Gay Patriot Header Image

Has Human Rights Campaign Betrayed Working Gays & Lesbians?

The conventional wisdom when Empress Pelosi and her merry band of military-bashing Democrats took control of Congress was that one piece of legislation was sure to sail through:  Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act protecting gays and lesbians in the workplace.  Of all “gay rights” issues, ENDA has consistently scored the highest level of support from a significant majority of Americans in all parts of the USA.

But if anyone could find a way to derail a sure thing — it would be the Human Rights Campaign.  There are a lot of things going on in the background that I know a little about…. but the bottom line appears to be that the HRC has sold out the progress of gays and lesbians in favor of protecting the Democratic Party and Nancy Pelosi’s lust for power.  I’m working on a more comprehensive review of the issue, but I would like to use this “update” from HRC Chief Joe Solomonese to illustrate my point.

As I did with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s interview with “60 Minutes”, I will have to activate my universal translator to relay the real story from Solomonese.  I’m turning the translator to “Homobullese-to-English”. 

Here is the actual update email from Joe complete with my translation for those of you who have trouble reading Homobullese.

The last two weeks have been the most heartbreaking and gut-wrenching of my life-and I know I’m not alone in that sentiment. Ever since we received word last week that the original, complete version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act was in trouble, many in our community have spent more than one sleepless night tossing and turning, trying to figure out the best strategy for moving forward. [GP Translation:  A strategy that would protect Democrats' lust for power and hijack any chance for true progress on ENDA.]

And although there were different views on which road to take, I personally received strength in knowing that our goal-enacting one bill that protects the entire GLBT community-would be the ultimate destination. Three rock-solid principles [GP Translation: Principles are temporary sacrifices the Gay Left must endure.] have guided my decision-making throughout this ordeal: a) In the context of decisions that lawmakers had made, HRC must craft a strategy that would achieve an inclusive ENDA most expeditiously; b) an “incremental” strategy that said we’d “come back and pick up gender identity in a few years” was not acceptable; and c) we couldn’t affect change if we weren’t part of the legislative process.

Those principles have dictated all of my actions and will continue to do so.  [GP Translation:  Actually *passing* non-discrimination into law this year never crosssed my mind.]

That final principle-staying in the game in order to influence the outcome-has, thus far, been almost unique to HRC, [GP Translation:  Protecting Democrats.] and the actions we’ve taken based upon it have come under intense scrutiny by others. 

No matter how difficult it is to come under fire, however, we know that turning our backs on our relationships with Congress is not an acceptable strategy for HRC. [GP Translation:  I have my nose so far up Pelosi's ass, my stomach acid digests her food.]

It would completely incapacitate us in the fight for a complete bill. Everything that has transpired in the past week, and everything that we will do going forward, reflects this basic understanding: if we remain outside of the legislative process, we have no hope of influencing it. [GP Translation:  And we'd have no hope of giving the DNC the money we gays are so good at forking over to them despite knives in our backs for 40 years.] 

And as we remain engaged in the legislative process [GP Translation:  Hillary's 2008 campaign.] we continue to unequivocally state that (a) we only support a complete employment bill-meaning one that provides the most robust protections for everyone in our community, whether gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender; and (b) we do not support the removal of gender identity from ENDA.

I won’t leave anyone wondering about where HRC stands: we do not support the incomplete bill recently introduced in Congress, and we only support a complete ENDA. Period. [GP Translation:  Because we don't think making real progress for hard working American gays & lesbians is important enough.]

In service of our mission and our principles, at this very moment the Human Rights Campaign is engaged in a full-scale lobbying effort focused on targeted members, both on the Hill and with in-district grassroots work, to support a complete bill. [GP Translation:  Massive sucking ass to Pelosi and Barney Frank.] 

We are facing an uphill battle but we refuse to give up — to quote Bill Clinton — “until the last dog dies.” [GP Translation:  Clinton made that comment shortly after he enacted Don't Ask, Don't Tell and signed Defense of Marriage Act.]

Our community can work with the people who want to help us, or we can walk out on them. We can fight to move the ball from where it is, or simply go home. HRC chose the former course. [GP Translation:  Because in our heart of hearts, we have no absolutely no idea how to compromise and gain consensus on gay rights issues in America.  Send us your checks!]  

[Translator deactivated....]

[RELATED STORY:  The Luxury of Principles - Robbie at The Malconent]

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

20 Comments

  1. Everything that has transpired in the past week, and everything that we will do going forward, reflects this basic understanding: if we remain outside of the legislative process, we have no hope of influencing it.

    Which is why, of course, they’ve spent the last decade or so waging all-out war on the majority of Congress, including paying thugs to harass them and their staff.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 8, 2007 @ 1:46 pm - October 8, 2007

  2. [...] Original post by GayPatriot [...]

    Pingback by Politics: 2008 HQ » Blog Archive » Has Human Rights Campaign Betrayed Working Gays & Lesbians? — October 8, 2007 @ 2:27 pm - October 8, 2007

  3. WTF does “gender identity” mean — in English, please?

    Comment by rightwingprof — October 8, 2007 @ 2:55 pm - October 8, 2007

  4. When the Democrats suffer political misfortune they point their fingers at us first. Still they have to audacity to ask for our money. Well I stopped bottoming for them long ago!

    It was the Southern Democrats that told people of color to sit in the back of the bus. Times haven’t changed in forty years!

    Comment by Dave_62 — October 8, 2007 @ 3:34 pm - October 8, 2007

  5. There are a lot of things going on in the background that I know a little about

    Amen.

    GP:
    Are you presenting the issue on ENDA and GENDA without even *mentioning* the transgender issues? The internal debate within the GLBT community over whether Congress can pass a trans-inclusive workplace discrimination bill? The stripping of trans rights from ENDA into GENDA, along with the added exemptions in ENDA for religious groups to continue to discriminate? You missed all of this background and yet posted on the matter anyway? I mean, I know nothing would stop you from dissing HRC (either of them), but I thought you would at least deal with the facts first.
    Let’s make this easy for you: the Democrats are not sure they can pass an ENDA bill that also protects trans rights. Why? Because of the blitz lately by right-wing Christian groups, misleading and scaring people into thinking that ENDA will result in bible-study schools being forced to hire millions of cross-dressers. (If you somehow missed all of this also, check out FotF or CWA press releases or radio appearances. )The upshot of all of this is that the religious right’s focus on the scary trans people has led to the Ds unsure if they can pass a bill that protects them. Another victory for extremist religious thought and propaganda.

    Comment by torrentprime — October 8, 2007 @ 4:24 pm - October 8, 2007

  6. Because of the blitz lately by right-wing Christian groups, misleading and scaring people into thinking that ENDA will result in bible-study schools being forced to hire millions of cross-dressers.

    And it will. Gay leftists and Democrats are openly contemptuous of the religious exemptions, and are demanding they be removed.

    Furthermore, it will prevent gay people who sexually harass others and abuse their position to get sexual favors from being fired, as was the case with Bonnie Bleskachek.

    See the problem? You are predicating status based on sexual behavior. Therefore, you cannot dismiss someone for the behavior that puts them into the protected class. Bleskachek’s soliciting her coworkers and retaliating against her lovers were individual sexual actions based on her status as a lesbian; therefore, she could not be fired based on them. Indeed, the reason the city didn’t try to is because the lawsuit she would have filed would probably have given her her position back. Instead they bought her off with a “demotion”, which ostensibly removed the problem by not allowing her to supervise other people.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 8, 2007 @ 4:53 pm - October 8, 2007

  7. 6: Why don’t you stop taking a single case and turning it into the ‘everyone will do this’ scenario? Your arguement has been used falsely for years in a number of cases, such as why women shouldn’t serve in the armed forces, why minorities shouldn’t be integrated, etc, etc.

    The logic you apply to Bleskachek’s case is false. The story you link to clearly shows (if true) an abuse of power by someone in a position of leadership against people with whom she had personal relationships with; the fact that they are lesbian is not germaine to the case. This kind of thing has happened elsewhere, the only difference being that everyone involved is the same gender. The abuse of power due to an existing/previous relationship has happened before and will probably happen somewhere again. If this court case goes ahead and Bleskachek is found guilty of abusing the power of her position, she can be terminated for such. Heck, by your logic, she could simply say (as laws exist right now) that she is being harassed because she’s a woman.

    Comment by Kevin — October 8, 2007 @ 7:35 pm - October 8, 2007

  8. Wow. FotF would be proud.
    You just echoed the claims of every anti-anti-discrimination opponent throughout history: “The blacks will be worth more than you!” “Women won’t be able to be fired when they do a bad job!” “When did perversion become a civil right?” and so on.

    You are predicating status based on sexual behavior.

    ENDA (and other such anti-discrimination bills) do no such thing. The law bans discrimination which is based on orientation, not behavior. Do laws which ban religious discrimination protect Christians or Muslims who mistreat their staff? No, cause their *actions* are grounds for firing/demotion, but their religion isn’t. Same here.
    ND30, I know you know this. I know you’re smarter than the above would lead an outsider to believe. You know what anti-discrimination laws do, and what they don’t do. Why on earth would you spread such falsehoods as these? Are you really walking around telling people that ENDA protects “sexual behavior”? Really?

    Comment by torrentprime — October 8, 2007 @ 8:09 pm - October 8, 2007

  9. Bruce,

    Rather than demean the work of the Democratic majority, who will bring ENDA to a vote this year, albeit without gender identity protection, perhaps you should work on convincing the leader of your party to sign the bill?

    Of course, we know the later won’t happen.

    Thus, the game plan is this: The Democrats pass ENDA without a gender identity provision this year and President Bush vetoes it. Then in 2009, the Democrats pass ENDA with a gender identity provision and President Clinton signs it.

    Comment by Chase — October 8, 2007 @ 9:22 pm - October 8, 2007

  10. So let me just add, all this hand wringing over gender identity at this point is inconsequential. Who really thinks the President won’t veto ENDA, with or without gender identity?

    That’s why the Democratic leadership will buck our advocacy groups and pass ENDA without gender identity protection. Because for ENDA to become law, we need the White House. But we don’t need the White House to make it a political issue. We just need Congress to pass it and then have the President veto it.

    Comment by Chase — October 8, 2007 @ 9:37 pm - October 8, 2007

  11. Ah! So Chase is confirming that it IS all about politics!

    Thanks for the clarification.

    Comment by GOPValues — October 8, 2007 @ 11:20 pm - October 8, 2007

  12. But we don’t need the White House to make it a political issue.

    I could have sworn the gay libs went apeshit not long ago accusing Bush of doing just that.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 9, 2007 @ 12:11 am - October 9, 2007

  13. Heck, by your logic, she could simply say (as laws exist right now) that she is being harassed because she’s a woman.

    She did.

    “The only thing I can come up with is that this is a whole lot of homophobia and sexism.”

    Also note: SHE was the one who portrayed her behavior as normal. SHE was the one who claimed that the actions taken against her were discrimination against lesbians and women.

    And where are HRC and NGLTF as this woman claims her behavior is normal and that disciplining gays and lesbians for sexually harassing people in the workplace is wrong?

    Insisting that the law that Bleskachek and her allied lesbians openly exploited to further themselves, solicit sex, and destroy peoples’ careers be extended to everyone so that they can enjoy the same “protections”.

    When it was discovered that Boeing’s chairman, a white male, was having a consensual affair with a subordinate who did not report to him, he was fired in a matter of hours. Bleskachek still is not fired, and will never BE fired — because, if she filed a lawsuit, Minnesota’s ENDA would likely require her being restored to her previous position because of her lesbian status and the fact that her sex life cannot be used as grounds for any sort of workplace decision. Boeing’s chairman enjoyed no such protections, and thus was held responsible for his misbehavior; Bleskachek is guaranteed a job and benefits as long as she wants, regardless of what she does.

    And that sort of ruins torrentprime’s argument here.

    The law bans discrimination which is based on orientation, not behavior.

    Then if that was the case, Bleskachek and her supporters could not have claimed homophobia.

    Furthermore, if that were the case, Bleskachek could have been fired without the risk of a lawsuit returning her to her position on the grounds that she had been discriminated against because of her sexual orientation and the associated behavior.

    “The blacks will be worth more than you!” “Women won’t be able to be fired when they do a bad job!”

    And interestingly enough, that’s turned out to be the case, hasn’t it?

    After all, universities, just to use an example, have policies that give black students extra credit for skin color, giving them more worth on the grounds of “diversity” and allowing them to enter over white students.

    Women regularly file lawsuits alleging discrimination when they are fired on the basis of poor performance, thus forcing businesses to pay either large settlements or long and protracted legal costs, with no means of recouping them; as a result, women (or any other protected class, for that matter) are less likely to be fired for poor performance.

    Meanwhile, businesses, pretty much by themselves, have created policies that prohibit discrimination against people based on things that carry no tie to work performance — mainly because they have realized that there really is no point in losing or not hiring a skilled and talented worker over something that won’t affect their job.

    Why punish them for doing the right thing?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 9, 2007 @ 2:54 am - October 9, 2007

  14. #13
    I find this Bleskachek chick’s meteoric rise to chief of a major city FD to be suspect. Not impossible, but suspect. I smell pandering to women and gays.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 9, 2007 @ 5:15 am - October 9, 2007

  15. I guess the idea that employers should be able to hire whoever they want and employees should be responsible for seeking out the work environment they feel comfortable in is just too much freedom for the leftist social engineers to contemplate.

    Comment by V the K — October 9, 2007 @ 8:43 am - October 9, 2007

  16. NDT, thanks for the Bleskachek link. I never knew what the deal was.

    To my eye, it doesn’t seem impossible that Bleskachek is a victim of extensive, petty jealousy and conspiracy… but it does seem highly unlikely. When you have *four* harassment lawsuits against you, after a long track record of finding your dates / partners almost exclusively at your workplace, something’s gotta be ‘off’.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 9, 2007 @ 10:53 am - October 9, 2007

  17. employees should be responsible for seeking out the work environment they feel comfortable in

    And what if the work environment I find is closed to me because,

    employers should be able to hire whoever they want

    ?

    How often must people who want to work, be turned away by those who disagree with their “lifestyle” before conservatives realize that not all employers are fair, or willing to see people for their work and abilities?

    Comment by Paul Raposo — October 9, 2007 @ 11:10 am - October 9, 2007

  18. employers should be able to hire whoever they want

    Does this include my right to fire conservatives, or religious people?

    Comment by Paul Raposo — October 9, 2007 @ 11:11 am - October 9, 2007

  19. I think we should take the ENDA we can get now. I know this leaves some people out, but better some of us out than all. Transgendered people are behind the gay community in terms of visibility and acceptance. These things take time. I don’t think it’s fair to the rest to ask us all to wait. Nor would I ask people to do that for me.

    Comment by Houndentenor — October 9, 2007 @ 2:19 pm - October 9, 2007

  20. I don’t think it’s fair to the rest to ask us all to wait.

    Is it fair to force people to like you?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 9, 2007 @ 9:56 pm - October 9, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.