Anyone want to help with my rebuttal?

[sailaway58]

Dear Tim:



Thank you for contacting me about legislation to expand Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 , to prohibit employers from considering sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation when making hiring decisions . It was a pleasure to hear from you.



The Civil Rights Act of 1964 sought to provide a legal remedy for citizens who are disadvantaged by the actions of others. The role of the law is to deal with actions and their effects on other citizens. By identifying a group as a victim of systematic discrimination, non-discrimination legislation creates a new class of workers on the basis of their belief and moral choice, an improper role for the law to assume. In addition, such legislation would prohibit many organizations from taking their most deeply held convictions into account when hiring employees. Finally, the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act already protect the rights of all workers.



Again, thank you for contacting me. It is an honor to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives and have the benefit of your advice even if we do not agree with each other on this issue. If you would like more information on this or any other issue, please visit my website at http://mikepence.house.gov .



Warmest regards,

Mike Pence
Member of Congress

[Steven E. Webster]

Dear Tim:



Thank you for contacting me about legislation to expand Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 , to prohibit employers from considering sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation when making hiring decisions . It was a pleasure to hear from you.



The Civil Rights Act of 1964 sought to provide a legal remedy for citizens who are disadvantaged by the actions of others. The role of the law is to deal with actions and their effects on other citizens. By identifying a group as a victim of systematic discrimination, non-discrimination legislation creates a new class of workers on the basis of their belief and moral choice, an improper role for the law to assume. In addition, such legislation would prohibit many organizations from taking their most deeply held convictions into account when hiring employees. Finally, the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act already protect the rights of all workers.



Again, thank you for contacting me. It is an honor to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives and have the benefit of your advice even if we do not agree with each other on this issue. If you would like more information on this or any other issue, please visit my website at http://mikepence.house.gov .



Warmest regards,

Mike Pence
Member of Congress

This guy writes in the language of legal mumbo-jumbo. You got to talk plain English to this dude. Right off the bat, we can see that he is using the word "choice," as though being LGBT is a "choice" and maybe a bad "moral choice." So I would tell him in no uncertain terms that he's misinformed and maybe just plain ignorant on that element of his legal analysis.

You might point out that many people in 1964 had "deeply held convictions" that segregation was "God's will."

I'd also dig up some statistics as to how the general public feels about job discrimination against LGBT persons. I believe large majorities now oppose discrimination in employment.

I'd also point to states that have long had laws barring anti-LGBT discrimination. Is anyone really suffering in those states? Or does the good outweigh the bad.

Some would also argue that local economies benefit when talented and creative people feel comfortable that they live in a community that does not practice discriminaton.

Steven Webster

[RedneckDyke]

Sometimes i wish these politicians would come out and say what they really mean. Go ahead, congressman, tell us "God hates a fag", you know you want to.

[Zerbie]

Steven suggested statistics. You can (i believe) find those on the HRC.org website. I think the percentage is roughly 79% in favor of employment protections. If you can't find the stats on HRC's site, PM me: I believe I still have a file of talking points about ENDA saved on my computer somewhere. maybe.

[Emproph]

Sometimes i wish these politicians would come out and say what they really mean. Go ahead, congressman, tell us "God hates a fag", you know you want to.
Here, here! :tup:

Pence is a lost cause.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 sought to provide a legal remedy for citizens who are disadvantaged by the actions of others. The role of the law is to deal with actions and their effects on other citizens. By identifying a group as a victim of systematic discrimination, non-discrimination legislation creates a new class of workers on the basis of their belief and moral choice, an improper role for the law to assume. In addition, such legislation would prohibit many organizations from taking their most deeply held convictions into account when hiring employees. Finally, the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act already protect the rights of all workers.
Analysis
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 sought to provide a legal remedy for citizens who are disadvantaged by the actions of others. The role of the law is to deal with actions and their effects on other citizens.

So far so good.

By identifying a group as a victim of systematic discrimination, non-discrimination legislation creates a new class of workers on the basis of their belief and moral choice, an improper role for the law to assume.

“By identifying a group as a victim of systematic discrimination,” Which he already did in his first paragraph by describing them as “citizens who are disadvantaged by the actions of others,” except this time he instantaneously and COMPLETELY changes the subject by describing these victims of discrimination (GLBT) as a “class of workers on the basis of their belief and moral choice.”

“Belief” = We believe we are same-gender attracted.
“Moral choice” = We not only choose to be same-gender attracted, but are morally inferior as a result.

In so many words, “gays choose to be morally depraved, therefore their complaint of discrimination is irrelevant (but as a politician, I am not in a position to be honest with you openly (and probably wouldn’t have the spine to do so anyway)).

In addition, such legislation would prohibit many organizations from taking their most deeply held convictions into account when hiring employees.

Same-gender attracted persons = “belief” to be dismissed out of hand.

