According to an Obama nominee, it does:
Does “sexual liberty” trump the Constitutional right to religious liberty? Chai Feldblum, President Obama’s choice for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, believes so. This week a senate committee will vote on her nomination to this important commission that rules on issues of “discrimination” in America’s workplaces.
Feldblum is the primary author of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill designed to give preferential consideration to homosexuals in the workplace. She noted, “We want to change the American workforce and revolutionize social norms. … Our current public policies undermine the moral and political unit of same-sex couples and families and that’s a moral wrong that needs to be rectified.”
She also said, “Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others.”
Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee (CWALAC), sent a letter to senators today opposing Chai Feldblum’s appointment. It notes:
“Chai Feldblum has a long history of radical ideology which would negatively shape the EEOC and its decisions. She flagrantly disregards the Constitutional right of religious liberty and attempts to replace this foundational freedom with her bizarre view of ‘sexual liberty.’
The worry is that the EEOC will go after religious employers – most notably places like Catholic hospitals and religious schools, though you can bet they’ll turn a blind eye to Moslem institutions; PC has its odd rules, ya know? – and force them to accommodate actions held to be immoral. No one disputes the right of a gay person to do as he wishes in the privacy of his own home – but if a gay person wishes to do that, and make it public, then religious institutions must be allowed to discriminate based solely upon theological grounds.
In other words, if the organization is headed up by, run by, supported by a religious group and that religion holds that homosexual sex is immoral, then that organization must have the right to deny employment – and all other forms of access – to homosexuals. Or, for that matter, adulterous heterosexuals or, indeed, for pretty much any reason a religious body decides. In our faith we must have no government oversight – that is the true meaning of separation of Church and State: that the State may not interfere with the religion (though, sorry liberals, the religion may interfere with the State…as all parts of the body politic may do).
As for me, I’ve had quite enough of liberal attempts to denigrate and attack my religion: we must have a religious liberty restoration amendment to the Constitution which clearly spells out that the First Amendment prohibits government restrictions on religious practice, in the private as well as in public.
Blogs For Victory 