Learn more about Charles Darwin and his work.
Looking for stuff about birds?
Lean more about lions
... who are mostly probably out anyway, but that is not the point.
OK, this is complicated.
Philip Irvin is an anti-gay emplyee of the Seatle City Light company (a city agency).
He believes that gay people are sick and need to be de-gayed.
THe LGBTQFC is a GLBTA group which is one of several special interest groups set up within the city employee's purview. These groups get a nominal sponsorship from the city, and varous groups have formed, like ethinic groups, or age-oriented groups, or people who like to bowl on Wednesday, or whatever. LGBTQFC is the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning and Friends Club.
Irvin has tried to join this group, but he is HNFOG (heter, no friend of gays) so they won't let him in. So, in a huge snit, he demanded the list of all the members, and apparently, is about to legally win that battle.
In arguing that the records should be released, attorneys for the city assert that earlier appeals-court rulings have shown that employee information must be released even if it could result in harassment. The city cites a 2002 case in which King County was ordered by the state Court of Appeals to release a list of sheriff's deputies' names.Attorneys for the plaintiffs assert that the employees' identities are not releasable under the law, in part because they are of no legitimate public interest.
"The information that we're talking about is personal information," Attorney Cecelia Cordova said previously. "The risk is privacy, and that's something that is taken very seriously by the court system."
Cordova and co-counsel David Coffman were able to secure a temporary restraining order blocking the city from releasing the documents, but that order could be nullified at a hearing scheduled next week.
Timothy Kincaid is keeping an eye on this.
Politics
Comments
I have to say that an employee affiliation group is definitely different than deputies in terms of public interest. Employee affiliation groups are not in a position of power over the rest of us.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | June 24, 2009 5:30 PM
Yeah, WTF? How is that earlier ruling even salient? What, do they have Stretch Armstrong as a paralegal?
Posted by: Jason Thibeault | June 24, 2009 5:36 PM
Gayism is not a disease as some conservatives like to think. It is wrong and sinful and evil, but is not a disease. Often times, people who are lustful and willfully engage in evil acts draw demons to them. In turn the demons do posses a part of their being and control them to a certain degree. Cannibals, mass murderers, serial rapists, homosexuals, child molesters, atheists, etc. all have a certain demon controlling their actions, thoughts, and words. Instead of psychiatry, we need more churches to start back teaching deliverance and casting out demons again.
Many illnesses are a direct result of generation curses that are brought on by family ties to evil -Ouiji boards, tarot cards, porn, gambling, drug/alcohol abuse, sexual addictions, etc.
Casting out the demons is a good answer for the State of California and the nation as a whole.
We could start in the prisons and at the ACLU and Science blogs.
Posted by: Demon Killer | June 24, 2009 7:53 PM
Demon: GET HELP NOW.
Posted by: wrpd | June 24, 2009 8:20 PM
How do you propose the demons be driven out? Should we light all our prison population on fire or simply drive them into a river? Oh, or we could set up one of those big dunking rigs like the puritans used!
Posted by: MIKE | June 24, 2009 8:21 PM
Demon, are you by any chance a member of "Disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ"?
Posted by: Just Asking | June 24, 2009 8:31 PM
The big dunking rig should always be tried first. If that fails, the only recourse is to burn the possessed alive. That will save their soul from an eternity in hell.
Posted by: Joel | June 24, 2009 8:53 PM
From the headline, I thought there were anti-gay people who work at Yahoo in Seattle.
...but to the actual story:
Why don't people get together and picket Philip Irvin's house 24/7.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob | June 24, 2009 9:00 PM
Demon Killer - so glad you dropped by. You know who would really like to hear your opinions are the folks at Pharyngula ( http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ ). They're a swell crowd, and will welcome you warmly. Just drop into any thread and tell 'em what you think.
Posted by: BottleBottom | June 24, 2009 9:46 PM
So, Demon Killer, start with me. How do you drive demons out if there are no pigs handy to take on the burden? Teach me, Brother!
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | June 24, 2009 11:33 PM
Friends Sign Up Now!
Posted by: csrster | June 25, 2009 7:01 AM
Yknow if these LGBTBLAH acronyms get any longer it'll include everyone except the fundies. Perhaps that's why they are upset, because they are feeling all left out now.
-The city cites a 2002 case in which King County was ordered by the state Court of Appeals to release a list of sheriff's deputies' names.-
Which is completely irrelevant to this case. This is especially true given the reasons WHY he wants the information. If I had to, personally I would put HIM on the list, and then release it. Since that is exactly what he wanted to the letter.
Posted by: Richard Eis | June 25, 2009 8:10 AM
Demon is a poe, right? It made me laugh, serious or not.
