RECENT  POSTS:  » And now NOM is literally pleading with its (theoretical) supporters » Add 'professional advocate for anti-gay scouting' to list of bygone career choices » NOM to lasso the White House with a rosary. Or something. » NOM's new plan? To beat up its org-crushing loss until it becomes a win. » By the time you read this headline, we'll be ten more seconds beyond stagnant anti-gay 'culture wars' » Video: America cannot wait—to purchase American Family Association radio equipment? Huh?! » Huckabee 2016: 'cause church and state aint gonna marry themselves » EEOC does wonky, under-radar thing that could lay groundwork for definitive nondiscrimination protections » Maggie Gallagher, now that you've lost on marriage, might you lose these deceptive ways as well? » Crowdfunding discriminatory business owners: Perfect statement on anti-gay movement's current affairs  

« 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