SB 121 Voted Out of Committee Unanimously
Mike Matthews is at the hearing, and he tweets about a number of speakers before the committee, including David Anderson, that were concerned about this bill’s impact on children. Apparently they are all somehow concerned that this anti-discrimination bill, that will prevent bigots from firing gays simply because they are gay, will lead to the state forcing parents to teach their kids about the evil gays. I will say it here and I will say it loud: religious conservatives with such fears are either so stupid that they are legally incapcitated, or so insane that they require confinement in mental instititutions. Either way, it’s not good. All this bill does is prevent these hate filled bigots from discriminating against homosexuals. I know, I know, it’s horrible. Who will they hate now?
Via Matthews’ twitter account:
Sen. Blevins just sarcastically informed the previous speaker that bill does nothing like teaching kids in school about sexual orientation.
Sen. Blevins thanked Sen. Sokola for his leadership. Also thanks Reps. Schwartzkopf and Oberle for their work on this bill.
Sen. Blevins says the bill is being unanimously released from committee.
Crowd erupts in cheers as the bill is voted out.
Crowd erupts in cheers as the bill is voted out.
David must have felt the sky falling.
By the same token, this same sort of legislation keeps you from firing those “hate-filled bigots” because of their religious beliefs. Personally, I believe that both of you ought to be permitted to fire the person or persons of yourself without interference by the government. But then again, that would require the government permitting its citizens to actually have full use of their liberties, so we know that won’t happen.
Well no one is firing the bigots because of their anti-gay rhetoric. But these bigots should be happy that they are so protected too.
This is really good news for all of us.
But therein is the question — should they be protected? Why should those who fundamentally disagree with them be forbidden to fire them or refuse to hire them? Why should people instead be required to associate with them in direct contradiction of their First Amendment right to freely associate (and its implied right not to associate)?
RWR…. it is already illegal and unconstitutional to fire anyone because of their religious beliefs. And even if it wasn’t, it would never occur to me to fire someone because of an innate characteristic like skin color, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. All that should matter is the worker’s performance on the job.
And RWR, all this bill does is prevent you from discriminating. And if you think you have the liberty to discriminate, than that reveals all we need to know about you.
True that, Cassandra. I have been living in fear that I’ll be fired for being in an opposite marriage.
RWR’s argument is utter nonsense. DD summed it up in one sentence. “And if you think you have the liberty to discriminate, than that reveals all we need to know about you.”
Del Dem:
Religious belief is NOT an “innate characteristic.” One can choose their religion or not. One cannot choose skin color, sexual preference, gender, ethnicity, etc.
It is very important to make that distinction.
White Rhymes With Right is a bigot. We get it.
I think he’s Keebler Elf Rhymes With Right.
Actually, religious discrimination is not unconstitutional unless it is done by the government. There are statutory prohibitions — but I raise the philosophical question of whether or not there ought to be such prohibitions. I’ll even raise the stakes and add my belief that there should be no legal prohibitions against gender or racial discrimination (other than by government), either.
Nice point A1. Some are indoctrinated pretty early so it nearly seems innate. But it isn’t. Still, if you want to believe in your childish fairy tale, be my guest. Like Ataturk said, every man may worship as his own conscience dictates. (He also said it was a weakness and a trap.) You start making me abide (like gay marriage, etc.) we have major problems.
add my belief that there should be no legal prohibitions against gender or racial discrimination (other than by government), either.
Keebler Elf,
You think that because you live in a fantasy world in which there has never been any such thing as de facto or de jure discrimination.
RWR – You are incorrect. The Equal Employment Opportunity Act forbids discrimination for religion and is application to all employers.
http://www.eeoc.gov/
So your assertion is that the equal protection clause does not apply to religion or orientation (and presumably race, gender or whatever)? So, for example, a landlord could (by your screwy interpretation of the Constitution) refuse to rent a house to someone because they are Jewish. Is that accurate?
Bigot? Or just a believer in the libertarian ideal that we should all have the right to associate or not associate as we choose?
And to put it down to where the rubber meets the road, let me ask you a question. You are a gay business owner. One of your employees is a fundamentalist who appears at work one day with a bumper sticker on his car that reads “God Made Adam & Eve, Not Adam & Steve — Vote No On Homosexual Marriage”. In a free society, ought you not have the unfettered right to can them, irrespective of the fact that the cause is based upon their expressed religious beliefs on gay marriage?
