Crisis Magazine: How Chase Bank and other Corporations Coerce and Bully Christians

From Crisis Magazine:

How would you feel if your boss came into your office one day and asked if you are supportive of the “LGBT community”?

Maybe you are sympathetic to gays who face discrimination but you do not support the overall agenda. Maybe you are a faithful Catholic who accepts the teaching of the Church on homosexuality, that it is disordered and if acted upon, mortally sinful. Maybe you are simply bone weary of the LGBTs jamming their message into your face and the faces of your children all day long.

And there is the man who holds your job in his hands asking, just asking, if you support LGBTs. Do you feel threatened? Are you worried that if you say no, your name goes into a file and that some future decision will rest upon your answer? Are you worried that you may be compelled to take a new course in “diversity” education, otherwise known as re-education?


Note the oddness of putting LGBT questions alongside questions about disabilities. Apart from that, note the oddness of actually asking employees about their sexual orientation. Chase Bank actually feels comfortable asking such a question. Talk about your boss occupying your bedroom. Any self-respecting LGBT ought to respond, “none of your damn business.”


Can someone be fired for answering the JP Morgan Chase question incorrectly? Certainly, they can. There is very little protection for holding the wrong view on homosexuality unless, that is, your opposition is explicitly based on religious belief.

ICYMI: The American Conservative: Rooting out the Brendan Eichs at JPMorgan Chase

From The American Conservative:

This is chilling. What on earth could being an “ally” of the gay community have to do with whether or not you are a good bank employee? Is a Baptist who treats everyone, gay and straight, with fairness and respect, and who doesn’t bring his religious views into the workplace, an LGBT ally, even if he quietly disapproves of gay marriage? Why is Chase not asking if people consider themselves allies of African-Americans, or Hispanics, or any other minority group? Should Chase ask its employees whether or not they consider themselves allies of the Jewish community? Of Muslims? Of atheists?

What business is it of a bank’s to know the private views of its employees?

A few years ago, a friend of mine worked for a privately held company whose president/CEO sent out an employee survey asking similar questions, including polling his employees on their political and religious beliefs. The company was not political, and non-sectarian — yet the president was known for his highly conservative political and religious views. The survey scared employees to death, and, I learned, offended even religious conservatives (like my friend) who feared it would put members of his department who were political liberals and/or unbelievers in jeopardy, despite the quality of their work.

There was nothing illegal about the survey, at least as far as my friend knew, just as there’s nothing apparently illegal about the Chase survey. Still, in my friend’s case, the president’s survey of his workforce was a real blow to morale in the company, because it made those who lined up on the other side of the president afraid for their jobs, and angered at least some religious and political conservatives on staff who, like my friend (a manager there, and a religious conservative), wanted to protect his team from the prospect of reprisal.

JPMorgan Chase

The Christian Institute: ‘Are you an LGBT ally?’- US bank under fire over survey

Via the Christian Institute:

One of the largest banks in the US has come under fire for reportedly asking all its employees in a survey if they are an “ally” to the LGBT community.

An unnamed employee at JP Morgan Chase raised serious concerns that his future at the company depended on his answer, and gave details of the survey to Professor Robert George of Princeton University.


Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), also criticised the survey.

Referring to Brendan Eich, who was forced out of his position as CEO at Mozilla over his support for traditional marriage, Brown said: “Now there is powerful new evidence that the tactics of intimidation have spread to one of the country’s largest financial institutions, JP Morgan Chase.”

He added that, “this new development at Chase of actively inquiring of every employee whether they support the LGBT community is an egregious invasion of privacy, one that has the potential to be used to punish and intimidate those who refuse to answer the question in the politically-approved way”.

