Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Kalamazoo, Michigan is in the middle of a battle over a city human rights ordinance that would forbid discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations against LGBT people. As usual, the anti-gay bigots are engaged in dishonest fear mongering. Here's a picture of a door hanger they are putting out all around the city. See if you can spot the frame:
OMG! If you can't fire someone for being gay, next thing you know men will be raping your daughters in public bathrooms! Right. Because that's such a rampant problem in the hundreds of communities that have similar human rights ordinances, isn't it? Oh wait, it isn't.
I think they should have gone all the way and just made the guy in the picture black too. Or Arab. It's not as if they're being overly subtle as it is.
Politics
Comments
WTF does "voting no to special rights discrimination" even mean? I'm obviously not the target for this ad, because my first reaction was complete confusion.
If you're voting *against* discrimination, then wouldn't you be voting *for* this ordinance? Adding "special rights" to the sentence doesn't actually change the grammar. They need to scrap this and start from scratch with text that actually makes sense!
Oh...wait. I don't want these people to succeed. Never mind! Carry on being completely nonsensical!
Um, yes, I'm an editor by profession. How could you tell?
Posted by: Mara | September 19, 2009 9:20 AM
What's with these 'tards being deliberately misleading? 'Special discrimination'? What are they trying to do, get people to vote no thinking the bill is anti-gay?
Posted by: ragarth | September 19, 2009 9:21 AM
Unfortunately, we all have bigoted morons like that ("responsible voters"!)... presumably living under rocks.
Collect all the tags you can and recycle them!
Posted by: rcv | September 19, 2009 9:23 AM
Ed, you should check the letters to the editor in the gazette. this idea that the bill is about special rights, not equal rights, is a common theme: it seems to be something the folks who are against the bill are pushing very hard.
the "there's no discrimination against gays in this area" topic has been shoved to the front as well, and it's stayed there even after a high school boy was badly beaten by other teens after they found out he was gay. a common response to that has been "if he'd kept quiet he wouldn't have been attacked".
I don't see the climate getting better before the vote.
Posted by: dean | September 19, 2009 9:33 AM
"Special Rights Discrimination" is discriminating against people by denying them their right to discriminate against certain kinds of other people. It's part of the whole mythos that granting rights to those certain people constitutes "special" rights.
Posted by: JHGRedekop | September 19, 2009 9:36 AM
The model in that photo is one of the most convincing drag kings I've ever seen!
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | September 19, 2009 9:52 AM
I used to hear a lot of "special rights" rhetoric in Alberta in the 90s before the Federal Human rights bill was implemented. I would ask if people they want to discriminate against get to stop paying taxes since they clearly aren't considered to be citizens.
Posted by: cass_m | September 19, 2009 10:03 AM
If that's supposed to be a gay man entering the "little girls" room, then there's nothing to worry about. If their goal is to scare us about "OMG teh chillun," shouldn't they show him going into the men's room??? Logic, people. Oh, yeah, well never mind. They still believe in talking serpents.
Posted by: Ken in MS | September 19, 2009 10:19 AM
Ed said:
Ummm... sorry... too confusing. On multiple levels.
I need some Tylenol now... my head hurts trying to make sense of this door hanger. If all teh stoopid here ends up giving me a brain tumor, I'm holding you responsible, Ed.
Posted by: doctorgoo | September 19, 2009 10:27 AM
i can never figure out why conservatives seem to think public bathrooms are (or can be, or might be) such dens of perverted depravity. whenever one of my transgender friends walk into one, all they want to do is pee. (insert republican senator punchline here...)
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | September 19, 2009 11:03 AM
Ken in MS: If that image is an 'accurate lie' (instead of a lying lie?) then I'd guess the bill contains some provision to guarantee restroom access to trans people and the people behind it are trying to promote at least two bits of insidious bigotry with this.
1: The lie that trans women are 'actually men', and
2: that therefore this bill will enable any man who wants to walk into restrooms marked for women commit assault with impunity (the first part not strictly necessary, but they'll be invested in pushing it anyway).
Never mind that one of the reasons for guaranteeing restroom access to trans people is that when they are forced to use the wrong one they are being subjected to heightened risks of being raped or murdered or assaulted, quite apart from the matter of plain respect.
