The Gay Thing: LGBT Employment Rights Federally Mandated All Along?

Well, this is kind of nifty. And no big hoopla, or anything. I've used the 1964 Civil Rights Act as an example for quite a while when arguing against discrimination in public accommodations. You know, those oddly religiously sensitive bakers and florists who won't sell to gay folks getting married? Though sexual orientation wasn't part of that act nationally, it's illustrative. But who knew it applied to discrimination in employment already? This is such new news, I wonder if it might not also apply to public accommodations? If so, this is a rather nifty end-run around all of those RFRA thingies, isn't it? I'm hoping so.

Image from source, Buzzfeed

[Excerpt]

Sexual Orientation Discrimination Is Barred By Existing Law, Federal Commission Rules
 
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has ruled that existing civil rights law bars sexual orientation-based employment discrimination — a groundbreaking decision to advance legal protections for gay, lesbian, and bisexual workers. . .

Read more at: Buzzfeed

Right Wing World On an Anti-Gay Legislating Blitz (And Why it's B.S.)

Let's get this out of the way right at the beginning: The argument that salespeople, shopkeepers, cashiers, clerks, bakers, photographers, caterers, florists, dress sellers, tuxedo renters and the like should have the "religious freedom" to refuse service to a class of people in order to protect their right to "sincerely held beliefs" is bullshit. Straight up bullshit. We've been down this legal path before, with religious justifications behind attempts to wiggle out of civil rights era legislation. It didn't work then, it shouldn't work now. The similarities are unmistakable, and unsurprisingly, those behind these arguments are doing their best to point out why that kind of discrimination was wrong, but this kind of discrimination is legitimate and necessary.

But think about that for a second. Proclaiming your religion and beliefs in cherished, sacrosanct terms, and then using them to justify discriminating against a group of people. What a thing to hang your religion on.

Now that marriage equality is poised to become a 50-state-wide reality (assuming the Supreme Court rules in that direction), religious conservatives have been in a full-blown, desperate panic over how to limit or stall it. Two major legal strategies are spreading like wildfire. One of those is to initiate legislation that effectively ignores or attempts to trump the Supreme Court, but refusing to--and in some cases punishing other legislators and judges who--follow the law. This tack is virtually assured to fail, and serves only to cast  major doubt on these legislators' grasp of the Constitution, and on any claims they may have of "fiscal conservatism." Quite simply, they're going to lose, and they're going to cost their states lots of money in legal fees.

The other tack is to create legal exemptions and loopholes for religious people. This tells the religious person: you don't have to follow Law X because it is against your religion. And this is where writing about this subject starts to get difficult. This is where it hits a tangent prism that confounds me as a writer, as to which direction of wrong to tackle first, and how to tie it all into a bow. So, I'm going to try a bullet-pointed list of problems with why this sort of legal strategy is fraught with problems. This is by no means a comprehensive list, either.

• Religious beliefs need no evidence or justification. They don't even need scriptural citation. For example, there is no implicit Biblical commandment for being against abortion or against selling products or services to gay people. A person could claim a "sincerely held belief" to almost anything. In Hobby Lobby, the beliefs in question didn't even need to match scientific fact that contradicted the beliefs, all that mattered was the belief.
• Though so far, the topic has pretty much been limited to the wedding industry, and the subject of marriage itself, what legal reasoning could restrict these exemptions (or this complaint) to marriage? Why would it only apply to weddings? It isn't hard to conceive that granting special exemptions to this industry and subject would be a foot in the door for exemptions for all sorts of other things. And while this may sound like a slippery slope logical fallacy, I have seen no argument that would restrict these laws in any way to this specific subject.
• Christianity is not the only religion whose beliefs would need to be respected if such a set of laws were passed. It would apply to all religions, presumably major established ones, as well as cults, and brand new, just-born religions. Given that no evidence or scripture is even needed to claim religious belief, an enterprising individual could invent his own religion on the spot, in an attempt to skirt the law.
• Gay marriage, homosexuality and the wedding industry are by no means the only category of law that could be claimed in conflict with "sincerely held belief." The fact that this category is claiming most of the attention in the news right now shows the transparent nature of the push: though they'll go to great pains to avoid mentioning gay people or same-sex marriage in legislation, it's that purposeful avoidance of naked animus that will make these exemptions so vague as to have trucks driven through them.
• The obvious cause of this new flurry of legislation is religious opposition to same-sex marriage. But these are civil marriages, legal contracts. Not "holy matrimony." These are not marriages in the name of the religions objector's church, or in the name of the objector's God. They are, legally, no more religious in nature than a business contract or a building permit, unless the participants attach their religious beliefs to it. The religion of the formal occasion professional, or the government clerk servicing the civil contract are utterly irrelevant.
• Selling goods or services to a wedding party have not--prior to the advent of same-sex marriage--been seen as endorsement of, or participation in the event the goods or services were used for. If they had been, we'd have already seen "sin checklists" that quiz brides and grooms about infidelity, religious compatibility, prior divorces, and countless other attempts to root out sin. Such a thing would have been seen as outrageous and preposterous in the industry, until now. Which should be telling.
• There is an inherent irony involved in a religious push that simultaneously attempts to shield one group of people from violating their "sincerely held beliefs," while barring other people from following their own. These laws would ignore the customer's beliefs, by trumping them with the business person's (or civil clerk's) beliefs. It forces the customer to follow the seller's religion, or to be refused service. That the people behind such laws are very likely the same people who would be most paranoid about "Sharia Law" ought to be another red flag.
• All of this legislation effectively ignores religions that are in favor of same-sex marriage, and/or gay people in general. These religions do exist, and are growing in number.

