They call them "wedge" issues for a reason. Personally, I think proposed Washington state legislation to add sexual orientation to banned grounds for discrimination is more about gays and lesbians flexing political muscle than actual discrimination against them. And sexual orientation isn't exactly the same as religious or ethnic background, though we're now suppposed to believe it is. Further, no one has put forward any specific list of instances in Washington where gays or lesbians, or transgendered individuals, have in the last several years been discriminated against; other than a handful, at most, of hate crime beatings, for which the best defense is a legal, concealed firearm. If documentation exists of systemic discrimination against Washington state GLBTs in employment, housing and public life, then somehow or other, the press - which could be expected to glom onto such data fiercely - has made no mention of it. Now The Rev. Ken Hutcherson of Antioch Bible Church is again threatening a boycott against Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard and other companies that support the Washington bill, which may pass this year. Republican State Sen. Bill Finkbeiner has announced he'll switch his position from last year, when his "no" vote held it back.
But Hutch's proposed boycott is over the top. It will never take, and the strategy is counterproductive. Admittedly, this particular symbolic tussle has a magnetic pull for some conservatives, but it is not the place to spend Republican political capital.
Read on. (Mac Safari users click on time stamp to continue.)
Hutcherson is being true to deeply held principles, for which he finds support in The Bible, that homosexuality is wrong. But let's be clear; in this day and age and place, that debate is moot and utterly polarizing, no matter how loudly religious conservatives protest. As bad or worse, by association, Hutcherson tars with an extremist label other, far more moderate Republicans who do not share his zeal on this issue.
The real battle in Washington for Republicans is to re-take both chambers of the state legislature, win a U.S. Senate seat, and take back the Governor's mansion. You do that with moderate suburban independents, not the 5,000 Ellen Craswell fans left in the state. Hutch should pick his battles more strategically. For instance, when our state Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage, as it may any day, THERE will be a focal point for strategic conservative advocacy, to re-take the state legislature and thus possibly uphold - by the required three-fifths majority in each chamber - the state constitutional amendment voters would quite likely approve to define marriage in the traditional, historical terms, as between a man and woman.
Like California and dozens of other states, our legislature DID pass a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which the state's high court now sits on the verge of junking. I know some readers believe the gay anti-discrimination bill is intended to help pave the way, politically, for a pro-gay marriage ruling by our Supremes. I think that ruling is coming anyway, and the real injustice would be the court overturning DOMA, which clearly reflected the will of the state's electorate. Rightly or wrongly, Republicans risk looking mean and vindictive by opposing the gay anti-discrimination law, a law which admittedly is all about symbolism, not actual discrimination. Team: Play smart, fer gosh sakes!
COMMENTERS: DISAGREE WITH ME ALL YOU WANT, BUT KEEP YOUR TONE EXCEEDINGLY CIVIL. ANY ABUSIVE COMMENTS - ESPECIALLY TOWARD GAYS AND LESBIANS - WILL BE DELETED.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at January 17, 2006 10:17 AM | Email ThisI am personally very religious, and I don't see the point of preventing discrimination based on someone's religion by law. I face discrimination despite the law, and I don't mind it as long as what they are doing is not illegal. Religion is, after all, a choice. We should be allowed to judge people based on the choices they make. Race, gender, ethnicity, etc, are NOT choices. You can't decide to stop being black or female all of a sudden. You can decided to stop being religious or change religions or change your sexuality.
The republicans should hold the line on this one. It's apparent that our state government is actually run by the minority, not the majority. Last time the people were asked, they said they didn't want to allow gay marriage. I am sure a similar initiative overturning this would pass the people's vote as well.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on January 17, 2006 10:46 AMI’m not criticizing gays, I'm criticizing the current attitude that says I have to accept or even respect that lifestyle. I believe what happens in the bedroom of two consenting adults is their business - straight or gay. If homosexuality is a sin then let them answer to God for it because I have my own sins to account for.
But I refuse to believe that I should be labeled a bigot or a hater of the person, when in fact I expressing my opinion about a particular lifestyle choice. I am strongly anti-abortion, yet I don’t hate women. I am anti-drug use, yet I don’t hate the people who use drugs or sell them. I hate the damage that they do to a community and the slow death they cause to themselves.
But what I am is a citizen of the United States, good, bad, or otherwise and I, as well as Hutch or whomever else cares to speak out, have the right to openly disagree with any thought act or deed without causing harm to an individual or group, and not be criminalized for it.
Believe it or not, there is a homosexual agenda and this agenda is to make homosexuality “normalized” to the American public.
Your comment/warning at the end is/was a needless shot across the bow. You think so highly of the posters here that they would automatically be inclined to be spurious in their remarks...aimed at homosexuals. What is your real concern? It's not for the level of public discourse here.
Posted by: Danny on January 17, 2006 10:56 AMIf you support the boycott, how will you use internet to participate on Sound Politics? Unless you are on mac right now with non-explorer browser, i cannot see how anyone can boycott mirosoft that uses the net. or any other pc based product.
Once at City
Posted by: Once At City on January 17, 2006 11:05 AMThe Republican Party has consistantly stood for traditional values. This is a bedrock issue that makes the party what it is. Bill Finkbeiner did not just have an "epiphany" concerning his latest change, it is a superficial attempt to secure votes for his re-election and proves that he was never a republican.
I do believe that if we are going to discuss the current state of affairs with Washington State Republicans, we must focus on its leadership.
My question to republicans is, how could he (Finkbeiner)have been elected to a leadership position in The Senate?
Stefan, without the evangelical right, there is no hope of a republican majority in this state. If you castigate and belittle them, you are committing political suicide.
We now have seen the fruits of several years of The Washington State Republican Party drifting to the left. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we gradually loosing more and more standing in the state as a result?
Posted by: jaybo on January 17, 2006 11:07 AMI like the idea of non-descrimination legislation, but I fear that this law will just add more lawsuits to the courts, for example
a worker who is very lazy also happens to be straight, and is fired. Then he sues saying that he was fired by his gay boss for being straight, even though he is just lazy.
It will be more useless lawsuits and more fear of firing lazy people.
Then you should have no issues whatsoever with the proposed non-discrimination law since you wouldn't run afoul of it unless you were causing an individual harm. If this law passes you and Hutcherson will still be able to say anything you wish against homosexuality & homosexuals, you just won't be able to refuse to hire or rent to someone because they are homosexual.
Posted by: John on January 17, 2006 11:22 AMI offer this one point to anyone that would say that we need to "move to the left" to win elections.
Remember when all of the spineless republican moderates told us Pres. Bush couldn't select conservative jurists to The Supreme Court because the american public wouldn't accept it?
The truth is that the american people are more conservative than liberals would like us to believe. But by listening to their constant droning on this subject, some of our spineless brethren (and sisters) have begun to believe this lie.
Mark my words, if The Washington State Republican Party continues to drift to the left, they will gradually loose more and more status in this state.
Posted by: jaybo on January 17, 2006 11:29 AM1. This legislation, conferring special rights onto one segment of our society, is wrong-headed and counter productive (in other words, typically liberal ;'} It promises to create more problems that it would ever solve, and further divides the populace.
2. That said, as much as I admire the Hutch, his boycott won't work, and is a waste of time and effort.
It will be largely cathartic, but a better investment will be to ensure that the fink gets to find other "employment"....
SB6270 cannot even get a hearing.
We devote countless hours over discrimination that might or might not be impacting 2% of the population and IGNORE BLATANT DISCRIMINATION against 50% of the population on an issue that is clearly destroying lives.
Posted by: Andy on January 17, 2006 11:40 AMI think it was more reprehensible that Dockers, etc. quit donating to the Boy Scouts than this legislation. I still am boycotting them, except when I can get $40-50 pants for $10 and can think to myself, "gotcha".
Tell me again, why is there a need for this legislation?
Posted by: swatter on January 17, 2006 11:41 AMM&M, I am most assuredly NOT saying Pastor Hutcherson cannot or should not exercise his right to freedom of speech, that right is beyond debate. I am simply saying it should be exercised carefully, that anyone active in the political arena should pick their battles very strategically. I believe he paints himself into a corner with this stuff. And boycott Microsoft? C'mon. Talk about a way to earn the status of "ankle-biter"!
Danny wrote: "Your comment/warning at the end is/was a needless shot across the bow. You think so highly of the posters here that they would automatically be inclined to be spurious in their remarks...aimed at homosexuals. What is your real concern? It's not for the level of public discourse here."
Danny, unfortunately we've had some really vile comments in the past toward gays, Jews, and others. There are knuckle-draggers out there, sadly. On a hot-button subject like this, I wanted to make it clear civility is the rule. The majority of SP commenters are civil, and often have worthwhile perspectives to add to the conversation. But I've also seen things head south a few times too many - far past the realm of constructive disagreements - and not just due to Lefty trolls.
Posted by: Matt R. on January 17, 2006 11:46 AMI don't care about this bill and won't participate in any boycott. The line for me (and I suspect for ALOT of other people) is drawn firmly in front of gay marriage. By vehemently opposing this piece of legislation, it only empowers the "movement" towards gay marriage whereby they can spin it as the "intolerant right". This is not a civil rights issue at all, but the Republicans are doing their best to make it seem like one.
Posted by: Palouse on January 17, 2006 11:54 AMI would suggest that even one beating is too many. Your statement of "other than a handful, at most..." is in the best light, flippant. Then you go on to suggest that carrying a weapon is the best defense.
I am all for the right to own weapons. God, guns and guts keeps America free without any doubt. But to suggest that gays arm themselves is RightWing insanity. Not to mention the fact that concealed weapons permits are not just handed out willy nilly (and for good reason). The bill is a bad idea, the good Reverend is mistaken and your suggestion is just wrong.
Posted by: My Left Foot on January 17, 2006 12:07 PMIn addition, "our legislature DID pass a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)"
Not only did the Legislature pass it, they overroade Gov. Locke's veto with a 2/3 majority in the House and Senate. On the same day he signed it, no less.
Posted by: jimg on January 17, 2006 12:12 PMIt's called Assault 1. No need for another law.
Posted by: Danny on January 17, 2006 12:12 PMOn the other hand, people like Hutch are way out of touch. In a blue state, you are going to find a lot of secular conservatives and moderate Democrats that are appalled by attempts to counter the obvious left leaning political activism of Gays and Lesbians with bible thumping religious dogma.
Those on the left are counting on people like Hutch to expose the hypocrisy of the religious, but there are far more people who are simply in the middle on this issue. It's going to be interesting to see how the votes go. I'm firmly against this bill because as I stated above, Gays don't need special protection. If an employer discriminates against you because you are gay, call a lawyer, you will have a good case, but don't put this on the rest of us. I don't want to see a line forming in Olympia to pass legislation for any and every person that can define themselves into a narrow victim class.
The authority dictated to me who I would associate with by threatening to sanction me if I chose not to be friends with someone. While I know it's not in vogue right now, I'd like to refer to the constitution, specifically the first amendment where the right of the people to peaceably assemble is guaranteed. Modern jurisprudence recognizes this right as a freedom of association.
I don't think the government has any business in creating protected classes of people, to quote another source, "The Incredibles" which is in vogue with my toddler right now "when everyone is special, nobody will be."
Me, I'm selling my house to the highest bidder, I'm hiring the best and the brightest employees, I'm choosing to spend time with those people in whom I find qualities I admire. I'm choosing whom to associate with based on transactional value, not some random characteristic. I don't need the government telling me that it finds some people are potential victims that need the power of the state to intercede on their behalf.
Instead, when you run into someone who doesn't want to associate with you, for any reason, take your ball and go home, what possible value is there in compelling these people to associate with you after they've expressed a desire not too? Only spite and revenge come to my mind.
When will the government develop "do nothing disease?"
If your contention were correct, then republicans in this state would be experiencing a revival. Why is it bad to allow certain conservatives to voice opinions based on their convictions? Why should they have to be ashamed to do so?
The truth is that your assertations will only lead to further erosion of the republican party in this state.
Also, if this state is as "blue" as you contend, then why are there so many independents?
I propose to you that many of those "independents" that you see listed in polls are conservatives that are discusted with the direction of the Washington State Rpublican Party and will no longer support them.
Posted by: jaybo on January 17, 2006 12:33 PMI think it better if he wants to target, target the politicians who foist this onto the public.
Posted by: Michele on January 17, 2006 12:42 PMThank you for contacting my office regarding HB 2661. I am opposed to adding the phrase "sexual orientation" (which includes homosexuality,
bisexuality, gender-expression or identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression) to our anti-discrimination laws in Washington
State.
Our discrimination laws already cover everyone that needs coverage. In my opinion, this law will create a new class of people, and will lay
the foundation for legalizing homosexual marriage.
The effects of this legislation will reach to businesses, religious organizations, churches, and government agencies, and the results will
not be good: mandatory insurance, countless lawsuits resulting in heavy fines, and the ability for homosexuals to adopt (and thus indoctrinate)children.
This bill will make homosexual behavior and expressions acceptable, and place it under the protection of the Human Rights Commission. Under
this bill, if a homosexual complains of discrimination, the person against whom the complaint is brought will have to appear before this "tribunal," and that person will most likely face a heavy fine, a complete shutdown of their establishment, or both. This bill has also
been made upon the governor's request, so she will definitely sign the bill if it passes.
You can count on me to uphold our traditional values by opposing HB 2661. I need your help, though, to convince other legislators to vote
against this bill. To make your voice heard, call the Legislative Hotline at 1-800-562-6000. Tell the operator to tell your Representatives and your Senator to vote NO on the anti-family bill HB2661. Also, have each member of your family call, and have your friends call. Every call counts, so call soon, since this bill will be up for a vote by Wednesday.
Sincerely,
Jim McCune
State Representative
2nd District
"I am personally very religious, and I don't see the point of preventing discrimination based on someone's religion by law."
Do you think your boss ought to be able to fire you simply because you privately practice a religion she doesn't approve of?
Posted by: john on January 17, 2006 12:48 PMCan you explain to me how someone living with someone of the same sex, even getting married to them, has one iota of an effect on your life? If you don't want to marry someone gay, then don't. Get over it.
This is the kind of effort that drives conservatives like me crazy. It does nothing but make us all look like a bunch of wild-eyed fanatics.
Posted by: Janet S on January 17, 2006 12:54 PMYou are on the correct line of thought here. Special legislation to protect gays is inline with hate crime legislation. It is illegal to commit certain crimes, but it should not be illegal to think about commiting crime. Criminalizing thought is very dangerous.
Pastor Hutch has every right to believe whatever he wants to believe about homosexuality. But, the fact that he does not agree with homosexuality is not the objective grounds for opposing the legislation. Even if it's written in the Bible, legally we follow the US Consitution and WA Consitution and RCW, not the Bible.
As for whether or not homosexuality is a choice, that's yet another reason to oppose the legislation. What's next, mandatory DNA testing to see if one has the "gay" gene? The fact that some heterosexuals engage in homosexual relations is clearly a choice, but others can show a genetic link and adhere strictly to a homosexual life. Does anyone see the slippery slope here? When does it end? What if new and even more vague attributes become arbiters of privledge under the law? This is why the legislation should fail, it sets a dangerous precedent.
There should be only one law regarding discrimination. It should be vague and it should simply say that all people should be judged on their merits and the content of their character, and nothing more. But we already have that law: All men are created equal....
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 17, 2006 12:56 PMWhy should lifestyle choices such as religion be protected by law at all? Say I'm a drugstore* owner and I fire a Christian pharmacist for refusing to fulfil prescriptions for religious reasons. That person is clearly costing me money. They're turning away business. Why should I face legal liability for dismissing them?
by the way, I'm a different John than the other John in this topic. Sorry, john@notmail.com. I didn't notice your name before I posted.
Posted by: John A on January 17, 2006 01:06 PMLook at it this way. Let's say I ran a charity. I wanted this charity to be run by members of my own church. So I hire devout members of my church, and I fire them when they lose their membership status. I say, "Well, we can't have people that don't meet our high standards running this charity." Today, I could get sued for doing that, and forced to hire people who actively don't believe in my church or even preach against it.
If my company doesn't want to hire me becuase I worship God/Jesus/Allah/the Devil/Trees/Nothing, then that's their loss. I could easily give up my religion or change it to satisfy my boss if I really wanted to.
With skin color, gender, and ethnicity, I can't change it, I don't have a choice, and I was born with it. If my boss fired me because I was too white, then that would be totally unfair. I am white through no fault of my own.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on January 17, 2006 01:14 PMThe political reality is that you only have two choices. If you go down the list of issues, you will probably find that you actually agree with ideas on both sides of the fence, yet you are forced to pick, for the most part, the ideas of the party that are most important to you.
I'm frankly far more concerned with taxation, terrorism, out of control spending, local transportation (or lack thereof), etc. I could care less about anyone's sexual preference be it genetic or by choice. I vote Republican, because the issues that matter to me are Republican values, but that doesn't mean that I agree with all things Republican.
I'm "discusted" by Republicans who don't see that by expecting every Republican to align with all views of the party, they are practicing the regulation of thought that we see far more often from those on the left who advance ideas like hate crime legislation.
And Republicans in this state are experiencing a revival. But a revival requires candidates that are electable. Go out and start campaigning with Pastor Hutch like fire and brimstone and see how far that gets you.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 17, 2006 01:15 PMHell, if Mainstreamer RINOs can donate to Democrats, we should be able to as well.
We need to just understand that 2006 is just not the year to get involved in politics and just wait it out until 2008.
A massive lost for Republicans in 2006 will be like what happened in 1992. A jumping point for a successful 1994 (2008).
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 01:24 PMNot without the passage of this law. As the law currently stands a person can be fired in this state just because they are gay and would have no legal recourse whatsoever.
Posted by: john on January 17, 2006 01:24 PMOr even better yet, recruit a challenger to run against him, one the Rev can believe in.
Posted by: scotty on January 17, 2006 01:35 PMWell Jeff B. Frankly, I am not. Terrorism is not a local/state issue. And while sure, financial issues are important, it isn't the most important thing in my life and I doubt for most people it really isn't a passionate issue as well. It isn't something that gets me so angry to wire a 250 dollar check from (which of course also hurts MY FINANCES) or to get up at 5 AM to wave signs.
And as for transportation, well, I doubt the Republicans would change the current direction of transportation. Sound Transit is, pardon the pun, a run away train that no one will be able to stop until it crashes on its own.
So, Let the Demos Tax us some more. Let them get the state further in debt. In the end, that only hurts their chances of getting re-elected, and by the way the Republicans have been increasing the size and scope of government on the federal level with them increasing spending even at a faster rate than they did back in the days of Jim Wright and Tom Foley, do you really believe the Liberal Washington State Republicans would do much differently if they got into control of the state legislature?
You don't want to play my game, well I don't want to play yours either then. I am personally finacially secure enough to weather any tax increase the Democrats can toss at me.
I am being a LOWRY REPUBLICAN IN 2006. Hell it worked so well for the RINOS in 1992, perhaps after it is all over I will be welcomed back with hugs and kisses like they were.
VOTE DEMOCRAT IN 2006. It is the ONLY chance for a Republican victory in 2008. Just like 1992 was necessary to bring about 1994.
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 01:41 PMBob Packwood was a Mainstream Republican.
I am proud that I AM NOT a Mainstream Republican.
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 01:46 PM1) Your appeasment politics don't work. So stop trying to sell them under yet another guise. This garbage has been going on for decades and hasn't worked. Give it up already!
2) One of the things you need to considers about this boycott is your own perspective. You live in Microsoft-ville. Many companies buy MS products because of all the people who support it in the area. But it's not the same elsewhere. Seattle may remain a stronghold for MS, but they could lose their footing elsewhere, which hits the bottom line.
3) There are viable alternatives to most MS products, including Windows. I've made a lot of money supporting MS products over the years, but as a consultant I'm going to bring up the boycott to my customers who are deciding on which products to purchase for their company. I support several Christian owned businesses and can often provide effective alternatives to MS products, depending on their needs, of course. I give my advice, which I won't slant, including the boycott, and they can make the choice. If it's important enough to them, they'll choose the alternative.
4) If this boycott is even remotely successful it could end up being a harbinger for MS. There are numerous products that could take a bite out of the near-monopoly's piece of the pie. The manufacturers of those products are always looking for an edge. If this reveals a weakness in the Microsoft model of doing business, you can bet the competition will learn to exploit it.
5) Microsoft has stockholders. They want to make money on the stock. When you consider how few people will put their stock portfolio where their politically correct mouth is, you'll realize that MS should stay out of politics. If they don't like the publicity they'll speak up. It doesn't have to hit the bottom line for MS to get a wakeup call.
6) Microsoft has employees. Some of whom don't agree with the politics and others who would rather their employer was just an employer, not a organization of political activists. Again, it doesn't have to hit the bottom line for MS to get a wakeup call.
7) As for the boycott, if it isn't effective then the only one who loses is Hutch.
I won't comment here on the legislation itself.
Posted by: Republican (by default) on January 17, 2006 01:56 PMSo, if I have a choice between a Democrat who will enact Liberal public policy and be relatively open about it or a Republican who will enact liberal public policies but pretend to be conservative, what would be my preference?
Would it be a good idea to see the Republican in office enacting liberal policies? When the Republican fails even though it will be because he or she was promoting liberal, not conservative policies, since he or she was pretending to be a conservative, the failure would be seen as (spinned as) a failure of conservatism instead of what it would be - a failure of liberalism.
If liberal policies are going to be enacted. I say let the DEMOCRATS DO IT then. For then when they fail there will be no doubt as to which philosophy is to be blamed for the failure.
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 01:59 PMAs for the couple of right wing nuts who want to bring out their mantra of "special rights" or fears that homosexuals will "indoctrinate" children, would you please crawl back into your caves and stay there?
I'm gay and I don't believe I ever made a choice about it. That said, I'm willing to concede for the sake of this argument that I choose to acknowledge my sexual orientation and to express it publicly.
So, my question for all of the "traditional values" Republicans on here is why should it be illegal for me to fire an evangelical Christian from my business, or refuse to rent space to Rev. Hutcherson and his church members because I disagree with their views, or deny insurance to Rev. Fuiten for a public event?
If religious belief is a choice, and is worthy of protection in public accomodations, then why isn't sexual orientation?
And earlier commenters are correct that this has NO PROVISIONS regarding speech and personal views. The Democrats also bent over backwards last year to offer an amendment which would allow people to opt out of renting space in a private residence to gays and lesbians if it conflicted with the owner's religious views.
Posted by: Mickymse on January 17, 2006 02:00 PMJust for the record, care to list all of the differences between moderate/conservative democrats and Bill Finkbeiner?
I would love to see them.
Posted by: jaybo on January 17, 2006 02:00 PM5 years ago would have bought the whole argument and trembled in fear of Hutch. Now I love men like Hutch that will take a stand, LEAD US and realize the real cost is the continued gayification of America. Boys uncertain what to do with their innate masculinity...girls never having that knight come and rescue them. Families never made, lives lived far apart from their destiny because of the ever present story of be gay!
R's act like Matt and pay the price of no votes for you! A young generation cries for leaders!!! Not legislators that will paper over the reality of what they have done.
R's act like Matt and assume the real bigots are the R's he holds his nose up in contempt of!!!
Real Men are gonna say enough is enough and say it again to the people (not leaders) in the legislature. They cannot be allowed to cover up another one of their sins – letting generations be overrun by this selfish group!!! They have sacrificed almost 2 generations we will not let them codify it and then springboard onto the next taking!
Matt for once just try to help stop/slow the madness pouring upon the land! Thanks for helping us to not be vile and be ready to accept the vileness!
A little braveheart never hurt.
Well just shut up and get in the back seat. Because the Mainstream Republicans of Washington State RULE the Republican Party in Washington State, and everyone else should remain silent so we can elect another Dan Evans or a Bob Packwood.
http://www.washingtonmainstream.org
You said the following; "I'm frankly far more concerned with taxation, terrorism, out of control spending, local transportation (or lack thereof), etc. I could care less about anyone's sexual preference be it genetic or by choice."
You sound more like a "libertarian" than a republican to me.
Posted by: jaybo on January 17, 2006 02:08 PM
Well said. I totally agree.
That is what having RINOS as legislators does for you. It gives the Democrats political cover when things start going south.
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 02:15 PMSo, what you are left with is liberal party A and liberal party B. And if that is the choice then I choose A because at least they look me in my face when they attack me instead of stabing me in my back.
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 02:20 PMAsk the people who worked for Steve Hammond.
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 02:27 PM11 "Any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or
12 amusement" includes, but is not limited to
.....
28 public washrooms of buildings and structures occupied by two or more
29 tenants, or by the owner and one or more tenants, or any public library
30 or educational institution, or schools of special instruction, or
31 nursery schools, or day care centers or children's camps:
32 That nothing contained in this definition shall be construed to include
33 or apply to any institute, bona fide club, or place of accommodation,
34 which is by its nature distinctly private, including fraternal
35 organizations, though where public use is permitted that use shall be
36 covered by this chapter;
Don't be so sure of that Palouse. To a great extent the Legislature runs on autopilot regardless of what party is in control. There's permanent staff members in the standing committeess, bureaucrats in the Executive branch, and of course the omni-present lobbyists who work together to adopt policies and legislation who do not go away even when the control of the legislature changes hands.
Case in point. In 1994 there were lots going on in Olympia with liberals promoting their schemes on Education and Health Care. In 1995 Republicans took control of both houses, but still the lead staffer on the House Education committee and the the lead staffer on the Senate Health Care committee were the same people who were there in 1995 (both having orginally obtaining their jobs through liberal activism).
Despite the fact that Republicans had control of both the House and Senate, they kept those key Staff members instead of replacing them with Republicans. And yeah, the legislation coming out of those committees were not substatially different in 1995 than it was in 1994.
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 02:43 PMI posted at Respectfully Republican on this very topic today. The post is titled, "Today's GOP".
I pose the following question about half way down:
"As principled Americans, we need to ask ourselves why we continue to allow bigots, racists, and homo-phobes to speak for Conservatism?"
Matt, I applaud you for having the courage to stand up and say what you believe. Commenters who disagree with HOMOSEXUALITY need to realize that they empower the Left by being homophobic. Once gay liberation has been realized (at least in the minds of its champions) we can all get on with more important matters.
If you are uncomfortable with gays, then don't move somewhere like Capitol Hill in Seattle. I, however, am not afraid to live with people who are different. I recently re-located to Republican St. in the heart of a mostly gay neighborhood, and hope to become a PCO.
Why? Because I want to live where I can make the biggest change, not in some gated community or in the sticks. Diversity is hard to accept, but once you jump the hurdle, it makes life much more enjoyable. The GOP needs to come to its senses, and quit embracing extremists. Once this happens, and once a positive vision of the future is put forward by Republicans, we'll finally start to win elections again in this state, and beyond.
One Caveat: don't underestimate the conservative nature of today's youth. Unlike the hippy movement that was so prevalent amongst the baby-boomers, my generation is becoming increasingly more conservative. It's possible that we may see a shift in momentum back against these liberalizing trends in social policy. What say you?
Posted by: Patrick Bell on January 17, 2006 02:44 PMYou would vote for the Democrat instead?
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 02:47 PMGood post Matt! I agree with you that this is the wrong rock for state Republicans to anchor the ship. Vote your consience and move on, this can only lead to bad things.
I AM for this legislation, but I understand many of my fellow conservative are not. I respect their opinion as they should respect mine.
Posted by: Mathew on January 17, 2006 02:50 PMGood post Matt! I agree with you that this is the wrong rock for state Republicans to anchor the ship. Vote your consience and move on, this can only lead to bad things.
I AM for this legislation, but I understand many of my fellow conservative are not. I respect their opinion as they should respect mine.
Posted by: Mathew on January 17, 2006 02:50 PMThis bill gives people who are gay more rights in Washington State Society than people who are not gay.
And that's ok with you?
I am seriously considering becoming a bisexual if this bill passes. After all, if I am married with 2 kids and a wonderful wife, I still might have desires even, if out of respect for my wife I don't act upon them. Even if I don't have sex with a man because I happen at the current time be in a faithful marriage that doesn't mean I am not bisexual.
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 02:52 PMI think the reason Matt has such a hatred for Pastor Hutchinson is because Pastor Hutchinson is Black and Matt Rosenberg is a racist and hates blacks.
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 02:55 PMI can not respect a person who supports legislation that gives some in our society more rights than others.
That is fundamentally against what America is (was) all about.
And so, Matthew I have no respect for you. And I WILL VOTE AGAINST anyone who you come out in support of.
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 02:59 PMYou are as much of a "conservative" as Dan Evans.
or Bob Packwood.
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 03:04 PMWe WILL STAY HOME IN 2006.
Or in my case, I will vote Against the Incumbent RINO, which yeah, means I will be voting for the Liberal D.
I much perfer an enemy who will look you in the face when attacking as opposed to one who pretends to be your friend but stabs you in the back.
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 03:08 PMIf you want an incumbant RINO to get worried, vote against the RINO in the General.
If you can't do that, then it is all talk.
And the incumbent RINO knows that.
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 03:11 PMI much perfer an enemy who will look you in the face when attacking as opposed to one who pretends to be your friend but stabs you in the back."
