Nevada Republican Cresent Hardy sees an LGBT anti-discrimination bill as a case of special privileges
It seems as if Nevada state Assemblyman Cresent Hardy and many other Republicans have a difficult time understanding the word "equality."
Just recently, Hardy told the Las Vegas Sun that if elected as a state Representative, he'd vote against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would bar workplace discrimination on the basis of one's sexual orientation or gender identity.
Elaborating on why he'd vote against this measure, he said the following:
"When we create classes, we create that same separation that we're trying to unfold somehow. By continuing to create these laws that are what I call segregation laws, it puts one class of a person over another. We are creating classes of people through these laws."
For the record, ENDA already protects employees against discrimination based on: Race, religion, gender, origin, age, and disability. The before-mentioned bill would simply expand upon that list to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
Since I feel I've traveled just about every route imaginable in order to explain to people like Hardy that homosexuals are seeking equality, not special privileges, I'll attempt to dumb down the rhetoric some.
Mr. Hardy, answer me this question: Is 3 >, <, or = to 3? Give up? It's equal. I know - that was a tough one.
Let's try another one. Is 977 >, <, or = to 3? No, they're not equal this time. Yes, very good. 977 > 3. Now we're getting somewhere!
When it comes to marriage equality, if homosexuals were allowed to get married, would that mean they had equal marriage rights as heterosexuals or greater marriage rights? Greater? No, sorry - try again...
What Cresent Hardy and many other such individuals don't seem to understand is that laws like ENDA protect all Americans from discrimination based on certain physical characteristics or beliefs. What heterosexual Christian white men like Hardy especially don't understand is that people unlike him are much more prone to facing discrimination than people whom possess his physical traits and beliefs. So, since there's a lesser chance of the Hardy's of this country facing discrimination at the workplace and due to that, a lesser chance of the law having a direct impact on their lives, they tend to feel that the law places other groups above theirs. However, that's a simply ridiculous assessment to make, because even though there's a high probability that the law will directly help certain groups of people more than others, that doesn't negate the fact it protects people of all stripes - well, except for the LGBT community. Regardless if a person is white, black, yellow, orange, or magenta, ENDA prevents workplace discrimination against that individual. Regardless if a person is a Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Jew, or a Hanksian (worshiper of Tom Hanks), ENDA prevents workplace discrimination against him or her. The LGBT community simply wants that equal protection expanded, so that a person, whether they were gay, straight, bisexual, transgender, etc., it would be illegal for them to have to endure workplace discrimination.
So, once again, is 3 >, <, or = 3? And segueing from that, is protecting homosexuals from workplace discrimination >, <, or = protecting everyone else from workplace discrimination?
Still having a hard time with those equations? How about this one: If Republicans could be discriminated against at work and they proposed a bill which would protect people based on party affiliation of workplace discrimination, would they see that as Republicans being treated more favorably than Democrats or would they see it as one group of people seeking equal rights as the other?
Cresent Hardy and his ilk have it all backwards. Laws like ENDA don't result in added segregation. They eliminate it.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/02/19/3307131/cresent-hardy-enda/
Just recently, Hardy told the Las Vegas Sun that if elected as a state Representative, he'd vote against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would bar workplace discrimination on the basis of one's sexual orientation or gender identity.
Elaborating on why he'd vote against this measure, he said the following:
"When we create classes, we create that same separation that we're trying to unfold somehow. By continuing to create these laws that are what I call segregation laws, it puts one class of a person over another. We are creating classes of people through these laws."
For the record, ENDA already protects employees against discrimination based on: Race, religion, gender, origin, age, and disability. The before-mentioned bill would simply expand upon that list to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
Since I feel I've traveled just about every route imaginable in order to explain to people like Hardy that homosexuals are seeking equality, not special privileges, I'll attempt to dumb down the rhetoric some.
Mr. Hardy, answer me this question: Is 3 >, <, or = to 3? Give up? It's equal. I know - that was a tough one.
Let's try another one. Is 977 >, <, or = to 3? No, they're not equal this time. Yes, very good. 977 > 3. Now we're getting somewhere!
When it comes to marriage equality, if homosexuals were allowed to get married, would that mean they had equal marriage rights as heterosexuals or greater marriage rights? Greater? No, sorry - try again...
What Cresent Hardy and many other such individuals don't seem to understand is that laws like ENDA protect all Americans from discrimination based on certain physical characteristics or beliefs. What heterosexual Christian white men like Hardy especially don't understand is that people unlike him are much more prone to facing discrimination than people whom possess his physical traits and beliefs. So, since there's a lesser chance of the Hardy's of this country facing discrimination at the workplace and due to that, a lesser chance of the law having a direct impact on their lives, they tend to feel that the law places other groups above theirs. However, that's a simply ridiculous assessment to make, because even though there's a high probability that the law will directly help certain groups of people more than others, that doesn't negate the fact it protects people of all stripes - well, except for the LGBT community. Regardless if a person is white, black, yellow, orange, or magenta, ENDA prevents workplace discrimination against that individual. Regardless if a person is a Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Jew, or a Hanksian (worshiper of Tom Hanks), ENDA prevents workplace discrimination against him or her. The LGBT community simply wants that equal protection expanded, so that a person, whether they were gay, straight, bisexual, transgender, etc., it would be illegal for them to have to endure workplace discrimination.
So, once again, is 3 >, <, or = 3? And segueing from that, is protecting homosexuals from workplace discrimination >, <, or = protecting everyone else from workplace discrimination?
Still having a hard time with those equations? How about this one: If Republicans could be discriminated against at work and they proposed a bill which would protect people based on party affiliation of workplace discrimination, would they see that as Republicans being treated more favorably than Democrats or would they see it as one group of people seeking equal rights as the other?
Cresent Hardy and his ilk have it all backwards. Laws like ENDA don't result in added segregation. They eliminate it.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/02/19/3307131/cresent-hardy-enda/
Comments
Post a Comment