Homophobes Have Invented a Scary New Tactic to Undo Equal Rights

[damnedifIknow]

Homophobes, having lost the fight over marriage, have just launched a new stealth attack to undo equality -- and so far, they're winning.

Conservative lawmakers and religious fundamentalists have disguised their new strategy so well that you might not even have noticed what they're up to. Or at least, you won't notice until you get fired, or evicted or thrown out of school just for seeming too gay.

Here's their sneaky trick: They've realized that they can't pass laws that specifically target LGBT people, since public opinion has turned against that kind of bigotry. So now, instead, they're selectively re-writing nondiscrimination laws so that they have a Big Gay Loophole that's so big it could ruin lives.

This week they passed a law called SB202 that undoes civil rights protections in Arkansas. And now, West Virginia and Texas are considering copycat bills of their own, with HB2881 and SB343."

*if you're in a hurry, here's all you really need to know: Most states allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender expression. In those states, some towns have filled in that civil rights loophole by passing more inclusive nondiscrimination laws at the local level. But now, the homophobes have realized that they can pass state laws that make it illegal for those towns to add protections for new groups.

In effect, that wipes out the existing local laws that protect LGBTs. It doesn't just widen the Big Gay Loophole -- it holds the loophole open, so nobody can close it.

Or in other words: They're making it a crime to protect people from discrimination.

Sounds nuts, doesn't it? "Outlawing nondiscrimination" is such a bizarre notion that it made me feel weird to even type the phrase.

But, it's what they're doing, and they're getting away with it.

And it gets worse: This doesn't just affect LGBTs -- it affects straight people, too. You don't have to be queer to be evicted or fired or denied access to a public accommodation. It's enough for someone to just suspect that you're gay, or even that you're not behaving stereotypically male or female enough.

A woman could be evicted from her home for wearing pants."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-baume/watch-homophobes-have-inv_b_6764078.html

[closeupready]

1. Not scary, really. This is lame, IMO. Also, it exposes them

as the control freaks and figurative micro-managers they are.

[randys1]

2. Which political party is doing this?

Let me clear my throat while I remind my liberal friends that there is a political party which hates Gay people, or the powerful part of the party does, and it is NOT the Democratic Party.

the GOP hates Gay people, and a GOP president will express that hatred if he or she thinks it will get them reelected, etc.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. And yet DOMA was exactly this sort of legislation and it had massive Democratic support and

it was with us until just recently. Signed into law by a Democrat muttering about compromise. Additionally, each day on DU we see threads celebrating Pope Francis, a big hero to the Elizabeth Warren right. 'He is our mentor, he should be President' they chirp. He says equal treatment for gay people is Satan's idea. Every day on DU, Democrats praise him, and attack LGBT people for objecting to his hate speech. Every day.
So sure, most Democrats are not as bad as most Republicans, but being slightly better than a full tilt bigot is not really a feather in one's cap to brag about. It's just not. Obama was inaugurated with Rick Warren at his side, days after Warren had attacked us with vicious hate speech, such evangelicals attacking us was a regular feature of the Obama campaign and no one has offered any apology, not the Party, not the President. We get tight lipped and strained words of support which may or may not be true because they are so weakly spoken by men and women who have also sworn the opposite and claimed the opposed our rights because of Goddy Godsox and his Book of Rules.
When there is a nominee for President that has never trash talked gay people, I'll stamp that ticket you are currently claiming. In the meantime stop sending yourself flowers.

[randys1]

6. OK, I get all that. All I have EVER said is that if the choice is any republican vs any democrat

there is NO question which political party will do the least harm to the Gay community.

I dont think there is ANY question about that.'


But I wont try and deny your life experiences which I have not experienced, I respect you and your experiences and all I will say is that I will work to deny power to those who would do you the most harm.

[dsc]

7. DOMA, as bad as it was, wasn't remotely comparable

Precisely 0 gay people were married at that point so no one was having rights taken away on the day it was passed. In point of fact, it wasn't until 2004 that DOMA even came into play when MA legalized marriage equality. It was a bad law but it might have forstalled a constitutional amendment which would have been a disaster.

[closeupready]

8. Clintonian historical revisionism - there was NEVER a threat of Constitutional Amendment.

[dsc]

9. Yes there surely was

I can't say it would have passed or it wouldn't have. But given the fact that the Senate was GOP and had such Democrats as Exon, Byrd, Dorgan, Byron, and other anti gay members I can easily see a 2/3 vote for such an amendment.

[Egnever]

20. "muttering about compromise"

oh horseshit. The bill passed with a veto proof majority. It was being used as a political tool against Democrats when gay marriage was wildly unpopular. Funny that we have come full circle and it is again being used to hang democrats.

[1StrongBlackMan]

3. We can't give teh Gays the special right ...

of being treated as every other person!

(Yes, I've heard the "special protections" argument.)

If I am an employer and I have someone doing the job I hired them to do, why should I care who they love?

If I am a housing provider and I have someone paying their rent on time and not destroying my property, why should I care who they love?

If I am a service provider and I have someone paying for/enjoying my service, why should I care who they love?

All of this runs counter to what conservative claim to value.

[damnedifIknow]

4. I don't understand this

Why sit around and dream up ways to hurt a group of people who have done absolutely nothing to deserve it? Get a life and leave people alone homophobes.

[RKP5637]

27. Homophobes are demented individuals and do not process emotions and thoughts as

others. They are in fact sadistic and enjoy persecuting gays It's how they get off in life and feel tremendous satisfaction.

[Rhythm]

10. I'm very thankful that the WV House killed HB2881

But i have no delusions that it won't resurface in the next legislative session.
The homobigots that much of my state sent to Charleston to do the 'people's business' have not hidden their agenda.

[Wella]

11. I'm going to say something unpopular here about GLBT strategy

Most Americans do not actively support discrimination against gays and are not frightened ("phobic&quot of gays. You do have small pockets can truly be called "phobic", but they are not the norm. The polls show that most Americans are fine with gay marriage and the younger generation is trending even better: to them, sexual orientation is not even an issue.

However, Americans also do not actively support people being run out of their own businesses. They do not actively support a man being fired from the company he created because he gave a donation to a proposition. In other words, the current tactics of the GLBT activists are causing alarm among small business owners and people who give political donations. They see the current GLBT POLITICAL strategy as undermining the First Amendment, which is precious in this country.

Now, I understand that gays have had a long hard road and don't want to go backwards. But if the GLBT activists keep going after mom-and-pop bakeries and keep demanding the names of private donors to political causes, they will create their own backlash and some municipalities will attempt to skirt GLBT protections. Attempts like the one in the OP are a direct result of people fearing their businesses will be lost or their jobs will be at risk. If the GLBT activists wish to avoid this backlash, they can lay off the small fry and stop destroying the privacy of political donors.

[closeupready]

12. "stop destroying the privacy of political donors" - fuck that.

When political donors stop seeking to strip gay people of their rights - which, by the way, include EVERY right you babymaking people enjoy - then I suppose we can talk about letting them remain private citizens, but otherwise, fuck that.

[Wella]

13. Then you will reap what you sow...including your own unpopular donations being made public

and your political goals being seen as more and more unreasonable.

GLBT is about to win a major SCOTUS ruling. If you're not gracious winners, there will be fights in places you never imagined.

[closeupready]

14. That's democracy. If you want a theocracy, move to Saudi Arabia.

Or Iran.

[Wella]

16. A very vapid and foolish response to a serious issue

This is how I know you really don't understand.

[closeupready]

21. You are loony. That's the issue here. Get out more.

[Wella]

23. This is your argument?

Perhaps you should actually consider how you appear.

[bravenak]

28. Do you know how you appear, tho?

For real. I almost threw up reading this drivel. If people are donating to causes that strip people of their rights, we should all join together opposing that shit, instead of worrying about the poor homophobes jobs. They donate to take rights to freedom from employment discrimination from gays, but gays better not protest? Or they will get fucked over? They already get fucked over.

[Wella]

31. You don't get political stategy do you?

This myopic narcissism is exactly the problem.

[bravenak]

32. Yes. You have myopic narcissism. It is a problem.

If anybody has a problem with gay rights, then they have a problem with me. And I and others should do our best to fight for all people and human rights.
All that strategy talk means that a sell out is coming.