If everyone had that attitude we would have been reelecting President Gore in 2004. As much as I disagree with alot of what Bush has done, I think having Gore in power would have been much, much worse.
Be careful what you wish for....
Or really is it the deviant behavior that is being discriminated against...thus homosexuality would be deviant and thus OK to discriminate against?
Now I'm confused......why do we need this again? Oh because being Gay should be promoted, because it is best for our society. That's right.
Here's another....I own a apartment complex...it is Private Property and I don't approve of homosexual behavior and thus do not want you to live in my apartment. Why can't I do that? Oh wait that's discrimating against their choice...no wait they were born that way. Or are they. What about those that go both ways? Are they born that way too?
When is the legislation coming to protect me? I'm a young white male.
Finally, one last thing a friend of mine asked jokingly...If you can't discriminate based on religion, can you still discriminate against a antheist?
Posted by: Dengle on January 17, 2006 03:14 PMYou are all talk. And that is what the RINO politician knows when he/she talks to you.
First you have to know how the legislator votes to find out if he/she is a RINO, and so few conservatives do that so it is easy though the saying of a few carefully chosen words at during a one-on-one private converation, or at a PCO meeting or another such meetng of like minded people to fool most conservatives into believing that the RINO is a conservative.
But the conservatives that won't be fooled well they won't actively go out and work against or even vote against the RINO when it counts. So, it's all talk the RINO knows and moves further and further to the left.
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 03:24 PMThe issue you have resolves itself in the primary, whereby a RINO should get defeated by a true conservative if that is what the people want.
Posted by: Palouse on January 17, 2006 03:27 PMNo, it means that alot of Republicans are more afraid of the Democrat and most of them probably don't even know how liberal the RINO is.
And, no, he/she doesn't need your vote.
They figured it out a long time ago. And that is why they continue to move to the left.
There really isn't any point of voting any more. The only reason I am voting is because my incumbant RINO is voting for this special rights bill and I want him to pay.
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 03:28 PMHell, can't beat them, then join them. And then beat off with them (sorry, I live in an increasingly degenerate society so some of it is going to rub off).
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 03:33 PMYou're just cutting your nose to spite your face. Either way, you have the same vote the other way on whatever issue. But it doesn't mean the RINO would vote that way on all issues. So what do you have by voting the other way? Satisfaction in helping defeat a RINO yes. But you also guarantee a liberal vote on all issues and help ensure a liberal majority. Fantastic, great victory there.
Posted by: Palouse on January 17, 2006 03:34 PMMy RINO disappoints me practically all the time.
At least I know what to expect with the Liberal D's who represent me. And I am not told "you can't say that about him" when I criticize their liberal vote like people say to me when I criticize my RINO for voting the exact same way.
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 03:37 PMAs long as RINOs are in office they control the Republican Party and therefore control the primary process and use that control to keep conservatives from winning the primaries.
The only way for a conservative to win a primary is for RINOS to stop winning general elections so they won't be in a position to exert such influence within the Republican party as to prevent conservatives to win primaries.
For conservatives to win general elections they need to win primary elections. The only way for conservatives to win primary elections is for RINOS to lose General Elections.
So by voting for RINOS in General Elections you ensure that conservatives won't even have a chance.
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 03:42 PMThat is how much power a RINO can wield within the Republican party once they get elected.
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 03:44 PMRepublicans aren't standing up for traditional family values by opposing anti-discrimination legislation. By passing this bill, we don't just "score points with the gay community". We take one step towards ending the whole gay liberation saga, and finally get it done and over with.
Query: what is metrosexual?
Posted by: Patrick E. Bell on January 17, 2006 03:47 PMThat is how much power a RINO can wield within the Republican party once they get elected."
You must be kidding...I think you are the one who is all talk if you're worried about posting the name of a public official you disagree with. You think they might come after you? Puhlease.
Posted by: Palouse on January 17, 2006 03:48 PMObviously you haven't been involved with the Republican party on the District level.
And the sad thing, is that often the people who do are people who if you would listen to them seem very conservative. But in their mind you need to support the incumbent regardless.
And of course he is better than a liberal D they will say (who would vote exactly the same way as he would).
There is a great resistance even from conservatives to find a candidate to run against an incumbent RINO. After all, it weakens the incumbent for the general election.
But, if the RINO votes like a liberal D, what's the point anyway. Well, I guess people like knowing someone in public office. Kind of an ego thing to say I know the Senator or Representative or whatever.
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 03:50 PMEither I can publicly name the person and have them drum me from any effective partipation in district politics, or I can try to do what I can from within.
It really is a trap. Once the RINO is in the RINO has all the lobbyist money and of course the party structure is designed to try to stop conflict in the primary. Weakens the candidate for the General election. From a party standpoint they want one person who the whole party can get together to support from the start, and in the case of incumbents, of course that candidate would be from the party perspective, the incumbent.
The only solution is to start from stratch and have a real conservative run against the Liberal Democrat, but that can only happen once the RINO is removed.
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 03:56 PMYou keep making this statement, but without proof it is pretty empty. Again, there may be individual issues they vote the other way on, but I'd rather have someone who votes the way I want 80 or 90% of the time than someone who never does.
Posted by: Palouse on January 17, 2006 03:59 PM1. This politician reads this blog
2. This person knows who you are because of the name "Alex" and you used your real name and email address
If both of those things are true, that person already knows your views about him/her based on what you've written here.
And if you are that worried about retribution maybe you shouldn't have used your real information.
Posted by: Palouse on January 17, 2006 04:06 PMPatrick why stop at joining the 21st Century? I want to be forward thinking, you know, ahead of my time.
Lets join the 22nd century (or more likely the mid 21st).
Let's support the Polyamorous Community. After all, I firmly believe that, looking at how society has been going Polyamorous Families will be mainstreamed within a generation or so.
http://www.polyamorysociety.org
There is a group in Seattle called the wetspot.
http://www.wetspot.org
They promote all kinds of sex-positive communities and their activities. I say we should adopt their cause as our own.
We might as well get ahead of this one, because it seems like society is trending this way and I rather be called forward thinking than behind the times.
So don't call yourself one.
This is one conservative that a RINO like you can't fool.
So don't pretend to be a conservative at Sound Politics and then go to your Mainstream Republican meetings and have a laugh at pulling the wool over us.
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 04:16 PMBesides, they are trying to play business with the Chinese and forgot the old axiom, "he who has the gold makes the rules". Microsoft loses everytime. Time to moveon.barf.
Posted by: swatter on January 17, 2006 04:18 PMI am careful. But I fear if I give the politician's name and therefore my geographic area that would be one step too far and would increase the risk too greatly.
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 04:19 PM"Despite the fact that Republicans had control of both the House and Senate, they kept those key Staff members instead of replacing them with Republicans. And yeah, the legislation coming out of those committees were not substatially different in 1995 than it was in 1994." Comment by Alex
Incorrect. During the 1995 and 1996 legislative sessions, the House was controlled by the GOP; the Senate was controlled by the Ds. Mike Lowry (D) was governor.
And as far as your assertion that the legislation coming out of the policy committees "were not substatially different", you are woefully misinformed.
Each plank of the GOP's Contract with Washington was passed from the House - including the repeal of Denny Dellwo's Hillary-Care health plan by both House, Senate and guv.
The two-year operating budget was so far removed from the previous budget, the GOP House and D Senate spent an extra 38 days fighting over it. B&O taxes which were hiked in 1993 were cut in half, and fully reduced two years later.
