True Diversity Lost Out
in DiversityInc Panel
BY PETER LaBARBERA
My viewpoint was censored, in the name
of diversity. My traditional beliefs about
homosexuality and marriage were not tolerated, in the name of tolerance.
Let me explain. Several weeks
ago, I received a phone call from
Barbara Frankel, DiversityInc’s
senior vice president and executive
editor, inviting me to be a part of the Religion in the
Workplace roundtable discussion, excerpted in this
issue. As the president of Americans for Truth, a group
that defends historic Judeo-Christian teachings on
homosexuality, I would represent the many who share
my worldview—opposite a pro-gay advocate, Daryl
Herrschaft of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), and
those representing other perspectives, including someone from American Atheists.
I readily accepted the invitation and commended
her for practicing true “diversity.” As a DiversityInc
subscriber, I knew that the magazine takes a strong
gay-affirming position, but I was impressed that
DiversityInc saw the need to include a religious traditionalist in this roundtable.
What DiversityInc did not know is that not all the
invited panelists shared its genuine notion of tolerance—one which assumes disagreement yet hopes
for a civil exchange of ideas. Less than a week before
the scheduled panel, I received an awkward call from
Frankel, who informed me that I was disinvited because Herrschaft and other panelists had threatened
not to come if I were allowed to participate. Ironically,
one of the proposed questions for the roundtable was
“How do you balance the need to create an open and
equal workplace for LGBT employees with the religious
beliefs of those who oppose same-sex relationships?”
Alas, true “balance” was not to be achieved in the
DiversityInc discussion. Herrschaft got his way, but in
the end, diversity, tolerance and understanding were
the losers. I’ve never worked for a major corporation,
PEOPLE don’t come to work TO
HAVE THEIR moral values DISPARAGED.
but now I better understand the plight of fellow
Christians and pro-family employees in some
“diversity”-conscious companies. How is it that corporations, which try so hard to be sensitive to homosexuals, can be so insensitive to their many employees—
from whatever background—motivated by faith?
According to Gallup surveys, about half the country
still believes that homosexual behavior is wrong, a
tenet of most major religions. Employees holding this
traditional viewpoint have their rights, too. Had I been
allowed to participate in the panel, I would have urged
that corporate managers treat these employees with
respect and dignity by avoiding such common errors
as: 1) holding one-sided “awareness” sessions that
demean people of faith by failing to represent their
beliefs; 2) falsely insinuating—as gay-activist groups
often do—that those who hold traditional views on
sex and marriage are somehow guilty of “hate,” prejudice, or “homophobia”; and 3) not heeding the advice
of tradition-minded employees in corporate sponsorships and other policies surrounding homosexuality.
People don’t come to work to have their moral values disparaged. Until corporations start treating their
employees of faith with the same respect and sensitivity they devote to other groups, resentment will grow
and worker morale will suffer, hurting productivity
and, ultimately, the bottom line.
