Did I say you legally can be fired in 29 states in America due to your race or religion? Dang. I meant sexual orientation. You can be fired because you are gay, no matter how well you are doing your job, in 29 states. In America. While Obama is president and head of the Democratic party, which claims to support gay equality. Even though it did not pass ENDA, the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, which would protect gays from job discrimination, or repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, when Democrats controlled Congress and the White House from 2009 to 2011.
In fact, in September 2009, at the height of their powers, Democrats showed their true colors on gay equality and told gays that they would definitely repeal DOMA and pass all the laws needed to ensure gay equality as soon as hell froze over, but not a minute before. (Democrats do not deserve any credit for the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” because they didn’t do it until it was clear that the Log Cabin Republicans were about to prevail in their lawsuit to overturn the policy.)
And now, true to their word, Democrats are resisting including a plank in the party platform giving unequivocal support just for marriage equality, never mind protection from job discrimination.
Obama’s status of “evolving” on gay marriage took a baby step this week when he was cornered into releasing a statement through a surrogate that he “does not support” — which isn’t quite the same as opposing, is it? — a North Carolina referendum that would “make marriage between a man and a woman the only marriage the state would recognize.” The referendum will be voted on in North Carolina’s May 8 primary ballot.
Come November, Washington state, Minnesota, Maryland and Maine will have referendums on marriage equality on their ballots, so it will be instructive to see how far leftist gays will push Obama and the Democrats to deliver on their promises of support for gay equality. One of the most powerful strategies they could use to succeed in this is to start making a big show of willingness to hear lesbian and gay conservatives explain what fiscal conservatism has to offer the gay community. Show them that gays DO have options. Dear Human Rights Campaign, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, GLAAD and PFLAG: it’s called leverage, and I’m ready when you are.
I’m one of those eeeeevvvvilll conservative libertarians who thinks the govt has no place in dictating hiring policies in private businesses.
But that also applies to race, gender, looks, disabilities etc. And I also think the same about “hate crimes”.
What bothers me is that almost no one in politics is consistent on this. The Republican and socon “leadership” – and I really do use the term loosely – are only against these laws as long as they pertain to LGBTs. They still don’t have the plums to take on the blacks.
That’s not principles. That’s bullying.
Thank you, Liz.
For any leftists who drop by, Liz is actually raising two issues. The conservative and libertarian objection to “hate crime” legislation is that it limits the First Amendment right to freedom of speech — only the crime should be against the law, hate should not be considered.
I happened across a leftist gay blog relevant to this discussion thanks to a post by Daniel Blatt at GayPatriot. Daniel never misses a chance to denounce, shame and humiliate leftist gays, then looks for pity because he cannot figure out why leftist gays respond in kind and are unwilling to dialog with him.
I have a different approach. I like to show people how the ideas I am advocating fulfill their deepest and noblest aspirations.
Anyhoo, the post I came across points out that gays can be refused service in a restaurant for being gay in 29 states — the same 29 states where gays can be fired for being gay. A restaurant is defined legally as a “public accommodation.” Anti-discrimination laws generally ban discrimination in housing, public accommodations and employment.
So the second issue that Liz is raising has to do with private property and the powers of government. Totalitarian states do not permit private property. Both libertarians and fiscal conservatives posit that the right to private property is a key part of the foundation of a society in which individuals may pursue their own goals and prosper as a result.
One of the most memorable experiences I had during CPAC was chatting with an Ethiopian cab driver the last day of the conference on the way to the Marriott from the home of the friend where I was staying. He perked up when he heard the destination, so I gather he understood conservative principles. He told me about his experiences when the leaders of his country began to limit the amount of private property citizens could have. Specifically, first they limited the number of houses they could own, then they nationalized all private homes and re-distributed them. I asked to interview him on video. He declined, but gestured at the line of cabs at the hotel and told me he knew them all and they would all have the same story if I interviewed them.
This is why libertarians are so passionate about private property.
So if you clicked the link above, you learned that the leftist gay blogger attributed the opposition of Sen. Rand Paul to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to backwardness and hatred. The truth is that this is how devoted libertarians are to the principle of private property — as Rand’s father, Rep. Ron Paul, explains if you click the link.
I am a fiscal conservative, not a libertarian, because I think anti-discrimination laws are a reasonable limitation on private property rights by government. This is just one of the distinctions in philosophies on the Right that it would be extremely useful to the gay Left to understand in order to achieve the goal of gay equality.