And never mind that this almost certainly isn't going to make assault on women in the bathroom legal, nor grant some magical-legal protection from prosecution for crime to anyone who claims a female identity.
Posted by: aesmael | September 19, 2009 11:06 AM
They are trying to say if you can't discriminate based on sex, you can't keep men from going into the women's room. If the bill were abotu gay marriage or sexual discrimination, it might make sense, but it isn't.
Posted by: Ace of Sevens | September 19, 2009 11:13 AM
See if you can spot the frame:
Wait, I think I see it. This is about as hard as a Where's Waldo:
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/waldo/images/2/2a/Simpsons1.JPG
But I'm sure Larry Craig and Bob Allen will be along any moment to let them know that they should be focusing on the Men's room.
Posted by: joz | September 19, 2009 11:29 AM
To pile on Ace of Sevens point @ 12 - men imposing themselves in women's rest rooms was a frequent talking point in the conservative movement back when they oppossed the Equal Rights Amendment a couple of decades back (which was an amendment redundantly committing the federal government to defend the free and equal exercise of women's rights). I think this ad says something about their target demographics: old, stupid, and enthralled with Bill O'Reilly 'slippery-slope' type thinking (e.g., gay marriage will lead to people wanting to marry their pets and, "Oh my, where will it end?").
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 19, 2009 12:34 PM
Please remove the word "dishonest" from the title of the post.
Posted by: Committee to Stamp Out and Eliminate Redundancy Committee | September 19, 2009 12:37 PM
Are they suggesting that gay men want to use the women's toilets?
*confused of Britain*
Posted by: David W | September 19, 2009 12:48 PM
What is really fun about this, is that I have been approached in school, by folks on either side of this issue. Go figure, the person who was in favor, was all about discussing it (that was the first I had heard of this), while the two people who were against were really not interested in talking about it. And one the against assholes, was couching it in terms that made it sound like voting for this measure would be voting for discrimination. I actually thought he might be confused and tried to clarify it for him - based on the shade of red his face turned, I had to assume he was well aware of his lies.
I can't tell you how embarrassing it is to live somewhere this is an issue. And irritating that as a Portage resident I can't actually vote on this.
Posted by: DuWayne | September 19, 2009 1:05 PM
"If this bill passes, my friends, ARAB TERRORISTS will be able to plant BOMBS in WOMEN'S RESTROOMS!"
Posted by: mad the swine | September 19, 2009 1:41 PM
If we want to stamp out special rights for groups I vote we eliminate religious protections in the workplace. After all - religion is just a choice isn't it?
Posted by: yoshi | September 19, 2009 2:21 PM
This probably makes vague sense to conservatives who believe that liberals are forcing perverted ideas about sex and gender on America. Gay marriage, pedophilia, transgender, polyamory, bestiality, "unisex" restrooms--they all fall into the category of perversions evil liberals are forcing on wholesome, Christian people. To conservatives, it doesn't matter that no one else bundles these phenomena together; they all represent challenges to orthodox notions of gender and sexuality. If you favor protection from workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation, you must also favor unisex public restrooms.
Posted by: Dr X | September 19, 2009 2:30 PM
Just as an idle thought, is it actually illegal in the USA or Europe for a man to use a women's public toilet?
Posted by: SimonG | September 19, 2009 2:39 PM
@SimonG:
Good question. I imagine that any laws on the books in the US are state or local municipal laws. In any case, most so-called public restrooms are actually on private property. Where I live, many of the restrooms are gender neutral, even when there are two restrooms on the property. If you go into any Starbucks in my neighborhood, the staff will tell you that you can use either restroom, even though signs on the doors designate gender.
If there are any laws on the books around here, I imagine that the police exercise some discretion in enforcement.
Posted by: Dr X | September 19, 2009 3:07 PM
Sorry, my first thought was, 'so they're saying that if this passes, there will be more instances of men inadvertantly going into women's bathroom because they're not looking at the sign? How do they figure that one?'
Posted by: Zmidponk | September 19, 2009 3:37 PM
This is absolutely typical of the naked cruelty, bigotry, and ugliness of the homophobic men and women who seek to prevent the passage of legislation intended to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in employment, in access to housing, and in service at places of public accommodation (e.g. restaurants and hotels).
