The Washington state Senate narrowly approved a procedural move to bring HB 1515 to the floor for a vote, only to see the bill defeated by a 25-24 margin. The bill would have added “sexual orientation” to the state’s anti-discrimination laws.
All 23 Republican senators voted against the bill, along with conservative Democrats Jim Hargrove and Tim Sheldon. Hargrove says he opposed the measure for religious reasons.
“I believe adultery is wrong, I believe sex outside marriage is wrong, I believe homosexuality is wrong. Therefore, I cannot give government protection to this behavior,” Hargrove said.
I suppose then, that Jim would support legislation permitting discrimination in housing, employment, lending and insurance against straight couples having premarital sex? (And if he thinks he’s gonna get a blow job from me tonight, he’s got another thing coming.)
So there you have it… the entire Senate Republican caucus has gone on the record sanctioning discrimination against gays and lesbians.
There are four places that can actually be IMPROVED by nuclear bombs:
*Nevada desert
*Arizona desert
*King County Gov’t
*Olympia
Next lame-ass poll: Whether to nuke King County Gov’t or Olympia FIRST??
(Thanks to California State Senator Tom McClintock for the idea behind the joke.)
Based on your comments that appear often in your posts, it’s fine to hate Stefan Sharkansky and Conservatives, the EFF and the BIAW, so Goldy why do you know find it offensive that some feel it’s okay to hate Gays?
Hatred may be distasteful and ignorant, but it’s not a crime, nor does it belong in legislation one way or the other. It’s interesting to note that your own hatred is so selective. Is hatred okay as long as it comes from a left viewpoint?
For the record, I have nothing against gays, I’m merely pointing out your hypocrisy.
Goldy….
Let me get this straight.
The democrats have a starnglehold on the legislature in this state. We’ve been told this time and time again by you.
The democrats voted in this gay hating viewpoint not te otehr way around.
Goldy,
The Democrats are in the majority. If they wanted to make it happen, it would have. They were the ones who failed to pass it.
I love watching the wingnuts trying to defend hate!
Josef @1,
Huh…?
Jeff B @2,
Huh…? First of all, I don’t hate Stefan. And if I did, I wouldn’t be trying to legislate it. It’s one thing to oppose homosexuality based on religious grounds… it’s entirely another thing to deny somebody a mortgage or fire them from a job because you suspect they are gay.
prr @3, VRWC @4,
Huh…? So, the D’s vote 24-2 in favor of the bill, and the R’s vote 23-0 against it, and we should blame the D’s for failing to pass the bill? Any idiot can see who was for this bill and who was against it… and I suppose that includes you two.
“Let me get this straight.” – prr
HA HA HA HA *crying*
Well, at least the Senate had the guts to vote up or down on this issue, which is more than you can say on this legislature on other issues, or for that matter, U.S. Senate Democrats.
Goldy;
Be honest you do too hate Stephan, He’s the only one you haven’t offered a blowjob to on your blog. and the BIAW well that’s a lot of pricks you’d have to deal with, and even Cynical and JCH couldn’t take that much.
This thread is “straight” from the horses ass!
Goldy is adept at trying to take that giant stretch that never quite reaches to equate voting no on this unnecessary Legislation with hating Gays. Hopefully Goldy smears the lubricant before his next gay experience as liberally as he smears with his words. Pathetic!
What Goldy, you have never had a gay experience???(i doubt that butt…..
Well that means you must hate Gays Goldy!!
That’s about how sensical Goldy’s allegations are.
I take it back, Cynical probably already takes them all over at Business Is Ass Wipeing.
Does that underfunded Safety training include an abstinace program for your gays only?
Goldy @6,
It would be hard to know from your constant ad-hominem attacks against Stefan that you like him, but I’ll take your word for it.
Discrimination is wrong. However we don’t need special legislation to protect gays any more than we need special legislation to protect midgets. I disagree with Hargrove’s statement because frankly I could care less what he thinks about anything, what matters is what’s right for legislation across an entire state. Just because he’s afraid of gays doesn’t mean it’s right to add legislation for every possible minority group that could be discriminated against.
The whole problem with these affirmative action or protectionist schemes is that they are inherently racist and they attempt to divide us into minority factions. I’m a skier, do we need a whole new class of legislation to protect me from discrimination by snowboarders?
