Excerpted from an article by Robert H. Knight, Daniel S. Garcia, and Paul T. Mero*

Summary: For the past decade, homosexual activists have tried to gather momentum for a "gay civil rights" bill which would add the category of "sexual orientation" to the list of minority groups protected under the 1964 Civil rights Act. That strategy having failed repeatedly, the homosexual lobby has decided to purse its agenda incrementally through measures like "The Employment Non-Discrimination Act" (S.2238 & H.R. 4636). If the "gay jobs bill" passes, it will not only endanger the freedom of millions of Americans to conduct their businesses according to their most deeply held moral beliefs, but it will entangle businesses of all types in expensive litigation.

September 1994 – Just what does it mean to discriminate in employment based on sexual orientation? Bryan Griggs, president of a small business in Seattle, Washington, has had the misfortune to find out. Recently, a former employee of Mr. Griggs filed a complaint of employment discrimination with the Seattle Human Rights Department (SHRD), stating that Mr. Griggs had created a “hostile work environment” towards homosexuality. Mr. Griggs’ crimes include playing conservative radio talk shows that carried his firm’s advertisements, posting a letter from a congresswoman regarding his inquiry about her views on the military’s homosexual exclusion policy, and having a note that he wrote to himself on his desk concerning homosexuals and adoption of children.

The former employee, John Dill, who was laid off with several other employees, volunteered for a time and then left of his own accord. He complained to SHRD that he found Mr. Griggs’ opinions objectionable, but acknowledges that Mr. Griggs was not told that any of this was objectionable at the time, nor that Mr. Dill was a homosexual. Having had to spend several thousand dollars defending himself, Bryan Griggs now knows what “gay job discrimination” laws mean to employers. Another former Griggs employee has filed an affidavit with SHRD stating that as a homosexual, he did not feel harassed in any way by Griggs’ actions during his employment, which approximated the same time that Dill was in the office.

Griggs’ innocence did not protect him from legal harassment of this kind, which potentially threatens every business in America if a federal “gay jobs bill” becomes law. The intent of such legislation is aimed not only at legally preventing businesses from declining to hire or promote an openly homosexual person, but will lead to measures designed to create “gay affirmative” work places, thus interfering with freedom of speech, not to mention freedom of religion and freedom of association.

Talking Points
■ The issue here is not job discrimination. It is whether private businesses will be forced by law to accommodate homosexual activists’ attempts to legitimize homosexual behavior.

■ If this bill becomes law, for the first time in history Americans will be told that they must hire people they believe to be committing immoral acts precisely because they commit those acts.

■ The Senate version of the bill contains “findings” that are designed to be used to buttress legal briefs in virtually all cases involving homosexual rights, from adoption of children to gay “marriage.” Congress would be giving the homosexual rights lobby a loaded gun.

■ The recently enacted Religious Freedom Restoration Act allows government to override religious objections if the state can prove a “compelling interest” in doing so. The bill’s “findings” could be cited as evidence in efforts to prove “compelling interest.”

■ The great religions of the world condemn homosexual behavior in their scriptures. The Congress of the United States is about to tell Orthodox Jews, orthodox Christians, orthodox Muslims and members of other faiths that they can no longer allow their religious beliefs to influence their private business decisions.

■ The bill contains a religious exemption, but for-profit activities by religious organizations are specifically removed from that protection. It is unlikely that the religious exemption could retain its strength because the courts may construe it narrowly, removing many organizations that may in fact have a religious point of view but don’t have a formal relationship with a church. The Mormon Church would be particularly vulnerable, since the church leadership is often supported through for-profit corporations.

■ Because of the bill’s narrow wording regarding exemptions, institutions that could be targeted by homosexual activists include summer camps for children, the Boy Scouts, Christian bookstores, religious publishing houses, television and radio stations, and of course, any business with 15 or more employees.

■ The bill says that quotas are “prohibited.” But such legislation always leads to unofficial quotas – and, sometimes, official ones – as targets of government enforcers begin favoring government-approved groups to prove that they are abiding by the law.

■ Inclusion of “bisexuals” implies official sanction for non-monogamous sex. That would be bad at any time, but it is particularly odious in the Age of AIDS.

Passage of this bill is the first in a series of steps advancing the homosexual agenda, which includes, according to the platform adopted for the 1993 March on Washington:

– Recognition of same-sex “marriage” and “domestic partnerships”
– Adoption of children by homosexual couples
– Repeal of all sodomy laws
– Passage and implementation of graduated age-of-consent laws for sexual relations.

■ Homosexual activists often argue that: “sex practices are private matters. What goes on in the bedroom is of nobody else’s concern.” But that is false. Societies all over the world for thousands of years have employed legal and cultural means of discouraging sex outside the marital relationship precisely because the implications of sex outside marriage do affect everybody in terms of unwed pregnancies, AIDS and other venereal diseases that are a threat to the public health and generate public expenses.

■ The Senate bill notes that “an individual’s sexual orientation bears no relationship to the individual’s ability to contribute fully to the economic and civic life of society.” This ignores abundant evidence from major medical journals that homosexual behavior is extremely unhealthy, contributing to the spread of AIDS, hepatitis A, B and C and other sexually transmitted diseases. A study of more that 6,400 obituaries in homosexual publications reveals that homosexuals typically have far shorter life spans. Other reports indicate that homosexuals are more likely to have drug and alcohol abuse problems. It is unfair to force businesses – and particularly businesses with fewer than 500 employees – to pay the extra insurance expense and lost productivity that inevitably results from homosexual behavior.

■ Contrary to popular arguments,  homosexuals have not  been excluded from  participation in the political process. Consider: homosexuals display political power far beyond their numbers. A tiny fraction of the population (about 1%), homosexuals have one of the largest and fastest growing Political Action Committees in the country (The Human Rights Campaign Fund) and give millions of dollars to candidates, including an estimated $3 million to the Clinton/Gore campaign. Also, homosexual activists have been appointed to several high government posts. Homosexual groups have also been able to commandeer more taxpayer funding for AIDS (the nation’s #9 killer) than for cancer (#1) or heart disease (#2).

Homosexuals are the only group to claim minority status based on behavior. There is no reliable scientific evidence showing that homosexuality is biological in origin.

Homosexuals are among the most advantaged people in our country. Marketing research shows homosexuals have higher than average per-capita annual incomes ($36,800 vs. $12,287), are more likely to hold college degrees (59.6% vs. 18%), have professional or managerial positions (49% vs. 15.9%) and are more likely to be overseas travelers and frequent fliers.   

Unlike some genuine minorities, then, homosexuals can hardly be said to be suffering economic or political deprivation. In the Colorado Amendment Two case, which involved a ballot measure which amended the state constitution to prevent jurisdictions from adding sexual orientation to the list of specially protected minority classes, Colorado District Court Judge H. Jeffrey Bayless ruled in December 1993 that homosexuals do not constitute such a “suspect” class.

■ Twenty-one states have laws prohibiting sodomy. This federal legislation is a violation of their right to set public policy on some aspects of sexual behavior – a right enjoyed by every major civilization as well as every small tribe in the world.

■ The bill’s definition of sexual orientation is deceivingly phrased: “the term sexual orientation means lesbian, gay, bisexual, or heterosexual orientation, real or perceived, as manifested by identity, acts, statements or associations.” This means essentially that any outrageous behavior linked to someone’s “identity” would have to be protected. If a man came to an office wearing a dress as part of his “gay identity,” for instance, an employer would have little recourse. Some psychologists are now arguing that pedophilia is a sexual “orientation” and therefore deserving of legal protection.

Conclusion
Homosexuals already enjoy the civil rights that all Americans have, and do not need or deserve special legal rights based on sexual behavior. Legislation to grant such status is less about tolerance for homosexuals than about government-enforced tyranny over those who believe in sexual morality.    

For a copy of the full article with footnotes write: Family Research Council 700 13th St. NW, Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20005.

____________________
* Robert H. Knight is Director of Cultural Studies at the Family Research Council, Daniel S. Garcia is an FRC Research Assistant, and Paul T. Mero is a political consultant and former Congressional staffer.