Posted by: marilove | June 25, 2009 10:18 AM
Oh great, here we go again with the "homosexuality is like child molestation" thing. Clearly, demon killer fails to understand the basic concept of consent. I advise everyone to stay as far from him or her as you possibly can. I can't trust someone who doesn't understand consent.
Also, "gayism"? It's freaking adorable that you made up your own little word.
Posted by: catgirl | June 25, 2009 11:20 AM
Fear not sheeple, Demon Killer isn't legit. Indeed, he is most likely one of your own having some sport. It is my esteemed opinion there are pee pull here who can do a much better job emulating the typical fag bashing right wing uber churchianity nutter than what has been posted in this thread to date. The challenge is yours.
Posted by: Bill James | June 25, 2009 2:09 PM
PS: Sorry if I outed you on this one Greg.
Posted by: Bill James | June 25, 2009 2:13 PM
Please, Bill. Everybody around here knows that for a convincing nutter, you use misspellings, bad punctuation and made-up words.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | June 25, 2009 2:24 PM
Bill: I don't know who he is, but I had a similar thought, checked so far as I can, and I can make no links. I think he may be real. In the sense that he is not making this up.
Posted by: Greg Laden | June 25, 2009 2:25 PM
Sheeple / pee pull? Do you by chance self-identify with Dr. Horrible?
Posted by: Jason Thibeault | June 25, 2009 2:43 PM
I don't think so, Greg. It reads like the Onion. And while I know the idiocy of the right is sometimes so fantastic it reads like satire, this is just too ... perfect and thought-out.
Posted by: marilove | June 25, 2009 3:39 PM
There's some beautiful irony in all of this homophobic ugliness. King County was originally named after William R. King, Vice President under Franklin Pierce. According to many historical accounts, King was gay -- he was called "Miss Nancy" by Andrew Jackson and "[James] Buchanan's wife" by Aaron Burr. Both King and Buchanan never married, but lived together intimately for fifteen years prior to the latter's ascension to the presidency. (Washington society considered Buchanan and King a couple; Aaron Burr referred to them as "Buchanan and his wife.")
Possibly out of embarrassment over the homosexuality of its original namesake, and certainly to renounce his pro-slavery views, King County spent two decades (1986-2006) "renaming" itself in honor of the Martin Luther King, Jr.
Ain't history awesome?
[Sources: Wikipedia articles on William R. King and King County; or 'google" references on King+Buchanan+gay]
Posted by: Joe M. | June 25, 2009 4:10 PM
I meant to type "the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr."
Posted by: Joe M. | June 25, 2009 4:14 PM
marilove, I'm afraid it reads like the people in that video just posted (see video) and it reads like the rhetoric from any of a number of churches. Of course, I can't be sure.
Posted by: Greg Laden | June 25, 2009 4:38 PM
Perhaps I'm not cynical enough? The fact that it DOES read so closely to those videos and the general rhetoric, yet is so ... clear and concise is what is making me think it's a Poe.
But, then again, I could be wrong!
Posted by: marilove | June 25, 2009 5:38 PM
Well, when he comes back we'll trick him into admitting what he is.
Posted by: Greg Laden | June 25, 2009 6:08 PM
If that's not bad enough, there's a character(yeah, he resides in King County,unfortunately), who runs a big evangelical church in the area. He's gone on record on numerous venues(including a laughable attempt to try to sue Microsoft for having -- gasp! -- gay employees), about how awful gayness is. His name is Ken Hutcherson. And he's black. And he would probably try to drive out gay demons(whatever those might be) from some hapless soul if he knew how. Fortunately, he's not an exorcist. And other blacks, including two different newspaper columnists, have criticized the guy for his stands on these things.
Anne G
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | June 26, 2009 12:34 AM
Jason Thibeault: Do you by chance self-identify with Dr. Horrible?
The answer can only be 'no' as I have no idea who Dr. Horrible is. Of course I googled out of curiosity and could have watched a YouTube video but elected not to.
Otherwise, I'm not at all sure what you mean by 'self-identify' or am particularly certain what the phrase intends to describe. Actually I'd be appreciative if you would expand on that. In particular; is this something that people commonly do and does this activity reside in the realm of conscious thought?
Posted by: Bill James | June 29, 2009 5:33 PM
Bill, you're once again demonstrating a remarkable desire to have everyone around you do more work than you're willing to do yourself.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | June 29, 2009 6:30 PM
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog is an internet-distributed musical by Joss Whedon that went viral a while back. There's just a line in one of the songs that goes, "Look at these people, / Amazing how sheeple / Show up for the slaughter". And he enunciates it pee-pull. That is all. It was an odd combination of words, and who honestly says "sheeple"?
As for self-identifying, I meant it to imply that you see a sympathy with a character that other people might not necessarily see. I realize self-identifying usually means describing yourself in a certain way.
Posted by: Jason Thibeault | June 29, 2009 6:35 PM
Stephanie writes: "Bill, you're once again demonstrating a remarkable desire to have everyone around you do more work than you're willing to do yourself."
Yet another baseless accusation Stef?
Posted by: Bill James | June 29, 2009 7:41 PM
Goodness, no, Billie, I'm perfectly happy to source so everyone else can see what I'm talking about.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | June 29, 2009 7:48 PM
"I think he may be real"
Absolutely NOT me! The demon possessed gay people that I hate all know me by name, but they are in a small minority of the gay people that I merely throw withering glances at because they dress better than me...
Posted by: the real meme | June 29, 2009 8:45 PM
I read about this guy today but I thought he was an ex-gay which means he probably has desires towards men, but feels it's immoral and he won't get into heaven. Anyhow, he's a bit whacked out and no friend of glbtq people.
Posted by: Qwerty | June 29, 2009 9:36 PM
Thank you for that response Jason. I don't suppose I would self identify with the Dr. Horrible character having read a synopsis of the transcript. Sheeple/Pee-Pull? Given the explanation in reference I can see your association. The turn of such phrasing was not in the transcript.
I also looked into "self-identification" and found it to be a fairly loose term in widespread use and oft times contextual in application. Having not found a specific definition, was compelled to inquire of that which you intended within your initial query and prior to further response. Thanks again.
Posted by: Bill James | June 29, 2009 9:42 PM
Whilst I obviously can't say either way, I would not be the least bit surprised if Demon Killer was legit. His bullshit isn't any different than the nuttiness I grew up around.
Seriously, read some of the Chick Tracts - he's not even all that far out there...
Posted by: DuWayne | June 29, 2009 10:05 PM
Thing is, Bill, there's a number of other reasons the likeness came to mind, aside from the uncanny similarity to the particular lyric. Antisocial conservative tendencies, and an inability to argue your goals and thought processes without coming off as a loon, while simultaneously being far more charming than you have any rights to be, for instance.
The big difference between you and Dr. H is that he's a likeable antihero. We already know where your missiles have been aimed in the past -- blacks and gays figure heavily. Why do you think by being extraordinarily civil and charming to me in a sidebar, that you'll gain a "civil" ally in this fight, especially given any of the comments I've ever posted on this and other topics?
I suspect you're likely to turn around and attack now, having been bitten by the dog you're petting. I'm in no mood, so I'll leave you to your rightly deserved opprobrium. Forget I mentioned anything, in fact. I doubt you have the ability of introspection necessary to understand why your comments are being met with so much reproach.
Posted by: Jason Thibeault | June 29, 2009 11:10 PM
Back to the point at hand: while the public might have a legitimate right to know who is employed by which government departments unless releasing that information interferes with crime-fighting or security, there's no right to know which employees have joined which social groups. If the purpose is to expose and harass, I wonder if such a suit constitutes barratry or attempted harassment itself.
Posted by: Monado | June 30, 2009 12:34 AM
Stephanie writes: "Goodness, no, Billie, I'm perfectly happy to source so everyone else can see what I'm talking about."
Well perfect happiness aside Stef, does anyone else see what your talking about?
I mean, in the middle of my conversation with Jason you entertain us with yet another warrantless accusatory outburst leveled at yours truly...
"Bill, you're once again demonstrating a remarkable desire to have everyone around you do more work than you're willing to do yourself."
Where did this come from Steffie? Read the thread. Where is this demonstration of remarkable desire to have everyone around me do more work than I am willing to do myself? Where?
Oh that's right, it's not here but in that "other" thread, the one where you imagineered and manufactured the utterly preposterous accusation of me making threats. A contention of yours not held in evidence there either. But then you offer up yet "another thread" supposedly in support of my threat making which turned out to be nothing of the kind nor even remotely related to that accusation or this one.
Oh well, you'll get around to the real point sooner or later.
Posted by: Bill James | June 30, 2009 3:46 AM
In response to Jason #36:
Oh great. Now I have to duck the process server having exceeded my rights to be charming.
Anyway, thanks for sharing your insight Jason. Obviously I don't agree with much of the characterization and opinion stated in post 36, but I trust your position will soften eventually. Something that often occurs after the shrillness of knee jerk supposition dissipates.
And Jason, don't think for a minute that I have lost sight of your humor through all this. I haven't. You didn't simply self-identify with an Attack Chihuahua, you internalized the beast. Of course you were born to play that role but still, the nip at the ankles only to run behind the couch and shiver... bloody brilliant. I'm still laughing.
