From Full Civil Equality to Anti-Gay Jim Crow In Less Than Five Years

Comments

1
And don't forget Indiana -- they're trying to make sure not even civil unions could *possibly* be any kind of an alternative to anything remotely resembling marriage.

Gah! Past time to topple DOMA...
2
Presumably Iowans could also discriminate against those in an interracial marriage, if it violates their religious convictions.
3
@2 yea, the possibilities are endless -- if you religiously disapprove of the food they'll eat, if you let the woman work outside the house...
4
The last antigay Iowa house bill you told us about died in the state senate, as these publicity-seeking things are wont to do. It's heartening to read that its Republican sponsor doesn't figure this one can even pass the house. If the Iowa house repugs are going to keep floating bills, at least it seems like they're getting weaker and weaker.
5
Refusing service and turning people away because it violates their religious (i.e., christian) beliefs?

Yeah, that's totally what Jeebus would do too. He was always turning people away if they weren't 100% in line with his teachings.
6
So, would this mean that if I lived in Iowa and was an Atheist (which many religious types insist is akin to a religion), I could refuse to proffer goods and services to any deist based on my objection to their beliefs and/or lifestyle?

Wanna bet how much screaming and howling and gnashing of teeth would occur the second that scenario were to play out?

"Bu - but, that's NOT what we meant when we said it wuz okay to discriminate - it's not supposed to work agin US!"
7
So a Muslim business owner could refuse service to Christians because the wife doesn't wear a scarf? I don't think it would be a good business decision on their part in Iowa but this law would certainly allow that.
8
I just want to speak up and say I live in Iowa and this is the work of a small minority. There's a lot of us here speaking out daily, hourly, on this insane behavior of some of our elected officials.

A lot of us were proud to be on of the first states to protect marriage for all, and now this is the backlash from the coalition of ignorance.
9
*Hari*

I loved that piece when you originally posted it, all the good points, eloquently made. Why aren't democrats pointing out how patently unChristian these Christians are? You know, like an infomercial showing Jesus and an average Evangelical going about their very different days?
10
I just want to speak up and say I live in Iowa and this is the work of a small minority. There's a lot of us here speaking out daily, hourly, on this insane behavior of some of our elected officials.

A lot of us were proud to be on of the first states to protect marriage for all, and now this is the backlash from the coalition of ignorance. I'm thankful you're covering this and getting the word out.
11
The premise behind this law in a nutshell:

Only people who believe ridiculous fairy tales that make no sense and for which there is no evidence are legally allowed to be complete cunts.
12
Jim Crow laws were government MANDATES of discrimination. Individual businesses who discriminate will suffer in the marketplace. DOMA is a Jim Crow type bullshit law.
13
BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
14
@2 - I was thinking the same thing. And there is just a "religion": Creativity Movementism.

Man, there's going to be some bitter "social conservatives" in 10-15 years, dismayed that no one cares about their bigoted "values" anymore. I can't wait.
15
@10, thanks for reminding us what Iowans are really like. We Sloggers do get caught up in the freak-show aspects of Iowa House Republicans, but we mustn't pretend they stand for all Iowans, or represent the most accurate measure of Iowa public policy.
16
15
now now you must sit through venomlast's lecture about the virtues of representative democracy.......
17
Canuck, I love your informercial idea.
I can see the intercutting back and forth now . . .
18
Nocutename, the last shot could be of a guy trying to drive his Hummer with the Bush bumper sticker through the eye of a needle, or something...
19
@18 *Standing ovation* Canuck.
20
The language of the bill is so broadly worded that it would also be legal for Iowans to discriminate against straight couples so long as the bigot can point to faith, e.g. a business owner could refuse service to a couple in an inter-faith marriage or to unmarried heterosexuals who live together and or couples known to use contraception and on and on.
Good.
21
Know any NYU film grads who could whip this up, OuterCow? We could be paid for ideas in Guinness and Irish Nachos...
22
@5 ftw
23
They know they're losing the long-term culture war on this issue. The more obvious that becomes, the more shrill they will get. The same thing happened with integration. In forty years, it will be an embarrassing memory, swept quietly under the cultural rug.
24
Maybe I'm just being naive but I think organizations like private clubs, churches, and fraternal orders shoud be allowed to keep out homos if they want to. Businesses that are open to the public shouldn' be allowed to discriminate, but people should be allowed to decide who they hang out with.
25
This echoes the way I feel about pharmacists: If you aren't comfortable prescribing any and all medications, don't become a pharmacist. If you're not comfortable providing public services to gays, get a different job.
26
@21 Sadly only an NMU film grad with the most error-prone writing you've ever seen. One paper I helped him edit, one, and never again. I still get flashbacks...
27
Koala bear flashbacks???
28
And what's more egregious is that if the flow is the other way, the Radical Religious Extremist can rightly claim religious discrimination and get all the Federal protections needed. They are an offense and insult to what Jesus stood for.
29
I wish, Canuck. I wish.
30
@24: should clubs and churches be allowed to close their doors to African-Americans? Women? Should private clubs be allowed to kick out Jews? We need to stop acting like anti-gay bigotry is fundamentally different from other types. If we would object to discrimination of minorities whose rights and existence are not called into question, then we should object to the same discrimination against queer people.
31
So why has no one mentioned the biggie that affects straights more than gays:
D-I-V-O-R-C-E

