Monday, March 3, 2014

Were Star Parker ever correct it would be by accident

Star Parker
Former welfare witch and neo-Christianist Star Parker claims to be upset over Governor Brewer's veto of Arizona's SB 1062 — the freedom to discriminate bill. I write “claims” because Parker is a right wing caricature. She doesn't know much but she knows how to get paid without being genuine.

There is a very simple solution to all of this.”

In the far right Washington Examiner Parker claims “'Gay rights' struggle is really a culture war.” She writes:

Under Jim Crow, the problem whites had with blacks was not what blacks thought or did, but that they existed. These laws were designed to relegate one class of citizens to separate and unequal status, simply because of who they were.
That does seem to accurately describe how conservative Christians want to treat LGBT people, to the extent that they even exist. Indeed Ms. Parker never does explain the difference that she sees between Jim Crow and discrimination against LGBT people. I suppose it's something that is just understood by her constituency. Later on she writes:
Would anyone question the refusal of a black vendor to sells sheets to the local Ku Klux Klan chapter? Or a Jewish merchant refusing to sell the poster board for a Neo-Nazi rally? Or the refusal of a Christian video service to make a pornographic film?
Oh how terribly clever. Of course the flaw in this argument is the simple fact that neither the Klan nor neo-Nazis nor pornographers are a suspect class. They could not possibly make a reasonable case for discrimination. In United States v. Windsor we were held to be a quasi-suspect class. We are a group of people that has historically been discriminated against, at least in part, due to stereotypes.

Later on Parker writes:
And why is it that same-sex couples have such a hard time finding bakers and florists that are not offended by their wedding? Why do they wind up with such regularity trying to buy from Christian vendors?
It's a rhetorical question but the answers are; They don't and they don't. Nationally, gays are suing a handful of businesses for discrimination over many years. That case with the photographer in New Mexico started almost eight years ago. We are suing vendors at the rate, nationally, of one or two per year. The right wing just repeats the same handful over and over and over again until it sounds like we are suing a big chunk of the world's Christian owned businesses. Oh, the victims of equality! Parker eventually concludes:
It is critical that Christians draw the line and continue the struggle, and not allow religion or religious freedom to be compromised. Individuals or businesses forced to supply goods or services for activities against the precepts of their faith must refuse and call forth their protection under the first amendment of the Constitution.
Terrible advice from someone who has nothing to lose. The Supreme Court has already ruled (Employment Division v. Smith) that there are no religious exemptions from otherwise valid laws. If people do what Parker suggests in defiance of anti-discrimination laws they will get sued (I wonder if Parker will pay the legal fees) and they will lose.

There is a very simple solution to all of this:

Give us the option to opt out. Businesses are legally free to post signs saying that they disapprove of same-sex marriage. I can assure Ms. Parker that we will take our business elsewhere and nobody gets sued.
Enhanced by Zemanta

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.