 

Anti-gay Texas legislator and cartoon

character, Cecil Bell.

There is so much more that is wrong about what's going on here, that I could double or triple the length of this article. I'll continue to try to get more succinct in future attempts, believe me. Unfortunately, the "truthiness" behind this kind of legislation is succinct. It's simple, to be more precise, and strikes a chord. Or a cord, actually, a safety cord on a parachute that gets anti-gay religious conservatives safely around having to acknowledge that gay people are attaining civil equality in any area. People who have a knee-jerk desire to stamp out these kind of gains very often--nearly always--are blind to the unintended consequences of their proposed legislation. They simply want to stop it, or barring that, delay it as long as possible. But the reality is, this isn't just a Pandora's Box they're opening, it's a series of them. A series of nesting Pandora's Boxes. And it makes their opposition to Sharia Law untenable. A better writer than me should focus on that last part. Maybe then, we could show them why this path would be a huge mistake, not just for gay people, but for those with "sincerely held beliefs."

Here are a few stories going on right now, regarding attempts by religious conservatives to legally discriminate against gay people:

Texas: Anti-Gay Marriage Bill Scrutinized in Committee
Indiana: Tech leaders to Pence: Veto 'religious freedom' bill
California: California Seeks to Head Off Initiative to Execute Gays


 

The Gay Thing: Mississippi Governor Signs "Turn Away the Gay" Bill into Law

By and large, gay rights news over the last few years has been extremely good. We've got public sentiment on the rise, and the wind at our backs. And so, the anti-gay contingent had to shift gears, and come up with a new way to be a thorn in gay peoples' sides: "religious freedom."

The argument is a bit odd. Suddenly--and this is fairly new, as far as I know--there is some sort of religious objection to selling products and services to "unrepentant sinners." Translation: gay people (because these folks are not screening their other customers for random sin violations). Where in the Bible it says "thou shalt not festoon a party with thine goods, for men who lay with men as they would a woman," but they're saying it suddenly is in there. Or something.

Going where Jan Brewer feared to tread. Ass.
Image from source, Huffington Post.

But it's tremendously short sighted. Just wait until they realize that they're not the only religion in Mississippi. Wait until they're on the receiving end of a legal carve-out for a Muslim business. Or some newly made-up religion made for the express purpose of dodging a law. But most of all? Wait until the lawsuits start rolling in. The best thing to say about this is: it's Mississippi. It's very easy to avoid.

[Excerpt]

Mississippi Governor Signs Anti-Gay Bill

Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant signed a bill Thursday that supporters say will assure unfettered practice of religion without government interference but that opponents worry could lead to state-sanctioned discrimination against gays and lesbians. The bill, called the Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act, will become law July 1. It also will add "In God We Trust" to the state seal. . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

The Gay Thing: Mississippi Passes "Turn Away the Gay" Law

Seriously? Again? I'm sorry, crazy religious nuts, could you be any more obvious that you're shopping these bills from state to state? And even worse, you find these un-American, legally illiterate legislatures to pass them? There's no sane person who thinks this would pass Constitutional muster. It's so infuriatingly stupid. And this one--unlike every other attempt--just might pass. Unless America has enough righteous outrage left in it over this issue (and the news cycle allows). I suspect that many people are plumb tuckered out lately, and that they'll shrug and say, "meh, it's Mississippi, lost cause anyway."

