There’s an increasingly popular strategy among antigay legislators that allows them to promote discrimination against LGBT people without actually saying the words, and 2016 Republican presidential hopeful John Ellis Bush (who knew ‘Jeb’ was just his initials?!) is fully on board.
Gone are the days when politicians can come out and make targeted antigay remarks without facing backlash (though some still try), so they’ve come up with a new rhetoric to wiggle around those pesky do-gooders.
They aren’t anti-gay, they’re anti-religious discrimination. It’s more of a death grip than a strategy, but it allows them to introduce bills granting people the legal right to discriminate against LGBT people without ever even having to hint at the word “gay.” Some Republican strategist must have been gifted a nice bonus for that one. Maybe an all-access pass to CPAC, the Woodstock of boring assholes.
Here’s how J.E.B. recently tap danced around the topic. When asked about pending Georgia legislation aimed at protecting the state’s oppressed Christian religious folks, he said:
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Jeb Bush makes his case to Georgia lawmakers – and wades into a thorny debate. http://t.co/vrcs7ItA8m #gapol pic.twitter.com/9BavGHXKOi
— Greg Bluestein (@bluestein) March 19, 2015
Here’s the text, which is as confusing to read as it is to listen to:
“I don’t know about the law, but religious freedom is a serious issue, and it’s increasingly so, and I think people that act on their conscience shouldn’t be discriminated against, for sure. There should be protections, and so, as it relates to marriage equality — and that may change, the Supreme Court may change that. That automatically then shifts the focus to people of conscience, and, I don’t know, have their faith make — they want to act on their faith, and may not be able to be employed for example.”
Classic. Just like “voter I.D.” laws are all about cutting down on non-existent voter fraud, and not, you know, disenfranchising minorities and poor people from casting votes, religious discrimination laws are simply there to protect “people of conscience.”
And as is usually the case in American politics, it gets much more farcical.
In a recent op-ed in the Washington Examiner, Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) and Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) draw a comparison between so-called religious discrimination protections and, get this, Chipotle’s announcement that it will stop carrying pork at many locations due to a supplier’s violation of animal welfare standards.
Because freedom.
“It is crucial that the same freedom of conscience enjoyed by the leadership of Chipotle remain equally available to business owners of faith,” they wrote. “Indeed, much more so, as freedom of religion is explicitly protected by the First Amendment. We cannot simultaneously laud the leaders of a business motivated by a commitment to environmental sustainability and discriminate against the leaders of a business motivated by religious belief.”
Is that the best they can do? Really?
A Chipotle spokesperson broke it down in one breath. “It’s a pretty ridiculous comparison,” Chris Arnold told The Huffington Post. “Our decision not to serve pork that doesn’t meet our standards isn’t discriminating against any customers or group of customers.”
The Human Rights Campaign added its befuddled logic:
“Using Chipotle’s business decision to not stock carnitas as a defense to give corporations having religious beliefs special legal protections is ludicrous,” said David Stacy, government affairs director for the Human Rights Campaign. “It adds nothing and indeed trivializes a very serious debate about whether corporations should be able to refuse to hire some employees and turn away some customers based on who they are or who they love.”
An aide for Sen. Lankford said, “The column says nothing about gays; it’s about the importance of businesses being able to make decisions in line with their values. It’s as simple as that.”
Is that what they tell themselves to fall asleep at night?
DCFarmboi
Once again, beyond the legal reasoning, there is nothing in the Christian religion — even its more anti-gay versions — that says it is a sin to sell a pastry to a gay person.
badtungsten
This is nothing new. Republicans have been doing this to equal rights protections for women and minorities since the 1980s. They can’t be blatantly bigoted anymore so they turn to unconstitutional laws that will take another 15 years to undo through the court system. Anyone voting for a Republican is voting for bigotry. Spare me the ‘both parties are bad’ rhetoric. There is only one party in our two party system that is rotten to the core, and that’s the GOP. Democrats aren’t saints, but at least the official platform of the party doesn’t call for us to be relegated to second class citizenship (or worse).
MacAdvisor
If I may suggest, the comparison is even more untenable in that in the case of Chipotle, they are acting as a buyer in the market place. Buyers may discriminate on any basis they choose. Buyers may specifically decide not buy from a store owned by an Asian or eat at a restaurant owned by an African American. In this case, Chipotle is choosing not to buy from suppliers who don’t meet their health and safety standards.