Rather than confront the fact that such discrimination still exists and still continues to plague the lives of gay and lesbian Americans, these persons wish to perpetuate and justify such abusive treatment. By conflating non-discrimination with issues such as unisex bathrooms, these persons seek to confuse and terrify heterosexual men and women.
There is nothing "special" about the right to be judged by one's employer on the basis of job performance (as opposed to sexual orientation). There is nothing "special" about the right to hold down a job at which one excels, or to check into a hotel.
PHILIP CHANDLER
Posted by: Philip Chandler | September 19, 2009 3:40 PM
I don't5 get this. If they're gay, why would they be bothered with your wives or daughters in a women's bathroom??????
Anne G
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | September 19, 2009 5:30 PM
Anne G: Because the sassy gay man tells the crying woman in the bathroom that she can do better than that Neanderthal she's dating and then men have to spend all their time listening to women and carrying purses and making at least a token effort that both partners orgasm during sex, and it's just work, work, work all the time. Fearful Republican patriarchy is just so much easier (for the men).
Posted by: chancelikely | September 19, 2009 6:38 PM
Gah. That same type of rhetoric was used (successfully) in the campaign against the same type of ordinance in Anchorage. Finally, the city council voted for it, only to be vetoed by the mayor...who said "there's no discrimination against gays in this area", after listening to person after person testifying that there *was*. Gah.
Posted by: OmegaMom | September 19, 2009 6:59 PM
So Michigan must not have state-wide protections in place then? This is why a federal ENDA is so important.
As for the ordinance, I say screw it. Let them destroy equality. Then we tell them, "OK, since our laws won't protect us, we have to do it ourselves. If your business discriminates, it gets burned to the ground." Makes the opportunity cost of being a bigot just a little bit higher. Queers that live there need to grow a little backbone (of course this is easy to say from California, but I'd be pissed if I lived in that backwater shithole).
Posted by: paul | September 19, 2009 7:54 PM
To the intended demographic this card makes perfect sense. They think gays and pedophiles are the same thing. And, they think if laws don't reflect their religious ideas then they are the ones being discriminated against.
Posted by: Brian | September 19, 2009 8:36 PM
I think the logic, such as it is, behind the term "special rights" is the idea that homosexuals will gain a right to sue that's not available to heterosexuals. Of course this is untrue; a heterosexual would have just as much right to sue over discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as a homosexual. They just aren't as likely to have occasion to.
You'll also hear right-wingers talk about hiring quotas for gays as being a logical consequence of anti-discrimination measures; i.e., another form of reverse discrimination against the poor, persecuted heterosexual white male.
Posted by: Nemo | September 19, 2009 11:10 PM
P.S. That's just "special rights", a term which has been used against anti-discrimination measures since at least the early 1990's... "special rights discrimination" is to me a new and incoherent coinage. But "discrimination" (i.e., against bigots) is the new spin they were using during the Prop 8 fight; perhaps they just threw in "special rights" as a code phrase to make it clearer which side they were on.
Posted by: Nemo | September 19, 2009 11:16 PM
Umm Paul, please feel free to stay the hell away. Seriously - I am all for this ordinance and have happily discussed it with the folks I come into contact around here. I can't actually vote for it, because I am right next door in another municipality, but I am actively participating and happily so.
That doesn't mean that if it doesn't pass, I want to see a wave of terrorist activities. I find terrorism almost as repulsive as the bigotry. So if that is the sort of insanity you have to offer, feel free to fuck off.
Posted by: DuWayne | September 20, 2009 12:21 AM
I make no apologies for my comment, I was advocating vandalism, not homicide. Perhaps the rhetoric went a little too far, given that a discriminating business isn't directly, only indirectly, threatening anyone's life. Maybe "run it into the ground" would be more proper, though it's a difficult thing to do, and probably wouldn't get accomplished unless a lot of people devoted a lot of time to picketing, etc. Oh well. I think you're being a little dramatic though. You consider vandalism to be terrorism, but firing someone for being gay is itself an act of terrorism against the gay community, and does deserve some kind of retribution. Luckily, I'm only an armchair insane wacko.
Posted by: paul | September 20, 2009 2:05 AM
Michael Heath, @ #14--
The Equal Rights Amendment was only redundant because it made the Supreme Court wake up and apply the earlier amendment (I believe it was the 14th) that guaranteed equal rights for women. Before the fight for the ERA, that provision of the constitution was simply ignored. In fact, the 19th amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote is, in principle, redundant as well. Women should have gotten the right to vote as a consequence of equal protection under the law. But no.
Posted by: hoary puccoon | September 20, 2009 2:15 AM
hoary @ 34 - my redundancy argument goes back to the pre-Bill of Rights Constitution that came out of the 1787 Constitutional Convention and was ratified by the states. I'm referring to the 'privileges and immunities' clause coupled to the fact that no powers were afforded to the government to treat people unequally. I would then argue it's redundant immediately after the 1st Congress ratified the Bill of Rights given the due process and equal protection clauses and the limitations against the states in the 10th Amendment towards the rights of the people noted in the 9th and 10th amendments (cognizant of the 11th as well). The 14th should obviously make it redundant a third time.
I realize this argument is not how the SCOTUS courts have applied the Constitution, which requires(ed) incorporation of the 14th Amendment by judicial fiat. There are constitutional scholars that make my argument, e.g., Randy Barnett, who first schooled me on this concept.
Obviously not all people were immediately able to exercise their rights upon ratification of the Constitution by the states, nor did the government properly defend their rights against the improper encroachments of others, including their federal, state, and local government. This imperfection in the execution of our principles embedded in the Constitution did not go unnoticed by our framers, who framed it as a necessary and ongoing process attempting to 'perfect the union'; a point best argued today by our current President in his speeches (but is failing to defend in the courts with positions taken by his DOJ and White House counsel).
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 20, 2009 7:05 AM
My above comment should have provided additional context given the three-fifths compromise in Art. 1 on how to count 'non-free' [read 'slaves'] citizens in the states and the exclusion of indigenuous Americans from that count. I forgot merely because we were discussing the women and gays' rights, people that were counted at the birth of our nation yet denied the exercise of their rights equal to white property-owning men that were members of politically correct religions.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 20, 2009 7:49 AM
paul -
Lets make that burning down someone's business a different scenario.
A gay architect becomes successful enough that he is able to open his own office and builds a beautiful office building. Some foul bigots just can't stand the idea of one of them fags flaunting their success and wants to put him is his place, so they burn his beautiful new office building to the ground in the middle of the night. Not an act of terrorism at all - just a perfectly innocent method by which they can tell other faggots who might have the audacity to start a business, that such businesses aren't welcome in these parts.
Or there is a brown guy in the community, who has the audacity to court and marry a fine beige skinned women. Some racist fucking asshats can't stand that and one night said couple wakes up to a cross burning in their yard. It wasn't homicide, so by your logic here it can't possibly be a terrorist act - right? Just a reasonable message to other potential interracial couples that uppity niggers need to leave them white women alone.
Or maybe it's an uppity Jewish family - or worse, an atheist family - who's child objected to some Christian expression in the public school. Family decides to sue the school board and unfortunately, their names are leaked to the media. Some of the local Christians are really upset about it and decide to blow up the family car one night in retribution. Again, no one was hurt, so it obviously isn't terrorism - just completely reasonable way to send the message that if you mess with god in our schools, you will be punished.
Of course, why stop at burning down their business? Why not take a page from the animal rights terrorists activist playbook and invade the homes of these anti-gay bigots, tying up their families and spray painting things on their walls? I mean hell, it isn't homicide - it's just sending a message to other bigots that being asshats will put their families at risk. As long as no one is killed, the ends justify the means - right?
Or is it just that it's not terrorism when you happen to agree?
And fyi, this "backwater shithole" has a community college, as well as a few public buildings and several businesses, that have unisex bathrooms to accommodate transgender people (I was involved in starting a successful viral push to get women born women to use them as well - at least at school). There are also gay teachers in the K-zoo schools, as well as other area districts - not sure about transgendered teachers. There are a few businesses owned by religionuts, who decided upon losing several regulars, to stop discriminating against gays and reconsidered decisions not to hire them.
It just also happens, that we have a segment of the population who are anti-gay bigots, who are fighting an ordinance to codify anti-discrimination into law. Kind of like that backwater shithole of a state (which one was it now?) that passed prop. 8.
Only in our backwater shithole, it is rather likely that they'll be voting against bigotry.
