Displaying an uncanny ability to take a moral stand, Schneidermann declared that, “Employment discrimination is ethically wrong and illegal no matter who the employer is.”
He is wrong on both fronts. First of all, employers discriminate all the time. They check credit and criminal backgrounds; they drug-test, check references and former employers, look at school transcripts, etc. This is especially true if the prospective employee is interviewing for a position that pays millions of dollars.
As Al Mohler put it last year (and as I noted in a previous column), “Discrimination—even ‘obvious discrimination’—is not necessarily wrong at all. Indeed, any sane society discriminates at virtually every turn, as do individuals. The law itself is an instrument of comprehensive discrimination.”
Of course, such “discrimination” is completely ethical as well. But you see, Schneidermann’s ethical conclusion is rooted in a moral position. His worldview tells him that it is wrong for an employer to even give the appearance that they might not hire someone because they are homosexual. Many Americans operate from the worldview that homosexual behavior is immoral.
What’s more, for most of the history of this nation our laws were rooted in such a worldview. As I have also noted before, as recently as 1960, every state in the
had laws against sodomy. In
upholding such laws, as recently as 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court declared
“Proscriptions against [homosexual] conduct have ancient roots. Sodomy was a
criminal offense at common law and was forbidden by the laws of the original 13
States when they ratified the Bill of Rights. . . . In fact, until 1961, all 50
States outlawed sodomy, and today, 24 States and the U.S. continue to provide
criminal penalties for sodomy performed in private and between consenting
adults. Against this background, to claim that a right to engage in such
conduct is ‘deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition,’ or ‘implicit
in the concept of ordered liberty’ is, at best, facetious [silly].” District of Columbia
You see, just as the marriage debate isn’t really about “equality,” this isn’t really about employment “discrimination.” Again, as I have said before, marriage [or employment “fairness,” or whatever the cause at the moment] is just the means to a more sinister end for the homosexual movement. This is about sex and about legitimizing, through the American judicial system [and of course, eventually the public schools], a sexual lifestyle many Americans find immoral.
Americans simply have to decide whose morals are going to guide us.