Defense of such schemes shows the irrationality that they are based upon. The arguments of both you and the Senator are pathetic for different reasons. Discrimination for any arbitrary reason is wrong, rational people and a rational civil justice system can handle these disputes without the hand holding of legislation that spells out every possible scenario of discimination.
Danw–
You need to stop intentionally getting “rear-ended”.
It must “feel good” to you but it has no place in granting you some special protection condom-face!
Jeff B. @ 12 made all of my points very clearly and without insulting anyone. I was planning to use fat folks, ugly people and blondes as examples but midgets and skiers works too. Thanks Jeff B.
VR–
Now don’t start goin’ flacid on us!!
If you gotta point to make, ram it home with no lubricant.
I mean, tear up some serious anal tissue.
This is America.
So there you have it… the entire Senate Republican caucus has gone on the record sanctioning discrimination against gays and lesbians.
Its more complicated than that.
People have a difference of opinion as to what classes should be added as a protected class or workers in Washington.
What about smokers? They can be fired right now for being smokers.
People who gain weight can be fired for this reason. Should they be added as a protected class too?
How about people that live in Mercer Island. Presently, someone can be fired for any reason whatsoever (I almost used all caps here).
Bald people? Short or tall persons. Its not fair to permit them to be fired for these reasons but it is legal.
If we add all classifications as a proected class, that would eliminate the employment at will policy that Washington has.
There it is.
Thus, the question is what groups should be added, if any, and which classes should be added first.
Jeff B said,
Discrimination for any arbitrary reason is wrong, rational people and a rational civil justice system can handle these disputes without the hand holding of legislation that spells out every possible scenario of discimination.
But Jeff B, how can a rational civil justice system handle this wrong discrimination if it isn’t against the law to discriminate? I’m pretty sure you don’t want the judges just deciding this is wrong and crafting a remedy.
Discrimination for any arbitrary reason is wrong, rational people and a rational civil justice system can handle these disputes without the hand holding of legislation that spells out every possible scenario of discimination.
That is a straightforward position.
However, its not the law in Washington. Right now, only a few protected groups cannot be discriminated against.
Your proposal would require a “for cause” requirement for anyone to be fired from their job as it would make everyone a member of a protected class.
Jeff B @12,
Hold on there… I never said I liked Stefan… I just said I didn’t hate him. I don’t really know him all that well to have an opinion one way or the other.
Of course, both my headline and my closing sentence were intentionally provocative, and you all know that my interpretation of what happened is much more nuanced. I do, however, believe that this sends a message to some less nuanced folk out there, that gays and lesbians are a legitimate target. In testimony on behalf of the bill, ample evidence was presented of existing discrimination. And by voting against this bill, the Republicans (plus Hargrove and Sheldon) were basically saying that they are okay with this.
My question is… what is the societal good in allowing a loan officer to deny a mortgage to an otherwise qualified lesbian couple? What is the societal good in telling a manager its okay to fire an employee because it makes him uncomfortable that the guy is a little effeminate? They can’t fire me because I’m Jewish… so why should they be able to fire me because they think I’m gay?
So which Senators are worth targeting for this vote?
My money is on Esser in the 48th, maybe whoever’s in the 47th, and whoever’s in the 26th. Time to expand that majority.
My question is… what is the societal good in allowing a loan officer to deny a mortgage to an otherwise qualified lesbian couple?
Do you think it should be legal to deny loans to overweight people?
Do you believe anyone should be able to bring a lawsuit against a loan company or bank if they denied the loan for any reason other than bad credit?
Or do you believe that gays should be made part of a protected class while other groups are not protected?
So there you have it… the entire Senate Republican caucus has gone on the record sanctioning discrimination against gays and lesbians.
This is scary! The fact that even in Washington they’re willing to go on record as being such bigots really shows you how much what is going on in DC has emboldened Republicans in general to show their true colors.
I think Senators Schmidt of Bothell/Snohomish and Finkbiner (?) from Redmond are the logical choices to target. Both have districts which likely support the legislation (as does a large part of the state), but were afraid of party retaliation come re-election time if they voted in favor.
