RECENT  POSTS:  » Scott Lively equates accurately noting his public record with inciting murder » Audio: Mark Regnerus doesn't think marriage equality has 'a lot of gas left' » Friday: NOM president shares the bill with 'ex-gay' activists » Today in 'um, yeah, obviously': Stunt marriages not confined to opposite-sex partnerships » Video: Brian Brown's fellow panelist gives insight into Moscow panel's extreme views on homosexuality, marriage » Video: TN man condemns gays with Leviticus billboards; oddly allows local Red Lobsters to remain open » Video: 'Ex-gay' speaker at upcoming ERLC summit equates talking to gay people with talking to cancer patients » GLAAD: Mainstream media is catching on to NOM's broader agenda » FRC's Values Voter Summit puts anti-gay bakers on a marriage panel; so we won, basically » GOP front group NOM raising money for a GOP US Senate  

« 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