Box Turtle Bulletin
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobby“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobbyMarch 1st, 2014
Lately I’ve been trying to point out the contradictions and hypocrisy of those pushing “religious freedom” laws, and influential conservative Erick Erickson has done me a favor by making it all too clear.
In December of 1865, the several American states ratified the thirteenth amendment constitutionally ending involuntary servitude in the United States. In the twenty-first century, Americans are coming full circle. In a number of states, a black man can again be forced by the government to work involuntarily for a white man.
Not since the nation eliminated Jim Crow laws during the civil rights era have we seen such a bizarre conundrum. But if the black man is a Christian and the white man is gay, a court can forcibly order the black man to serve the white man or drive the black man from business.
What a load of crap! I don’t know what else to call a statement so ridiculously and self-evidently false. “Not since the nation eliminated Jim Crow laws during the civil rights era have we seen such a bizarre conundrum”? Hardly. This “conundrum” has been continuously in place for 50 years, ever since Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which states:
All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
This is the law that establishes “a court can forcibly order the black man to serve the white man or drive the black man from business.” 50 years, Erick — it’s been place for 50 years.
But I don’t even have to invoke this law to demonstrate Erick’s incoherence. Just a few lines later, he writes:
Despite the histrionics of some, no one suggests that anyone be allowed to simply deny service to any class of people, be they black or white or gay or straight. The issue only arises in the context of gay weddings.
I just want to sit him down, look him in the eye, and say very slowly,
Erick, if you’re not suggesting that anyone be allowed to simply deny service to any class of people…
…then you’re endorsing the idea that a court can forcibly order the black man to serve the white man or drive the black man from business.
I doubt it would do any good. He must already know the Civil Rights Act imposes what he calls “involuntary servitude.” And apparently he gets that it would be political suicide to push for legalizing racial discrimination. But he and his colleagues will keep trying to have it both ways for as long as they can. Maybe if we draw them a picture:
Feel free to steal that. Post it on Facebook. Perhaps a picture really is worth a thousand words, even if it’s only a picture of words.
Latest Posts
Featured Reports
In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.
When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.
In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.
On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.
Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"
At last, the truth can now be told.
Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!
And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.
Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.
Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.
Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.
“Google” is a trademark of Google Inc.
© Box Turtle Bulletin. All Rights Reserved.
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
Richard Rush
March 1st, 2014
Wait!, it’s full equality because “if the
blackwhite man is a Christian and thewhiteblack man is gay, a court can forcibly order theblackwhite man to serve thewhiteblack man or drive theblackwhite man from business.”FYoung
March 1st, 2014
Wow, talk about dishonesty.
Unfortunately, we can’t assume that Americans, especially in the South, know that it has been illegal for decades for businesses to refuse service on account of race, religion, sex and other grounds.
We also need to remind African Americans and religious Americans that they stand to lose if this longstanding principle is overturned and anyone is allowed to refuse service to anyone based on their religion.
Jim Crow was largely rationalized on the basis of biblical prooftexting. A few
of today’s most prominent anti-gay groups started off as anti-racial desegregation groups.
Regan DuCasse
March 2nd, 2014
Of course, you always get the “you can’t compare race to sexuality” retort with this one.
So being VERY coherent ourselves about the use of religious restrictions on sexual morality shouldn’t be hard to confront these people with.
Nor religious restrictions when it comes to mixing with other religions.
Are ALL of these restrictions going to be in place or only used against gay people?
And will they be informing the public of this?
Because prior to this no business ever had any specific signs or required their customers to inform each other of their respective religious backgrounds.
Except if they were keeping kosher, or couldn’t use alcohol in the prep of their cakes or other foods.
But you can usually find a kosher or other kind of caterer that DOES have the background to deal with ethnic or religious dietary restrictions or specifics.
But the sexual morality issue is a very tricky one, because the vendor would be delving into territory they wouldn’t dare with their hetero customers.
We know it.
They just don’t want to ADMIT IT.
Nathaniel
March 3rd, 2014
Let’s not ignore the obvious race-baiting he is doing. He is perpetuating the stereotypes of gay people as exclusively white and black people as exclusively anti-gay. That’s the only way he can justify his “white man forcing the black man to serve him” scenario. Otherwise, it would make just as much sense to say minority business owners should be exempt from the Civil Rights Act, etc, since it would “force” them to serve non-minorities.
As Regan suggested, there is another way to point out their hypocrisy. Are these religious freedom laws (even ones being restricted to matters of service directly related to marriage ceremonies, not that any have actually been that narrow) permitting business owners to deny service to ANY marriage matter they find objectionable, or only marriages between people of the same sex? If the former, then I would acquiesce that this is truly meant to operate as an expansion of religious freedom, all be it one that would open the doors to discrimination against more than just “teh gays.” If, on the other hand, these laws are really only meant to target gay relationships, then our opponents are, indeed, trying to “deny service to [a] class of people.” Either way, these are bad laws, and we need to keep their supporters from pulling the wool over the eyes of the general public.
Priya Lynn
March 3rd, 2014
Nathaniel, the laws are ostensibly meant to just deny service directly related to gay marriages but the language in them would permit at least denial of service to any wedding or in the more broadly defined laws permit anyone to deny any service to anyone.
Timothy Kincaid
March 3rd, 2014
Nathaniel,
As Priya Lynn pointed out, they are intended to be anti-gay but – since Romer v. Evans – they cannot be written that way. So the language would allow a broad range of discrimination.
And it is that language which has, in part, scared a lot of mainstream Republicans. They might not be allies, but they aren’t going to risk wide-scale anti-Catholic, anti-Jew, or anti-Mormon discrimination just to stick it to the gays.
And, I believe, this has served them a bit of a wake-up call about just how wildly extreme is the anti-gay segment of the party.
Leave A Comment