This post is backup material for Mitt Romney: Flip, Flop, or Slip on ENDA?.

Several people posted questions as to the content and the ramifications to the ENDA. This post summarizes several precedents that are troubling to conservatives. Please take a few minutes to review this list and leave some comments on it.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that a non-profit, private institution can lose its tax-exempt status if it violates the spirit of the national policy against racial discrimination, considering that race is a protected class, could church’s and other faith-based organizations loose their tax exempt status because of a newly created “sexual orientation” protected class?

One of my greatest concerns is the possible passage of the National Hate Crime law that would add sexual orientation. That while going through the house judiciary committee. I want to give a quote from something that happened during an attempt to add amendments (protecting religious groups etc, that were all struck down) (April 25th 2007).

Congressman Gohmert asked, “If a minister was giving a sermon, a Bible study or any kind of written or spoken message saying that homosexuality was a serious sin and a person in the congregation went out and committed a crime against a homosexual would the minister be charged with the crime of incitement?”

Gohmert was attempting to clarify and emphasize that the legislation would have an effect on the constitutional right to religious freedom and thus the Pence amendment was needed to protect religious speech.

The Democrats continued to explain why they could not accept the amendment. Lundgren continuously shot down their answer. He said, “What is your answer? Would there be incitement charges against the pastor?”

And finally Democrat Congressman Artur Davis from Alabama spoke up and said, “Yes.”

While I am not approving on the potential act of someone attacking another person for their sexual orientation in any manner (it is illegal to attack a person regardless), If a Pastor gave a sermon on why he believed something was wrong. It is his religious right to preach what he believes.

Several Dangerous Precedents are being set:

