Cynthia A. Janak
September 25, 2007
Bringing back Hitler and the SS
By Cynthia A. Janak

Right now we have a bill called HR 2015 that, in my opinion, would bring back forced hiring by our government for local business. Surprised, I am not.

First, I am going to give you a list of all the politicians who are presenting this bill. It is my opinion that all these politicians need to be voted out office or impeached for "violating the public trust" and "violating our First Amendment rights that state "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;."

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

April 24, 2007

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts (for himself, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. CROWLEY, Ms. KILPATRICK, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. WYNN, Mr. CLAY, Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. HONDA, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mr. PASTOR, Mr. WAXMAN, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Mr. GONZALEZ, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. FARR, Ms. MCCOLLUM of Minnesota, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. EMANUEL, Mr. HINOJOSA, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. MOORE of Kansas, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Mr. DOYLE, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. LOEBSACK, Mr. DINGELL, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. RANGEL, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. WU, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. CLEAVER, Mr. DOGGETT, Mr. HINCHEY, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. MATHESON, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. HOLT, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. FILNER, Mr. MICHAUD, Mr. NADLER, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. DELAHUNT, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. OLVER, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr. DEFAZIO, Ms. NORTON, Mr. SIRES, Mr. ELLISON, and Mrs. DAVIS of California) introduced the following bill;

With this bill they are doing just that. Let me show you the section that deals with the violation of the First Amendment. It will make an interesting read.

SEC. 4. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED.

  1. Employer Practices- It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer

    1. to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment of the individual, because of such individual's actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity; or

    2. to limit, segregate, or classify the employees or applicants for employment of the employer in any way that would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment or otherwise adversely affect the status of the individual as an employee, because of such individual's actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.

What Section 4 of this bill tells me is that every company is going to be forced to hire people because of sexual orientation or gender identity before qualified applicants. The reason that I say this is because of paragraph (1) that states: to fail ... to hire... any individual...because of such individual's actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.

It even gets better. In paragraph (2) states: to limit... applicants...or tend to deprive... because of such individual's actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.

What this is telling me is that if a company has one job opening. They decide that they are going to accept 20 applications for review. Now, what if that company receives 100 applications for the position? Let us say that 20 of those applications came from people of perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. This company will be forced, by law, to review all of the 100 applications and the ones that appear to be perceived sexual orientation or gender identity will have to take priority over any other qualified applicant. If a company does not do that the person applying for the job will be able to scream discrimination. Is that because of the term "tend." This means that it can be perceived and not fact.

A company will no longer be able to hire a person because of their qualifications. The company will be forced by law to hire the type of person that will be mandated by our government.

With this bill you will have government intrusion into the very core of business. What will be next? My bet is that it will be government intrusion into our very homes and lives. We will no longer be free. At least, in my opinion, we will be less free than we are now. The Patriot Act and Hate Speech legislation took care of limiting our freedoms.

Now on to what this means for our churches. I am going to give you Sec. 6.

SEC. 6. EXEMPTION FOR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS.

  1. In General- This Act shall not apply to any of the employment practices of a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society which has as its primary purpose religious ritual or worship or the teaching or spreading of religious doctrine or belief.

  2. Certain Employees- For any religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society that is not wholly exempt under subsection (a), this Act shall not apply with respect to the employment of individuals whose primary duties consist of teaching or spreading religious doctrine or belief, religious governance, supervision of a religious order, supervision of persons teaching or spreading religious doctrine or belief, or supervision or participation in religious ritual or worship.

Now, the important part I want you to notice is that it states: not wholly exempt. If any religious organization takes one penny for profit they will be forced to hire people that violate their religious doctrine or belief.

My question for you is what about all the Christian Book stores and the other Christian stores? These entities will be forced to hire people that violate their beliefs or suffer persecution for violating the law. How is this right?

This bill has several things that are of interest. They will further dictate to business how they handle certain situations that arise in the work place.

SEC. 8. CONSTRUCTION.

  1. Employer Rules and Policies-

    1. IN GENERAL- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit a covered entity from enforcing rules and policies that do not circumvent the purposes of this Act, if the rules or policies are designed for, and uniformly applied to, all individuals regardless of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.

    2. SEXUAL HARASSMENT- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit a covered entity from taking adverse action against an individual because of a charge of sexual harassment against that individual, provided that rules and policies on sexual harassment, including when adverse action is taken, are designed for, and uniformly applied to, all individuals regardless of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.

    3. CERTAIN SHARED FACILITIES- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to establish an unlawful employment practice based on actual or perceived gender identity due to the denial of access to shared shower or dressing facilities in which being seen fully unclothed is unavoidable, provided that the employer provides reasonable access to adequate facilities that are not inconsistent with the employee's gender identity as established with the employer at the time of employment or upon notification to the employer that the employee has undergone or is undergoing gender transition, whichever is later.

    4. DRESS AND GROOMING STANDARDS- Nothing in this Act shall prohibit an employer from requiring an employee, during the employee's hours at work, to adhere to reasonable dress or grooming standards not prohibited by other provisions of Federal, State, or local law, provided that the employer permits any employee who has undergone gender transition prior to the time of employment, and any employee who has notified the employer that the employee has undergone or is undergoing gender transition after the time of employment, to adhere to the same dress or grooming standards for the gender to which the employee has transitioned or is transitioning.

What paragraph (3) is telling the employer and the employees is that a male will be able to go into and use the woman's locker room shower and lavatory if they state that they are going through gender transition. Personally, that will just open the door for all kinds of peeping toms. All a present employee would have to do is tell their employer that they have started to go through gender transition. The business will be forced under federal law to allow that employee access to all facilities of the opposite sex.

This makes me glad that I work from my home. I will not have to deal with any male who decides they are transitioning sharing the women's facilities with me.

Paragraph (4) tells us that if a person decides that they are going to transition they will be able to wear a dress and grow their hair long in the work place or violate federal law.

In my title I referenced Hitler and the SS. That is because Hitler dictated to the people what they were going to do and how they were going to live. The people and businesses did not have any choice. Our government is going to dictate to "We The People" our actions. With what we have here our own version of the SS will monitor and enforce these new laws.

What is going to be next euthanasia for the infirm and handicapped, like Terri? That is my opinion.

This has to be stopped now. Let these politicians know that we are not happy and that they need to take their name of the ballot for 2008.

Contact your legislator and tell them to vote this travesty down. This has no place in a free society.

TO FIND YOUR SENATORS AND CONGRESSMEN

Find your Senators=> www.Senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Find your Congressmen=> www.House.gov/writerep
Find your Congressmen & Senators=> www.MoralLaw.org/delegation.htm
Find your Newspapers=> www.TownHall.com/action/write_media.html/
Find Local Talk-Radio=> www.Radio-Locator.com


© Cynthia A. Janak

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

Cynthia A. Janak

Cynthia Janak is a freelance journalist, mother of three, foster mother of one, grandmother of five, business owner, Chamber of Commerce member... (more)

Subscribe

Receive future articles by Cynthia A. Janak: Click here

Latest articles

November 17, 2013
Why VAERS is a passive reporting system that the FDA loves to quote


May 20, 2012
Does the mainstream media slant the truth about the HPV vaccines? Part 3


May 19, 2012
Does the mainstream media slant the truth about the HPV vaccines? Part 2


May 17, 2012
Does the mainstream media slant the truth about the HPV vaccines? Part 1


April 27, 2012
HPV vaccines -- Do the risks outweigh the benefit?


April 6, 2012
Anaphylaxis and HPV vaccines, what do they have in common?


October 7, 2011
HPV vaccine cocktail targets not only HPV


September 27, 2011
Truth about Gardasil demands that the Department of Justice investigate HPV vaccines


September 21, 2011
Talking about the HPV vaccine is now called fear mongering and morally indefensible


September 20, 2011
HPV studies -- Inclusion and exclusion roulette wheel


More articles