Goldy@19–
“why should they be able to fire me because they THINK I’m gay”?
No one THINKS you are gay Goldy.
You have proven it repeatedly!
What about smokers? They can be fired right now for being smokers.
Do you know of anyone being fired for being a smoker?
People who gain weight can be fired for this reason. Should they be added as a protected class too?
Do you know of anyone being fired for gaining weight?
How about people that live in Mercer Island. Presently, someone can be fired for any reason whatsoever (I almost used all caps here).
Do you know of anyone being fired for living on Mercer Island?
Bald people? Short or tall persons.
Do you know of anyone being fired for being bald or short or tall?
The whole problem with these affirmative action or protectionist schemes is that they are inherently racist and they attempt to divide us into minority factions. I’m a skier, do we need a whole new class of legislation to protect me from discrimination by snowboarders?
You have cited a theoretical absurdity in an effort to caricature the argument in favor of outlawing discrimination against homosexuals. Why cite a theoretical issue? Why not also advocate repeal of laws barring discrimination on the basis of religion?
THhy have no law against a lot of other things either, Goldy–seems it’s okay these days to hate conservative christian heterosexual patriotic second amendment males, too. I suppose you are alright with that?
Jeff B. @ 2–“Hatred may be distasteful and ignorant, but it’s not a crime”. At least not until a liberal dose of ‘hate crime’ is applied to it.
I don’t think it’s O.K. to hate anyone. But there aren’t any laws against hate, nor would I support any. There are only laws against actions. The motive for an illegal action has always been part of the law, so hate-crimes legislation breaks no legal ground.
For example, if you kill someone in the commission of a felony, that’s a relatively low-grade of murder. If you kill someone in the heat of passion, that’s second-degree murder. If you kill someone with premeditation that’s first-degree murder and you can suffer the death penalty for doing it.
All of those distinctions depend on your state of mind. But no one argues that the law against first-degree murder is an example of thought control, when in fact it’s the premediation that distinguishes it from second-degree murder.
Of course, I realize I’ve probably made an argument too complex from “Finger2u” to understand.
Oh, and we distinguish between who you murder. Kill a cop, and the penalty is more severe. No real reason. But I bet you’re all for that law. I’m o.k. with it too, by the way.
Jeff B. @ 12–Well said. All that happens with these momentary poll-driven feel-good laws is that they create a new bunch of whiners who felt they got left out of the last g-around and now demand their pound of flesh until we are so law-bound none of can move without permission. And you people say you are not s*o*c*i*a*l*i*s*t*s here? Sounds like you need a good course explaining the different types of government, dudes.
Goldy @ 19–Less nuanced folks don’t need a law to tell them it is wrong. They know it and a law won’t stop them. What will is good hard time for crimes committed against ‘people’–not “gay’ people, just people. We have been told for decades we need to be color-blind in order not to be thought racists and bigots. Today the only side I hear making an issue is the left. They are lagging behind the right that appoints blacks and hispanics to positions the left wants to keep them out of. And now they want to make an issue of sexual preference too. We are railed against if a prominent republican is openly gay, but railed against if we stop them from a position of influence also. Well, you want to have your cake and eat it too, don’t you? All I can say is make up your minds or pipe down until you can say something constructive.
Dave @ 22–You must be a religious man, for I have seldom seen such a leap of faith as you have made in your comment. Jumping to confusions….
C @ 29 & 30–Awwww, I was just gonna tell you what a wonderful point you made in 29 comment and then you have to go and insult me. And why would you think I couldn’t understand an explanation that was made very clearly? Seems you have a very small opinion of my intellect. Is that a hate crime? Maybe I should be petitioning for protection from Conserva-phobes.
Hey, guys–I’m a “minority”–a white christian conservative republican patriotic second-amendment kinda guy. And I want protection from the leftist hate crimes–just as soon as everyone is done finding more ballots.
C @ 30–You said, “it’s the premediation that distinguishes it from second-degree murder.” I think you meant pre-meditation. Pre-mediation is what the left does before an issue arises.
fingr2U @ 27
“seems it’s okay these days to hate conservative christian heterosexual patriotic second amendment males, too. I suppose you are alright with that?”
Why should it be illegal to hate stupid obnoxious rednecks?
