RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » 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'  

« 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