A Critique on the Opposition to Anti-Discrimination House Bill 2661
Ken Hutcherson is Too Pious for Logic
HB 2661 adds 'sexual orientation' to a long list of bad reasons to discriminate. Among these is "Creed". It is already illegal to discriminate against someone based on their religious affiliation. But something doesn't fit. Hutcherson only applied civil rights to persecuted minorities who can't convert; don't people change religions all the time?
Just like Hutcherson's view of sexuality, religion is something we choose. Hutcherson himself speaks of "converting" people to Christianity. Either he feels that we as humans are capable of making the choice to "accept Jesus into our hearts" or he plans on implementing the use of force. A scenario that ultimately still depends on a personal decision. Meaning: religion is a choice.
So how do we distinguish between someone who "chooses" to be a homosexual, and someone who chooses to be a bible wielding evangelical neo-conservative? In this country, laws can't be passed because of evidence based on one specific theology; that would violate the establishment clause of the first amendment. So, legally speaking, how can we value the views of the right over the rights of the homosexuals? Quite simply, we can't.
Published by Heraldo
Heraldo dislikes sharing information about himself. View profile
- Civil Rights and Public Policy Q&Aequality, racial discrimination, suffrage for women and African Americans, Feminist movement, comparable worth, affirmative action, civil rights effect on democracy
- Book Review: Civilities and Civil Rights: Civil Rights Protests in Greensboro, Nor...This is a book review of William H. Chafe's book "Civilities and Civil Rights." An examination of the microcosm of Greensboro in the South.
- Civil Rights and WrongsA new era has begun in the civil rights in Los Angeles and new leadership must pick up the call...
- Gay Marriage Compared to Civil Rights MovementAn article about the changing face of marriage in America as it pertains to same gender marriages, compared with the civil rights movement of the past.
- The Civil Rights Responsibilities of U.S. SteelUS Steel was a hotbed of activity for civil rights in the early 1960s. With the rest of the nation, US Steel served as a focal point of much of the unrest citizens were feeling.
- Martin Luther King, Jr., Day, Civil Rights, and Racial Unity: One Source of MLK's...
- FBI Meets with Privacy and Civil Rights Groups
- Southern Woman Claims She Never Heard of the Civil Rights Movement
- African Americans and the Quest for Civil Rights
- The Top Civil Rights Tour - Birmingham, Alabama
- Visiting the National Civil Rights Museum
- Leadership Conference on Civil Rights - Post Call Discussion
- http://www.equalrightswashington.org/�� http://www.abchurch.org/�� apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2661&year=2005
- Civil rights are not limited to racial minorities, they are applied to religion too.
- Just like someone can "change their sexuality" they can change their religion.
- Ken Hutcherson is wrong in saying that gay rights are not the same as civil rights.
3 Comments
Post a CommentI agree with Timothy Sexton below. My only critique on your critque is that you fail to address the lack of choice. You focus on one particular subject, and then fail to bring up the other side. Strong critique otherwise.
Good point. But I was hoping to avoid that debate entirely.
The flaw in the "choice" argument--when so many scientific studies point to a genetic difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals--is that even if it is a choice, that means you can choose between gay and straight. And if you can choose gay and then go straight, the implication is that you can choose straight and then go gay. There's a term for that: bisexual. Therefore, anyone making the argument that sexual preference is a choice is also making the argument that we're all born bisexual. And I don't think that's going to make them any happier.