Breitbart News: Chase Bank has Pattern of Partisanship on LGBT issues

Yesterday, Breitbart News reported on some of the history of LGBT activism at Chase Bank, which is currently under fire for an invasive survey that asked employees if they were "allies" of the LGBT community and which retained each respondent's unique employee ID:

The recent exposé of the employee survey that asked probing questions about employee support for the “LGBT community” has focused attention on something that the typical depositor might not be aware of, and that is the massive time and attention JP Morgan Chase lavishes on the LGBT issue.

Four years ago JP Morgan Chase told a local businessman that he had to remove a Christmas tree he donated to the lobby of a branch bank in Southlake, Texas. The reason given was that some found the Christmas decoration offensive. The order to remove was not made locally. It came from higher ups at Chase.

It is difficult to imagine that anyone offended to find an LGBT rainbow flag displayed at a Chase bank branch or executive office would be afforded the same relief.

Besides being among the biggest companies in the world, JP Morgan Chase is also one of the most LGBT-friendly. Meanwhile, some employees say the company is indifferent, bordering on chilly, to religious believers.

JP Morgan Chase takes a very assertive role in finding prospective employees who are LGBT…

When an LGBT person joins JP Morgan Chase he is greeted by an enormous, internal “firm-wide” network called PRIDE that has 25 chapters globally and promises, “No matter what business you are part of or which region you sit in, members of PRIDE are here to help guide, advise and enrich your career.”

… there are 18 company-wide employee networks for those of African descent, several for women, Native Americans, Asians, Latinos, the disabled, and what appears to be two for LGBTs.

There are no employee networks for religious believers. One Chase source told Professor George that she has asked for one more than once and hasn’t even gotten a response.

Chase needs to answer for this survey right away, and it is up to us to keep up the pressure until the do!

"Flawed Reporting on a Flawed Study Does a Disservice to Everyone"

From Katrina Trinko at The Daily Signal:

There’s been no shortage of media coverage of a new study that purportedly shows that children raised by same-sex partners fare better than other children.


But the sample surveyed in the study chose to participate. The Melbourne researchers didn’t randomly select the first 500 same-sex couples they found, after checking for sufficient regional/income/educational diversity. Instead, they advertised the study – and couples found the researchers, not vice versa. Furthermore, the couples then reported on how their children were – and no outside party fact-checked those results, or evaluated the children independently.


It should come as no surprise the news media trumpeted a study with these findings. Unfortunately for readers, flawed reporting on a flawed study does a disservice to everyone.

Read the rest here.

The Daily Signal: Chase Bank Refuses to Confirm, Deny Employee LGBT Survey

From The Daily Signal:

JPMorgan Chase refused to confirm or deny that employees of the global banking giant were asked in a recent survey about their sexual orientation and whether they are “an ally of the LGBT community.”

At least two Chase bank employees have said they were asked such questions, and one said employees’ identification numbers appeared on the returned surveys.

JPMorgan Chase spokeswoman Jaclyn D’Aversa told The Daily Signal on Monday evening that the survey was “completely voluntary and anonymous.”  She refused to talk about the content or how many employees received the survey.


At JP Morgan Chase’s request, The Daily Signal today submitted a list of 10 questions about the survey, including why employees were asked about their sexual orientation and whether it was the first time the bank has inquired about its employees’ ties to the “LGBT community.”

The spokeswoman did not reply to the specific questions.

Sham Science

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

You may have read the completely misleading headline this week: "Children of Same Sex Couples are Happier and Healthier than Peers, Research Shows" (Washington Post, July 7).

The sensationalized headline is yet another example of the mainstream media and their active agenda to push the redefinition of marriage across America. You'll remember the Pew Research study of media coverage of gay marriage where they found that stories sympathetic to redefining marriage outnumbered those sympathetic to preserving marriage by a five to one margin. The media's bias and intellectual dishonesty when it comes to the marriage debate allows them to trumpet a recent Australian study as if it is proven fact, while at the same time being highly critical of the New Family Structures Study and other research that challenges their political posture on the issue.

