Maybe permitting discrimination in hiring on the basis of sexual orientation in some settings makes pretty good sense after all
- Bryan Fischer
More and more stories are emerging virtually every day in which passengers are being sexually molested by TSA agents.
And the perps almost without exception are of the same sex as the passenger. In other words, homosexual males are groping male passengers and lesbians are groping female passengers.
Passengers in such circumstances are helpless victims. They’re trapped. If they want to get on their plane, they have to subject themselves to unwanted sexual touching.
Perhaps now we all can begin to see that, at least in certain circumstances, discrimination in hiring based on sexual orientation may not be such a bad idea after all.
In reality, the TSA should not even exist. Airline security should be entrusted to the airlines themselves, who have a greater incentive than anyone on the planet to make sure Muslims don’t blow their planes out of the sky.
But as long as we have a TSA, its bureaucrats did the right thing by establishing a policy that only female agents could pat down female passengers and only male agents could pat down males.
What they forgot to take into account was the likelihood in today’s mindless PC culture that some homosexuals and lesbians would sign up to be agents just because of the sexual opportunities such a job could present dozens of times every day.
Just last month a story broke that TSA agents in the Denver airport “were manipulating passenger screening systems to allow a male TSA employee to fondle the genital areas of attractive male passengers.”
Here are three more examples from 58 pages of customer complaints obtained by Judicial Watch. (Warning: content alert):
Here’s the first:
“In one instance at O’Hare, a passenger said a TSA supervisor laughed at her as she received an aggressive “pat down” that was limited solely to her breasts.
“The female TSO then proceeded to roughly feel of [sic] her breast including her nipples. The TSO didn’t go under her arms or along her sides. She indicated that she did not receive a proper pat down. The search was limited to her breast… Two other individuals came over to where the supervisor and gentleman were and they began laughing. The caller indicated that the incident was not the business of the other two officers and not a show for them. The caller indicated that even the Supervisor, along with the others, began to roar with laughter.”
The minimum we should expect under such circumstances is vigorous prosecution rather than laughter. This is criminal sexual assault, not a comedy sketch.
Here’s the second:
“In another incident, a daughter called to say her mother, a breast cancer survivor, felt violated by the screening process at O’Hare:
“Caller indicates that her mother feels as though she was singled out because she was a breast cancer survivor and the caller feels as though this is extremely discriminatory. Caller indicates that the breast is an extremely intimate place that should not be rubbed in the manner that it was. Caller expressed that her mother feels extremely violated and the caller feels that being violated in this manner is on the same level as rape. Caller has indicated that her mother will never travel again because of the pat down that she received.”
And here’s a third:
“Another Chicago O’Hare passenger alleged that a TSA screener ‘stuck his hands down his pants and grabbed the top of his penis and placed his fingers in his butt crack.’”
The armed forces are now experiencing huge problems with sexual assault, in no little part due to allowing open homosexuals enlist and serve. More men in our nation’s military are now victims of sexual assault than women.
Perhaps it’s time to reconsider. Maybe permitting discrimination in hiring on the basis of sexual orientation in some settings makes pretty good sense after all.
Among the grateful will be airline passengers and soldiers who can once again fly and work in assault free zones. (Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)