Today, I received yet another e-mail from Log Cabin, imploring me to write to my Member of Congress, telling “them to vote YES ” on on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). While I certainly agree with the spirit behind the legislation to protect workers from discrimination based on their (as Log Cabin’s release puts it) “sexual orientation or gender identity,” I oppose this legislation because it prevents private businesses from setting their own employment policies.
While Log Cabin and other gay groups have been pushing Congress to pass this intrusive law, limiting the freedom of private organizations, many private companies have already shown a willingness to ban discrimination in their own companies. According to a recent piece in the Advocate, 432 (or 92%) of Fortune 500 companies “include sexual orientation in their employment nondiscrimination policies.” That’s up from 323 (or 65%) just 4 years ago. And to think this happened during a time when there was a Republican in the White House and for most of that time, with Republican majorities in both House of Congress.
So, despite a government cool to state action on behalf of gays, the private sector continued to recognize the importance of attracting top-notch employees who happened to be gay or lesbian.
WIth more and more companies offering such protections, ENDA and similar legislation has become increasingly gratuitous. And conservatives, at least those who hold true to the principles articulated by Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, should be skeptical about any unnecessary legislation, especially when such laws increase the power of the state and limit the freedom of private organizations.
Instead of focusing on being liked by other gay organizations, it’s time that Log Cabin stand true to the principles of our party. They should instead focus on developing a legislative agenda based on those conservative and libertarian principles to confront problems we gay people face which the private sector cannot solve.
At the top of the agenda would be some kind of recognition of same-sex unions, with the priority being given to opening up immigration to partners from other lands and to allowing individuals to determine who can visit them in the hospital. And to repeal Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell and allow gay people to serve openly in the military.
Being conservatives, we understand that we may not be able to accomplish even that modest agenda in the near future, so would need to develop strategies to pass it incrementally, perhaps by starting with legislation that allows gay people to serve openly in non-combat roles in the military — while commissioning a study to determine the effect of open service on morale.*
Whatever the specifics of this agenda, it must have at its core not a commitment to the term of the gay left, “equality,” but focus on that idea which has inspired the founders of this great nation as well as the founders and great leaders of our own party, “freedom.”
So, I offer this challenge to Log Cabin–provide your conservative bona fides. Develop a freedom agenda for gay people. And thus you can both support the principles of our party — and promote a better society for gay Americans.
*****
*Yes, I know there have been several studies. And that’s one reason I favor this study. We know what the results will be, but perhaps if it’s promoted with greater fanfare, it might get more public attention than have previous studies.
UPDATE: On a similar note, Eric Scheie writes today about freedom:
What I have never been able to understand is how opposition to laws against something is seen as support for whatever conduct the law would prohibit. I try to be polite to people, but I oppose criminalizing rudeness. For example, I would oppose the criminalization of words I would never use. How does that mean I advocate using them? There’s a movement to criminalize the “n” word which I oppose. Does that mean I believe in what they call “license” to use the word? Not at all.
(Emphasis added.)
He adds:
My complaint is with a society that has become so paralyzed that individuals and businesses are increasingly unable take any individual initiative. It leads to grotesque big brotherism, and I think the rise of the nanny state is directly related to the mentality that only the government can prohibit anything.
It’s a good essay and I would love to excerpt more, but that might prevent you from reading the whole thing–something I highly recommend. Via Instapundit.
UP-UPDATE: Shortly after posting this piece, I e-mailed Log Cabin’s Patrick Sammon alerting him to this. He wrote back and with his permission I am posting his response which appears below the jump. I may (at a later date) respond to his comments in a separate e-mail.
We’re already advocating for and lobbying to advance the proposals you advocate.