The subject of the headline is a farce of a study based on bad methodology. The survey the Post reports on was done in Australia and purports to show that children of same-sex parents actually are better off than their peers being raised by a mother and father. We know of course that there is no basis for such an outrageous claim, and a closer look at this Australian survey itself confirms our skepticism about it.

The so-called study does not use random sampling — the gold standard of any type of research — but rather self-selected subjects who knew the purpose of the study beforehand! Furthermore, the same-sex parents in the study self-reported all the information, including the answers to how their children were faring — in other words, the children themselves were not consulted.

So we have a supposed study where the participants are self-selected, they know the subject matter (and its political significance) and they get to report the results themselves, with no attempt to independently verify the facts. Gee, I wonder how that will turn out!

Of course, every parent wants their children to reflect well on their parenting skills, and would you really expect someone to volunteer to provide an example that casts their own parenting in a negative light? All this makes the data gleaned from this survey virtually worthless.

For a fuller review of this survey and the most basic errors it commits in its biased effort to promote the redefinition of marriage, visit today's issue of Public Discourse, where Texas University researcher Mark Regnerus demonstrates why the report is 'suspect science' and reveals why we cannot trust the results or the headlines surrounding this charade of a "study."

In discussing the flaws in the recruitment/self-selection process, Professor Regnerus states,

I don't know if there's any other way to say this than to suggest that... this is not the way to build a sense of average same-sex households with children. To compare the results from such an unusual sample with that of a population-based sample of everyone else is just suspect science. And I may be putting that too mildly [emphasis added].

I think he is putting it too mildly. This isn't science at all, but an agenda dressed up in a lab coat and paraded around for an adoring media. But like in the old story of The Emperor's New Clothes, some of us simply cannot be convinced to play along with the charade.

Don't buy the hype. Three hundred some parents volunteering to lavish praise on their own children is not a substitute for the wisdom of the ages that you and I have inherited and that tells us what common sense can plainly see: kids deserve, and do best with, their own loving mom and dad.

Faithfully yours,

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown

P.S. We simply cannot take at face value what the mainstream media reports, or chooses not to report, in the marriage debate. That's why the work of marriage champions like Professor Regnerus is so important. Please take the time to read his enlightening article today.

Where Could It End?

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

It is an unfortunate yet very real fact that a small cadre of radical activists is enjoying increasing success in the corporate world imposing their agenda through bullying and intimidation. Tragically, their strategy of confrontation and intimidation has real impact on ordinary, good citizens all across the country.

One of NOM's core missions is to stop this kind of discrimination and bigotry and defend these people's rights. Won't you please join us in upholding our mission — to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it — by making a generous donation today of $35, $50, $100 or even $500 or more if you are able?

People who believe in marriage aren't looking for a fight — they are everyday people just like you and me who go about their lives working hard, raising their children, and trying to be the best people they can be according to the dictates of their personal, family and religious beliefs. They accept the truth that marriage is the union of one man and one woman because such an understanding was written on the human heart by our Creator, because it conforms to nature and commonsense, and because it has been proven through centuries of practice. There is nothing hateful or bigoted about accepting and supporting the truth of marriage.

Yet we see an increasingly vengeful and militant group of radicals out to redefine marriage seek them out, bully them, and try turn their lives upside down. The list of victims seems grows every day — bakers, photographers, inn keepers, printers, music directors, restaurant managers — all targeted for harassment and abuse simply because they've done something to show their support for marriage. Some were sued, others fined, still others forced out of their jobs. Brendan Eich, the CEO of Mozilla (maker of the Firefox web browser), is only the best known victim of the gay marriage radicals who were able to force him out of the company he co-founded because he gave a mere $1,000 to support Proposition 8 six years ago.

This kind of discrimination and bigotry must be stopped and the rights of people like these needs to be defended. Won't you please join us in upholding our mission — to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it — by making a generous donation today of $35, $50, $100 or even $500 or more if you are able?

