Loudoun should adopt San Antonio’s non-discrimination language

Posted on by |

Christianist Christians are claiming that they will be discriminated against under the city of San Antonio’s proposed non-discrimination policy.

No person shall be appointed to a position if the City Council finds that such person has, prior to such proposed appointment, engaged in discrimination or demonstrated a bias, by word or deed, against any person, group or organization on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, age, or disability.

Is it reading comprehension? I bolded the word religion. The Washington Times headline reads, “San Antonio proposal could set the stage for barring Christians from city council.”

“San Antonio’s current ordinance hasn’t been used to police city officials’ personal views on race, gender, or religion. That’s because the ordinance is meant to prohibit clear cases of professional discrimination and bias – not bad personal thoughts,” Equality Matters explains. “Right-wing media’s attacks on the San Antonio proposal represent but the latest example of the anti-equality movement’s Orwellian strategy to depict LGBT rights – whether marriage equality or employment non-discrimination – as a danger to liberty.”

We have a clear case of professional discrimination right here in Loudoun. Our BoS should adopt the similar language and lobby the state of Virginia to do the same. It would open up a lot positions in the governor’s office, AG, House, Senate, and local governments across the state. We’d have to add a warning label to the ballot.

WARNING: If you vote for a professional bigot, he or she may be removed from office at any time.

 

8 thoughts on “Loudoun should adopt San Antonio’s non-discrimination language”

  1. Pingback: Christians Face Possible Ban from San Antonio Government - Political Wrinkles

  2. Pingback: baby dolls for children

  3. Pingback: alexandria virginia hotels

  4. Epluribusunum

    You’re welcome to comment here, Barbara, but not on things you admit to not having read. That’s troll behavior.

    You’re not going to be allowed to hijack this site for trolling and posting obnoxious content. I’m going to start removing comments that are in that category. As we’ve said several times now, you can link to and say anything you like if you start your own blog. The reform commission has disbanded, so as far as I can see there’s nothing stopping you from doing that.

  6. Epluribusunum

    This dumbing down of the very real matter of religious liberty has reached an embarrassing level of absurdity. You have to go back to the Bob Jones University case to see how the perversion got started:

    Notably, Bob Jones University was part of a last-ditch effort to maintain racially discriminatory institutions. The “religious liberty” in question, then as now, was the liberty to discriminate against others.

    Bob Jones prefigures the inversion of the victim-oppressor dynamic that marks contemporary religious liberty rhetoric. The real victims were black students at Bob Jones—not the university. Yet in the evangelical telling of this history, the university was the victim of anti-religious persecution. Likewise, today, the conservative religious liberty frame claims that the real victims are not gay students being bullied, women denied accessible healthcare, and nonreligious students coerced into participating in a religious ceremony. The true victims are the university, the bully, the woman’s employer, and the graduation speaker who is not able to recite a prayer. Yet “religious liberty” activists claim that bullies are the real victims because they cannot “express their views about homosexuality.” They claim that businesses who say “No Gays Allowed” are being oppressed because they are forced to “facilitate” gay marriages. And they claim that the real targets of discrimination are not gay people—who can be fired from their jobs simply for being gay in 24 states—but employers who can’t fire them.

    Progressives will immediately recognize this as a shocking inversion of how religious liberty is generally understood. Religious liberty is meant to be a shield against state action, not a sword against minorities. It was traditionally used to protect minority religions, not majority ones, which is why most liberals supported the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, passed to protect Native American peyote use from federal prosecution. Yet today, it is used to defend discrimination by Christians against women and LGBTQ people.

  8. Pariahdog Post author

    Barbara,

    Please don’t ask me why I strung together “race, color, religion, … disability.” I didn’t. I’m reporting on the San Antonio City Council’s language. If you’d like to know why they wrote that particular language, ask them.

Comments are closed.