That Doesn’t Mean What You Think It Means

straight-vs-gay

Republicans apparently have no idea what the words discrimination and segregation mean if recent events are any indication.

While lawmakers in Kansas and Arizona have claimed that their Jim Crow-style laws for gay people are actually secret anti-discrimination bills, a GOP candidate in Nevada is claiming that ENDA is actually a segregation bill.

The candidate, Cresent Hardy, called the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, which prohibits employers from discriminating against their employees based on sexual orientation, a “segregation” law. [...]

“When we create classes, we create that same separation that we’re trying to unfold somehow,” Hardy said in an interview with the Las Vegas Sun on Tuesday. Mother Jones flagged Hardy’s comments on Wednesday. “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.”

If ENDA were a segregation law, it would create “separate but equal” employment opportunities for straight and gay people, but that’s not what it does. ENDA would make it illegal to separate people based on their sexual orientation while creating a more equal environment. It would de-segregate the workplace by making it illegal to fire someone for being gay.

Hardy says this is tantamount to creating “classes of people,” but there would be only one class: employees.

The rank stupidity of the Republican party is indescribably Lovecraftian.

This entry was posted in LGBT, Stupid Party, Super Stupid and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Christopher Foxx

    The rank stupidity of the Republican party is indescribably Lovecraftian

    Nondiscrimination laws create segregation?

    More Orwell than Lovecraft.

    • JMAshby

      The horrors of Lovecraft were said to be indescribable or beyond description.

      Their stupidity is beyond description.

      • Christopher Foxx

        OK, fine. They taste great AND are less filling.

  • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

    I just wrote about the Arizona bill this morning…thankfully it hasn’t passed the House yet. I’m just incensed that my state is even thinking about passing yet another unconstitutional law and spending millions of my tax dollars to defend it. I’m so sick of the idiots in this state.

    • nathkatun7

      I feel for you neighbor! We’ve got our crazies here in CA, like Darrell Issa, but thankfully they do not control our state government.

  • GrafZeppelin127

    A while back I had a conversation with some nitwit over on HuffPo who insisted over and over again that LGBT people were already protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which they’re not and which decades of case law holds that they’re not.

    This person’s proof? An Executive Order establishing the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) internal hiring and employment policy.

    What about all that case law, dozens of federal cases through mid-2013 declaring that sexual orientation is not protected by Title VII? It was all “overturned” by that Executive Order — in 1982. No matter how many times I had to say, and no matter how much emphasis I put on the fact, that an Executive Order is not federal law, the federal government’s internal employment policy is not federal law, and the EEOC’s internal employment policy is not federal law, this person kept insisting that I was “incorrect,” that my “argument fails to meet the criteria of debate” and “is as lame as your contentions,” and wondered if I “know how to research besides Wiki.” I have this person a link to the actual statute, the actual text of Title VII itself, which this person considered a “really poor example that is not reflective of current law.”

    So what is “reflective of current law?” You guessed it: The EEOC’s internal employment policy.

    Eventually I had to conclude that this person was messing with me. No one is that dense.

    • D_C_Wilson

      I guess we can add “internal” to the list of words republicans don’t understand.

      • GrafZeppelin127

        The word “internal” was even in the text of the link he kept giving me. Honestly, I’ve never run across anyone that dense in my life.

  • D_C_Wilson

    Future historians are going to write volumes about the Fox Effect and how it systematically lowered the intelligence of entire swaths of the American people. This meme, first generated by such luminaries as Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck, that it doesn’t matter if what you say is true or even plausible, so long as it reinforces your preceptions, has now infected even the lowliest back-bencher in the GOP. They have to know on some level that what they’re saying is complete bunk. But I don’t think it even matters any more, not even in their internal thoughts. They have completely swallowed the idea that you can create your own reality simply asserting that black is white or up is down. This is why Romney was sure he was going to win, even though there was not a single poll (skewed or otherwise) that showed him winning a majority in the electoral college.

    I just hope I live long enough to hear what historians will make of this idea that reality no longer needs to be taken into account in one’s political calculations.

    • GrafZeppelin127

      It’s not a <a href="http://www.george-orwell.org/1984&quot;new phenomenon.

      …it was not even forgery. It was merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another. Most of the material that you were dealing with had no connexion with anything in the real world, not even the kind of connexion that is contained in a direct lie. Statistics were just as much a fantasy in their original version as in their rectified version. A great deal of the time you were expected to make them up out of your head. For example, the Ministry of Plenty’s forecast had estimated the output of boots for the quarter at one-hundred-and-forty-five million pairs. The actual output was given as sixty-two millions. Winston, however, in rewriting the forecast, marked the figure down to fifty-seven millions, so as to allow for the usual claim that the quota had been overfulfilled. In any case, sixty-two millions was no nearer the truth than fifty-seven millions, or than one-hundred-and-forty-five millions. Very likely no boots had been produced at all. Likelier still, nobody knew how many had been produced, much less cared. All one knew was that every quarter astronomical numbers of boots were produced on paper, while perhaps half the population of Oceania went barefoot.

      • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

        Republicans have no boots just like the Emperor had no clothes.