STW @33,
Exactly, we will never do justice to the legacy of Dr. MLK until we start judging people by their merits and not their color, sexual orientation, financial status, etc. This is what’s dangerous about liberals and their multiculturalism and affirmative action. Those concepts are about racism and division which is exactly the opposite of what liberals purport them to be AND definitely not what MLK had in mind.
Steven @17,
Discrimnation is only a problem when it causes some other injustice which has a legitimate complaint in a civil court. If someone is denied an apartment because he or she is of a certain color, that’s discrimination that can be worked out in a civil court. If a man discriminates against ugly woman by choosing only to date beautiful ones, that’s just too bad, there’s no crime. So getting hung up on the word is not the point.
As for smokers as a class, that’s not the same as blacks or gays as a class. Smokers choose to engage in a destructive behavior that unfortuately does not respect boundaries. They have only become of that class by their own bad choice and so it’s more than legitimate to discriminate against them for their behavior which adversly impacts others. Hint, we discriminate against murderers for their bahvior too by putting them in jail. However being gay or having a particular skin color is merely a physical attribute than one has no choice over and should not be discriminated against because of.
I think what Goldy’s really trying to say here, in a very confused and roundabout way is that he would like civil unions to have the same status as marriage. I don’t see any problem with that at all, and I’m not even going to entertain the ridiculous argument that every single person will just pick a partner and go get a civil union just for tax purposes, if that happens then frankly we should do away with the tax benefit of marriage or civil unions if they become more widespread. But, and this is an important but, the need for civil unions DOES NOT justify backhanded legislation that attempts to segregate the populace into a bunch of minority factions for the purpose of singling each group out for protection from discrimination. For one thing, we’d have to revise the law every year or so when some new whiner minority decided to identify itself for special protection. And for another, how does this solve any problems, all it does is pit us against each other.
Goldy, if you want civil unions, why don’t you spend some of your blogging time and influence educating those who are against them in a positive way rather than swearing and sniping at religious senators who at least have the sense to recognize and reject irrational legislation.
People who gain weight can be fired for this reason. Should they be added as a protected class too?
Do you know of anyone being fired for gaining weight?
Yes.
Studies have repeatedly shown that overweight people are paid significantly less than people weighing less and get jobs at a lower rate even if the job does not involve physical activity.
Since it’s legal to hate gays, is it okay to hate Republicans too?
What about smokers? They can be fired right now for being smokers. -Comment by Erik— 4/21/05 @ 4:56 pm
US health care company fires seven for smoking
Jan 28 ’05
http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/.....?oliID=150
‘Quit smoking or you’re fired’
02/09/05
http://www.tennessean.com/busi.....D=65409839
Police officer fired for smoking tobacco
http://www.poe-news.com/stories.php?poeurlid=23635
Jeff B., why don’t you spend some of your time and intelligence trying to educate irrational wingnuts that there’s no reason to fear gays?
Dave @ 22–You must be a religious man, for I have seldom seen such a leap of faith as you have made in your comment.
Why yes, actually, I am religious. But faith had nothing to do with pointing out the obvious.
girls, just because HB 1515 died doesn’t mean you can’t be gay. You can still be gay, still watch FAB5, still go to the bath houses, still go to the gay bars, still get jobs at microsoft, and still poke to your hearts content. The rest of us refuse to let you shove it down our and our childrens throats. how in the hell was this bill going to improve your life? It wasn’t, you know all it was going to do is set a cigarette (fag) on fire (flamer). Your mental illness will never improve by legislation. I say we make ya’all join the military, special maid-brigade, unarmed services. LOL
Alan @43,
I am, any irrational wingnuts reading my comments should hopefully learn to be a little more tolerant of all of the various different shapes, sizes, etc. Until everyone is viewed with a blind eye towards their physical characteristics, we’ll continue to have racism. That’s true as much for irrational right leaning wingnuts as much as its true for UW admissions that want to give preference based on color. It’s wrong either way.
That said, one thing is for sure, when minorities and particularly gays, take the in your face, victim play stance, it does a lot more to hurt them than simply explaining rationaly that they should be treated equally like everyone else. Defying the law and riling up the religious doesn’t advance the cause. A much better approach is to take the rational line. Why shouldn’t there be civil unions? It’s a lot harder for religious types to defend this without using religion.
