Buzzfeed takes a look at the growing split among LGBT activists groups about whether to pursue the achievable—additional state and perhaps federal legislation outlawing employment and housing discrimination against LGBT individuals—or oppose such legislation unless it also covers public accommodations, which would extend to everything from Christian bakers who don’t want to put two grooms atop a wedding cake to private businesses that want restrooms restricted to biological genders.
Reports Buzzfeed’s Dominic Holden:
One key player is the Gill Foundation…. Gill and several groups that receive its grants, including Freedom for All Americans and the National Center for Transgender Equality, contend this sort of compromise may be their only shot of winning civil rights for millions of LGBT people at the state level in the next decade, even if those gains are incomplete. Leaders of those organizations say they can return to these legislatures in the future to finish the job of passing public accommodations when the issue becomes more palatable.
But groups across the field, including the ACLU and the Human Rights Campaign, have argued the short-term gain approach could amount to entering a box canyon. It may take years to pass laws that provide public protections in the future — if ever. And leaving them out may even send a message that discrimination in public is acceptable.
The ACLU sent a blunt letter to Pennsylvania lawmakers and organizations on June 10 detailing their objections to the compromise bill.
I think anti-discrimination laws are often misused and that applying local ordinances on public accommodations to persecute small business owners who, as a matter of their religious convictions, decline to provide creative services to same-sex weddings is gruesomely authoritarian. But I can accept workplace and housing statutes, and apparently so can a lot of transgendered people. As Buzzfeed notes:
In Ohio, LGBT activists shut down a bill this session that left out transgender people. However, Grant Stancliff, a spokesperson for Equality Ohio, told BuzzFeed News that a bill that includes transgender people, yet leaves out public accommodations, may be an appealing compromise to some activists.
“We have heard from transgender people that the biggest wound is in housing and employment,” he said. “So if we were able to secure that, the material benefit for a lot of people’s lives would be pretty big.”
One has to wonder how much of the “no compromise” intransigence is principled opposition on the all-or-nothing front, and how much is based on knowing that not passing anti-discrimination legislation at all is more likely to keep the base fired up and shelling out the bucks.
More. For more than two decades the Human Rights Campaign has failed to pass its signature legislative goal, which for most of that time was the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and is now the Equality Act. This includes periods with both a Democratic president and Democratic congress (under Bill Clinton and Barack Obama), and periods with a Republican congress but enough GOP support to push ENDA through. What happened? Every time the measure was poised to pass, activist groups would insert some new provision that would lose majority support (adding transgender protections most prominently, and now the expansion to include public accommodations). Or, as with ENDA under Harry Reid’s Senate and Nancy Pelosi’s House, the Democrats would strangely fail to move the bill out of committee, with nary a protest from HRC—until Republicans were back in charge.
25 Comments for “No Compromise, Declare LGBT Activists”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I can’t say I support any of these laws, but one has to wonder how much of this is principled opposition on the all-or-nothing front and how much is based on knowing that not passing anti-discrimination legislation is more likely to keep the base fired up and shelling out the bucks in response to continuous fundraising pitches.
The ACLU does not depend on a tactical decision one way or another on this issue for its funding. The ACLU is not a LGBT organization, spends a small percentage of its resources on LGBT issues, and receives only a small percentage of its funding from LGBTs, including the Gill Foundation. While every little bit counts, the ACLU has been through this kind of funding fight so many times that it is not influenced by funding withdrawal from individuals and groups that have issue with its approach.
The ACLU is concerned in this case, as it is in others, with legal consequences, and strategic/tactical paths to obtain the legal consequences it seeks.
For those of you who are interested in the ACLU’s position on the Pennsylvania “compromise” rather than Stephen’s standard right-wing anti-ACLU polemic, read the ACLU letter on the legislation.
Actual issues are involved, and strategic/tactical decisions need to be made going forward. Stephen, who disdains gays and lesbians, can’t seem to grasp the idea that gays and lesbians might have differences about the strategic/tactical decisions in this case, as it has in the past over just about every other issue in our struggle. We’ve had brawls over “how far, how fast” many times during the last several decades, on issues large and small, and it Stephen had been involved in the struggle, he’d know that.
I think that Stephen’s “take” — that employment and housing non-discrimination protections for LGBTs won’t trigger a fight over “religious freedom” fight, but that public accommodations protections will — is naive. The conservative Christian anti-gay industry isn’t going to let any non-discrimination laws protecting gays and lesbians pass at this point without a fight over “religious freedom”.
In any event, I’d suggest that you take the time to read the Buzzfeed article. It is interesting and illustrates an old argument — somewhat akin to the marriage versus civil union argument, and the argument over legal strategy (which states, which state and federal courts, what timing) that we had over the marriage equality issue — that we will see frequently as we go forward.
