-Recent polls continue to find strong public support for repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
-King County, Washington swears in a gay councilmember.
-Jonathan Rauch encourages gay rights activists to consider a change in tactics as the majority opinion shifts in favor of equality.
-The National Organization for Marriage misrepresents some basic facts about the Prop 8 trial.
-A variety of religious leaders in Texas weigh in on the ability of chaplains to perform their duties post-DADT.
-An El Paso, TX ballot initiative pushed through by a local pastor to deny benefits to partners of gay city employees inadvertently strips benefits from a larger group of workers and retirees.
-A Christian college ignites controversy by firing a gay coach.
-Prospects for marriage equality in Maryland improve.
-A gay rights ordinance passes a preliminary vote in Manhattan, KS.
-The US Senate fails to advance the defense bill that a DADT repeal was attached to.
-Rachel Maddow interviews the author of Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill.
-3,000 Minnesota Catholics send back the anti-gay marriage DVD distributed by Archbishop John Nienstedt.
Problem with Jonathan Rauch’s appeal is that it argues for giving up too much. When it comes to public and shared events and buildings and so on (like use of city facilities we all pay for, or getting on an airplane, or renting housing), there should be zero tolerance for any form of discrimination — including against Gays and Lesbians — no matter what someone’s personal beliefs might allow. Want to attend a private church or event that hates Gays, Lesbians, Blacks, Jews, or whatever? Go for it. But don’t make me pay for or live in someone else’s B.S. simply because their religious beliefs allow for hate.
@Lynne @ No Junk. Just Jesus.
Lynne, it sounded to me as though this is exactly what Mr. Rauch was suggesting — that if people within private religious organizations wish to exclude LGBT people for some reason, that’s their business, but that those same sorts of religious exemptions should not apply to businesses providing services to the general public. I didn’t get the impression that he was arguing against zero-tolerance policies at all. Then again, I have been known to read between the lines on a regular basis, so maybe I took whatever message I wanted to from his treatise even if it wasn’t there, so who knows? 😉
Rauch is wrong that religious institutions (or their clergy) will be forced to abide by anti-discrimination laws.
They can be as bigoted as they like (and many of them currently are – including based on race, religion and sex ) – they only have to abide by anti-discrimination laws when they accept public money (such as those ridiculously unconstitutional “faith-based” initiatives).
Oh, and anti-gay Christian groups have been playing the victim card for decades (look at Anita Bryant onward) – this is NOT a new rhetorical strategy, it’s just being used more now.
Rauch says: [QUOTE] “Punch line 2: The city opens a discrimination investigation against the bakery to determine whether it should be kicked out of the city-owned space it has occupied for two decades. “I’d hate to lose them,” says a local official, “but we can’t tolerate any kind of discrimination like that.” [UNQUOTE]
If this is bigotry in their own church or meeting space, fine. But this is a business operating “out of city-owned space” — meaning everyone’s space. And spaces paid for or operated by everyone should have a zero tolerance policy.
I certainly see Jonathan’s point, however I don’t see “braking” anytime soon. Maybe when we hit over 60% majority. Since sex education biblically is proving itself intrinsically broken, and we are just now starting to implement inclusive sex education in schools, there is a long way to go before aggressiveness declines. The war is still very strong and until marriage adoption and military rights are secured, it’s still time to name it what it is, bigotry and hatred. But deeper than that it is an endemic form of denial of innate human traits, preferably not to be governed by malicious off base religious opinion. So I guess a softer word might be to call our opponents, deniers i.e. monkeys w hands over eyes. Sexuality via religion from what I am seeing through our fight, is a perfect example of eyes wide shut, hence “droves of people leaving religion”. It’s unfortunate our religious opponents choose not to see the broken system they embrace and as such go about fixing it. Elton John had great wisdom in saying go for DP now and marriage later. That may have been a more tolerant battle. But in our nation of instant gratification, we don’t always take the long road home.
I think folks, especially Rauch, are missing the nuance. His argumentation is generally sound but doesn’t apply to his first example.
Had the bakery been in a building they privately owned (or was privately owned by people who don’t care about equality) Rauch would have a perfect example —an example that most thinking, freedom loving gays would support.
-The bakery is wrong for being discriminatory.
-The LGBT group was right for taking their business elsewhere.
However the bakery operating on city land has to conform to city policies. It’s that simple.
Yes bigots need a place to be bigots. That place is on their own property, their own churches, their own self-run websites. If they want to be bigots on taxpayer property, in violation of the law — then NO.
Rauch’s use of this example is a bad one. It suggests that the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Assocation in NJ was unfairly treated when they violated the terms of the Green Acres tax break.
It suggests that Catholic Charities in boston was discriminated against when (acting as an agent of the state!) they refused gay adoption and subsequently chose to close their doors.
Are discrimination ordinances and laws, are the rules of contractual obligations now allowed a special “except in the case of teh gey” clause? Unacceptable.