pro-family GOP grassroots. Lastly, urge Priebus to PUBLICLY oppose ENDA, the radical Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Thank Chairman Priebus for being publicly pro-life–but urge him also to make the case against “Big Gay Government” (e.g., ENDA)–and Obama’s push to nationalize “same-sex marriage”–as part of the RNC’s regular public Talking Points. 

You can watch the YouTube video of the Equality Illinois presentation of the “Freedom Award” to Sen. Kirk HERE

This article was originally published at the AFTAH.com blog.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is poised to rear its ugly and dangerous head again in the U.S. Senate in the next few weeks. The controversial Democrat-sponsored bill (S. 815) currently has 55 co-sponsors, only two of whom are Republicans: U.S. Senator Susan Collins (ME) and our very own, perpetually irksome U.S. Senator Mark Kirk, who has a particular fondness for all pro-homosexual legislation (don’t say we didn’t warn you). U.S. Senator Dick Durbin is also a co-sponsor.

ENDA “[p]rohibits employment discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity by covered entities (employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, or joint labor-management committees).” If passed, no public elementary school or small business owner will be permitted to refuse to hire a man masquerading as a woman.

Every decent human opposes illegitimate discrimination based on objective characteristics that carry no behavioral implications, conditions, for example, like race, sex, or nation of origin. Many people, however, believe that making distinctions among behaviors is not only a legitimate human activity, but an essential one—essential, that is, for any moral society, particularly one in which religious liberty is jealously guarded.

ENDA will curtail religious liberty by prohibiting Americans from making distinctions between right and wrong actions even when those distinctions reflect deeply held religious convictions of orthodox Christians, orthodox Jews, and Muslims.

Our founding fathers knew that religious liberty was essential to a free society. It must never be subordinated to a manufactured civil liberty to engage with absolute unfettered freedom in acts of sexual perversion. And it is not unconstitutional to allow one’s religious beliefs to shape either business or political decisions. The Left does it all the time.

It is true that ENDA has a provision that says employers have the right to require an “employee to adhere to reasonable dress or grooming standards.” It would be foolish, however, for Americans to believe that this language will help employers who don’t want to hire cross-dressers because such perverse behavior violates their religious beliefs and will harm their business.  It would be foolish because progressives believe it is unreasonable to require gender-confused men and women to dress in accordance with their actual, objective sex. To a “progressive,” prohibiting a gender-confused man from wearing lipstick, falsies, and a dress to work as a first-grade teacher or toy store clerk is unreasonable. No young child should ever see cross-dressing (or even hear anything about gender confusion or homosexuality as is happening now in our public schools).

Every homosexuality-affirming policy and bill is based on the conflation of objective conditions with no moral/behavioral implications like race, sex, and nationality, with homosexuality, which is constituted by subjective feelings and volitional behaviors that many consider immoral. Are our foolish lawmakers willing to provide special protections to other conditions similarly constituted—conditions like polyamory, paraphilias, or incest? I can hear the howls of indignation from homosexual activists that their sexual proclivities and theirs alone constitute a morally positive identity. But others will stake that claim for theirs as well. And when “identity,” which in common usage is merely the aggregate of those feelings one chooses to act upon, becomes unassailable, we’re left with a society in which moral judgment is either wholly eradicated or left exclusively to those in positions of power.

Decent people should have compassion for those who are afflicted with gender confusion, gender dysphoria, or Gender Identity Disorder. But decency, compassion, and love do not require people to affirm disordered thinking as right thinking. Quite the opposite. And compassion and love do not require people to set aside their true beliefs about what behaviors are perverse and harmful to their livelihood. Real love requires that we first know what is true. This bill is based on false, destructive assumptions and must be defeated along with any lawmaker who supports it.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send your U.S. Senators in Washington D.C. an email or a fax asking them to please vote ‘NO’ on ENDA!
(Click HERE to read the current text of this bill.)

 Click HERE to support the work of IFI.

An Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruling that gender identity is covered by Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination based on sex is being hailed as a ”sea change’‘ by transgender activist organizations. But an attorney for Liberty Counsel Action notes that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was never intended to cover gender identity and the ruling “basically says that a Bible bookstore owner, for instance, could not turn away a homosexual, cross-dressing man, a man who likes to wear a miniskirt and lipstick….”

You may remember Laurie Higgins’ articles identifying Georgetown law professor Chai Feldblum, a lesbian activist who became President Obama’s appointee to lead the EEOC.  Laurie pointed out that Feldblum sees the battle between “gay rights” and moral opposition to homosexuality as a zero sum game.  One side will win, and the other will lose.   Feldblum is on record saying: 

“Sexual liberty should win in most cases.  There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.”  And yet when push comes to shove, when religious liberty and sexual liberty conflict, she admits, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

Of course, Feldblum is correct.  Religious freedom and special homosexual so-called “rights” cannot co-exist. 

Passage of nondiscrimination legislation – specific to sexual orientation – has been attempted since 1974 in the U.S. Congress. Currently, several bills promoting ENDA are circulating in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives promoting ENDA.  Homosexual activist and U.S. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) is the chief sponsor in the U.S. House. 

Once again, Barack Obama has affirmed his commitment to radical, subversive change; his sycophancy to the homosexual lobby; and, implicitly, his embrace of heresy. He has already signed into law the dangerously flawed “Hate Crimes” bill, declared his intent to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the Defense of Marriage Act, and committed to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

Then on May 28, 2010 Obama issued the following proclamation

LGBT Americans have enriched and strengthened the fabric of our national life. From business leaders and professors to athletes and first responders, LGBT individuals have achieved success and prominence in every discipline. They are our mothers and fathers, our sons and daughters, and our friends and neighbors. Across my Administration, openly LGBT employees are serving at every level….

I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2010 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.

Joe Carter writing on the First Things blog seeks further clarity from Obama:

Perhaps he could explain how bisexuals-because of their bisexuality-have enriched America and how transgendered-because or their transgendered orientation-have have strengthened the “fabric of our national life.” In other words, maybe he could explain why alternative forms of “gender identity or sexual orientation” are something we should celebrate at the national level.

Also, I’d really love to see a few names of the transgendered folks-people who may identify as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, polysexual, or asexual-who are “serving at every level” of his administration. By my count he has exactly one example.

Obama wants all Americans to “recognize the immeasurable contributions of LGBT Americans,” insisting that “LGBT Americans have enriched and strengthened the fabric of our national life.”

No sane person would ever argue that homosexuals have contributed nothing to society. That’s as absurd as claiming that adulterers, porn users, or gossips have contributed nothing to society.

But the sexual impulses and sexual behavior of homosexuals and cross-dressers are irrelevant to their contributions. Therefore, making irrelevant characteristics the central focus of “Pride” month as Obama did is absurd. More important, the particular irrelevant characteristics that Obama has chosen to highlight are, in the view of many, disordered and immoral.

Those who experience, for example, selfish, vain, greedy, gluttonous, deceitful, promiscuous, incestuous, sadistic, pederastic, gossipy, philandering, or polyamorous impulses and engage in behaviors impelled by such impulses have also contributed to society. How would Americans respond if the president were to proclaim June “Polyamory Pride Month”? Substituting another irrelevant and morally questionable characteristic for homosexuality brings into sharper relief the dubious nature of Obama’s proclamation.

Joe Carter emphasizes this point:

Presumably all of these Americans who have “enriched and strengthened the fabric of our national life” have other characteristics besides their sexual orientation. They are men and women, black and Asian, right-handed and left-handed, etc. So what is the purpose of using their sexual identification as a marker if it has no bearing on their accomplishments?

Imagine if we swapped out “LGBT” for “left-handed white people” in his proclamation: “Left-handed white Americans have enriched and strengthened the fabric of our national life. From business leaders and professors to athletes and first responders, left-handed white individuals have achieved success and prominence in every discipline. They are our mothers and fathers, our sons and daughters, and our friends and neighbors. Across my Administration, openly left-handed, white employees are serving at every level.”

