Barber made the usual nonsensical arguments against ENDA, i.e. it should be opposed because religious business owners (not churches, mind you) should be "forced" to hire someone if they feel that homosexuality is a sin:
ENDA would force – under penalty of law – Christian, Jewish, or Muslim business owners to hire people who unrepentantly choose to engage in homosexual or cross-dressing behaviors, despite the fact that those volitional behaviors are in direct conflict with every major world religion, thousands of years of history, and uncompromising human biology.
This is no different than compelling a deeply religious business owner to hire and accommodate an "out and proud" adulterous "swinger." It's a direct assault on the inalienable rights of people of faith. It pits the government directly against the free exercise of religion and is, therefore, unconstitutional on its face.
It's a dumb argument. America is not a theocracy so the alleged views of "major world religions" are irrelevant.
And also, Barber's point leaves him wide open for refutation. What if a Muslim business owner didn't want to "hire and accommodate" a Christian or vice versa?
And on that same token is it right for the owner of a restaurant (a secular endeavor) to be able to higher and fire people based on his personal religious beliefs? Where do we draw the line here? What if the owner of the restaurant had racist beliefs? Should those be accomomdated.
My guess is that Barber didn't think this through because he was so busy attempting to draw a wedge between race and sexual orientation in the last part of his piece.
But his attack on EEOC nominee Chai Feldblum is what really stands out:
Chai Feldblum (pronounced "high" as in "stoned") is a lesbian activist and sexual anarchist attorney who supports legalized polygamy and bisexual polyamory. She has been nominated by President Obama to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This is like having Michael Moore guard the donuts. In the past, Feldblum – ENDA's chief framer and, if confirmed, one of five commissioners charged with its enforcement – has candidly summed-up the mindset behind the bill.
He forgot to mention that on her off days from planning the lgbt overthrow of America, Feldblum enjoys pulling the tags off of mattresses while making scary faces at babies behind their mothers' back
But what I can't shake is this question - was it really necessary to slur her name?
Barber's entire hot mess of an article is ridiculous but the part about her name was just ugly.
Maybe he thought he was being cute or witty but it struck me as in bad taste and yet another example of the hypocrisy of folks on his side of the so-called culture war.
Barber's juvenile name-calling belongs on an elementary school playground and not in a serious public discussion regarding discrimination. And most of all, definitely not in a publication that considers itself Christian.
If Barber and his allies are the heroes and people like Feldblum are the villains, then we are all in Bizarroland.
The religious right fears Chai Feldblum because she believes in basic fairness
The religious right attacks another openly gay Obama appointee