1. We’ve supported the immigration reform proposal for several years. During comprehensive immigration reform debate, we thought it would be a good opportunity to move that forward, but we were told it would be a poison pill to social conservatives. Former Congressman Kolbe said the same thing (http://www.washblade.com/2006/7-7/news/national/bi.cfm). We remain committed to gaining Republican support for this legislation. This from our web-site: http://online.logcabin.org/issues/gay-and-lesbian-families-immigration-laws-need-reform-to-protect-gay-families.html Hopefully, there will be opportunities to gain some momentum on this legislation during the years ahead.
2. We’ve been very supportive of the Palm Center (formerly known as the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military http://www.palmcenter.org/ ). The center’s studies have under cut every rationale for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. That’s their mission—producing solid academically credible studies that examine the impact of DADT. We have used their studies in our conversations with Republicans on the hill. Here’s a link to one of the studies they did for us several years ago. http://libertyeducationforum.org/downloads/1h_dontaskwht5_3.pdf
We’ve also produced a video that we use in outreach to Republicans on this issue: http://www.logcabin.org/lef/LEF_Video_Corner_courage_under_fire.html
In recent years, we’ve debated the merits of pursuing an incremental strategy on DADT. After talking with lots of political strategists and experts on this issue, we didn’t believe this was the best way to end the policy. An incremental approach is often an effective vehicle for making progress on gay rights. In this case however, it would set back the long term goal of overturning this law. After Congress votes on ENDA, you’ll see DADT gain more prominence in our federal strategy and messaging, especially going into the election year.
3. Certainly there has been amazing progress with large corporations, but our nation’s history shows that there is sometimes an appropriate federal role on civil rights issues. So it is with ENDA. I respect the perspective of those who oppose the legislation; however we’re going to have to agree to disagree.
My concerns with ENDA (aside from the ones that you voice) are twofold:
1. The basis of Congress’ power to enact ENDA rests on the Commerce Clause and this is troubling in that this clause has been stretched to its extreme in order to enhance Congressional and federal power over the states. Although this clause has served as basis for important civil rights legislation, we should be mindful that the purpose of this clause (along with others) was to limit the extent of federal power. While we may all appreciate the idea of curbing discrimination, we should stay mindful of the power being used to do so. This issue, along with so many others (including some GLBT issues), should remain at the state level without federal involvement because the very power which is used today to give us rights may very well be the power that is used tomorrow to take them away.
2. What is exactly that we are accomplishing with ENDA? The end result of this legislation (most likely symbolic at best) is that private employers cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Maybe I am missing some fundamental understanding of our goals, but personally speaking I do believe that I would want to work for an employer who would not want to hire me without federal legislation forcing him to do so. Our biggest concern in the workplace seems to me to be an issue of not of non-employment but facing harassment in the workplace. This problem would seem better resolved by focusing on more inclusive state sexual harassment laws and civil claims for harassment than on federal legislation. Perhaps I am naive or maybe I’m missing something, but I do not think that just because ENDA is offering something to the GLBT community (something seemingly more symbolic than anything), it should automatically become one of our major goals.
GPW, nice to see you come out unequivocally for partner rights of some sort, and for equality of opportunity to serve in the military. (Though maybe those were always your positions, and I missed your most recent statement.)
I have a running, back-burner debate with a friend about the question you address above: namely, about measures such as ENDA and hate crimes laws. His position is, sure they are bad in principle, but they exist; why should gays be excluded? My position is, you can’t improve a bad law by further extending it to any group (or increasing its weight).
To your proposed libertarian-conservative “freedom agenda” for gays, I would want to add the following:
1) Low taxes
2) Restoring a truly free-enterprise medical system.
3) Social security privatization.
4) A vigorous, “forward” defense against Islamo-fascism – such as we are now doing, in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
All of which are gay issues. My number one gripe with LCR is they don’t push such principles; they don’t seem to have any interest in spreading libertarian-conservative principles among gays. I met someone from LCR recently, who (not knowing my inclinations or wishes) boasted to me at length how un-intellectual and a-political LCR was; “it’s just a social group”, he said with pleasure, or perhaps even pride.
