Gay rights bill passes

I’m confused by the parenthetical note on the second sentence: many of the church’s parishioners are members of the church?

Did you mean that many of the parishioners are employees of Microsoft? or.. ?

I share in the first comment’s question for clarity.

In the meanwhile, as an Evangelical Christian (but not one of ‘those’ Evangelical Christians), I have to laugh at that church’s position to boycott Microsoft. What are the other options? Apple? No, their political action committee gave something like 70% in 2004 to the DNC. Linux? Doubtful. Stallman, the founder of FSF, is a devout atheist! Perhaps they could pull out their old Commodore 64s. Really, do people actually *think* before calling for a boycott?

The Northwest is so full of themselves. The whole left coast is insane and this proves it. Why don’t people in the Northwest put more energy into better schools? How about the great traffic problems on Avondale, how is this going to help that? How is the Gay rights bill going to help your Suicide rate or Meth problems? How is this law going to address the fact you can’t even build a simple monorail? Priorities are so crucial, the Northwests seem to be in disarray.

I think that Microsoft made the right decision by supporting this bill. It just guarantees basic civil rights in housing, employment, and insurance. Microsoft’s same-sex benefits are more liberal than the new legislation and this church hasn’t taken any boycott action before.

The minister seems like a really nice guy. He apparently requested that Steve Ballmer *fire* the Microsoft employees that were trying to get MS to support the legislation.

Gates and Ballmer have both had the bravery to reveal their personal position on this bill. What about you Scoble? Should a gay Microsoft employee have the right to buy a house in the state of Washington?

So… robojamie (or anybody who can answer):

Prior to this bill, it was illegal for a gay person to buy a house in Washington? This is a serious question.

No, but the law makes sure that a gay person can’t be denied housing because they are gay.

lol @ stupid church

anon: sorry. I messed that up. Yeah, I meant that members of the church work at Microsoft.

robojamie: You must have missed the earlier times when I took on my bosses. Here’s one: http://radio.weblogs.com/0001011/2005/04/23.html#a9919

I thought it had been nearly 30 years. Wasn’t 1977 the first time a version of this bill hit the state legislature?

Bill: that’s possible. Microsoft had supported it for eight, dropped its support last year, then reinstituted its support.

Guzzard,

Where did you get the bizarre idea that a state shouldn’t protect the rights of its citizens until all of its other problems are solved?

Now, don’t you need to run along and prohibit science in the schools in Kansas or something?

Uh, Hello Mr. Random, I don’t care how much legislation the Peoples Republic of Washington put out, making this law will be as effective as the other laws. People will choose to obey it or not, the lawyers will get richer, and everyone will lose in the end. The amount of energy expensed on idiotic protections is out of control. Most people don’t care what goes on behind closed doors as long as the rent is paid, and the job is getting done. What people don’t like is legislated morality. These laws do no good, and one day it will become crystal clear.

Okay Guzzard, so why have the amendments that guarantee equal rights for black people? Those have cause tons of lawsuits and problems.

Why have the amendment that gives women the right to vote? That caused all sorts of annoying issues.

The Voting Rights act? Bah, lawyer fodder. Title IX? Hey, that’s just frivolous lawsuits.

Oh, and if people don’t care what goes on behind closed doors, then why were they arresting gay adults in Texas?

Hmm…it would appear that you’re, what’s that word…oh yes, “wrong”. That’s it, wrong. Right now, in pretty much every state, with Washington being a notable exception, if you’re gay, (or straight for that matter) and I have the power I can:

Deny you employment, or the ability to get employment *solely* because of sexual orientation.

Deny you housing or the ability to get a home *solely* because of sexual orientation.

etc. In fact, as long as I can show that sexual orientation was the only reason, I can deny you any right not specifically enumerated for you in other ways via the U.S. and applicable state Constitutions. And there’s not a damned thing you can do about it.

I’m still hoping that a group of very rich and powerful gay folks decide to stop being nice, and start showing people why making discrimination based on sexual orientation legal and even approved of, is such a terribly bad idea.

I wrote about that last point…god, that would be hilarious to watch all the heads go ‘splody from trying to protect the rights of heterosexuals while still legalizing discrimination against homosexuals.

1. This is unnecessary involvement by MS. If you want to get involved politically in patent law, hey, I understand that, your stockholders understand that, your employees understand that. More importantly, there’s a freakin’ business case for that. In this case, why alienate a significant proportion of the world, and MOST of the future population of the world (Conservative muslims have a higher birth rate and a rock-solid social system for low defection rate) for a tiny, albeit affluent social class that is a fraction of your customer base?

And it’s not as if the management of MS doesn’t make enough money to do this personally and head off ANY controversy. They probably just don’t feel strongly about this.
2. Of course I don’t like the law. Blacks are immediately identifiable as such, and so have no alternative strategy for equal treatment - they need protection. To a lesser extent, so do women for the same reason. Gays are not immediately identifiable except by choice. As for the social issues revolving around property of gay ‘couples’, this is one of the tiniest, most affluent social classes in the world, why do they need MORE protection? The administrative costs come out of everyone’s pockets - regardless of religous belief.

Worse is the potential for abuse. EVERYONE thinks their little social group is maligned and misunderstood, muslims, born again Christians and gays, especially. That doesn’t mean that you’re actually being discriminated against. There are no ‘gay’ water fountains at work. And this isn’t the civil rights era.

So Scoble, it passed, and what difference will it make?
I could think of several reasons why legislators shouldn’t have passed the bill, but my biggest reason is that it isn’t needed. Nowhere in the discussion was there serious analysis as to whether gays are actually being discriminated against. Where are the stats in the unemployment roles where gays even make a “blip” as to the makeup of the unemployment roles? Where are the homeless stats that show how gays are a disapportionate number?

The bill was a total red herring and its true agenda was to “bash” religious doctrine. Why is it business of eight or less don’t have to abide, but a private business owner of nine does? Doesn’t the private business owner of nine have the right to follow his/her religious beliefs? No one is forcing gays to work for this employer of nine. Who would want to work for someone who doesn’t share their beliefs? Yet, there are plenty of jobs out there. Just go down the street. Why the need for the law? Most public business already have the policy in place due to shareholder influence.

The same could be stated in regards to housing. So this or that landlord won’t rent you an apartment, there are plenty down the street that are willing to take one’s money. Seattle, Tacoma and the major cities already have ordinances. Why was the bill needed?

The reason for the bill was to make a “religious” statement and was a prerequisite for the fight over gay marriage. It was an anti-religious statement, pure and simple. Religious in-tolerance is acceptable in the State of Washington, even though it is against the law. Oh, the slippery slope Washington legislators have started down. What is next, allowing sex offenders to claim minority status because their behavior is related to their genetics? Why was obesity not also added? It is in part (a large part) related to genetics? If the goal was non-discrimination, then there are more classes of people that are stereotyped and put down alot more common than the rich, gay community is today. How about short people? Why is it you have to be six foot to be a top leader these days?

I am being ridiculous in my arguments to make a point. The point is there was no real discussion as to whether the bill was really needed. It was passed for one reason and that is to make a statement. It wasn’t passed to correct any undocumentable travesty in the current society. Thirty years ago, it may have been required, but society has passed the bill by. Time has corrected the inequities. There are a lot bigger problems the legislators could be focusing on instead of this silly statement bill whose only purpose was to support the gay communities thumbing of its nose at established religious doctrine. Without the religious aspect of the issue, the issue is moot.

Just my two cents.
TC

Senator Rosa Franklin is dead on. She states :It’s not special privileges. It’s merely saying treat me the same.”

Senator Bob Oke and many other religious right nuts cherry pick the verses they want out of the bible. Sen. Oke was quick to state the Bible says homosexuality is “an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22).

However, I suppose whenever he sits down for a nice lobster and shrimp dinner he completely glosses over Leviticus 11:10-12. The Bible uses the same word (abomination) to describe this meal.

When I was growing up religion was about love and peace. Today, people use the Bible to justify hate and discrimination.

President Bush says that Islam is in a fight with the terrorists for the heart of their religion. I believe Christians are in the middle of a similar fight.

I pray that love and peace wins over hate and discrimination.

I applaud Microsoft for doing whats right even if it isn’t what’s popular.

One other question for others to consider. Now that the bill has passed, how does one measure whether its effective or not?

Does one measure by the number of lawsuits? This seems like a poor measure.

