It looks like the contentious gay rights bill has passed in Washington state:
Washington will no longer allow discrimination against gays and lesbians in employment, housing or lending, thanks to landmark legislation passed Friday after nearly three decades of debate.
The Senate ended the epic battle shortly before noon, when, one by one, members called out votes in favor and against the gay rights bill.
The 25-23 roll call vote was a countdown to victory for gay rights advocates who have fought long and hard to pass the anti-discrimination legislation.
***Fran Dunaway, executive director of Equal Rights Washington, said it’s been a “long time to wait for equality, but it was worth it.”
Dunaway thanked Murray for his perseverance and companies such as Microsoft and Boeing because they “stood up against the anti-gay extremists.”
She was referring to the Rev. Ken Hutcherson of Antioch Bible Church in Redmond, who continued to threaten a boycott of Microsoft and other companies that support gay rights legislation.
Well, good for them, and we can see if that loudmouth ass Ken Hutcherson will have any success boycotting Microsoft. ‘Conservatives’ really have nothing to be angry about here, as Adam C. points out at Red State:
Many here oppose laws like this, but I point out that this was done through elected representatives rather than the courts. Kudos to the activists who convinced representatives and voters of their position instead of going over their heads.
Of course, we all know we are not dealing with conservatives when we talk about people like Ken Hutcherson.
zzyzx
You should read the comments of the opposition.
(http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002767571_gayrights28m.htm)
Gotta love the Republican party.
Decided Fencesitter
Actually, at least he is honest in his convinctions. He’s not saying, “Homosexuality is wrong; but hey it is okay if my daughter brings her partner over for dinner” he’s taking the position of “homosexuality is wrong. Even for my daughter.” I can respect that; even if I strongly disagree with it. And that’s the flaming libertine speaking.
nyrev
Yes, but there’s a difference between “Homosexuality is wrong. Even for my daughter.” and “Homosexuality is wrong, and we should be able to fire people arbitrarily for it.” If it wouldn’t be legal to do to divorced people or Hindus(both wrong from the Christian standpoint) then doing it to a gay person can’t be justified.
zzyzx
I actually complimented the leader of the Republican opposition when he was interviewed here for his honesty even as I was amused by his idea that having 96% of the population marry would swamp a system that would work just fine for 94% of it.
If the opponents put a measure on the ballot and use that kind of argument, I hope people fire back with fears that the next step is to outlaw bacon cheeseburgers (the Bible thinks that is immoral too). I never understood why your religious convictions get to tell me how to live.
Oh, and these people are conservative by the way. You don’t get to remove the nuts from your movement.
ppGaz
Well good for you. I can’t respect it.
demimondian
Oh, I can — provided that the day that his first grandchild is born, and his daughter tells him “no, my partner doesn’t want you to contaminate the baby, so you can’t visit” he accepts it with as much grace as his duaghter showed.
John Cole
Me either. Principled and pig-headed gains no respect from me, and I will stick with the rest of the unprincipled bastards who not only think life is too short for this kind of shit but who also choose to accept their family members aa they are.
ppGaz
On this we totally agree, John.
zzyzx
I can’t say that I “respect” it, but I’d rather hear that argument (which at least is both honest and turns people off), than some sort of code worded thing that sounds like it’s not being done out of prejudice.
demimondian
Heh. I’ve fought for gay rights for thirty years and here I am on the wrong side of the issue.
I see a difference between Quixotic devotion and pig-headed bigotry. If Oke can really accept the full consequences of his principles, including all the costs, then I consider that to be worthy of respect, even if his beliefs are completely depraved. That’s cheap courage on my part: I don’t feel at much risk of having to respect his devotion, since I think he’ll whine about “anti-straight bigotry” when the chickens come home to roost, but, hey, I could be wrong.
The Other Steve
I feel sorry for this Adam C now that he’s going to be banned from posting at Redstate.
Anyway, the latest from Ken Hutcherson…
It’s really quite a clever plan.
It reminds me of Pinky and the Brain, one of my favorite cartoons. :-)
demimondian
Yeah, I liked Hutcherson’s plan a lot. I’ll be glad to sell Antioch members my Microsoft shares at an inflated price, if that’s what they really want, particularly if they contract to sell me a fixed-price option to buy them back at a lower price on a date certain. That way, they can guarantee the massive simultaneous sales they want. Hell, depending on the terms of the deal, I’ll even put the money for the purchase in escrow
{shakes head} Right, Ken. I just see a lot of corporate drones shaking in the boots over that one.
Steve
That’s great, that a law saying you can’t fire someone for being gay passed by one vote, in a pretty blue state no less. What an enlightened society we have.
Der Rote Baron
Bob Oke got blood cancer. Maybe God gave him that since he has abandoned his own blood. On the other hand Dick Chaney hasn’t rejected his daughter and he’s having major heart problems. Doesn’t seem like there is a simple path to follow.
Jay C
Uh, Steve: JFTR, the Washington State anti-gay-discrimination law had already been passed by the State Legislature’s lower House by a tidy 61-37 margin: the vote cited here was in the State Senate , as reported . Dunno about the State where you live, but this sort of legislative margin is a pretty good indication of what Washington’s lawmakers intended.
Pooh
That’s actually not surprising, since Eastern Washington is, er, slightly more conservative than Seattle, and I’d imagine the Senate is based more on geography than population density. (Hence the Sea-Tac dominated house was much more in favor.)
Steve
What I’m saying is that something like this shouldn’t even be minorly controversial at this point in history. We’re not even talking about gay marriage here, we’re talking about the right not to lose your job because you’re gay. The fact that people who oppose this type of basic equality are not generally regarded as extremists is very disappointing.
Sojourner
Dick Cheney is the leader of a party that despises his daughter. Yeh, I’d say he rejected his daughter.
srv
Oh, in case y’all missed it:
nyrev
Steve:
I see you’ve fallen victim to the Gay Agenda. Next thing you know, you’ll be wanting to hire our pets.
Jcricket
This bill in question merely added the phrase “sexual orientation” to WA’s list of protected classes (women, race, religion, already on the list). The primary argument against adding this phrase, as presented by the Republicans in WA state, was that the Christian Bible tells us homosexuality is unacceptable. Sure, a little rumbling here or there about how the state is “interfering with business”, but really it was “Homosexuality is a sin according to my religion, so I should be free to fire people because of it”. Now, unless you’re asking Roy Moore, legal scholars will tell you that “the Bible says so” is a piss-poor basis on which to support/oppose a law.
BTW, before someone blows a gasket, businesses with less than 8 employees and religious organizations are exempt from most of these hiring rules (already were before this bill, still are).
And I’m with John on this point:
I would call it pragmatism and I think it’s actually one of the more admirable qualities in a person. There are a few times to be principled, but most of the time real-life calls for dealing with nuances by making situationally appropriate judgements. People like Bob Oke aren’t to be respected, but pitied for their small-mindedness.
Sojourner
So you’re saying that one segment of the population can be compared with pets?
Interesting.
Jay C
jcricket: regardless of what “legal scholars” may say, the strength of support/opposition for laws generally doesn’t come from scholars, but from the public, and their elected lawmakers – a large number of whom DO believe that “the Bible says so” is a perfectly rational basis for enacting one or another stricture into our legal codes. Especially where anything to do with sex is concerned. And doubly especially where homosexuality is an issue: too many folks just get too freaked out about it (and probably would be regardless of what the Bible says) for it to pass as just another “political” issue.
Jcricket
Jay – I don’t disagree with you. The Bible is often really just cover for the “ickiness” factor regarding sex issues. The bigger issue is that, in reality, these are the same people that think judges are being “activist” when they rule that a law based solely on “the Bible says so” is ruled unconstitutional. While this may be an effective political strategy, this poor understanding of American government is bad for this country.
That being said, I’m pragmatic (ha) about this, and its not fundamentally a secular vs. religious issue. There are plenty of religious people that aren’t fundamentalists. Those were the people that helped fuel the civil rights movement in the 60s. It’s just that lately the fundamentalists are just screaming louder than others lately.
nyrev
For crying out loud, Sojourner. I know there weren’t emoticons in that post, but it was a direct parody of the type of reasoning that’s gone on during the “marriage protection” debates. I suppose you could ignore the fact that as far as logic goes, that post doesn’t make any sense. But if you had read a little further up in the thread you might have noticed that I’m for the anti-discrimination legislation.
Sojourner
Whoops! My mistake. I thought you were Santorum’s cousin sharing Santorum’s obsession with man-dog sex.
nyrev
Nope. And my first relationship wasn’t with the family mule, either.
For the “family values” party, some of these Republicans just can’t keep away from the livestock, can they?
Brooklyn
Well nothing has been posted in a while here, so in case anyone else just so happens to find this page, i’d like to add my two cents.
While i’m Canadian and not subject to the U.S’s laws (not yet anyway, we’ll see how long they can hold off from taking our oil, but i digress) we up in democracy’s Freezer do take in a lot from the whole american media and political landscape and fortunately our distance allows us an objective perspective that is not as readily found the your country. Now if i remember correctly, one of the principles that your country was founded upon was the separation of church and state, and it seems to me that a vote on whether to protect gays in the workplace seems like a “state” matter. Given this simple principle it would seem to me that such arguments such as the “bible says so” has no place in such matters. Now i’m sure you can look back at every equal or civil rights campaign and find someone in elected office who used the bible to fight against it, “getting rid of segregation, voting for blacks and women” ect. ect. My point is that the bible has been misused almost since its conception. Now before you go off on a rant i’m not saying its the bible itself its bad, its that certain people get into power with a warped sense of what the bible means, or simply uses it to advance their own agenda. Now people saying “The Bible says so” have to look at it historically, would the neo-cons and average person of today have the same opinions as did the neo-cons and average person of 50 yrs ago, 100 yrs ago, 1000. What the bible means to the mainstream of the population is constantly changing, while i myself am against much of what the church does, it does not mean i hate christianity, i like the religion its just the institution that uses that religion is where it all seems to go downhill. And i’m sure that in say 50 or 60 years from now when we’re old and our children look back they’ll probably say “wow you people sure were’nt for equal rights back then were you”(or something along those lines, and we’ll probably say “well boy/girl, we were pretty progressive back in those days.
My point is that if we keep the exact same system, the same laws, the same traditions, the system stagnates, there needs to be change, i’m not saying that we should throw away everything that we hold dear and all become hippy freaks, its just that society naturally progresses (or evolves, i know the religious nuts will go ‘nuts’ over that remarck) and these people who constantly fight to stop that natural progress are simply fighting a futile battle to strangle the natural progression of that society. Lets say we completely kepts everything the way it was, you know those old conservatives who always say back in the good old days, a simplier peaceful time that never really existed considering how simple and peaceful can you be with the threat of nuclear annhillation hanging over head, this age for most of them was the 50’s lets take a look back. Oh those were fun days, noone was openly gay you could be openly racist, blacks were segregated, women confined to the household, rampant Environmental ignorance “Hey honey lets DDT the corn field, spray pesticides on the apple tree, paint the house with that lead-based pain, and get rid of those bugs with a nice big can of raid, and i’ll install the asbestos lining on that addition i’m building. (And they wonder why the baby-boomers are having health problems).
I guess the one thing that really confuses me is that these religous fanatics out there that fight against it act like that if they legalize gay marriage they are going to have to marry a person of the same gender, When they legalized sodomy most of them were reacting like the second the bill would be past someone would start humping them. My point is that personally those laws don’t affect them. If you think homosexuality is wrong fine, but don’t take those views based on religous beleifs into the government, and with out the churches and biblical interpretations saying so, there aren’t really any other arguements against it. You know how many men in North America say they hate homosexuality, but how many of them would jump at the chance to see 2 young hot lesbians going at it, kinda hypocritial if you ask me. Well thats it for me, if you got this far i applaud your patience, if i changed your mind great, if not i admire your ability to read the full argument of someone who you disagree with, i know this is longwinded but thats what the internet is for.
Oh and one last shot(in case you haven’t noticed i hate bible thumping fanatics) at those people who use religion to justify everything, they always say evolution doesn’t exist, if thats true why do we keep having to get flu shots every year, obviously that flu virus is “changing”, “adapting”, “evolving”.
goodbye for now i look forward to reading someones respnse.