RECENT  POSTS:  » But does the Archbishop even believe in gay? » Video: Move over aliens, plagues, Sharknados—it's committed gays who'll soon kill Western Civilization » Nine former water-carriers for 'ex-gayness' join all credible scientists in denouncing 'ex-gay' propaganda » The operative word is 'yet' » Video: Tony Perkins for politically-driven pastors to test (if not run afoul) tax exempt status » Ruth Institute (former NOM affiliate): Same-sex marriage is as much of a wedge as interracial marriage bans » NOM finally admitting that marriage amendments are, in fact, bans » Kentucky's big anti-LGBT org hopes to pray away a fair court ruling on civil marriage » Iowa's governor sponsoring anti-gay Family Leader summit? » Head of Virginia's top anti-gay org: One mean email proves 'the left' is sexist, intolerant  

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

03/12/2010

Audio: Slippin' a Mickey, trippin' on same

by Jeremy Hooper

In January, we told you how the PFOX was crowing about a supposed win involving Disney which pertained to their right to propose a shareholder resolution that would force the Mouse House to officially list "ex-gays." At the time, we pooh-poohed PFOX's press release on the grounds that it wasn't of any consequence whatsoever. True to group form, they were simply trying to turn a minor, procedural molehill into some kind of "ex-gay"-validating mountain, and we weren't having any of it.

Well fast forward to this week. Professional "ex-gay" Greg Quinlan went to Disney to present the aforementioned shareholder resolution, as requested. But as you will hear, the proposal was so off-base, that the cost of the plane ticket surely did more harm to the "change" advocacy group than it did any good:




The proposal got only a measly 1.7%, which makes it ineligible for reconsideration next year. Because it's ridiculous, and downright offensive to those who identify by one of the world's known sexual orientations, rather than some politically-motivated other state!

Oh, and because it bears repeating: The line about the D.C. Superior Court ruling "that ex-gays are a legally protected class under sexual orientation and therefore specifically protected from discrimination under the D.C. Human Rights Act.”" is a complete bastardization of Pee-FOXreality. Because the court didn't actually declare "ex-gay" to be a protected class category. AT ALL. The ruling simply said that people who identify as former homosexuals are already protected from discrimination under the D.C. Human Rights Act, and that the immutability of their sex practices is not relevant in making this determination. Which is fairly obvious and sensible: People can interchangeably identify as "ex-gay" and "ex-straight" on an hourly basis, if they so choose, and still qualify for protection from discrimination under sexual orientation law. Few LGBT people would disagree with this. But this doesn't mean that PFOX can self-determine that there's a new sexual orientation that exists in some odd flux state! That's the distinction they conveniently (and frequently) overlook.

But then again, overlooking the known realm in order to foster a bizarre sense of victimization is essentially PFOX's mission statement. The Mouse wasn't meek in rejecting their dangerous fantasy. We can't be either.

***

**MORE: Evan Hurst at Truth Wins Out takes exception with Queerty's coverage of this: A Quick Primer on “Ex-Gays” and Anti-Discrimination Laws [TWO]

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


Your thoughts

I didn't read the whole story at first, just noticed the intriguing umbrella pic, so decided to play along.

Raining cats and dogs? Raining foxes? Nope.

Yellow.

Fox, yellow stream -- OMG!

And then burst out laughing. Thanks for the great big smile, J.

Posted by: Lane | Mar 12, 2010 11:13:34 AM

What Quinlan is attempting would be the same as attempting to get each different racial or ethnic distinction specifically spelled out in anti-discrimination law. That race is a protected class, means that everyone of every race is already protected from discrimination based on race.

If, however, laws were modified to specifically enumerate each of the races which are protected from discrimination, the very next thing that we would see is that those laws would be challenged as being unconstitutional. They would be unconstitutional because they do not apply to every citizen equally. The cynic in me wants to believe that their underlying reason for pushing this bogus nonsense is so that they can then get all anti-discrimination legislation overturned as being unconstitutional. Though, that may be giving the "them" in "they" more credit than they deserve.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Mar 12, 2010 11:24:25 AM

What PFOX is doing, is working from an incorrect definition of sexual orientation. In the real world, sexual orientation is about sexual attraction, but PFOX and others like them are conviced that sexual orientation is all about behaviour. Until they understand that (about themselves and others) they will continue these types of actions ad nauseum.

Posted by: Stephen | Mar 12, 2010 1:46:28 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails