Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
Maybe Don't

Washington State Lawmaker Introduces Gay Discrimination Bill

Sharon_brown_8652522421_341c2f0cf0_h-615x345

Just months after the state legalized same-sex marriage, Washington state Sen. Sharon Brown (R-Kennewick) introduced a new bill that would allow businesses to deny service to the LGBTQ community.

According the bill, businesses could refuse service to due to differences over religious or philosophical beliefs. The refusal of service would be legally allowed as long as it does not violate federal law, which does not hold any protection for the gay community.

Brown’s legislation was sparked by the dispute over a florist denying service to a gay couple that was (legally) getting married. The shop’s refusal was due to religious reasons, which Brown is now trying to protect.

In an effort to protect religious differences, Brown is opening up the state’s non-discrimination statute to denial of the LGBTQ community. If passed, it could go as far to potentially allow hotels to deny rooms to gay individuals.

By:           Stacy Lambe
On:           Apr 27, 2013
Tagged: , , , ,
  • 31 Comments
    • Shanestud
      Shanestud

      “Religious Freedoms” is a new initiative by the religious zealots to justify their bigotry. Next the KKK and the Aryan Nation will declare it their license and right to discriminate against Jews, interracial couples, gays & lesbians, African Americans, HIndus and Muslims. They will pull some obscure Old Testament verse out of their ass and proclaim the Bible and their religious freedoms give them the right to hate and hurt people. They want their “religious beliefs and freedoms protected”. God save us all from religious fascism.

      Apr 27, 2013 at 1:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joetx
      Joetx

      A RepubliCON introduced this bill? What a surprise! *sarcasm*

      Apr 27, 2013 at 3:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DarkZephyr
      DarkZephyr

      This woman picked the wrong state to try this in.

      Apr 27, 2013 at 3:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dakotahgeo
      Dakotahgeo

      I can’t believe these nematodes like Sharon Brown still exist, especially in a state that has passed and enjoys marriage for all! There’s something most vile about trying to pass a law against GLBT people and giving them the right to marry. That bill is not going to go too far in my legal estimation.

      Apr 27, 2013 at 3:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • gaymaniac
      gaymaniac

      Well, GO-ing P-roud republicans must be very happy with their Party, while sitting in their LogCabin…I mean closet. If I was a gay Republican, I would just have to feel so f****ng depressed not only with these people but with myself- THIS IS the definition of hating yourself. Or maybe they are really and I mean REALLY into S&M.

      Apr 27, 2013 at 4:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CaptainFabulous
      CaptainFabulous

      So does this bill cover only LGBTQ, or is it all-encompassing? Like, for instance, could I deny service to an African-American patron if I’m a card-carrying member of the KKK? Or maybe to Muslims since my all-loving Christian God deems them to be heathens?

      Apr 27, 2013 at 4:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dakotahgeo
      Dakotahgeo

      @CaptainFabulous: Your comment is right on the mark! This bill will fail, if just based on your points! (I don’t understand these types of people).

      Apr 27, 2013 at 4:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jvp3299
      jvp3299

      How long will it take the courts to crush this if it is passed. Don’t they ever learn? A huge waste of time but many brownie votes from her Republican conservative base….. She clearly has aspirations of running for national offices.

      Apr 27, 2013 at 4:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jvp3299
      jvp3299

      Just so I won’t be attacked and misunderstood, I said brownie votes instead of brownie points as in the organization called the brownies, having nothing to do with race.

      Apr 27, 2013 at 4:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dakotahgeo
      Dakotahgeo

      @jvp3299: But there is no Cabinet position for dog catcher! (sarc off).

      Apr 27, 2013 at 5:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Papadude
      Papadude

      Unbelievable.

      Has anyone else ever noticed that these Republican zealots even look like their crazy? Look at this woman – she doesn’t look right to me. Other examples: Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann – both those women look like their nuts. How do these creepazoids get elected is what I want to know.

      Apr 27, 2013 at 6:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • balehead
      balehead

      Actually most women hate gays…they are competition now for jobs and benefits…check out all the hate against gays by women in the UK……

      Apr 27, 2013 at 7:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tjr101
      tjr101

      Gasp! A Republican considering this??? I’m shocked I tell you!!!

      Apr 27, 2013 at 8:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DOFEK
      DOFEK

      This bitch, suffers from mental poverty and in need of urgent psychiatric evaluations; I recomand some strong psychotropic drugs. AdamHomo

      Apr 27, 2013 at 11:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sd2schmidt
      sd2schmidt

      This bill is D.O.A. If the bill even passed the Wash. State Senate, (and that’s a big if)it would only be because the Senate Maj. Ldr., Rodney Tom, (D) a conservative Democrat, has established a coalition majority, along w/ one other conservative Democratic Senator, w/ the GOP, which made him Senate Majoriy Ldr. in the first place. That said, even if the Wash. Senate had given the bill it’s blessing, it would not even get a committee hearing in the Democratic controlled Wash. State House, nor would it survive the veto pen of Gov. Jay Inslee. (D-Wash.) This bill is nothing more than the same crap that voters have rejected the GOP for. I’m sure this bitch is smart enough to know that this bill does not stand a chance, she’s simply trying to get in good w/ her right wing constituents. (of her district)

      Apr 27, 2013 at 11:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kevin
      Kevin

      What many people do not realize is, geographically the eastern 2/3rds of Washington State is EXTREMELY rural farm land and MASSIVELY conservative and republican (with some exceptions.) Kennewick, part of the Tri-Cities area, is in that conservative 2/3rds geographically. Luckily the western 1/3rd of Washington is where all of the population is and it is overwhelmingly liberal. Especially King County which is where Seattle is, and is the most populous county in the state (and where I live.) So it doesn’t surprise me at all that a republican from Kennewick has introduced this bill. It does concern me however, if they phrase this bill properly, pro-gay liberals in the western 1/3rd of Washington may not understand the harm this bill poses to the gay community and feel it is a respectful notion to pass a bill like that for those who are too bigoted to accept the gay community. You can be religious, have an anti-gay and anti-gay marriage status, and still respect the gay community and provide services to gay customers. If you do not like gay marriage or the gay community, don’t marry a gay person or be gay (not that it is a choice.)