Regulatory reform passed the House. A proposal to split DSHS into five separate agencies passed the House. Entire sections of the hideous 'crime' bill (E2SHB 2319) were repealed. I could go on, but you (should) get the point. And this doesn't even take into account the number of 'bad' Senate bills stopped by the House.
And for your information, each caucus has partisan staff - both research and information. The OPR (office of program research - House) and SCS (senate committee services - Senate) staffs are (primarily) non-partisan. They serve the committee chair and committee members. To suggest the GOP should "replacing them with Republicans" would be just as wrong if the Democrats did the same. (though there certainly are staffers who lean politically)
To suggest the 1995 Legislature was no different than 1994 reveals to me you were part of neither.
Posted by: jimg on January 17, 2006 04:23 PMI hope you're happy with whoever you help get elected in your district.
Posted by: Palouse on January 17, 2006 04:24 PM"the GOP House and D Senate spent an extra 38 days"
That would be 33 days.
But it felt like 738 days.
Posted by: jimg on January 17, 2006 04:28 PMI was going from memory and perhaps I got it a little wrong.
I know that Bob Butts was the head staffer for the House Education committee both when the House was in control of the Republicans and the Democrats.
I remember talking with the husband of a journalist at a picnic in 1998 who was shocked that the Republicans kept on some lead staffer on the Health Care Committee. I thought it was the Senate Healt Care Committee. Perhaps it was the House Health Care Committee.
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 04:29 PMI will be happey when I get the person out in 2008 who I help get elected in 2006.
You need a larger perspective than just focusing on a single election.
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 04:32 PMAnd the guy I talked to in 1998 said the same thing happened with the Health Care Issue. I might have the chamber and the date wrong with that one.
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 04:35 PMOne election at a time...and one primary at a time.
Posted by: Palouse on January 17, 2006 04:39 PMAnd I gave you reasons why it is even WORST when it is a RINO instead of a Liberal D.
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 04:43 PMI have explained to you about primaries.
The incumbent controls practically everything concerning the primary.
You think the best thing is to "lose slowly". I believe that incrementalism only works in favor of the Liberals.
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 04:47 PMThis is a specious argument. Show me where a RINO has voted in lock step with Democrats in this state. Any one. Not just your district if you are afraid to reveal it.
Posted by: Palouse on January 17, 2006 04:48 PMThe incumbent doesn't control the most important thing. Who we vote for...
Posted by: Palouse on January 17, 2006 04:49 PMThose that hide in darkness for fear of retribution are cowards, indeed. Then again, with some of things you've been ranting about (posting comments on average every 10-20 minutes) perhaps it's better your identity is shielded.
In any event, I haven't been convinced by most of what you've said, mostly because you argue (at least on the point of anti-discrimnation) from ignorance.
Posted by: Patrick E. Bell on January 17, 2006 04:51 PMAnd who did the staff members work for and on what causes did the staff members work on behalf of before getting a job in the legislature?
If you really believe that most of the staffers aren't liberal activists despite being called "non-partisan" then Republicans are just too plain stupid to deserve regaining control of the legislature.
But I am sure you know the true nature of these staffers and are just lying. I am used to that from Republicans in Government.
Say what you will about Democrats, at least they know how to wield power. Even when Republicans get into power they don't know what to do with it.
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 04:58 PMOf course that is easy to say when you are one of the Nazis who is in control of the party and part of those doing the retribution.
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 05:02 PMOne last note, several commenters here have behaved strikingly similar to the extremists who wrote in to criticize Finkbeiner in today's Seattle Times. (See the LTE section, about half way down on the page). Of course, when one takes a look at the creditentials of those who wrote in to the Times, it becomes apparent that these are iberals attacking Finkbeiner, but with interstingly dissimilar motivations.
Posted by: Patrick E. Bell on January 17, 2006 05:10 PM"Let's support the Polyamorous Community. After all, I firmly believe that, looking at how society has been going Polyamorous Families will be mainstreamed within a generation or so."
Why does everyone bust on polygamy as the next step down the slippery slope? If it was good enough for Moses, why ain't it good enough for you?
It really amazes me that all you liberal hacks constantly bitch about how we conservatives act. But not one of you has ever opened your home to a convicted Level III sex offender just released from McNeil Island.
So when you do that for a year, maybe you can claim moral superiority. Until quit telling the rest of us how to live.
Posted by: Mike P on January 17, 2006 05:27 PM"Of course that is easy to say when you are one of the Nazis who is in control of the party"
"Say what you will about Democrats, at least they know how to wield power."
"VOTE DEMOCRAT IN 2006."
Methinks Alex doth protest too much....
"I nor any other property owner should have to rent to anyone that they do not want to. To say that you must by law is totalitarism."
Are you saying you should be allowed to discriminate against blacks, Latinos, Asians and Native Americans?
Posted by: Ivan on January 17, 2006 05:37 PMHe should be allowed to discriminate against anyone, just as you exercise discrimination every day. Everyone does...though it's not a nefarious act.
I would happily discriminate against a member of NAMBLA when it comes to leasing property if it were in a neighborhood with children...no problem. Don't be so obtuse. You're not that stupid.
Posted by: Danny on January 17, 2006 06:19 PMYou're not that stupid either. I didn't ask about NAMBLA. I asked about blacks, Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans.
Does Mike P. think he should be able to to discriminate legally against any of those groups I mentioned? Do *you* think he should?
Yes or no. What is it? Anyone have the stones to answer that? How about you, Col. Hogan, because you're such a "real man?"
Posted by: Ivan on January 17, 2006 06:33 PMYou don't know the first thing of what you're talking about, you make sweeping, general statements about those things you know nothing about and now I'm a liar.
Well, Alex. Lemme spell it out slowly for you: Fornicate thou.
You're an obnoxious punk, and I'm not going to waste any more time with you. I expect this type of garbage from a DUer or a Kos Kid.
No one is advocating discrimination against people because of their skin color. Don't try to set up a straw man. Again, you're much brighter than that.
Posted by: Danny on January 17, 2006 06:47 PMYou're darn right I'm brighter than that, because here's where I'm going with it.
You say "no one is advocating discrimination against people because of their skin color." I hope that's true, because it's against the law.
It's against the law because people can't help it; they're born that way. Right?
So those of you who want to be able to discriminate against gays legally are telling me that every single gay person in this world is that way by choice, that none, zero, of them might have been born with that genetic predisposition.
And you know that how, may I ask?
The answer is, you don't.
Now notice I'm not attacking anybody's religion. You want to believe that practicing homosexuality is an abomination because your religion tells you so? Hey, be my guest. What you believe is your business.
But you don't know how any particular gay person got to be that way, and you can't tell me you do. If they are gay because they were born that way, then you shouldn't be able to fire them, or refuse to rent them a house, just because you don't like homosexuality.
If your religion tells you black people are the children of Ham, and thereby inferior, guess what? The anti-discrimination laws in this country take precedence, and you can't discriminate against them without violating the law.
And this is what we're going to do in Olympia, very soon. We're going to put gay people on the same footing as black people, red people, brown people, yellow people, and white people.
We're going to give them the same rights the rest of us have. And for those of you who say those are "special rights," well, I'm calling you liars and bigots.
Keep running for election on lies and bigotry. Watch us mop the floor with you, all across the state. Nobody likes a liar, and nobody likes a bigot.
And keep on voting for those RINO incumbents and then wonder why even when Republicans win the state continues with liberal public policy.
