Skip to comments.Legislation would protect employees from sexual orientation discrimination
Posted on 07/06/2005 9:44:01 AM PDT by Calpernia
Legislation that would guard federal employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was introduced last week with the support of 11 lawmakers.
The bill, known as the Clarification of Federal Employment Protection Act (H.R. 3128), is in response to Senate testimony by Special Counsel Scott Bloch when he stated that the Office of Special Counsel is limited by law in its ability to protect gay employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
The legislation, proposed by House Government Reform Committee ranking member Henry A. Waxman, D-Calif., would amend the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act affirming "that federal employees are protected from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and to repudiate any assertion to the contrary."
"At a time when our federal employees are working tirelessly on behalf of the nation, we should be doing our utmost to ensure that all are protected against discrimination," Waxman said in a statement. "Unfortunately, the Bush administration appears to have abandoned a long-standing bipartisan interpretation of the law that protects federal employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation."
The proposed law, if passed by Congress and signed by President Bush, would add to the list of prohibited forms of discrimination against employees or potential employees that include race, gender, national origin, age, handicaps, marital status and political affiliation.
As chief of the Office of Special Counsel, Bloch is charged with heading up independent investigations and prosecutions of merit system violations in the federal workplace. He maintained before a panel of senators on May 24 that federal law does not give him the authority to prosecute discrimination against federal employees for their sexual orientation status.
"We do not see sexual orientation as a term for class status anywhere in statute or in the legislative history or case law, in fact, quite contrary to it," Bloch said at the hearing. "We are limited by our enforcement statutes as Congress gives them ... The courts have specifically rejected sexual orientation as a status protection under our statutes."
In response to an inquiryon the proposed legislation, OSC officials referred a reporter to Bloch's Senate testimony and an April 2004 agency release that announced after a two-month review that OSC had concluded it has the authority to prosecute cases of discrimination on "actual conduct."
While the Bush administration has maintained a position banning discrimination against federal employees on the basis of sexual orientation, Bloch ordered the review to determine the legality of the agency's policy in prosecuting cases of sexual discrimination in agencies and had the information on filing sexual-orientation discrimination complaints removed from the agency's Web site and brochures.
Not included in the announcement was Bloch's viewpoint on case law supporting sexual orientation discrimination cases, which he believes blocks the agency from prosecuting cases involving a federal manager firing or disciplining an employee merely for being a homosexual, according to his testimony. If the manager took action against the employee for actions, in private or public, the agency would have the authority to prosecute.
The information on filing sexual-orientation discrimination complaints has not been returned to the agency Web site.
OSC spokeswomen Cathy Deeds said that Congress has twice tried to pass legislation that would give homosexuals "protected class status," allowing OSC to enforce Bush's policy forbidding sexual orientation discrimination, but both attempts failed.
"[I]t is now in the hands of Congress," Deeds wrote in an e-mail to Government Executive.
Co-sponsors of the bill include Reps. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis.; Danny K. Davis, D-Ill.; Eliot L. Engel, D-N.Y.: Mark Foley, R-Fla.; Barney Frank, D-Mass.; Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.; Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md.; Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz.; Christopher Shays, R-Conn.; and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C.
Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963
Current Communist Goals
EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, January 10, 1963
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
"Current Communist Goals '
Do you have a link to that, and could you post it please? It would be interesting to see all the goals.
I can believe, that they are all exactly true.
I WILL NOT be forced to hire queers. There are ways around this.
Here you go:
Current Communist Goals (1958)
The EEOC process is an effin' joke. Ask me how I know. (On second thought, I don't want to say. But I'm a retired federal employee and I've seen the failure of the EEOC over many years.)
Calling someone the "ranking member" is a polite way of saying "has no power".
Here is also a Marxist search that has archives of the Communist Manifesto:
great next they'll be demanding quotas for gays.
Being gay is not who you are, it's WHAT YOU DO. A particular behavior should not entitle you to be in a protected class.
Should we grant nudists these same rights? Think about it.
That has been mentioned in David Mixner's agenda.
David Mixner is a Democratic Political Consultant that has been a strong influence on the Gay Agenda. Especially in political offices.
David Mixner was also a key member in the Antiwar Movement, The Vietnam Moratorium Committee (VMC) along with Ramsey Clark, John Kerry, Bill Clinton and the US Communist movement.
>>>Should we grant nudists these same rights? Think about it.
They are trying that in Florida. Some type of topless movement.
I wouldn't fire someone just for being gay just as I wouldn't fire someone just for being an adulterer. Now, if they start talking about their perversion on the job, or causing problems in any other way, then it becomes an issue and out they go.
How are you supposed to know that the employee is gay? Isn't that some sort of violation of the "right to privacy"?
When my wife was interviewing for a promotion, she was REQUIRED to not disclose the fact that she was pregnant. If the interview panel knew she was pregnant and she didn't get the promotion, it could have set them up for a lawsuit.
Maybe they will put in a new check box next to race?
I don't know any of the logic to this.
If so, a good strategy would be to always check "yes" in the "are you gay" box. You will have a much higher chance of getting hired, and it will be virtually impossible to fire or demote you.
That could lead to uncomfortable bedfellows :P
Don't worry. If they hold you to your assertion that you are gay, you can always file a sexual harrassment lawsuit.
That may not be a bad idea. Say a ten day season with no bag limit. Should really reduce the problem.
OH! You mean hiring quotas don't you. (never mind)
How about a bill to bar employers from sexual orientation discrimination lawsuits? God forbid a so-called Conservative even propse such a bill. Do we have any of those left in the Conress anyway?
Later horrible pingout.
Does it include protections for heterosexuals?
There are - you can go underground or out of business. These people are not kidding, and they target businesses and people they consider enemies of their agenda.
Recently - within the last week - there have been several articles about a family run inn located in Vermont who are being sued (hmm - brain malfuction alarm tells me it might be a criminal matter of discrimination, not a civil suit, but either way it is bad bad bad) by a couple of lesbians. Reason? The owner - who is Catholic, and lives at the inn with his wife and several children - said he would have a hard time getting enthusiastic about hosting a wedding reception for the two lesbians. (The inn proprietors host several wedding receptions a year.)
The lesbians are targeting this family because, as Catholics, they are "not enthusiastic" about helping two women have a wedding reception.
Thanks very much for the links! I'll save them and read them.
Here is another goal that they have accomplished:
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
It is surreal how many of the goals have been accomplished.
::away from keyboard::
Right on. Consider the questionnaire you are given when you donate blood... if you are a man, have you ever had sex, EVEN ONCE, with another man since 1977? ... if so, we don't want your blood, it's worthless. You are as risky as an IV drug user.
You are right. This keeps making the rounds here and is, to say the least, highly dubious. Where in the heck did these "goals" come from? An official Communist party document? If so, Where can a copy be obtained?
In her book, however, Hillary does write about some of her radical associates. She notes a meeting in 1969 with David Mixner of the Vietnam Moratorium Committee, an anti-Vietnam war protest group that came under investigation by the House Internal Security Subcommittee for its involvement with communists and backing from Hanoi. Mixner would go on to become a leading homosexual activist, adviser to and friend of President Clinton. He was credited with delivering some six million votes to Clinton in 1992.
Speaking of which, Edward Klein's new book on Hillary has some related stuff:
A Wellesley classmate of Hillarys recalls: "The notion of a woman being a lesbian was fascinating to Hillary. But she was much more interested in lesbianism as a political statement than a sexual practice A lesbian was a dynamic young woman who had thrown off the shackles of male dominance. Hillary talked about it a lot, read lesbian literature, and embraced it as a revolutionary concept."
Klein never states that Hillary slept with a woman though he names several who are "rumored" to have shared her bed. Klein focuses instead on Hillarys allegiance to the radical "gender feminism" which she imbibed at Wellesley and which according to Klein she never renounced.
I think those goal DID come from an original communist document. I used to know what it was, but mostly the list survived, but unfortunately, without the original source. I should go and dig, and see if I come up with the original source, if I do, I'll post it and keep it handy for future reference.
You'll have better luck than me if you do. Everytime this appears (every few months or so), I ask for a source but nobody ever provides one other than to site the Cong. Record or Skousen. Those are secondary sources, however. What is the primary source? If this is a party document, where can it be obtained? Nobody seems to have any idea or paricularly care. Frankly, I don't think there is scuh a document. The wording sounds too much like Dr. Evil to be very believable!
Here is what I could determine by a quick research.
The goals are listed in a book: "THe Naked Communist" by W. Cleon Skousen, who was a senior FBI agent under J. Edgar Hoover, the police chief of Salt Lake City, Utah, and a full professor at Brigham Young University.