Now if Obama has said this you’d probably say it was a bit silly, even a tad bit racist. Why in the world would we need to praise people for traits that have no bearing on either their achievements or their worth as individuals?

All mature people understand that fallen, sinful humans also do good acts and make positive contributions to society because fallen, sinful people are all that the world has. There exists nothing but fallen, sinful people who experience disordered impulses and engage in immoral behaviors. We don’t honor our fellow men and women for those impulses and behaviors; we honor them for their good deeds.

It is justifiable to single out for special attention the accomplishments of a group defined by characteristics that carry no behavioral implications open to moral assessment and whose contributions are overlooked because of society’s ignorance or bigotry, like African Americans or the disabled. But homosexuality is not ontologically equivalent to race or disability, and volitional homosexual conduct is a legitimate object of moral assessment.

Obama is using his power, his position, and this proclamation to make a fallacious association between good deeds and homosexuality. It is an exploitative stratagem to normalize homosexuality. Associate homosexuality with something positive like creativity, compassion, or self-sacrifice, and eventually the good feelings society has for creativity, compassion, or self- sacrifice will be (irrationally) transferred to homosexuality or cross-dressing.

It’s critical to understand the fallacious assumptions embedded in Obama’s declaration because these assumptions are promoted in many societal contexts, including public education. Homosexuals are not a category of humans in the same sense that racial minorities are a category of humans. Homosexuality is a sin disposition–not a morally neutral condition like skin color. When homosexuals have contributed something of value to society, those contributions should be noted. Their sexual predilections, however, are worthy of neither honor nor mention.

My sense and the sense of those who are similarly engaged in the cultural debate about homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder is that far too many conservatives refuse to participate in this critical debate for a number of reasons, including an unbiblical and selfish unwillingness to experience persecution (aka cowardice); an unbiblical unwillingness to experience righteous anger; and a (perhaps willful) ignorance of the cultural implications of their indefensible passivity even as perversion is promoted as righteousness through our public schools, courts, legislatures, news media, entertainment industry–and even the highest elective office in the United States.

Editor’s Note: IFI requested comments or clarifications on the AOL article from Focus on the Family. They did not respond.

There has been much speculation about why James Dobson left Focus on the Family (FOTF). The speculation is that he was, in effect, forced out because some in leadership hope to create a kindler, gentler face for FOTF, which seems strange in that it’s hard to imagine someone kindler or gentler than James Dobson.

Pastor Ken Hutcherson writes that “Focus does have a new focus; an image change designed to make them accepted and well-liked rather than standing for righteousness in an unrighteous society.”

A recent AOL article about the shift in leadership at FOTF, although not providing proof for those rumors, does suggest they may be true.

James Dobson’s replacement Jim Daly said:

“When you look back from a pro-life perspective, what were the gains there?…We don’t see the results for the energy, the money, everything else that’s been poured into the political sphere.”

Daly is simply wrong in his assertion that the pro-life position has seen little or no gains. Because of the perseverance of pro-life warriors, polls show that there has been significant decline in support for the anti-life position, particularly among the younger generation.

Daly also said:

“We as a Christian community need to refocus a bit on what’s important in the culture. For us, it’s family. That’s our mission….I don’t know what will happen with same-sex marriage, but I’m not going to be discouraged if we lose some of those battles, [for] 98 percent of people, traditional marriage will remain relevant.”

This statement reveals a rather surprising naivete. Perhaps Mr. Daly hasn’t read any of the research done by Stanley Kurtz who found that when “same-sex marriage” was legalized in Scandinavia, heterosexual investment in traditional marriage declined. This makes sense. Legalized “same-sex marriage” embodies and promotes the radical and subversive ideas that marriage has no intrinsic connection to heterosexuality and no intrinsic connection to procreation, so why should 98 percent of the population find an institution that is unrelated to heterosexuality and unrelated to procreation relevant? Why should those who do not hold orthodox Jewish, Muslim, or Christian views find traditional marriage relevant?

If the family is FOTF’s mission, then they better figure out how to stop the pro-homosexual juggernaut — nicely, of course — because soon every child from kindergarten through high school will be taught about “diverse family structures” and Heather’s two nice mommies.

