broncofan
11-05-2013, 05:56 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-close-to-passing-bill-to-ban-discrimination-against-gay-workers/2013/11/04/9a0f408c-4582-11e3-b6f8-3782ff6cb769_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?
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?