Gay Patriot Header Image

Well, in recent days, Log Cabin had started sounding like Republicans

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 1:43 pm - March 30, 2011.
Filed under: Freedom,Gay PC Silliness,Log Cabin Republicans

In the past few months since R. Clarke Cooper took over at Log Cabin Executive Director of Log Cabin, the group actually started sounding like Republicans, standing up for fiscal responsibility and clarity in world affairs.  Cooper did something that two of his predecessors seemed reluctant to do, criticize Democrats.  He didn’t seem as eager as they to curry favor with the gay left.

But, now Log Cabin has joined the unhappy Barney Frank in signing on to a big-government piece of legislation at odds the conservative idea of freedom.  Today, the ostensibly Republican outfit issued a release calling “for the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)“:

“Americans know that advancing employees by merit is what wins for business. Passing ENDA will take discrimination off the table, and ensure that the best of the best are hired, promoted and retained in their jobs.  . . . Discrimination should have no place in our workforce, and where it exists, it undermines American productivity, innovation, and our ability to compete,” said R. Clarke Cooper, Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director.”

Now, I agree that private employers should not discriminate against gay people, but it is not the government’s business to tell them as much.  Yes, indeed, Americans know that advancing employees by merit is what “wins” for business.  And that is why most employers don’t discriminate against gay people.  Once again, government shouldn’t be telling entrepreneurs how to run their enterprises.

They don’t need a nanny state to tell them as much. If a company discriminates against quality gay people, it will suffer in the marketplace, with a lower caliber of worker and a reduced efficiency of operation.

Alas that Log Cabin cannot put forward a conservative position on gay issues and still feels instead it just has to join the gay groups in looking for solutions to the perceived problems in our community.  With increasing social acceptance of gay people, with more and more corporations adopting non-discrimination policies and offering domestic partnership benefits, ENDA is a solution in search of a problem.  And conservatives would do well to oppose it.

ASSIGNMENT (to help our critics understand what freedom means): Could California Gay Bar Be Required to Serve Man Wearing “I Hate Fags” T-shirt?

Share

27 Comments

  1. Cooper did something that two of his predecessors seemed wont to do, criticize Democrats.

    Dan, editing – either you meant “seemed won’t do”, or you meant “seemed wont NOT to do”.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 30, 2011 @ 2:12 pm - March 30, 2011

  2. Thanks, ILC, fixed. Meant “reluctant.” Don’t think I had enough coffee this morning!

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 30, 2011 @ 2:16 pm - March 30, 2011

  3. Americans know that advancing employees by merit is what wins for business.

    So Affirmative Action is dead?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 30, 2011 @ 2:43 pm - March 30, 2011

  4. >>>Now, I agree that private employers should not discriminate against gay people, but it is not the government’s business to tell them as much.

    Fine. Then let the government get out of the business of protecting all other minorities, including the anti-gay religious nutters who join you cons in opposing this law. But then YOUR allies are frequently the enemies of equality for the rest of us gay folk – the ones who do the actual work.

    >>>Once again, government shouldn’t be telling entrepreneurs how to run their enterprises.

    Then the government should also not bail them out or let them get by without paying their taxes. In fact, the government should stop corporate welfare incentives altogether.

    Comment by Auntie Dogma — March 30, 2011 @ 2:55 pm - March 30, 2011

  5. Miss Dogma, if you understood the ideas I have put forward on this blog, you would know that, on these issues, I agree with you, save for your angry attacks on those you dub the “enemies of equality.”

    And who cares of their “enemies of equality” as long as they aren’t trying to deprive us of our liberty because “equality” in its current connotations means a leveling sanctioned by the state, an expansion of government power not a reduction of privileges protected by antiquated policies (as it meant in the Founding Era).

    Recall, GE is Obama’s favorite company.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 30, 2011 @ 3:08 pm - March 30, 2011

  6. Do they have reverse ENDA for heterosexuals where social liberal cronyism runs rampant within the public and private sectors? I love the hypocrisy of homosexuals/bisexuals when they address merit within the workplace.

    Comment by RJLigier — March 30, 2011 @ 3:18 pm - March 30, 2011

  7. Then let the government get out of the business of protecting all other minorities, including the anti-gay religious nutters who join you cons in opposing this law.

    I have no problem with that at all.

    The funny part is, Auntie Dogma, you and yours then shriek that doing so means that you hate black people or you hate Muslims.

    So which is it? If you oppose nondiscrimination laws, you supposedly hate the people involved. Since you oppose laws banning discrimination based on race and religious belief, you thus hate black people and Muslims.

    And this one was a classic.

    Then the government should also not bail them out or let them get by without paying their taxes. In fact, the government should stop corporate welfare incentives altogether.

    So then why do you and your Barack Obama support and endorse GE not paying any taxes and massive “corporate welfare” going to Obama donors?

    You don’t have an answer, Dogma. And you’re going to get hammered with this post from here on out until you provide one.