What FOTF needs to bear in mind is that while it’s easy for the pro-life position to be advanced through emotional appeals to the heart like the Tim Tebow ad that aired during the Super Bowl, it’s very difficult for the pro-traditional marriage and anti-homosexuality position to do that. The other side has the clear narrative advantage. It’s much easier to create a touching film about a little boy with two mommies or a picture book about cute furry homosexual animals than it is to create heartstring-tugging picture books and films that show the immorality and societal devastation of homosexual practice and “same-sex marriage.”

We live, and move, and have our being in a culture that Neil Postman described as a place where “imagery, narrative, presentness, simultaneity, intimacy, immediate gratification, and quick emotional response” reign supreme and where “logic, sequence, history, exposition, objectivity, detachment, and discipline” resonate little. This means that those who can create compelling stories that pack an emotional punch will win the hearts and minds of Americans. Those who must rely on logic, exposition, and objectivity are at a distinct polemical disadvantage.

As evidence for his claim that a kindler, gentler approach to cultural issues is more effective, Daly claimed that the soft Tebow ad was a “game changer.” What a Barna poll showed was that of those who believe abortion should be legal, 4 percent said the commercial was cause for them to reconsider their opinion about abortion. Oddly, the poll also showed that the ad caused 8 percent of those who believe abortion should not be legal to reconsider their opinion on abortion.

Methinks Mr. Daly overstates the case, but perhaps the ad will be a “game changer.” If so, then FOTF should make a slick and soft game-changing ad about homosexuality.

For the most part the church has long adopted the soft, “We heart homosexuality” approach, dribbling virtually no energy or money into the political sphere, and we see the effects: even as the younger generation of Christians moves to an anti-abortion position, they have moved to a love the sinnerand the sin position on homosexuality.

Mr. Daly also said “I will continue to defend traditional marriage, but I’m not going to demean human beings for (sic) the process.” To whom exactly is Jim Daly alluding? James Dobson? Or is he referring to those relatively few stalwart culture warriors who are willing to endure the malignant lies and obscene epithets that a courageous stand for truth in the public square on this issue elicits? The language employed by Mr. Daly here is the kind of language commonly employed by either homosexualists (i.e., homosexuals and those who support their ontological, moral, and political views) or by those Christians who are unwilling to publicly condemn volitional homosexual practice as immoral, even as our public schools affirm homosexuality to children with public money.

Who defines “demeaning” for FOTF? That’s a critical question because those who affirm a homosexual identity believe that public statements about the immorality of volitional homosexual acts are demeaning. And those who support legalized “same-sex marriage” believe that moral opposition to it is demeaning. If FOTF allows the culture to define what is demeaning, then silence is their only option.

Moving forward, how will FOTF oppose “homosexual marriage”?

How will FOTF oppose the widespread cultural embrace of specious ideas about the nature and morality of homosexuality, even among Christians?

How will FOTF work to stop the exposure of elementary, middle, and high school students in public schools to homosexuality-affirming resources disguised as “anti-bullying” resources?

Mr. Daly rejects being “highly confrontational,” a commitment with which I would wholeheartedly agree — depending on how “confrontational” is defined. If Daly means that he seeks to confront the culture, but without hostility, his goal is admirable. If, on the other hand, he is rejecting not just hostility but also cultural confrontations, then there’s a problem. To confront means to defy or come up against, which is what will be required if we hope to protect the unborn, children, the family, speech rights, religious liberty, and truth.

Shouldn’t we boldly confront the efforts of homosexualists who are working feverishly to expose our littlest ones to homosexuality and “transgenderism” in our public schools? How perverse does the behavior that our public schools affirm have to become and how young the children to whom and in whom it’s affirmed before the church as well as para-church organizations will become willing to confront the unproven, corrupt ideas promoted in public schools?

