Workplace: Rights: Fed govt's Office of Special Counsel targetted by Gay self-interest group in anti-Catholic bigot move

I don't agree with the the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church on "the consistent ethic of life," nor on the wholly negative posture it has taken on homos - while I do oppose any tampering with the traditional legal definition of marriage, as between 1woman1man. However, that doesn't solve every matter that comes along on related issues. Once again, I have to go on record against the behaviour of the Gay ideology, the Gay agenda, and Gay activists for their shrill and mean targetting of people and the shredding of due process of law. In that regard, I quote a lone tradition-minded Catholic voice who does support the Magisterium and has an eye for the kinds of Gay collective behaviours that drive me crazy with embarrassment. I take the liberty of quoting at length form Hudson Deal's email newsletter to get his word on this out (his email address is listed below):

Catholic Bush Appointee Attacked by Homosexual Activists
by Hudson Deal

Homosexual activists have a new target -- Scott Bloch. Bloch heads the Office of Special Counsel in Washington, D.C. Homosexual leaders, newspapers, and websites have repeatedly called upon the White House to give Bloch the heave-ho. Bloch's job as Special Counsel, among other things, is to investigate and prosecute officials in the federal executive branch for personnel violations and whistleblower complaints.

Why?

After taking office, Bloch, a native Kansan and a faithful Catholic, found that his predecessor -- Clinton appointee Elaine Kaplan -- used the [Federal government's Office of Special Counsel] to enforce a policy against bias in federal workplaces based on "sexual orientation," i.e., homosexuality.

Bloch, as Special Counsel, examined federal civil rights law and found that it doesn't list sexual orientation as a "protected class." Race, religion, sex, age, national origin, disability, and political affiliation are covered, but not sexual orientation.

As a result, Bloch removed information about discrimination based upon "sexual orientation" from the OSC website and printed materials to avoid public confusion about OSC's enforcement authority.

Attacks on Bloch soon followed, culminating in Bloch's May 24 testimony before a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

The Log Cabin Republicans, a gay lobbying group, called upon "Mr. Bloch today to immediately restore protections for gay and lesbian federal employees" (March 18, 2004).

Federal GLOBE, an umbrella organization for gay, lesbian and bisexual federal employees, called for Bloch to be fired (October 7, 2004).

The Advocate, a D.C. gay newspaper, accused Bloch of trying "to ditch protections for gay federal employees" (April 12, 2005).

Bloch has consistently argued he is only acting within the parameters of the Congressional legislation he has sworn to uphold.

As Bloch explained to Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich) at the May 24 Senate hearing, "We are limited by our enforcement statutes as Congress gives them. The courts have specifically rejected sexual orientation as a class protection."

In other words, if Congress wants Bloch to treat homosexuals as a "protected class," it must pass the legislation to authorize this action.

Bloch's opponents have confused the situation by citing a 1998 executive order of President Clinton that prohibited discrimination based upon sexual orientation in the federal workplace.

What Bloch's critics fail to mention, however, is that the [Clinton] executive order does not provides any legal remedies for a violation. In other words, if Bloch tried to enforce the 1998 executive order he would be in violation of the order itself as well as his own enforcement statutes.

Bloch's predecessor admitted at the time that the executive order does not add "any new substantive legal rights" (Washington Blade, June 5, 1998). Kaplan reiterated this in a letter to Bloch, saying that the Clinton executive order is not enforceable by OSC, and is merely a "symbolic statement" for federal personnel policy.

In spite of all this, Ms. Kaplan interpreted OSC's federal civil laws to include sexual orientation as a protected class, even though the statutes fail to mention it. Kaplan evidently viewed her interpretation as policy rather law because she told Bloch that she does not dispute [Bloch's] right to "change her policy." In other words, she saw it as a changeable policy, not a requirement of law under OSC's enforcement statutes.

Bloch is not given the credit of having a simple difference of opinion with the Clinton appointee who preceded him. No, he is accused of refusing to treat homosexuals as a "protected class" because he is Catholic!

- from The Window, June 20, 2005. An email newsletter published by the Morley Institute for Church and Culture, edited and written by Deal Hudson. Email: thewindow at morleyicc dot com

There's more on the subject in Deal's one-item edition of the newsletter, but you'll have to email him to read the remainder.

Now, a comment or two by me: There's an injustice here. Homos should not experience discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation in Federal employment. Of course, we all assume the observance of the appropriate workplace decorum obtains, and when it doesn't that's another matter, no matter what the violation. Likewise, the abuse of work assessments of subordinates, bosses, or colleagues - there's separate and distinct employment practices codes covering these work misbehaviours. So I repeat: Homos should not experience discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation in Federal employment. But it's obvious that the place to rectify the injustice is not with incumbent head of the OSC, but with Congress which must legistlate to recognize the discrimination against these citizens and taxpayers otherwise fully-qualified for Federal employment as much as others who compete for those jobs.

However, the bigots of the Gay ideology in pushing their extra-legal agenda, no matter that an injustice exists which should be righted, reply by targetting, not Congress, but the incumbent heading the Office of Special Counsel and they do so by accusing him of being unfit to serve because he is a "devout Catholic," guility of discrimination and extremism, etc.

As long as the Gay movement is so curdled by presumption, deceit, and its own rather obvious bigotry, it's going to offend many homos and the diversity of the larger public. The Gay movement just doesn't have the creds to launch these special-interest targetted attacks which have no basis in law and unjustly bring a boss into false disrepute. They don't like it when it happens to them, yet they are the finest masters of this devilish art. Homos are not necessarily part of the Gay movement, nor ascribe to the contradiction-riddled Gay ideology which has proven itself to be disastrous for most of us homos too. Still, please don't think I am in any way endorsing the absolutism of the RC Magisterium or "the consistent ehtic of life." I'm Protestant and I do not accept any earthly authority as final, nor absolutes decreed by mere mortals. I do believe in norms, and these must be sussed out among the historical vicissitudes to the best of our ability, an enterprise in which Catholics have just as much right to participate as do homos, whatever their religion or dissent therefrom.

I fawlt Hudson Deal for using the mouthy terminology of "homosexual" inappropriately when he is referring to the Gay ideologues and their activism. Hence I have put cross-out marks thru it, to demonstrate my view that it is simply unacceptable. I have never read Deal to say a nice word about any homo, which begins to undermine my sense of his motive in regard to my person. - Owlb

Catholic News Agency, recommended by Hudson Deal