DOJ on ‘gays’: ‘Silence will be interpreted as disapproval’


By: Matt Barber

Under President Obama, “justice” is anything but blind. Neither is it deaf.  In fact, based on recent revelations, it appears to be watching your every move  and listening to your every word. Still, if you happen to be a federal employee,  now it’s even listening for your silence.

The only thing this Obama White House seems to generate is scandal. Well,  here’s yet another to add to the growing list. In addition to the Benghazi  cover-up, IRS targeting of political dissenters and the illegal seizure of media  phone records, whistleblowers within DOJ have contacted Liberty  Counsel to express grave concerns over this administration’s latest attack  on freedom.

Our sources have provided Liberty Counsel an internal DOJ document titled: “LGBT  Inclusion at Work: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Managers.” It was  emailed to DOJ managers in advance of the left’s so-called “Lesbian, Gay,  Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Pride Month.”

The document is chilling. It’s riddled with directives that grossly violate –  prima facie –employees’ First Amendment liberties.

Following are excerpts from the “DOJ Pride” decree. When it comes to “LGBT  pride,” employees are ordered:

  • “DON’T judge or remain silent. Silence will be interpreted as  disapproval.” (Italics mine)

That’s a threat.

And not even a subtle one.

Got it? For Christians and other morals-minded federal employees, it’s no  longer enough to just shut up and “stay in the closet” – to live your life in  silent recognition of biblical principles (which, by itself, is unlawful  constraint). When it comes to mandatory celebration of homosexual and  cross-dressing behaviors, “silence will be interpreted as disapproval.”

This lawless administration is now ordering federal employees – against their  will – to affirm sexual behaviors that every major world religion, thousands of  years of history and uncompromising human biology reject.

Somewhere, right now, George Orwell is smiling.

The directive includes a quote from a “gay” federal employee to rationalize  justification: “Ideally, I’d love to hear and see support from supervisors, so  it’s clear that there aren’t just policies on paper. Silence seems like  disapproval. There’s still an atmosphere of LGBT issues not being appropriate  for the workplace (particularly for transgender people), or that people who  bring it up are trying to rock the boat.”

Of course there’s “still an atmosphere of LGBT issues not being appropriate  for the workplace.” When well over half of federal employees, half the country  and most of the world still believe in objective sexual morality (and  immorality), “the workplace,” especially the federal workplace, should, at the  very least, remain neutral on these highly controversial and behavior-centric  issues.

Still, to borrow from self-styled “queer activist,” anti-Christian bigot and  Obama buddy Dan Savage, “it gets better”:

  • “DO assume that LGBT employees and their allies are listening to what you’re  saying (whether in a meeting or around the proverbial water cooler) and will  read what you’re writing (whether in a casual email or in a formal document),  and make sure the language you use is inclusive and respectful.”

Is this the DOJ or the KGB? “[A]ssume that LGBT employees are listening …”?  And what are “LGBT allies”? If you disagree with the homosexual activist  political agenda, does that make you the enemy?

Yes, in any workplace, language should remain professional, but who defines  what’s “inclusive”? Who decides what’s “respectful”? If asked about “LGBT  issues,” for instance, can a Christian employee answer honestly: “I believe the  Bible. I believe God designed sex to be shared between husband and wife within  the bonds of marriage”? Or is that grounds for termination?

Here are some more DOs:

  • DO “Attend LGBT events sponsored by DOJ Pride and/or the Department, and  invite (but don’t require) others to join you.”
  • DO “Display a symbol in your office (DOJ Pride sticker, copy of this  brochure, etc.) indicating that it is a ‘safe space.’”

Are you kidding? Does this administration really think it’s legal to compel  managers to “attend LGBT events,” or to “display pride stickers” against their  will? That’s compulsory expression. That’s viewpoint discrimination.

That’s unconstitutional.

But there’s more:

  • “DO use inclusive words like ‘partner,’ ‘significant other’ or ‘spouse’  rather than gender-specific terms like ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ (for example, in  invitations to office parties or when asking a new employee about his/her home  life).”

Oh, brother.

Sorry. Oh, gender-neutral sibling.

  • “DO use a transgender person’s chosen name and the pronoun that is  consistent with the person’s self-identified gender.”

In other words, lie. Engage in corporate delusion.

  • “DO deal with offensive jokes and comments forcefully and swiftly when  presented with evidence that they have occurred in the workplace.”
  • “DO communicate a zero-tolerance policy for inappropriate jokes and  comments, including those pertaining to a person’s sexual orientation and gender  identity or expression.”

Who gets to decide what’s an “inappropriate joke [or] comment”? I thought we  had a Constitution for that. It sure ain’t Big Brother Barack. Sure, I get it,  it’s probably better not to start your work day with: “A lesbian, a tranny and  two gays walk into a bath house …” but still, “no law … abridging the freedom of  speech,” means no law. No matter how much Obama wishes it so, we don’t leave our  constitutional rights at the federal workplace door.

The DOJ edict even addresses cross-dressing man woes:

“As a transgender woman [that's a man in a skirt], I want people to  understand that I’m real. I want to be recognized as the gender I really am  [again, you're a man in a skirt]. Yes, there was awkwardness with pronouns at  first for folks who knew me before the transition. But it hurts when several  years later people still use the wrong pronouns. And just imagine if people were  constantly debating YOUR bathroom privileges. Imagine how humiliating that would  be.”

Tell you what, buddy: I won’t “debate YOUR bathroom privileges” if you return  to this planet. You’d better stay the heck out of the ladies room while my wife  or two daughters are in there; otherwise, we have a problem. Women have an  absolute right not be sexually harassed in the workplace – a right to privacy  when using the facilities. To constantly worry whether a gender-confused,  cross-dressing man is going to invade her privacy creates a hostile work  environment.

This “DOJ Pride” directive is but the latest example of the “progressive”  climate of fear and intimidation this radical Obama regime has created for  Christians, conservatives and other values-oriented folks, both within and  without the workplace.

I’m just glad the wheels are finally coming off.

About The Author Matt Barber:
Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as vice president of Liberty Counsel Action. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)
Website:http://www.lc.org

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.