Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...‘Ex-gays’ sue DC human rights office
10.14.2008 1:22pm EDT
(Washington) A national organization that claims homosexuality is a matter of choice and that gays can be “cured” has filed a lawsuit against the Washington DC Office of Human Rights, accusing it of failing to protect “ex-gays.”
The DC Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays, or PFOX, says in its suit that the Office of Human Rights does not recognize “ex-gays.”
The suit asks the DC Superior Court to direct the Office to include former homosexuals under the sexual orientation law.
“The ex-gay community is the most bullied and maligned group in America, yet they are not protected by sexual orientation non-discrimination laws,” said Regina Griggs, PFOX executive director, in a statement.
“Shouldn’t ex-gays enjoy the same legal protections that gays enjoy?” asked Griggs in the statement.
“Former homosexuals and their friends have been fired from their jobs, repeatedly ridiculed, assaulted, and intimidated. This harassment is most often perpetrated by the same groups who demand protection under sexual orientation laws but work to deny ex-gays the same respect.”
Griggs also said that the group wants protections for “ex-gays” in federal legislation – specifically the Employment Non-Discrimination Act known as ENDA.
“PFOX is especially concerned because Presidential candidate Barack Obama has failed to answer PFOX’s Aug. 25th letter asking if ex-gays will be included in sexual orientation legislation which Obama says he will sign into law as President,” said Griggs.
ENDA has passed the House but has yet to be taken up by the Senate. It would outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, credit and housing.
“Former homosexuals should have the right to be out, open and safe in society,” said Griggs. “On his website, Senator Obama says he supports gay and transgender rights because he supports civil rights for all persons, but does that include ex-gays? Americans need to know where Obama stands on the issue of ex-gay inclusion because his pledge to pass homosexual and transgender legislation as President will affect all of us. We urge Senator Obama to end his silence.”
Ex-gays are covered by existing non-discrimination laws as long as those laws specifically protect “everyone” from discrimination based on sexual orientation.
What makes those laws fair is that they do not exclude heterosexuals or ex-gays from protection.
I thought “exgays” were heterosexual? Heterosexuals are covered in California’s anti-discrimination laws. I couldn’t go into work tomorrow and fire every straight person because they are straight – I’d be sued. The way the law is here – it just reads “sexual orientation.” Doesn’t that include heterosexuals, bisexuals, gays and asexuals?
Is today 1 April? I do remember choosing to be gay: it was on a game show I was on. “Do you want the $1 million or the homophobia?” I would have been crazy to have taken the million dollars.
This doesn’t make any sense to me. If you are ex-gay that means you are heterosexual and thus part of the majority. You have no need to divulge your ex-gay status unless you want to create a situation or promote the ex-gay movement. Either way, you have no need for special rights, and what they are asking for are special rights!
Whereas, if you are gay, you are quickly discriminated against becuase of it. The backlash against these ex-gays is because it is not a choice yet they claim it to be such. Not to mention they impose that belief onto others (much like their home religion does to others!)
Doesn’t that make sense?
Blessings,
Rev. Draigh Lunara
If this is allowed to move forward – can I then sue as an “ex-catholic” under religious protection laws?
My e-mail to PFOX:
I read with interest your lawsuit seeking to include “ex-gays” in laws such as ENDA.
It will be interesting to see if this moves forward.
I do find your logic somewhat circular. You claim that you want to be covered under laws that protect GLBT people from discrimination because they ARE gay – but to be protected under these laws because you are NOT gay (but “used to be”).
If you are an “Ex-gay” – doesn’t that now make you heterosexual? And why would you then identify as as an “Ex-gay” and not heterosexual?
It appears that this is a very thinly veiled attempt to use laws to protect GLBT people from discrimination in order that you might use those protections to promote your own anti-gay agenda – which I have to say, and I am supported by many true professionals in this regard – is a very destructive one.
However, if your case is allowed to move foward, and as an “Ex-catholic” (for lack of a better term) myself, I will then be more than happy to sue in order to be covered under freedom of religion laws. Since religion is unquestionably a choice.
With you own logic, I should then be allowed to assert anti-catholic views and be protected in doing so.
While I imagine that there are some GLBT people, for whatever life reasons – actually “choose” to pursue a homosexual life, I would venture to say that only those with masochistic tendencies would fall under that category.
I do feel sorry for what I imagine are the vast majority of people belonging to your group who have been taught and are so filled with self-loathing (someting that your organization no doubt reinforces) – that they feel the need to supress their own identity to such a self-destructive degree.
Having said that though, for the precious few, if any, that might exist who genuinely do fall under your category… I would suggest they identify themselves as heterosexual (that’s what they now claim to be, right?) and not “ex-gay” if they are so concerned about “discrimination”.
As stated, attempting to identify as an “Ex-gay” is obvious to any itelligent, thinking and rational person – little more than attempting to use GLBT protection laws to forward an anti-gay agenda.
My prayers for the unfortunate souls who have found their way to your organization.
Sincerely,
Chris Sullivan
The only ‘legitimate’ beef i can imagine them having is the assertions that they don’t exist and orientation is immutable. So if the topic of GLBT persons came up and it wasn’t chimed in that they can change to straight, then they feel marginalized. Though it’s all very odd, you would think that people who were so conflicted that they tried to change would want any queer past to stay forever buried.
Can’t take the heat? Get out of the gay kitchen?
I’m an ex-straight. Nice to meet you.
The “ex gays” are sexual terrorists.
Am I confused or doesn’t it mean that when you are an “ex-gay” that means your straight? Don’t straight people already enjoy their full freedoms? These people need to get over themselves. They have no standing on the issue of discrimination.
If you are an x-gay, you are straight, and therefore already protected, but I agree with other posts that say this is a veiled attempt to discredit the gay community.
“Ex-gays” deserve ridicule. It’s like being ex-hispanic or ex-human.
They’re still gay, regardless of how adamantly they deny it or delude themselves. And thus the ridicule is appropriately placed. Them, and Scientologists. Uh-huh, those two right there, they get the ridicule.