There is mounting evidence that the ginormous financial behemoth, JP Morgan Chase, may be the next Mozilla. Chase Bank has issued an extraordinarily invasive employee survey, which demanded that their workers openly declare whether or not they are an "ally" of the LGBT movement.

What is the purpose of such a question if not to "out" those who don't answer in the politically approved way? The bank is squarely putting its employees in the crosshairs of the most contentious political issue of our times. Many supporters of marriage have been made to feel that their workplace may become a hostile environment for them simply because they believe in marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

One employee put the matter in the clearest terms, asking: does standing up for marriage now mean that one "will be placed on the 'you can fire these people first' list?"

We cannot let that happen. But if we don't have the resources to push back against this offensive action by corporate giants, I'm afraid that we may lose ground that will be difficult to retake. We MUST fight back NOW!

The pattern is there: Starbucks... Mozilla... now Chase Bank. Who knows where it could end?

Corporations are peddling an incoherent argument that redefining marriage is necessary to recruit and retain the best and the brightest workers. They may have missed the memo that most of the top performing economic states in the country have passed state constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Nor do they consider that their actions pushing this radical agenda often upset millions of potential customers.

As one friend recently asked me, 'when will these people wake up and realize that tens of millions of Christians — [and all people of faith, for that matter] — are a huge part of their market?'

You and I need to send this wakeup call and let the corporate elites who are sidling up to the same-sex marriage agenda know that the 'silent majority' in America who support and embrace the truth of marriage are not going to be intimidated or bullied into abandoning a core truth like marriage. Please click here to make a generous donation today to help us accomplish this crucial mission.

We all must stand together against intolerance and intimidation. And I pledge that NOM will continue to stand with you!


Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown

PS: Corporate elites are jumping on the bandwagon to redefine marriage. We must stand up to them so that millions of innocent citizens of faith from around the country aren't caught in the crossfire of this radical political movement. Please click here right away to make a generous donation to NOM so we can stand up in defense of marriage and the faith communities that defend it.

California Senator: 'Husband' and 'Wife' are "Outdated, Biased" Terms

From FoxNews:

Husband-Wife-StrikethroughThe terms “husband” and “wife” have been deleted from California’s marriage law under a bill signed into law Monday by Gov. Jerry Brown.

The terms will be replaced with “spouse” to accommodate same-sex marriage, which became legal in the state last year after the Supreme Court struck down a voter-approved ban on it.


“I am pleased Governor Brown has recognized the importance of this bill, which makes it explicitly clear in state law that every loving couple has the right to marry in California,” Leno said. “This legislation removes outdated and biased language from state codes and recognizes all married spouses equally, regardless of their gender” [emphasis added].

Further proof that redefining marriage is not simply about "equality" or expanding the institution to include more kinds of relationships; it is about fundamentally altering the meaning of the institution itself, and discarding terms like "husband" and "wife" to "the ash heap of history."

ChristianNews - Chilling Implications? Largest Bank Asks Workers if They Support Homosexuality

From Christian News Network:

The largest bank in the United States now allegedly requires its employees to state whether or not they are supporters of the homosexual lifestyle.

JPMorgan Chase, headquartered in New York City, is the United States’ largest bank, with total assets of over $2.5 trillion. The bank has overtly supported homosexuality for several years, appearing in several “gay pride” events and even offering a number of special benefitsto bank employees who identify as “LGBT.”


As previously reported, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that “closely held corporations” can operate according to their owners’ religious beliefs. However, because JPMorgan Chase is a publicly-traded banking company, the same standards likely do not apply. The bank’s questioning of employees’ beliefs on homosexuality is therefore concerning to many Christians.

Exclusive: Chase LGBT Whistleblower Talks to Breitbart News

Via Breitbart News:

Search “Chase and LGBT” on the Internet, and you will see the controversial Chase employee survey on LGBT dominates the results. Moreover, the issue shows no signs of abating.