[Excerpt]

Mississippi legislature approves ‘turn away the gays’ bill
 
The Mississippi legislature approved late Tuesday a “turn away the gays” measure that would enable businesses and individuals in the state to discriminate against or refuse services to LGBT people on religious grounds — making a signature from the governor the last remaining step before the bill becomes law. . .

Read more at: Washington Blade

The Gay Thing: Anti-Gay Laws on the Horizon? It's Getting Ridiculous

News for gay people has been--for lack of a better description--a bit bi-polar of late. Marriage equality is racking up wins left and right, small and large. There are multiple lawsuits against discriminatory state constitutional amendments in multiple states, all seemingly on track to success. Little by little (and sometimes bigger by bigger), the movement is in a really good place.

But the backlash has begun. Well, to be fair, it's been coming since forever, but it's got a new face. A really stupid, really odd, really hateful face. The new line of attack from the religious right is the concept of "religious freedom." Or, rather, the new concept of religious freedom that doesn't track logically, but somehow has found traction in Right Wing World. It goes like this: if you're selling a product or a service, and you're quite religious, you shouldn't have to sell to people who live their lives in a way that contradicts your religion.

Well, it's tighter than that. Specifically, if you're gay, they shouldn't have to accommodate you. Not divorced, or an adulterer, or any of a lengthy list of sins. Just The Gay Thing. The religious freedom of the customer doesn't matter, only the business owner, salesperson, or other employee offering the goods or service. This is--to say the least--a very peculiar and specific definition of religious freedom. And it breaks many current public accommodations laws.

Solution! Make new laws! Carve out exemptions for religious people (read: born again Christians) who don't want to sell stuff to "sinners" (read: gay people). Now, when this sort of thing was done prior to the civil rights awareness of the 1960s, it was called "Jim Crow." But the current crop of anti-gay politicos don't see it that way. And they aren't limiting their ire to participating in "gay marriage." In fact, in several of the cases that have made it to court, there wasn't any legal gay marriage in the states in questions. No, some of these hateful, nasty laws are going even further, into much more serious territory. Like emergency response. Medicine. Surgery.

Yes, these "good Christians" wish to be able to be as mean as they want to this select group of people, and have it codified into law. Does that sound "Christian" to you? It certainly doesn't sound constitutional.

[Excerpt]

Idaho bill would allow doctors or cops to refuse service to LGBT people on religious grounds

An Idaho Republican can’t think of anyone in his state who has been forced to render aid to a gay or lesbian person against their will, and he’d like to keep it that way. Rep. Lynn Luker outlined a proposal Tuesday backed by his conservative Christian allies to shield religious people from the threat of losing their professional licenses for refusing service or employment to anyone they conclude violates their religious beliefs. “This is pre-emptive,” said Luker, a Boise Republican. “The issue is coming, whether it’s 10 years, or 15 years, or two years. . .”

Read more at: Raw Story


[Excerpt]

Anti-gay marriage bill wins Kan. House's approval

Gay-rights advocates lashed out Wednesday at the Kansas House's leading Democrat, saying he showed only tepid opposition to a bill protecting people who, based on their religious beliefs, discriminate against gays and lesbians. Minority Leader Paul Davis, a Lawrence Democrat who's also running for governor, voted against the measure, which the House passed 72-49 on Wednesday, sending it to the state Senate. . .

Read more at: Houston Chronicle

Older Gay Couple Gets Feature on AOL

Photo from source, AOL News

The fight to overturn California's Proposition 8 seems to be almost unanimously predicted to fail. At the same time, most reports I've seen show that existing same-sex marriages will be allowed to stand. This would seem to build a dichotomy that is bound to draw lawsuits. And, hey, maybe that will be the undoing of the whole sorry mess.

But interestingly, the fight is bringing to light countless stories that humanize the story for us. Take the below excerpted story, for example. How many couples have been together for fifty-eight years, gay or straight? Good for these guys, and I hope they get the opportunity--sadly missed--to marry once and for all.

Another interesting aspect to this story is the fact that the notoriously conservative AOL readership has responded positively to both gay marriage and to the gays in the military issue. Gay issues usually draw heavy negatives in AOL polls, so this surprised me. The commentary section, sadly, does not reflect this.