It is an argument worth having, one that we’ve had many times before and will continue to have in the future.
posted by TJ on
The first Federal bill designed to deal with anti-gay discrimination was in the 1970s and it didn’t go anywhere.
In the 1990s, it was felt that the comprehensive nature of the bill was a problem. So, the compromise was that the bill only dealt with employment. ENDA was born.
It almost passed in 1996, but the compromise bill didn’t make it that much more acceptable to the socially conservative Christians.
Hmm. So, I can certainly understand if center-left gay people aren’t taking the “compromise call” credible.
posted by JohnInCA on
How the heck is this supposed to make sense? If your good hated fags so much that it’s a sin for you to bake them a cake, how is out *not* a sin to employ one? You’ll spend a lot more time around them, that’s for sure. And if they’re “participating” in a wedding by renting a place to the gay couple, hope are they *not* participating by renting them a house a house where they’ll love, have sex, and be merrilly married?
Seriously, are there any politicians saying “housing and employment are fine, but public accommodations are just too much”? Is the FRC going to give a thumbs up to a housing/ employment bill? Who do you think is going to be persuaded by this?
posted by JohnInCA on
Yay typing from my phone. I sound edumacated!
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s homocon derangement syndrome and it’s getting worse. The only way any pro-gay law gets through Congress is with a Democratic majority in both houses and that’s not likely to happen. Yes, there are a few moderate Republicans that might vote for a watered down bill but in order for them to do so it would have to come up for vote which isn’t going to happen. What the right expects us to do is come to them with a compromise so they can reject that too. Well fuck that. I’m happy to compromise if I can actually get something for it, but this would be a sell-out with no gain. Hell no.
posted by Houndentenor on
Meanwhile in Texas, the governor is asking the state supreme court to take away spousal benefits from Houston city employees. Compromise? With Republicans? If only that were possible.
http://www.statesman.com/news/greg-abbott-presses-court-limit-gay-marriage-ruling/2E9BnhUZdYDnBi6UM53GeP/
posted by TJ on
It’s odd that Stephen says that enough GOP support in Congress existed to get ENDA passed.
From what I can tell, ENDA was voted on in 1996. It failed by one vote. An initial GOPer (Colorado) who expressed support, failed to do so when the vote happened .
I don’t see anything to say that their has been a GOP majority backing ENDA and the Equality act probably brings up the same issues as when the first comprehensive gay right bill was introduced in the 1970s.
posted by Jorge on
They’re all farther to the left than I am. I much favor banning crimes over granting rights.
“At this time, our choice is not between making incomplete progress or making complete progress. It is between making incomplete progress or no progress at all.”
It reminds me of the time I studied my state’s dueling anti-school bullying laws in 2006. They both prohibited bullying against everyone, period, but none of them passed because the left wanted a bill that explicitly included protections for transgender students (the Republicans don’t favor laundry list bills at all, of course, but that’s where they chose to draw the line at compromise). In this case the only difference in my view was symbolic, yet the powers that be chose to leave everyone defenseless for several more years.
Well, the law got passed because the Democrats took over the legislature, and the state got serious. It’s a nice tool to have, because school bullying is a serious problem. However I do not believe I would have talked to parents of trans or queer/questioning teens (or told my direct reports to talk to them) any differently.
Anyway, all this talk of “principles” makes me impatient. I care far more about people than principles. The ACLU is right to talk about education being important, but that doesn’t explain why they care so much about the law. I have said this before: I believe the law follows social change, not the other way around. But when we talk about organizations and funding, financial decisions have a way of creating a bias toward tangible results. It is easier to measure changes in law than changes in social attitudes.
If the most acute problems facing the LGBT community right now are those impacting transgender people, then that would suggest dropping an incremental approach in favor of a trans-centered approach. Even in places where gays do not have protection. Then the “compromise” will leave out gays entirely and make things partially better for transgender people. Is that not what has been happening across the country on the bathroom issue?
Stephen, who disdains gays and lesbians
Mr. Miller’s no homophobe, he’s a right-wing libertarian: he hates everyone equally. Declare your elite privilege and be proud.
I think that Stephen’s “take” — that employment and housing non-discrimination protections for LGBTs won’t trigger a fight over “religious freedom” fight, but that public accommodations protections will — is naive.
I wouldn’t even want an unmarried straight couple shacking up together in a home I rented. What would Franklin Graham say if he got into the landlord business?
If your good hated fags so much that it’s a sin for you to bake them a cake, how is out *not* a sin to employ one?
Huh? Most people are celibate at work.
posted by Jorge on
Excuse me, dueling anti-bullying bills.
posted by JohnInCA on
“Most people are celibate at work.”
I’m not sure I’ve ever read a case where someone was fired from work because they had gay sex there. Lots of cases where they were fired from work because they were gay. So whatever distinction you’re trying to make is one that the people actually doing the discriminating don’t care about.
posted by Jorge on
You’re getting your own argument mixed up. You asked how is it a sin to bake a cake for someone [gay] without it also being a sin to employ someone [gay]. I answered that question by arguing that there are in fact two variables, not one, and that there is an inverse correlation between them.
Nothing in your question challenges the notion that both can be judged a sin, only the possibility that one can be a sin and not the other. The correlation need not be a particularly strong one.
posted by JohnInCA on
“Nothing in your question challenges the notion that both can be judged a sin”
Why would I ever do that?
I’m in no position to persuade anyone to change their religious beliefs, and I don’t really have much of an interest in doing so either.
And I think it’s well demonstrated that people are able to twist their religious beliefs in all sorts of metaphysical knots to justify any position.
That said, you seem to be missing my point: the set of people that are persuadable by such compromises are small enough to not be a factor.
These “compromise” ideas target a group that just isn’t big enough to matter.
posted by Jorge on
That said, you seem to be missing my point: the set of people that are persuadable by such compromises are small enough to not be a factor.
You’re right. That’s not something that would occur to me.
I simply don’t accept the idea that refraining from ordering people to participate in gay weddings is a compromise. It shouldn’t have been done in the first place. If it were up to me, the people who sued the bakers would be the ones paying fines for filing frivolous and malicious lawsuits.
If, as I take your argument’s logical conclusion to lead to, the number of people in this country who care about the Constitution in letter and in spirit are few, then the thought is so frightening there is very little use for compromise. Only for aggressive negotiation Trump-style. But I do not believe that.
posted by JohnInCA on
“You’re right. That’s not something that would occur to me.”
… what did you think Mr. Miller’s post was about?
posted by Jorge on
The left.
posted by JohnInCA on
The word “compromise” appeared in the title, three times in quotes, and in Miller’s closing statement.
But it didn’t occur to you. That’s literally unbelievable. I’m not sure what your aim is here, but I have zero faith you’re discussing in good faith.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The ACLU is right to talk about education being important, but that doesn’t explain why they care so much about the law.
The ACLU is, at core, a law firm, the nation’s largest public interest law firm. The ACLU has legal offices in all 50 states, staffed by about 100 lawyers. ACLU staff lawyers, along with a couple thousand pro bono lawyers who volunteer time for specific cases, handle over 6,000 cases a year.
The ACLU does have a small lobbying office in Washington, and a staffed communications arm, which is charged with educating the public on key civil liberties issues. But lobbying and education are secondary to the ACLU’s primary mission, which is to enforce civil liberties in the courts.
Law is what the ACLU does, has always done, and will always do so long as it remains in existence.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Tom: I think that Stephen’s “take” — that employment and housing non-discrimination protections for LGBTs won’t trigger a fight over “religious freedom” fight, but that public accommodations protections will — is naive.
Jorge: I wouldn’t even want an unmarried straight couple shacking up together in a home I rented.
It is unlikely you would have to do so. Almost all non-discrimination housing laws and ordinances have a “threshold” exemption for “ma and pa” landlords with only a unit or two or three. Wisconsin’s threshold is five units, I believe.
The anti-equality laws floating around have little or nothing to do with real-world concerns. Instead the laws are primarily a means to the end of continuing societal/cultural bias against gays and lesbians.
If the so-called “religious freedom” laws were concerned with real world concerns like yours (or the real-world concerns of the three Christians in the United States who still think that Jesus wasn’t just blowing gas out of his ass when he preached against divorce and remarriage, and so on and so on) then laws would cover more than just same-sex weddings.
If the so-called “bathroom bills” were concerned with real world consequences, North Carolina’s law wouldn’t force your mother to share public bathrooms in government facilities with transgender men. Governor McCrory recently opined that Katlyn Jenner should use the men’s bathroom in North Carolina. Who’s not paying attention to the real world in this instance?
The dispute between groups in Pennsylvania is just the latest iteration of an old, old tactical/strategic battle in the LGBT community about “how far, how fast, what direction”. We’ve had that right many, many times before, and we will have that fight many times going forward. “How far, how fast, what direction” is a legitimate question, and should be discussed/debated.
