Homophobia

[broncofan]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...769_story.html

It was only a short while ago that I was obsessed with the GOP Southern Strategy because it was so amazing to me that not too long ago the Republican party was able to openly exploit racial prejudice to radically alter the demographics of their constituency. They were able to get away with this because people were not appalled by their attempts to win the South by appealing to what Nixon's political adviser called the "negrophobe white" voter (they've always had a talent for euphemistic language haven't they?).

Now they are faced with a different civil rights issue involving the rights of gay men and women in the workplace. Only seven Republicans could find it in their hard hearts to vote for a measure that would simply make it illegal to discriminate against gay men and women in employment. John Boehner has said that he would not bring it to the House floor.

The Republicans have strayed from their family values/homophobic rhetoric and now claim that they oppose the measure because it would benefit trial lawyers. One might ask: would it benefit trial lawyers any more than the current prohibitions against discrimination in the workplace, except by providing more comprehensive anti-discrimination coverage? I have not read the law but cases brought under Title VII are subject to a cap on compensatory and punitive damages already. They do not seem to be complaining about the amount of liability or the terms of the law but rather the fact that the lgbt community would have recourse under this legislation.

So my question to those Republican partisans here is this: can one even pretend that the objections of the Republican party are rooted in anything but distilled homophobia? Should people be subject to termination of their employment because they are gay? Do you have the guts to express as much disgust at Republican homophobia as you do at the Democratic party's attempts to reform healthcare or institute gun control?

[trish]

Imagining all those small businesses fighting off discrimination suits brought tears to Boehner's eyes. This weepy drunk and his morally bankrupt majority is bringing our nation to its knees. Let me hear a "Amen".

http://www.salon.com/2013/11/04/boeh...ition_to_enda/

[Ben in LA]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...769_story.html

So my question to those Republican partisans here is this: can one even pretend that the objections of the Republican party are rooted in anything but distilled homophobia? Should people be subject to termination of their employment because they are gay? Do you have the guts to express as much disgust at Republican homophobia as you do at the Democratic party's attempts to reform healthcare or institute gun control?

1. Republicans don't discriminate; Democrats are the party of racists; they wanted slavery and formed the KKK, remember?

2. I have the right to fire you just because...even if you ARE the top producer at the job.

3. Of course they don't have the guts. It's our god-given right to have guns, and the bible says homosexuality is wrong. The bible is always right.

[broncofan]

Imagining all those small businesses fighting off discrimination suits brought tears to Boehner's eyes.

Amen. I'm surprised Boehner didn't say he was afraid this law would sodomize small businesses. Just the thought would be enough to give the average Republican a Boehner.

[broncofan]

1. Republicans don't discriminate; Democrats are the party of racists; they wanted slavery and formed the KKK, remember?

I think you hit all the high points. Some truth though its current significance isn't clear.
This last one might give them some hope that years from now (50-100?) they will have moved on from this five plus decades long nightmare of theirs.

[broncofan]

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news...es-on-facebook

Didn't want to start a new thread since this also falls under rubric of Republican homophobia. The Cheney sisters, Mary and Liz, are feuding publicly over comments made by Liz in her senate bid in Wyoming. Meanwhile, her opponent in the primary is grilling her for being "soft" on gay rights, meaning too supportive of them.

A low point in national politics: a woman having to prove that she's not too supportive of gay rights just because her sister is also gay and her primary opponent exploiting this family tension.

Republicans? Anyone want to make a defense here?

[danthepoetman]

Seems like no one wanted to, Broncofan. Here's something on the funny side of the subject. Take this, conservatives...

[Silcc69]

The evangelical voters have a very strong say so in the republican party. If republicans were ran by the moderates then they would be a pretty ok party but being a moderate in that party and you might as well be a liberal democrat.

[robertlouis]

Interesting that the GOP's much-vaunted "moral majority" is now statistically a very distinct and shrinking minority. They're like lemmings.