A Chase employee who reached out to Professor Robert George of Princeton through his Facebook page started all this. Professor George put the item up on the legal blog Mirror of Justice, then Breitbart wrote the story, and it has gone viral.


Many on the sexual left are questioning the authenticity of the survey. The whistleblower assured Breitbart News that it was real. He also provided a second employee who backed up the story.


The survey is completed strictly online and was opened for answers in February. The whistleblower underscored that each employee answering the survey had to include his employee number.

He said, “The survey was usually kind of irrelevant.” He said employees were not required to answer the survey but that there are strong and regular suggestions from management that each employee ought to. Something like 88% of employees filled it out this year.

What caused the controversy this year was this question: “Are you an ally of the LGBT community…?”


Why did the whistleblower come forward? “I wanted to get it out there because I was upset the way the company is going. I like Chase. This question really offended me. I have my religious views, and they hold great weight in my life.”

ICYMI: Recent State Department Honoree an Open Advocate for the Abolition of Marriage

Last month, on the same day as the historic March for Marriage, the State Department hosted its now-annual Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies Pride Day.


One of the honorees was radical, far-left activist and LGBT journalist Masha Gessen, who has admitted that she does not think the institution of marriage should exist.  Gessen has also previously said that she doesn't see why children "shouldn't have five parents legally."

It is a sobering reminded of the present administration's aggressive radicalism with regard to marriage to recall how Secretary of State John Kerry introduced Gessen, gushing, "she is a wonderful person – a mother, a journalist, an extraordinary human rights defender – and we are honored by her presence here."

Photo Credit: SNOB Magazine

Of course, as Breitbart News noted, Kerry did not mention Gessen's previous calls for the destruction of marriage altogether--something she says is the true intention of many of the elites behind the push to redefine marriage.

Here's Gessen in her own words:

“I agree that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist... Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist.” [SOURCE]

Gessen also opines, "I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality [of her children having "more or less" five parents] and I don't think that's compatible with the institution of marriage."

Well, at least on that much we can agree: having "more or less five parents" is not compatible with the institution of marriage. But whether it will finally be judged incompatible with the distorted and redefined version of marriage sweeping across civilization--marriage as a pact of convenience, a genderless institution, and one no longer inherently bound up with the bearing and rearing of children--remains to be seen.

NOM President Featured in Legatus Magazine

Brian Brown, President of NOM, and his family were recently featured on the cover of Legatus Magazine as part of their coverage of the upcoming extraordinary synod of Catholic bishops on pastoral challenges to the family in the context of evangelization.

"At a time when the definition of marriage and family is being distorted almost daily, The Vatican is about to convene a synod on the family that many hope will bring clarity to a culture in confusion," Judy Roberts wrote.  The gathering is expected to reinforce Catholic doctrine on marriage and family.

Catholic experts quoted throughout the article explained the purpose of this synod and how Catholic teaching on the nature of marriage cannot change.

Brown was quoted extensively throughout the article, as was March for Marriage speaker Archbishop Cordileone.

Brown told Legatus that claims that the Catholic Church will change its teaching on marriage are untrue:

“On the issue of marriage as the union of man and woman, Pope Francis has repeatedly been strong.  The synod is an opportunity to reassert the beauty, hope, the love that is the natural family."

Archbishop Cordileone agreed, saying:

"Church teaching can’t change.  Otherwise, we’re into that dictatorship of relativism.”

The article ended with a final quote from Brown:

Regardless of the issues it takes up, NOM’s Brian Brown sees the synod as an opportunity for the Church to make clear the truth about marriage and the great good it does for society.

“To be pastoral is not to go with the times,” he said. “Nothing has changed on that front. It wouldn’t have been right for the Church to embrace what was going on in Rome in the early periods of the Church or any culture that clearly contradicts the truth. It’s a misunderstanding to think that pastoral means to fit in; to be pastoral is to stand up for the truth in and out of season.”

