The following inflammatory and disturbing email comes courtesy of a friend who wanted me to see the type of correspondence arriving in the "in box" of our Leon County Commissioners.
Subject: proposal that will expand the County’s existing anti-discrimination code to include protections for the LGBT community
I am AGAINST the proposal to extend protections to the LGBT community in employment. I believe that there are occupations where sexual orientation should be a point of discrimination. If I have a group in which I am promoting a heterosexual lifestyle, such as a church or private group; or if I am hiring for a position of oversight of children whom I want to protect from the influence of such a lifestyle, then a person's sexual orientation should be considered as a factor of employability.
I believe that giving the LGBT community further protection, contributes to the expansion of this lifestyle. I refuse to be coerced into advancing this lifestyle out of fear of a "brain drain" from FSU and FAMU.
I believe that further employment protection will give the LGBT community a leg-up over the general population, such as is provided in preferential hiring of veterans or with affirmation action hiring practices afforded to minorities according to race and gender or in corporate EEO quotas.
I believe that for most jobs sexual orientation is a non-issue and does not even appear on employment applications or in personnel files. There does not appear to be an overwhelming disadvantage afforded to the LGBT community with regard to employment, in general.
I believe that the LBGT lifestyle is a choice; although some claim that individuals are born with a propensity toward this lifestyle, to act on that propensity is a matter of choice. I believe that people have the freedom of choice in their pursuit of happiness but the choices they make are not are protected from the consequences of that choice and their choice should not be protected from consequences by government.
People choose to further their education or not: this choice plays into a potential employers decision making. A person chooses to use drugs or not: their choice plays into a potential employers decision-making. A person chooses to commit a crime or not: their choice plays into a potential employers decision-making. A person chooses to get a tatoo or not; their choice plays into a potential employers decision-making. A person chooses to dress a particular way: their choice plays into a potential empoyers decision-making. Why should the choice of sexual lifestyle be any different?
-- Doris L. Moss MBA, CAM
Client Services Manager
ParkerFinch Managemet
http://www.parkerfinch.com/
NOTE: My friend also shared with me that Ms. Moss, in addition to her professional and academic credentials, is also an officer in the local Capital City Democratic Women's Club, once again proving that bigotry knows no political boundaries.
I wonder if Ms. Moss would consider her lifestyle choice of being straight a "choice". Afterall, if we take her logic (such as it is) to its natural conclusion... then all people are faced with choosing whether to act on their hetero or homo instincts. And since she, presumably, has chosen to be straight, she wants the right to discriminate against those who made a different "choice".
Because, just as the Archbishop of Canterbury believes, there are consequences for such choices!
Again... my sexual orientation is NOT a lifestyle choice. It is the gift of my sexuality. Choosing Coke instead of Pepsi is a preference that is part of the "lifestyle choice" of drinking carbonated beverages. Wearing jeans instead of khakis because they are more comfortable is a "lifestyle choice." Choosing to be accepting of other people's differences in sexual orientation or being a fearful and discriminating bigot is a "lifestyle choice". Nuff said!
No comments:
Post a Comment