PFOX spouts some CRAP,BULL
When we first received word that Regina Griggs and her PFOX organization are suing the Washington DC Office of Human Rights "for failing to protect former homosexuals under its sexual orientation anti-discrimination law," we basically wrote it off as a wacky stunt. After all, "ex-gay" is not an accepted sexual orientation in any field of study, so it's absurd to suggest that this group should be a protected class. And if "ex-gays" are straight-identified, then they, like anyone in possession of any credibly recognized sexual orientation, would fall under a "sexual orientation" classification in the the DC Human Rights Act.
Well, after a brief e-conversation with someone at PFOX (presumably Regina Griggs), we see that the suit is not only wacky -- it's backers also possess a complete and utter failure to understand sexual orientation law. Check it out:
This is a lie. A complete and utter lie. If anyone is being discriminated against on the basis of their heterosexual orientation, they have just as much right to forth a case! Heterosexuals don't typically have as much need to utilize such policies, but it doesn't change the fact that they can if needed. Regina would know this if she would actually listen to to what gays and allies have been saying about sexual orientation protections. But instead, she and her "pro-family" peeps have dedicated their mental facilities to propagating the lie that gays are in search of "special rights."
PFOX"s suit? P-FLAWED & P-FRIVOLOUS!
Jeremy, I know there have been cases of hets bringing suit under sexual orientation laws. Why don't you email her some citations and links regarding those and see what she says? At the very least, it should be worth a chuckle or two.
Posted by: Steve | Oct 15, 2008 11:34:55 AM
Good lord I am so annoyed that the anti-gay activists always misunderstand what "sexual orientation" means.
They seem to think that "sexual orientation" is code for "LGBTQ" when it actually applies to straights, gays, asexuals, bisexuals, and lesbians. I'm not sure if it applies to Transfolk or not.
On the other hand, when they do understand that it applies to more than gays, they immediately assume it applies to pedophiles, polygamists, zoophiles, and necrophiliacs, but not (somehow) to vanilla straight folks.
Posted by: Jason D | Oct 15, 2008 12:05:39 PM
Jason: Based on my admittedly limited exposure to trans issues, it's my understanding that transexuality is not a sexual orientation. The few transfolk I have known still consider their sexual orienation to be gay/lesbian, straight, or bisexual -- which they define based on the gender they identify with, of course.
Like I said, though, this is based on my admittedly limited experiences. It could be a mistake for me to generalize based on those experiences.
Posted by: Jarred | Oct 15, 2008 1:05:45 PM
Regina Griggs is a perfect example of why EVERY American needs health insurance; either she's out of her meds when she goes pulling these stunts quarterly - or she needs to hurry up and make her first appointment.
Posted by: Scott | Oct 15, 2008 2:01:47 PM
I think that they should change their name to PFUG (Parents and Friends of Un-Gays)!
But on the topic, I think it would be reasonable to request specific citing of cases where UnGays have been beaten and/or left for dead simply because they were UnGay. And any actual police reports that have been made which detail harassment, intimidation or bullying that any of the UnGays have encountered that was directly related to their sexual identity. In their case, their "sexual" identity is truly CHOSEN, but even a CHOSEN identity should have equal protections.
If they are being harassed, then they deserve to be protected by legislation, and there is no legitimate reason why the organizations providing protection would single them out as not being protected. I suspect that they are just lying and pulling a stunt in an attempt to delegitimize the cause of bias related crimes initiatives.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Oct 15, 2008 3:16:52 PMcomments powered by Disqus