thomascwaters.com

Opponents of PA HB 300, are finding it pretty hard to label the legislation a bad thing on its own and so, they are resorting to utter lies and exagerations to try and poison the public.

HB 300 is nothing but an economic bill that creates a state free from discrimination, in employment, housing and public accommodations, and allows the state to be competitive; bring the best and the brightest here to PA; and allow our state to be a leader once more.

In the linked blog below however, you would never know that. Thier talking points are all lies and exagerations designed to evoke fear and shock. I guess lies, fear, and shock worked for Bush for 8 years, so why give ujp on a winning strategy?

Frankly, I totally respect that on any given issue, there will be some who are for it, and some against it. But I wish the two sides would allow the people to make choices based on facts instead of bullshit. But Pennsylvanians deserve the truth, and so here are their talking points with commentary:

What if a religious school expelled students for homosexual sex? That could constitute a violation based on denial of a public accommodation. Someone may argue against this example in that Human Relations Act protects mere “status” and nothing more.
However, regardless of the wording of such laws, their application has moved well beyond mere status. In fact, this is a real life example from California where a religious school ran afoul of a law preventing discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation”
after expelling two students for that exact reason.

This is possibly the biggest lie of the taslking points sheet. There is nothing about this which is true. Schools in general, and a religious school specifically is not covered by “public accommodation. The “real life” case mentioned involved a Lutheran school where the court ruled that schools are not to be treated as public accommodation. THere is a fairly large body of case law which demonstrate that scholsd are not held to the same standards as other “public” businesses.In the case of the lutheran school, there were two girls involved , but there was no sex involved= so the firtst sentence of the talking point is an over exageration intented for shock value, rather than the truth. In the case of the Californai school, the court sided with the school’s actions- so not really a case of the “school running afoul of the law.”

What if a photographer refused to photograph a same-sex “wedding” ceremony? That could violate the public accommodation provision. In New Mexico a photographer was fined $6,600 after she refused to do so. To be clear, she did not refuse to serve homosexual clients, but merely wished to avoid photographing such a ceremony. She was still found her guilty of discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation”.

This one is not a flat out lie, but the way it is phrased is a bit misleading. It really isn’t the case that a photographer (individual) was fined, but rather a photography business. When people choose to put out a shingle and begin to make money by running a business, they agree to operate that business aligned with the rules and laws that govern doing business. That is why the HB 300 is an economic bill- that it affects the ways that businesses act towards GLBTQ  people, and doesn’t impacthow individuals feel or how they should believe or act. Is is a lie to say that she didn’t refuse to serve homosexual clients. That is exactly what she did. A client requested photography services, and she refused because of the client’s sexual orientation.

The law already protects against discrimination based o a number of protected classes. Some are genetic, like race, and others are by choice, such as religion. HB 300 addes sexual orientation to the list. Nothing more, nothing less.

What if a religious landowner did not want to use its property to facilitate such a ceremony? That, too, could violate the public accommodation provision. The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of the United Methodist Church was preliminarily
found guilty of discrimination after it refused to allow its property to be used for a civil union ceremony. Again, it was not prohibiting entry by homosexuals, it just refused to have its property used for such a ceremony. As a result, prosecution continues, it may
face a fine, and it has lost part of its tax exempt status.

This one is in between being misleading and being a lie, but closer to a lie. A church or a school may be a “religious land owner” as well as a private citizen may fit that designation. In the case of the camp ground, the facility specifically opened itself up as a public/ for rent facility. If the Methodist Church had kept oit as a private church-affiliated camp ground, they would not have been in a position to be sued. They would have been in their full rights to decide who could or couldn’t use the space. But they have opened it as a public facility.

Churches and religious organizations will have to decide what is important to them. If they wish to be “for profit” facilities, and run as a rental businesses. As such, they will have to abide by the laws, and do not deserve a non-profit status. Or, they are welcome to keep their non-profit status and maintain special rights and the ability to control their use. But they can’t have it both ways.

I am a landowner/ home owner and I have a rental unit. As a “business” I am subject to the housing laws and can not discriminate. If I felt those laws were in opposition to my personal beliefs, I have the opportunity to stop making money from my rental. As a landlord, I CAN make choices about who I rent to. I just can not make tose choces based on status in a protected class.

What if a physician declines to perform in vitro fertilization on a lesbian patient when it violates the physician’s moral beliefs to bring a child into a non-married relationship? A California court found this choice was a violation of the law against discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation.”

This one is completely misleading, for the actions of a private physician, and the use of a private facility for elective surgery do not fall under the categories of employment, housing, or public accommodations.

The question I would ask is this: will this physcician also refuse this procedure to an unmarried heterosexual woman? How about cases like the recent one wherre a straight woman had 8 implants? Is the issue about married status or about sexual orientation? If a lesbian were married to a man, but self-identified as a lesbian, and wanted this procedure, what would the doctor do?

What if a religious adoption placement agency refuses to place children into a homosexual relationship? Catholic Charities in Massachusetts abandoned its adoption placement ministry for religious reasons rather than comply with a similar law in
Massachusetts.

This one deserves some research. It is unclear if the law in question is actually similar to HB 300 or a more broad spreading law.HB 300 has a very narrow focus on employment, housing and public accommodations. Adoption falls under anty of those categories.

What if you were a church and wanted to expel a member because of homosexual conduct? You could fall afoul of the law.

This is neither a lie not misleading. It is just downright funny designed to scare people but has no basis at all. What does expell mean? Take someone off of their membership list? If they identify someone as gay- can they have them bodily removed from the church? Churches, and church membership does not fall under the categories of employment, housing, or public accommodations.

http://gunservatively.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/pennsylvanias-bathroom-bill-hb-300/