Backlash to the Anti-Gay Backlash

[Coyote]

This article makes some interesting points to the so-called Republican-led Religious Discrimination Freedom legislative efforts.



The Backlash to the Anti-Gay Backlash Religious Freedom Bills Fail As More People See What They re Really About - The Daily Beast

An Oklahoma state representative proposes that discriminators out themselves. Result? The whole bill was shelved. The anti-gay backlash backlash is here.

In the wake of advances for LGBT equality, conservatives across the country have rallied to pass “religious freedom” bills that would allow people and businesses to discriminate if they have a religious justification for doing so.

The poster children of this campaign are religious wedding photographers and cake bakers. But the real impact is far more serious: huge corporations like Hobby Lobby denying benefits, services, and recognition to same-sex families; Catholic hospitals disallowing longtime, same-sex spouses to visit one another; huge university systems firing janitors, basketball coaches, and secretaries because they are gay.

And then there are the unintended consequences: wife- and child-abusers offering religion as a defense; Jews being turned away from hotels; and more absurd consequences like Satanists advertising their religion in state capitol buildings...

And you think that can't happen? This is from the article from Georgia's bill:

Some legal commentators have said that the law would give a pass to spousal and child abusers, as long as the husband (or father) has a religious pretext. Which is easy to provide; the Christian Domestic Discipline Network, for example, offers a host of rationales for “wife spanking.” And let’s not forget Proverbs 13:24: “He who spares his rod hates his son. But he who loves him disciplines him diligently.”

Georgia has numerous laws protecting child welfare, which is arguably a compelling state interest. But are such laws really the “least restrictive means” of protecting it? Not necessarily. At the very least, the laws offer a novel defense against assault and battery.


Or maybe not so novel. Graham says, “We have found cases where people used their religious views as an excuse to impede an investigation into child-endangerment and child-abuse charges. They were not ultimately successful, but they did slow down the investigations.”​

And, allowing discrimmination based on religious views would open the door towards discrimination against other religious faiths - there is no difference betweeen using a religious basis for discrimmination against gays, race or other religions - if it falls under that' person's "religious beliefs".

At first, these advances flew below the radar. When I first covered this issue two years ago, it was still somewhat arcane, lost in a haze of legalese. “Religious liberty” is a good thing, right? No one knew how to pronounce “RFRA.” (Riff-ra, if you please.)

But then came the Hobby Lobbydecision, and the Arizona “Turn the Gays Away” fiasco, and increasing attention to “Religious Freedom Restoration Acts” (RFRAs) in Mississippi (passed), Georgia (going down to the wire), and Indiana (same).

Now, signs of a backlash against the backlash are cropping up.

The heavily funded, far-right-written-and-coordinated cascade of RFRAs—what I believe I christened RFRA Madness—has run into serious opposition.

In West Virginia, a bill identical to one that passed in Arkansas, which would forbid any municipality from passing anti-discrimination laws, died in committee.

In Michigan, a “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” failed late last year, though it may have another shot this year.

Perhaps most intriguing is Oklahoma, where yet another “Religious Freedom Act” died in the state House. It’s not known exactly why Republicans shelved the bill, but it may be due to one of the most ingenious counter-efforts in the country, led by Democrat Emily Virgin.

State Representative Virgin’s idea? Require any business that won’t provide services to LGBT people to state so publicly. In the language of the amendment, “Any person not wanting to participate in any of the activities set forth in subsection A of this section based on sexual orientation, gender identity or race of either party to the marriage shall post notice of such refusal in a manner clearly visible to the public in all places of business, including websites.”

Said Virgin on Facebook, “This would save same-sex couples the trouble and embarrassment of going into that business just to be turned away.”

This, if I may say so, is brilliant. (The idea came in consultations between Virgin, the ACLU of Oklahoma, and the state advocacy group Freedom Oklahoma.) On the surface, yes, Virgin’s rationale makes sense. But we all know what would really happen if Chick-Fil-A or Hobby Lobby posted such a sign: outrage. Virgin’s amendment would act as a kind of public shaming for businesses who want to turn gays, blacks, Jews, or anyone else away.

Yet one more massive legislative effort by the Republicans that may ultimately prove to be an unconstitutional embarressment. I hope so. Discrimmination is an ugly thing.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The American ISIS at work. Since they are not rational the only way to end their insanity is to let it play out for a bit. When the Christians suddenly can't get gas or dinner, they will see the problem.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

As a baker of some note and proud member of the LGBT community I've begun to protest in my own way. When passing out cookies to my neighbors, friends, and family, instead of giving a baker's dozen (13 count,) I give 14 being better than someone only doing it for money. There's a word for people who only do things for money, and I'm a lot better than that.

 

[Valerie]

and there's a word for guys who bake cookies for the neighborhood while obsessing over pedophilia... (creepy)


"There's a word for people who only do things for money" (capitalism)

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

 

[Seawytch]

I love that this amendment killed one bill:

“Any person not wanting to participate in any of the activities set forth in subsection A of this section based on sexual orientation, gender identity or race of either party to the marriage shall post notice of such refusal in a manner clearly visible to the public in all places of business, including websites.”

The bigots didn't actually want to state they were bigots...they wanted to do it on the sly.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Putting the anti gay/ anti sex fervor of the right into historical perspective:

The theocratic right considers the Puritans to be the decisive illustration of a Christian society. The Puritans are remembered for their repressive attitudes toward sexuality. What may be forgotten today, however, is the Puritan rejection of democracy in favor of rule by biblical law. "The Puritans," according to Thomas Ice, fused "church and state into a theocratic government." (Dominion Theology, Blessing or Curse, H. Wayne House and Thomas Ice, 1988, p. 95)

The Puritans' effort to build a Christian society ... is being imitated today by a small and increasingly influential group of persons who believe that only through establishment of Old Testament civil law can America -- and the world -- be saved from destruction. (Dominion Theology, Blessing or Curse, p. 15)

America's Providential History, a popular textbook in Christian schools and the Christian homeschool movement explains:

The primary strength of the Puritans was their "spirit of dominion." They recognized the scriptural mandate requiring Godly rule, and zealously set out to establish that in all aspects of society. (p. 84)

The Puritan ideology of repressed sexuality dates back to fifth Century theologian Saint Augustine whose concept of Original Sin became dogma: sexual desire is sinful; infants are infected from the moment of conception with the disease of original sin; and Adam and Eve's sin corrupted the whole of nature itself.

At the core of the theocratic right's political and cultural goals is an effort to delegitimize and censor all forms of human sexuality that don't fit into a narrow mold: sex between a man and woman who are married. Other expressions of sexuality are sinful and must be repressed or even punished.

To that end the theocratic right seeks to criminalize homosexuality, promote abstinence-only sex education, and advocate censorship. This page is a compendium of articles on what New York Times columnist Frank Rich calls "The Indecency Police." Human Sexuality

 

[jwoodie]

Why are most moderators/staff liberals? Is it because it confers a pretense of status, or because it allows them to control the conversation?

 

[Seawytch]

Why are most moderators/staff liberals? Is it because it confers a pretense of status, or because it allows them to control the conversation?

They are? List all the moderators you can think of and their political affiliation...as you PERCEIVE it...

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Why are most moderators/staff liberals? Is it because it confers a pretense of status, or because it allows them to control the conversation?

How have you concluded that. I don't see or hear much from the mods at all. Even if what you say is true, and I don't know how you would know that, they seem to be giving every one a good deal of latitude in expressing themselves. I know of a board that is in fact dominated by conservative staff, yet the right wingers on this site would not be able to get away with half of the hateful, inane bovine excrement that they spew here