      Apr 28, 2013 at 12:13 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caleb in SC
      Caleb in SC

      I have posted a similar comment about Michele “Crazy Eyes” Bachmann: A change of perspective is needed. The more extreme the GOP becomes, the more people they will alienate. Hopefully, this is hasten the GOP death spiral into the dustbin of history.

      Apr 28, 2013 at 3:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • northwest
      northwest

      I can’t even begin to fathom the mindset of someone who would cook something like this bill up. Sickening.

      Apr 28, 2013 at 5:09 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Billysees
      Billysees

      @Papadude: 11

      “Look at this woman – she doesn’t look right to me.”

      Lol……lol……

      Funny and true.

      Apr 28, 2013 at 6:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Billysees
      Billysees

      @sd2schmidt: 15

      “I’m sure this bitch is smart enough to know that this bill does not stand a chance, she’s simply trying to get in good w/ her right wing constituents. (of her district)”

      That sounds about right.

      @Kevin: 16

      “You can be religious, have an anti-gay and anti-gay marriage status, and still respect the gay community and provide services to gay customers. If you do not like gay marriage or the gay community, don’t marry a gay person or be gay (not that it is a choice.)”

      Seems like a fair observation off-hand but, “…have an anti-gay and anti-gay marriage status”…. sounds like that would radically hamper a genuine respect for Gay folk.

      Apr 28, 2013 at 7:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kevin
      Kevin

      @Billysees: “sounds like that would radically hamper a genuine respect for Gay folk.” You can disagree war and still respect a soldier can you not?

      Apr 28, 2013 at 7:37 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hf2hvit
      hf2hvit

      She probably rubs her pussy while thinking of pink tacos

      Apr 28, 2013 at 9:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Polaro
      Polaro

      My religion tells me that I am to morally shun divorced people. This would allow me to deny them service. How fun is that!

      Apr 28, 2013 at 10:02 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kevin
      Kevin

      @Polaro: Great idea, but nope… This bill only applies to owners who wish to deny services to LGBT persons…

      Apr 28, 2013 at 10:09 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Billysees
      Billysees

      @Kevin: 21

      “You can disagree [about] war and still respect a soldier can you not?”

      Answer — yes, but your analogy here is only a fair one, not an excellent one.

      Apr 28, 2013 at 10:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jack
      Jack

      @CaptainFabulous: i haven’t looked far enough to see if i am repeating something already stated, but the bill is coyly worded so that it will only affect glbt folks, reason being an it can only apply to “beliefs” not covered in federal anti discrimination law. guess who that leaves.

      Apr 28, 2013 at 3:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • gaym50ish
      gaym50ish

      Sharon Brown was never ELECTED to the state Senate. She was appointed to replace Sen. Jerome Delvin. Ironically, in her part of the state this bill she introduced may help her get elected for another term.

      Apr 28, 2013 at 6:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian
      Brian

      A lot of women are homophobic towards us same-sex-attracted guys because we represent the male of the species. As men, we are stronger than women and we also have a greater sex drive than women. These advantages represent things that women can’t control. Women oppose anything they can’t control, and therefore they oppose the unrestrained potential of men and their sexualities.

      A good way of illustrating the male-specific hatred of women is to note that women are not opposed to other women wearing trousers but they ARE opposed to men wearing dresses in public.

      Apr 28, 2013 at 8:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Billysees
      Billysees

      @Brian: 28

      “Women oppose anything they can’t control, and therefore they oppose the unrestrained potential of men and their sexualities.”

      You’re on to something significant here.

      Apr 28, 2013 at 10:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles175
      Charles175

      Copy and pasted:

      HUFFPOST SUPER USER
      docrt925
      50 Fans
      18 hours ago ( 3:38 PM)
      —-“There’s a glaring lack of protection for religion in state law,” Brown said.—

      Perhaps she hasn’t actually read her OWN STATE’S CONSTITUTION, which I assume she swore to uphold and defend when she took office? if not, Sen. Brown, pleas re-read Section 11 on RELIGIOUS FREEDOM: “Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion.”

      so…Sen. Brown could legally be refused service at a Washington State business…since, I believe, the ignorant are not a designated protected classes under federal law, are they?

      Apr 30, 2013 at 11:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Billysees
      Billysees

      @Charles175: 30

      That the State Constitution says —

      ” Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion. ”

      — you’d think that such a protected group of people would “gladly” be for the “protection” of another group of folk, namely LGBT’s, that are even more susceptible to persecution because of who they are.

      Is “religious sentiment” more important than “personal sentiment” about ones belief in self by virtue of their sexual orientation ?

      May 1, 2013 at 3:09 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     


    POPULAR ON QUEERTY


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.