I can’t help but be amused by Indiana’s experience with what, up to this time, has been a tried and true pander sure to reap positive results. What I’m talking about is the controversy over the state’s “religious liberty” law. When things didn’t go as expected with this effort to institutionalize discrimination under the rubric of religion, the poor schmuck of a governor, Republican Mike Pence, caught between an elderly, Christian fundamentalist rock and a corporate hard place, didn’t know which way to turn. As Paul Waldman noted in The Washington Post, Pence and the bevy of GOP movers and shakers who thought it was a sure winner to line up behind Indiana’s effort to okay discrimination, were “surprised by just how many directions that criticism came from, with everyone from business leaders to religious groups making their opposition clear.”

After all, for several years hardline conservatives have assumed with some justification that the way to impinge on the rights of groups or individuals they find unsympathetic is to assert a “competing right,” no matter how silly or unfounded. In this particular case, there’s a special helping of deja vu for many of us: “religious freedom” was, of course, invoked by many in the 1950s and 60s to justify discrimination against African-Americans. However, as E. J. Dionne observed:

Religious-liberty exceptions that have been carefully thought through make good sense. They involve balancing when it is appropriate to exempt religious people from laws of general application and when it isn’t. But turning religious liberty into a sweeping slogan that can be invoked to resist any social change that some group of Americans doesn’t like will create a backlash against all efforts at accommodating religion. Forgive me, but this is bad for the brand of religious liberty.

And maybe that is what is finally happening. In spite of the potentially negative consequences that Dionne suggests, after years of having exaggerated and spurious claims of religious victimhood treated as serious by a compliant media, it is both surprising and gratifying to witness the backlash to this particular instance of the religious right’s faux poor me whining. It’s fun to see those political friends of big business, often euphemistically referred to as GOP “moderates,” most of whom have rather obviously been playing the God game for political purposes only, suddenly try to back off the right to discriminate ledge without alienating those on the religious right who won’t vote for anyone who doesn’t leap.

Which brings me to Roy Blunt, one of the very best friend of big business . Blunt, who is, I have to admit, a little too rational to completely satisfy the true, hardcore, Missouri rightwing, seems to have thought that he had a real winner with this religious liberty schtick, a way to burnish his conservative bona fides without actually hurting any of his real constituents – you know, Monsanto, AT&T, Big Oil, etc. If the well-being of corporations is his main job, religious liberty has become his hobby. A few of the high points of Blunt’s religious liberty preoccupation:

–In 2012 he introduced the Blunt amendment which would “have given unprecedented discretion to any employer or insurance plan, whether or not religious, to exclude coverage for critical health care services on the basis of undefined “moral convictions.” As Think Progress noted:

Among those with the greatest to lose from proposals like the Blunt Amendment is the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. Broad and unfettered language of the kind advanced by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) would grant insurers and employers the right to deny coverage for nearly any service provided to LGBT patients.

— In 2013, Blunt was a co-sponsor of the senate version of a “Marriage and Religious Freedom Act” that could have potentially codified wholesale bigotry:

… the implications for this legislation are numerous, but could allow businesses to discriminate against employees with a same-sex spouse, government officials to discriminate against same-sex couples filing their taxes jointly, or religiously affiliated hospitals discriminating against patients with same-sex spouses.

— Blunt’s objections to updating ENDA were couched in terms of religous liberty:

As a former president of a Baptist college in Missouri, supporters of this bill have been quick to assure me that its most onerous provisions would not apply to that school. But no such exemption is available for Christian bookstore owners, as an example, or any other small business in which people of faith and deep religious conviction are relied upon as an integral part of the workforce.

Remind you of the  old feature vs. bug argument?

— In 2014, Blunt filed an amicus brief in support of the infamous Hobby-Lobby Supreme Court case.

As you can see, Senator Blunt has been very busy, rarely missing an opportunity to identify himself with the religious victims who might be forced to live and let live in a diverse culture. Will he persist in this leisure-time pursuit now that the efficacy of the word “religious” to obscure ugly intent seems to be waning? Should we share Brittany Cooper’s optimism?:

What this vocal contingent of the religious right is seeking to restore is not religious freedom but a sense of safety in expressing and imposing dangerous, retrograde and discriminatory ideas in the name of religion. I continue to support the free and unimpeded expression of religion. And I am hopeful that Indiana Gov. Mike Pence’s call for “clarification of the law” amid a massive backlash will actually force the Legislature to explicitly ban discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation. Then perhaps the law could do what some legal scholars claim it was meant to do, namely, protect freedom of religious expression for religious minorities in the U.S.

Will Roy Blunt ever have to deal with the consequences of his actions? Or is Missouri really the kind of place where he’ll never have to say he’s sorry?

It’s bending.

A passerby reading the concert poster prior to last night’s performance

of Andrew Lippa’s “I am Marvey Milk” at the Folly Theater in downtown Kansas City.