I find your argument that workers should not be protected as a pile of crap. Just because fortune 500 companies are including non-discrimination policies doesn’t mean that all companies shouldn’t have to follow suit. I believe they should follow suit and offer such employees same sex domestic partner benefits….. What about liberty and justice for all? the pursuit of happiness? Workers rights are gay rights….. Just a thought.
All ENDA does is extend existing job protection based on race, marital status, et cetera to sexual orientation. I buy the argument that such legislation should be opposed because private companies should be able to make their own employment policies. However we need to be intellectually consistent. Either we apply the existing protections to sexual orientation or we remove all of the protections that area already on the books. Any conservative that is against ENDA on the basis that the government shouldn’t create special rights, but doesn’t support repealing existing protections for race, marital status, et cetera, is not being intellectually honest.
Interesting comment, Jules, you tell me my argument is a pile of crap and then offer a bunch of slogans.
Yeah, what about liberty for all, you ask. What about the liberty of a private company to hire whom it pleases. And that includes a gay bar choosing to hire only gay bartenders, a choice they would not be free to make should ENDA pass.
But will the GOP pay any attention at all to the Log Cabin Republicans? I thought Log Cabins influence is next to nil with the GOP.
But will the GOP pay any attention at all to the Log Cabin Republicans?
I don’t have any experience with LCR myself, but from my understanding, there doesn’t seem to be any reason why the GOP should.
Look, as a conservative Republican, it is time that those of us who are straight and/or gay and lesbian need to work on common goals and at this point, agree to disagree or have a middle ground on the contentious issues. Some things that you are talking about are being done as common sense. And, all I can tell you, if I am in need of a doctor, I don’t ask sexual orientation. Same for a policeman or fireman (I know, those are not PC terms, but remember, I am old school on language, not the meaning). Private enterprises will hire who they want and the larger ones find it in their interest to hire gays and lesbians. As far as same sex unions, many conservatives are willing to take a look at that as a starting point. I know I am. I admit, I just can not look at it as mariage. But, again, I think that there is middle ground. We just have to talk to each other. If we are conservative and Republican, then we more agree than disagree. As far as the LCR, they are the biggest squishes, no pun intended, in the GOP, right behind those Main Streeters and the Ripon Society.
Sorry, but I think that you call intrusive
hit say it by mistake….as I was writing, what is called intrusive here is simply extends the spirit of the 14th ammendment as well as things like the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Based upon your logic for not enacting ENDA, then it sounds as if it would be ok to pull back the 14th ammendment and TCRA. What’s wrong with government codification of the concept that businesses can’t deny employment or terminate eimployment based on a trait/attribute that has nothing to do with the skills and qualifications a person has for that job? In addition, unlike your reasoning for opposition to gay marriage rights, this is not being enacted by “activist judges” this is being voted on by our duly elected representative government. By the way, check out traditionalvalues.org. If there’s any reason to enact ENDA, their statements are incorrect and and dangerous – funnily enough, they don’t seem to have any comment on conservative Republicans who travel from FL to MI with the intent of having sex with a 5 year old child.
I think the whole notion of “private companies should be able to make their own employment policies” in tota can be dangerous. Does this mean you think it’s ok that they can discriminate based on gender, ethnicity, religion or other non-job related factors? From this point of view, then it would be ok for these companies to eventually say “we don’t hire blacks or jews.” Is that what we want to roll back to in this country?
Does this mean you think it’s ok that they can discriminate based on gender, ethnicity, religion or other non-job related factors?
“Non-job related factors”? So that means you oppose Affirmative Action, right? It hurt my feelings (and I still bear the scars) that I couldn’t get a job with Houston Fire Department because I am a white male. Also, I can’t get a job with the City of Lakeland because I’m a smoker.
Why is it acceptable to discriminate based on “non-job related factors” if I’m a white male who smokes, but not if I’m black or a Hispanic woman?
Don’t give me your altruistic BS. We constantly discriminate every day under the guise of “diversity”. Worse than that, liberals fight tooth and nail for it.
BTW, Kevin, I couldn’t help but notice that you ignored my pop quiz question.
Does the freedom of association even exist anymore?is simply extends the spirit of the 14th ammendment with all due respect, what the hell are you talking about? not only is the constitution a living breathing document that means whatever whoever is in power says it means, but now it has some ethereal spirit as well?
Do you have any clue what the constitution is? It is not a document that tells the people what they can and cannot do, it is not a document that tells business what is can and cannot do, it is a document BY the people that tells the government what it can and cannot do.
The 14th amendment does not say that people have an equal right to a job, the 14th amendment doesnt say that people have a right to be treated equally by other people. the 14th amendment says whatever the laws are, the government must apply them equally.
telling me who I can and cannot hire is an egregious violation of my right to choose who I want to associate with
Why is it the only choice liberals are interested in protecting the “choice” to kill a baby if its inconvenient, so you can have as much sex as you want without any responsibilty for your actions.
when it comes to choice of ideas, morals, speech, what you want to teach your children, who you want to associate with or pretty much any other free choice liberals are all for controlling it.
Congratulations, your view is shared by nazis, fascists, and communists throughout history.
quess which view has been more dangerous?
bah, screwed that up. it should read:
Does the freedom of association even exist anymore?
with all due respect, what the hell are you talking about? not only is the constitution a living breathing document that means whatever whoever is in power says it means, but now it has some ethereal spirit as well?
Do you have any clue what the constitution is? It is not a document that tells the people what they can and cannot do, it is not a document that tells business what is can and cannot do, it is a document BY the people that tells the government what it can and cannot do.
The 14th amendment does not say that people have an equal right to a job, the 14th amendment doesnt say that people have a right to be treated equally by other people. the 14th amendment says whatever the laws are, the government must apply them equally.
telling me who I can and cannot hire is an egregious violation of my right to choose who I want to associate with, a fundamental liberty of all people.
Why is it the only “choice” liberals are interested in protecting is the “choice” to kill a baby if its inconvenient, so they can have as much sex as they want without any responsibilty for their actions.
when it comes to choice of ideas, morals, speech, what you want to teach your children, who you want to associate with or pretty much any other free choice– liberals are all for controlling it.
Congratulations, your view is shared by nazis, fascists, and communists throughout history.
quess which view has been more dangerous?
Every now and then I run into a “flamer” in a place of business and it annoys me to no end. (By “flamer” I mean a gay or lesbian who is militant or “high” on his/her lifestyle.) Every business should have the right to set dress codes, keep religious zealotry out of the environment, set a standard for dealing politely with the public, etc. When a gay or lesbian flaunts or afflicts their lifestyle choices on the other employees or the public, the business should have every right to stop them or push them out the door.
I understand that this is a two-way street. A gay or lesbian who is meeting all the standards I have listed, should expect to be treated with the same grace and honesty as all the other employees.
Liberals always want to write a law and make the “perps” accountable to one of their caring, feeling activist judges without regard to their own hypocricy.
I get my hair cut in a salon that sometimes gets a bit rank. Because we know one another pretty well, I can ask them to tone it down until I leave. I really don’t care to know the details of sexual encounters. I know lots of people who will not go there. Everyone is making a market decision and it all sorts itself out in the profit or loss column. It is the owner’s choice to hire the stylists he prefers and it is the client’s choice to decide if they will come back. But I do not see imposing a rule on the man that owns the place which will require him to hire according to some political correctness plan.
Furthermore, Democrats like Bonnie Bleskachek have made it clear why they support ENDA — to prevent them from being fired because they abuse their positions to sexually harass their coworkers and subordinates — and other gays support them doing that.
Read the story linked at the top of that letter. Then realize that Bleskachek still works for the Minneapolis Fire Department — because Minnesota state law, virtually identical to the proposed Federal ENDA, allows her to sue and keep her job, regardless of what she did, because she’s a lesbian. They CAN’T fire her.
Dan:
I love your purity, but it’s entirely unrealistic to expect Log Cabin to put forth some massively unpopular notions about civil rights laws (namely, that we abandon them) in pursuit of some utopian (in your view) ideal of government.
LCR folks are living in the real world, where Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is deeply entrenched in the American mind as a symbol, at the very least, of our desire to level the playing field for all citizens. To expect them to say “thanks but no thanks” to ENDA is absurd.
Your politics, while consistent, are far, far outside the mainstream. That doesn’t make you wrong, but it does make it a fools errand to use this blog to try to change the mission of LCR.
Thanks for letting me vent.
[First thanks for the civil tone of your criticism. Change the mission of Log Cabin? I’m not sure what that mission is. Nor do I think its leaders have a clue unless it is that they want to put a Republican name on the agenda of the gay left groups. I disagree that I’m on a fool’s errand for I hope that gay Republicans could use their opposition to ENDA to show their support for conservative ideas and so remind the GOP of what it should stand for — Dan]
While I’m generally and progressive, libertarian-type Republican; I’m not sure I aggree with the broad-brush comment that private employers can hire as they please. Especially when many of those employers are actually publically-traded corporations operating across state-lines and National boundries. I’d like to see a national ENDA, although I would have no indeological problem with exempting small businesses that are alreadt exempt from compliance with EEOC and other similar programs. For most employees there is no “employer”; it’s a faceless bureaucracy of middle-managers freed from any accountability to either senior management or the corporations true owners, the stockholders. ENDA would eliminate some of the arbitrary-enforcement of some interchangeable middle-manager’s personal agenda, who probably wasn’t the one who hired you in the first place.
Businesses that operate under public charters do so for certain specific legal and financial protections extended by society, and for that they should be fairly burdened with higher standards of “equal protection ubder the law” than pure, free-market capitalism/entrepreneurship.
Based on your reasoning Mr. Patriot, all private companies should be able to hire and fire anyone for any reason. Therefore, here’s the scenario you’re in favor of. Religion isn’t a question that’s usually asked on the employment application. I mention casually that I don’t celebrate Christmas, I celebrate Chanukah. Not to stop people from having a Christmas party at work but to let people know who ask what I’m doing for Christmas. The CEO of the company is a member of the KKK who believes that Jewish people are the spawn of Satan. I get great job performance reviews up to that point. As soon as the CEO finds out I’m Jewish, I’m fired. Just for being Jewish. Or let’s take it even further. A hospital in the South refuses to treat someone who is black. They’re a private organization, should they be allowed to not treat whoever they want?
[No, I’m not in favor of such a scenario. In fact I find it appalling as I find it appalling for any private organization to fire someone because he’s gay. But, I give the example of the increasing number of private companies enacting non-discimination policies to show how free markets work. A CEO who fired people who did a great job because he didn’t like their religion or the way they walked or whatever would find his company rapidly detiorating as it lost quality personnel. So, read the post before you criticize it. I think discrimination based on religion or sexuality (or any other quality not related to the job in question) is wrong. I just don’t think it’s the government’s job to regulate it. –GPW]
#20, I’d rather have a situation where yes, Jerky bosses fire people for reasons of bigotry or racism. Right now what you have is bosses being unwilling to hire certain people, because they know they’ll never be able to fire them – so why even open that can of worms.
What you seem to ignore is that many large corporations now have domestic partner on their books. They don’t ask for much proof for you to put such a person on the company health plan, or other benefit plans. None of these companies are doing this because the government told them to. It is simple good business practice. You will attract the best employees if you offer good conditions and benefits.
On the other hand, why should a small landscaping business, or mom and pop store be forced to hire someone they feel very uncomfortable being around? We all have our preferences of the company we keep, why should the government get involved.
Sure, I’d love to see the whole discrimination clause thrown out all together, that won’t happen any time soon, but the more ‘protected groups’ that keep being added, just dilute the issue.
