Our bank, Wells Fargo, just had an anti-gay group try to change the policy of the bank to treat everyone fairly. It didn’t work, which is good. What this anti-gay group wanted Wells Fargo to do was to take out any reference to sexual orientation. Here is what they were trying to do:
The resolution reads in part: Whereas, our company seeks to hire the most qualified person and has never had a policy discriminating against any person, or groups of persons, for any reason.
Whereas, it would be inappropriate and possibly illegal to ask a job applicant or employee about their sexual interests, inclinations and activities.
Whereas, it is similarly inappropriate and legally problematic for employees to discuss personal sexual matters while on the job.
Whereas, unlike the issues of race, age, gender and certain physical disabilities, it would be impossible to discern a person’s sexual orientation from their appearance.
Whereas, unless an employee chooses to talk about their sexual interests or activities while working, the issue of sexual orientation is, essentially, moot.
Whereas, domestic partner benefit policies pay employee benefits based on the employee engaging in unmarried, homosexual relations. These relations have been condemned by the major traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam for a thousand years or more.
Whereas, the Armed Forces of the United States is one of the largest and most diverse organizations in the world. They protect the security of us all while adhering to a “don’t ask, don’t tell policy” regarding sexual interests.
Whereas, marriage between heterosexuals has been protected and encouraged by a wide range of societies, cultures and faiths for ages.
Statement: While the legal institution of marriage between a man and a woman should be protected, the sexual interests of, inclinations and activities of all employees should be a private matter, not a corporate concern.
I find it very interesting that this was put forth by a group of so-called Christians. What is interesting about that? Notice that this say that "unlike the issues of race, age, gender and certain physical disabilities, it would be impossible to discern a person’s sexual orientation from their appearance." Now why is it that they did not add religion to that list? Because it is a real choice, as opposed to being gay and lesbian. So their choice of religion is protected, but they wanted to make sure that what they believe to be another choice is to be taken out and not protected? These people are too funny. But dangerous. Luckily the shareholders of Wells Fargo could see through the real message of these people.