The Vile Proud Face Of Hate
by jhwygirl
In April, Missoula City Council will take up a proposed city ordinance that will ensure equal protection for everyone regardless of race, sex, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity.
See? Is that a big deal? Or maybe the question is Why is this a big deal?
This is such a no-brainer for me to support, my mind sometimes has a hard time “supporting” stuff like this because I have a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that people can want to treat certain people differently based on who they are. How can people can think that way? Where to begin with such ignorance?
Tonight I first came across this. I’m reading the comments there, and frankly, I’m amazed at the openly bigoted and blatantly ignorant things people will publicly say and put their name and face to it.
Then I get to Missoula Red Tape where I read about a website titled NotMyBathroom.com, where the lies and misinformation continue. They purport – and notice the careful wording there – to be “an alliance of 17 organizations with members within the City Limits of Missoula as well as dozens of concerned citizens.”
Could that mean “An alliance of 17 organizations spread out over North and South American, with 2 members with the city limits as well as dozens of concerned citizens living in northern Idaho”?
These Mel Gibson fans even had the gumption to send out a press release.
I truly hope that the press picks up on that…someone like that, going through all that trouble to create two webpages and issue a press release deserves all the attention their little twisted brain desires.
-
1
Pingback on Mar 30th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
[...] long-time contributor to city planning and politics, a letter sent to Mayor Engen concerning a proposed city ordinance that will ensure equal protection regardless of race, sex, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity. Currently, it is legal to [...]
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
ladybug on SCOTUS Hands the Rights to Our… Ingemar Johansson on SCOTUS Hands the Rights to Our… Mark Miwertz on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Mark Miwertz on SCOTUS Hands the Rights to Our… lizard19 on Is UM Discriminating Against F… jhwygirl on SCOTUS Hands the Rights to Our… Mark Miwertz on Is UM Discriminating Against F…
March 25, 2010 at 6:27 am
“Under the Portland , Oregon Gender Identity Law, a cross-dressing sex offender entered a woman’s locker room and was arrested while changing clothes in front of children there. With this ordinance it appears that the police would be in violation of the law if they arrested the pervert. Without the gender identity law, the perpetrator would not have had such easy access to the female locker room. But with this unreasonable law, businesses could not question why he was there. If a business owner or parent was to keep out a cross-dressing man from a woman’s bathroom because of the safety and privacy of the women and children using the restroom three times within a 12 month period then this ordinance turns into a criminal law where the one protecting the children can be brought before a criminal judge and fined up to $500 per occurrence.”
First of all this is a proposal.
It’s not like they voted and passed legislation that would continue give Viagra to rapists and pedophiles.
March 25, 2010 at 6:40 am
give=giving
March 25, 2010 at 9:26 am
Swede, am I to understand that you are FOR the anti-discrimination law? I… I…. I am so proud of you.
March 25, 2010 at 11:32 am
“It’s not like they voted and passed legislation that would continue give Viagra to rapists and pedophiles.”
It also wouldn’t be like they voted to continue to deny children with preexisting conditions access to health insurance. Right?
March 28, 2010 at 6:23 am
And isn’t it the deep desire of every missoulian to become more like a Portlander?
March 25, 2010 at 7:51 am
“anti-discrimination ordinance leads to rampant crossdressing pedophiles scourging our city’s ladies rooms.”
i couldn’t have imagined this shit in my wildest dreams. i don’t know to feel sorry for people who think this way or to just laugh at them. Well, they’re calling me a pervert, sinner, and pedophile – i’m sticking with laughter until they make nice
March 25, 2010 at 9:27 am
Something tells me this group is composed of people with Wide-Larry-Craig-esque stances.
March 25, 2010 at 9:40 am
I wonder what my government assigned sex will be?!!!? I’m all a-dither!
March 25, 2010 at 11:08 am
And they’re on facebook: http://bit.ly/bdsHPe
March 25, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Wow Missoula…let the name calling begin. I have been to a notmybathroom.com meeting and guess what. There is no name calling, hatred, fear, or most of the accusation being thrown out there. Most everyone involved (except for a few, I’m sure) are levelheaded concerned citizens. I am really shocked by the display of hatred from the side that apparantly is supporting this ordinance. Missoula is a very tolerant town, and if its true that people of the wrong sex are already using are restrooms with out a problem then what is the point of this ordinance. There are no letters of complaints of discrimination to our city administrative leaders from this group of individuals in our community, the only complaints have been from veterans. Maybe this oh-so tolerant bunch that wants an ordinance like this should be alittle more tolerant themselves.
March 25, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Right there’s where you lost me. That is precisely name-calling, accusation and fear.
March 25, 2010 at 4:00 pm
excuse me different sex then whats pictured on the door.
March 25, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Women always wear skirts?
March 25, 2010 at 4:18 pm
What if the pictures on the door don’t reflect the sex of the person
March 25, 2010 at 4:20 pm
it is very simply if you have a penis use the mens, if you dont us the womens. Isn’t that easy enough.
March 25, 2010 at 4:45 pm
“Isn’t that easy enough?”
Not for everybody, obviously, or we wouldn’t be having this discusion.
March 28, 2010 at 6:18 am
I went to the website. I was actually neutral on the issue, but I was persuaded by a the website’s central argument, which is very different that jhwygirl presented.
The group’s main point is that the anti-discrimination ordinance is unconstitutional, and that the requirements it imposes upon unrelated parties–business owners, liability issues, etc.–are legally questionable. That was at least my take.
Those central arguments don’t appear in jhwygirl’s attack on the thing. It seems like jhwygirl fell back on alot of mischaracterizations and polarizing rhetoric to skirt the group’s central claims. Just my thoughts MB.
March 30, 2010 at 9:45 am
JD got it. I find it funny when the name was picked it was to draw attention to the matter. It worked, and worked very well. If you read the emails of letters coming into the city councils office it is bringing attention to the matter. The bathroom issue is only one of many problems with the ordinance. Its just the issue that gets people talking. Unfortunatly those supporting the ordinance can not see past “notmybathroom” as a problem for those that oppose the ordinance.
March 30, 2010 at 9:56 pm
What are the problems you see with the ordinance MB? The stuff I read on notmybathroom isn’t true – stuff like it’ll force churches to marry couples (no one can force a church to do anything – hell, they don’t even have to comply with parking regulations).
In all I’m reading, I’m not getting where there are problems with this ordinance.
JD talks about constitutional issues, and right now we have laws (emphasis: “laws”) that prohibit treating people differently based on race religiion or sex. There’s nothing unconstitutional about that. In fact, government has a role in protecting those that have needed protection.
Businesses currently can’t discriminate based on race religion or sex. If they do, they have a liability issue. This law adds to that – it tells them that if someone walks into a motel and they refuse them a room because they percieve that they are gay, that will be illegal.
It should be. Why is that OK?
I don’t understand they whole desire to think of gays (or lesbians or transgendered) people as different. What is it anyone’s business? That which defines them?
Having any desire to treat someone differently because of who they are defies – on a very basic level – freedom.
How do you justify that?
April 2, 2010 at 5:55 pm
“Oh, give me a homeee, where the buffalo roammm, and the sheep are not nervous all dayyyyy…”
http://resume.foossolvesunified.com/References/Sikkink.rtf