I went to the link in the story to the actual DOJ handout.
Yeah, I’ll get flamed for suggesting this is not as inflammatory as some of us think, but I don’t think it’s as inflammatory as some of us might think.
Reading it in context, the ‘silence equals disapproval’
line appears to mean the gay employee will take your silence as disapproval of their lifestyle, not a threat from a higher authority. And so on, it appears to be a suggestion manual, not mandatory.
Anyone else, please have a look, see if you agree.
http://libertycounsel.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/LGBT_tips_for_managers.pdf
“Reading it in context, the ‘silence equals disapproval’
line appears to mean the gay employee will take your silence as disapproval of their lifestyle, not a threat..”
Even mentioning “silence equals disapproval” is emotional blackmail giving assent to thought control.
You are no longer privy to your own thoughts and should you not actively give assent, you are perceived as disapproving.
The perception that you disapprove is contrary to the governments policy.
It may not be mandatory on its face, but it is mandatory in practice.
This doesn’t bother you?
“Talk openly and positively about your colleagues, friends and family who are LGBT.”
If my daughter came out as a lesbian, or my son as a “transgender”, I’d tell them to their face that they are swimming in a moral cesspool. I’ll be damned if someone would have the right to tell me to talk about them “openly and positively”. An employer does not have the right to overrule my religious beliefs. My right to believe in the religion of my choice IS in the US Constitution. The right to have everyone else praise you for sexual behavior of any sort is not.
How about this for someone who tells you he is a faggot, or a woman trapped in a man’s body who is now a woman with a penis:
“DON’T judge or remain silent. Silence will be interpreted as disapproval. DO respond with interest and curiosity. Asking respectful questions will set a positive, supportive tone.”
Whatever happened to “Shut the hell up and get back to work!”? Or, “I have ZERO interest in your sex life, and NO interest in telling you about mine!” ?
There is something seriously wrong with your discernment and cognitive thinking if you consider this handout not vilely repugnant and a government promoing attack on our freedoms of speech and religion.
The government has NO DAMNED business shoving sexual perversion on anyone, and that is increasing what they spend OUR TAX money on!
I am freaking outraged.
In fact I went and read some of it just now and I AM EVEN MORE OUTRAGED!
This guy thinks the DOJ homo-pushing (mandating!) handout is no big deal, not inflammatory, etc. I just read a few paragrpahs of it and I am sick to my stomach with rage.
I think the context is sufficiently ambiguous that the idea could be read as a threat or a suggestion for how to protect the feelings of the LGBT people. The ambiguity is probably intentional.
I actually follow the advise of one of the "Do" statements: "DO respond to offensive jokes [about LGBT issues]." If the joke is funny, I laugh. Beyond that, I do nothing.