That would be Phil Jensen, a member of the South Dakota Senate. He has introduced legislation allowing for explicit discrimination against gay people and he thinks that it should also be legal to openly discriminate against people based on race, sex, ethnicity and/or religion. He also thinks that anyone who receives government subsidies should be drug-tested, except for farmers.
It may not be as insidious as it sounds, for he appears to be one of those die-hard libertarians who truly believes that if a business were to refuse to serve Black folks, that all of the good people would then not patronize that business.
Right. And his front lawn gets fertilized by unicorn poop.
So Jensen will introduce his Bill to Legalize Discrimination. It will, of course, go nowhere. But what it will do is be used to show people of color and LGBT people that the GOP hates them and that there is no home for them in the GOP. Sure, you might be a wealthy biracial dyke who is to the right of Romney, but why would you support a party that seems to want to adopt white sheets as formal wear?
That's how clowns like Jensen are going to lose the GOP a lot of elections. (Or they would if the tribe of fearful electoral surrender monkeys in the Democrats weren't so influential.)
(H/T)
Gee, We Wonder Why She Has Social Anxiety?
12 minutes ago
9 comments:
Well, yeah, EXCEPT...
In your so wonderful free and equal republic, you CANNOT refuse to do anything a homosexual wants, no refusal to bake a cake, take wedding photos, rent out YOUR OWN premises or you can expect shrill wails followed by lawsuits and handwringing by all the usual suspects. If the good Senator got his way, people would again have freedom of association, property rights and the ability to live their own lives by whatever criteria they saw fit to use. The equal treatment of people is fine, up until the point where you discover that 'all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others' definitely does NOT apply to you, you horrid white girl-liking male.
If your business serves the PUBLIC, then suck it up. If you cannot deal with the reality that the public means "anyone with ready cash", then go find another line of work.
Wow, I didn't know it was Troll season alreadY? It comes earlier every year it seems.
w3ski
w3ski;
Well, I guess if 'Troll' translates in your feeble little mind to 'someone who dares disagree with me' I note there is no counter argument, who's the troll now?
Misfit;
It seems to me that dealing with 'anyone with ready cash' is fine and dandy, up until that is enforced at the point of a gun.
Let's try a less contentious example:
I own a woolly hat factory, you want to buy a hat, but I discover you wear green socks on Thursdays and I really can't be doing with that, so I refuse to sell you a hat. In my world, you go elsewhere, I lose a sale, but don't have to deal with your feet so am happy. You have your hat, I have my principles, such as they are, intact. To my mind, we both win. Do you prefer that I be compelled to sell you a hat by force under colour of law? How is that any form of equal treatment?
I realise we may well not agree on this one, but rest assured I will not be sending any cheap lawyers round to insist! : )
subsidies, now would that mean that owners of student loans would have to be drug tested also ??????
Really. Offending one's sartorial sense is now the equivalent of discrimination based on race, creed, sex, religion or national orientation?
When one considers the sordid history of this country regarding discrimination,I am constantly amazed and somewhat saddened by the number of people who continue to stand up for the right to practice acts of discrimination.
I just wish Ted Turner would hurry up and finish buying up S Dakota so he can turn the whole damn thing back to the buffalo (which would also raise the IQ of the state).
Unfortunately, this isn't about socks and green hats. It's about whether a traveler on the road can get into a hotel for a night's sleep because of his race/religion/color/sexual orientation/height/weight/whatever.
It's whether a hungry person who has the price can go into a restaurant and buy a meal.
It's about civil society vs. uncivil (and uncivilized) society. Biker, I'd gladly refuse to serve you, but I'm not permitted to. Be kind enough to extend the same privilege to the rest of civilized humanity.
Yours with extreme crankiness,
The New York Crank
Anti-discrimination laws don't happen until they are either no longer or barely needed.
Gay couples will be able to get a wedding cake at 98% of the places straight couples can, and that's good enough. I'd rather know the places that want to discriminate based on those things--I don't want any of my money going to some asshole who only serves gays or blacks because the law forces him. I certainly don't want to eat food that a bigot was forced to cook for his hated group.
There's also a huge difference between a wedding cake or photography that's generally planned well in advance and a meal or motel room on the road.
Post a Comment