Posted on 11/12/2013 10:37:13 AM PST by ConservativeInPA
U.S Rep. Scott Perry's position on any House legislation protecting Americans from discrimination in the workplace based on their sexual orientation could be influenced by U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey's support of a similar measure last week.
...
“I think Sen. Toomey seems like a pretty reasonable individual who represents a state that has very diverse political leanings,” he added. “My point is, not having read the [Senate] bill, the fact that Sen. Toomey would support it I think bodes well for whatever the content of the bill is. Until I read it I can't really pass complete judgement on it, but I think it's a good indicator.”
Perry noted that he is against any workplace discrimination based on race or sexual orientation, but cautioned against affording inordinate protections to special groups.
“I would say however with this one caveat, sometimes some of this legislation seeks to give some groups of people a higher degree of equality, or set some special provisions aside,” he said. “That is something that seems genuinely un-American.”
(Excerpt) Read more at pennlive.com ...
On PennLive.com today it is written:
PL: “I think Sen. Toomey seems like a pretty reasonable individual who represents a state that has very diverse political leanings,” he added. “My point is, not having read the [Senate] bill, the fact that Sen. Toomey would support it I think bodes well for whatever the content of the bill is. Until I read it I can't really pass complete judgement on it, but I think it's a good indicator.”
Me: You need to know that I will not vote for Toomey again. I will not vote for someone that puts imaginary rights, based on amoral behavior, above God given rights.
PL: Perry noted that he is against any workplace discrimination based on race or sexual orientation, but cautioned against affording inordinate protections to special groups.
Me: You better back peddle fast on the sexual orientation issue. Sexual orientation is simply a guise to violate God's commandments.
PL: “I would say however with this one caveat, sometimes some of this legislation seeks to give some groups of people a higher degree of equality, or set some special provisions aside,” he said. “That is something that seems genuinely un-American.”
Me: I completely agree. Now, please read the U.S. Constitution and find the power granted to Congress that allows you to vote for this piece of amoral crap.
PA ping request.
What is this guy smoking? OF COURSE it will be construed as doing exactly this. Every single piece of "homosexual rights" legislation is pushed well beyond its marketed, nominal meaning to encroach on and crush everyone's rights. Look at the damage that was wrought with "letting homosexuals alone in the privacy of their own home" with the Lawrence decision.
Toomey (even though he hadn’t taken office yet) supported the repeal of DADT during the lame-duck session in 2010.
I did not realize/recall that. I would have also supported the repeal of DADT so the military could dishonorably discharge queers, with they were asked/telled or not.
Since this law grants a special legal protection to people who are homosexual, it will be necessary to determine if an individual is homosexual and thus entitled to the protection.
So, how does one prove that one is a homosexual? Polaroids?
Whatever happened to it being none of the government’s business what you do in the bedroom?
When we have homosexuality as a protected group, we will completely lose our ability to disagree with same-sex marriage or say anything about how we feel about the homosexual lifestyle. Our young children are being taught that homosexual marriage is fine. My granddaughter told me that she was going to marry a girl, just like her friend's mothers.
The day they ask for sexual orientation is the day I officially become a gay man. After all, I’ve been having sex with a man since I was 14 and found those Playboys under my dad’s bed.
If you see posts of interest to Pennsylvanians, please ping me.
Thanks!
Thanks ConservativeinPA for the heads up
What a joke.We had just sent Toomey a check and he did this.Pretty soon the only people left to sue and fire will be white.
Everyone has to remember that Toomey is coming up for re-election, in 2016, in a state that went for Obama 53% to 46%.
So Toomey is looking ahead. This explains his vote in gun control and ENDA.
It is pure political posturing.
I am not defending Toomey, nor condoning his votes.....just explaining.
I agree, but I am not convinced the old Arlen Specter approach works anymore. Voting for ENDA doesn't put you on the same side as the people who voted for him. No matter what Toomey does, he's not going to get any more votes out of Philadelphia, Allegheny, Lacawanna and Erie counties.
As for Scott Perry, my rep, he is shooting himself in the foot. The 4th district doesn't have the demographics to elect a Democrat, so why in the world would he give ammo to a primary contender.
I agree and, after 2012, believe the fix is in for those liberal strongholds, utilizing massive voter fraud that cannot be detected because there is no GOP oversight in those precincts.
If you look at Pennsylvania and Ohio, two states that traditionally split their statewide votes between Dem and Republican, not one Republican won in a statewide race in 2012. The fraud in Philly was ballots with party-line votes for Democrats. It was the first time that one party swept the statewide races in those states.
So, perhaps Toomey's plan is to peel some moderate Dem votes in other counties to pad his total and overcome the fraud in Philly.
I don't like it and would prefer Toomey sticks to his conservative roots. But it seems the RINO advisors got inside Toomey's head and are guiding him the same way they guide Rubio, Romney, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.