DG — I noted that there are STATUTORY prohibitions on discrimination. I indicated that there are no CONSTITUTIONAL prohibitions on it in the private sector (nor are there any such prohibitions on any other form of private discrimination outside of statutory law).
LG — Damn straight. Freedom includes the right to behave in a despicable manner. It also includes the right of all decent people (myself among them) to shun such an individual.
Jason — de jure discrimination is unconstitutional. GOVERNMENT has no power to discriminate. Private individuals, if they are to be truly free, should be free to do so as a part of their right to freely associate or not.
RWR, that bumper sticker example has to be one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read.
You can have whatever bumper sticker or personal views you want outside the work place. At your job you’re there to work, not preach. As long as you do your job, your personal views don’t matter.
Pandora — as an employer, do you wish to have to deal with such a person every day? Does your knowledge of his views make you personally uncomfortable to go to the business you own because of his presence? Does your contempt for his beliefs make his presence in your workplace a problem for you — and for potential customers who share your views? And if the answer to any of these is yes, why shouldn’t you be permitted to fire him as a part of your right to NOT associate with such individuals?
To the point of the post, (ignoring Keebler now because he is arguing from a fantasy world perspective) this is typical:
David Anderson, that were concerned about this bill’s impact on children. Apparently they are all somehow concerned that this anti-discrimination bill, that will prevent bigots from firing gays simply because they are gay, will lead to the state forcing parents to teach their kids about the evil gays.
More victimhood! Conservatives are victims NO MATTER WHAT.
And isn’t interesting that the Keebler Elf hasn’t asked whether the employee otherwise is a contributor to he organization and its bottom line.
Women and people of color have to face people everyday who have issues with them. You don’t let the bigoted run you home.
I love how RwR says that it is unconstitutional, yet the 14th amendment does provide for equal protection. RwR says that it means one thing, but the Supreme court (who is actually tasked in the Constitution with deciding what is and what is not Constitutional) says the opposite.
Which is it, RwR? Is the Constitution wrong or is the Constitution wrong? Ummm. Yeah.
@22 and their core beliefs are all obviously based on fantasy or lies.
Equal protection of the law, LG — that does not ban the private actions of private individuals.
And cassie — that point is irrelevant to my example. At what point does your discomfort with the individual override the value of his/her financial contribution to the organization?
I call bullshit on RwR and his fantasy world. Please tell me where it says only law as it pertains to the government.
…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Please tell me why it is not within the power of the State of Delaware to set a law that says that landlords cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation.
At what point does your discomfort with the individual override the value of his/her financial contribution to the organization?
This is clearly from someone who manages no one, who leads no teams. If the individual is a contributor and is working basically well with the rest of the crew, why would you actually spend the money to fire the person, try to recruit someone else, spend the time and money training that new person just because you don’t think that doesn’t make you comfortable? That “comfort” is now costing your organization and its shareholders money.
The entire business of “professionalism” is about transcending the stupid to get the work done and make some money. Which I’ll stipulate you won’t get.
LG — Why don’t you quote the actual text of the 14th amendment:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The amendment clearly limits state actions, not those of private individuals. It repeatedly prohibits state-sponsored acts of discrimination — but a gay employer firing a fundamentalist Christian employee is not a state action. As long as the state does not require religious discrimination or engage in it, then there is no violation of the 14th Amendment — unless you go beyond the text.
And note that I did not argue that the 14th Amendment does not have the power to pas the sort of statute that you suggest –I argued that such statutes should not be passed limiting the right of the landlord to discriminate for ANY reason.
cassie — I’m not arguing that the person ought to be fired, or even that it is a good business decision. I’m arguing that it is not the business of the state whether or not you fire them — and that the state generally has no business determining what is a substantial reason for you to fire an individual.
Put simply, one of the perks of ownership is the right to make a bad decision, and to succeed or fail based upon that decision (or the cumulative impact of those decisions).
White Rhymes With Right wrote:
I’ll even raise the stakes and add my belief that there should be no legal prohibitions against gender or racial discrimination (other than by government), either.
That about says it all about this bigot. But, hey, as usual, he is using DL to help promote his business, website, and KKK ideals.
RwR – No, the first two clauses do clearly make the point that you make (as it applies to States), but the third clause, the one that I quoted, specifically does not. Keep wishing that the words were there, but don’t go trying to sneak into the Archives to change it. They made copies.
LG — equal protection of the laws refers to state action, not private action. I, in my private capacity, cannot deny anyone equal protection of the laws — because I cannot make laws or enforce them. Those are government actions.
And anonone, nowhere do I defend such discrimination. I abhor it. That does not, however, mean I believe it should be illegal. Indeed, I want such discrimination to be open so I know who not to do business with or associate with.
Bigot of the week- Obama.
Protects DOMA, no relenting on DADT and no to gay marriage.
Besides, LG, the grammar leaves it clear to those familiar with the English Language that the clause you cite refers to the subject of the previous clause (as a parallel construction) .
Let’s use an example for you:
Jason shall not yell at his sister, nor shall Jason hit his sister with a baseball bat; nor eat the ice cream in the freezer.
That final clause, as you no doubt recognize, is directed at Jason, even though his name does not appear in it. It would be absurd to argue that the final clause of the sentence forbids Jason’s sister from eating the ice cream or that it forbids all people to eat ice cream. Neither does it prohibit Jason from allowing his sister to eat the ice cream.
The portion of the Fourteenth Amendment I quoted has the same construction, and should be interpreted according to the same common sense principles of English grammar and common sense.
I would like to clarify my testimony. It has been mischaracterized by your post. I was calling for an amendment to the title 6 part of the legislation which deals with public accommodations. I would like to see a religious exemption much like the employer section. We could have a bill supported by 80% of Delawareans or you guys could continue to be divisive.
I have to work with people with beliefs I don’t share all the time. As long as it has no bearing on their work performance, we get along fine. Most people don’t spend a significant portion of their day arguing politics or theology (only bloggers).
Religion is already protected by the 1st amendment.
I think RWR and Republican David are secretly having man sex in a park in Kent County. Talk about the DL (and I don’t mean the name of this fine blog). I’ve always found the ones who protest the loudest are the ones who end up like Ted Haggard – smoking meth and going down on a gay hooker.
DA, RwR, DR–don’t you have any conservatives to play with, are you blocked from http://www.delawareconservative.net? Has anyone studied the fascination that some folks have with trying to hijack discussions such as this one? Is there a reason why a majority of this thread is authored by conservatives?
If I wanted to hear conservatives drone on, I’d go to Fox, Limbaugh, …
MJ, I find your slur most objectionable and disgusting. I would never expose children to any kind of sexual behavior in a park. At least give us credit for a room or something. The spare room in the attic is nice. LOL
Now can we get to serious issues? I believe that a church which may happen to make its hall available for Scouting, weddings, or the food bank should not be forced to make it available for commitment ceremonies or something. I think an exemption should be included. There is an exemption in existing law for housing for religious compounds and the current proposal for employment. I am not proposing something radical. It is common sense and decency.
If this “church” is receiving government support of any kind for upkeep, etc., then it is a public accommodation, not a private meeting place. SB 121 only pertains to public accommodation, such as apartments, restaurants, public gazebos, etc. David, your argument doesn’t hold (holy) water.
And the self-righteous “christians” who usually get caught with their pants down are usually in public bathrooms (can anyone say Larry Craig?), so I’ll let you use the tearoom.
And since you mention Scouting, another bastion of homophobia, it’s usually the married, straight scoutmasters who are getting busted for molesting their charges.
Not true, the reason why scouting doesn’t have molestation problems like public schools is that they have morally straight scout masters. It is more prevalent with PC organizations. It is why the Catholic Church is dealing with problems from years ago. They listened to liberal apologists who said just counsel them and rehabilitate them.
It doesn’t take public money to be a public accommodation. Read title 6 of the Delaware code.
The reason scouting doesn’t have a big problem is that they understand that to raise moral men, you have to have moral men doing it.
“you have to have moral men doing it.”
Moral men doing it to their young scouts. Wow. I never thought I’d live to see a conservative admit that child molesters were moral, married, men.
Scouting seems designed to appeal to young men who are unsettled about their sexuality, but who are raised in repressed households.
That’s just my take on it. No offense intended to either scouting or gays.
