Monday, February 11, 2019

The simplest LGBT protections bring out the bigots

“You would think that we were requiring Nicole Hudgens to have wild lesbian sex under a desk at city hall.”
Nicole Hudgens
February, 2017 image via YouTube
Last Tuesday evening the city of Carrollton, Texas passed an anti-discrimination ordinance to protect LGBT city workers and contractors who do business with the city. The measure passed the city council by a vote of 5-2. According to Councilman Glen Blanscet (presumably one of the “no” votes):
This is the same exact language that’s been used by the LGBT movement across the country not just for the protection of their rights, as it should be, but often as a weapon to bring those who have different beliefs into conformity.
Those are weasel words. In one sentence the councilman says that LGBT rights should and then shouldn't be protected. The councilman is also profoundly confused. Being LGBT is not a belief system. It is not a philosophy. It is not a doctrine. The councilman can believe in the sanctity of Oreo cookies for all I care.

He can even believe that LGBT people are agents of Satan. That does not mean that the city should be able to discriminate with taxpayer funds. Eventually the city will enact an ordinance protecting all LGBT people — not just city workers — from discrimination. At that time Mr. Blanscet might require hospitalization.
Texas Values via American Family Association:
One of AFA's propagandists, Charlie Butts, writes: City leaders approve LGBT statute – then let public have its say. Uh, huh. Poor Charlie is not exactly the brightest bulb around. He continues:
Another city has rushed to appease the LGBT lobby – and in a controversial way.
Maybe in Tupelo, Mississippi, where AFA is located, protecting city LGBT workers from discrimination is “controversial,” just as it would be in Tehran but in the real world it is an expectation. Rather than an effort to “appease” anyone, the intention was more likely to be to do the right thing.

Two things (at least two) are common in AFA's anti-LGBT campaigns:
  1. Zero-sum theology: Anything of benefit to the LGBT community takes something away from Christians.
  2. Evil activists: Every LGBT person seeking fair treatment is a radical activist. They form a lobby.
Butts continues:
Carrollton, Texas, a suburb on the north side of Dallas, adopted a pro-LGBT ordinance this week. Nicole Hudgens of Texas Values tells OneNewsNow that ordinance provides special protections for everyone in those groups at the expense of those who don't agree.
I always enjoy hearing from Texas Values. Its president, Jonathan M. Saenz, has been untethered to the planet ever since is wife left him for another woman. He is out to get even. As for Ms. Hudgens, she has had stints at both Family Research Council and the Heritage Foundation. Texas Values, by the way, campaigns against LGBT nondiscrimination measures by claiming that we want to ban the Bible. Sure. Now that's an intellectually honest argument.

The above quote is quite typical of Nicole Hudgens (as well as others of the diminished intellect set). They have attempted, for decades, to make people believe that LGBT rights are special rights which nobody with an IQ above room temperature agrees is the case. Hudgens is also a promoter of zero-sum theology (see above).

I am not at all sure what “those who don't agree” means. Are those the people who think that their city should not hire LGBT people or should preference straight-cisgender people? Or are they people who don't agree with homosexuality or gender identity? Or are they the folks whose superstitions dictate how they treat others?
"... These are policies we've seen being used over and over again that would allow men into women's restrooms," she explains. "It would impact those who are contracting with the city of Carrollton [and] it would also impact those who are appointed or employed by the city as well."
Much like “special rights,” critical thinkers know that bathrooms are just pretext for discriminating against transgender people. Women, including trans women, have pretty much the same process:
  1. Enter a bathroom.
  2. Enter a stall.
  3. Close the door.
  4. Pee.
  5. Dress.
  6. … and so on.
No one dies.

She is right about one thing. The measure impacts city employees, contractors and city appointees. Hudgens is basically claiming that discrimination is essential. Hudgens is free to believe anything that she likes and to worship according to those beliefs. It's a cycle. Much of the homophobic rhetoric is retooled anti-Semitism from the same people of a different era. Much of the anti-trans rhetoric is retooled homophobia. Rinse. Repeat.
By that definition, says the policy analyst, if anyone in those groups disagrees on principle or because of their religious beliefs, they take a back seat to the government's dictates.
Sometimes I wish that our adversaries were a bit smarter. Then they might be more rational. Nicole Hudgens just doesn't get it. She is incapable of appreciating the simple fact that people can believe that gays are evil and that trans people are insane and confused. That doesn't mean that those same people should have the right to discriminate. Hudgens doesn't explain why they need to inflict their prejudices on others. You would think that we were requiring Nicole Hudgens to have wild lesbian sex under a desk at city hall.

I am just speculating but I would say that this is all about removing one way of demonstrating disapproval. LGBT people don't get served or don't get hired because they are victimized by an insatiable need to shame them. Shaming is the primary lever of religious conservatives. You would think by now that they would grasp the simple fact that shaming does not work on LGBT people. It doesn't work because the sexuality of LGBT people is involuntary.
"The board discussed this in a closed-door session that was streamed into the council chambers," she describes. "But then they came out [and] they voted in favor of it, even though they talked about [it having] major problems, unintended consequences. They weren't even sure what all the definitions in the ordinance meant."
The “they” refers to two people out of the seven. One of those, Councilman Glen Blanscet, is quoted above.

The fact that those two were willfully confused doesn't make it so. Blanscet, in the quote above, claimed that the language was boilerplate used nationally. Moreover, the fact that the session was streamed means that it was not a closed door session. I suspect that they wanted to have a discussion without harassment.
According to Hudgens, it was only after passing the ordinance that the floor was opened for public comment. She adds that the city doesn't know if the ordinance conforms to state law, or to federal laws that have yet to be decided.
I suspect that she is mischaracterizing what occurred. In our representative system of government the people don't get to decide. We decide which people get to decide. Current law in Texas and in the United States does not prevent this kind of ordinance. Should that change then the ordinance becomes void. Bexar, Dallas and Walker counties have similar laws in place. 13 cities in Texas have similar ordinances. Six of those preclude discrimination in public accommodations. Oh, the horror of it all.

Related content:



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.