    By the way, do you know why you’re discriminated against, Dogma? Because you’re a hypocrite and a liar.

    And since you claim your sexual orientation makes you a hypocrite and a liar, businesses have every right to discriminate against gays and lesbians, because liberal gays and lesbians like you acknowledge that every gay person is a hypocrite and a liar.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 30, 2011 @ 3:26 pm - March 30, 2011

  8. In 1996 the Supreme Court held that laws such as ENDA do create “special rights.” The court stated that basic non discrimination laws simply enumerating rights we all have but that some groups are systematically denied. A simple restatement of these rights for those groups that should have access but are denied is not inappropriate…….Now Affirmative Action…..that is inappropriate.

    In my view there is nothing wrong with Clark’s position on this matter. I just wish that someone with more integrity than Barney Frank was trying to run this. He is an embarrassment to us all.

    Comment by James Humphreys — March 30, 2011 @ 4:15 pm - March 30, 2011

  9. James, did you read the post?

    Where do you come from with this notion of “special rights.” The issue here is freedom. The legislation is not about a restatement of “rights” but an imposition of an obligation on employers.

    Indeed, if anything the bill denies employers the right to set their own policies, so if ENDA is about rights, it is about their denial.

    Freedom means freedom — for individuals and employers.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 30, 2011 @ 4:25 pm - March 30, 2011

  10. “They don’t need a nanny state to tell them as much. If a company discriminates against quality gay people, it will suffer in the marketplace, with a lower caliber of worker and a reduced efficiency of operation.”

    Unfortunately, when the majority of society finds it acceptable to discriminate then a business that discriminates will not suffer in the marketplace. Ask any African American you lived through the Jim Crow laws in the South if the businesses that discriminated against them suffered in the marketplace.

    Comment by Vast Variety — March 30, 2011 @ 5:54 pm - March 30, 2011

  11. the ones who do the actual work.

    I detect a Maynard G. Krebs screech there.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 30, 2011 @ 7:15 pm - March 30, 2011

  12. Um, Vast, don’t you know that Jim Crow laws are at odds with a free marketplace as they mandate private employers to discriminate, thus such legislation has more in common with ENDA than does opposition to it. Both types of laws deprive entrepreneurs from establishing their employment policies. More on this anon.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 30, 2011 @ 8:44 pm - March 30, 2011

  13. [...] commenting on my piece chiding Log Cabin for backing the Employment Non Discrimination ACT (ENDA), Vast Variety did just that: Unfortunately, when the majority of society finds it acceptable to discriminate then a business [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Inapposite comparison of a world without ENDA to a world with Jim Crow — March 31, 2011 @ 1:18 am - March 31, 2011

  14. …. when the majority of society finds it acceptable to discriminate then a business that discriminates will not suffer in the marketplace.

    Discrimination is both positive and negative. We discriminate (against?) or (for?) using children as workers. We discriminate (against?) or (for?) peonage?

    A highly efficient fat slob with grilled onions in his beard and jelly on his shirt at the receptionist’s desk of a major PR firms is proof positive that “discrimination” is not at play. Right?

    You go to a gay bar and every other seat and stool is reserved for a non-gay and the bar-tender is a fundamentalist preacher moonlighting. And the bouncer is a gay-basher who keeps the seating protocols in order. OK?

    The vast majority of us oppose child molesters running day care centers. (Read the news.) Liberals are hot after obesity, trans-fats, incandescent light bulbs, gas gulping cars and a host of other things. Are they, (gasp) discriminating against large people who drive Hummers and eat at McDonald’s and light their homes with incandescent lamps?

    So, at the core of this “debate” is a basic question: are gays normal? Can gays interact without being “gay” and get the job done? Or, do gays insist upon being a third classification (male, female, gay) and honored as such?

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 31, 2011 @ 3:26 pm - March 31, 2011

  15. (Private employers) don’t need a nanny state to tell them as much. If a company discriminates against quality gay people, it will suffer in the marketplace, with a lower caliber of worker and a reduced efficiency of operation.

    Really? You have documentation or proof this would happen, or is this simply conservative apologist conventional wisdom? You make it sound like a business can’t find quality straight people to replace quality gays. The reality is this would simply be another tool for bigots to hire or fire people based on sexual orientation. It continues to force homosexuals to hide their sexuality, something I thought a supposedly open homosexual would have difficulties with, for fear of ignorant retribution.

    Whatever. If you feel institutionalized bigotry and discrimination is fine for private business, then go embrace your inner Ayn Rand and have a nut. What the heck, let’s just drop ALL anti-discrimination measures, because surely the free market will compensate (hell, it worked for thousands of years prior to the Civil Rights Act, didn’t it?).

    Comment by Sir Craig — April 2, 2011 @ 7:43 pm - April 2, 2011

  16. You don’t have a right to piss in the street either because that too is offensive to society. Congratulations on taking your parody to a new pitch though: a gay man arguing that he should have the right to discriminate against gays in the workplace is a stroke of genius.

