Lee Lauds Discrimination.
Retired Judge Lee said yesterday during his debate with Jack Markell that, under a Lee Administration, he would continue to discriminate against homosexuals in Delaware, and he views any attempt for equality as discrimination in and of itself, a truly Orwellian feat of spin.
Lee said he would not support such legislation because it would create a protected class of people, defined by sexual orientation.
That’s a burden on small business, he said, and tends to increase lawsuits.
“We don’t need to be a society where everybody falls into a special class,” he said. “There are valid problems and they should be addressed, but not with legislation that establishes a special class.”
Markell has long been a champion of such anti-discriminatory efforts. They are the right thing to do — for society and for the state’s economy, he said. Such laws send a message to employers that all of their workers will be welcome in Delaware.
Denn got a laugh when he said he would definitely sign such legislation “if Jack became incapacitated.”
Does Bill Lee think African Americans are a special class of people? How about women? How about the disabled? Anti-Discrimination laws have been passed to remedy discrimination against African-Americans, other minorities, women, and the disabled, so that all are treated equally in every respect under the law without respect to innate characteristics, such as race, religion, handicap or gender. These laws did not create special classes. They admitted more groups of people to the only special class that matters: The Human Race.
Bill Lee is an evil bigot with this mindset. He should be ashamed of himself.
These “protected class of people” and “special rights” talking points were all shot down five years ago.
I’m not surprised that the retired judge is caught in a bit of a time warp.
Ugh…what a fucking antique he is.
Antique is generous.
Lee should be reminded that it is all Americans who are a special class of people and laws that ensure that GLBT have all of those rights just reinforce that fact.
Tell me – exactly which problems do homosexuals currently face that would be best solved by making them a protected class?
This is a trick question, right?
Tom, where do I start? My partner cannot get my social security if I die. He cannot make medical decisions for me without us spending thousands on legal bills to get who knows how many powers of attorney. He cannot get my civil service annuity if I die. He does not have an automatic right to inherit my property if I die. I cannot cover him on my health benefits. We can be denied housing and use of public accommodations if someone doesn’t want two fags eating at his restaurant or staying at his hotel. How may more instances would you like, putz?
Tom
There are literally thousands of separate but unequal provisions under the law of every state that actively not passively discriminate against gays. To pretend they are not there is either incredible innocence or to be intentionally disingenuous.
Curiously, conservatives haven’t seen any problem legislating gays specifically out of marriage–they are all for making them a special class there.
Here’s the rub: either GLBQT American citizens are full American citizens entitled to equal protection under the law, or they’re not.
Right now they’re not.
Republican!…I mean…uh……nevermind.
Great response MJ and Steve. The point is that there is no reason to deny rights GLBT, which is actively done now. Right now, they can’t visit each other in the hospital or make medical decisions and they can’t serve openly in the military. They are denied the civil institution of marriage to the person of their choice. This inequality needs to be fixed.
Well said, MJ.
The most important fact – a Delaware employer could fire me if he didn’t want someone who is gay to work for his/her company and currently deny me a job I’m qualified for simply because I’m gay and I have no legal recourse.
“Here’s the rub: either GLBQT American citizens are full American citizens entitled to equal protection under the law, or they’re not.
Right now they’re not.”
Out of curiosity, would you say the same is true for Polygamist Americans?
“The most important fact – a Delaware employer could fire me if he didn’t want someone who is gay to work for his/her company and currently deny me a job I’m qualified for simply because I’m gay and I have no legal recourse.”
I highly doubt this to be the case. Can you find me a case where an employee was wrongfully terminated for being a homosexual?
How are polygamist Americans denied rights? They can marry the person of their choice, one at a time. GLBT persons cannot.
“How are polygamist Americans denied rights? They can marry the person of their choice, one at a time. GLBT persons cannot.”
Booo. A polygamist man can marry one woman over the age of 18. A gay man can marry one woman over the age of 18. A heterosexual man can marry one woman over the age of 18.
If you’re going to play the “equal under the letter of the law” argument (which isn’t the worst of arguments) you’d have to concede that homosexuals currently are not denied any rights.
Cracker Barrel restaurants has a policy of firing anyone who is gay or lesbian. Even though their board voted to ban discrimination, gay and lesbian employees are still being fired for being gay and lesbian.
Here’s one place to get some insight, Tom – http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/discrim/11853leg20020226.html. Maybe you should come down off that hill you sit your butt in and walk in my shoes for a few days.
“Cracker Barrel restaurants has a policy of firing anyone who is gay or lesbian. Even though their board voted to ban discrimination, gay and lesbian employees are still being fired for being gay and lesbian.”
Can you find me a source on that?
The problem with the polygamist Americans we hear about is the fact that they’re marrying underage kids.
If only adults were involved, I wouldn’t have any problem with it. Why would you?
Tom-
Cracker Barrel did indeed fire people for being gay. Here’s a source (they’ve since changed policy)
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2003_Feb_4/ai_97175008
There was no legal recourse available to the gay employees who were fired. However, other employees who were sexually harassed or otherwise discriminated against due to their gender or race, were able to sue successfully.
http://www.lawmemo.com/eeoc/press/3-10-06b.htm
I think that pretty much sums up everything people are arguing here. Equal rights for everyone, not just straight people.
Now why would a gay man marry a woman (except for what’s-his-name that married Liza)? Silly argument, Tom. You need to come off that hill your city is in and walk a mile in my shoes.
Lay off the polygamists. They are not LEGALLY married, and it is UNLAWFUL to marry underage children. Which is why prosecution is so difficult. The “marriages” they refer to are only in their community, and not w/ legal but ecclesiastical documentation.
“Now why would a gay man marry a woman (except for what’s-his-name that married Liza)?”
Presumably they wouldn’t, but you must concede that at this juncture there is nothing that I as a heterosexual can legally do that you as a homosexual legally cannot do. Its not as if I have the right to legally marry a man and you do not. You are not talking about equality of rights under the law, as that already exists, you are talking about creating a new set of laws.
“Lay off the polygamists. They are not LEGALLY married, and it is UNLAWFUL to marry underage children. Which is why prosecution is so difficult. The “marriages” they refer to are only in their community, and not w/ legal but ecclesiastical documentation.”
I think we can all agree that for reasons of consent no one under 16 should be allowed to marry/have sex. However, if we are going to allow people to marry whoever they “love” (I put that in quotations because I believe that government would have a hard time defining it) I feel that polygamists as well as homosexuals and a likely host of others should also be granted the right to marry.
Tom, you’re full of shit regarding your lame argument on how the law doesn’t prevent me from marrying a woman. Your response it total nonsense.
I answered that question during the Imagine Delaware series and proposed a simpler way of dealing with the issue.
No one should be discriminated against because of identity. Clear and simple.
Skip all the labels which rile up the left and the right.