Ex-Gays Demand Non-Discrimination Inclusion, File DC Suit
Wait, wait. We’re so confused!
Social conservatives are constantly fighting gay-inclusive non-discrimination measures. To them, such a legislative expansion represents “special rights” that we gays – who, obviously, choose to love the same sex – don’t deserve. Yet, for some reason, an ex-gay group this week filed a lawsuit against the queer-inclusive Washington DC Office of Human Rights for discrimination.
Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (ha!) claim the so-called reformed homosexuals are the “most bullied” group in the States and, thus, need to be included in non-discrimination legislation.
We knew these people were nutty, but this goes far beyond absurd.
Via Market Watch:
Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) is suing the Washington DC Office of Human Rights for failing to protect former homosexuals under its sexual orientation anti-discrimination law. “The ex-gay community is the most bullied and maligned group in America, yet they are not protected by sexual orientation non-discrimination laws,” said Regina Griggs, PFOX executive director.The DC Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on “sexual preference,” “sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” and “gender expression.” The Office of Human Rights maintains that homosexuals, bisexuals, transgenders, and cross-dressers qualify for protection under this Act, but ex-gays do not. PFOX’s lawsuit asks the DC Superior Court to direct the Office to include former homosexuals under the sexual orientation law.
“Shouldn’t ex-gays enjoy the same legal protections that gays enjoy?” asked Griggs. “Former homosexuals and their friends have been fired from their jobs, repeatedly ridiculed, assaulted, and intimidated. This harassment is most often perpetrated by the same groups who demand protection under sexual orientation laws but work to deny ex-gays the same respect.”
Griggs goes on to specifically wonder if Senator Barack Obama, who has endorsed gay-inclusive non-discrimination legislation, supports those same rights for ex-gay folk. She also laments Obama distancing himself from Donnie McClurkin, a gospel singer who claims to be ex-gay.
Wouldn’t any law against discrimination on the basis of orientation necessarily include discrimination against “ex-gays” — either as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or both?
We should also include unicorns, gollywogs, + bogeymen in these anti-discrimination laws.
They’re constantly being doubted + having their very existence challenged
I guess they have a point if they don’t see themselves as being defined by either “sexual preference,” “sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” or “gender expression.” At which point we have to ask: WHY, exactly, do they feel they are they being discriminated?
If they see themselves as being ex-gay — in the most logical sense: not-gay-anymore, but never-once-straight — then they seem to fall into some sort of gray zone. In which case we SHOULD also include ‘non-sexuality / a-sexuality’ as part of sexual orientation, much like homo-, bi-, or hetero- sexuality. But I don’t think this is the point they’re trying to make.
Something tells me they want protection under the category of ‘religion’ or maybe even ‘sexual lifestyle’ where they are not chastised for having gone through the change BECAUSE of their faith/beliefs or religious/conservative upbringing.
Whatever the case, unless the ex-gays clarify on what terms they want to be protected, this request will be forever an enigma.
The mentally disabled already have protection under the law. I don’t know what they’re b!tching about.
How can not wanting to be discriminated against be absurd? Equality means we’re all equal.
Um, if they’re “ex-gay” then aren’t they per se “straight” and so part of the highly privileged, protected and rights-laden majority? C’mon, guys, figure out what the hell you are.
What the fuck are they attracted to when they become ex-gay: sheep. Well, maybe they should forget about the gay part and file as beastiealists as long as they like sheep pussy-or whatever.
What do they do? Go around telling people that they were gay when it’s presumably no longer relivant. Unless if you’re ex-gay you can feel up ex workers by mistake (a’slip”).
I hope someone will tell them they are nuts.
If someone were fired for espousing ex-gay beliefs, they might have a cause for legal action under the umbrella of religious freedom and the First Amendment. However, I don’t think they’re covered under sexual orientation. And here’s why:
Most explanatory clauses in anti-discrimination law defines sexual orientation as “actual or perceived heterosexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality.”
So, the law doesn’t even recognize the existence of an “ex-gay” sexual orientation. And since they’re claiming they’re “none of the above,” they’d have to prove – scientifically and culturally – that there’s a rational basis to expand the three category scheme we’ve been using since (at least) the 1970s.
Robert Knight made a similar comment during a Coral Ridge webcast on hate crimes legislation.
http://nlsngrc.blogspot.com/20.....media.html