Friday, February 20, 2015

'Fox News personality compares gays to terrorists' & other Friday midday news briefs

National attention turns to Charlotte as Franklin Graham, Benham brothers speak out against Charlotte LGBT ordinances - Oh boy. How come "fun stuff" like this hardly ever happens in South Carolina? 

Fox's Erick Erickson: The Only Line Between "Gay Rights Extremists" And "Islamic Extremists" Is "Death" - Which really makes no sense at all, but then again Erick Erickson DOES work at Fox News. One thing he said irritates the heck out of me. It always drives me crazy when folks like Erickson categorize their attempts to stomp on lgbt equality as a "mere disagreement with homosexuality." We're not talking about a "mere disagreement" here but actions (and lies told) geared to making lgbts second-class citizens. Actions usually create reactions. In other words, if you don't want lgbts to react negatively to you, stop acting negatively towards us. ESPECIALLY stop lying on us and then hiding behind your religious beliefs.  

Doctor Who Turned Away Gay Moms Isn't the Real Problem -- Here's What Is (Video) - This is a VERY INTELLIGENT look at the recent controversy of the pediatrician who refused to treat the child of a same-sex couple. Read it all before passing judgement. 

 Kentucky Bill That Would Have Let Students Sue If They Saw Transgender Students In Certain Bathrooms Fails - THANK GOODNESS! The bill was stupid on so many levels.  

Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus Asks President Obama To Remove Brunei, Malaysia, From Trade Deal - Remove all anti-gay countries from this trade deal. Period.

1 comment :

Prup (aka Jim Benton) said...

Alvin, the Baume piece is very good, but I have been wanting to open a colloquy on the question of 'public accomodations' for a while. And no, I am not a libertarian, and will discuss why the libertarian idea is a big fail below. I am a (mostly straight and always open) bisexual, in fact, someone who grew up in a lesbian household -- yes, lesbians DID exist 68 years ago to those endtimes Christians reading this.

My problem is something Baume addresses -- but I am not sure he is right. This is the reverse case. He claims that a business is free to discriminate on other grounds but 'protected category' (and of course I agree with his point that we all need to work to get GLBTQs under that rule in every state).

But is he right? My original problem was picturing myself as a print shop owner suddenly seeing Tony Perkins walking through the door, and not being sure I would have a right to refuse to serve him, and I
believe there are laws covering this as well. (Could a printer charge Republicans twice as much as Democrats, for example? I believe this is not allowed -- certainly a printer may not gouge a politician by inflating his prices for political work in general -- I think political ads must be charged at the lowest regular rates.)

I want the right to slam the door on the elegant smirking face, and might shut my own business rather than accept an order from him. But if I have that right, what is to stop a baker from arguing that her refusal to bake a wedding cake ccmes not from 'discrimination against gays' but because the cake is 'political speech.'

(For that matter, in a 'protected status' state, if a straight person comes to order a 'congratulations on your wedding' cake from the same baker, wouldn't she have every right to refuse it, since she is not refusing to serve someone based on their membership in a protected status group.

Seem to remember that Blogger has a character restriction, so I'll end this here, and later today or tonogh put in a post dealing with the two additional concerns of 'emergency accommodations' --
a commenter pointed out that the action of a pediatrician who acted as this doctor did was merely am inconvenience, but what if she were an emergency room technician? -- and the problem with the libertarian position -- that societal and governmental pressure may overwhelm the 'hand of the free market.' You have at least a familial history that tells you that, during the period of segregation, a business that attempted to fight it through the free market would have failed. If it weren't burned to the ground before opening, it would become de facto segregated because no white would have risked patronizing it. Whichever, or even if it was allowed to operate, it would have failed because of that pressure.

Anyway, more later, if I do need to expand on the last.