Nothing is really going to change much. Incrementalism plays into the hands of the liberals. If the public got a big dose of liberal policy all at once there would be a reaction (as there was in 1992) but doing it gradually like the RINOS do it gets the people aclimatized to it and they get use to it and don't react.
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 08:21 PMThe bill contains exemptions for those renting out rooms within their primary residence - even with this bill, you're perfectly within your right to tell a homo that they can't live in your home.
Also, what is up with all the NAMBLA/pedophile/bigamy correlations in these arguements? There's nothing here that protects child molestors or sexual predators - that is a crime and saying treat gays, lesbians, and hetrosexuals (yes, hetrosexuals are included in the bill) fairly in housing and employment doesn't change that.
Posted by: Darth Dogbert on January 17, 2006 09:04 PMWhat gives you the right to call the Rev. Ken Hutcherson "Hutch"?
Is that some racial thing with you?
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 09:46 PMAnd why isn't there? Child Molesters and sexual prediators are people to.
Sex with children, be.stiality, polyamorous families... they are all going to probably be acceptable within my lifetime so why not do it today? After all got to get into the 21st Century... We don't want to be accused of being bigoted to these people. We don't want to be accused of backward thinking.
So, why put off to tomorrow what we can do today? We all know NABLA is sooner or later going to get their agenda through too. It is just a matter of time. It might take a generation or so but it is going to happen. So why not do it now? And why not us Republicans be the ones in the forefont of this effort? Just think of all the NABLA people who would feel beholden to the Republican Party if we just become more tolerate of their diverstiy and support their agenda..
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 09:58 PMIncrementalism plays into the hands of the liberals. If the public got a big dose of liberal policy all at once there would be a reaction (as there was in 1994) but doing it gradually like the RINOS do it gets the people aclimatized to it and they get use to it and don't react.
Surely you have heard the story about how to cook a frog haven't you Palouse?
If this is what you are claiming then it is you who don't know the first thing of what you're talking about.
But I do think you know what you are talking about. I have a sense that you "have been there too". And so if that is the case you are a liar if you want us to believe that liberal activists don't use these "non-partisan" legislative staffer positions to push through their liberal agenda.
All you have to do is look at some of these people's resumes and see the politicians that they previously worked for and the issue organizations they were previously employed with to know that these people are just as liberally partisan as those who are in the official Democrat legislative staff. They are non-partisan in name only.
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 10:21 PMNo one who believes that some in our society should have more rights than others in our society can ever be a conservative. It goes against everything that America was supposed to be about. People who want some people to have more rights than others are as Unamerican as you can get.
I don't even recognize you as being a real American for believing that government should deny people rights by granting special rights to others. So of course, there is no way you could ever be a conservative.
So, marvel me. I am waiting.
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 10:36 PMIf the incumbent ensures that he/she is the only one on the primary ballot, then yes, Palouse, the incumbent controls the most important thing, for you can't vote for a conservative against a RINO in a primary if only the RINO is on the ballot.
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 10:52 PMAre you a member of the Mainstream Republicans of the State of Washington?
http://www.washingtonmainstream.org
They are some of the biggest bunch of Nazis in this state.
Posted by: Alex on January 17, 2006 10:56 PMAfter all, sooner or later it's going to happen any way. Let's get on with the 21st Century already.
And while we are at it, Let's legalize Pot.
After all, sooner or later it's going to happen any way. Let's get on with the 21st Century already.
Matt Rosenberg, you have got a great point here. It seems like conservatives have been fighting a losing battle here on issues whose trends seem always against us.
So, let's not fight any more. Let's go with the flow.
That reminds me, I don't want to see some ones cute young daughter die because some mean olde insurance company won't pay for her medical treatments.
I don't even want to be accused of wanting that to happen. As you know words hurt deeply, and it would hurt me deeply if someone said that I put corporate profits ahead of the lives of people's cute young daughters. Even though I would know that wasn't true, being accused of that would still hurt. Almost as much as someone falsely calling me a bigot.
So, while I am sure your Senate candidate is a great guy, I can't support him because of the perception that such support might give people about me and the things they might say about me wanting people's cute daughters dying so that insurance companies can make more money.
SEE Matt. The point is when you start telling people to surrender on something, especially because you claim it would give the public a negative perception of Republicans for fighting for it, pretty soon we actually stop fighting for something YOU CARE ABOUT!
Um, Jeff, that's not a law. That was some sort of, uh, declaration. Not a law. Never was.
But you are claiming that you are comfortable with a law saying that all people must be judged solely on their merits. Wonderful! Then you must support this bill, which doesn't even go that far.
Posted by: Bruce on January 18, 2006 12:19 AMSo those of you who want to be able to discriminate against gays legally are telling me that every single gay person in this world is that way by choice, that none, zero, of them might have been born with that genetic predisposition.
first point:
You have to be careful what you put forth as justification for your posiiton and ultimately what is put into law. If your litmus test is "born that way" or "genetically wired" that way, then you can apply that same reasoning to other instances where someone comes forth to lobby for their "right" to be legitimized.
If homosexuality is not a choice and thus should be protected, is pedophelia "not a choice"? Is wanting s*x with animals "not a choice"? Is alcoholism "not a choice"?
second point:
Progresivism is an insatiable beast. You can never be liberal enough. A liberal in 1930 would probably be a raving conservative today if s/he were transplanted across 75 years of time instantly. If conservatives have to "get with the times", then that is implicitly saying there are no standards; there is simply what is current. Currently we are like this, but in 20 years, the ball will have moved, and people comfortalbe with one thing will no longer be comfortable with the new "liberal cause". And be sure that if liberals had their entire agenda solved, there would be someone stepping up to fill the void for a new liberal cause. So, while liberals think they are just trying to drag the ultra rightwingnut conservatives into the modern age, what they are really doing is streatching the fabric of society to a certain point where it tears or it snaps back. Conservatism is the pull-back on the streatch of liberalism. Sometimes liberalism pulls too hard and a society is fractured and a new one comes to take its place. Sometimes they pull too fast and hard and the whole thing snaps back in a big conservative "backlash".
The questino you have to ask yourself is" Is there any "line" that should not be crossed. If there is, then you are simply a conservative who has a different breaking point than another conservative. If you think there is no line that can be corssed, than and only then are you a true liberal.
Most people have a line. The question is, where is yours in comparison. You really have no justification in putting down someone whose line is drawn at a differnt point than yours as it only makes you a hypocrit.
If we want our societal "line" to be drawn, then how should we decide as a society to HAVE it drawn? By judicial fiat? By popular vote? By legislative mandate? If there is an objective standard we should use that. If we cannot agree on the objective standard, then we have to follow some "process" for deciding. Should you force society to adopt YOUR "line"? How do YOU deal with those who think your line is too conservative?
I kinda rambled, but I think the point is made.
So liberals, are you TRUE liberals or conservatives with different "lines"?
Posted by: Eyago on January 18, 2006 12:35 AMTuesday, January, 2006
I support this important legislation. The extension of the
Anti-Discrimination Law to include gay and lesbian individuals is a crucial
step in our society's continuing efforts to make everyone equal under the
law.
Our state prides itself on its diversity. Amending the Washington State
Anti-Discrimination Law to include "sexual orientation" will set a positive
tone of tolerance throughout the state, from local neighborhoods to
out-of-state businesses, who understand the economic value of a diverse
community.
Seeing this legislation signed into law would be a victory for our state.
What encourages me even more is the increasingly bipartisan support and I
applaud the leadership that has made this progress possible. Discrimination
is an issue for us all and is best confronted together.
