Thursday, May 03, 2007

OMG: Bush Threatens to Veto Anti Discrimination Bill

Even I didn't think he'd go that far. It's amazing that this man can still shock me.

Please, Democrats, pass this bill. Make Bush and the Republicans veto and uphold that veto - just to show the country how out-of-touch, meanspirited and fucking evil those asses are. How could anyone - other than the most utterly homophobic dickheads - support the right of businesses to fire people merely for being gay? That's the kind of basic legislation we're talking about here.

And before anyone comes and says something stupid like "a crime is a crime is a crime," don't forget that Republicans had no problem protecting people of faith from hate crimes. And don't forget that under current federal law, businesses can fire people merely for being gay - unless their states have come to the rescue (which is only about half the country, sadly).

This is exactly the kind of utter hatred many glbt people have to deal with on a daily basis. Do we really want this kind of putrid nonsense aired during a ballot initiative? The same people pushing Bush and the Republicans to stop something as simple and basic as an anti-discrimination bill that protects gay people are going to be the ones pushing the efforts to repeal marriage rights in Massachusetts. Take this lesson as motivation to crush the Vote on Marriage peeps in this ConCon season.

10 comments:

joe said...

Are you talking about H.R. 1592? Because there's umpteen things wrong with that bill.

If there's some other bill that would prevent employers from firing based on sexual orientation that I'm not aware of, I would support that.

Ryan Adams said...

Well, what's wrong with it? One Republican Congressmen offerred an amendment to 'fix' it, by including sr. citizens and military personel, and then Rep Conyers asked for it to be unanymously approved... and the Republican who offerred the very amendment disapproved. So, I'm kind of skeptical, but willing to be convinced.

joe said...

Sidenote: Ryan, commendations on your civility towards me. This is a day and age where intolerance to the right is high, but you're very cordial.

moving on...

I think the problem is exactly what that Republican said. In making an Anti-Discrimination/hate crime bill, they are in effect discriminating.

Here's my reasoning: Say I get murdered by someone who wanted to mug me for drug money, and you get killed by someone who didn't like that you're gay. Both of our mothers are in tatters, both our fathers want to go on a spree, our friends and our families pine for the life that was lost and cherish our memories. The police both investigate. With this bill, the police investigating your murder would get more resources to find your killer because it is suspected he killed you because you were gay.

Is your killer likely to repeat his crime because he is motivated by hate? Yeah, I'd say so. My killer is also motivated to repeat his crime because of drugs.

Both our lives are precious and deserve equal treatment from law enforcement, and both of our killers should face the SAME harsh justice for their crimes. The fact that the man who ended my life did so to further a drug habit and the fact that your killer did so because he didn't like that you kiss boys should be irrelevant to the law.

Yup, that's my problem with this bill. It's got good intentions, but I just think that it's unfair.

Ryan Adams said...

Here's the thing, though. Right now, it is a hate crime if - say - someone killed someone purely for religious reasons or racial reasons. That's already a law.

I don't see the right wing trying to undo the religious protections, so until I do, I say it's hypocrisy and likely motivate - by at least many of the behind the scenes people - by a prejudice against gays. Honestly, until Focus on the Family asks for a repeal of religious hate crimes, I don't think your argument has much of a leg to stand on.

Anonymous said...

How could anyone - other than the most utterly homophobic dickheads - support the right of businesses to fire people merely for being gay? That's the kind of basic legislation we're talking about here.

I can fire someone for being blonde, or short, or stupid, or driving a big car. Why shouldn't a guy be allowed to fire someone for being gay--or straight.

Ryan Adams said...

I don't think you should be able to fire someone for being blond, short or any such thing to begin with. In fact, in many states I bet you could not.

joe said...

Focus on Family? Ugh, I'm a little sickened that you'd think I would associate with the likes of James Dobson and other protestant extremists. Of course my argument has a leg to stand on...all that legislation is stupid.

As far as what anon said, I think anyone who has characteristics that have a negative effect on profits should be able to be fired for those characteristics. I must say though, it would be tough, given the burden of proof, to show that someone being gay has a negative profit effect.

Ryan Adams said...

My point wasn't to say that your in cahoots with them. However, they are the leadership of the conservative movement (and many Catholics are right with them, too). Just like we've been doing with the likes of Joe Liebermen, until there's a huge Republican movement within the movement to get rid of those guys, you're always going to see that hypocrisy.

Given the situation, since equality is important, a hate crime bill protecting gays should definately be added to the ones already protecting ethnic minorities and religions. And, no matter what the situation, non-discrimination bills protecting people in where they can live, whether they're hired or fired, etc. is a must too.

Anonymous said...

I don't think you should be able to fire someone for being blond, short or any such thing to begin with. In fact, in many states I bet you could not.

Actually, in all 50 states, you can be fired for the reasons I listed, your personal opinion notwithstanding to the contrary. An "at-will" employee may be fired for good reason or no reason, exceptions being certain types of discrimination: age, gender, relegion are 3 I'm aware of.

So, if someone is a raging heterosexual, I see no reason that the law should protect that employee from being fired, if the employer so decided. You?

Ryan Adams said...

I don't think anyone should be fired for things they can't control, such as age, sex, handicap, sexuality, height, etc. Furthermore, I don't think anyone should be able to be fired for their political party, religion, etc. as long as they don't let it get in the way with their work (ie if an employee is asked not to pass out fliers, then continues to do so, fine).

People should be fired for actually doing something wrong - like pissing off a costumer, not finishing up a project on time, missing time or continually being late, etc. etc. etc. Being gay isn't wrong and therefore no one should be able to fire you for that.

About Ryan's Take