Burress: Ignorant or Idiot?

Phil is of course a big target of scorn for me, so it goes without saying that I have no respect for the man. I must point out, however, to those who are not as negative on him as I am, his statements in the Post today that I believe indicate he is Ignorant, an Idiot, or both. From the article:

He contends that Article XII does not legalize discrimination against gays, it only forbids gays from receiving a "higher degree of protection than other people."

"Article XII is as far from being anti-gay as you can get," he said. "It is in response to the 1992 City Council ordinance which gave preferential treatment to people who claim to be homosexual."

Burress contended that the preferential treatment was "based on behavior and you cannot have a legal classification of people based on behavior. It has to be immutable characteristics, like race or gender.

"You can't claim to be a minority by joining a certain type of behavior. If you're going to start granting minority class status based on behavior, then the groups you could name are endless."

Ok, lets now easily refute Phil's comments:

1. Article XII states "The city of Cincinnati and its various Boards and Commissions may not enact, adopt, enforce or administer any ordinance, regulation, rule or policy which provides that homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, status, conduct or relationship constitutes, entitles, or otherwise provides a person with the basis to have any claim of minority or protected status, quota preference or other preferential treatment." The bold section prevents the city from making discrimination against homosexuals illegal. There is no other protection for being discriminated against in State or Federal law based on sexual orientation. If there is any protection it is news to me. What the original law was doing was preventing ANYONE from being discriminated against because they are either heterosexual or homosexual, as the new hate crime states. Gays can’t discriminate against straights and visa versa. Phil is lying on this point.

2. Article XII is anti-gay and only anti-gay. The law did not remove the rights of people to be protected based on their race, religion or nationality. Phil and his goose-steppers singled out homosexuals because they don't like gays, and want to keep them in a second-class status. See the Ohio DOMA law as another example.

3. If discrimination can only be based on immutable characteristics, then why is religion protected? Religion is not immutable, yet I don't see Phil seeking to allow Christians to be prevented from renting an apartment because a Muslim landlord might want to keep out the “infidels”. Phil just needs to group up and accept that being homosexual is as much of a choice as being left handed.

I agree with one thing, people can be treated different because of their behavior. Having sex with a consenting adult is just one that everyone should have the right to do, without the Phils of the world trying to regulate it. I myself do treat bigots who speak out their bigoted beliefs differently. I don't hesitate calling them a bigot or a racist or just plain old “asshole” depending on the instance.