Situation in Maryland is nothing new
Peter LaBarbera's exploitation of African-American history (see below) was something I just had to comment on. But the following is the post I wanted to do for today:
The situation regarding the anti-discrimination law in Maryland is nothing new. Those seeking a referendum of the law got enough signatures on their petition because they made the false claim that the law created a loophole for men and pedophiles to invade women's restrooms and locker rooms.
This is an old tactic by the anti-gay industry known as dire consequences, or claiming that a pro-gay law would lead to all sorts of negative consequences. Usually the anti-gay industry relies on hypothetical sitautions and relie mostly on the fears and prejudices of their audience. I thought for today, I would print an excerpt from my book, Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters, that talks in detail about this tactic:
One of the most effective tactics of the anti-gay industry is to claim that pro-gay laws will lead to “dire consequences.” They claim that laws created to protect gays and lesbians would either a: cause homosexuality to be “forced” on everyone, particularly children or b: cause those who supposedly speak out against homosexuality to be jailed. Possible coercion by an “aggressive homosexual lobby” is a constant theme in anti-gay industry data.
. . . so-called “pro-family” groups create the same illogical leap to form the same incorrect conclusions. They claim that pro-gay laws would lead to all sorts of bad consequences. Then they list some of the most extreme examples of what could happen while not giving any evidence as to how the hypothetical events would take place.
“Few public officials and businessmen realize that when they allow the addition of ‘sexual orientation’ to their nondiscrimination codes, they are tying their own hands when it comes to objecting to:
A man in a highly visible sales job coming to work in a dress and high heels;
A woman in a highly visible position coming to work in men’s clothes;
A person of indeterminate sex who insists on using either the men’s room or the women’s room;
A person of either sex who indulges a taste for extreme sexual promiscuity and pornography during working hours despite being charged with representing the company’s tone and character;
A man who frequents prostitutes while on business trips and claims that it is none of the company’s business, regardless of the company’s public image.”—Why Nashville Should Reject the ‘Sexual Orientation’ Law, Robert Knight, Concerned Women for America, March 4, 2003
Knights’ replacement in Concerned Women for America, Matt Barber, made the same claims about the Employee Non-Discrimination Act in 2007:
“Imagine, if you will, a 280 lb linebacker who likes to wear a dress and high heels and lipstick, you know comes to church wanting a job at the front desk as a receptionist and they turn him away because they don’t feel that that represents their values or the image that they’re trying to hold at that church, under ENDA they could be held accountable for discrimination against that individual.”
The anti-gay industry also use the “dire consequences” claim in efforts to kill hate crimes legislation.
Hate crimes legislation already exists. It covers crimes based on race and religion. So-called “pro-family” groups have not expressed disagreements with these laws. They only have a problem with sexual orientation being added to the categories.
In December 2005, 20 so-called “pro-family” groups ran an ad in major newspapers claiming that hate crimes legislation places more importance on gays than those who call themselves “ex-gay.”
Playing up the slavery angle
Our friend Peter LaBarbera continues to attempt to milk the Creating Change conference:
Pastor Ken Hutcherson Calls on DNC to ‘Demand Its Money Back’ from ‘Gay’ Group that Honored S&M Slavery Advocate
“This is Dr. Kenneth Hutcherson responding to a donation made by the Democratic National Committee to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. I first heard from my good friend and fellow conservative, Rush Limbaugh that this had taken place. This has been confirmed by Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth. These are two sources that I trust and believe.
“The DNC gave at least $2,500 to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force so they could award Guy Baldwin, an advocate of sadomasochism and “consensual slavery.”
“As an African American leader and Pastor, I insist the DNC demand its money back. How can the DNC say they stand for African Americans and at the same time support a perversion that belittles and makes a mockery of our suffering under slavery?
“We must make sure we stand against all forms of tyranny and call out anyone who supports this agenda.”
So Peter is trying to push a "how dare the DNC promote something about slavery during Black History Month" angle.
Since when did Peter care about African-Americans. I know he doesn't give a care for African-American lgbts.
Now Hutcherson may be a black pastor but he has a reputation for egotism. This trait leads him to go off half cocked and make outrageous comments, many of which have been chronicled (with much amusement) here.
It was cute at first but his act is wearing thin.
And the inanity of this attempt by Peter doesn't exactly give Hutcherson any credibility. Nor does it help Peter.