Tuesday, July 08, 2014

'Conservatives trying to fix anti-gay study's credibility problem' & other Tuesday midday news briefs

Without his bad magic, there wouldn't have been a 'Mark Regnerus witch-hunt' - Family Research Council's sad attempt to rewrite history about Mark Regenerus's discredited study on same-sex families was just a prelude. According to Jeremy Hooper, right-wing big wig magazine National Review is getting in on the act. Both are pushing the same false theme, i.e. Regnerus was the victim of a "witch-hunt." Well they get points for audacity, that's for sure. But it would be best for the lgbt community to take this seriously instead of laughing this off. It's an insane plan for sure but the difference between insane plans and clever plans is the rate of success. We got the facts on our side (goodness knows I've stated them enough times) about the Regnerus study and since the opposition likes to use the metaphor of us "ramming things down their throats" (figuratively of course), let's indulge them with the facts about Regnerus's discredited study until they upchuck. 

No, JPMorgan Chase Doesn't Have An "LGBT Loyalty Test" For Employees - Speaking of which, this lie has been heavily pushed via right-wing circles. Thank you, Equality Matters for refuting it.  

Same-sex marriage in the UK: A look at how far we’ve come - Not bad. Not bad at all.  

Uganda On Their Anti-Gay Legislation: It Was All For The Children - Anita Bryant's lie will NEVER die it seems.

  Todd Starnes Warns Of Anti-Duck Dynasty Violence, Links Same-Sex Marriage To Healthy Food Initiatives - Todd Starnes -  just trying to "get paid."

1 comment:

Erica Cook said...

In regards to Chase. That survey? I recognize it as a review of an issue stemming from laws banning discrimination of persons with disabilities. It has to do with keeping a tally of minorities not based on race.

You see, many people's states as a person with a disability stems from a medical issue which is confidential. Also, some people with disabilities don't like making them generally known if they don't have to be. A person like myself could easily hide it if I wanted to. I don't, but that's another topic.

When issues of LGBT discrimination came to lite that was tacked onto the survey basically because like some people with disabilities, some gay people don't want that shared. Likely the Ally status was put on there just to be thurow (spell check hates me) a mom could be harassed for going to pride with her son. He's the one who's gay, she's not, so how do you categorize that?

In any case, this kind of thing has been around in some shape or form since the 80s They can keep track of the number of people who work for them who fit into these categories without knowing who they are. They can keep track of about how many people within a minority status work for them and if the hire and fire rate is too high or low, they know to look out for discrimination.