Monday, June 30, 2008

Give Me A Break...

So, I was doing a little research into the Abercrombie brand after reading Ellie's superb comment on my previous post. Unfortunately, I came across this little announcement from Americans for Truth, in which they announced that Abercrombie, Ameriprise, Brinker International, and Walt Disney "promoted" homosexuality.

What makes them think that?

Well, the Human Rights Campaign had announced that those companies had "perfect scores" when it came to their workplace policies for GLBT employees. Now I'm not totally certain what a perfect score would entail, but I'm guessing the main thing would be that discrimination based on sexual orientation would be banned. In my opinion, that's a good thing. No one needs to be fired (or not hired) because of who they sleep with (or heck, who they simply want to sleep with). But I guess Americans for Truth doesn't see it that way.

There is no explicit call in the announcement for a boycott of those companies, but it's pretty much implied. Why else announce it? Now, there might be good reasons for Christians to not shop at Abercrombie; myself and Ellie somewhat outlined them in the last post and subsequent comment thread. However, boycotting a company just because they don't mind if your checkout girl is a lesbian is stupid. You shouldn't mind, either, unless you have the same kind of aversion to liars, fornicators, cheaters, etc. And if you do, you must not get out much at all. That, and you have some serious self-denial issues.

There are appropriate places to talk about the sinfulness of homosexual practice, and they are usually referred to as pulpits. Taking this issue to the workplace, where most people simply want to go, do their job, and collect their paycheck, is reprehensible to me. Not discriminating against gay employees doesn't "promote" homosexuality any more than not discriminating against Buddhist ones "promotes" Buddhism. Am I the only conservative Christian out there that sees it this way? Give me a break, people.


David Roberts said...

LaBarbera is pretty pathetic and apparently unaware of how many in his own camp think he is either nuts or "falling into immorality" with his obsession over the leather events he attends.

His shtick is to outrage. He truly believes that if he can throw enough really shocking stuff in the faces of people like him (scary thought, more like him) that any compassion for GLBTs will evaporate. He might be effective if is posts weren't so "Enquireresque."

He's got some serious issues, not the least of which is an ego the size of Manhattan. In my limited experience with him, he seems to care little if something is actually true. We don't post about him much.

Ellie said...

I think usually what that refers to is employee benefits like health insurance being extended to partners, not just spouses. Some religious groups object to that because they see it as enabling people to live in sin, and they are also worried that if enough companies starte to voluntarily extend benefits, it will be easier to force other companies to do so as well, which would mean things like the Catholic Church would have to pay for a gay couple's helath insurance if it employed one half of the couple in some capacity, even though it has a religious objection to providing these benefits to any and all cohabiting people, gay or straight. I still don't object enough to boycott anyone.

Jay said...

I'm fine with health insurance being extended to partners. And I get really fed up with conservative arguments which say those benefits should be denied because they "enable sin." I mean, seriously, do we think that people are going to leave gay relationships and come to Christ simply so they can get health insurance?

Of course if everyone was a Libertarian, no one would be worried that the government would force a company to do anything in terms of employee benefits. :)

Pomoprophet said...

Grrr. Lord why are some of your followers such asses? Its just discrimination. It shows that they really dont "love the sinner but hate the sin" as they so claim. And they don't even see it.

Ellie said...

Leave gay relationships, probably not. But as it stands, in 48 states, gay couples can't get married, therefore, they cohabitate. Because some straight couples cohabitate too, they can argue that they should get the benefits as well. In that case, an incentive to marry is negated, which encourages (or at least doesn't discourage) these couples to live in sin (that phrase seems so...quaint?).

And I still don't care enough to boycott anyone.

tilts_at_windmills said...

Well, if gay couples could marry there'd be no need for unmarried partner benefits, and I understand they're disappearing in Massachusetts. Also, even if gay people were covered by federal antidiscrimination laws, those laws exempt churches, so the Church can discriminate against whoever it wants. It doesn't have to hire the gay guy in the first place, let alone give his partner health benefits.

