Tragedy in Journalism
Although I'm giving his column more attention that it deserves, Guy Adams writes a guest column for RenewAmerica.com that completely misstates the law for what can only be described as deplorable scare tactics.
Now, I have no problem with sensible arguments against anything. Although I might disagree with them, there are certainly sensible arguments to make against non-discrimination laws - they were made in the 60's and they're still rational (albeit wrong) today. Mr. Adams uses none of these.
He writes about the "Tragedy in Illinois," the passage of a non-discrimination law that includes sexual orientation and gender identity. He blames the Democrats for the law (rightly so, although I think the other side calls it "thanks") and suggests that if you've ever voted for one, you've likely been kept up at night by the cries of murdered babies.
Insomnia aside, he gets back on track (I use the term loosely) by noting:
Mr. Adams suggests that the law would include church employees. Another completely invalid claim; the Illinois law exempts churches, although those of the Christian variety should already practice non-discrimination, it's an important facet of the faith.
Overall, it's the same law that's been passed by fourteen other states, and protects gay Illinoians from being fired for a personal trait over which they have no control.
In truth, the only Illinois protected class that exists based on a choice is the only one Mr. Adams would likely fight for: religion.
Now, I have no problem with sensible arguments against anything. Although I might disagree with them, there are certainly sensible arguments to make against non-discrimination laws - they were made in the 60's and they're still rational (albeit wrong) today. Mr. Adams uses none of these.
He writes about the "Tragedy in Illinois," the passage of a non-discrimination law that includes sexual orientation and gender identity. He blames the Democrats for the law (rightly so, although I think the other side calls it "thanks") and suggests that if you've ever voted for one, you've likely been kept up at night by the cries of murdered babies.
Insomnia aside, he gets back on track (I use the term loosely) by noting:
"If company has fifteen or more employees, they will now be compelled by law to hire a representative percentage of gays, just like they must hire a representative percentage of minorities. This includes CHURCH employees. Wicked, truly wicked."I can only say that this is completely invalid. Yes, the law applies only to businesses with 15 employees or more. But no where in Illinois law are you required to hire minorities. Granted, you can't NOT hire someone simply because they are black, handicapped or gay, but you're not required to seek them out to fill out your stable.
Mr. Adams suggests that the law would include church employees. Another completely invalid claim; the Illinois law exempts churches, although those of the Christian variety should already practice non-discrimination, it's an important facet of the faith.
Overall, it's the same law that's been passed by fourteen other states, and protects gay Illinoians from being fired for a personal trait over which they have no control.
In truth, the only Illinois protected class that exists based on a choice is the only one Mr. Adams would likely fight for: religion.
<< Home