• A District of Columbia human rights commission ordered Georgetown University, a Catholic college, to violate church doctrine and sponsor a pro-homosexual group on campus. A court agreed, saying the District’s “sexual orientation” law overrode the school’s religious freedom. It didn’t matter that neither “sexual orientation” nor sodomy are protected in the Constitution or that religion is specifically protected. In the hands of the judges, “sexual orientation” takes on a life of its own.
• In 2003 Atlanta Human Rights Commission ordered a local golf club to extend spousal rights to gay member partners, Thankfully officials intervened, and the Georgia legislature promptly passed a law exempting private clubs from local anti-discrimination obligations.
• In September 2002 the Berkeley, California, City Council pulled the low-cost lease for city dock space for the Sea Scouts, saying that the group is associated with the Boy Scouts, and thereby violates the city’s “sexual orientation” law.
• In June, 2001, The District of Columbia’s Commission on Human Rights fined the Scouts $100,000 and ordered them to reinstate two openly homosexual leaders. That decision was overturned in court, but the Scouts paid heavy legal fees.
• The Boy Scouts of America says it will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold its ban on homosexuals, claiming that its constitutional rights of free association and speech include the right to bar gays. “We’ll argue the First Amendment,” attorney George Davidson said in the wake of a ruling August 4 by New Jersey’s Supreme Court finding that the Scouts’ ban on gays violated the state’s antibias laws. The ruling was the first time a state high court has invalidated the Scouts’ ban. The group also bars atheists and agnostics from membership and leadership positions. The American Center for Law and Justice, a legal advocacy group founded by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson, said it found the New Jersey ruling “troubling.” “The decision … turns the Boy Scouts’ constitutional right of freedom of association on its head,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ. The group had filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case on behalf of four members of Congress. (Jay Sekulow has endorsed Mitt Romney for President – why is this not an issue with him?)
• The Ann Arbor, Michigan City Council cut ties in August 2001 to the local United Way for their refusal to eject the Scouts from the United Way program.
• In Portland, Maine, city officials canceled a $60,000 grant for a Salvation Army meals-on-wheels program for senior citizens. Why? As a Christian denomination, the Salvation Army won’t provide marital benefits to homosexual employees, thus running afoul of the city’s “sexual orientation” law. When the Portland’s “sexual orientation” ordinance was introduced, proponents argued, as they do often today, that it would merely ensure that “people won’t be fired for being ‘gay.’”
• In 1997, the Salvation Army gave up $3.5 million in San Francisco city funding rather than submit to an order for them to offer “domestic partner” benefits to homosexual employees. “The ordinance conflicts with our theological position,” said Lt. Col. Richard Love of the Salvation Army, “which recognizes the importance of the traditional family.”
• In Arlington Virginia. a video duplicator had been ordered by the Arlington County Human Rights Commission to produce video material for a lesbian activist or pay for someone else to duplicate the videos. The videos Vincenz wanted duplicated were two documentaries entitled: “Gay and Proud” and “Second Largest Minority”. Tim Bono, argued that he could not, in good conscience (him being a Christian), produce material that promoted homosexual activity.
• A California software maker was forced to pay a settlement and legal fees totaling over $1 million because the company did not promote a man who had come to work dressed as a woman. It did not matter that the company did not even know the “woman” was a man. The “victim” sued under California’s “sexual orientation” law. As legal fees escalated, the company finally settled out of court. To pay for the loss, eight employees were laid off, with the number eventually growing to 20. (The incident was related in “Computer Soft-Wear,” in The Other Side of Tolerance, p. 12.)
• In Philadelphia, home of Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell, the Pennsylvania state “hate crime” law was used to justify the arrest and jailing of nearly a dozen Christians On October 11, 2004, homosexual activists were celebrating “National Coming Out Day” at a street fair for an event called Outfest. The Christian Group Repent America peacefully and Legally walked into the gathering, singing hymns and carrying signs encouraging homosexuals to repent. They were surrounded by a self-described group called “The Pink Angels,” who blocked their movement with large cut-outs of angel shapes. Police then arrested 11 Christians and none of the Pink Angels. Ranging in age from a 17-year-old girl to a 72-year-old grandmother, the Christians spent the night in jail. The next day, five of them, including the teenager, faced eight charges-three felonies and five misdemeanors-stemming from Pennsylvania’s “hate crimes” law: criminal conspiracy, possession of instruments of crime, reckless endangerment of another person, ethnic intimidation, riot, failure to disperse, disorderly conduct and obstructing highways. If convicted on all charges, the Christians could have faced a total of 47 years in prison. Despite a videotape that showed no criminal activity, the prosecution refused to withdraw the charges, and characterized the group’s views in court as “hate speech.” In February 2005, a judge finally dismissed the charges, saying that she found “no basis whatsoever for any of them.” However, a liberal government openly hostile to Christians was able to use the “hate crimes” law to send a message of intimidation toward people who oppose the promotion of homosexuality.
• More recently, the Philadelphia City Council voted to force the Cradle of Liberty Boy Scout Council to pay $200,000 a year rent on a building located on city property, or leave. Since 1928, city officials have allowed the Scout Council to use its headquarters for 1$ a year. City Council members claim the Scouts are not in compliance with Philadelphia’s “Fair —Practices Ordinance,” which says organizations using city property must not discriminate against homosexuals, lesbians, or cross-dressers. The city says the Scouts violate the anti-discrimination policy because homosexuals are not allowed to join, or to become Scout leaders. Efforts by the scout group in Philadelphia to appease the city and activists have failed, one group stated that the groups want “…a pro-gay policy expressly stating that the Cradle of Liberty Scout Council will accept open homosexuals.” The action by city officials means that 30 new Cub Scout packs won’t be organized, and that 800 needy kids will not be going to the Council’s summer camp if the city charges them $200,000. The Cradle of Liberty Council serves about 64,000 scouts in Philadelphia and its suburbs.
• In 2006 the 9th Circuit Court in California ruled last year(06) that members of a Christian employees group for the city of Oakland could not use words like “marriage,” “natural family,” or “family values” in email correspondence or on posters in city offices where a wide variety of groups are allowed to post. The 9th circuit panel decided that such words were akin to hate speech because they made homosexual city employees uncomfortable.
  • The Christians’ notice said:
  • Good News Employee Associations is a forum of people of Faith to express their views on the contemporary issues of the day. With respect for the Natural Family, Marriage and Family values.
  • If you would like to be a part of preserving integrity in the Workplace call Regina Rederford @xxx- xxxx or Robin Christy @xxx-xxxx