A petition at the White House site:

We petition the Obama Administration to:

Revoke The Tennessee Religious Viewpoints Anti-discrimination Act

Tennessee governor Bill Haslam has just received a bill that allows and encourages anti-gay bullying in the name of “religious freedom.”

The ACLU warns that the bill, SB 1793/HB 1547, “crosses the line from protecting religious freedom into creating systematic imposition of some students’ personal religious viewpoints on other students.”

“Should this pass, students with a range of religious beliefs, as well as non-believers, would routinely be required to listen to religious messages or participate in religious exercises that conflict with their own beliefs,” the ACLU adds.

Article: http://www.thegailygrind.com/2…

Created: Mar 27, 2014

Issues: Civil Rights and Liberties, Education, Human Rights

Signatures needed by April 26, 2014 to reach goal of 100,000 72,065

Total signatures on this petition 27,935

[emphasis added]

There are still desperate vestiges of the past, but it’s bending.

Previously: HJR 85: the bend toward justice (March 28, 2014)

Last Thursday I posted a piece on SB916, a bill sponsored by state Senator Wayne Wallingford (R-27) that would allow every Tom, Dick and Harry businessman in the state to refuse service to folks they don’t approve of simply by claiming that the individuals in question offend their religious sensibilities. In that post I pointed out that Wallingford’s assertions that the bill was not intended to target the LGBT community were rather obviously specious.

In particular, Senator Wallingford claimed that the bill contained language that precluded its use as a defense in court cases against civil rights violations covered by Missouri’s anti-discrimination statutes. As I pointed out, though, the Missouri Revised Statutes (RSMO) Chapter 213 does not address the type of discrimination that Wallingford seeks to enshrine in Missouri’s law. Senator Wallingford was somewhat ineptly trying to deflect attention from the obviously distasteful goals of his proposed legislation and in doing so, showed that he has little regard for either the truth or the intelligence of most Missourians.

Protections for LGBT individuals are pretty scarce in Missouri – they’re sitting ducks for folks like Wallingford. When I wrote the post, I consulted Wikipedia which identified Missouri as one of the states that forbids employment discrimination based on sexual orientation – but, at the state level only, a distinction that I failed to make (hence the correction). There are currently no such protections for those employed by private enterprises. Missouri does, as I stated in the earlier post, extend hate-crimes protections to the LGBT community, and there is also a federal hate-crime law that protects LGBT individuals.

Folks who are revolted by Senator Wallingford’s effort to pander to the anti-gay bigots, can take heart that there are anti-Wallngfords in the legislature, namely those state representatives who continue to support HB1858, which, in the words of one of those supporters, Rep. Stacy Newman:

… would change the law regarding complaints filed wiht [sic] the Missouri Commission on Human Rights be [sic] revising the definition of discrimination to include unfair treatment based on sexual orientation or gender identity. It is wrong that the LGBT community can be fired from their job or evicted by their landlord in Missouri – that it would be legal to suffer that discrimination.  The House bill has never been granted a floor debate but every year the bill gains new sponsors and supporters.

There you have it: SB916 or HB1858. It’s up to us to decide – and to let our state legislators know what we’ve decided.

Conservatives have opposed extending civil rights protections in the past claiming that it grants “special privileges” to LGBT individuals. Bills like SB916, though, show us exactly why these laws are so necessary. We don’t need laws to protect heterosexuals qua heterosexuality because opportunistic politicians are unlikely to try to score political points by trying to take heterosexuls’ civil rights away – they’d be laughed out of office if they tried. Not the case for LGBT indivuals – as SB916 proves. We need laws like HB1858 to protect our LGBT citizens from individuals like Senator Wallngford and the folks who put him in office and continue to support his anti-gay antics and those of other folks who have decided that religion can be used as a club to suppress outsiders and minorities.

One could argue that creating a more inclusive environment via bills like HB1858 will help protect the folks who support legislation like SB916 from themselves. It is well recognized that such laws may comprise a double edged sword:      

If Christians really believe they are becoming a marginalized movement, why would they want to disempower marginalized people in the marketplace? It’s easy to codify your own biases when you’re part of the majority and get to be the one refusing services to others. But what if you’re the minority? What if others are turning you away because they think you are the abominable one?

Many Christians believe that the Book of Revelation predicts a coming time of persecution and evil. In the apocalyptic book’s 13th chapter, it is predicted that a time will come when Christians won’t be able to buy or sell in the marketplace. If Christians believe this time is coming, they must also ask, “How might such a reality be realized?” Could it be that they are unwittingly becoming the authors of their own demise?

Conservative Christian activists often argue that these bills put us on a ride down a slippery slope that could lead to the government forcing conservative Christian pastors to perform same-sex weddings against their wills. (Never mind that legal exemptions for houses of worship and pastors are woven deeply into American law or that there is no historical precedent for such predictions.)

But these prophets of doom only acknowledge one side of the slope. They fail to consider how these laws could be used against members of their own communities. If you are able to discriminate against others on the basis of religious conviction, others must be allowed to do the same when you are on the other side of the counter. You can’t have your wedding cake and eat it too.

Maybe Senator Wallingford’s bill, which has attracted lots of attention, admittedly mostly of the derisive variety, will serve a good end. It can help to make the case that we really do need legislation like HB 1858. It can also serve to open up a serious dialogue about what religious freedom is really all about and bring us back to a time, not so long ago, when churchmen actually understood that the doctrine of separation of church and state served to protect the churched as much as the unchurched.

A bill, introduced yesterday by Senator Wayne Wallingford (r):

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

SENATE BILL NO. 916 [pdf]

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY SENATOR WALLINGFORD.

Read 1st time February 24, 2014, and ordered printed.

TERRY L. SPIELER, Secretary. 6183S.01I

AN ACT

To repeal sections 1.302 and 1.307, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof one new section relating to the exercise of religion.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Missouri, as follows:

Section A. Sections 1.302 and 1.307, RSMo, are repealed and one new 2 section enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as section 1.302, to read as follows:

1.302. 1. [….] As used in this section, the following shall mean:

(1) “Demonstrates”, meets the burden of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion;

(2) “Exercise of religion”, an act or refusal to act that is substantially motivated by sincere religious belief, whether or not the religious exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief;

(3) “Relevant circumstances”, includes legitimate penological interests needed to protect the safety and security of incarcerated persons and correctional facilities, but shall not include reasonable requests by incarcerated individuals for the opportunity to pray, reasonable access to clergy, use of religious materials that are not violent or profane, and reasonable dietary requests.

2. A governmental authority shall not substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the governmental authority demonstrates that the burden on the person is essential to further a compelling governmental interest, and the burden is the least restrictive means to further that compelling interest, considering the relevant circumstances.

3. This section provides a claim or defense for state and local laws, resolutions and ordinances, and executive orders, and the implementation of such laws, resolutions, ordinances, and executive orders, whether statutory or otherwise, and whether adopted before or after August 28, 2014, which violate the free exercise of religion established pursuant to this section.

4. This section shall apply without regard to whether a state or local governmental authority is a party to the claim, proceeding, or other legal dispute.

5. Nothing in this section shall be construed:

(1) To authorize any governmental authority to burden any religious belief;

(2) To establish a defense to a civil action or criminal prosecution based on a federal, state, or local civil rights law involving discrimination as defined in section 213.010; or

(3) To allow any person to cause physical injury to another person, to possess a weapon otherwise prohibited by law, to fail to provide monetary support for a child or to fail to provide health care for a child suffering from a life-threatening condition.

[….]

[emphasis in original]

It’d be nice if there was an amendment which required businesses to disclose if they subscribed to and applied this if it becomes law. That way I’d know to take my business elsewhere.

In case you were wondering, LGBT individuals, their allies, their friends, and their families do spend money.

Kelly Eckerman, Peggy Breit, and Maria Antonia have filed a lawsuit against KMBC.

Remember this?:

Anchor

…However, local anchor teams have long represented diversity in the community through a news couple of different race and gender, supplemented by reporters on the sports and weather beat and in the field. Even in the local context, however, gender distinctions are vital. The highly publicized case of Christine Kraft, anchor of KMBC-TV in Kansas City, Missouri illustrates the willingness of executives to dismiss women considered “too old” or “too unattractive” to fill this highly visible role. Such judgments are rarely, if ever, made in cases involving male anchors, who are seen to develop “authority” and “gravity” as their physical glamour fades…

There is the irony that their crosstown broadcast rivals, KSHB, are reporting the story:

On-Air Staff Files Suit Against KMBC

KANSAS CITY, Mo. – Three on-air personalities at KMBC-TV in Kansas City have filed a lawsuit against the station claiming age and sex discrimination.

The suit, filed in Jackson County Circuit Court, claims the three women have been passed over for promotions, or demoted, in favor of younger female candidates.

The plaintiffs, Kelly Eckerman, Margaret Breit, and Maria Albisu-Twyman, claim in the suit they have been “discriminated against and harassed, on a continuing basis, based on their age and/or gender (female)…”

It’s another addition to the sad commentary on the state of the media in our nation. It’s not about reporting the news any more, is it?

A little more history:

Aaron Barnhart

…In 1981, KMBC anchor Christine Craft was demoted to reporter because — in those immortal words of management she would later make the title of her book — she was told that she was “too old, too unattractive and wouldn’t defer to men.” Craft relayed those words to my predecessor, Barry Garron, who put them in the paper. Two years later, Craft filed suit and eventually prevailed, though an appeals court later overturned the decision. By then, however, it hardly mattered that KMBC won; it had gone straight into the toilet, ratings- and reputation-wise…