DOJ on ‘Gays’: ‘Silence Will be Interpreted as Disapproval’

Townhall ^ | 05/20/2013 | Matt Barber

[SeekAndFind]

Under President Obama, “justice” is anything but blind. Neither is it deaf. In fact, based on recent revelations, it appears to be watching your every move and listening to your every word. Still, if you happen to be a federal employee, now it’s even listening for your silence.

The only thing this Obama White House seems to generate is scandal. Well, here’s yet another to add to the growing list. In addition to the Benghazi cover-up, IRS targeting of political dissenters and the illegal seizure of media phone records, whistleblowers within DOJ have contacted Liberty Counsel to express grave concerns over this administration’s latest attack on freedom.

Our sources have provided Liberty Counsel an internal DOJ document titled: “LGBT Inclusion at Work: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Managers.” It was emailed to DOJ managers in advance of the left’s so-called “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Pride Month.”

The document is chilling. It’s riddled with directives that grossly violate – prima facie –employees’ First Amendment liberties.

Following are excerpts from the “DOJ Pride” decree. When it comes to “LGBT” employees, managers are instructed:

• “DON’T judge or remain silent. Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.” (Italics mine)

That’s a threat.

And not even a subtle one.

Got it? For Christians and other morals-minded federal employees, it’s no longer enough to just shut up and “stay in the closet” – to live your life in silent recognition of biblical principles (which, by itself, is unlawful constraint). When it comes to mandatory celebration of homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors, “silence will be interpreted as disapproval.”

This lawless administration is now bullying federal employees – against their will – to affirm sexual behaviors that every major world religion, thousands of years of history and uncompromising human biology reject.

Somewhere, right now, George Orwell is smiling.

The directive includes a quote from a “gay” federal employee to rationalize justification: “Ideally, I’d love to hear and see support from supervisors, so it’s clear that there aren’t just policies on paper. Silence seems like disapproval. There’s still an atmosphere of LGBT issues not being appropriate for the workplace (particularly for transgender people), or that people who bring it up are trying to rock the boat.”

Of course there’s “still an atmosphere of LGBT issues not being appropriate for the workplace.” When well over half of federal employees, half the country and most of the world still acknowledge objective sexual morality (and immorality), “the workplace,” especially the federal workplace, should, at the very least, remain neutral on these highly controversial and behavior-centric issues.

Still, to borrow from self-styled “queer activist,” anti-Christian bigot and Obama buddy Dan Savage, “it gets better”:

• “DO assume that LGBT employees and their allies are listening to what you’re saying (whether in a meeting or around the proverbial water cooler) and will read what you’re writing (whether in a casual email or in a formal document), and make sure the language you use is inclusive and respectful.”

Is this the DOJ or the KGB? “[A]ssume that LGBT employees are listening …”? And what are “LGBT allies”? If you disagree with the homosexual activist political agenda, does that make you the enemy?

Yes, in any workplace, language should remain professional, but who defines what’s “inclusive”? Who decides what’s “respectful”? If asked about “LGBT issues,” for instance, can a Christian employee answer honestly: “I believe the Bible. I believe that God designed sex to be shared between husband and wife within the bonds of marriage”? Or is that grounds for termination?

Here are some more DOs:

• DO “Attend LGBT events sponsored by DOJ Pride and/or the Department, and invite (but don’t require) others to join you.”
• DO “Display a symbol in your office (DOJ Pride sticker, copy of this brochure, etc.) indicating that it is a ‘safe space.’”

Are you kidding? Does this administration really think it’s legal to induce managers to “attend LGBT events,” or to “display pride stickers” against their will? That’s compulsory expression. That’s viewpoint discrimination.

That’s unconstitutional.

But there’s more:

• “DO use inclusive words like ‘partner,’ ‘significant other’ or ‘spouse’ rather than gender-specific terms like ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ (for example, in invitations to office parties or when asking a new employee about his/her home life).”

Oh, brother.

Sorry. Oh, gender-neutral sibling.

• “DO use a transgender person’s chosen name and the pronoun that is consistent with the person’s self-identified gender.”

In other words, lie. Engage in corporate delusion.

• “DO deal with offensive jokes and comments forcefully and swiftly when presented with evidence that they have occurred in the workplace.”
• “DO communicate a zero-tolerance policy for inappropriate jokes and comments, including those pertaining to a person’s sexual orientation and gender identity or expression.”

Who gets to decide what’s an “inappropriate joke [or] comment”? I thought we had a Constitution for that. It sure ain’t Big Brother Barack. Sure, I get it, it’s probably better not to start your work day with: “A lesbian, a tranny and two gays walk into a bath house …” but still, “no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” means no law. No matter how much Obama wishes it so, we don’t leave our constitutional rights at the federal workplace door.

The DOJ edict even addresses cross-dressing man woes:

“As a transgender woman [that’s a man in a skirt], I want people to understand that I’m real. I want to be recognized as the gender I really am [again, you’re a man in a skirt]. Yes, there was awkwardness with pronouns at first for folks who knew me before the transition. But it hurts when several years later people still use the wrong pronouns. And just imagine if people were constantly debating YOUR bathroom privileges. Imagine how humiliating that would be.”

