Skip to main content

According to two conservative lobbying groups, second-class citizens = not being able to discriminate against others

The state of Indiana has come under a lot of heat over the past year for their lack of discrimination protections for the LGBT community. Oddly enough, the Hoosier state is now receiving heat from a pair of conservative lobbying groups who believe the before-mentioned discrimination protections (RFRA) are too strong. That's right; the Indiana Family Institute and American Family Association of Indiana filed a lawsuit claiming the state's LGBT protections threaten their religious freedom, even going so far as to say the protections result in Christians being treated like "second-class citizens."

No, I'm not making this up. Indiana Family Institute President Curt Smith elaborated on the matter, saying, "The 'fix' makes people of faith second-class citizens. Freedom is not fixed, finite commodity which the Legislature reapportions from time to time between and among the now-favored groups. Freedom must be first preserved and then, as possible, expanded equally for all."

Please allow yourself some time to let that all sink in... :: grabs myself some lunch, before watching Gone With the Wind and reading War & Peace ::

Okay, I'm back... So let me get this straight - these Christian conservatives feel like "second-class citizens" for not being allowed to discriminate against a particular demographic, a demographic which still lacks equal rights under the law in many states, including Indiana, and have been regularly treated like "second-class citizens;" is that right?

The definition of second-class citizen is "a person who is systematically discriminated against within a state of other political jurisdiction, despite their nominal status as a citizen or legal resident there."

In other words, the Indiana Family Institute and American Family Association of Indiana are saying unless it again becomes legal for them to be able to treat the LGBT community like second-class citizens through discrimination, they themselves are second-class citizens. With that (lack of) rationale, do these organizations then believe women fighting for equality resulted in men becoming second-class citizens? Do they feel blacks fighting for equality resulted in whites becoming second-class citizens? What about Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, and Muslims? Did their fight for equality result in Christians becoming second-class citizens? How twisted is that logic? The Indiana Family Institute and American Family Association are free to believe homosexuality is a sin, are free to speak their mind about the matter outside of the workplace, and are free to pray for and/or condemn such individuals, but just as it's illegal to discriminate against people based on their gender, race, or creed at the workplace, it should be illegal to discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation. Christian conservatives, like those within the Indiana Family Institute and American Family Association of Indiana, are seeking superiority in the eyes of the law, to be able to legally treat others like second-class citizens, and make them feel of greater importance in the process. The LGBT community, like so many other groups before it, is simply seeking equality. If a group feels they lack equality due to not being able to legally discriminate against another and feels like second-class citizens due to this, they've lost sight of what equality is, and have taken for granted what others lack and are fighting for with every last breath.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/12/10/conservative-groups-lawsuit-says-rfra-fix-unconstitutional/77102680/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"