[Excerpt]

Elderly Gay Couple Regrets Not Marrying

It was 1951 when they fell in love. They've been together every since. And now, Bob Claunch and Jack Reavley are wondering whether they made a mistake by not getting married when they had the chance. . .

Read more at: AOL News

Ellen Degeneres' Emotional Appeal for Change

Everybody knows that Ellen DeGeneres is a gay woman--it was right there on People Magazine. But with rare exceptions, the most political thing Ellen ever does these days is be herself. She rarely makes a big issue of it, particularly in the years since her ABC show, and her relationship with Anne Heche. She found herself the victim of a vicious backlash at the time, and it's surprising (and wonderful) that she's mounted such an effective comeback.

On her "Leap Year" show, Ellen decided to get political again--if only for a few minutes--to highlight a very serious topic: the murder of Lawrence (Larry) King, a gay middle schooler, over a Valentine wish. Ellen handles the topic with warmth and emotion, and a call for change. Take a look.

Dying Lesbian's Partner Denied Access in Florida

Image from ByteLand

Championing gay rights has never been a primary focus of this blog. The issue is important to me, but there are countless other blogs devoted to the topic that can do a more thorough and focused job of it. In this case, I'm going to make an exception.

Most Americans seem to think that any gay rights issue has to do with "special rights." They'll say that gay people have the same rights as anybody else, and that any other rights granted to them would be above and beyond what straight people have. It's never been true, but it is difficult to get people to understand that. This story should illustrate to even the hardest hearted of you (a group I'm often accused of belonging to), exactly why the fight for gay civil rights is important.

[Excerpt]

Dying Lesbian's Partner Denied Access To Her

Janice Langbehn and Lisa Pond had planned to take their three children on a family cruise. The Olympia, Washington couple had been together 18 years and with their children were looking forward to the holiday.

But just as they were about to depart on the cruise from Miami, Florida. Pond, a healthy 39-year-old, suddenly collapsed. [snip]

Other than one five minute visit, which was orchestrated by a Catholic priest at Langbehn’s request to perform last rites, and despite the doctor’s acknowledgement that no medical reason existed to prevent visitation, neither she nor her children were allowed to see Pond until nearly eight hours after their arrival. . .

Read more at: 365Gay.com

Restaurants Barred from Serving Obese People?

Photo from source, Raw Story

Around this editor's household, waistlines have expanded over the last couple of years. We may even be obese by technical standards--but not by most sane persons. We could just stand to lose a few. . .dozen. . .pounds. Anyway, if we don't get back on the treadmill, we may find ourselves outcasts, pariahs--like smokers--in restaurants in the near future.

Oh, and yeah, I'm primarily running this story for the funny picture at left. Wouldn't you?

[Excerpt]

State: Big Dietitian is watching you

A bill recently introduced in Mississippi's state legislature would bar restaurants from serving people determined to be obese. . .

Read more at: Raw Story

And thanks to Stupid Monkey Planet (he of long-awaited blog site) for the tip!

Romney's Candidacy Makes Mormon-bashing OK?

Photo from CBS News

This editorial, from a Mormon-owned newspaper, laments that "Mormon-bashing" is fair game now that a Mormon is running for President. While Mitt Romney's likelihood of attaining that office is looking more dubious about now, this is certainly a valid topic to write about.

As a non-religious person, I find most religions' core beliefs (and fringe ones, for that matter) kind of nutty. Virgin births, talking snakes, multiple contradictory accounts of the same events. . . There is much to make fun of. And I'll concede that even with that bias, I still find Mormonism nuttier. I'd put it right up there with Scientology and Jehovah's Witnesses for the kooky triumvirate of strange US religions.

I suppose having those beliefs questioned--perhaps even openly mocked--could make a believer a bit testy. But, I'll match the editorial writer's Mormonism with my Agnosticism, and raise him The Gay Thing. I guarantee him, I'll win the "who's made fun of with impunity" battle. . .

[Excerpt]

Better duck — if you're a Mormon

I missed the memo that said it's A-OK to make disparaging and often erroneous statements about Mormons. Apparently, they are fair game.

Sure, these are hypersensitive times, when name-calling or perceived bias against any group will get you the Don Imus treatment, but you get a free shot with Mormons. You can say what you want about them with impunity.

If you denigrate a racial group, you're racist. If you denigrate women, you're sexist. If you denigrate Mormons, you're hip. . .

Read more at: Deseret Morning News