Tell you what, buddy: I won’t “debate YOUR bathroom privileges” if you return to this planet. You’d better stay the heck out of the ladies room while my wife or two daughters are in there; otherwise, we have a problem. Women have an absolute right not be sexually harassed in the workplace – a right to privacy when using the facilities. To constantly worry whether a gender-confused, cross-dressing man is going to invade her privacy creates a hostile work environment.

This “DOJ Pride” directive is but the latest example of the “progressive” climate of fear and intimidation this radical Obama regime has created for Christians, conservatives and other values-oriented folks, both within and without the workplace.

I’m just glad the wheels are finally coming off.

[Gaffer]

Here’s my answer. Google Southpark, Garrison, Buttsex, evolution.

[Yosemitest]

Only EVIL people approve of Homosexuals.
Those who support homosexuals are against our Heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ.
These anti Christ people only bring destruction on us ALL.
I have NO sympathy for homosexuals!

Homosexuality is a "Mark" of disobedience.

It was given by our Heavenly Father to test us
to see ... if we will OBEY our Heavenly Father,
and abide by His commandments, statues, and ordinances.

Someone once asked

"Why are they [homosexuals] all so angry?"

The answer is in the definition of "REPROBATE".

rep·ro·bate \ˈre-prə-ˌbāt\ a. [L. reprobatus, reprobo, to disallow; re and probo, to prove.]

1. Not enduring proof or trial; not of standard purity or fineness; disallowed; rejected.


Reprobate silver shall men call them, because the Lord hath rejected them. Jer. 6.




2. Abandoned in sin; lost to virtue or grace.

They profess that they know God, but in works deny him, being abominable and disobedient, and to every good work reprobate. Titus 1.

3. Abandoned to error, or in apostasy. 2Tim. 3.

And the reason"why" is given in the Bible.

God has a cure for homosexuals.

But will we OBEY our Heavenly Father?

[G Larry]

Tell DOJ, “You own this problem and I’m not endorsing anything I don’t believe.”

[lacrew]

“I didn’t hear a harump from that guy”. Mel Brooks

[the_Watchman]

Actually, my reading of the document is that “silence” will be construed as disapproval by an LGBT employee. I believe that that is a factual statement. The statement is not a threat to a manager.

It is only a threat as far as someone assuming that a feeling of disapproval from an LGBT employee could lead to consequences. You are free to read this into the document, but it isn’t an overt threat.

[Blood of Tyrants]

As I have said, the rump rangers are no longer satisfied to be accepted,they must be publicly praised.

[no-to-illegals]

LOL ... speaking is trouble, and silence is trouble ... LOL. It is an obamanation!

[dfwgator]

I had a Facebook “Friend” defriend me, because they noticed that I never “liked” and of their pro-gay propaganda they posted, although I never even commented on it....they clearly wanted affirmation, and they simply defriended anyone who didn’t do so....no big loss.

[Viennacon]

VERY scary stuff.

[areukiddingme1]

Me: Hello Mr. gay co-worker.
Gay co-worker: Hello.
Me: What did you do this weekend?
Gay co-worker: My gay boyfriend and I went Antiquing and then we had a parade.
Me: Breath mint!

[Maceman]

It is only a threat as far as someone assuming that a feeling of disapproval from an LGBT employee could lead to consequences. You are free to read this into the document, but it isn’t an overt threat.

Yes, but according to the most basic tenets of PC theory, if you feel threatened, then you are threatened, and the intent of the speaker or writer is irrelevant.

[the_Watchman]

I guess when Jesus dealt with that sexually immoral woman at the well he really blasted her, didn’t he?

Why is it so hard for people to separate an abhorrence for sin from expressing God’s love for the sinner? Judgement will certainly come, but it is not ours to deliver.

[dfwgator]

Just like in Stalinist Russia, you were detained if you didn’t denounce anyone to authorities...they figured you must be against the government if you didn’t turn somebody else in.

[no-to-illegals]

yep ...

[Dogbert41]

I have come to conclude that I can no longer participate with this tyranical government.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

“DON’T judge or remain silent. Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.”

Will those who choose to remain silent be simply terminated or will they face prosecution? And if so, will they be read the Miranda warning..."You have the right to remain silent..."

[PetroniusMaximus]

“Why is it so hard for people to separate an abhorrence for sin from expressing God’s love for the sinner? Judgement will certainly come, but it is not ours to deliver.”

Please don’t be a moral idiot.

The woman you refer to was not flaunting her sin in peoples faces demanding their approval..

Time to man-up.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Silence seems like disapproval.

A properly formed piece of mud seems like chocolate cake. But it isn't.

[the_Watchman]

Yes, but according to the most basic tenets of PC theory, if you feel threatened, then you are threatened, and the intent of the speaker or writer is irrelevant.

Yes, and that is why it is legitimate to read an implicit threat into the document. I am just pointing out that the wording is not actually a direct threat or even a direct order. The wording is of an observation.