Also, should a gay employer be forced to hire a raging homophobe?
I can not wrap my arms around this idea that discrimination is always and forever a negative thing.
#22 Attmay puts the question perfectly: “Also, should a gay employer be forced to hire a raging homophobe?” And I will add: “Should any employer be forced to hire anyone who is bad for business?”
I find homophobes who spit their philosophy to be a negative force within the workplace. When making widgets, personal bias unconnected with widget making is not good for widget making in general. My widget empire suffers and that affects my bottom line. I realize that does not address the bias problem, but it sure as heck addresses why I am in the widget business. Take your meddling social engineering hands and stuff them where the sun don’t shine. If lesbians make widgets better than anyone, I am going to hire lesbians. If lesbians offend widget buyers, I will leave that fact out of my advertising. If I face a lesbian revolt and take-over, I will find the second best group of widget makers or I will go offshore where lesbians are gald for the work and not inclined to go ballistic over politics. General Bullmoose has spoken!
Barry Goldwater allegedly supported the 2000 version of this proposed legislation. I say allegedly because the only source I could find online was this letter to the editor, but a couple of the quotes attributed to Goldwater are interesting and seem to jive with other statements of tolerance he is known to have made about gays:
As long as there are adequate protections for religious groups, I don’t have a problem with ENDA and can agree with these statements whether Goldwater made them or not.
You know, since Glodwater died in 1998 it would be mighty interesting if he was giving support to ENDA or anything else in 2000. Then again, this article didn’t state that Goldwater supported the 2000 version. I think I saw this elsewhere while a-Googlin’, but can’t remember where so scratch that part of my last post.
Based on your reasoning Mr. Patriot, all private companies should be able to hire and fire anyone for any reason.
“HA HA!! Right to Work state.”
I still want to know why folks piss and moan about discrimination, but support Affirmative Action.
I don’t think people should be fired OR hired based on quotas, sexual preference, religion, race or even for a reason that an old employer wouldn’t hire people: he refused to hire people who had families because he didn’t want extra people on the health insurance.
Why can’t we just get the job or get the promotion or keep the job based on our job performance?
You know that’s not always the case. People rarely use performance and sometimes even get irritated when they’re forced to keep someone who does a great job. People aren’t hired because they have an Arabic last name and the owner of the company believes all Arabs are terrorists. Or they’re fired because of petty reasons, like you refuse to work for hours you’re not paid for and you’re not salaried so they force you to punch out then go back to work so it doesn’t show. Or you’re hired because the head of Human Resources loves blondes, not because of your qualifications. Or you get the promotion because you happen to be Asian and on and on….
# 27 jaded and cynical asks: “Why can’t we just get the job or get the promotion or keep the job based on our job performance?”
Why not? But what if you feel like you didn’t get the job because you are blonde or something? Do you think there should be a government agency to run to for resolution? Do you really want to work someplace that doesn’t want you around?
#28
In this case, it’s not resolution, it’s forcing others to hire you.
Freedom is irrelevant. Self determination is irrelevant. You must comply.
GPW. good article however there is an item that I would like to discuss. You complained that “individuals could not determine who could visit them in the hospital”. Recently I was in the large Rose Memorial Hospital in Denver. None of my family could be with me but my gay friend was with me all the time. My daughter came after I was in the recovery room and she and my friend stayed with me until I could leave. No one asked him to leave. Infact they made him feel welcome.
I also visited my friend in Denver’s Swedish Hospital day and night where I was made welcome. Also my daughter spend all night with me here in the hospital in the Bay area. The way that you conduct yourself in the hospital determines if you are allowed to stay. Don’t do anything that will arouse or excite your friend. When one gets my age, you do see the inside of many hospitals, either you are there yourself or you are visiting friends or relatives. There was a time when visitors could come and stay only the 2 hours visiting period but no more.
John W
Why can’t we just get the job or get the promotion or keep the job based on our job performance?
