Did They Really Expect Something Different?

We knew this was going to happen, the headlines all proclaimed a victory for the religious right and deep down in the articles there were a sentence or two limiting the ruling… only applies to that one case but you had to read the whole article to find that out.

We Can Already See The Damage From The Masterpiece Cakeshop RulingHuffington Post
By Michelangelo Signorile
June 22, 2018

In recent weeks, a lesbian couple in New York City reported that they were kicked out of an Uber taxi after the driver became disgusted when they kissed (a “peck” as they described it); a hardware store owner in Tennessee who’d put a “No Gays Allowed” sign in his shop window a few years ago was back talking about a “ray of sunshine” in America for those who want to discriminate against LGBTQ people; and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to stop the execution of a South Dakota man likely sentenced to death because he is gay.

These actions and expressions are unrelated, and each represents the kind of injustice that LGBTQ people have experienced for decades. But what they have in common is that each one may not have happened if the Supreme Court hadn’t ruled for the baker who turned away a gay couple in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission earlier this month.

The 7-2 ruling in that highly-awaited decision was very narrow, journalists, legal analysts and some LGBTQ activists reminded us ― even a “step in the right direction,” as the Washington Post editorial board rather naively proclaimed. The court ruled for this Colorado baker in this case because his religious beliefs were, in the court’s view, not treated neutrally by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it determined he’d violated state law by refusing to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple. No civil rights laws protecting LGBTQ people in public accommodations in Colorado or elsewhere were ruled unconstitutional by the court.

But the news buried that deep in the articles. It gave the green light to all the haters to discriminate against us thinking the court said it was okay. Also buried in the articles was the fact that it was based on religious beliefs and not a general “Get Out of Jail Free” for bigots.

And that impact is devastating. The Supreme Court didn’t resolve the dispute by clearly affirming that LGBTQ people are protected in the Constitution from discrimination, even if that discrimination is based on religious beliefs. Justice Anthony Kennedy went right up to the line, writing for the majority that the dignity of gay people “must be given great weight and respect by the courts” and that “Colorado law can protect gay persons ... in acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public.”

The headlines proclaimed victory for religious bigots when all the ruling said was that the Colorado Human Rights Commission made a procedure error in its ruling.

More than that, the decision gave off a real sense that the Supreme Court doesn’t view LGBTQ people the way it views other marginalized groups. In his opinion, Kennedy pointed to what he saw as dismissive hostility to the baker’s religious beliefs in the comments of one civil rights commissioner who said, “If a businessman wants to do business in the state and he’s got an issue with the law’s impacting his personal belief system, he needs to look at being able to compromise.” Kennedy highlighted another commissioner who said religion has been used as an excuse for much discrimination and brutality throughout history, from slavery to the Holocaust. That commissioner said, “It is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to — to use their religion to hurt others.”

It’s hard to believe that if this baker had discriminated against a heterosexual African-American couple based on a religious belief in white superiority or turned away a heterosexual Jewish couple because he believed they were going to hell, the Supreme Court would have even agreed to hear an appeal of a lower court’s ruling in the couple’s favor ― much less rule for the baker because a commissioner had noted religion has been used to justify discrimination throughout history.

When I do diversity training and I get questions about discrimination I tell them to substitute any other protected classes to see what to do. So if say a woman in a hospital ward complains about a trans woman in the ward, think how they would handle it if the woman complained about a Muslin woman being in the room; would they move the Muslin woman out of the ward or would they move the other woman out of the room?

I see it all the time that people think it is different discriminating against us than discrimination against blacks or Jews. Somehow we don’t count.

---

I think much of the difference people feel about discrimination against us is because they view us and gays and lesbians as being a choice… “a lifestyle” and not something that is innate in our being.

If you watch any of the conservative news media they reinforce the misconception that this is a choice for us, I think they do this on purpose to marginalize us… you chose being trans so why should we give you “special rights” for your “lifestyle”

When I do training I can see differences between people who see being trans as being inborn in us and those who see it as a lifestyle. Those who see it as a part of us are more compassionate and understanding towards us, while those who see it as a lifestyle are less understanding and more callous toward us.