Way Beyond ‘Equality’

And we’d see more of this:

8 Comments for “Way Beyond ‘Equality’”

  1. posted by JohnInCA on

    You do realize that if Republicans in the Senate passed a one line “add sexual orientation to the CRA” bill, it would pass the House in a heartbeat, right? Sure, there would be some Democrats and liberals that bemoaned it didn’t do everything they wanted (chief among them, include gender identity). But if Republicans were actually on-board with it, it would happen.

    But like the “civil union compromise”, it won’t happen. Not because Democrats wouldn’t accept it, but because Republicans will only offer it (if they ever do) once it’s obvious that Democrats don’t need to compromise.

    Simply put, if you want your political opponents to accept a compromise position, you need to offer it before they don’t need to compromise.

    Reply
  2. posted by JohnInCA on

    And as far as the adoption agencies go, i couldn’t care less. There is no entitlement to government funding. If an agency is unwilling or unable to play by the state’s non-discrimination policy, then it is not eligible. Claiming that there should be an accommodation for a state-contractor to discriminate is as silly as saying there should be an accommodation for a Jew at a pig farm.

    Further, if it’s “good enough” to send gay would-be parents to a different agency, then it’s “good enough” to send non-gay would-be parents to a different agency. And if it’s a violation of some non-gay would-be parents’
    rights to have to go to a different agency? Then it’s obviously a violation of a gay would-be parents’ rights to go to a different agency. No special rights.

    Reply
  3. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    The legislators who enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 never intended to provide a religious exemption, and the courts of the period, deciding a number of cases in which conservative Christians refused to serve African-Americans on religious grounds, always upheld the Act.

    Between 1964 (when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted) and 1994 (when RFRA was enacted), the religious exemption constitutional standard applied to laws of general application (like the Civil Rights Act of 1964) was that the law would prevail, even though the law imposed a burden on religous free exercise, if the law had a “rational basis”.

    RFRA, enacted in 1994, changed the standard and arguably changes the outcome of religious exemption cases. We are about to find out in the next Term or two.

    I remind conservatives on this list, that although gays and lesbians are the current target of religious objection under public accommodations laws, we are only the current target. Before us, African-Americans, women, unmarried straight couples and many others have been the target.

    And I remind everyone on this list, that whatever turns out to be the scope of religious exemption applicable to gays and lesbians will also, as a matter of Constitutional principle, turn out to be the scope of religious exemption for race, gender and all the other protected classes.

    If conservatives seek a compromise, let me suggest this: (1) First decide the level of religious exemption permitted with respect to each of the protected classes now covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (2) Then enact that standard into the Act. (3) Then, and only then, expand the Act to cover sexual orientation.

    Reply
  4. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    I’m just curious about the title: “Way Beyond Equality“.

    If the Equality Act is enacted, in what way will LGBT folk be treated differently than anyone else protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

    After all, the Act does only three things: (1) expands the meaning of “public accommodation”; (2) removes the RFRA standard; and (3) grants protection to LGBT folk.

    I don’t see how the Equality Act will result in LGBT folk being treated differently under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than anyone else who is protected by the act. The Equality Act amendments apply to all protected classes.

    No more. No less. Isn’t that the meaning of “equal means equal”?

    Reply
  5. posted by Jorge on

    You do realize that if Republicans in the Senate passed a one line “add sexual orientation to the CRA” bill, it would pass the House in a heartbeat, right?

    Just like the poison pill of sex did 60 years ago? Hmm.

    Further, if it’s “good enough” to send gay would-be parents to a different agency, then it’s “good enough” to send non-gay would-be parents to a different agency.

    The article’s focus notwithstanding, you’re leaving out something that varies between your two examples: religion.

    I remind conservatives on this list, that although gays and lesbians are the current target of religious objection under public accommodations laws, we are only the current target. Before us, African-Americans, women, unmarried straight couples and many others have been the target.

    We probably should have gotten it right the third time.

    And I remind everyone on this list, that whatever turns out to be the scope of religious exemption applicable to gays and lesbians will also, as a matter of Constitutional principle, turn out to be the scope of religious exemption for race, gender and all the other protected classes.

    I am reminded of Clarence Thomas’s concurrence in that affirmative action case that he agrees that racial preferences will no longer be constitutional 25 years from 2003 and John Robert’s majority opinion that the best way to stop discriminating based on race is to stop discriminating based on race.

    I have to tell you plainly: stop using “protected classes” as a cudgel to bully, exclude, or intimidate people. If they are causing harm, redress the harm and move on. If they are not causing any harm, or if they’re following the rules in good faith, they should be left alone and then move on.

    Reply
    • posted by JohnInCA on

      The article’s focus notwithstanding, you’re leaving out something that varies between your two examples: religion.

      Because it doesn’t matter. Either there is a “right” to go to St. Vincent Catholic Charities, or there is not. Even if you want to argue that St. Vincent has a “right” to discriminate, that clearly means that there is no “right” to go there.

      So simply put, as you and St. Vincent Catholic Charities defenders said over and over again previously… Melissa Buck of Holt, Michigan can go elsewhere.

      Because there is no “right” to go to St. Vincent. But there also isn’t a “right” to state dollars.

      I have to tell you plainly: stop using “protected classes” as a cudgel to bully, exclude, or intimidate people.

      For fear of being petty… you first. And that’s just employment related.

      To put plainly, if non-discrimination laws are so double-plus un-good when it comes to LGBT people, then they’re double-plus un-good when it comes to everyone else too. No special rights.

      Reply
  6. posted by Mike King & David "TJ" Bauler on

    In North Dakota, private adoption agencies can refuse to work with couples who are outside of the agency’s faith. LGBT people have not been added to the state civil rights code, so this mainly involves a Catholic agency only doing business with Christian married couples who are going to raise Christian children.

    I would be more inclined to support such an exemption if I thought that it would really make much of a difference in getting LGBT people protected under civil right laws.

    However, it looks like the desire for exemptions are proposed by people that really don’t civil rights protections for gay people, let alone transgender people. North Dakota is also a State where the GOP dominates statewide office and half of the legislature. If the GOP wanted to pass a gay rights bill with exemptions, their is little that the Democrats could actually do about it.

    Reply
  7. posted by Mike King & David "TJ" Bauler on

    BTW, that crack about late-term abortions was simply lame, even if a homocon. I know plenty of good people — prolife and prochoice — and none of them look at abortion as a simple issue that needs more hysterics or bad taste humor.

    Reply

Leave a Comment