RECENT  POSTS:  » Audio: Bored on an apparently too factual weekday, Richard Land pushes 'gays are sexually abused' lie » It seems when you equate gay folk with those who sleep with animals, it sticks; funny how that works » Video: A new low for Robert Oscar Lopez; anti-gay 'bisexual' peddles offensive claims on Bryan Fischer's show » Southern Baptist's ERLC dedicating national conference to gay people, discrimination; better luck next year, homeless » Photo: NOM thinks its discriminatory cause is young and hip; adorable » An inside look at POTUS's evolution circa 2011–2012 » More animus from Texas' key 'protect marriage' guy » GLAAD: Why would we silence unwittingly helpful voices like yours, Peter LaBarbera? » Photo: NOM fully (and finally) owning its wholly faith-driven root » Our winning movement wins another one: Judge says Ohio must recognize out-of-state marriages  

« 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