This law will have a greater impact on divorced couples than anyone can imagine.
32
One thing I always see in threads of this nature is how "un-Christian" the Christians calling for these laws are behaving. Just for the record, you're never going to convince anyone with that argument. These self-righteous Christian bigots assume a tautology: they are Christian, so everything they do is "Christian". They are Christ-like, so they are incapable of doing anything un-Christ-like. And as others point out, the bible is chock-a-block with bigotry, murder and all sorts of sociopathic behavior. Sorry, but the problem is not being "un-Christian". The problem is with basing your life and your beliefs on a dualist fantasy.
33
@32: Known as the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
34
I wonder if anyone at the stranger has a problem with "denying" jobs to people with certain beliefs/lifestyles? If someone came waltzing up to the office and said, "Hi, I live with my wife and kids in Bellevue and I want you to pay me to write a pro-'family values' anti-gay column" would you think twice about "denying" him that job because you think his views are abhorrent? Why is it any different from the owner of a christian bookstore "denying" jobs to someone based on sexual orientation?

And business owners can generally refuse their services for most any reason they want. A barber could refuse to cut blonde, brunette, or red hair if they want. A restaurant owner can kick you out if you're loud, not dressed right, or another customer thinks you smell bad. I think these people are wrong, but some people are really offended by same-sex couples. Is it really that terrifying that someone might not do something for you that they don't want to do anyway? I really don't like the idea that the law will force people to provide their services to people they don't want to.
35
Actually, in the U.S., you can refuse to serve people you don't like at your B&B. There's an exception to anti-discrimination law when it comes to your own home. Same with roomies.
36
I wonder if anyone at the stranger would think twice about "denying" jobs to people who they view have abhorrent views. Imagine if someone came up to your office and said, "Hi, I live in Bellevue with my wife and kids. I'd really like to write an anti-gay, pro-'family values' column in your little paper here. Also, I want you to pay me for doing this." No would anybody get up in arms if the Stranger "denied" him a job? What's the difference between that and a christian book store owner who doesn't like gay people (rooted in stupid prejudice though that may be) doesn't want to hire someone who is in his view deeply immoral and trying to destroy society?

Like @35 said, businesses can generally refuse service to anybody, exceptions made for anti-discrimination laws. If someone doesn't want to serve you, for whatever reason, why should the law force them to?
37
@Canuck and nocutename
The biggest issue with the idea of a commercial comparing Jesus's acceptance and the bigotry shown by so many that say they follow him is getting it aired. For example, watch this commercial from the United Church of Christ. They try to get across exactly that point.

http://community.ucc.org/post/Ben/videos…

Now, how many times have you seen a conservative church advertising on TV? But this one was denied from all major networks, despite the fact it is an international Christian organization. The reason cited was that it was too controversial. How much do you want to bet that's because of the two men holding hands?
38
@Canuck and nocutename
The biggest issue with the idea of a commercial comparing Jesus's acceptance and the bigotry shown by so many that say they follow him is getting it aired. For example, watch this commercial from the United Church of Christ. They try to get across exactly that point.

http://community.ucc.org/post/Ben/videos…

Now, how many times have you seen a conservative church advertising on TV? But this one was denied from all major networks, despite the fact it is an international Christian organization. The reason cited was that it was too controversial. How much do you want to bet that's because of the two men holding hands?
39
@35: "Imagine if someone came up to your office and said, 'Hi, I live in Bellevue with my wife and kids. I'd really like to write an anti-gay, pro-family values column in your little paper here. Also, I want you to pay me for doing this.' No would anybody get up in arms if the Stranger denied him a job? What's the difference between that and a christian book store owner who doesn't like gay people...?"

That's a false parallel. The Stranger doesn't have an anti-gay-pro-family values columnist position open. If your hypothetical anti-gay-pro-family values person wanted to apply for a job that existed at The Stranger, and this person was the best qualified for that job, and this person's anti-gay-pro-family views did not prevent him from doing that job well and appropriately, then of course The Stranger should hire him. (Assuming Mr. Anti-gay-pro-family is comfortable himself working for and with a crowd of rampaging Sodomites.)

