And so legally – as a lawmaker now – you go back and you look at Elliott-Larsen. And it gets very difficult to try to balance those two. And that encapsulates the struggle. The struggle is how do we respect individuals on both sides of this question. I want to respect the individual rights of someone who’s gay. And I also, in doing that, don’t want to force somebody to ignore or violate their religious beliefs.My answer is that you respect religious people by not allowing them to indulge in their desire to bully gay people.
Even so, this statement (and others similar to them now floating around Lansing) are great news. It means the state GOP has on its radar amending the Elliott-Larson Civil Rights Act to include sexual minorities. That doesn't mean they have a timetable or an actual bill or anything like that. But this is a long way from their usual Ain't gonna happen.
Democrats, such as Senator Rebekah Warren of Ann Arbor, have introduced bills to include sexual minorities over the years. Warren expects to do it again this term.
I think what should be happening is the old turn the question around approach. Why is it pols weren't worried about protecting people religious freedoms with regard to all other groups enumerated in the Elliot-Larson Act? You can't exactly say with a straight face that there weren't some folks who felt that their religious beliefs should have they allowed to discriminate based on race or enforce their ideas of sexual stereotyped roles (like women belong in the home being subservient to their men). To claim religion as the bases for discriminating against gays is picking and choosing, say like they do with Leviticus. One could say that picking and choosing is normal for many Christians. I don't' believe ones values should be so capricious.
ReplyDeleteArch