Sellers, on the other hand, must accept all comers, otherwise the market place is distorted and citizens do not enjoy the equal protection of the law. This is what Republicans don’t understand. A business really doesn’t have a religious belief. Its goal is to make a profit within the bounds of the law. As a practicing Quaker, I don’t believe in the use of force and violence. I’d make a lousy police office. I don’t become a police officer because of my religious beliefs. If I wanted to be a baker, I’d have to bake for any who wish to employee my services.
Buyers and sellers have different responsibilities in the market place.
Jim Guinnessey
Jeb Bush is just another pandering Republican hopeful who will say or do anything in front of any group that might earn him an extra vote. Hypocritical Republicans love using their blatant anti-Gay verbiage to sway threatened religious groups who see anything beyond their narrow views as ungodly. Bush may use state rights as his argument for Gay discrimination but if state rights, especially in the bigoted Southern states, were enabled we would still have slavery. Bush like his cohorts and Republican supporters in today’s Federal Congress is just another whining wannabee.
Saint Law
How do Republicans square their professed belief in a free market meritocracy with their Royal Family?
Alan down in Florida
Perhaps Chipolte should not offer pork carnitas because the eating of pork is offensive to their Jewish and Muslim customers. And while they’re at it stop the beef because it is offensive to their Hindu customers.
@MacAdvisor – you are exactly right.
Realitycheck
The Bush are like Herpes, it never goes away, they keep on coming back…..
GG
Where business is concerned, aren’t these the same lot who scream the loudest about how completely unrestricted capitalism is the sole and complete answer to American prosperity? How hypocritical of them (nothing new there) to be rushing to pass so-called “religious freedom” legislation that would allow business transactions to legally NOT happen.
What could possibly be so powerful as to motivate them to subjugate their complete devotion to a completely open and unencumbered marketplace?
Oh, that’s right. Fear. Fear and hatred. And if they garner a few votes along the way from other like-minded people, well that’s just fine by them.
Giancarlo85
The religious right wing fa*s*ci*sts are back at it… where are all the LCR types on here to come to their defense?????
Giancarlo85
@Alan down in Florida: ““Our decision not to serve pork that doesn’t meet our standards isn’t discriminating against any customers or group of customers.”.
This is what they said.
It has to do with animal welfare standards. Not religion. Learn how to read please.
Scribe38
Reason 978 why I hate the GOP and the people that vote for them. These people have never met a minority group they didn’t want to exploit, mistreat, or oppress.
Giancarlo85
Yeah and we still have tools on here who defend the GOP or some part of the GOP because they think their “economic views” are good. I can’t believe how naive some people are… even on this site. Where are all the LCR types on here?
1EqualityUSA
Do you remember W’s, “Compassionate conservatism” b.s.?
Giancarlo85
@1EqualityUSA: Dubya, during the 2000 Campaign, actually spoke against intervening in other countries and how much of a compassionate conservative he was.
Man this country was really screwed over by him. We would have been better off with Gore who should have been President (and rightfully won I must add).
Mack
Again I ask: How can any GAY PERSON even consider voting for a Republican? They’re against our even being alive. We have an attorney in California trying to make it legal to shoot gays. We have Republicans in most states trying to take away our rights. The biggest problem I see with gays is they don’t get out and VOTE.
jwtraveler
@MacAdvisor: I’m not a Quaker, but I’m a pacifist. According to this argument, those of us who oppose all killing and violence should be exempt on religious grounds from paying taxes that fund the military, criminal executions and all law enforcement agencies that carry guns.
NateOcean
Just another one of the monsters that crawled from Barbara Bush’s fetid womb.
Giancarlo85
@Mack: Correct! There are some delusional dingbats on here that vote republican and say some republicans are good lmao. Republicans are horrible for the country, horrible for the economy, horrible for minorities, horrible for women and children in other countries that they launch wars on, etc… what is so good about republicans? Absolutely fucking nothing.
I wonder where that CoachS tool is…
1EqualityUSA
Giancarlo85, Bush was amazingly horrible for this Country.
NateOcean, love it…”crawled from her fetid womb.” I thought W’s mama was a jackal.
Giancarlo85
Some guy in a different article said he was “an economic conservative, social liberal”. I don’t know what that means since the two are incompatible. Economic conservatives are absolutely horrible for any country.
onthemark
Republicans are in favor of animal abuse, and in fact, they enact laws in the prairie states to criminalize any investigation of the horrific practices of agri-business.
AxelDC
The right to oppress other people is not a right. Using religion does give you an excuse to violate other people.
tusgold
One publicatioon did a story og going to CPAC and using Grindr and entitled his post Gay at CPAC he got plenty of hits. That to me is incredibly simple and ingenious. I wish it had got some press. That could have been shopped to a ton of newspapers. They had a video where some of the guys at CPAC actually did a full interview.