RWR Wrote:
And anonone, nowhere do I defend such discrimination. I abhor it. That does not, however, mean I believe it should be illegal. Indeed, I want such discrimination to be open so I know who not to do business with or associate with.
Sir, your position is abhorrent and utterly indefensible. Before laws against discrimination, for example, people died outside hospitals that would not treat them because of their skin color.
Legally sanctioned discrimination in public places is such a horrible idea that it is hard to believe that somebody would even publicly advocate for it. People who “abhor” discrimination don’t advocate for its legalization. In your world, Rosa Parks would still be forced to sit the back of the bus or give her seat up for a white person.
What must your parents have taught you?
Jason, it depends of the personality of the Scout Troop. Some are much more liberal than others.
jason, you cannot simply make the most outrageous ridiculous statements with a disclaimer “No offense intended” you are offending, Intended or not.
RwR – Luckily for me, I have the Supreme court on my side and you have a bunch of dorm room poli-sci students on your side.
The last sentence does not say, nor imply, that these laws are only with respect to dealings with the State. It says that the laws shall be applied equally. This would apply to housing laws, employment laws and public accommodations (whether they be public owned or publicly available). Plessy upheld your view, but reality intervened and Brown v. Board of Ed threw it my way.
You can’t still harbor resentment about Brown, can you?
Let me jump to Jason’s defense: Protack was a scoutmaster.
(farsider walks away mumbling something like “OK, you win this round…”)
jason is making ridiculous generalizations, the kind of thing he freqeuntly accuses others of. I do not walk away at all. Y’all should all be offended by such a discriminatory remark.
farsider – I was kidding.
Are you insulted as a scout or a gay person?
anonone — No, Rosa Parks would not be riding in the back of the bus. After all, it was a publicly owned bus company, and would be prohibited from such discrimination. Ditto Brown v. Board, because a public school cannot discriminate even though a private one could.
And as I said, I want discrimination to be legal and above board so that I know who NOT to patronize or associate with.
And LG, you clearly need a grammar book. And a dictionary.
Neither. He offends my liberal sensibilities.
I’ll buy one for each member of the Supreme court also.
I find it interesting that the overturning of the DC gun ban is settled law, but Brown (which overturned Plessy, private enterprise notwithstanding) is still an open issue in your mind.
And as I said, I want discrimination to be legal and above board so that I know who NOT to patronize or associate with.
It is pathetic that you can’t figure that out for yourself today.
Here’s the deal with scouts; they have become a victim of their worst instincts. Say what you will, I have a more negative view of them (as a liberal) than I have of the Catholic church.
I really would rather my kids go to Catholic school than join Boy Scouts. Might be right, might be wrong, but their stance on gay scoutmasters showed them to be asses and not worthy of my liberal support.
Besides — there is no leadership in bigotry.
Scouts have every right to choose their membership and particularly their leadership. You and I have a choice to support or not. That is what is right. The problem seems to come from government support, well I wonder what the government has to do with supporting scouting, or many many other things. Eliminate that and it seems to me any argument over their membership and leadership requirements should go away.
In the end it is a typical liberal intrusion on the rights of others. First we fund it then we control it.
It is more about the character of community — apartheid of any order is neither sanctioned or the desire of most of the community around you. While you may believe you have the right to exercise your bigotry on others, the larger community has every right to tell you that public accommodation needs to be public.
Because at the end of the day, all of this fancy footwork over rights of association are about looking for a reason to maintain your bigotries, by trying to make them seem more noble than they are.
Why do you consider scouting a public accomidation ? Do catholics have to allow anyone to give sacrament ? I am simply saying this is a private club as long as they have no public financing and have every right to set standards of membership. The AARP discriminates on age, Medicaire and Medicaid discriminate on income, there is discrimination by design everywhere.
Scouting often has public accommodation — and they’ve been scrambling since these public entities are withdrawing support because of their need to discriminate. In Philly the Boy Scouts were in a municipal building basically for free — a building that the city started to charge them market rent for, and started eviction proceedings on.
If the Boy Scouts wants to be a private club of bigotry, they should. But parents should know that these kids aren’t getting any skills here that will help them in the world they need to live in — one that is increasingly intolerant of bigots. And certainly those parents should bear all of the costs of scouting — remove every bit of public support they get as long as they want to discriminate.
So every test has to be passed 100%. No other skills taught can be worth learning if there is exclusion of any kind ? That singular issue is enough in your mind to invalidate all the other values taught. And you would think them small minded.
