RECENT  POSTS:  » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists' » In which another anti-gay group forces politicos to Gladys Kravitz our way into one family's divorce drama » In 2008, the AFA was the same on LGBT rights as President Obama; and I was a flying unicorn » The Hitching Post plot thickens in a truly remarkable way » On Rivka, Robert and their dirty, self-victimizing, anti-intellectual blame game  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

09/25/2009

Video: And they wonder why they weren't invited on the committee panel?!

by Jeremy Hooper

Hey Carrie Gordon Earll, professional "ex-gay" advocate: ENDA protects on the basis of sexual orientation in general, not just homosexuality/bisexuality in particular! So if someone decides they want to get with someone of the opposite-sex after being with someone of the same-sex, and they are then harassed because of their actual or perceived orientation/gender identity, they WILL STILL BE PROTECTED UNDER ENDA! Just as heterosexuals will be protected based on their actual or perceived orientation or gender identity! It's not really a gay rights bill: It's a HUMAN rights bill. LGBT people just happen to be the ones with the most demonstrated vulnerability. Trust us: It's not a clique we ever asked or wanted to join!

But the most telling quip of the whole vid? At the 6:27 mark, when Carrie refers to religious freedom as "your and my religious liberty," pitting her and Stuart Shepard's faith against sexual orientation/gender identity. HOW OFFENSIVE! Last time we checked, every last one of us has a sexual orientation and gender identity, and every last one of us has a religious identity (even if it's a lack of faith). What sheer gall to suggest that (a) only Carrie and Stuart's religious beliefs are worthy of recognition, and (b) that those faith beliefs are in a category that's diametrically opposed to the completely unrelated concepts of orientation/gender! While they're so busy of accusing us of militancy, do they never stop and consider that hijacking faith in the way that they have is one of the most egregious instances of interest-motivated aggression to grace the American landscape?

The truth is that these professional opponents of LGBT freedom cannot address this bill without putting themselves on a pedestal to which the rest of us heathens can only hope to someday reach. THEY are the ones seeking a special right: The right to give their own personal faith (which is already protected) a special pass that keeps LGBT vulnerable to the whims of discrimination. This self-absorbed mentality is not only disrespectful to LGBT people, but also to the countless many religious folks who see no conflict between their spirituality and others' physical beings!

Examining the Discriminatory Non-Discrimination Act [FOF Citizenlink]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

You should present at some of the hearings for ENDA

Posted by: dragon88 | Sep 25, 2009 8:50:46 AM

...Carrie refers to religious freedom as "your and my religious liberty," pitting her and Stuart Shepard's faith against sexual orientation/gender identity...

Let's call this out for what it is.

When anti-gay folks pit their belief systems against our orientation and gender identity, they gloss over an obvious fact: They hold our belief systems to be second class, separate and unequal. Every chance they get, they will paint themselves as religious and faithful while casting queer folks as having abandoned their faith. Then, they can frame the culture war as pious religious folks under siege by anti-religious groups.

Let's hold them accountable for marginalizing their fellow citizens whose lgbt-affirming belief and value systems -- religious or not -- they apparently abhor.

Posted by: Bose | Sep 25, 2009 1:09:43 PM

Wait a minute... Isn't her "religious liberty" fluid. Nobody is born a Christian they are RECRUITED into it. So why are they not trying to remove religious protections to federal law? "Can you imaging what a chilling effect being forced to hire shylocks will have on local business."-Sarcasm

Posted by: Jeff Chang | Sep 25, 2009 2:18:14 PM

Guess what Carrie. Religious beliefs are "fluid concepts." People often change them. Does that mean religious discrimination should be legal?

Posted by: remix | Sep 25, 2009 2:34:12 PM

I know you're being sarcastic, Jeff, but it's a valid question.

Posted by: Bill S | Sep 25, 2009 3:46:27 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails