Montana anti-gay group rebrands nondiscrimination ordinances as 'forced participation'

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

05/20/2014

by Jeremy Hooper

Presumably the Montana Family Foundation has no problems with the very common and non-controversial ordinances across the nation that prohibit discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, or disability. But of course when it comes to protecting Americans on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, this very same concept becomes "forced participation":

Forced Participation Ordinances (FPOs), or Non-Discrimination Ordinances (NDOs) as our opponents like to call them, supposedly ban discrimination of homosexuals, bisexuals and transvestites. FPOs have already passed in Missoula, Helena and Butte, and efforts are underway to pass them in Bozeman, Billings and Dillon, as well. Groups like Forward Montana, the ACLU and the Montana Human Rights Network, with major funding from out-of-state donors, are pushing hard to pass FPOs in as many cities as possible before the next legislative session. We’ve killed these laws in the legislature for over a decade, so our opponents are changing tactics. They hope to pass them in as many cities as possible between now and January and then use the momentum to get the legislature to pass a state-wide law.

What they really do is –

Trample Religious Freedom
Threaten public safety
Grant more power to municipal courts than they are supposed to have
SOURCE: Focus on the Family's Citizenlink

What they really mean in that last part is "trample our desired ownership of religion, undermine the public safety and fair travels of LGBT citizens, and grant more power to municipal courts than we, the anti-LGBT activists of Montana, want them to have." They just can't say that.

No word if this pro-discrimination group will at least avoid hypocrisy and fight to repeal all existing nondiscrimination (forced participation?) laws that protect the state's citizens. And by "no word," I mean that is the obvious one-word answer: "no."

space