Corporate Thought Police: Growing pro-gay business agenda jeopardizes religious employees

Christianity Today ^ | 12/30/03 | John W. Kennedy

[Zender500]

Albert A. Buonanno of Denver had worked at AT&T Broadband for two years. But in a 2001 reorganization, the company directed employees to sign a "certificate of understanding." The document said employees must "fully recognize, respect, and value the differences among all of us," including "sexual orientation."

Buonanno, who attends a Baptist General Conference church, told his supervisor in a letter that he wouldn't discriminate against or harass homosexuals. But he also said he couldn't sign the statement because it contradicted the Bible. Buonanno's supervisor fired him the next day.

The Rutherford Institute, a religious liberties organization based in Charlottesville, Virginia, is representing Buonanno, 47, and a handful of others. They all lost their jobs for refusing to condone employment policies they found biblically immoral.

The culture war over homosexuality in America has moved to a new front—the workplace. Christian observers say millions of employees are being commanded not just to tolerate homosexual behavior but also to respect and even promote it.

"There are certain things you can't say, or joke about, in the name of tolerance," Rutherford Institute founder John W. Whitehead told Christianity Today. "It's not so much the gay groups as much as the big corporations wanting to make sure they are above criticism."

Legal landscape

According to the Human Rights Campaign, the largest pro-homosexual political organization in the country, at least 300 of the companies in the Fortune 500 have included sexual orientation in their nondiscrimination policies. Heterosexual employees who balk at such rules are punished, sometimes severely.

In October, the Rutherford Institute filed a federal suit against the Department of the Interior on behalf of Kenneth P. Gee Sr., a Bureau of Reclamation job training teacher in Nampa, Idaho. In 2000, Gee, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, received a directive from his employer to "observe gay and lesbian pride." The e-mail contained a link to a website that said, "Morality is simply the attitude we adopt toward people we personally dislike."

In an e-mail to his supervisor, Gee responded that he believed homosexuality is sinful, and he didn't want to celebrate it. Three supervisors subsequently informed Gee that his inappropriate e-mail violated federal policies and embarrassed the Bureau of Reclamation. Gee said he later received a counseling memo about inappropriate use of a government computer. The memo warned him not to express disagreements in the workplace.

The Department of Interior is one of 38 federal departments and agencies to have adopted a sexual non-discrimination policy, according to the HRC.

Gee's suit seeks relief at the federal court in Idaho, and is based on the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). According to Rutherford attorneys, RFRA applies to all levels of government, local, state, and federal. The Supreme Court in Boerne v. Flores in 1997 struck RFRA down at the federal level, arguing that RFRA was an unconstitutional expansion of power under the 14th Amendment, which only applies to the states.

Most federal courts since then have held that RFRA still applies to federal agencies, and hence requires those agencies whose actions substantially burden religious exercise to justify such restrictions by demonstrating that a compelling interest exists and that no less restrictive means are available to further that interest.

According to Gregory S. Baylor, director of the Christian Legal Society's Center for Law and Religious Freedom in Annandale, Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court's 1977 Trans World Airlines vs. Hardison decision weakened the Title VII religious accommodation provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The court ruled the airline couldn't be forced to give an employee Saturdays off for religious reasons because it created an "undue hardship" for the company.

However, Baylor noted that the Workplace Religious Freedom Act (S.893) was introduced in the Senate in April, with bipartisan support. He said the legislation would require employers to prove they would sustain significant expense regarding such hardship.

Few speak up

So far, there has been relatively little backlash among rank-and-file employees against the pro-gay agenda in corporations. "Gay activists are pressuring from within, and often they meet with barely any resistance, including from Christian groups at the corporation," said Peter LaBarbera, founder and president of the Washington-based Americans for Truth, a lobbying group opposed to the gay-rights agenda. "When you have a very loud and demanding gay employee group and not much opposition, the tendency is to cave in, and that's what's happened."

LaBarbera said the diversity and tolerance propaganda promoted by corporate human resource departments have intimidated and worn down many Christians. "Christians shouldn't feel guilty about taking a stand," LaBarbera said.

On the other hand, many Christians have no problems signing company statements because many such statements ask for no more than to refrain from discrimination or harassment of people of many categories.

Whitehead said Christians shouldn't discriminate in terms of religion, race, or sexual orientation, but neither should they be forced to deny their faith. "In the workplace you need to be fair to everybody," Whitehead said. "But Christians shouldn't sign something that is clearly contrary to the Bible. If you compromise your faith, you deny the Lord."

Those Christians who defend their rights sometimes win. The Rutherford Institute negotiated an out-of-court settlement for Denise Maynard, an AT&T Broadband worker in Florida fired for objecting to a pro-homosexual personal e-mail circulated companywide. Another settlement involved New Yorker Anne E. Coffey, terminated by Verizon after refusing to sign a company code condoning homosexual behavior.

"[Some] Christians are sticking to what they believe the Bible says about homosexuality," Whitehead said. "They don't want to be forced to agree with a handbook or a policy."

Whitehead believes Buonanno's suit, scheduled to go to trial in February, will be a test case.

"These cases are really important because certain people are being told they can't have free speech anymore," Whitehead said. "It's the most frightening thing I've seen in my 30 years of law practice."

[Zender500]

Perhaps if the documents are more inclusive. . .

No, inclusivity is a term reserved exclusively for the left to wield as a bludgeon on the right; it doesn't work both ways, as you know.

[XenaLee]

Standing up for your principles and beliefs is really all you have, in the end. If they can make you waffle on that, they can make you waffle on anything. Stick to your guns. I was laid off from a 5-year position 2 years ago for not participating in the United Way. I refused to donate again (I withdrew my automatic withdrawal after the gay vs. boy scouts episode), and I refused to go on the yearly United Way tour with my department.

I am happier now, working close to home, less stress, less/no traffic (but also having to make do with less money).

Life is a tradeoff.

Peace
Lapcat

[Zender500]

I'm glad that they're not my partners anymore and I believe I'm on a much better path now.

I'm sure it's a lot better not to be "unequally yoked," as the Good Book says.

[N. Theknow]

One more reason to tell AT&T to take a long walk on a short pier.

[XenaLee]

How about displaying a poster of a huge cross? Would that be allowed? Probably not. But this anti-Christianity bs has been predicted in the Bible. We're just witnessing the first stage. Problem is, there are just as many stubborn people as I am out there, that will balk and rebel against this anti-Christian pro-gay propaganda. First it was force-fed pro-abortion. Now this. What's next? Promotion of beastiality? It sounds ridiculous, I know, but then.....ten years ago, what has already happened would have sounded riciculous. Ya?

[Paulus Invictus]

Kodak has done the same thing and is actively harrassing and even firing long-time employees whose ideas about homosexuality are not strictly PC. Kodak was once a great company. Not now!

The Hollyweird left is behind the homo/lesbian crusade nationwide. Is anyone surprised? I was amazed to see that lesbian idiot Ellen Degenerate back on prime time. How did that happen? Another sponsor boycott is due, perhaps.

[XenaLee]

Tolerance, free speech and diverse opinions are a 'no-no' to leftists. Just look at how restrictive the Democratic Underground is. I was banned there just for posting something positive about the Bush Administration. They really didn't want to hear anything other than the usual '1,001waysihatebush'. And that is exactly how the country would be run if the leftists had their way. Just like the DU.

[reg45]

The gayrights lobby are a bunch of goose-stepping Nazis.

That seems logical since many of the goose-stepping Nazis were homosexual.

[ladyinred]

This is terrible and a violation of the rights of Christians and anyone else who doesn't agree with the Gay agenda. To say that people treat others in the work place with respect is one thing. To force them to sign something condoning that behavior is another.

[RebelBanker]

Similar but not identical situation.

The large international corporation my wife used to work for is based in San Francisco and it appears that a lot of the senior management are poofters.

Apropos of nothing whatsoever, I now prefer MasterCard over Visa...

[NutCrackerBoy]

Inclusivity is a term reserved exclusively for the left to wield as a bludgeon on the right; it doesn't work both ways, as you know.

Right. Conservative groups in colleges ask for and do not get representation in student senates. The list goes on.

[ladyinred]

How's that sound?

With all due respect, why on earth should they have to sign anything at all? Why not confront a problem if and when there is one? This is an outrage, and a violation of the rights of non gays.

[cavtrooper21]

San Fransisco??? Poofters?? Well hooda thunkit... The company I work for is based out of there too.. ..and the PC crap is starting here at the Kansas facility. Just took them some time to realize that we existed. BTW What's the deal with Mastercard vs Visa???

[cavtrooper21]

Isn't DU great!!!
I got banned for a less than "progressive" comment about the protests against the WTO...

I'm glad that FR isn't as "discriminating" as they are.

[bk1000]

Indeed. I was floored because, to me, 'gay and lesbian' indicates a form of behaviour. We have been to manditory sensitivity classes instructing us against anything in the workplace deemed to be of a sexual nature. Like I said, I nearly got in trouble for pointing out the sexual nature of the gay pride poster. I even tried to make it simple: "If I choose to maintain souly the company of men, I am not gay. If I choose to have sexual relations with them, then I am,
therefore gay pertains only to sex, and is therefore more innappropriate for the workplace than a Victoria's Secret catalog." Their mind was made up, and nothing would change it. My logic only strengthened their resolve, and the poster remained.

[Hat-Trick]

Fortunately I work in a place where I can wear my favorite t-shirt to work:

[Nowhere Man]

I used to be very tolerant of homosexuals. I didn't agree with their lifestyle, but I believed that, if they wanted to live that way, who was I to object. I wasn't discriminatory or condescending to them, and I knew quite a few over the years.

But in recent years and particularly after reading an article like this, I am getting increasingly fed up. Their attitude and behavior about their sexual orientation is disgusting, and I am not talking here about the sexual behavior itself. I'm talking about their ramming it down other people's throats. They are losing far more than they are gaining with this approach.

They have managed to take a reasonably tolerant person, me, and turn me against them and alienating me completely. And I am sick to death of hearing gay this, gay that, day in, and day out. I can't be the only person who feels that way.

I think you said it all, myself, I'm am and was the same way. I've always known and felt that homosexuality is wrong from moral and scientific reasons, but hey, "as long as you keep it to yourself, in your own homes, while leaving the basic foundation of our society intact, and so on, well, so be it." Generally, I'm still that way. However, as you pointed out, due to recent events, I've felt the radicals have declared war on us and if we don't fight, we will lose. Even if you say something that mildly disagree with their point of view, they'd came down on you like a ton of bricks. Who knows, in the future, they could be sending all of us to "Re-Education Camp XIII" to be brainwashed.

So, you're not the only one where it feels like "Mom, bar the door, Evelyn, get my M-1 Garand! Looks like we are in for a seige." B-) B-P

[JudgemAll]

This is terrible and a violation of the rights of Christians and anyone else who doesn't agree with the Gay agenda. To say that people treat others in the work place with respect is one thing. To force them to sign something condoning that behavior is another.

Bottom line.

[RebelBanker]

What's the deal with Mastercard vs Visa???

By a strange coincidence, Visa International happens to be headquartered in San Francisco...