Posted by: DuWayne | September 20, 2009 8:44 AM
From a letter to the editor in today's Kalamazoo Gazette. This is the level of reasoned discourse the opponents are throwing up againt this ordinance. The sad thing is that it dovetails quite nicely with the attitudes of many people.
Like DuWayne, I live in Portage, not Kalamazoo, so can't vote on this. However, I'd like to see Kalamazoo continue to come back from loss of Pfizer's research group, and make headway against the current economic woes in general. I view this ordinance as a major forward step, and it would be depressing to see it lose.
Posted by: dean | September 20, 2009 9:28 AM
Hmm...I would like to clarify that I actually have nothing against California and was merely throwing a moronic rhetorical device back. I do not think that California is a backwater shithole. Rather, I just wanted to point out that simply because a place happens to have a vocal, bigoted segment of their population, does not mean that place should be judged by them and them alone.
Posted by: DuWayne | September 20, 2009 9:56 AM
if only. instead, MI was one of the states that amended their constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage in 2004. that election night was no fun at all for me.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | September 20, 2009 11:26 AM
Nor me Nomen. I know of two conservative associates who thought they voted to support gays in that 2004 election but were so confused by the language of the proposal they ended up voting against gays. Many of us predicted this sort of outcome was by design in order to get the less-informed voting against gays.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 20, 2009 12:52 PM
Suppose one is a bigot and suppose one is dishonest, but I repeat myself.
Oh, and Paul? You're an idiot. Be quiet; you have nothing to say.
Posted by: Bachalon | September 20, 2009 12:52 PM
First, I already backpedalled and admitted that my knee-jerk reaction was over-the-top and I shouldn't have written that, so yes, nice analogies, thank you. I'm not actually insane, I do have a valid opinion about this, and violence (even if just temper gone awry) is a conversation stopper. My bad.
My frustration comes from the fact that there is no solution to this, our civil rights struggle is a joke, and the best we can say is that the next generations will have better lives than we did because more people are out earlier. I think that's absolutely terrific, but that's the only thing that we can achieve with the system that we have now. We won't get equality in our lifetimes, and any steps we take will be like this little city ordinance, piece by little piece, and they'll be fought by bigots tooth and nail.
I wasn't denying that vandalism was terrorism, simply that it is terrorism on par with discrimination itself. I believe that it does destroy lives. I'm tired of it being labeled as a difference of opinion or freedom of religion. Fundies are fond of using the term "culture war", and in using that rhetoric they beg an obvious question: who dies in that war. Their quick answer (probably given with a chuckle) would be nobody, but we all know the lie in that. We die. Still. Again, I'm not advocating murder because of it, simply stating a fact.
And this entire country is a backwater shithole when it comes to this issue, I wasn't being classist, was referring to the fact that the laws are atrocious and archaic. I am even more angry about California, simply because I expect(ed) better. But reality is reality.
Posted by: paul | September 20, 2009 1:46 PM
I'm a Kalamazoo Township resident -- is this going to be voted on only by residents of the city proper, or will I be able to help vote in favor of gay rights in my newly adopted hometown?
Posted by: Daniel Harper | September 20, 2009 4:58 PM
Daniel, I believe it is Kalamazoo city residents only who will get to vote on this.
Posted by: dean | September 20, 2009 5:39 PM
I think you all are bashing the hanger which is righteous but besides the issue. The issue as I see it, is folks are allowed to air their bigotry and hatred in public ways and
are not called out for it.In the past we "excused" those hicks in the south for their public expressions of hatred but
why allow shallow, narrow minded, mean spirited expressions of hatred now? What's their excuse? If this is a christian ethic, would jesus say "right you are; I'm glad you feel that way."? I suspect not.Those miscreants who have nothing better to do with their time than screw with people they don't approve of don't deserve consideration or respect.r.k
Posted by: r.kling | September 26, 2009 8:30 PM
Finally!!!! Some response from (hopefully) the Kalamazoo area. I was beginning to think that no one cared about this. I was disappointed to find a crazy doorhanger when I got home about a week ago, and pleased to meet someone in support of the anti- discrimination ordinance last night on my doorstep.
Thanks Ed, you've restored my peace of mind. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: benazir | September 30, 2009 12:07 PM