Wednesday, July 06, 2016

Family Research Council hides homophobia behind semantic phrasing

FRC head Tony Perkins
Last week, a federal judge blocked a Mississippi anti-lgbt law hours before it was to go into effect.

According to the Huffington Post:

Mississippi’s “Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act” shields those believing that marriage involves a man and a woman, and sexual relations should occur within such marriages. It protects the belief that gender is defined by sex at birth. The law allows people to refuse to provide wide-ranging services by citing the religious grounds, from baking a wedding cake for a same-sex couple to counseling and fertility services. It would also permit dress code and bathroom restrictions to be imposed on transgender people.

In putting an injunction on the law, U.S. Justice Carlton Reeves said it discriminated against lgbts and that it favored one religion over others.

Naturally, the anti-lgbt hate group Family Research Council was not pleased. On its webpage, FRC president Tony Perkins practically threw a fit. And he also accidentally gave a good reason why Justice Reeves blocked the law. Check out the following paragraph from Perkins's ramblings (important point in bold):

The Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act had barely been signed into law when intolerant liberals vowed to file suit. Now with the help of Reeves, the Left has another victory from the courts that it couldn't achieve legislatively. Under this law, churches wouldn't be the only ones protected from government punishment for their natural marriage and sexuality beliefs -- so would businesses, wedding vendors, and even public officials. Now, thanks to one unelected, activist judge, those protections will have to wait. In his opinion, Reeves claims the law gives preference to certain religions.

Notice the semantic phraseology Perkins uses:  

"Under this law, churches wouldn't be the only ones protected from government punishment for their natural marriage and sexuality beliefs -- so would businesses, wedding vendors, and even public officials."

One could easily see why churches should be protected under the guise of religious beliefs, but why should secular businesses and even public officials?  A better way of saying this would be:

"Under this law, businesses, wedding vendors, and even public officials would have an excuse to discriminate against same-sex couples under the guise of religion."

 In the matter of churches, there should be no government interference concerning beliefs and acts of worship (within reason, of course). But a public official, such as a clerk of court signing a marriage licenses, or a businesses accommodating all customers is not an act of worship. It's an act of fairness buoyed on many occasions by taxpayer dollars. And the last time I checked, lgbts pay taxes.

No matter how noble or pretty FRC tries to paint the picture of anti-lgbt discrimination,  the organization can't hide it's ugliness. Secular businesses who don't follow accommodation laws should be punished and public officials who pick and choose who they will serve should also be punished.

Long ago, people freely paid an unfortunate and unnecessary price for their faith. Nowadays, some seem to think that their faith is a golden ticket which absolves them from the rules the rest of us have to follow.


Anonymous said...

Can you folks please hire an English major? They hide homophobia with semantics. Not "semantic phrasing." You're journalists? English is your tool. Learn to use it well.

BlackTsunami said...

For Pete's sake, if you are going to be a nitpicky bitch, at least leave your actual name. I think people get the gist of what I am trying to say.

jjwintrs said...

I see 'anonymous' is still caught up in the semantics...rather than the bigger issue of discriminatory groups that want to feed from the public trough.