NOM’s Morse: Non-Discrimination Laws For LGBT Employees Promote The Gay Agenda
February 14, 2013 3:02 pm ET by Carlos Maza
National Organization for Marriage (NOM) spokesperson Jennifer Morse recently railed against laws protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination in the workplace, falsely claiming that such measures would allow gay employees to manipulate their employers into listening to the “gay lobby.”
During the January 29 edition of Lutheran Public Radio’s Issues, Etc., Morse was asked why many of the Boy Scouts’ corporate donors were considering pulling funding for the organization over its ban on gay members.
Morse’s theory? They’ve been taken over by gay employees because of non-discrimination laws:
MORSE: Once a person is in the workplace, then they use their position of authority to steer the whole organization towards the larger objectives of the gay lobby which is not limited to making their company and their employer as successful as possible in the marketplace. You know? They’ve got other objectives that they’re working towards and they’re using their positions of authority inside companies to do that. And I think that’s the pattern, and I think that’s, in a sense, the story, for people to see that. And of course for an employer to say “well, gosh, I don’t want you to work for me anymore because the objectives of the gay lobby are not my objectives and you’re taking up a lot of corporate time pressuring us internally to steer us towards the gay lobby, and that doesn’t really do anything for me, and so I want to fire you because of that or I don’t want to promote you because of that because I don’t think you’re really working hand in glove with the overall objectives of this company,” I think they’d have a hard time firing somebody on that basis because of the anti-discrimination law. Or certainly it would be tricky to fire somebody. So I think people need to kind of understand that there’s more at stake than anti-discrimination policy. That those kinds of statutes, those kinds of laws, that kind of case law and so on, it seems like it’s innocent enough, actually carries with it, in its wake, more than people may realize. [emphasis added]
Employment non-discrimination laws protect employees from being treated unfairly due to their real or perceived sexual orientation. They don’t give employees carte blanche to push political agendas – gay or otherwise – on their employers, especially if doing so wastes “a lot of corporate time.”
This isn’t the first time a NOM spokesperson has strayed away from their “protect marriage” talking points to attack non-discrimination efforts that would protect gays and lesbians. The organization has praised Exxon-Mobil for its decision to reject a non-discrimination policy, claiming that the company had somehow supported “pro-marriage values” by doing so.
NOM’s Cultural Director Thomas Peters has urged supporters to vote against an ordinance in Alaska that would have protected LGBT people from discrimination in employment, financial practices, housing, and other businesses.
And NOM co-founder Maggie Gallagher has written in opposition to employment non-discrimination measures, arguing:
I oppose extending anti-discrimination laws to gays for many reasons: a distaste for big government, fear of the job-shrinking side effects of more lawsuits, a sense of injustice that a small affluent group should be pressing for new economic protections. But of course, that’s not the whole story.
Let me be frank here. What I dislike about extending the civil rights model to gays is what such rhetoric implicitly does to people like me, who accept orthodox Christian, Muslim or Jewish teachings on the subject of sex.
If being gay is just like being black, then people like me, who consider homosexual acts a sin, are just plain bigots. [emphasis added]