I'm not sure how it started, but the Michigan legislature at one point considered adding to the state's anti discrimination law. Specifically they wanted to put in protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender groups.
Think about that for a minute... currently the state of Michigan has no laws protecting those groups from discrimination. You can be fired for being gay. You can be fired for people thinking you are gay. You can be denied any service any where in the state of Michigan for your sexual orientation and/or sexual identity.
That's fucked up.
But hey... at least there was an attempt to correct that. The problem? Republicans. Michigan's legislature is controlled by a Republican majority. It also has a Republican governor, but so far he hasn't been really involved with the process.
Now as this idea moved through the legislature, the Republicans could have simply denied it. They could have stopped it from every moving forward. Even if it did move forward, they have the votes to deny it becoming law. Easy Peasy right?
Of course not. The Republicans seemingly took the idea and made the situation worse. A proposal was passed that would protect Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual orientation issues, but left Transgendered people out in the cold. The groups pushing for this anti discrimination law were upset and didn't want to support anything that only protected some. That alone would have killed support, but the Republican's added another poison pill... the 'Religious Freedom Restoration Act'
In short, this act would allow anyone of religious conviction to not act in any way that would go against their religious beliefs. Basically if your religious convictions say you should discriminate against same sex couples, then you shouldn't have to provide a service to them. These acts (laws if they're passed) would seemingly contradict each other.
A same sex couple could go into a bakery and order a wedding cake (no, they couldn't legally get married in Michigan, but that's an argument for later). They couldn't be denied service due to their sexual orientation because it would be protected by law. At the same time the baker could deny them service, as making a wedding cake for a same sex couple would go against his religious beliefs.
What?
Really, the issues was dead to begin with. Those who wanted the LGBT protections wouldn't support the bill because it wouldn't protect gender expression or identity (The 'T' in LGBT). Those who wanted the religious protections wouldn't support the bill because it would give anti discrimination protection to sexual orientation. The combined bill didn't even make it out of committee.
So what did the Michigan Legislature do? The dropped any pretense of adding any anti discrimination protection to sexual orientation, identity, or expression, and moved on with the religious protections.
The 'Religious Freedom Restoration Act' has passed the Michigan legislature and is awaiting the governors signature.
Republicans are so damned good at naming things. They don't let things like facts get in the way. If I read just the title of this act, I would whole heartedly throw my support behind it. Religious freedom is a tent pole issue in the both the federal and state constitutions. It should be protected with vigor. And then there's that next word... 'Restoration'. What!? Religious freedoms have been curtailed? Some law has been passed that has taken religious freedom away? FUCK THAT! Get in there and restore it!
Um... it hasn't been taken away. There is nothing to be restored. In fact, religious freedom is already part of the anti discrimination act... the very one that they were trying to add LGBT rights to.
With this act, that baker I talked about earlier can now deny service to that gay couple. Except that he already has that right. The boss can now fire that guy he thinks is gay. Except that he already has that right.
It's really a law that does nothing except flip the bird at the LGBT community.
I really hate republicans for doing shit like this. But there's a bigger issue. It's the tiering of rights. Who's right trumps the other? How far do rights go? This argument covers a LOT of ground, so for simplicity sake, I'm going to stay with religion and sexuality.
First and foremost, I believe that anybody should be free to think and believe whatever they choose. If you want to love someone of the same sex, then go for it. If you want to be the other sex, then more power to you. If you want to believe in God and Christ our savior, then do that. If you want to believe in Allah and Mohammad, then so be it. But that doesn't cover your acts.
A homosexual male shouldn't force his homosexuality onto other people. A devout Christian shouldn't force his Christianity onto other people. Now is walking down the street while holding hands with his homosexual partner forcing his homosexuality onto others? No.. in the same way that walking down the street while wearing a cross or holding a bible is forcing your religion onto others.
Is denying a homosexual person any service forcing your religions belief onto others? Yes. It just is. It's more or less saying "I live by my set of morals, and believe that everyone should live by my set of morals, and if you don't then I get to deny you service". It's forcing in the same way that a homosexual person denying service to someone of religious faith is. "Why yes sir, I'd love to take your wedding photos... oh wait? Your Christian? Well then fuck off my friend as I only serve people who believe in the same things that I do"
One of those is true and protected by law. The other isn't. You can't discriminate against a person because of what they believe in. You CAN discriminate against a person because of what YOU believe in. How in the hell does that make any sense? And where exactly would that end?
Can a person of Muslim faith deny service to any woman who isn't covering her head, face, or body? Can a person of Jewish faith deny service to anybody eating a ham sandwich? Can a person of satanic faith deny service to somebody acting nicely?
Of course they can't. Why? Because those are protected groups (well... maybe not the ham sandwich eating crowd...). Serving people who disagree with your religious beliefs does not deny you your religious belief. It simply stops you from acting like an asshole and saying its on religious grounds.
Religious freedom is important and should be protected. It is NOT more important than any other freedom and shouldn't be given special treatment. Sexual freedom, whether it be orientation identity or expression, is important and should be protected in the same manner.
All this act will do is eventually bring the courts into religous matters. When the Christian baker denies service to the Muslim couple, who's religious freedom is being discriminated against more? We already have a law protecting against discriminating based on religion, and now (if the Governor Snyder signs it into law) we'll have a law protecting discrimination based on religion.
Laws should protect what you think and believe. They shouldn't protect you from acting on those beliefs in a harmful manner.
------------
On a related note, the Tea Party portion of the Republicans are fucking Michigan in another way. Our roads are HORRIBLE. Highways, streets, bridges... they're all failing. I heard (but don't know how true it is) that the Michigan Department of Transportation recently put out a report saying that they needed an additional 1.2 billion dollars to bring our roads back up to acceptable standards. That's just to get to 'acceptable'. To get to 'good' would cost about 2.4 billion dollars.
The Michigan house of representatives pushed something forward... increase the gas tax and gain an additional 1.4 billion dollars that would go right into the roads. The Michigan senate pushed a similar bill. Their bill would get 1.4 billion dollars from redirecting revnue toward the roads. Where would they get this revenue? From education funding.
These people are SO against taxes that they want to take our education funding (which isn't enough as is) and funnel it into the roads.
Lemme put this out here... I don't like paying taxes. I 'earned' my money and I want to spend every little penny of it on me and mine. But I easily acknowledge that taxes are the best way for all of us to put our money together and do wonderful things. Like build and maintain roads. No roads... no way for me to get to work and get money.
We can argue all day and night about what is 'too much' taxation. We can argue all day and night about what government should and should not do. But at the end of all those arguments we're going to come to the conclusion that the government should be doing something, and that we need to pay taxes into the government to do those things. The only way to NOT agree with that is to be an anarchist. My biggest problem with the Tea Party's stance is that it is absolute and one sided.
Do not ever raise taxes.
I believe in many things. Some things I believe in a LOT. But I try to never be an absolutist. Words like 'Always' and 'Never' have no place in civil discourse. So when a party says something like "You can NEVER raise taxes" or "You can ALWAYS lower taxes", I'm immediately against that position.
OK... enough ranting. There's still football to watch.
No comments:
Post a Comment