Obama's EEOC Nominee - "Not Tolerate" any "Private Beliefs"...?

I don't know about you, but when it comes to "freedom of speech", I do not think of separating my speech into 'identity liberty' and 'belief liberty'. That's not freedom, that's just more government control. There are already laws on the books to protect the rights of individuals without developing new laws that are basically for the benefit of a few chosen who have an agenda. Not to mention that this sounds like it is right out of "1984" and it smacks of "nazism" to me.

So please get a good look at the picture to your right. This is the new nominee for the Department of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. She has her program which she feels we all need to live by. She seems to believe that "gay rights" need to triumph and this is how she plans to do it. But, at what cost to religious freedom?

Please take the time to read the article below her picture. Your future freedom of speech may depend on it.




****************************************************************************

CNSNews.com
Obama’s EEOC Nominee: Society Should ‘Not Tolerate Private Beliefs’ That ‘Adversely Affect’ Homosexuals
Monday, January 18, 2010
By Matt Cover, Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) - Chai Feldblum, the Georgetown University law professor nominated by President Obama to serve on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, has written that society should “not tolerate” any “private beliefs,” including religious beliefs, that may negatively affect homosexual “equality.”

Feldblum, whose nomination was advanced in a closed session of the Senate Health Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on December 12, published an article entitled “Moral Conflict and Liberty: Gay Rights and Religion” in the Brooklyn Law Review in 2006.

“Just as we do not tolerate private racial beliefs that adversely affect African-Americans in the commercial arena, even if such beliefs are based on religious views, we should similarly not tolerate private beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity that adversely affect LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender] people,” the Georgetown law professor argued.

Feldblum’s admittedly “radical” view is based on what she sees as a “zero-sum game” between religious freedom and the homosexual agenda, where “a gain for one side necessarily entails a corresponding loss for the other side.”

“For those who believe that a homosexual or bisexual orientation is not morally neutral, and that an individual who acts on his or her homosexual orientation is acting in a sinful or harmful manner (to himself or herself and to others), it is problematic when the government passes a law that gives such individuals equal access to all societal institutions,” Feldblum wrote.

“Conversely, for those who believe that any sexual orientation, including a homosexual or bisexual orientation, is morally neutral, and that an individual who acts on his or her homosexual or bisexual orientation acts in an honest and good manner, it is problematic when the government fails to pass laws providing equality to such individuals.”

continue: Not Tolerate Private Beliefs

We Don't Need Hate Crime Legislation

Is this really the kind of change you want? President Obama believes you need this.

Hate begets hate! There are already laws on the books that, when enforced, would take care of prosecuting and punishing people who commit crimes (violent or otherwise) against other people. Why is it necessary to put a specific label on those crimes, such as hate, when those crimes happen to be perpetrated against all groups of people. It shouldn't matter whether it is against a white man or white woman, black man or black woman, the Irish, Jew, old person, young person, etc. Respect for life is what should rule. All life has value and all human life should be treated equal.

I say, adding the "hate" element only adds fuel to the fire. As it stands now, if one doesn't follow along in the belief of the lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender/transsexual (LGBT) agenda (called civil rights by President Obama), then one is guilty of hate! President Obama is dead wrong and his position is an insult to all that Martin Luther King fought for--true civil rights. What hate crime law truly should be called is an infringement on freedom of speech and freedom of thought.

We are headed down a very dark path as Americans if we allow our government to punish us for our thinking and expression of speech. It has become a crime to express our opinion, our feelings as to whether or not we like, support, or dislike how another person believes. If one believes that a particular act is offensive to them, they should be able to state that fact without being punished. Government cannot effectively legislate "hate" anymore than they can stop people from shooting people by legislating the banning of guns. Those individuals who don't go by the rules will have their guns and will still kill people. You cannot legislate morality of thought. You can only legislate morality of action.