Good argument, Rick, and thanks!
The problem with that approach, however, as both Baker and I are all too well aware, is that many of the self-appointed fundamentalist/evangelical “defenders of the faith” will point to people like Gene Robinson, Jack Spong, etc., as “atheist ministers” or the equivalent (by their definition).
Just to show people the kind of pointy headed thinking that is going on, I include here a letter to the editor that appeared in our paper yesterday, 11/12/04. It includes the worst of the outright lies and scare tactics being used in opposition to this proposed addition of orientation to the city’s anti-discrimination laws.
I have removed the name of the writer at the end
*Against gay rights
In light of the recent national election wherein 11 out of 11 states had “same sex marriage” proposals soundly defeated by the voters, it would seem obvious to most that the homosexual rights ordinance, proposed by the Topeka City Council, wouldn’t be favored by the voters of the city.
But for the second time the city council has proposed its version of “civil rights” for homosexuals.
Try this on for size: It is proposed that quotas be established for hiring homosexuals, that marital benefits be granted homosexual employees, that all private and church day care centers be required to hire homosexual workers, that all private schools be required to hire homosexual teachers and – the ultimate affront to Christian voters – that all churches be required to hire homosexual pastors.
In the event the city council approves this, or a similar homosexual rights ordinance, and the mayor fails to veto it, it is suggested a recall effort be immediately organized to terminate the mayor and all of the council members who voted in favor and effect immediate rescission of the homosexual rights ordinance.*
Why do people assume that just because one has a right, that immediately means there will be a quota?
One does not have to hire a black candiate for a job, if that person does not have the experience. All it means is that you cannot not hire them simply because of their race.
If I understand this proposal correctly, it removes sexual orientation from consideration of employment or tenancy. It does not guarantee that gays and lesbians will get a job or an apartment. You can still refuse to rent to a gay person with bad credit, or refuse to give a job to a lesbian with no experience on her resume.
Jeez, people…calm down. Baker, let us know how your letter goes.
Just a question: in your experience, is it common for a church to be part of “the public or governmental sectors”? In the areas I’ve lived and visited in, they’re private organizations comprising the members who wish to attend and support them, not bodies run by a governmental agency.
I suspect that with the exception of places like Vatican City and Westminster Abbey, that holds true throughout most of the Western world.
That herring isn’t red, it’s moldy green and rotting.
The obstructionist in me loves this idea. I should encourage all the homosexuals in the shelter magazine, antiques, and home decorating indsutry that I used to work with to fire all of their straight employees and refuse to sell goods and services to straight people (that’s legal, too, isn’t it?). Heck–refuse to sell magazines to straight people! That would be fucking hilarious. We’ll see how long those Kansas housewives who were my devoted readers can last without their Martha and Good Housekeeping and Trading Spaces.
The law has generally been very clear about this: If you rent out a room/apartment IN YOUR OWN HOUSE, you can discriminate to a very great degree. After all, it’s your own house.
BUT, if you don’t live there, you have very little right to discriminate. That’s what doing business with the public is all about. It’s legal for a Klansman to not rent his spare bedroom out to a black man. It’s illegal for that Klansman to not rent an apartment to that black man if the Klansman doesn’t live there (say, he owns a 4-story apt. building in town). That’s what the civil rights movement was all about.
Come back, duffer! kanicbird is here! No one’s going to even notice you anymore!
All that’s happening here is that “sexuality” is being added to a list of other factors against which it is illegal to discriminate. One of those other factors is religion. You know of any churches in Topeka that have, as a result of this law, been forced to hire a Jewish priest?
No?
Then what on Earth makes you think this is going to happen with gays?
Thats why they do it, you know.
Okay, now THAT’S funny!
Good point. And if it were legal to marry a sheep I doubt that it would be any more deleterious to society as a whole than allowing Miss Vicky to marry Tiny Tim. I mean, how many people would want to? A one-nite sta-a-a-a-and maybe, but marriage?
You’re new around here, aren’t you?
The following article is from our Topeka paper, dated 11/4/04. Bolding is mine, and the headings have been removed, although if anyone wants them, or to read the article directly, they can go to www.cjonline.com. You may have to register.
*Emotions ran high on both sides of the issue two years ago when the Topeka City Council considered amending city codes to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Council members said the matter generated more letters, phone calls and e-mails than any they had ever seen.
The council members voted 5-4 to reject the ordinance during a meeting on Sept. 10, 2002, a day when the measure’s supporters and opponents filled the 122-seat council chambers.
Council members soon will consider another measure that would accomplish the same purpose. First reading of the proposed ordinance will take place at Tuesday’s meeting, with public comments to be heard and action taken on Nov. 16.
The proposal, sponsored by council members Clark Duffy and Tiffany Muller, would amend codes that prohibit discrimination regarding housing and real estate practices, employment practices and access to public accommodations because of race, religion, color, sex, disability, familial status and national origin.
The measure would amend current codes to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity or expression. It says sexual orientation means actual or perceived heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality. Gender identity or expression means manifesting or expressing an identity not traditionally associated with one’s assigned sex at birth.
**Discrimination regarding membership in religious or private fraternal and benevolent associations or corporations isn’t covered in the proposal, Muller said. **
Muller was active two years ago with unsuccessful efforts to amend city codes to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. In September of this year, when council members chose her to fill west Topeka’s 9th District council seat vacated by Gary Price, Muller said she planned at some point to co-sponsor the ordinance that will be introduced Tuesday.
Dan Walker, spokesman for the Family Action Network, said opponents of the proposal would rise up and defeat it again.*
I firmly believe one way to get to Heaven is by giving others straight lines that can be used so hilariously that the reader spends the next ten minutes giggling.
THAT was freakin funny!!
Yes. Yes I am. I’m learning, though.
Yes, I was playing devil’s advocate. In the sense of showing why the opposition is there, while at the same time saying I disagree with it. panache should know better.
“If gays can’t be in the military, then I say straight men can’t be florists and straight women can’t be UPS drivers.” - Danny Williams
That was a ba-a-a-a-d pun. I should bleat you with a wet noodle for making it.
You know what would be fun? Giving a quiz to some of the people who oppose the anti-discrimination language. It would have questions like “A black manager can refuse to hire a white man based on race. (T/F)” and “Your church could be forced to hire a Satanist pastor. (T/F)”. Anyone who gets a question wrong will be seated in a Very Special Section of the committee hearing.
(More seriously, I think most people really don’t understand the wording or the intent of these laws. They think they’re simply tools the minorities can use against the majority, instead of rather neutral prohibitions against discrimination on a certain ground.)
Congratulations, kanicbird, you’ve managed to make just about every one of our points for us.
a) the government already has this say. Don’t like it? Take it up with the congressmen who approved the Civil Rights Act. This proposal merely extends the same protection that racial and religious minorities and women get.
b) Go and read the First Amendment. Then look up establishment of religion. Then smack yourself.
c) Again, covered already by the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, and the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968.