Fine.
Go fire Bonnie Bleskachek for sexual harassment and rampant discrimination on the basis of gender and sexual orientation.
Oh, that’s right; thanks to Minnesota’s state ENDA law, you can’t — because she’s a lesbian.
This reminds me of a lesson I learned from the shipping tycoon Cornelius Vanderbilt who had his company sold from under him by his attorneys.
Paraphrase: I can not fight you in court because it is so time consuming. The only alternative I have is to compete against you!
He did and eventually bought out the very company he founded for much less than what the new owners paid for.
It doesn’t matter to me one way of the other if the act passes. Regardless of the law, business operates under its own set natural rules. Almost consistently, the most successful CEO’s and entrepreneurs are very diplomatic and tolerant people!
Good posting. I don’t find it suprising at all that more & more businesses (92% – wow, I didn’t think it was THAT high) are putting non-discrimination clauses as part of their policies. It just makes good business sense. I’ve had protection since 1994, 11 years before Maine enacted its gay rights law (before people rant & rave about activist judges & letting the people vote & blah blah blah – the people of Maine DID vote to affirm the civil rights law 55% – 45%. Thank you very much).
It is a difficult subject to consider. We have (unfortunately) gone from a right to be offencive to a right to be defensive. Yes, if a business goes ahead and discriminates against lesbians, jews, white males, etc. they’ll lose the best and the brightest of those groups. You can be 6′ 4″ hairier than an ape, and wear a summer dress, but unless you’re damn good at what you do, don’t expect to work much.
At the same time, such discrimination rules can cause havoc. My company allows religious Icons, as long as they’re not huge or bulky or offencive. (No scene of the crucifixition on my desk dripping blood). They don’t allow weapons in the workplace. Both are perfectly good rules for a company to set. It’s their company after all. But what if I’m a Sikh, or a Wiccan? In both cases my religion then would have blades as religious icons. (I’d threatened to declare my faith as ‘Knight Templar’ and wear a broadsword on my hip).
I gues my long rambling point is, I don’t think the Governemnt has any business telling a private corporation who they can or cannot discriminate against. I just don’t know how it would work out of theory.
I thought the Lace Curtain Republicans provided tasteful designer sheets for the KKK
As a GWM: joining LCR makes about as much sense as Mrs Barbara Bush joining Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
#35 james,
You are so cute when you drool. How clever is it to call Barbara Bush the mother of a drunk driver? Did you have a mother? Anything we might pin on her? Perhaps she passed up the chance for an abortion? O-o-o-o-h, that is nasty. OK. Maybe she should have taken a vow of chastity. Did she have any children that lived? (rim-shot-boo! That is s-o-o-o-o old!) Is it true your brother was an only child? Which is worse, the halo blocking your view, or your aura blinding you? If you are not a waterhead why can you carry six liter bottles in your hat? I could go on, but kindergarten stuff makes me tired.
LOL…and what makes it even funnier, Heliotrope, is that Democrat gays like James and his organizations like HRC openly give money and endorsements to FMA supporters.
FORGET the ‘Log Cabin Republicans’. What’s needed is a non-partisan, GENERAL ‘cultural libertarian’ organization called (my brainchild, and not yet existent) M.A.L.T.A., or [The] Middle American Lifestyle Tolerance Alliance. I think the name says it all: We’re basically ‘middle American’ in every other way, but not a bunch of prohibition zealots whether we’re talking gay rights, marijuana (not JUST medical, either), ‘rational’ abortion laws (e.g. late term-ers need “a good reason”, and if just for ‘the hell of it’, you’d BETTER get it done early), adult pornography (the Larry Flynt brouhaha could re-surface in another incarnation), etc. To me it’s all the same fight. E.g. a militant pro-gay rights activist who has Sgt. Joe Friday’s attitude on pot IS a kind of “hypocrite” in my book! – Bernie Continelli; barharbor04@yahoo.com