Your bookstore owner, one assumes, has positions for booksellers. A gay applicant would be applying for a job selling books, not a job being gay. If he is the best qualified person, and if he is capable of performing the job well and appropriately, then of course the bookseller should hire him. (Assuming Mr. Gay is comfortable himself working for and with a crowd of rampaging bigots.)
40
I'm black. I'm not ashamed of it. I'm not proud of it. I'm not ashamed or proud of having dark eyes, or being average height. I was born that way.

Gays chose to be gay. They don't get the same protections I do. That's the way law works. We get protected from discrimination for stuff we didn't choose. We have to deal with the way people treat us for stuff we do.

Grow up and stop acting entitled because you chose to be gay.
41
@40: Sigh. You were born black. Gays are born gay. You are chosing to be a bigot.
42
41
Choosing to be a bigot, huh. No. But if I were I have to deal with the results of that choice. Clients might refuse to do business with me. I might lose friends. I might have strained relationships with family. Because of my choice.

Just like gays.

38
Jesus accepted the PERSON with unconditional love. He also said things like "go and sin no more." Somehow the left always forgets that.
43
41
Choosing to be a bigot, huh. No. But if I were I have to deal with the results of that choice. Clients might refuse to do business with me. I might lose friends. I might have strained relationships with family. Because of my choice.

Just like gays.

38
Jesus accepted the PERSON with unconditional love. He also said things like "go and sin no more." Somehow the left always forgets that.
44
@43: Being gay or lesbian is not a choice. Being gay or lesbian is not a sin. Clinging to the belief that it is a choice, or that it is a sin? That is bigotry.
45
In some religions homosexual sex is sin. It is in Christianity. I only wrote that because of the silly What Would Jesus Do argument earlier. But it's a fact that for Christians homosexual sex is a sin.

It is a fact that I can't choose to wake up Asian or White. I can't choose to wake up tall or short, or with green eyes. I don't want to do any of those things. But if I did I couldn't. A gay man can choose to have sex with women. A lesbian can choose to have sex with men. So they may prefer not to do that? Preference has nothing to do with discrimination. It doesn't force anyone else to like or accept or enable their preference.

If writing facts makes me a bigot it's a definition I never heard before.

46
Clarification-

Sin is not law. It is the preference of those who choose a religion. Like homosexuality it doesn't mean others have to agree with you. They don't have to live by your rules. They don't have to accept you socially. They owe you nothing but tolerance for your choice. I wrote about Christianity only because someone else did.

Sodomy laws were rightly overturned for this reason. What a person does in their bed is their business. If gays think the law owes them I care. If they think marriage should be changed just for them I care. If they think tax code should encourage their lifestyle I care. If they keep their private business private, I don't care. The law owes every citizen equal protection. It doesn't owe gays extra protection they want.

47
@46: Tax benefits for being gay married won't encourage gayness. Men are gay because they Like the Cock. Women are gay because they Like the Pussy. (Qualifier: those categories include bisexuamals as well.)
Frankly, Lady GaGa's music is more likely to turn people gay than anything to do with the tax codes.
48
@46: "What a person does in their bed is their business."

Okay...

"The law owes every citizen equal protection."

Right. That includes the protection against being discriminated against for what they do in their beds. Because, as you said, that is their business.

"It doesn't owe gays extra protection they want."

That's where you lose me. It isn't "extra protection." It is the same protection - the right not to be discriminated against for their private sexual activities.

THE SAME PROTECTION.

Jesus, some of you people are thick.

49
@"not an entitled gay"

Why don't you try liking other men for a day or two. Then you'll see how easy it is to choose to be gay. It's not an on and off switch. I'm a straight woman, so I don't want to sleep with women. If I was a lesbian, I wouldn't want to sleep with men. Forcing myself to sleep with men because people like you think I should is the same as a black woman wearing skin-lightening makeup because society thinks her skin is too dark.

Being gay is NOT a choice. I can't choose to be gay anymore than a gay person can choose to be straight. Discrimination is discrimination. It is no one's business how I or anyone else lives their life, and if what I do doesn't hurt anyone else, then why can't I do it?
50
@backyard b. Just because the something is someone's business does NOT imply that it's the law's job to protect people from private discrimination. Religion is protected business, but I generally choose not to have any Mennonite friends. You can choose not to hire someone because you know they own a gun, as is their right under both the federal and state constitutions. You have the protection from the government discriminating against you, but not from the discrimination of your peers. It's not thick to not get something that isn't true.
51
You can choose not to hire someone because you know they own a gun, as is their right under both the federal and state constitutions."

Um, actually, no you can't - at least not in every state. We're working on it.
52
I don't hire kids with what appear to be the contents of a tackle box in their face, blue hair cut into a mohawk and ink all over their bodies as receptionists. I don't because my clients deserve professional treatment from the people who work for me. This is a form of discrimination but one they can't sue for. That's because the kid made the choice to dress like a botched Halloween costume and must accept the limits this places on his or her careeer.