Mostly, I wanted to make an OT comment: I'm excited you're reading Never Let Me Go! That's one of my favorite books of the last few years.

Jay said...

Ellie & Tilts: Well, I personally think the government should get out of marriage altogether. It has no business discouraging people from "living in sin." At least when the sin isn't harmful to anyone else (and a consenting, cohabitating couple aren't).

I think the government should get out of marriage and simply offer unions to people who want them: straight, gay, maybe even just a pair of old maid roommates who need some extra financial security.

I also don't agree with antidiscrimination laws in general, because businesses should be able to hire and not hire whom they please, just as churches can. The problem here isn't that a law was passed, it's just these businesses are open about not discriminating based on sexual orientation, and that ticks some people like LaBarbera off.

Oh, and Never Let Me Go is amazing so far! :)

Norm! said...

Although I have to admit that I do, um, appreciate A&F ads (there's store a few blocks from me), I'm disturbed by the lack of racial diversity its selection of models. When was the last time there wasn't a white, skinny, model on their ad posters?

In 2004, A&F settled a class action suite for $40 million and agreed to an effort to recruit more black, Latino and Asian employees, but it seems the ads haven't changed much. More disturbingly, a conservative talk show host defended A&F before the settlement by citing Hooters as a business right to discriminate in hiring practices.

Jay: ". . .Am I the only conservative Christian out there that sees it this way? . . ."

Recent polls of younger evangelical Christians would seem to suggest that conservatives are trending toward overcoming their parents' biases.

tilts at windmills: ". . . Also, even if gay people were covered by federal antidiscrimination laws, those laws exempt churches, so the Church can discriminate against whoever it wants. . . ."

I'm not sure about federal law, but as I understand my state's laws, religious organizations are only exempt if religious belief is an essential aspect of a job. So clergy are exempt, but bookkeepers and janitors are not.

ewe said...

yes you probably are the only conservative christian that sees it that way. I guess that means you have graduated and can move forward and out of that box now.

ODRE_NUEVO said...

Simply NO to discrimination as human beings deserve, Jew, Protestant what we are.


Bryan said...

Hi Jay. I don't know if you remember me at all, but I used to read your blog a lot and stuff. Well, I still do, I just kinda fell out of contact for whatever reason. Anyway, I just wanted to say that I am loving your blog again (even though I don't agree with everything you say, but then again no two people agree about everything, all the time so that's really not a big issue) and I wish that more people were as sensible as you are. I'm going to see about blogging again. We'll have to see what happens, but in the meantime, it's good time that a person with a brain in their head is speaking their mind. :) Good on you.

Glenn Houtchens said...

Hey Jay,
Absolutely correct and well said. The workplace should be about... work! I might add that the nature of the work allows the employer, however, to define standards for employee appearance. If a person for example wants to wear rainbow colored hair to define their gay pride, the company should be allowed to say "our job, our rules," without threat of legal repercussion. I realize this most often works in the opposite direction, however, when a person is fired for just being gay and an excuse is found to justify the action.

PS Come on back and read the Houtchblog- its been a while since I have heard from you =)

Robert said...

"Americans for Truth" -- I kind of like seeing this obvious double-speak by our enemies. Such drivel underscores the hypocrisy of those who say they have nothing against gay people, yet they want to erase them from the planet. Anyone up for a gay holocaust?

ewe said...

not another one Robert. Please.

Musicguy said...

"I think the government should get out of marriage and simply offer unions to people who want them: straight, gay, maybe even just a pair of old maid roommates who need some extra financial security."

That's a fabulous idea, one that has been touted by gay rights advocates, and one that has been enacted in quite a few European countries. We like to be behind the times here in America, at least when it comes to social issues. As long as we have the newest, badest weapon in the cache, most Americans are pleased.