ENDA's
Real Intention
By
Rev. Ted Pike
25 May 2010
 Perhaps
thousands of callers have now urged 13 undecided senators to vote
against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Our anger
is fueled by ENDA's potential to allow transgender male employees
not only into women’s restrooms but also showers and dressing
rooms in businesses of more than 15 employees. Every public school
and college in America has at least that many employees, along with
male and female shower facilities used by students and staff.
 Yet
Peter Sprigg, senior fellow of Family Research Council, says
in the Washington Times that under ENDA naked transgenders
can’t invade school locker rooms. “ENDA carves out an
exception for shared shower and dressing facilities in which being
seen unclothed is unavoidable.” As a result, Christian/conservative
groups now pull back from claiming ENDA will allow transitioning
men into women's showers. What is the truth? Here again is Section
8, paragraph 3 of ENDA.
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 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.
This
intentionally confusing section says the government will not honor
any complaint by, for example, transgender males who claim they
are being excluded from women's shower facilities—as
long as the employer provides such men with "adequate"
(non-shower and dressing room) facilities.
But
if ENDA is passed, such restriction will infuriate many "transitioning"
males. It deprives them of fully enjoying their new-found female
privileges. If after working out, a transgender “female”
at a college or gym is denied the necessity to shower with members
of his new sex, such exclusion will be considered discrimination—an
excellent basis for a federal lawsuit. If ENDA is passed in its
present form, it will generate a profusion of lawsuits by aggrieved
transsexuals.
ENDA
itself is in transition. The first stage is passage of
unworkable legislation that discriminates against the right of a
transitioning male employee to full and adequate use of female shower
facilities. For ENDA to guarantee equality, the above section must
be rewritten to become an "equal showering" amendment.
Bridgette
P. LaVictoire, writing in lesbian website LezGetReal.com,
reflects awareness in the homosexuality community of ENDA's discrimination:
“The largest stumbling block has been regarding transgender
protections. Unfortunately, in order to get those protections in
the bill, they were forced to include a rather discriminatory portion
about not allowing a person to use the bathrooms correct to their
gender presentation. This opens the door to a great deal of abuses
and problems unless there is also a provision that requires businesses
to have a unisex bathroom.”
ENDA’s
discrimination centers on public showers and dressing rooms, not
bathrooms as LaVictoire confusingly asserts. And this discrimination
cannot be ended by unisex facilities, as she ambiguously
contends—whether a single-occupant, unisex bathroom/shower,
or a communal unisex facility for male and female transgenders.
There
is only one thing that transgender activists will accept: full rights
to enter dressing rooms and showers of their new sex. Only this
confirms that they are regarded by society as truly equal and accepted.
Anything less says: “You are still not male or female enough
to be admitted into the confidence of those you now consider your
own. You can’t boldly say, ‘I am a man,’ or ‘I
am a woman,’ in all areas of society and receive respect and
dignity for who you are. Transsexuals are still 'have nots,' isolated
by the sexual apartheid of government, business, and society."
Already,
even before ENDA enshrines anti-transgender discrimination into
law, transgenders are proving litigious. In Pennsylvania, a transgender
"woman" is winning a discrimination lawsuit against her
former employer, brought before the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission.
She was hired as "James" but was transitioning to "Kate
Lynn." Her employer required her to use a unisex single-occupancy
bathroom until she could medically document her "anatomically
appropriate" gender. This wasn't enough for "Kate Lynn,"
who complained about having to walk five minutes from her work location
to the unisex facility. A preoperative male-to-female transsexual
is also currently suing Macy's for being ejected from the women's
restroom.
Masters of Deception
Confused?
That's exactly what homosexual activists Barney Frank and Chai Feldblum,
writers of ENDA, intend. Both are highly articulate communicators.
Yet in crafting the transgender provision of ENDA, they purposely
made it so nearly incomprehensible that members of Congress and
the public will give up trying to decipher it. Instead, we accept
the simplistic summary of the bill provided by the very deceivers
who confused us in the first place! Their streamlined explanations
to Congress and the media, of course, do not mention the possibility
of men in women's showers or even restrooms. Congress votes not
for the actual bill but a misrepresentation.
In
all this, ENDA ignores the possibility that the civil rights of
children, teens and college students might be violated by intrusion
of lechers into their showers. As Attorney General Eric Holder revealed
in his Senate Judiciary hate bill hearing, the Anti-Defamation League’s
"anti-hate" laws are not about protecting the white, Christian,
heterosexual majority - only small minorities whom liberals consider
historic "victims" of Christian civilization. (Watch the
NPN video "Holder
Admits: No Equality Under Hate Bill.")
Of
course, ADL, the mainspring of the bill, doesn't truly care about
the civil rights of transgenders. ENDA is a means to an incredibly
evil end. ADL wants ENDA to force showering between all students
and sexual deviants because only then can this legislation reach
its fullest potential to destroy sexual/gender clarity and morality
in the next generation. Jewish ADL and its religiously Orthodox
leader, Abe Foxman, have one goal: tearing down the structure and
values of Christian civilization so that on its ruins a Judaic one-world
order may be established by Israel’s false messiah, Anti-Christ.
Foxman says he keenly anticipates appearance of this messiah. Orthodox
Jews believe their messiah will rule the world from Jerusalem. (See,
"ADL's
Foxman: Man of Faith?") Few things are more corrosive to
nations than homosexuality, destroying basic definitions and protections
for “male” and “female.” That’s why
ADL pushes sodomy so hard in every level of society.
Don't
think that under ENDA your children will have any protection from
sexual predators in the public school system. Under ADL's hate laws,
devotees of 547 sexual deviancies, or paraphilias, have all
the special rights. Under ENDA, they are the state-supported predators.
Your children are their prey. (Watch the NPN video "Stop
the Pedophile Protecting Hate Bill!")
TAKE
ACTION! It is vital that we continue to boldly describe
ENDA as leading to allowance of "transitioning" male employees
into women's restrooms and showers. Call the 13 undecided U.S. Senators
listed at Truthtellers.org's Action
Page. Did you call last week? Call again toll free at 877-851-6437.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
TALK
SHOW HOSTS: Interview Rev. Ted Pike on this topic. Call
(503) 631-3808.
 The
freedom-saving outreach of Rev. Ted Pike and the National Prayer
Network is solely supported by the sale of books, videos, and your
financial. All gifts are tax-deductable.
NATIONAL
PRAYER NETWORK,
P.O. Box 828, Clackamas, OR 97015
America First Books Editor's
Note
For
those new to the hate bill controversy that is the topic of most
of Rev. Pike's work, please link to the following articles:
 Alert
to Congress Regarding Hate Bills and the False Flag Attack Threat
by America First Books publisher William B. Fox. Two-thirds
down the web page please find the essay "The
Hate Crime Law Concept: It is all very sinister for at least nine
major reasons."
Also,
earlier on this same page I comment:
Although
Rev Ted Pike is completely independent from Captain May and myself
in terms of his political and religious views, the threats we
address all stem from the same corrupt power elite. I mention
in my concluding remarks below that this elite “would mobilize
us into domestic tyranny and foreign wars, while distracting us
from economic depression and the groups that brought it about.”
This
is the real problem, not the lack of more “hate crime”
laws. If anything, we need even more freedom of speech to speak
truth to power, sort out our problems, and develop peaceful strategies
to handle high level malefactors. This is why we urgently need
for members of Congress to not only take a principled stand and
stop all hate crime legislative initiatives, but to also roll
back all the existing hate crime laws currently on the books.
Hate
crime laws actually pose a major national security threat. They
condition Americans to feel that certain types of thought are inherently
immoral or illegal, even if they do not result in any form of violence
or infringement on the rights of others.
In
our articles related to false flag attacks, Capt.
Eric H. May and I have discussed strong evidence that Mossad-CIA
was behind 9-11, the mere "thought" of which would some
day be outlawed once hate crime oversight bureaucracies become firmly
implanted in America. We can expect government hate crime overwatch
entities to experience the usual cancerous growth and abuse of power
that libertarian writer and Presidential candidate Harry Browne
described in his classic book Why
Government Doesn't Work.
Please
find out more about the hate crime issue in the Rev
Ted Pike archive.
Please discover important
alternative religious and secular viewpoints on freedom of speech
issues at America First Books:
a) The
Rev Ted Pike archive
b) The
Religious Crisis page
These web pages address not only conservative
Christian and Christian Zionist viewpoints, but also secular, anarcho-libertarian,
atheist, pagan/natural religion (particularly Asatru/Odinist), racial
nationalist, and "miscellaneous other" perspectives.
|
at
the Battle of Cowpens, S. Carolina, 1781