Indiana's New Law

[N.E. Brigand]

Because, as I have now stated three times in this thread, I don't see civil rights and gay rights as equivalent causes. Now excuse me as I go search for my fire-retardant clothing.

Wanna explain? Just curious. Unless you are among the few misguided who still think it's a choice. Not baiting or judging you in particular, but as you said, you have said this a few times, but haven't explained why you think this.

Slavery, being ripped from your family against your will, being bought and sold, living in squalor, not taught to read and write, children ripped from mothers, and then post-1865, another 100 years of two systems: sit at the back of the bus, whites-only waiting rooms, whites-only drinking fountains, banned from colleges, "separate but equal" schools, lynchings, and on and on. This is the history of African Americans. I just don't see that level of oppression in the gay rights movement. Problems? Sure, yes. But nowhere near the history, depth and breadth of the civil rights movement. That's my honest answer.

Thank you! Even as I was typing what I intended to be my last post in this discussion, in response to your prior comment (no flaming, to be sure, as I don't think I have flamed at all, and have found this entire thread to be astonishingly level-headed, given the content), I learn something new. So in my final contribution to this thread (barring major developments directly relating to DCI), let me apologize for misunderstanding you earlier, although given that seven different people liked my comment (maybe they should all unlike it now), I'm going to put some of the blame on you for being unclear. Nonetheless, I'm sorry. And thanks to GUARDLING for asking the right question.

So based on what you've written here, I think you agree that sexual orientation is an innate characteristic of human beings, like race or gender. I'm apologizing because, frankly, based on your earlier comment, I thought you did not believe that. Three of the law's prominent supporters, smiling behind Gov. Pence in one of the pictures released of the law's signing, do not believe that.* Those people I find to be in the same position, 50 years later, as Maurice Bessinger, the figure whose story opens this Atlantic article, previously cited in the discussion, who "wanted everybody in earshot to know that slavery had been God's will, that desegregation was Satan's work, and the federal government was the Antichrist. God wanted only whites to eat at Bessinger's six Piggie Park barbecue joints; so His servant Maurice took that fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court"--where he lost in 1968. Prior to 1964, the law would have been on his side.

So I shall put a question to the forum at large: does anyone here actually believe that homosexuality is unnatural? Because it is obviously the suspicion that some people defending the law here are modern-day Maurice Bessingers, holding that belief, which is so unnerving some other posters, who now feel that they, their loved ones, or their friends are being viewed as, if not subhuman, then at least abnormal. Whoever you are, why not stand up for that belief and stop making everyone else dance uncomfortably around the subject?

If no one will own up to that belief, then let us assume no one here holds it, and proceed to your point about treating gay rights differently than other kinds of civil rights. Your post is entirely about Black rights, but dare I say that while you make the nearly-indisputable point that African-Americans have been singularly mistreated in our history (although Native Americans have a strong case), that you wouldn't have told women in 1920 that they didn't deserve to vote because they at least hadn't been as badly off as Blacks, right? Nor would you have supported businesses who refused to serve Chinese or Jews, right? Given what you've written, I can't see you saying, "Oh, it's OK to kick them out of your restaurant, because African Americans have had it worse". So what, if anything, makes this case different? I mean, if people started passing laws that made it illegal for heterosexuals to marry, you wouldn't be arguing that was OK because the straights never had it as bad as the Blacks; I'm sure you wouldn't. And clearly the gays have had it worse than the straights. Sure, in the U.S. they've never been forced into concentrations camps wearing pink triangles, as happened in Germany. And I haven't heard about gays in the U.S. being forced to be chemically castrated, as happened in the U.K. But surely a "little" persecution is still worth fighting against? It's obviously not that you think the rights don't exist until they are plainly conferred by law, or you wouldn't describe the legalized wretched history of African-Americans as any sort of injustice.

And if, as you apparently agree, sexual orientation is innate, why should it be treated as secondary to religious beliefs, which are learned? No one will be able to use Maurice Bessinger's argument and discriminate against, say, Latinos, or Catholics, or women, or Italian-Americans because they believe that God hates those people--because those are protected classes. But they can do so based on sexual orientation, even though that characteristic is more natural than any religious belief that finds fault with it. As previously noted, the new law didn't create that problem, but it is meant to exacerbate the problem. It's possible that as early as June, the Supreme Court will find that sexual orientation is also a protected class. (Another reason to say, "Hurry, June!") It won't be long before it's just as illegal for a florist to deny service to homosexuals as it is for a florist to deny service to Hindus. I wonder if everyone here defending the law now on what are, shall we say, the finer technical points (seriously, the Indiana legislature could have had a unanimous bill that was as helpful as possible to Amish buggies if they'd just have accepted the proposed language declaring LGBT a protected class) will change their minds at that time. If so, why not now? Are they really waiting for someone else to tell them what is right and fair?

But that returns me at last to my principal claim in this discussion: this law is a last-ditch, rear-ground effort by a losing cause that deserves to lose, which means we've all gotten a bit too worked up about it. Even I, attempting ever to walk the tight rope of moderation, fell into the trap. Before very long, the law will be modified by protections for sexual orientation--if it hasn't been scrapped entirely--and I've pretty much run out of things to say about it, and have posted my own arguments against it, most of which, I think, have held up to rebuttal--when they've been answered at all. Cheers, as you say, to garfield, the law's best defender, whom I've already praised more than once in this thread--even though he seems to see his efforts and the law itself as mainly an academic exercise, and even though, like Charles Ives**, he doesn't need our praise--and to all on both sides who have taken some effort to post thoughtfully on the subject.

*Edit: Obviously the prominent conservative Red State blogger Erick Erickson doesn't believe it either: “The gay rights agenda may demand the veneer of normalcy, but nature itself will deny the gay community natural reproduction.”