The full article, titled Family Under Fire, is an informative read for Catholics and non-Catholics alike.  Marriage defenders, regardless of their faith, will understand and appreciate the truths about marriage that the article conveys--and the importance of defending these truths against an increasingly hostile, secular culture.

Ideal Home for a Child is With His or Her Mother and Father

A photo of two men holding a newborn baby is making its rounds on the internet.  The baby boy was born to an unrelated surrogate mother during Toronto's WorldPride week.  The photo has generated many reactions and garnered the support and praise of many who are supportive of redefining marriage.

Everyone can agree that a defenseless, precious baby deserves love from all of the people in his life.  But many who viewed this photo--or have read stories about same-sex couples adopting, or are curious about what effect the redefinition of marriage has on children--have likely wondered what family structure best benefits children.

Social scientist Mark Regnerus's acclaimed Family Structures Study examined a large, random sample of American young adults (ages 18–39) who were raised in different types of family arrangements.  Those who viewed this viral photo would perhaps be interested in and benefit from reading Regnerus's findings.

Regnerus's extensive study revealed that "children appear most apt to succeed well as adults—on multiple counts and across a variety of domains—when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially when the parents remain married to the present day."


The study showed that there are "consistent differences among young adults who reported maternal lesbian behavior (and to a lesser extent, paternal gay behavior) prior to age 18," and although it is certainly accurate to affirm that sexual orientation or parental sexual behavior does not necessarily have anything to do with the ability to be good, effective parents, the data suggest "that it may affect the reality of family experiences among a significant number."

The study showed that there are "consistent differences among young adults who reported maternal lesbian behavior (and to a lesser extent, paternal gay behavior) prior to age 18."

Compared with children raised by their married biological parents, children raised in same-sex households are much more likely to have received welfare growing up, have lower educational attainment, report less safety and security in their family of origin, report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin, are more likely to suffer from depression, and have been arrested more often.

The study also showed that children of lesbian mothers are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance than children raised by their biological parents.  Regnerus's study shows clearly that the ideal home for a child is with his or her mother and father.

Nobody is saying that gays and lesbians don’t love their children and don’t work hard to be good parents. The point that needs to be understood is that this is not about what adults want for themselves, it’s about what is best for children. Adoption exists to serve the needs of children, not the desires of adults.  Adoption places children with the parents they need, not adults with the children they want. The rights at stake here belong to the children – their right to expect to receive the love of their mother and father.

Ryan Anderson on the Right to Be Wrong

In the aftermath of the recent Supreme Court ruling that the owners of Hobby Lobby cannot be forced to violate the tenets of their faith to fund abortifacient drugs, many scholars, professors, and activists are writing about the importance of religious freedom.

Ryan AndersonWriting for The Public Discourse, Ryan Anderson has penned yet another eloquent article.  This article, titled The Right to be Wrong, outlines why everyone has the right to religious freedom, not just those with "right" or politically correct beliefs.

Anderson countered the arguments of Hadley Arkes, who recently wrote a series of articles attempting to recast the argument for religious liberty, "not in terms of the sincerity of the religiously held belief and the competing concerns about public order, but in terms of its content, particularly in terms of its truth."

Anderson wrote:

One of the hallmarks of religious liberty protections is that they protect people of all faiths, even if their beliefs seem unfounded, flawed, implausible, or downright silly.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)...was signed into law by President Clinton. RFRA provides a reasonable balance between religious liberty and the requirements of public order. It says that government can substantially burden a sincere religious belief only when it is pursuing a compelling government interest in the least restrictive means available.

Anderson analyzed practical considerations on religious liberty in court, the foundation and scope of the religious liberty right, and the natural law foundation of a right to religious liberty:

The natural law defense of a right to religious liberty is based on the moral truth that sincere religious activity, freely undertaken, is valuable in itself and deserves the space to flourish.

The full article is here.