With all other EEO related measures, they relate back to a person filling out a “record” stating what race, sex, and other classifications they are. This is how one gathers statistics to demonstrate whether a company is being “fair” in its employment or a community’s housing is not discriminatory. Does this mean I will now be asked on my employment card, or in a real estate filing whether or not I am straight, gay, etc.? This seems like a big invasion of privacy.

The good news is now we will know the exact population of this so-called minority group, or will we? How many people will be forth coming on this matter? Is this really what we want this issue to boil down to (i.e., which box you check)?

My personal opinion is there should have been a just-cause firing law and leave the rest to community and social education, instead of trying to fit it into some law. No one will know if the law made any difference or not. Stats weren’t collected before and any stats collected in the future is an invasion of privacy and suspect as to their accurracy.

Just my additional two cents worth.
TC

So again, are you okay with being denied the right to work in the US and the right to own a home and have children based SOLELY on sexual orientation? That knowing no matter how you answer that question, you can have your rights stripped from you, with no chance of recourse, and no legal avenue of redress?

Because right now, it’s legal, except for washington state and a handful of others to do so.

So TC, if you don’t have a problem with being summarily denied the right to earn your way, have a home and a family due solely to sexual orientation, then you’re being straightforward in your opposition to this law. If you do have a problem with this, then you may want to re-examine your position. Discrimination is a double-edged sword. It cuts both ways.

John,
Of course I don’t believe in discrimination. You missed my two questions. It isn’t an issue of discrimination, it is an issue of (1) is the bill even needed, and (2) how in the heck do you measure whether it is being effective?

Everyone “assumes” that discrimination is rampant, but I for one have seen no mention of any even semi-solid statitistics that quantify the issue. The only issue I see is the debate in religious institutions as to whether the “acts” are sinful or not sinful. Even Christian denominations are split on this issue.

Alot has changed in society in thirty years. While the bill may have made sense thirty years ago, one needs to address whether it makes sense now. The bill is vague when it comes to the gender identity issue and if they are going to collect any meaningful statistics, it will cause a serious invasion of privacy. Do we really want the state snooping into bedrooms collecting stats on who is and who isn’t?

No, the best answer to this issue is education on tolerance, not some law. Tolerance includes the recognition that some religions consider the “acts” as sinful and that one needs to respect religious freedom.

tc, because there’s no tracking of discriminatory acts based on sexual orientation, ala racism in the 50s and 60s, the answer is, “we cannot know”.

Your education idea is nice. Of course, it will never make it into any publicly funded school below the post-grad level. Here’s a test. Go to the next school board meeting for whatever district you live in. Propose an addition be made to the 7th - grade curriculum, a class on tolerance for homosexuals.

Watch the reaction. You should probably have a straight shot at the door.

Why?

Because while getting physical with homosexuals is a hate crime, treating them like second - class citizens is not only legal, but approved of and defended at every level of the federal government, led by the White House. Congress does it too, for example, some in Congress trying to add an amendment to a DOD bill, that would prevent anti-discrimination laws from being applied to the Boy Scouts on federal property, then that is an example of federal support for discrimination against homosexuals.

You’d have to go back to things like Plessy v. Ferguson, over a hundred years ago, or possibly even Dred Scott to find an example of Government sanctioned and led actions that compare.

Wait, I’m wrong, you don’t have to go back that far at all. Look at current BIA and American Indian policy, see what happens when the government decides that some people aren’t as good as others.

There can be, it is impossible, no good to treating people as second class citizens this way. Let me be clear that in many ways, people on death row have more rights than uncloseted homosexuals in this country. Charles Manson is less of a second - class citizen than Barney Frank, who is a Congressman.

But i think the best opinion on this comes from that of Justice John Harlan, the lone dissenter in Plessy, in his dissenting opinion on that case:

Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law…In my opinion, the judgment this day rendered will, in time, prove to be quite as pernicious as the decision made by this tribunal in the Dred Scott case…The present decision, it may well be apprehended, will not only stimulate aggressions, more or less brutal and irritating, upon the admitted rights of colored citizens, but will encourage the belief that it is possible, by means of state enactments, to defeat the beneficient purposes which the people of the United States had in view when they adopted the recent amendments of the Constitution.