I also think that private clubs should be free of public support in all cases. That removes the issue as I said before. Public facilities should also not be forbidden to private groups based on their membership, I am sure you would agree with me on that.
I should be more clear, if a public facility is readily available for private functions, such as club meeting, it should allow all those meetings within the laws of decency and order.
And David still hasn’t found a cure for his delusions — one Google search on “boy scout molesters” will get you pages and pages of horror stories.
This report, where the attorneys opened up the Boy Scout secret files found a terrible statistic:
Kosnoff analyzed the numbers and came to this shocking conclusion: Before 1991, “a Scout leader was being tossed out for child molestation at the rate of one every three days,” he said. “Post-1991, the rate was one every two days.” That includes people suspected of abuse.
So I’ll leave you to defend that, to try to minimize that, to try to pretend that a group o people with this kind of track record should be privileged somehow.
We let our son join the Scouts in 2nd grade, after three meetings my husband pulled him out, calling the Scouts a “cult.”
So the failure of their efforts is to be attributed to their fault. Do you believe that their beliefs lead directly to child molestation? If you dismissed all groups/associations/schools/etc that have had child sexual abuse scandals you would have an unfortunately slim number of groups left – most likely none. I certainly do not condone nor do you that kind of activity. Anyone involved or complicit should be charged and tried accordingly
Americorps is much more likely your kind of cult anyway
Actually we’re more comfortable with gifted and AP programs.
I am glad you have found a comfortable place.
I gotta step in here and kind of defend the ‘ole BSA to some extent.
I find myself in sort of a unique position as a one-time Eagle Scout who (now that I’m all grown up) is a liberal, supportive of equal rights for all and also an atheist.
So yes, I do agree that the anti-gay stance of the BSA is lousy. I also don’t understand why they feel it’s necessary to have a litmus test of believing in some imaginary being either.
That being said, to classify every scout troop as being a bunch of bigots or every scoutmaster as a molester is (as I’m sure you all really know deep down) completely unfair.
In my own experience, all of the leaders (my own father included) were very above-board guys. Some of them, I’m not gonna lie, were kind of assholes – but molesters or pedophiles, absolutely not. In terms of the way the troop was run, it was certainly not cult-like. The focus was (as I think it should be) just on going camping a lot, enjoying and appreciating nature, and trying to learn some potentially useful skills in the process by doing badges & things.
Obviously each individual’s experience may vary, but for me the Scouts were an important part of my life. The experience I had there in large part contributed to my interest in biology & natural science which I later went on to study and now teach.
I have my own views, aside from that, I watch and listen to all sides and try to comprehend without assumption (to the best of my ability). The initial article assumes that if you are against gay marraige, or you don’t want your children to be taught about gay sex, then you must naturally think gays are “evil”. The author also exclaims “who will they hate now?”. And “religious conservatives with such fears are either so stupid that they are legally incapcitated”. Is it not rational for a parent to be concerned, when presedence has been set in other communities across the country? Why can’t a parent who wants the responsiblity to teach their child the morals they feel are just, be labeled a bigot or a hater? Or is it impossible to not have a belief that homosexuality is immoral and at the same time have respect, compasion, and justice for the same? Seems to me the country is somewhat split, with BOTH sides being guilty of intolerance of the other. We all lose when we inject false assumptions of ones view based on one aspect of their belief, whether liberal or conservative.
Would like to know how many LGBT’s have been fired by a bigot because of your sexual orientation?
Now my gfriend and I go hand in hand in LegHall since that’s the only safe thing to do nowadays.
Not surprised that Michael failed to mention that the vote was taken before the hearing – that’s your fair and open government you all brag about now. Nor did he mention that the Senators that were to be listening to the people who pay their (over-paid) salaries yakked it up while people who pay their salaries took off work to be heard. Thanks for the liberal attitudes dudes and dudettes. You all suck! Your way or the highway. Just as an eagle’s egg is more protected that a fetus. The Fall of the Roman Empire cometh rapidly.
For the first time in this multi year battle, the fix was finally in for the good guys. Your side got to talk and make their case. Their case pretty much amounted to “Baby Jesus cries when two men kiss.”
It has to be tough on you guys, continuing to try to make sense of a nonsensical belief.