[Wella]

41. I think you are projecting. And you haven't understood the logic.

I can't help you there.

[bravenak]

43. You have no logic.

That is my entire point. Your logic = non existant.

[Wella]

44. What you mean is, "I don't like your logical breakdown of the situation."

And that's ok. I can see it's not going anywhere.

Peace.

[bravenak]

45. See ya around.

Maybe we'll agree on something later. It's bound to happen.

[RKP5637]

29. Your arguments are ludicrous! n/t

[Wella]

46. No, they are actually quite logical; they're just not common in our current discourse

At some point they'll emerge.

[RKP5637]

49. Actually, I do see some merit in what you say, in that pushing the envelop for the

point of creating friction is not always the best strategic maneuver.

I had one friend that felt in the public domain discrimination is discrimination for whatever reason, thus eliminating the need for special classifications of what constitutes discrimination. His feeling was when one creates lists of what is discriminatory it basically leads, so to say, to a rat hole, the list becomes endless and in essence fine tuning it is practically impossible.

If one allows religion to discriminate, what constitutes the boundary conditions? In essence, my religion could say I am offended by non-whites coming into my public business, or I am offended in my religion by having to serve handicapped people. In essence, I could have my brand of religion dictating whatever brand of discrimination I might choose.

Hence, I fall on the binary side of no discrimination in the public domain. That said, I do see what you were saying, that a strong defensive reaction might eventually occur.

Civil rights are always contentious, if not, then there would be no difficulties.

[dsc]

17. you do not have a right to my or anyone else's money

There were three people whose donations led to trouble for them. One was running a LGBT film festival, one was CEO of a browser company, and one was manager of a restrant that catered to gay customers. Now I don't know but maybe just maybe if you depend upon gays for your money then you shouldn't stab them in the back at the first opportunity. In the case of the CEO it was straight people who boycotted the browser in response. In the other cases they stabbed either all of their customer base or most of it in the back and did so publicly. Yes, that is what happens when you do those things.

[Wella]

18. No one is talking about rights here, but about political strategy.

Your rage and self-righteousness are your worst enemy politically.

As I said in my previous post, you are about to win the entire enchilada. SCOTUS really has no choice but to legalize gay marriage across the nation. To screw that up by going after mom-and-pop shops and CEOs who donate a pittance to political campaign will CREATE the backlash you are now experiencing.

Perhaps that is what the activists want: to create a backlash that keeps them relevant, employed, and financially comfortable. Or maybe it's just to keep the gay community constantly agitated and ready for other causes.

But backlashes bring the possibility of the rolling back of hard won rights. Ask abortion supporters what the past 40 years have been like.

[dsc]

19. It has nothing to do with outrage

the simple fact is I won't patronize businesses that turn around and stab me in the back. I have many options of browsers to use and I chose not to use one which was run by a man who hates my guts.

[Wella]

24. This is not about shopping: this is about overall political strategy

It's not good strategy to go after mom-and-pop stores. You'll get more of the type of blacklash mentioned in the OP.

[dsc]

26. Mozilla is hardly a mom and pop operation

the other two targets were places that purposely targeted gays for business and then turned around and gave money to prop 8.

[Wella]

30. But bakeries are.

I'm just telling you--be a gracious winner.

[dsc]

35. Should blacks have been gracious winners by not insisting on being served in businesses?

that said, I would offer them the following deal. You can refuse to sell the cakes but every ounce of your advertising, the signs on your door, and every container in which a cake is sold should say in no uncertain terms we refuse to serve gays.

[Wella]

36. These bakeries are not strictly denying service to gays and lesbians

The analogy with African Americans is misleading. African Americans were being denied service in the South because they were black--and only for that reason.

Gays and lesbians are NOT being denied service at Christian bakeries. If they want to buy a birthday cake or a cheese cake or a cupcake, they can do so. If the GLBT situation were exactly the same as that of African Americans under Jim Crow, gays and lesbians wouldn't be allowed in the door to buy any kind of cake. It is clearly NOT the same.

What IS being denied is a particular kind of cake. These Christian bakeries do not believe in gay marriage. A gay or straight person who came in to buy a gay wedding cake would be told that the bakery doesn't make these kinds of cakes. It's not the person that is being discriminated against--it is the concept of gay marriage that is bearing the brunt. And concepts don't have civil rights.

You may win the legal argument because no judge wants to be "on the wrong side of history", but understand that this is NOT a civil rights issue. Gays and lesbians are allowed into these shops and are allowed to purchase the cakes these Christian bakers DO provide.

A baker is allowed to decide what messages should appear on a cake and which ones should not. Should a Christian or Jewish baker be forced to make a cake that says, "Happy Birthday, Hitler" complete with swastika? There was a case like this:

Child named after Adolf Hitler is refused cake request

Should the bakery have been forced to make this cake and charged with discrimination against people who have the First Amendment right of association with the Neo-Nazis?

Now, I understand you will be upset with me for comparing gay wedding cake to a Nazi birthday cake. You and I do not see these cakes as being in any way equivalent.

However, most Americans believe business owners have a right to refuse to make certain products. And strictly speaking, if a baker refuses to make a gay wedding cake for anyone--the gay bride/groom or the straight parent who orders the cake--then this is not a civil rights issue since all customers are being denied precisely the same service.

It's a grey area, but it's one where GLBT activism is bound to create much bad feeling. That's why I said, be gracious winners and don't mess with little penny-ante bakeries and put them out of business when they are not discriminating against you but are rejecting a concept.

[bravenak]

37. This is a crazy argument.

I'm floored. They deny ONLY gay people those cakes for weddings. What if they didn'y believe in interracial marriage? Give them a pass?
Treating people differently based on sexuality is discrimination. I am trying to understand so hard, but it is just a crazy argument.
If they bakeries want to stay in business, just serve everybody equally. If not, people who respect all humans, like myself, will just boycott.
Its bad politics to tell our friends to deal with bigotry and hate, for strategic purposes.

[Wella]

38. No, it is a logical argument that shows the differences between the GLBT and African American cases

It also explains why even non-Christians will support the right of these bakeries to exist and will find GLBT activist tactics quite heavy handed.

All the self righteous yelling of "bigotry" doesn't change the logic of the argument. As a GLBT person, these bakeries will in fact serve you. In the Jim Crow south, white businesses would not serve black customers, period.

The thing these bakeries will not do is create a particular kind of cake. For any customer.

[bravenak]

39. They won't do wedding cakes at a bakery?

That's illogical. How you find that logical i have no clue. My generation cares more about gay rights than bigoted bakers. We are the future and the now. Bigots are dying off. Logically it's best to go with what the people want and we want gay rights. That comes way above the rights of bigots not to serve certain things to certin folks.

Anybody should be able to buy anything sold in any store if they can afford it. I haven't seen many liberals and not many republicans in my age who care if a bigot bakery loses so much business it goes away. I love boycotts and people against boycotts trip me out.

[Wella]

47. They serve all customers; they don't make all kinds of cakes.

These are different things.

[bravenak]

48. Yeah, but they make wedding cakes for straights?

But not gays? That is bigotry. I hope we at least agree on that. Everybody deserves the right to equal treatment. If people don't want to sell certain things to a certain type of person based on sexuality, they should not be serving the public. If a bakery didn't believe in mixed marriage (jew/christian, black/white, white asian) based on religion and sold wedding cakes to everybody else, would you feel the same way? If not, then try to think about doing word substitution. Substitute interracial for gay and i think you'll see why it is imperative to fight and/or boycott people who discriminate.
People are starting to use religion as a reason to not provide medical services to gays and not baptise their kids and all manner of religious based excuses for discrimination. We are a secular society. Pray, worship, what ever, but nobody else should have to be required to allow discrimination based on religion. Religion was used to perpetuate jim crow, as you know, and they were very sucessful. We will not allow it this time. I would just make the damn cakes. It's what they went into busdiness to do using the public roads and utilitys that were paid for in part by - Gay people.

[Arugula Latte]

53. You are an apologist for bigotry.

You disgust me.