Alas, to the only question you posed in this post regarding any thoughts I might have held in considering you an ally? No worries my friend. It was never considered, nor ever would be. So run free you little git, back to your heterophobia.
As always,
Best Regards;
Bill
Posted by: Bill James | June 30, 2009 6:37 AM
Wrong, Bill. Try again.
"[M]ore charming than you have any right to be" is not a law that you've broken, but rather an admonition against acting transparently charming to the part of your audience that doesn't outright attack you off the cuff, while repulsing another part with your racist, homophobic, and intolerant screeds. Evidently, you don't realize that there might be some room for overlap between the two groups. You try to come off as the reasonable conservative, but you succeed only in doubly repulsing those that fall into both groups.
There's a vast gulf of difference between "running and hiding shivering behind the couch" and being in no mood to continue a tangential argument that drowns out the original conversation.
Additionally, I fail to see how one can be in a heterosexual relationship and be classified as heterophobic by the mere action of defending homosexuals. Maybe you should figure out why there's so much discord between what you say and what is plainly evident on its face when one simply opens their eyes.
You are presently acting as noise, in this and other conversations, noise that has a particular property of drawing others (myself being sadly prone to this sort of trolling) off topic as well. The topic in this particular thread is that it is ridiculous for a particular homophobe to attempt to "out" a social group at a workplace on the grounds that the public has a right to know, out of a sense of vengeance for having been correctly identified as no friend or ally of the group. The question I pose to you is: can we discuss that topic rationally, without further anti-minority-group bias creeping into your discourse?
Posted by: Jason Thibeault | June 30, 2009 7:54 AM
No, Jason, he has no interest in discussing this, just making vague statements and refusing to discuss them further (blame the squirrels). That's the point of my linking--so people can see how honestly he's willing to discuss the topic and decide for themselves whether it's worth it to them to engage him.
Oh, Wee Willie, did it take you all night to figure out how to misspell my name differently? No wonder you're not willing to carry through on an argument.
And seriously, dude, calling the guy whose marriage proposal was the talk of this corner of the internet all weekend "heterophobic"? Could you have found a better way to expose the limits of your warped little worldview? Talk about laughing.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | June 30, 2009 8:20 AM
Jason has so many fears and phobias it's difficult to tell where one ends and another begins. Being a hetero and afraid of his manhood such as it is certainly fits him.
And so Steffy once again adds another 'link' to her list of links submitted as proof that.... well, nobody is quite sure. Steffy has been all over the map in what is becoming typical Steffy fashion.
So what did I say that pissed you off this time?
"I suspect Christian Conservatives opposing the Anti-Hate Bill are on the right side of the issue for all the wrong reasons.
Be that as it may, we are left with the fundamental question: does anti-hate legislation make good law?"
Other than that I stated I had to leave for the moment and never came back to the thread. For this I've raised your ire.
As Jason says: this is all part of my "racist, homophobic, and intolerant screeds."
Perhaps one of you will be so kind as link to a post where such racist, homophobic, and intolerant remarks are actually in evidence.
No, all you two have accomplished so far is jumping to assumption, and by more than a little bit.
Posted by: Bill James | June 30, 2009 11:06 AM
No, Bill. The link to where you call homosexuality a birth defect is one more click beyond the first link I provide above. I don't need to add more just because you think I should. Besides, you're doing an admirable job of demonstrating the point yourself without any help from me.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | June 30, 2009 11:29 AM
They should release the entire list of names of all employees, saying that all the people in the club are on that list.
Posted by: speedwell | June 30, 2009 12:46 PM
Posted by: Jason Thibeault | June 30, 2009 1:28 PM
Speedwell -- I was thinking something along the lines of, at the next meeting, everyone ratifying Irvin as an honorary member, then proposing a new group bylaw that non-honorary members must pay dues a month in advance, then nobody paying the dues. Then when any judgment comes to pass, if against the club, the only name on the list that's released is Irvin's. Otherwise, they reform and all is well.
Posted by: Jason Thibeault | June 30, 2009 1:32 PM
Three-fer!
Hey "Steffy", did you get the one where he was blatantly racist in this thread? I might have missed it if so.
Posted by: Jason Thibeault | June 30, 2009 1:35 PM
Actually, I don't think I've seen him be blatantly racist, Jason. I have seen him be dismissive of the effect of racism, comparing the experience of being African American to being short.
Mostly, he comes across as a bully who has so little else that he needs to be fiercely protective of his ability to find victims.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | June 30, 2009 2:04 PM
Fair point. I saw "now where's my free stuff" as blatantly racist, suggesting that blacks were "just looking for a handout", when in actuality, at worst, it's just racism by implication.
Posted by: Jason Thibeault | June 30, 2009 2:26 PM