But,

"Belief" ABOUT same-gender attracted persons = “Deeply held convictions” to be protected at the EXPENSE of same-gender attracted persons.

Finally, the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act already protect the rights of all workers.

He said the same about hate crimes. From his speech on the house floor:

Violent attacks on people or property are already illegal regardless of the motive behind them, and there is no evidence that the underlying violent crimes at issue here are not already being fully and aggressively prosecuted in the states.

For the record, again, "motive" is the entire basis behind whether killing someone is manslaughter, first, second, or third degree murder. But I digress..

It’s actually a short read on his web site (http://mikepence.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=64230), but it’s lie after lie after lie, it’s disgusting. He’s also got a youtube account where you can watch it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGQTs6Y3WfA) (and many others). That one’s only about two minutes though.

I’m not saying don’t try to reach him, but to know what you’re getting into. I’d say that shedding light ON his responses would be a more practical expectation. That said, a few things come to mind.

You might want to find out how he’s voted on other minority rights issues that are not GLBT related. Or for that matter you could just ask: “are you against ALL non-discrimination legislation?”

As pointed as that question is, I have found that EVEN THAT is taken as an opportunity to obfuscate further. So you may even want to mention race or religion specifically.

As far as statistics go, I’d say to get your statistics, but then also ask him what statistics he’s using that refute yours.

I’m just sharing some of my experience, point being, however you decide to respond, be laser focused, clear without being too wordy, yet leave as little wiggle room as possible to answer.

It's hard to get a yes or no answer out of people like him, but sometimes it's possible to minimize their ability to obfuscate.

[sailaway58]

I stole some stuff from buucechris for this, hope that is okay.

October 8, 2007

Dear Mike,

Thank you for your quick response to my letter. While I understand your view, I feel you may lack information necessary to make an informed decision.

First before you write me off as some queer that chose this life, let me share I am not gay. I do not have anyone gay in my family. I am a Republican business owner from Jay County. I attend a conservative Christian church and I have voted straight Republican since the 70’s.

You said, “By identifying a group as a victim of systematic discrimination, non-discrimination legislation creates a new class of workers on the basis of their belief and moral choice”. Your statement shows a common lack of knowledge on the subject and your remarks come across as patronizing.

If a person does not develop correctly physically, they will almost always be infertile, but this is not something that is obvious just by meeting the person. And being known to be infertile may be cause for sympathy, but rarely for moral judgment. The sexual differentiation that occurs in the brain is also occurring at about this time, resulting in our being variously male or female identified homo, hetero or bi sexual, and acting butch or fem. These characteristics are vastly more obvious in a person's behavior, and so homosexuals are judged by them.

Orientation is not a choice. To allow discrimination because of it, is immoral. You need to spend some time with gay Christians and you will find they are no different than anyone else. Actually, neither are the non-Christian gays. You will find they should not be discriminated for same sex attraction for it is who they are, not by choice but by nature, by God if you will.

Your reputation of integrity precedes you and I know you would not desire to make a poor decision based on common misinformation.

Thank you for your consideration. I hope to see you at the Capital steps in Indianapolis on Friday, Oct 12th.

Tim Morris, Jay County

[u-dog]

Tim,

This is a great letter. You should PROOF READ IT (or get Cindy too :)) before you send it.

I once wrote a scathing letter to a neighbor who objected to a gay friendly yard sign we had in our yard in violation of neighborhood covenants. my oldest (then teenage) son read it and said: "That's a GREAT letter Dad... but you know you can't send it right?" He pointed out that while everything I said was true that it wasn't "Christian" in the way I had said it. It FELT good to say but didn't really edify me or the recipient. He was (annoyingly!) right.

I rewrote the letter.

I DON'T feel that way about your letter... except for the last two lines. You should reconsider them. You are absolutely right and saying it is not a lie and surely feels good. but it doesn't help your letter. Call forth the best in him as though you expect to get it... even though you don't.

Just my opinion.

I SOOOOOO admire you and what you are doing. Thanks! :love:

Dave

[Zerbie]

Very good start!

Definitely take out those last two lines! Do not send an 'attacking' letter

You have to write the letter as if you assume he will do the right thing, even though we know he won't.

I would also shorten the middle section about chromosomes - these letters need to be as brief and compact as possible, and flow from Point 1 because Reason 1, to Point 2 because Reason 2, (3, 4, etc.) therefore Conclusion, Vote This Way. Treat it like an exercise in getting out the message in as FEW words as possible (like, as if you had to PAY per word) and that'll tighten it up a lot. Include NOTHING that isn't absolutely necessary to say.

Then proof read - there are a couple spelling errors in this draft.

[sailaway58]

Cindy will proof it tonight but check the changes above.

[u-dog]

Cindy will proof it tonight but check the changes above.

much better! very excellent! Thanks!