Florida Congressman A.S. Herlong Jr. entered this list into the Congressional Records in 1963.
I don't know where Skousen got his list, he may mention it in his book. Considering, that he was an FBI agent, maybe they got hold of some commie documents.
But I have read elsewhere, that the communists were working hard on destroying the capitalist countries, starting with the US, "from within". It was a major strategy for them, so it's quite possible they outlined those items.
It is also interesting that those goals first saw the light of day in 1958, before a lot of them have been accomplished, that now are totally accepted, so it's not as if someone looked around today and created the goals retroactively, to fit today's status.
As I said in my previous post, those are secondary documents. I know of many great historians I respect but I would expect that each and every one of them back up any controversial claims or statements with primary documents. The Congressional Record, btw, is not a good source. Every wacko, including Maxine Waters, etc., can insert whatever they want in that. Again, this wording sounds like something out of Dr. Evil. Where does it come from?
"Where does it come from?"
That is a good question, as I said, I wonder if Skousen mentions that in his book. He may or may not, but it surely would be very interesting to get hold of the original documents, and see what they say exactly.
I haven't verified the particular report cited here, but the source cited in the post is the Congressional Record (most likely quoting an FBI report to HUAC, I'd infer), which can be accessed online for certain dates, though unfortunately this record is old enough you'd have to physically check a Federal Depository Library to obtain a copy:
3. For what time periods does THOMAS have legislative information? THOMAS has the Congressional Record and full text of legislation available from 1989 (101st Congress) to the present. In addition, THOMAS has summaries (not full text) of legislation are available back to 1973 (93rd Congress). A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates 1774-1875 provides a century's worth of congressional proceedings, statutes, and other information. Legislative texts and documents prior to 1989 may be found in print form at Federal Depository Libraries. You can locate a library at this site by either state or area code. Legislation is eventually codified in the U.S. Code, which may be found in several locations other than the one given here.
One other place that type of information can be obtained is from the annual reports archived here:
233.25 RECORDS OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL SECURITY AND ITS PREDECESSORS 1938-75 2,301 lin. ft.
233.25.1 Records of the Special Committee on Un-American Activities (1938-45)
233.25.2 Records of the House Committee on Un-American Activities (1945-69) and the House Committee on Internal Security (1969-75)
Annual reports on Communist activity were also filed with the state equivalents of HUAC and SISS--for example, a few are online here:
The Lusk Report's second volume appendix is also a good resource for primary source documents summarizing Communist Party goals:
Speaking of that, a couple other items I should add. The FBI seized some internal Communist documents from a meeting in Bridgman, Michigan in 1922; these are cited in R.M. Whitney's 1924 book Reds in America, which has been reprinted a few times. Also, CP papers such as The Daily Worker are available in microfilm collection:
A virtually complete set of the official newspapers of the American Communist Party from 1919 through todays editions is now available. The retrospective set includes Peoples Daily World and its predecessorsThe Daily Worker, The Ohio Socialist, The Toiler, The Worker, The Midweek Worker, and The Southern Worker. An annual subscription to Peoples Weekly World (two reels annually) keeps coverage current.
A portion of the FBI's files on The Daily Worker are on the FBI's FOIA site and on CD-ROM:
Maybe you should open an inn in Vermont.
Any wacko congresscritter can put anything they want in "extended remarks" (where I suspect this came from. Skousen seems like a better source but, as a I said, I would expect even the greatest historian to back up claims with a reference to primary sources. What was the *specific* source for the Goals and where can it be obtained?
Otherwise the individual goals listed could be cross-referenced against other sources such as those I mentioned. Some of the goals there are consistent with what I've seen elsewhere; other goals I'd have to verify. I'd add that IMO goal lists such as this should be read in historical context. Communists do have some generic long-term goals derived from the general aims of Marxism, but in the short term they tend to adjust these goals and the corresponding tactics as situations change. For instance, goal #8 from Skousen's list reflects an outdated situation and would no longer be applicable in its original form: "8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N."
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
Here we go again - this is the stepping stone to hatespeech. Where's freedom of association? I guess it disappeared along with property rights and religious freedom.
What are conservatives going to do? Go underground? Give up? All go to a group of contiguous states and start our own country?
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
Also known as "The Big Plan".