Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOklahoma Lawmaker Wants Anti-Gay Businesses to Post “No Gays Allowed” Signs. Excellent!
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/03/13/oklahoma_legislator_wants_anti_gay_businesses_to_post_no_gays_allowed_signs.htmlWhen not debating whether to outlaw hoodies or protect parents decision to force their children into ex-gay conversion therapy, the severely conservative Oklahoma legislature has spent much of this session debating an anti-gay religious liberty bill. The measure would allow both private businesses and government entities to refuse service to gay people based on their religious beliefs. Although the proposed legislation is similar to the Arizona bill that Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed last year, it actually goes much further, explicitly permitting anybodyfrom a hotel owner to a DMV employee to a social workerto turn away gay people if their religious beliefs require it.
Now a legislator has introduced a brilliant amendment to the House version of bill, which, in taking the measure to its logical conclusion, explosively reveals the animus underlying it. The lawmaker, Democratic state Rep. Emily Virgin, fiercely opposes the religious liberty bill. But if it does pass, Virgin wants to ensure that gay couples know which businesses and government agencies will refuse them service so they can avoid the indignity of being turned away based on their identity. So Virgins amendment requires that any person who despises gay people too much to serve them must simply post notice of such refusal in a manner clearly visible to the public in all places of business, including websites. The amendment would promulgate the same notice requirement for businesses that refuse to service based on race or gender identity.
The Oklahoma ACLU has already praised Virgins amendment for pointedly expos[ing] the absurdity of creating a new era of legalized segregation and forcing businesses to own their bias, and post it publicly for the world to see. And that is, of course, the primary goal of the amendment. If the religious liberty bill passes, every worker in the state of Oklahoma will have a private right to turn gays away at the door, potentially a modern system of segregation. At the very least, gay people should be able to know which businesses will spurn them so theyand possibly their childrenneed not face the humiliation that comes with such discrimination. (Their straight allies, meanwhile, can easily learn which businesses to boycott.)
But on another level, Virgins amendment simply makes good practical sense. A year ago, the New York Times Ross Douthat praised these kinds of faux-religious liberty bills as a compromise by the homophobic right, a key term of their surrender. If gay people accept Douthats compromise, shouldnt we least be permitted to know which businesses are safe for us to enter and which will kick us out? Shouldnt both sides of this debate be cheering Virgins amendment as an eminently sensible trade-off? Why, in other words, would anybody object to it?
Now a legislator has introduced a brilliant amendment to the House version of bill, which, in taking the measure to its logical conclusion, explosively reveals the animus underlying it. The lawmaker, Democratic state Rep. Emily Virgin, fiercely opposes the religious liberty bill. But if it does pass, Virgin wants to ensure that gay couples know which businesses and government agencies will refuse them service so they can avoid the indignity of being turned away based on their identity. So Virgins amendment requires that any person who despises gay people too much to serve them must simply post notice of such refusal in a manner clearly visible to the public in all places of business, including websites. The amendment would promulgate the same notice requirement for businesses that refuse to service based on race or gender identity.
The Oklahoma ACLU has already praised Virgins amendment for pointedly expos[ing] the absurdity of creating a new era of legalized segregation and forcing businesses to own their bias, and post it publicly for the world to see. And that is, of course, the primary goal of the amendment. If the religious liberty bill passes, every worker in the state of Oklahoma will have a private right to turn gays away at the door, potentially a modern system of segregation. At the very least, gay people should be able to know which businesses will spurn them so theyand possibly their childrenneed not face the humiliation that comes with such discrimination. (Their straight allies, meanwhile, can easily learn which businesses to boycott.)
But on another level, Virgins amendment simply makes good practical sense. A year ago, the New York Times Ross Douthat praised these kinds of faux-religious liberty bills as a compromise by the homophobic right, a key term of their surrender. If gay people accept Douthats compromise, shouldnt we least be permitted to know which businesses are safe for us to enter and which will kick us out? Shouldnt both sides of this debate be cheering Virgins amendment as an eminently sensible trade-off? Why, in other words, would anybody object to it?
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
1 replies, 561 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (4)
ReplyReply to this post
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Oklahoma Lawmaker Wants Anti-Gay Businesses to Post “No Gays Allowed” Signs. Excellent! (Original Post)
KamaAina
Mar 2015
OP
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)1. She killed the bill.. the repubs ditched it