I very much agree with this editorial from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/parvaz/337025_parvaz27.html) which correctly makes the point that one's religious beliefs do not give you a blank check to trample over the rights of others. This point is time and time again lost on the Christianists who refuse to understand that there is a distinction between CIVIL LAWS and CIVIL LEGAL RIGHTS. Sadly, they believe protections against discrimination are a one way street in their favor alone. The column also makes a point that I have argued many times: religion IS NOT an inborn, immutable trait. I know, I have changed religious affiliations three times in my life time. Here are highlights from the editorial:
Two bills -- HR 3685 and 3686, which should be one bill -- seek to give gays, lesbians, bisexuals and the transgendered protection from discrimination in the workplace. Naturally, President Bush indicated that he'll veto the bills (assuming they go that far), a move groups such as Conservative Women for America applaud. A statement from the administration (on 3685) indicates that his main issue with the bill is that it "is inconsistent with the right to the free exercise of religion as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act." So, being a Christian means you get to deny people jobs based on what goes on in their pants when they're not at work?
"We would oppose any bill that would grant preferred suspect minority status based upon social sexual behaviors," says Matt Barber, a spokesperson for the CWA. He adds that there's "no history of systematic discrimination" against the LGBT community, which he also calls a powerful political lobby. Oh, right. The Rainbow Mafia. A group so mighty that you can beat the tar out of one of them without getting charged with a hate crime. Now that's power.
The right wing justifies discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation while race and religion are protected. Smith wonders how those who see gender identity and sexual orientation as choices ("I think most scientists would disagree with them on that score," he says) deal with the choice of (or the conversion to) a certain faith? Why is that a protected choice? I asked this of CWA's Barber and got nowhere. Somehow, "Sorry. A person's right to discriminate against you based on religious beliefs supersedes your most basic civil rights" doesn't cut it.
No comments:
Post a Comment