**Awarded the Pulitzer Prize for music, Ives gave away his winnings, saying "prizes are for boys, and I'm all grown up". (Ives gives me an excuse for a final edit: how strange that CorpsReps credits "God Save the Queen" to him--or did all those corps actually play his variations on that tune?)

Edited March 31, 2015 by N.E. Brigand

[FlamMan]

Honest answer so, no flaming:

Slavery, being ripped from your family against your will, being bought and sold, living in squalor, not taught to read and write, children ripped from mothers, and then post -1865, another 100 years of two systems - sit at the back of the bus, white only waiting rooms, white only drinking fountains, banned from colleges, "separate but equal" schools, lynchings, and on and on. This is the history of African Americans. I just don't see that level of oppression in the gay rights movement. Problems? Sure, yes. But nowhere near the history, depth and breadth of the civil rights movement. That's my honest answer.

Great post. Thanks for saying this.

[Cappybara]

Great post. Thanks for saying this.

Are you freaking kidding me? Just because the depth and severity of one type of discrimination is less severe than that of another does not reduce the importance of the injustice in ANY way at all.

I'm not associated with the LGBTQ community in any shape or form and I've tried to stay out of this whole topic (I think I've posted once total in here) but the ridiculousness of the implication that the discrimination of gays is less profound got me to post this.

[Mello Dude]

There is a huge difference between being born into a race vs a behavioral discrimination. Equating the two as equal simply flies in the face of severity and historical truths.

[MarimbaManiac]

Honest answer so, no flaming:

Slavery, being ripped from your family against your will, being bought and sold, living in squalor, not taught to read and write, children ripped from mothers, and then post -1865, another 100 years of two systems - sit at the back of the bus, white only waiting rooms, white only drinking fountains, banned from colleges, "separate but equal" schools, lynchings, and on and on. This is the history of African Americans. I just don't see that level of oppression in the gay rights movement. Problems? Sure, yes. But nowhere near the history, depth and breadth of the civil rights movement. That's my honest answer.

I'm sorry, no.

MANY of these issues are analogous to the gay rights struggle. Gay rights ARE civil rights.

- Many Gay youths are being ripped from their family against their will and shipped to Christian "therapy" camps that abuse them CONSTANTLY. This is still happening and is more widespread than you might think.

http://www.kidnappedforchrist.com

- Re: Whites only drinking fountains et al, that's exactly what this law is trying to do, allow for separation by people who don't want to serve the LGBT community and attempting to create businesses and places that are isolated from the menace of LGBT people.

- Re: Lynchings, THAT HAPPENS. Matthew Shepard? That wasn't an isolated incident. The LGBT community has been physically attacked mercilessly in some areas of the country.

- Stonewall?

I mean come on. Just because you don't see these things happening on a daily basis anymore doesn't mean they didn't happen. While yes, the extent of the abuse and discrimination wasn't as widespread as the systematic subjugation of African-Americans, that's attributed more to the times we live in and the ability for the LGBT community to camouflage into the heterosexual world when they need to. Hence why the community hid in the shadows for so long because they feared PHYSICAL VIOLENCE AND SYSTEMATIC DISCRIMINATION.

Edited March 31, 2015 by MarimbaManiac

[MarimbaManiac]

There is a huge difference between being born into a race vs a behavioral discrimination. Equating the two as equal simply flies in the face of severity and historical truths.

No, sorry, there isn't.

To say this you're assuming that homosexuality is a learned trait, and not something you are born into. There is no scientific basis to assert this as fact, and actually the wealth of evidence, including if you were to ask pretty much any gay person on the planet, says that it's not something we really have control of. At the end of the day LGBT discrimination and racial discrimination are both at the core issues of treating someone differently based on who they are, as opposed to what they do.

[Mello Dude]

I think you have not read the law. But thank you for reaffirming what others have posted regarding race vs behavioral discrimination. Everyone I think agrees it's civil rights; but this silly comparison to the black plight simply doesn't hold water. To point out the obvious, if you are born black there is no way to hide that fact.

[Mello Dude]

Sorry Miranda, there are learned behaviors vs innate behaviors. You built a strawman. I never even implied this was learned behavior.

[MarimbaManiac]

I have read the law, and I have read MANY interpretations from a bevy of different voices about the law. The salient point here is that the language is intentionally vague so as to allow this discrimination and give legal defense to people participating in it. The most clarifying point here can be found simply by looking at the supporters of the law. Here's a quick rundown of some of the people standing with Pence when he signed the law. These are men that have made it their mission to pass legislation to discriminates against the community.

http://www.advocate.com/politics/2015/03/29/photo-proof-mike-pence-knew-rfra-discriminates-against-lgbts

One of whom (Eric Miller of Advance America) said explicitly that this law would protect florists and bakers who didn't want to serve gay couples.

So an intentionally vague law, pushed by people who intend it to be used for discrimination, with language hand picked by these special interest groups, IS discriminatory regardless on whether or not there is specific language that asserts that. The effect is the same.

[MarimbaManiac]

There are many LGBT people who can not find the fact that they are part of this class of people. Every see a younger child or teen who is obviously gay? I have, we all have, and it's clear that these kids have no choice as to how they entered this world. Either way whether or not someone is able to camouflage their orientation/identity or not, this is who they are, and discrimination against them is attacking them for the way they were born.

...and no you didn't specifically say that it was a learned behavior, however the point to your assertion was that discriminating against behavior is somehow not as severe as discriminating against race, which implies that somehow the LGBT community should be able to control their behavior to avoid discrimination (behavior being their orientation or identity). So while no, you didn't explicitly say that, the effect of your assertion is the same.

Edited March 31, 2015 by MarimbaManiac