This is not limited to our Government

Some examples from Canada:

Canada which has had similar “free speech” laws in the past are now being limited because of “hate crime” laws with the listing of sexual orientation. In 2001 the Court of Queen’s Bench in Saskatchewan upheld the ruling by the “Human Rights Tribunal” (the equivalent to our city’s Human Rights Commission) that stated that certain bible passages could be viewed as “hate” literature after a man published an ad in a newspaper that simply listed 4 bible references but not quoting the actual verses, with an equals sign to a picture of two men holding hands overlaid with the universal nullification symbol – a red circle with a diagonal bar. (example: no smoking sign). This man was fined 1,500 Canadian dollars.

Pastors have actually been arrested from preaching from their own pulpit about homosexuality because of how the courts have interpreted “hate crime” law’s.

• In 2001, the Ontario Human Rights Commission penalized printer Scott Brockie $5,000 for refusing to print letterhead for a homosexual advocacy group. Brockie argued that his Christian beliefs compelled him to reject the group’s request. Ontario private business owners lack freedom to choose their clients according to conscience.
• As far as their discrimination laws, Canada’s British Columbia human rights tribunal has gone as far as forcing churches to rent out their buildings to homosexuals for marriages and calling it “discrimination” if a pastor refused to marry two homosexuals.
• Religious freedom emerged as an issue when the provincial governments of Saskatchewan and Manitoba insisted that marriage commissioners, who perform civil ceremonies, resign if their religious beliefs preclude them from performing ceremonies for homosexuals. In Saskatchewan, the justice minister is investigating a complaint filed against a marriage commissioner who refused to perform a homosexual marriage. In other provinces, dissenting commissioners are being protected by “grandfather” clauses in their contracts.
• In 2003, the Canadian House of Commons passed a bill that added “sexual orientation” to the list of groups protected against so-called “hate speech.” Violators can be sentenced to up to five years in prison for uttering words critical of homosexual sodomy.
• The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has warned major U.S. broadcasters such as Dr. Laura Schlessinger and Dr. James Dobson’s Focus on the Family that Canadian stations may carry their programs only after excising any segment dealing with homosexuality after a 1997 Focus on the Family program in which panelists discussed scientific claims about genetic studies and homosexuality as well as the aims and activities of homosexual pressure groups, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council issued a statement saying that Focus on the Family “attributed to the gay movement a false and flimsy intellectual basis and a malevolent, insidious and conspiratorial purpose, which, in the view of the Council, constitute abusively discriminatory comment on the basis of ‘sexual orientation.’”
• In the Canadian city of Kamloops, British Columbia, a Catholic city councilman was brought up on charges before the provincial Human Rights Tribunal after two homosexual men took offense at his words. What did John DeCicco say that was so bad? At a city council meeting he merely stated that homosexual acts were “not normal and not natural.” He repeated that opinion in media interviews, according to LifeSiteNews.com.
• To avoid a full-fledged hearing on the matter, DeCicco was forced to pay a fine of $1,000 and provide a statement claiming that his comments were “inappropriate and hurtful to some.”

On a side note, In London months ago(March 07), the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended regulations that would make it illegal for private, religious schools to teach that homosexual conduct is immoral. The committee claimed the regulations are needed to combat discrimination against homosexuals.

Last summer, the British government closed down an IFI unit (Religious Organization) because they teach that sex should be limited to heterosexual marriage. And if these regulations violate the rights of Christians-what does the government say? “Too bad.”