[justiceischeap]

40. You're right, your opinion is unpopular here

as it would be amongst most people.

The LGBT political strategy is fine... otherwise, we wouldn't have had such a fast move toward equality as we've had over the last five years. I want you take you post and replace "GLBT" with black people or Jewish people and then re-read it.

As far as your assertion that the First Amendment is precious in this country, I'd point you to Homeland Security, NSA and the Patriot act to contradict that statement--most American's really don't care about the First Amendment, they just like to say they do because it's the "right" thing to say.

As far as the attempts in the OP being a direct backlash, you're right it is a direct backlash... to the LGBT community gaining equal rights. It has nothing to do with donor lists being revealed or businesses not being allowed to discriminate. It comes down to the conservative right being a bunch of fucked up bullies who are afraid it will become illegal to bully the LGBT community in the future. This is their last gasp just like the pre Civil Rights era, where the Bible and all other kinds of flimsy excuses were used to treat black people unfairly. It's the same kind of logic that (I'm breaking Godwin's law) allowed Hitler to exterminate millions of people (a good portion of which were gay) because he saw them as inferior to him and his ilk.

If some store mom and pop bakery refused service to black people or Jewish people, would that be okay with you? If these two minority groups demanded equal treatment, would you criticize their activism?

[Arugula Latte]

50. Wow. "Let's pander to homophobes who are against equal rights for Americans."

Fuck that.

You might be on the wrong board. See ya.

[daleanime]

51. The owner is free to spend his money.....

any hateful way he wants to. Just like me, I can spend my limitated funds where ever I please.

[LeftyMom]

54. Sometimes I miss moderators.

One of the really cool things about that system was that moderators could save posts that weren't quite over the line but that looked like they might be part of a pattern. So if somebody had a bad habit of posting bigoted nonsense but was smart enough to not quite step over the line in any one post? It would be pretty easy to figure that out.

[Jamastiene]

55. We ARE gracious winners.

The problem is that people like you are sore losers.

[Egnever]

22. Shouldn't these laws be easily challenged as unconstitutional?

Seems very unscary.

What is scary is that there are tools so invested in homophobia to be able to completely overlook the fact that there is no way laws like this will stand.

[petronius]

33. 'State preemption' is not uncommon; there's been a lot of talk about

it recently with regard to gun laws (PA, notably), but it crops up in a lot of areas. As long as the state laws themselves (the state level non-discrimination laws) are not in conflict with federal law, the state legislature is likely able to exert it's authority to be the sole source of such laws within the state. IOW, I've never heard a suggestion that state preemption laws themselves would be invalid (unless they themselves conflict with an individual state constitution perhaps, or some other structure particular to a state perhaps).

Caveat: I am neither a lawyer nor a Constitutional scholar....

[seveneyes]

25. The best part for the best rendition

That night, the double crosser got it right
Pretending he was really dim
He slipped to Sam a double gin (Mickey Finn)

[Behind the Aegis]

34. AS scary as they are, there are some even more scary.

The "more scary" ones are the ones who either ignore what is happening, or as exemplified above, justify what is being done by blaming US. These laws, seemingly, wouldn't have a chance of passing if we are to believe that so many people are 'down with the gays,' but in reality, too many have created fantasies in their minds that things are much better, and therefore, GLBT equality is a done deal and the parts that aren't, well, they will come...be patient (PS...we have heard that SHIT too many times to believe it!). Then there are those who are of the "don't rock the boat' variety, who basically are saying, don't stand up for yourselves, unless it is really, really important, as defined by someone who is almost always straight.

We will not be silent, nor will we be complacent.

[justiceischeap]

42. In some places, states are going as far writing legislation

that allows, for example, paramedics to refuse treatment to someone they suspect of being gay based on religious beliefs.

What the overall majority of people don't seem to get about these laws is that if they were to pass, they could be used to refuse treatment to just about anyone you don't like. That's why the legislation in Arizona was shut down, people outside the LGBT community realized they could be caught in the same net.

[Kath1]

52. What is wrong with these people that they contort the laws like this to hurt gays?

We need to expose and oppose all of these laws. And we need to retire the haters pushing them.

LOVE = LOVE