This reform is long overdue. For too long a group of our citizens has been
left without the legal protection we all deserve and expect. The result has
been a group relegated to second class status. That is unacceptable.
I support this legislation because it's time that everyone be treated
equally.
The truth is that this will drive business out of this state as it is another way for someone to sue them.
I myself am thinking of suing the company I work for if this bill passed. I just know the reason I didn't get the raise I asked for last month is because I am a bisexual (currently married and living in a monogamous relationship with a female).
Hopefully this all can be settled out of court and I can get at least half the money I am seeking. That would be far less expensive for them than seeing this thing to trial.
Posted by: Alex on January 18, 2006 07:23 AMAlex, your strategy is backwards and counterproductive, but whatever makes you happy. Don't expect the masses to follow along with you on your quest.
Posted by: Palouse on January 18, 2006 07:42 AMStop being a fool. You know what I'm talking about. If you think someone might be a bad tenant, or a deadbeat, you don't have to rent to them. You just can't discriminate based on race or religion, or national origin, that's all. Soon we will add sexual orientation to that.
I have been a landlord in Rainier Valley, and have had to make those decisions for myself.
Posted by: ivan on January 18, 2006 07:47 AMBut whatever, You can't stop "progress".
So just enjoy that water as you are being boiled alive. Think of it as a hottub.
Posted by: Alex on January 18, 2006 07:49 AMHe only had a mass murderer on his paid staff.
Posted by: Alex on January 18, 2006 07:50 AMYou go right on voting for your RINO after he voters to deny you your rights at the expense of others.
I will (unless a republican challenger comes into play which is doubtful) donate 500 Dollars to his Democratic Opponent and I will actively work for his defeat.
Perhaps we can't stop "progress" but at least I am going to make him pay for the part he has played in destroying America by destroying the only thing that really matters for him (him mantaining the power of his political office).
If I am going to get a legislator who is going to vote like a Democrat anyway, it might as well be a Democrat.
Posted by: Alex on January 18, 2006 07:58 AMYou go right on voting for your RINO after he voters to deny you your rights at the expense of giving special rights to others.
I will, on the other hand do whatever I can to make my RINO pay for the part he has played in destroying America
Posted by: Alex on January 18, 2006 08:00 AMDon't worry, Palouse's strategy of "losing slowly" by protecting RINOs ensures that such a backlash shall never occur.
So, hop on in. The water's fine (for boiling frogs alive).
Posted by: Alex on January 18, 2006 08:12 AM"Section 4: (3) "Employer" includes any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly, who employs eight or more persons and does not include any religious or sectarian organizations not organized for private profit."
Posted by: Darth Dogbert on January 18, 2006 11:06 AM1) What constitutes a homosexual? One encounter, two encounters, 5, 10?
2) How does one prove they are homosexual?
This is the same problem as homosexual marriage. Two heterosexual men can become legally married, live separately and carry on long term relations with women. All the while collecting the government benefits that accompany traditional marriage. They also would be protecting their assets from the women they live with.
They are trying to create a class of protected people who cannot be identified, then after they feel slighted, they can sue you, even though you didn't know they were homosexual.
The above link is to an article that sums this whole issue up. Creating special classes of people in the law is racism. Whether there are good intentions or not in trying to assuage past hatred toward gays, the fact remains that racism is not solved with more racism, especially when a new class will be created that allows for arbitrary membership.
The law should be changed to simply read that there should be no discrimination, period. There is no need to single out classes based on color, sex, sexual affiliation or any other class that one can observe or manufacture.
I'm well aware that "All men are created equal" is not a law. At least not in the sense you are inferring. However, the point of that declaration is that it is a metaphysical fact of human nature. In short, it's natural law. And that's why it is in the Declaration of Independence.
There is no need to legislate protections for individual classes when they are in fact, equal. Some will say that they are not equal, but this does not stand the test of time. Today's oppressed could easily be tomorrow's oppressor as history has shown us.
Gays want to create a special class for themselves that they can use to their advantage, and like all special classes, they know where to go to get the force needed to create their special class that would otherwise be considered institutional racism. The legislature can and will grant wishes to special classes, and that is the whole problem.
And it will be a big problem. Because once their is a special class for gays, what's to prevent anyone from declaring themselves gay for the benefits? You can bet that someone will "become" gay for the sake of suing an employer, etc. What are the courts going to do, put a camera in their bedroom? And this will open a new precedent for other dubious classes. What about Conservatives? What's to prevent a future Republican controlled legislature from passing a law giving special privledges to Conservatives who feel discriminated against by the large population of Democrats in the Puget Sound? I'm sure there are more than enough people who are afraid to share their political views while working at Costco or Starbucks for fear of reprisal.
Minimum wage expressly specifies the minimum value of an employee. The minimum wage law was said to protect the poor. Sound good, vote it in and steadily increase the minimum wage. Yet the very people the law proudly claimed to protect suffered the most from it as employers could no longer afford the minimum wage jobs that once were abundant and provided entry positions to teenagers.
The above is an example of pc logic. Imagine the consequences of creating yet another special class of people. Imagine Hutch going to court to defend his pulpit because he preached that a gay lifestyle is not a good lifestyle. This has occurred in Canada where ministers are prohibited from speaking negatively about the gay lifestyle. And it will occur here if the bill passes. So Hutch is merely attempting to protect his pulpit. Perhaps only after the Boy Scouts are tried for not accepting a gay leader will parents take an active role in denying respect for the gay life style. And clearly if one protected group, Mothers are pitted against another protected group, Gays, society will suffer battle wounds. It is impossible to imagine all the niches of one's life that will be impacted. Suffice to say that the consequences will change society as we know it. And in the final analysis, just as the minimum wage law supported by the good intentions of lawmakers, actually harmed the very people it sought to protect, the gay people may very well suffer the most harm and battle scars from this law because society seems to fashion a balance in spite of government intervention.
Posted by: snuffy on January 19, 2006 03:11 PMMinimum wage expressly specifies the minimum value of an employee. The minimum wage law was said to protect the poor. Sound good, vote it in and steadily increase the minimum wage. Yet the very people the law proudly claimed to protect suffered the most from it as employers could no longer afford the minimum wage jobs that once were abundant and provided entry positions to teenagers.
The above is an example of pc logic. Imagine the consequences of creating yet another special class of people. Imagine Hutch going to court to defend his pulpit because he preached that a gay lifestyle is not a good lifestyle. This has occurred in Canada where ministers are prohibited from speaking negatively about the gay lifestyle. And it will occur here if the bill passes. So Hutch is merely attempting to protect his pulpit. Perhaps only after the Boy Scouts are tried for not accepting a gay leader will parents take an active role in denying respect for the gay life style. And clearly if one protected group, Mothers are pitted against another protected group, Gays, society will suffer battle wounds. It is impossible to imagine all the niches of one's life that will be impacted. Suffice to say that the consequences will change society as we know it. And in the final analysis, just as the minimum wage law supported by the good intentions of lawmakers, actually harmed the very people it sought to protect, the gay people may very well suffer the most harm and battle scars from this law because society seems to fashion a balance in spite of government intervention.
Posted by: snuffy on January 19, 2006 03:11 PMIf you remember, in 2000, the US Supreme Court, in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, upheld the BSA's right to free assocation, allowing them to restrict gays from serving as scout masters, regardless of state non-discrimination laws.
Posted by: Darth Dogbert on January 19, 2006 04:39 PM