It certainly has not been any mythical confrontational tactics of serious orthodox Christians that have rendered our Christian youth vulnerable to the specious secular arguments used to normalize homosexuality. Here’s what has led the body of Christ, including our youth, to respect and affirm heresy:

• The cowardice and ignorance of the church which results in a retreat from the public square
• The successful infiltration of homosexual activism in public education through critical pedagogy, Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN)and its satellite Illinois Safe Schools Alliance, the National Education Association, the American Library Association, schools or departments of education that are dominated by “progressives” who train teachers, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “educational” project ironically named “Teaching Tolerance,” and numerous “anti-bullying” curricula and resources
• Hollywood that uses the powerful media of television and film to transform cultural views by idealizing homosexuality and ridiculing traditional views of sexuality without ever having to make a well-supported argument. Hollywood knows that if there’s one thing Americans hate, it’s being uncool.
• Judicial activism
• The biased mainstream news media that celebrates homosexuality through sound bites and imagery
• Advertising that uses imagery to glamorize homosexuality

Far too many churches and para-church organizations are adopting emasculated approaches to the pro-homosexual movement. Not only are we not pro-active in preparing our youth intellectually to understand the specious secular arguments used to normalize homosexuality, but we’re not even sufficiently re-active.

Just when the cultural threat is greatest; when Obama has appointed lesbian law professor Chai Feldblum to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; when he has appointed Kevin Jennings, homosexual founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network to be the Safe Schools “czar”; when the “Hate Crimes” bill has passed Congress; when the Employment Non-Discrimination Act is soon up for a vote; when the Student Non-Discrimination Act has been proposed; when the Safe Schools Improvement Act has been proposed; and when efforts to eradicate marriage continue unabated, we need warriors who are willing to confront lies and protect children.

Let’s hope and pray that Focus on the Family continues to lead courageously, perseveringly, and unambiguously on the critical cultural issues pertaining to life, family, and marriage.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is again being considered by our lawmakers in Washington D.C. ENDA is a federal law proposed by the homosexual lobby and would create a special class of protection based on someone’s actual or perceived ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘gender preference.’ The law would force Christian schools, organizations, Christian business owners, and more to hire and give preferential treatment to people involved in homosexual behavior and/or people physically altering their gender.

ACTION: Please ask your U.S. Representative in Washington D.C. to please vote ‘NO’ on ENDA! (Click HERE to read the current text of this bill.)

Twelve of Illinois’ 19 members of the U.S. House of Representatives are co-sponsors of this anti-business, anti-religious bill. Two are Republican: Judy Biggert and Mark Kirk. The other ten are Democrats: Mellisa Bean, Danny Davis, Bill Foster, Luis Gutierrez, Deborah Halvorson, Phil Hare, Jesse Jackson Jr., Mark Kirk, Mike Quigley, Bobby Rush, and Jan Schakowsky.

Background
Practically, how would ENDA be applied?

• A male teacher comes into work dressed as a woman because it is his ‘gender preference’ that day. He must be allowed to teach, talk with the children about why he’s dressing this way, and even use the women’s restroom.
• As a Christian business owner, you decide not to hire a person who is openly engaging in homosexual behavior because it is against your religious beliefs. You are convicted of discrimination, because ENDA only gives religious exemptions to churches and religious orders, not businesses or ministries.

ENDA will also promote an unprofessional discussion of sexuality in the workplace. People will be emboldened and be given carte blanche (in fact a governmental shield of protection) to air their sexual laundry and express their sexuality including their “gender identity.”

Morevoer, employers will face conflicts between meeting their duty to provide a fair and professional environment free of sexual harassment and making accommodations for employees’ sexual expressions in the workplace.

The Human Rights Campaign, the homosexual lobbying group with the $30+ million budget that is pushing hard to get ENDA passed in Congress, has described what it would like a ‘non-discrimination’ workplace to look like. Actions go as far as distributing Transgender Handouts at work. CLICK HERE to read more.

Unfortunately, due to the billions of dollars behind the pro-homosexual lobby, the U.S. House of Representatives is very close to passing this bill, and thousands of homosexual-friendly businesses and business associations have signed onto the law. CLICK HERE to see which businesses and associations favor ENDA.

MORE ACTION: If you are a member of an association supporting ENDA, call immediately and voice opposition!