To Badfinger @ 38–Don’t look now, but your IQ is showing.
Jeff @ 39–Very eloquent argument. I do have to object to one point, though. “…being gay or having a particular skin color is merely a physical attribute than one has no choice over…”
I am certain you did not mean to infer that sexual prefernce is a physical attribute, but to infer that one has no choice over it is not entirely accurate. Any man has the choice to act like a man. No one forces him to be effeminate. Nor does anyone force a lesbian to be dykish or be attracted only to women. It may stem from some past trauma and abuse–a woman hates men or can’t trust ANY man because it was a man who abused her. The same thing happens with men. He may be used by some woman older than himself and then feel tainted or abused and never trust a woman again. There is qalways a lot of confusion and repercussions that eventually result when we start doing things to victimize other people. Even eventual regrets make us victims. No one will deny this, but when I mention that this advice to behave ourselves in certain just-plain-old-common-sense ways has been suggested for thousands of years in Judeo-Christian teachings, a lot of people previously nodding their heads will suddenly backtrack to avoid appearance of agreement with a typically traditional viewpoint. No matter that it is correct, they want to avoid the ‘stigma–and THAT impulse has more influence over them than the truth, unfortunately.
Goldy, you attempt to start fires where there are none and then fan the flames to keep it going. The Repubs don’t SANCTION DISCRIMINATION against homosexuals (let’s use the proper term) just because they don’t think another new law need be added to the MILLIONS on the books and forgotten now. What we need is more civility and good behavior. Would that be less to your liking because it might make sense or because it is too Christian of us to expect that?
There presently are two categories of employers: those who would fire someone for being gay and those who would not. For those who would not, this law is unnecessary, and increases the risk that some day they will be unjustly accused of discrimination, requiring them to defned themselves with legal fees, etc.
In other words, this law hurts the majority of employers who would never think of discriminating by increaasing their business risk. How does that result help society?
zip @ 50–And as we all know, the extra cost of lawyer fees and insurance against this kind of stuff is passed on to the consumer. The employees make less than they might if the employer wasn’t choked to death also.
Just a note: The wonderful world of Castro has shown to be blossoming. The miniumum wage has recently been doubled! It is now almost $10—-per month. Isn’t the “S” word great?
I don’t think anyone should be able to be fired for engaging in an activity that’s legal, such as smoking or being overweight or growing old, unless the employer can demonstrate that it directly interferes with the job. For example, an actor’s weight or age. Or an alcoholism counselor’s ongoing alcoholic binges.
The Republicans [i]DO[/i] sanction discrimination against homosexuals by refusing to prohibit it. This debate doesn’t occur in a vacuum; the Republicans are doing this at the behest of religious conservatives who want to discriminate against homosexuals to the point of outlawing their sexual behavior if they could get away with doing so.
As for the choice argument, no one chooses to be homosexual. It doesn’t matter whether the cause is genetic, environmental or a mixture of the two. Homosexual tendencies develop independently of volition. The only issue is whether someone acts on those tendencies.
The Republicans and the American Taliban who control them think that homosexuals can convert into heterosexuals through willpower even though there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Absent such conversions, the RATs (Republican American Taliban) want homosexuals to engage in heterosexual behavior, which in many cases is possible if someone gets horny enough and closes his eyes. Of course, there is the slight matter of the quality of the heterosexual relationships entered into by such homosexuals, but that RATs don’t care about that one.
If that’s not possible, then they want homosexuals to remain celibate, which means to live stunted and lonely lives. The RAT’s worst nightmare is a community that accepts homosexuals for what they are, and honors them and their relationships. This drives them crazy.
In fact, from the RAT point of view, the more stunted and lonely and tortured the lives lived by homosexuals the better. The strategy can be summarized thusly: First you drive them crazy, then you call them crazy. I remember as a kid constantly hearing that fags were incapable of real love or of forming relationships. The real question is why. And now we know the answer: Because the RATs want to make it impossible for them to do so.
I’m hoping what I read above about how being gay is a choice or that gays should be sent into combat unarmed are jokes…the tone didn’t sound that way but I can hope anyway.
G Davis: “Truth in jest.”