    Comment by Dr Zen — April 2, 2011 @ 8:10 pm - April 2, 2011

  17. You don’t have a right to piss in the street either because that too is offensive to society. Congratulations on taking your parody to a new pitch though: a gay man arguing that he should have the right to discriminate against gays in the workplace is a stroke of genius. Imagine, were you in the position to hire and fire, you could sack yourself. What fun!

    Comment by Dr Zen — April 2, 2011 @ 8:11 pm - April 2, 2011

  18. Oh, and, Sir Craig, documentation? Hmmmmm. . . . . well, I guess you could call all those corporations adopting non-discrimination policies and offering domestic partnership benefits “documentation.”

    And the number keeps increasing, even went up in the Bush Era (by leaps and bounds).

    And, Dr. Zen, if you’re going to reply to my post– at least get my point. Do you understand what freedom is?

    Wonder why it is that folk like you comment to our posts without even making the pretense of understanding our arguments.

    (Please start by tackling the assigned reading linked at the foot of the post. Thanks!)

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 2, 2011 @ 10:10 pm - April 2, 2011

  19. The free market is not self-regulating. It has never been self-regulated. It never will be self-regulating. You are making excuses for bigots despite being AN OBJECT OF THEIR BIGOTRY. You are a purestrain useful idiot. Please die.

    Comment by Jack Elam — April 4, 2011 @ 1:43 pm - April 4, 2011

  20. Mr. Blatt: you don’t know what you are talking about. You don’t seem to realize that people are fired simply for being gay. Would you agree that there should be no laws protecting racial minorities from racists either?

    This gay conservative movement seems, to me, the equivalent of “Jews for Hitler.” Not merely misguided, but actively harmful.

    Comment by John — April 5, 2011 @ 9:16 am - April 5, 2011

  21. I was closeted for the majority of my life, and I had it pretty good materially: respected job, big house in the country, wife & kids… But I was miserable. Finally I found the courage to come out – and as a result I lost everything. The courts used my orientation against me and I was fired from my job because of it. When you say that ENDA isn’t necessary, you’re as good as saying that it’s more important to be wealthy than happy and that I should have just stayed in the closet.
    I wonder if you’d feel the same if you lost everything the way I did.

    Comment by Bigg — April 5, 2011 @ 9:27 am - April 5, 2011

  22. Bigg, trying to parse your logic here. Could you please show me how I am saying that it is more important to be wealthy than happy. I mean, if you actually read my posts, including some of my recent ones, you’d know I said no such thing. But, then something tells me you’re not really interested in my arguments.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 5, 2011 @ 12:18 pm - April 5, 2011

  23. Have you noticed how all the “gay conservatives” who oppose ENDA live in places with state-level protections?

    Comment by BobN — April 5, 2011 @ 4:44 pm - April 5, 2011

  24. I thought it was pretty clear, but let me restate. I lost everything: bank account, childhood home, vehicle – if it weren’t for some good friends I’d be homeless today, straight out of a job that would never have made me rich but at least paid the bills. You’re saying that the human cost – the cost that I paid – doesn’t matter, because the free market will somehow magically keep it from happening to people in the future – and if it doesn’t, it’s still better that 1% of people be able to get rich than ensuring protection against the kind of thing that happened to me. Because what happened to me can happen to ANYONE until ENDA’s a reality.

    Comment by Bigg — April 6, 2011 @ 4:19 pm - April 6, 2011

  25. “Yes, indeed, Americans know that advancing employees by merit is what “wins” for business. And that is why most employers don’t discriminate against gay people. Once again, government shouldn’t be telling entrepreneurs how to run their enterprises.”

    This how it SHOULD work. Business owners, hiring managers, department heads, etc. should rationally hire and promote based solely on merit.

    But many, many of them do not. Many of them are Christian fundamentalists who would rather hire an incompetent, under-skilled straight person over a gay person. Many just think gay people are “icky” and don’t want to be near them. Some of them think it’s totally rational to discriminate against “inferior races” or that gay people are morally inferior and therefore, rationally, they should never be hired.

    That ok with you? That seem like freedom to you?

    Sometimes, other forces besides the “rationality of the market” need to ensure rationality ACTUALLY EXISTS in the system.

    Comment by JohnL — April 12, 2011 @ 7:19 pm - April 12, 2011

  26. John, do you even understand my argument — or acknowledge the evidence I provided in my various posts on the matter of how private corporations are increasingly adopting non-discrimination policies of their own accord.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 12, 2011 @ 7:29 pm - April 12, 2011

  27. John, do you even understand my argument — or acknowledge the evidence I provided in my various posts on the matter of how private corporations are increasingly adopting non-discrimination policies of their own accord.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 12, 2011 @ 7:29 pm - April 12, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.