As Christians, employees, and business owners, it is important that we understand ENDA, and with a voice louder than the homosexual lobby, tell our state leaders this bill violates American and Christian liberties.

Georgetown University lesbian law professor Chai Feldblum believes that when same-sex is marriage is legalized, which she argues is both necessary and inevitable, conservative people of faith will lose religious rights. She is also one of the authors of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which would provide special protections for those who choose to base their identity on their same-sex attraction or their disordered desire to do the impossible: change their sex. 

And this is the same Chai Feldblum whom President Barack Obama has appointed to serve on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). He used the legal but divisive mechanism of recess appointments, which allow him to appoint people to serve in important government roles without being confirmed by the U.S. Senate. According to the homosexual newspaper, Windy City Times, “Feldblum, as part of the commission, will have considerable influence in the writing of federal regulations to enforce” the deeply troubling ENDA if it’s passed.

Feldblum, speaking at a Becket Fund Symposium in December 2005 stated the following:

[L]et us postulate, for the moment, that in some number of years an overwhelming majority of jurisdictions in this country will have changed their laws so that LGBT people will have full equality in society, including access to civil marriage. Or, indeed, let us postulate that the entire country is governed – as a matter of federal statutory and constitutional law – on the basis of full equality for LGBT people….

Assume for the moment that these beliefs ultimately translate into the passage of laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and that provide same-sex couples the same societal supports currently available to opposite-sex couples, including access to civil marriage. . . . [G]ranting this justified liberty and equality to gay people will likely put a burden on those religious people who believe acting on one’s same-sex sexual orientation is a sin and who may feel they are aiding and abetting sin if they rent an apartment to a gay couple, allow a gay couple to eat at their restaurant, or provide health benefits to a same-sex spouse….

Let me be very clear…in almost all the situations…I believe the burden on religious people that will be caused by granting gay people full equality will be justified….

That is because I believe granting liberty to gay people advances a compelling government interest, that such an interest cannot be adequately advanced if “pockets of resistance” to a societal statement of equality are permitted to flourish, and hence that a law that permits no individual exceptions based on religious beliefs will be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal of liberty for gay people….

Not surprisingly, following her nomination to the EEOC, Feldblum requested that her name be removed from the subversive document she signed in 2006 entitled “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families and Relationships,” which begins with this troubling statement:

We, the undersigned – lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) and allied activists, scholars, educators, writers, artists, lawyers, journalists, and community organizers — seek to offer friends and colleagues everywhere a new vision for securing governmental and private institutional recognition of diverse kinds of partnerships, households, kinship relationships and families. In so doing, we hope to move beyond the narrow confines of marriage politics as they exist in the United States today.

We seek access to a flexible set of economic benefits and options regardless of sexual orientation, race, gender/gender identity, class, or citizenship status.

The “Beyond Marriage” authors seek to have “Committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner” as well as “Queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households” be recognized as families and accorded all the benefits of traditional marriages.

Click HERE to watch a short and important video that exposes the radical nature of Feldblum’s vision for America, American jurisprudence, and religious liberty. 

And here are the titles of just three of Feldblum’s scholarly articles:

• “Moral Conflict and Liberty: Gay Rights and Religion” 
• “The Right to Define One’s Own Concept of Existence: What Lawrence Can Mean for Intersex and Transgender People” 
• “Gay is Good: The Moral Case for Marriage Equality and More” in which she asserts that “even if gay couples succeed in ‘getting marriage,’ the gay rights movement may have missed a critical opportunity – a chance to make a positive moral case for gay sex and gay couples. In other words, it will have missed the opportunity to argue that ‘gay is good,'” and that “changing the public’s perception of the morality of gay sex and of changing one’s gender may ultimately be necessary to achieve true equality for LGBT people.”

If conservatives continue to self-censor, if we refuse to courageously and publicly counter the relentless, pervasive, deafening cultural messages that affirm homosexual acts as moral, we will lose speech rights, religious liberty, and we will see the destruction of marriage and the natural family. 

There’s no point now in expressing your opposition to Feldblum’s appointment: Obama doesn’t care, and the Senate won’t be consulted.