I am reading a piece by Father Mark Hodges in LifeSiteNews. Hodges likes to think of himself as the coolest Orthodox priest around. Just check out the shades (although he is married and has eight children). However, at the end of the day, he just repeats the same tired and moronic talking points about dastardly homosexuals. Get a clue Mark. That rhetoric doesn’t seem to be working. Keep it up and the pews will be even emptier to match the empty headed priests, prelates and policies.
Today Hodges doesn’t like the ruling of the Seventh Circuit which has determined that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination against LGBT people. I get that the Church disapproves of LGBT folks. Yet, why is it imperative to be able to discriminate against them? Those are two entirely different things.
The ruling is significant because it recognizes special protections for
LGBTQ status in existing law, making gay activists’ attempts to create
LGBTQ anti-discrimination laws unnecessary.
Those “special rights” or, in this case, “special protections” should have been dispensed with when Anita Bryant got divorced (how very Christian of her). It is intended to convey the notion that gays seek something more than equal protection and due process when all we have ever wanted in the workplace is to be treated fairly, to be judged by performance and skills.
Hodges isn’t done:
Indeed, if the decision is allowed to stand, it would essentially add LGBTQ protections to existing laws. Discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation” — an undefined phrase that could potentially be expanded to mean any number of sexual preferences — counts as discrimination on the basis of being male or female.
The purpose for that bit of BS is to suggest that sexual orientation is an ambiguous term and cannot be protected. Then, of course, comes the cheap shot of “preferences” and the suggesting that there are just too many to cope with. It has become habitual for priests to just outright in order to advance a political agenda. Does anyone actually believe that crap? We all know perfectly well what sexual orientation means. Sadly, many of my readers know all too well what discrimination based upon sexual orientation means.
More turds are coming your way:
The fact that historically the word was used by legislators and legally understood by justices to refer to male and female is not disputed. But with more than 50 separate gender identities now being infused into American business and education, gay activists say that “what the original laws’ authors believed or intended is irrelevant.”
Where did Hodges come up with his 50 gender identities? While gender is a continuum, most people identify as either male or female and what does any of that have to do with sexual orientation? Hodges is implying that it is all just too complicated. Well, it’s not too complicated. If you need any help Mark, I would be happy to sort it all out for you since you seem profoundly confused.
In other words, if upheld by the Supreme Court, the decision would create explicit protections for homosexuals in employment, housing, and education, regardless of a business owner’s, landlord’s, or school’s sincerely held beliefs.
Well, he got that part right. Who is to say what beliefs are sincerely held or not? The Ku Klux Klan is a Christian organization. We have held for a very long time that religion does not justify discrimination. People in this country have the right to worship as they please but we live in a diverse society in which everyone deserves to be free from discrimination.
Hodges lives in Lima, Ohio which does not have a comprehensive nondiscrimination ordinance. However, 29 Ohio cities and counties now have nondiscrimination
ordinances. Eleven of these fully protect individuals from
discrimination in employment and housing based on sexual orientation and
gender identity. In addition the State of Ohio protects its workers
from discrimination based on sexual orientation. Has that really created such an insurmountable problem?
No one cares whether Hodges approves of us or not. He never will. However, in many locales he cannot discriminate against us in employment, housing or public accommodations. Hopefully, that will extend to federal law in the very near future. As it stands now, even with Gorsuch joining the Supreme Court we have a pretty good chance of a ruling in favor of fairness.
Hodges goes on to recite passages from the dissenting opinions in the eight to three majority. Why do they insist on embracing the losing arguments? They were not persuasive enough to change the outcome. I guess it makes him feel better. Perhaps Friar Tuck can even find something better to do with his time than to write bigoted polemics for a bigoted outlet.