Although the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled gay people can get married, there are still laws on the books on the subject of discrimination. In 28 states, you can be fired simply for being gay. You can be kicked out of your apartment if your landlord finds out you are gay. These religious freedom bills are trying to allow businesses to deny service, allow government officials to recuse themselves from issuing marriage licenses, and to write in ink that such discrimination is acceptable.
I have a two-part test to determine if something is discrimination. The first is "Would it still sound discriminatory if the roles were reversed?" The second is "Does the characteristic quality of Group B affect the situation?"
For example: Would it be illegal/discriminatory if a gay court clerk recused himself from allowing two Christians to get married? Would Christians be mad if a gay landlord kicked someone out of their apartment for being Christian? Would it be discrimination if Tim Cook, openly gay CEO of Apple, announced he'd fire anyone that was openly Christian? Of course it would! It goes back to the Golden Rule. People would be up in arms if the shoe were on the other foot.
But there are some situations in which homosexuality could be rightfully used for termination. They don't quite fit the reversal of roles argument. If a minister comes out of the closet, that should/could be grounds for his firing. However, that's because of the religious nature of his job. He works in the business of religion, and homosexuality would be incompatible with his position. If James Dobson or Pat Robertson came out of the closet tomorrow, they'd lose their jobs, and there should be no protection in such a case.
But most situations are not religious in nature, thus the second test. Does the fact that a person is gay affect whether they should be able to buy a telephone? No. Does the fact a person is gay affect their ability to pay rent? No. The government is a nonreligious entity, so whether a person is gay has no bearing on their ability to receive a marriage license. Gay money has just as much buying power as straight money.
So why do I bring all this up? Because CNN is using "religious freedom" right now. This is a problem, because objectivity is a major tenet of journalism. Using the phraseology of one group is like a referee saying they'll let the home team call all the fouls while they watch the out-of-bounds plays. Journalists should be the referee. And they're giving up inch by inch by allowing people to decide what to call things. These are not religious freedom bills. These are anti-gay discrimination bills. One sounds nice. The other sounds mean-spirited. Call it down the middle, ref.
Sesame Street Questions
The kids have started watching Sesame Street lately. I've mostly had a nostalgic trip down Sesame Street, and seeing the new characters has added some fun wrinkles. I definitely agree that there's been a bit of a decline in recent years, especially the more the show has become Elmo-centric. Here's a story from last year about that rise, and how it's been bad for the show. But on the whole, I've still liked a lot more than I didn't. The better part is, the kids like it. You can pretty much get the kids interested in watching (and being relatively still) by mentioning Elmo.
However, there have been a few silly questions I've had:
• On one show, they teach in detail how to wrap a present. However, the next show has one human character folding laundry like no one ever should. What gives?
• Why are there so many special appearances by characters from Law and Order: Special Victims Unit, a decidedly not-for-kids show? Also, who mailed Det. Stabler a pickle? And why would you do that?
• There are self-aware cakes in Sesame Street. If you eat one, is this murder? Are the cakes OK with this?
• Why are there so many broken toasters on Sesame Street? I've counted six so far.
• Is Elmo's Dad the Muppet Sammy Hagar?
Summary Judgments
Even if you don't care for his politics, former New York Democratic Senator Barney Frank had an honest, interesting interview with Slate recently. He speaks freely, has logic behind his arguments and doesn't stick to party lines. I like people on either side of the aisle who do that. • • • I was going to spend the majority of time talking about Donald Trump, and how the media has given up its duty, but other, better people have beaten me to it. This story from 538.com did the best job of summarizing how it happened, and the way journalism allowed itself to be used. • • • I've got a couple good kid stories I'll have to write next week. Thanks for reading!
No comments:
Post a Comment