You Are What You Are
Gov. Ernie Fletcher and other politicians talk a lot about luring businesses to Kentucky, but critics cite extensive research that suggests anti-gay actions by Fletcher and state lawmakers may drive companies elsewhere.
Detractors contend that Fletcher’s April 11 move to strip discrimination protections from homosexual employees and the General Assembly’s decision to provide $11 million to a private university that expelled a gay student will make Kentucky seem unsavory to many companies that officials hope to attract and retain.
“Bigotry is bad for business and having a governor who is obviously bigoted is fundamentally incompatible with business,” said Alan Hawse of Lexington, vice president of information technology for California-based Cypress Semiconductor.
Hawse, who oversees about 40 highly paid employees in downtown Lexington and another 175 in California, Minnesota, the Philippines and elsewhere, said the state’s already lackluster image has been further tarnished by recent events.
“We go from a backwater state trying to attract business to a backwater, bigoted state trying to attract business,” Hawse said Friday. (source)
I believe in democracy.
But I’ve come to realize that democracy doesn’t always have a nice face to it. It’s kind of like free speech. In the United States, we supposedly have the freedom to speak our mind. If we do, however, your remarks can have consequences to them. Some remarks can land you in jail. Others may make you look like a hero to some, while making you look less than stellar to others.
For all it’s shortcomings, I believe in democracy. True democracy means that people have the freedom to make their own choices. True democracy is free from personal or political agendas. True democracy stands on it’s own merits - good or bad.
So when the Boy Scouts of America wants to exclude gay students or atheists from it’s midst, who am I to question them? They, as a private organization, have the right to do that. We can call it “bigotry”. They call it “personal expression” or “upholding their moral values”. The Supreme Court has deemed them to be a “private organization” and can therefore pretty much do what they want in terms of membership.
But I have a right to call that “bigoted” and “homophobic”. That’s my free speech right. I also have a right to make others aware of what the organization is doing and that when you support them or put your kid into that organization, you are supporting bigotry along with the lesson to your child that bigotry is just fine and dandy. The same is true about any other entity who practices this - say, a state.
While I don’t like many of these rulings that are coming out across the country, I do realize that this is part of democracy. There is nothing wrong with a state completely stripping away the rights of a certain class of citizens, if that’s what they want to do. The Constitution, however, may have a different opinion on that, but I doubt that our current Supreme Court would have much issue with it. My bet is that the current Supreme Court will brush aside the Fourteenth Amendment in favor of letting the states make their own decisions around the issue of liberties and rights of gay citizens. This makes sense. Why stir the pot of controversy when it still is not controversial to discriminate against the one group (gay citizens) left in America where discrimination is still quite acceptable?
But aside from constitutional considerations and how the Supreme Court may choose to rule, a state can choose to be homophobic or racist, if it wants.
There will be a price to be paid for that however. The State of Kentucky will suffer the cost of bigotry, and they should. Depending on the values of their citizenry, it may be an acceptable price for them to pay. What they really should be thinking about is the kind of place they want their state to be - one of inclusion and harmony - or one of exclusion and intolerance. Both are choices that they have to make.
So while I don’t like what Virginia is about to do next November, or what is brewing in Ohio, or Idaho, or what Kentucky is thinking about, they should go ahead and be every bit as hateful as they want to be. That is democracy. And sometimes, it is necessary to show the ugliness of something before change can take place (this is where I would normally go into my speech about how most people are “basically good”, if I still believed that).
But don’t expect the world and the rest of the country to embrace the bigotry and intolerance a state exhibits, because slowly AND surely, the country is changing it’s attitude on many things. Over time, I’m sure this country will go the way of inclusion and tolerance because that is the way the rest of the world is going - from gay marriage, to allowing openly gay soldiers to serve in the military, workplace antidiscrimination laws at the national level, and on and on. When that happens, states such as Idaho, Kansas, Virginia, and Kentucky will be left swinging in the wind; financially, competitively, and socially.
They deserve it, but hey, that’s democracy.
3 Comments
Leave a comment
I agree David. The Supreme Court has ruled in their favor, but there are times where they cross the line of being a private organization.
The Boy Scouts do use public buildings for their space. We need to speak up about that. I have done so in my area and have been successful in having them evicted from the current meeting places because of this.
When you educated people about it, they are receptive to it. When they aren't receptive to it, I make it more public - often submitting an article to the newspaper and such. Bad publicity is very powerful, but sometimes word of mouth is all it takes.
It's all too bad too. The Boy Scouts do some good things for the community and the boys who belong to them. But those same boys also learn that it is sometimes acceptable to discriminated against some citizens who have broken no laws, pay taxes, and in most other regards, are equal.
Look at it this way... The U.S. Supreme Court just upheld a decision on the Solomon Act - an act that said that schools and universities couldn't bar recruiters from setting up their recruiting offices on campus to attract new recruits. Fine. But they also said that because of first amendment rights, people have the opportunity to make their feelings known by placing posters and the like around those recruiting offices stating that the U.S. Military discriminates because of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". I would also take the opportunity to show the numbers involved and the cost to the tax payers, etc. And, we should do this as much as possible. Put a spotlight on discrimination.
The same can be done with the Boy Scouts. And, we should keep our targets clear and focused. In each case, we are attacking discriminatory policies that each is endorsing and practicing - not the organization itself (I suppose some would disagree with that, but that is my opinion of how we should proceed).
"So when the Boy Scouts of America wants to exclude gay students or atheists from it’s midst, who am I to question them?....The Supreme Court has deemed them to be a “private organization” and can therefore pretty much do what they want in terms of membership."
Except for the fact that the huge majority of Boy Scout troops meet on school property. And their annual Jamboree is held on military-owned land. Consequently, we are paying for their gatherings with our tax money. That hardly sounds like a 'private organization' to me. It seems to me that the government is subsidizing the Boy Scouts and their bigotry by allowing them access to public property for free or an extremely nominal fee.
I realize this is a bit off-point, but I thought I would bring it up.
Great post!!!