RECENT  POSTS:  » What most people aren't getting about the fake non-troversies of the anti-gay right » 'Weekly Standard' asst. editor equates Tim Cook with man who pits God against him » Michigan pastors make unfortunate lifestyle choice; say they'll go to jail rather than not discriminate » PFOX's Quinlan says SBC leader's opposition to 'reparative therapy' is cruel » That Idaho wedding venue posts new 'rules and regulations'; will still perform non-Christian weddings » Another deceptive thing about NOM's duplicitous anti-Hagan ad » NOM trying to shape Arkansas politics without even learning state's abbreviation » Video: Focus on the Family staffer who calls homosexuality 'particularly evil lie of Satan' hangs out in Chicago's Boystown » Video: Another new NOM ad targets Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR); uses James O'Keefe video as source » What the heck is 'NOM Victory Fund'?  

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

09/04/2013

Illinois Family Institute claims nondiscrimination ordinances are 'sexual perversion laws'

by Jeremy Hooper

If you read this site, you know that the IFI is in a class all by itself. Unlike other statewide "family" groups, most of which are controlled by the Focus on the Family/FRC Family Policy Council network, the IFI is its own entity. This leads to messaging that regularly strays from the pragmatic end of the conversation.

The latest:

Screen Shot 2013-09-04 At 1.31.21 Pm

Okay, so they use the term "anti-Christian bigots" to refer to their opposition. Yawn. Whatever. I'm so used to that. It holds no weight. It's a meaningless phrase stripped of any and all relevant context. The boy who cries "wolf" sounds more legit by comparison.

So let's look instead at the IFI's lack of regard for the ordinance that these bakery owners were told they had to follow. First, there's the idea that being gay is a "sexual perversion," which is a stunningly dim thing for an organization heading the state's fight against marriage equality to admit is its view. But also, you have to wonder if it's just the LGBT-inclusive portion of law that the IFI finds problematic, or if they would also be against the part that protects on race. Or gender. Or, most pertinent: RELIGION.

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


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails