The Barber of Concerned Women-Ville on ENDA

October 24, 2007

[UPDATE – 10/25/2007, 10:30 CDT: There’s an audio file on CWA’s website featuring the Barber of Concerned Women-Ville.  I haven’t listened to it yet, but I’m guessing it will be good for a few laughs.] 

That ‘concerned woman,’ Matt Barber speaketh:

Matt Barber, CWA’s Policy Director for Cultural Issues, said, “ENDA pits the government directly against religion, which is unconstitutional on its face. It would force employers to check their First Amendment guaranteed rights to freedom of religion, speech and association at the workplace door. It would make federal lawbreakers out of Christian, Jewish or Muslim business owners who honor their faith and would require that newfangled ‘gay rights’ based entirely upon individuals’ sexual choices trump employers’ enumerated constitutional rights.  

Uhhhhhhhh…you mean the way that existing anti-discrimination law makes ‘federal lawbreakers’ out of business owners who might ‘honor their faith’ by not wanting to have any employees of a different faith?  Or business owners who might have a faith that includes doctrine about non-whites being inferior to whites and who might want to ‘honor their faith’ by not wanting to have any non-white employees?  You know…that pesky Title VII that protects employees’ religious choices, trumping employers’ religious choices?

ENDA would force business owners to betray their faith and adopt a view of sexual morality which directly conflicts with fundamental tenets of that faith.

You mean the way that virtually all federal statutory and constitutional law would does force business owners to ‘betray their faith’ about ‘sexual morality’ if said faith included doctrine that commands adherents to discriminate against those who interracially marry?

You mean like that, eh Matt?

Well, while Matt is thinking that over, lets see what a ‘concerned’ actual woman has to say:

 Shari Rendall, CWA’s Director of Legislation and Public Policy, said of ENDA, “This bill would unfairly extend special privileges based on an individual’s changeable sexual behaviors rather than focusing on immutable, non-behavior characteristics such as skin color or sex.”

Notice she didn’t talk about the mutable, behavioral characteristic of religion?

“Its passage would both overtly discriminate against and muzzle people of faith. This bill is even more dangerous than pending ‘hate crimes’ legislation.”

Uh oh! Looks like someone didn’t have her rant vetted!  Looks like someone tipped the christianists’ hand.

A civil statute is more dangerous than a criminal one?

Business owners’ moolah is more important than innocent people (people you feel would be innocent of any legitimate crime) staying out of prison?

Yep – she laid the christofascist gameplan right out on the table for everyone to see: The money of the christofascist elites is more important than the freedom of the christofascists’ followers.

Gotta love it.  I don’t think the leaders of the ‘concerned women’ will, though.

Don’t worry Shari. 

I’m sure you’ll be able to land a gig at Bob Jones U – or maybe with the Fred Thompson presidential campaign.