Fish Wrapper is Proud To Promote Special Rights And "Perceived" Sexuality

In it's "breaking news" today, the Daily Dead Fish Wrapper web site continues to tout the Democrats' quest to tout how a small minority of people can circumvent the wish of the large majority of Oregon voters. The occasion is the sneaking through of the Senate of Senate Bill2, the bill that will grant special rights to people based on behavior.

SALEM - Today, gay and lesbian Oregonians completed a quest - begun 34 years ago - when the Senate quickly, quietly and decisively passed a bill protecting them from discrimination in housing, work and public places.

Hmmm, so why all the sneaking around? Is it because the liberals know that they are going against the clearly stated wish of Oregon's voters?

"It is a good day for Oregon," said Sen. Ginny Burdick, D-Portland, who carried the bill to the floor this morning. "This is the last step in the legislative process. We just get better and better as a state the more inclusive we are."

With little debate and four members absent, the Senate voted 19-7 in favor of the anti-discrimination bill. Senate Bill 2 passed Tuesday in the House after two hours of debate. Gov. Ted Kulongoski has said he will sign the bill, which emerged from a task force he created last year.

Sen. Brad Avakian, D-Bethany, said that despite the lack of fanfare, there was lots of emotion on the Senate floor during the vote.

"To complete a struggle that has gone on for so long was a feeling of relief," he said, "and of satisfaction that Oregon is a better place today than it was yesterday."

That depends on who you are talking to. If you're talking about conservative Christians who will have to be "educated" about how homosexuality is perfectly normal and acceptable, it wasn't a good day. If you belong to a church or provate Christian school who will be forced to hire homosexuals against your moral objections, it is not a good day. Or even if you are one of the 57% of Oregon voters who passed Measure 36 in 2004, it is not a good day, because a small group of liberals decided that your vote didn't matter, it wasn't a good day.

Now here's something interesting to note.

Opponents, led by conservative Christians, could challenge the law by collecting signatures to send it as a referendum to the ballot in the November 2008 general election. If it is not challenged, the anti-discrimination law will go into effect Jan. 1, 2008.

The Fish Wrapper (just like the rest of the MSM) is very quick to apply labels when they want to denigrate someone. Here's a question; how many times in this article - or any other article, for that matter - do you see the "liberal" label applied anywhere?  That label is conspiciously absent, isn't it?  Maybe it's because they don't want to give liberalism a bad name, even though it constantly gives our society a bad name.  

Finally, at the end they mention the real danger of the law.

The law bans discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing, the workplace and public places such as restaurants and theaters. The law defines sexual orientation as "an individual's actual or perceived heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality or gender identity."

The key word here is "perceived".  Does anybody else see the danger in that?  If you "discriminate" against someone's "perceived" homosexuality or gender identity, even if it is wrong, you can be taken to court and sued!  For instance, take a man who "perceives" himself as a woman.  What's to stop him from going into the women's restroom or locker room?  He "perceives" himself as a woman.  Isn't that all that matters?

This is a perfect example of the liberal mindset.  There are no rules, no wrong or right, no morals.  It's all about what I want, what I feel, what I perceive, regardless of the damage I do to families, morals, and society as a whole.  And obviously, this is the mindset of the Daily Dead Fish Wrapper.

I must have been living under a rock .....

I was unaware that we were all still living in a Puritan State.

"For instance, take a man who "perceives" himself as a woman. What's to stop him from going into the women's restroom or locker room? He "perceives" himself as a woman. Isn't that all that matters?"
This very thing happened to me in the womens restroom the other day. I came out of the stall and went to the sink to wash my hands, and there was a very pretty man doing his eye make-up at the sink. I was caught off guard at first, but he smiled at me and said good morning. I returned the sentiment, washed my hands, and left. You might be amazed to find that no one in the bathroom that day ran to their local government to whine about the pretty man in the woman's bathroom, who was making a mockery! of their femininity! Making them...GASP!... uncomfortable!

The government isn't here to make sure that everything is crisp and clean and white. That is fascism. Check out Mussolini's definition of fascism, it sounds a lot like what you're trying to sell.

based on behavior?

Let's break this down into a story problem: If Bob has three cookies and Todd has two cookies, and then you give Todd one more cookie, Todd did not receive a special amount of cookies...

Currently, the law prevents discrimination in housing and employment based on race, color, ethnicity, place of origin, marital status, and religion. Now, using your logic, we ought to amend these laws and remove protection of marital status and religion, since they are based on behavior.

Of course, anyone with a middle-school literacy level knows that this bill does not grant "special rights" to anyone. What it infact does is gives the *same* rights to homosexuals that EVERYONE else enjoys.

This is where the whole "minority status" argument falls on its face. If the law were written to protect homosexual african-american mormon women from Canada, it would clearly be granting minority status. But, the law protects sexual orientation, nationality, religion, sex, and place of origin... sounds to me like it protects the minority just as much as it protects the majority.

Ignoring The Whole Story

You're ignoring the whole story. To borrow from you, anyone with a middle school literacy level who bothers to read the entire bill can see the other dangers, and I addressed them in my post. How is this "education program" supposed to work? What will it involve? Telling those of us who believe homosexuality is wrong an immoral how wrong we are? How about the "perceived" sexuality and the dangers that brings? And most importantly, how about organizations like churches and religious schools who don't want to hire a homosexual for very valid reasons? Do you think letting a judge decide the "primary purpose" of an organization is fair to the organization, especially considering the liberal activism that most judges display in this state? As a church member and a father of two kids in private school, I certainly don't. If you're a religion-hating liberal, then your answer to those questions would be a resounding "yes", but I think most people can see the dangers.

By the way, you're missing something in your story problem. The problem with this law is that if Todd wants some of Bob's cookies, and Bob doesn't want to give him some, then Todd can sue for discrimination, even though Bob doesn't want to give any to Todd.

Next time, don't just attack the straw man; look at the whole picture.

As an American citizen you

As an American citizen you have the right to hate, and you have the right to yell it in the streets; you do not however have the right to pass legislation banning the things that make you queasy. No one is telling you that you must love and accept gay and lesbian people into your heart and home, anymore than you have to accept women, minorities, or people of different religions. You must, however, accept them into your places of business, give them equal opportunity for employment,housing, etc. I cant fathom why this is hard to understand. How is this anything BUT democracy?
You and everyone you know has the right to:
NOT get an abortion
NOT have a same sex marriage
NOT do drugs
NOT drink alcohol
NOT like women, minorities,and people of different religions
Very few people will ever have a problem with you NOT doing something, but when you try to pass laws discriminating against others behavior that makes you uncomfortable, you strike a blow to democracy that may very well endanger your own freedoms and rights in the future. I find hate propagating, religious fanatics icky, but how dare I or anyone else try to take away their individual rights. The laws, regarding behavior, are here to protect you from murderers and rapists and other forms of violence, not things and people and behavior that you find icky.

Could you explain to me how gays and lesbians are harming your family? I am really confused as to the reasoning on this issue.
Thank You

"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children since the introduction of Christianity have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:223

User login


Syndicate content