We protect status that can't be changed. And we limit that. I can't be forced to hire a person with a disability which means they can't do the job. I can't be forced to hire another black person or a woman if a white candidate is better qualified. And these are things that don't change. These are things in which the person made no choices. Gays didn't choose to be born with the desire, maybe. They did choose to act on the desire.

We owe gays respect as fellow citizens and fellow human beings. We owe gays the right to be let alone to run their lives as they like. We owe them the same protection from violence we owe any citizen. What we don't owe someone who chose a life is protection from that choice.

Brahms made music. Jim Morrison made music. Ella Fitzgerald made music. Ray Charles made music. Even a country band like Sawyer Brown makes music. Lady Ga Ga makes noise. She isn't even good at that. My 3 year old nephew is capable of better music on old pots and pans than she is with a studio at her disposal.
53
@50: You can pick your friends, but you cannot discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion.

As to discriminating in who you serve in a private business, just try putting a sign out in front of your shop that says "No blacks allowed". See how long that lasts.
54
I think Iowa needs a shower of Santorum.
55
@52: Seattleblues, is that you?

"What we don't owe someone who chose a life is protection from that choice."

So, it's okay to discriminate against some based on their religion? I can hang a "No Jews Allowed" sign in my shop window?

Or a Muslim can refuse to serve women who aren't covering their hair? Or, if he's Wahhabi, perhaps refuse to serve women at all?

Or someone could refuse to serve registered Republicans? Or men who grow their hair long? Or people who wear the colour blue?

Choices, so many choices...
56
Seattleblues. Must be a liberal inside joke. Is it like teabagger or something?

The government has no right to treat "customers" differently. Whatever the clerk might think of the person they are dealing with.

A private owner should have the right to be a dumbass and limit client base if they want. And why would I want to support a businessman who hates me but hides it? If the racist is open about it I can shop elsewhere knowing my money isn't paying his expenses. Better for both of us. And he will eventually fail. A business owner who can't keep his emotions separate makes bad decisions in other areas too. It's his store, and his business if he doesn't want me as a customer.
57
@52: You are only allowed to discriminate in hiring on bases that directly affect your business.
For example, you can not hire someone because they have a tattoo if the tattoo is all over their bicep, but not if the tattoo is little and on their buttock (i.e., not visible). Disabilities that affect one's capacity to perform the tasks of the job can be taken into account, because they affect your business. Qualification can be taken into account as well. None of that is bias or prejudice.
Straights also choose to act on their desires (except of course those in monastic traditions). Problem, whinyfag?
And, speaking as someone who doesn't like Lady GaGa's music, I might as well tell you that she does make decent music, even if it's not my cup of tea. She does have talent in singing and songwriting. She's just bizarre about it, which is why all you neckbeards seem to whine about her so much.
58
Gaga's fucking brilliant. Fucked-up. But so were the Beatles. "Not my cup of tea?" Well, yes and no. Gotta admire the brilliance, though. It'll probably kill her. It usually does.
59
@ backyard. Right, you can't discriminate on the basis of religion in hiring. And you cant discriminate in who you serve on the basis of race. But that's because race and religion are specifically protected classes. As of now, However, sexual orientation is not protected from discrimination.

@venom slash. That's just inaccurate. The presumption is that the employer can discriminate on anything they please, *unless* the basis is specifically banned (race, religion, sex to some extent...). If I just have a seething hatred of anyone who went to my rival high school, I can decline to hire them on that basis. Same with invisible tattoos.

This is all aside from whether any employer should so discriminate.
60
@56: "A private owner should have the right to be a dumbass and limit client base if they want."

Title II of your Civil Rights Act says otherwise. Jim Crow is dead.

@59: And as is often the case, it comes down to this. "The Civil Rights Act only says I cannot discriminate against these specific groups. I'm allowed to be a bigot against everyone else."

Well, fuck that. If discrimination is wrong, it is wrong.

And @59, I have no doubt that if you were taken to court over a decision not to hire a qualified candidate based on the high school he went to, or the tattoo on his ass, you would lose.
61
@56 Seattleblues is a pompous entitled blowhard who posts here on a semi regular basis. The two of you could be twins.
62
Wow, I hope it doesn't pass but the nature of the bill does not surprise me. That area really freaks me out. My best friend's ex was murdered by a homophobe out there in 2009, not even a year after he moved to Des Moines. He thought he had made a new friend but the guy ended up being a homophobe and shot him at point blank range after he found out my friend was gay.
63
These stupid people are too dumb to understand that this stuff can cut both ways. Everything shifts and conservative christians will become the persecuted minority. With these horrible laws intact those of us who find male headed households with subservient wives repellent can start to tell these losers they are disgusting prideful perverts and to get the hell out of our establishments. They should be careful what they wish for.