Wednesday, August 12, 2009
40 Jealous Whores / Politics / Woods Will Christian Right Defeat Gay Discrimination Ban?
Posted by Jeff Woods on Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:15 AM
"The opponents are serious and they shouldn't be underestimated, but things look promising," says Chris Sanders of the Tennessee Equality Project. "It's unfortunate, but there's a segment of the population that hates us more than taxes. That's coming out."
The Tennessee chapters of the Rev. James Dobson's Family Action Council and Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum are orchestrating an email campaign against the bill, bombarding council members with crazy claims. Among them: The ordinance would force people to use courthouse restrooms in the company of cross dressers (oh my!) and it would require the city to pay for sex-change operations.
"This is just hiring, firing and promotion," Sanders says, "but according to our opponents, the apocalypse is going to turn on what Metro Council does."
Only 24 of the 40 Jealous Whores voted for the bill on first reading. That's not a good sign because first readings are pro forma. And it was a battle for the sponsor, Megan Barry, to delay the bill's second reading while proponents studied a slew of amendments from Eric Crafton. Deferral is usually a courtesy afforded sponsors on all bills. Yet supporters say they don't believe any of their votes have been shaken. At least two were missing on first reading.
Council member Sam Coleman has filed legislation to ban discrimination based on "non-merit factors," an apparent attempt to confuse the issue and sap support for Barry's bill. But legal director Sue Cain already has said Coleman's bill wouldn't provide any new protection for gays and lesbians. Essentially, in fact, it would do nothing, Cain says.
Barry's bill should come up for second reading Tuesday and for final passage Sept. 1. Mayor Karl Dean has announced he's for it, and his aides are supposedly helping the bill's supporters. In an email to council members, Barry pointed out:
"I think it is important to restate that state and local laws protecting against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation are longstanding and widespread. Fully half the states have either written sexual orientation into their state civil rights laws or enacted regulations protecting public employees. More than 170 cities and counties around the country have passed laws with these kind of protections as well. Louisville, for example, a city with much in common with Nashville, has had countywide laws banning sexual orientation discrimination in place for 10 years. Also, regulations banning employment discrimination based on sexual orientation for all federal employees in the U.S. have been in place for over a decade. These kinds of protections have become, if anything, common and mainstream."Update: Nate Rau breaks down the votes.
Comments (5)
Showing 1-5 of 5
It's interesting that these fine, upstanding "Christians" are fighting sin and degradation by lying. After all, the supposed moral basis for their fight is that homosexuality is a sin. (It isn't, but you will never convince them of that.)
So, one kind of "sin" is elevated above other sins as being so wrong that they feel comfortable committing the sin of lying to . . . to . . .
What, exactly do they want? Are they proposing that somehow not discriminating will promote the "sin" of homosexuality? That must be it. As soon as otherwise good Christian men and women learn that they cannot be discriminated against at the workplace for being homosexual, they will leave their spouses and homes and take up housekeeping with other homosexuals. Because, heaven only knows homosexuality is a choice - and it must be quite an attractive choice. Just one little straw will break the camel's back and the streets will be filled with gay guys and lesbian women openly flouting their lifestyles in front of God and everyone.
There is no logic in saying that homosexuality is a "sin" that merits Christian discrimination, when Christians are encouraged to forgive and embrace all other kinds of sinners. There is no Christian doctrine that says that one "sin" is so bad that it is OK to commit other sins to fight it.
This so called "Christian" right stuff is nonsense. It is merely that old hoary beast of prejudice and hatred towards those who are different in the guise of morality.
like
dislike
Karl -- Excellent comment! The Christian Extremest know no bounds -- the are some of the most evil folks on Earth.
Anyway -- loved your post.
Later.
Again with the restroom arguments! I thought people in Tennessee were literate enough to actually read the Tennessee Code Annotated to find that Tennessee has no laws regarding restroom usage.
As it currently stands, any person, of any gender can use whatever bathroom they choose without fear of legal action.
This ordinance won't take away from or add to restroom usage in any way.
Of course, once the nut-jobs finally accept this they'll probably have one of their puppets in the house or senate file a bill to restrict restroom usage based on biological gender.
The "The Chriztian Reich", it must be very sad to live in a place where one has to deal with nutcases like this everyday.
Non-discriminatory laws infer that the government can intervene into a private corporation or business and force them into hiring all classes of people. Trespassing laws keep undesirables off one's property that they choose not to associate with. By extension, a company or corporation has the same rights as individuals holding title to the company. As a private entity, it has the right to choose with whom it will associate and when. The 1st and 14th amendment intends that the property owner has rights of association, assembly, and speech in regards to his property, possessions, business, etc. This negates the hiring of certain classes of individuals if so desired. The government does not own a person or the extension; a company or corporation. Since 1964, the Civil Rights Act has allowed a 'slippery-slope' in this area to include all forms of behavior to be accepted by law. The emphasis on 'group rights' strips away individual rights. By implication, the government is stealing jurisdiction from individuals and their extensions of business. By altering the original intent of the Civil Rights Act to include behavior along with race, the door is open for forced acceptance of all types of behavior. Where does one draw the line if we use arbitrary ethics as our foundation for truth?
