DOJ: Show Your Gay Pride, or Else …

Even beyond the moral objections to homosexuality and gay “marriage,” there has always been an important tactical reason to oppose the gay rights agenda, and that is because of the prediction that the more entrenched the idea of “gay rights” becomes in government, the more government would come after anyone opposing the gay agenda.

The Department of Justice has now proven the point with its brochure “LGBT Inclusion at Work: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Managers,” available here.

Going far beyond any mere pamphlet about how to make your office run smoothly if you have gay employees, the DOJ is peddling all-out advocacy of the gay rights agenda, with a strongly implied threat of legal force behind the rhetoric. The pamphlet is apparently being passed around in preparation for “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month.”

take our poll - story continues below

Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?

  • Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Godfather Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Portland Mayor Stands By Orders to Police to Stand Down as Dangerous Antifa Rioters Attacked Citizens

The pamphlet features a long list of do’s and don’ts, such as: “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. DON’T assume all employees are (or a particular employee is) heterosexual.”

So, does this “listening” by LGBT “allies” include reporting to der Kommisar? You can’t even assume that employees are familiar with, much less respectful of, normal human behavior any more; instead, you have to mince your words for fear of offending the Gaystapo.

But there are plenty more appalling orders from the DOJ in this pamphlet: “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).”

Gotta keep it gender-neutral to avoid offending the he/shes. Speaking of which, there’s also this gem of a quote: “DO use a transgender person’s chosen name and the pronoun that is consistent with the person’s self-identified gender.”

In other words, if Bob shows up in a dress, you are expected to address him as “Janet” and refer to him as “her.”

Like gays in general, the pamphlet is a bit confused, referring to “sexual orientation,” but then deeming the phrase “sexual preference” to be offensive. The pamphlet doesn’t offer a ruling on “queer,” as in the TV show “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.” “Queer” was all the fashion a few years ago in the gay community, but maybe it’s out of style, like Gucci pumps.

The pamphlet’s also keen on boosting tolerance through ample use of zero-tolerance policies for jokes and gossip about gays. So Catholic, fundamentalist Christian and Irish jokes, OK. Gays, no.

We’re also apparently supposed to work up to something like those mandatory government-regulation displays in the workplace: “Display a symbol in your office (DOJ Pride sticker, copy of this brochure, etc.) indicating that it is a “safe space.” Attend LGBT events sponsored by DOJ Pride and/or the Department, and invite (but don’t require) others to join you.”

How many times has skipping out on a “not required” meeting netted you a promotion? That’s a not-so-subtle way of forcing workers to endorse gay pride events.

And there’s advice about assignments, as well: “DON’T let your discomfort with an employee’s failure to conform to gender stereotypes (how you think he or she should act or look) – e.g., feminine man, masculine woman — affect whether he or she gets a particular assignment or works with a particular client.”

So set your misgivings aside and let the transgender lesbian work on the church group’s ad campaign.

The pamphlet also includes quotes from alleged DOJ employees about different topics related to being gay in the workplace, including this doozy: “As a transgender woman, I want people to understand that I’m real. I want to be recognized as the gender I really am. 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.”

I’m not sure we’re working from the universally accepted definition of “real” here. You’re a guy wearing a dress. People probably pick up on that because, if that’s really your picture in the brochure, you look like a guy wearing a dress. But you are humiliated because people have a problem with you using the same bathroom as their daughters and wives? You might want to think about not wearing the dress to work, then.

The line that underscores the implied threat of the whole brochure, though, is this: “DON’T judge or remain silent. Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.”

Join the immoral behavior cheer squad or else. Go along if you expect to get along.

The mere fact that it is the Department of Justice putting this pamphlet out makes it little more than a laundry list of reasons why gay people will sue anyone getting in the way of the gay rights agenda, regardless of First Amendment religious protections.

It’s all downhill from here.

Previous Liberal Bullies Get a Taste of Their Own Medicine
Next Obama’s New Campus Persecution System


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.