Stephen is, typically, trying to make hay out of the discussion/debate over tactics/strategy in Pennsylvania, yet again exploiting an opportunity to bash gays and lesbians he doesn’t like as authoritarian monsters. Nothing new there, either.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
For more than two decades the Human Rights Campaign has failed to pass its signature legislative goal, which for most of that time was the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and is now the Equality Act. This includes periods with both a Democratic president and Democratic congress (under Bill Clinton and Barack Obama), and periods with a Republican congress but enough GOP support to push ENDA through. What happened? Every time the measure was poised to pass, activist groups would insert some new provision that would lose majority support (adding transgender protections most prominently, and now the expansion to include public accommodations). Or, as with ENDA under Harry Reid’s Senate and Nancy Pelosi’s House, the Democrats would strangely fail to move the bill out of committee, with nary a protest from HRC.
Just out of curiosity, what positions did LCR and GOProud take with respect to ENDA over the years in questions? I ask this question rhetorically, to point out that disagreement among LGBT groups over tactics/strategies/goals are deeper than just differences over “how far, how fast”. I think that it is ironic, to say the least, for Stephen to be bemoaning the death of ENDA in earlier legislative sessions when he has gone on record many times as opposing and/or ambivalent about ENDA, and has withheld support for the Equality Act.
The “how far, how fast, what direction” controversy de jour is over inclusion of protections for transgenders in non-discrimination legislation. Gays and lesbians individually, and LGBT organizations of various ideological stamps, hold different points of view and espouse different positions. That is no surprise, given our history. I can’t think of a single major issue over the last 40-odd years about which we didn’t have arguments over “how far, how fast, what direction”.
Remember all the argument over the path to marriage equality? Many felt that we should do a Texas two-step, first seeking civil unions, and then, years later, moving on to marriage. Others thought that we should push for marriage and the devil be damned. Many favored a process through the legislatures, while others pushed for constitutional litigation. Many favored a careful state-by-state litigation strategy while others thought that a full court press was the right way to go. Many thought that Ted Olson and David Boies were risking a “bridge to far” disaster by litigating too soon. And so on. We went round and round and round. In the aftermath, we don’t remember all the infighting, but the best path wasn’t at all clear during the fight itself.
Stephen is pounding on the current controversy to make the point that HRC is a hydra-headed force of evil, and to make the point that the Democrats are just as bad, if not worse. Maybe he’s right, maybe he’s wrong, or maybe he’s just playing the old resentments against “progressive LGBT’s” in his head yet again, stuck in the groove he can’t seem to escape. I don’t know.
But its not useful, because it doesn’t shed any light or insight onto the question at hand — “How far, how fast, what direction?”
posted by TJ on
Lots of LGBT people aren’t involved in these HRC and LCR internal disputes or strategy disputes.
Stephen and company want to use these disputes as evidence that center-left LGBT folk hate all things decent and pure…..or something similar.
It is possible to protect religious freedom and protect LGBT from discrimination in employment, housing, etc.
Most of the proposed religious freedom bills don’t do this .
I don’t see why bills that don’t protect religious freedom can be defended as protecting religious freedom. I have no patience for that.
posted by TJ on
I think that the LCR opposed ENDA in the 1990s. I not sure about GOProud (formed later) .
Notice. That if a majority of Congressmen and Senators backed ENDA….they could have passed it…no matter what HRC said.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As a side note, HRC unendorsed Republican Mark Kirk a few hours ago.
posted by Jorge on
“Yesterday, Senator Kirk tweeted an apology that failed to adequately address the real harm and magnitude of his words.”
Well, Donald Trump did after all post an entire video at the speed of lightning.
“beyond reprehensible”
“the real harm and magnitude of his words”
Eh, I must be out of it. So many silly college racial controversies must have convinced me that the rules on race have changed to become meaner. I suppose it couldn’t hurt to exchange permission to take a scalp or two.
Hmm, that choice of words wasn’t intended to be racial.
posted by Jorge on
For more than two decades the Human Rights Campaign has failed to pass its signature legislative goal, which for most of that time was the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and is now the Equality Act…
As much as I began to think by the end that Dan Choi became an overdramatic idiot, I have to admit there aren’t many people chaining themselves to gates over the right to work.
Now, is that cause or effect?
It is unlikely you would have to do so. Almost all non-discrimination housing laws and ordinances have a “threshold” exemption for “ma and pa” landlords with only a unit or two or three. Wisconsin’s threshold is five units, I believe.
I’m pretty sure the laws that apply where I live define people with a right to live in the home (people on the lease) in such a way to include the significant other of the leaseholder. Housing laws don’t have to be written as anti-discrimination laws to function as such.
(Hmm, no, back door approaches like that themselves function as discrimination.)
………….
Holy Rick Santorum Foamy Punch.
posted by Look Who’s Shut Out Now - IGF Culture Watch on
[…] abject opposition to all things Trump and Republican, it’s worth repeating this observation from a recent post: More. For more than two decades the Human Rights Campaign has failed to pass its signature […]