• RSS GLOBAL VOICES – Burma/Myanmar

  • May 2009
    S M T W T F S
    « Apr   Jun »
  • honor-the-dead.jpg Gaza Carnage Counter
  • [clearspring_widget title="The Trail" wid="48613409efac8054" pid="48bccfd800f3b17a" width="160" height="300" domain="widgets.clearspring.com"]
  • svaw-banner-eng1.gif
  • save-darfur
  • Archives

  • Meta

  • Advertisements

Enough with the Special Rights Bullshit!

Religious freedom is the first right guaranteed to us in the First Amendment. Special rights for homosexuals receive no explicit mention in the Constitution whatsoever. Yet now we must choose between liberty and the homosexual agenda because, it turns out, we can’t have both.

Thus ended the latest ‘opinion’ missive from Mr. Bryan Fischer – one who some routinely address as ‘the village idiot’ – that was spotted last week in the pages of the Idaho Statesman.   Every once in awhile I’d mull it around attempting to find some concise way to address its scatteredness, and still finding it so disjointed it’s rendered illogical and laughable.

In the first sentence Mr. Fischer turns the attention onto Amy Herzfeld directly.   She had previously written a piece submitted to The Idaho Statesman as a representative of one organization making up a coalition of groups encouraging equity in workplace protections by an amending of the Idaho Human Rights Act (IHRA) to include sexual orientation and gender identity.  The tone is such that it feels as those Fischer is attacking Herzfeld – subtle condescension, you might say.

Then in trundles Mr. Fischer to demonstrate how such a proposed amendment to the Idaho Human Rights Act will be the granting of “special workplace protections” to those who engage  in certain “sexual behaviors.”   Not only will these degenerates have “special workplace protections” but religious liberty itself will be compromised, presenting – you guessed it – a “clear and present danger to religious liberty.”


I’ll just bet he thought that quite the clever twist -a ‘clear and present danger to religious liberty’  – all the while quite pointedly disregarding the lack of choice involved in one’s sexual orientation.

Religious liberty is under threat – a ‘clear & present danger to religious liberty’ is afoot.



And how is this even germane?

No obstruction is being presented wherein you are no longer free to believe in what or who you chose in relation to your religion or spirituality.  You are not being obstructed in any way from the ‘practice’ of your religion via services, presentations, vacation bible schools, workshops, retreats, etc. , as you see fit.  Why we could even argue that those very people who believe as you are protected from being fired from their jobs (in the public sector/domain) for having particular religious beliefs OR believing in a spiritual power, now couldn’t we?

It is not about the awarding and/or granting of “special workplace protections – it is solely about awarding/granting individuals the same rights others & I enjoy in relation to our workplace.  How this threatens someone’s ability to believe or practice their religion is beyond me.

Special rights are when only certain folks get to do something – like say – VOTE – that others DON’T get to do.  PERIOD.    Those who get to vote – say, men (or whites) – have special rights that women other anyone of color do not (or did not) enjoy in a functioning supposedly egalitarian society.   Now voting is equitable, a right enjoyed by everyone, e.g., everyone gets to vote once reaching the age of majority – 18.  (Now one could argue adults have special rights that children do not enjoy – but that’s another argument.)

Laws that provide special rights and privileges based on “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” are bad public policy because they represent a clear and present danger to religious liberty, freedom of conscience and freedom of association. Such laws are quickly used to harass, intimidate and punish individuals, businesses and organizations that adhere to traditional, time-honored values regarding human sexuality.

Another interesting phrase used by Mr. Fischer – “traditional, time-honored values regarding human sexuality…...”  Apparently Mr. Fischer is unaware of historical fact along with biblical yore, notwithstanding several types of marriage as cataloged here.   Good ole’ traditional, time-honored values that uphold a woman being forced to marry her rapist.  Those good ole’ traditional values, Mr. Fischer?  Of course, we haven’t mentioned Solomon, David, Abraham, Jacob, or even King Herod was reported had a couple of wives – see John the Baptist’s attack on Herod, beheading…..

Some time ago I happened to stumble across a series of articles written in the Seattle Times on marriage and the family.  Marriage as an institution or a tradition has not been static.

“Marriage is not an institution that’s etched in stone,” said Steven Mintz, a University of Houston professor who specializes in family history. “Whenever people talk about traditional marriage or traditional families, historians throw up their hands, because we say: ‘When and where?’ “

Those various ‘factions’ of folks who comprise our society have beliefs and/or traditions that do not jive with those of Mr. Fischer, including apparently, his religious beliefs.   I would put out that if Mr. Fischer cannot tolerate his beliefs  being challenged, then perhaps they aren’t worth the trouble of having.  However this really isn’t about religion.  It’s about that which is separate from religion – unless of course your ‘business’ is religion – it involves “the state” – “the government.”   It’s about providing equitable protection when it comes to employment as well as other areas in the public sector/domain.

As Ms Herzfeld writes:

Sadly, it is still legal in Idaho to fire someone, deny housing or refuse college admission just because that individual is or is perceived to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.

It’s time to change that.

coexist2As an incidental note,  no one has mention Idaho being a ‘right to work/at will’  state.  I would think it tends to up the ante for such an amendment as promulgated by the coaltion.  Although it is important to point out, Idaho is also one of 11 states with a ‘covenant of good faith and fair dealing‘ clause, wherein there is the existence of: “An implied agreement that it’s the duty of employers to treat employees honestly, fairly and ethically, especially dedicated, long-term employees.”


One Response

  1. […] Original post by Wordsmith […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: