Wednesday, February 10, 2010

SDFPC uses misdirection and distortion against equality

The South Dakota Family Policy Council again doesn't tell the whole truth -- twisting anecdotes to fit their small minded agenda.

Just a little work on the interwebs shows how hard it is to make the case that equality is not a good idea in 2010.

Please look at HB 1144 yourself instead of taking their word for what it is. 

It's really a very fair bill and would be very good for our State.


OK, here we go...

To:         Friends of the South Dakota Family Policy Council
From:    Chris Hupke
Re:         Update on HB1144.  (This bill will place "Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity" into state non-discrimination laws.)
Thank you for your prayers and phone calls to House Members on HB 1144.

You're welcome!
-- snip --

Contact the House Lobby at 605-773-3851
Name
Chair/Vice
Blake, Susy

Boomgarden, Jamie

Conzet, Kristin

Curd, R. Blake

Iron Cloud III, Ed

Jensen, Phil

Lucas, Larry

Moser, Nick

Nygaard, Eldon

Pitts, Carol
Chair
Rave, Timothy
Vice Chair
Romkema, Fred

Vanderlinde, Martha


First, a little education from the all knowing Family Policy gurus:


Sexual Orientation refers to "who" a person is attracted to.
Gender Identity refers to “how" a person sees themselves.

And y'all have a problem with that?  

Like Jesus would give a whit if you loved God and your neighbor as yourself: "There is no commandment greater than these." 

Get it? Got it? Good!

OK, here we go ...  

TALKING POINTS:    
  • HB 1144 goes way beyond where state non-descrimination [sic] laws should go.  There are no Federal Laws protecting "Sexually Orientation or Gender Identity" - For example, HB 1144 will protect categories of people specifically omitted from Federal Laws like the American Disabilities Act. 
 
WRONG. Many states have passed such laws, and a Federal ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act)  is not far away, as it has strong bipartisan support in the US House and Senate.


  • South Dakota is a Right to Work State.  Employers can release any employee for whatever reason.  However, HB 1144 will force employers prove employees are not released for discriminatory reasons listed in HB 1144. This changes the burden of proof required by the employer. 

WRONG. HB 1144 merely adds a small number of protected classes (including age, sexual orientation, gender identity, and veterans status) to the existing statute. Even in a right-to-work state, discrimination is wrong and should not be permitted.


  • Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale, U.S. Supreme Court ruled organizations that exist for the purpose of expressing views and ideas.  The Boy Scouts released an employee living in a homosexual relationship. This SCOTUS ruling overruled the New Jersey State Supreme Court, upholding a NJ state law.

WRONG. Apples and oranges. The issue is that the Boy Scouts wanted to discriminate on several fronts while accepting public funds that expressly forbid this. The Boy Scouts have chosen to be a public organization or private, depending on what was to their advantage. This is wrong and was a very bad Supreme Court decision.


  • Social Data on discrimination offers no compelling argument for changes either in the area of housing or employment.

WRONG. WHOSE social data? Ask one of the many young people who have left the state because they are LGBT or are disgusted by the discrimination here. Or, better, read the Williams Institute study.

Potential scenarios created by this legislation:

  • A Christian business owner would be charged with discrimination if he/she refused to do business with a group that has their identity solely base on their sexual lifestyle. 
    • A New Mexico photographer was fined for not agreeing to take photos for a "homosexual wedding." 

WRONG The New Mexico law was as whole different kettle of fish. HB 1144 does not force anyone to do business with anyone -- it's only about discrimination in employment and housing.

    • A Christian printer in Canada refused to print posters for a pro-homosexual organization, we was fined and spent years defending himself.  

WRONG First of all, this was in Canada (Duh -- DIFFERENT LAWS, a whole different NATION with its own Constitution [imagine it - not exactly like ours!!])- their Human Rights Commissions system is something that we are unlikely to find in this country because our legal and political system is much more friendly toward Christian beliefs. Secondly, Brockie in the end won on appeal, he was found not to have to print posters. However he did have to print envelopes and letterhead, NOT posters.

    • The Knights of Columbus were charged with discrimination for not renting their banquet facility to a homosexual couple.

WRONG. First, this was in Canada again -- wouldn't happen here.  Also, this is also inaccurate -- you can look it up on the intertubes: the tribunal found the Knights were indeed entitled to refuse access. The problem was the Knights abruptly cancelled their contract when they discovered that it was a wedding reception for a lesbian couple -- without offering any help to find a new venue, they just cut them off, did not return their deposit, etc.  Replace "lesbian" with "black" and you get why this law is necessary. (And, the Knights is not a church -- it's a Catholic organization that opens its doors to the general public, like the Elks.)


  • Public Accommodations, bathrooms, would be open to people based upon their perceived "gender identity."  In Colorado, a man that identifies as a woman can use the same restroom as women, girls. 

How would you even know -- unless of course you pinned her down and looked. Wouldn't put it past these people! 

 
  • A manager speaking to a subordinate about their sexual lifestyle could be considered "discriminating."  Christians are called to be Salt and Light, but counseling/mentoring/ or simply speaking to a business associate about their alternative lifestyle could be grounds for discrimination charges. 

OR HARASSMENT charges!  Would it be okay with you if atheists criticized your faith every day at work? Get over yourself!


  • A property owner could not refuse renting to tenants again based on "sex. Orientation or gender identity" regardless the demographics of tenants currently residing in the property (children and families).  Imagine a transvestite man, requesting an apartment in a family unit.  

Yeah, imagine that. As if these people really have any clue as to the difference between transvestite men (who, like Rudy Giuliani, are usually straight) and LGBT people.  

Terrifying: South Dakota children growing up in a world where people are allowed to be different from you.

I guess if the SFDPC has their way, not in South Dakota.

1 comment:

  1. SDFPC again doesn't tell the whole truth. So, how about the others which SDFPC hided before?

    ReplyDelete