Nathan Bradfield, still oh-so-wrong

Bradfield has been wrong before, and actually has made a pretty impressive wrong by failing to be right about most anything. I’m willing to ignore most of his vacuous arguments as obviously fake, but when he stars being staggeringly dishonest on a subject where he’s likely to be taken seriously by some otherwise reasonable people, I have to step in.

This time he’s on about the problem of “special rights” for homosexuals. Observe ye the breathless panic:

For all the whining homosexuals heap on us about not desiring morality “forced” upon them in this country, it’s not enough for them to have the freedom to commit sodomy in private.

That’s right, what Gays really want is anal sex in public during their Disney-sanctioned commitment ceremonies. 

(Below the fold, Bradfield’s lies, gibberish, and heavy reliance on secondary sources)

He continues:

They are seeking to do the very thing they demand opponents not do: legislate morality in their favor. What they are forgetting is that 1.) all legislation is morality of some kind, 2.) their’s is not currently in place, and 3.) if they don’t like it, there are legal ways to change it. Though this has become the typical route liberals seem to take, it is not correct.

Re-read that. Go ahead. I’ll wait.

What is the route? Objecting to the legislation of morality? This paragraph is meaningless. His first point is gibberish, unless morality is defined in purely utilitarian terms, which he would not doubt object to. At best, legislation can uphold a generally agreed-upon code of moral standards. But if legislation violates the rights of those that it is meant to protect, then legislation is no longer amoral but becomes immoral. By systematically excluding homosexuals from the same protections others enjoy, legislation is violating Constitutional protections we are meant to all enjoy. That is why Plessy v. Ferguson was wrongly decided, and Brown v Board rightly decided.

Legislation should protect the rights and interests of the populace, balancing the needs of the individual against the protection of the community. And that’s why “anal sex in private” is not enough: because it is not acceptable to deny basic rights to some to make others more comfortable. If Bradfield disagrees, perhaps he would like to see the return of slavery. But maybe only slavery of gay people.

But wait, you say, doesn’t Bradfield argue that it’s homosexuals who are demanding special rights? Indeed he does. And look at how he does so:

A measure being ushered down a fast track in the Oregon Legislature would give homosexuals a vast range of new state laws they could use to force their morality on Christians in the state.

Senate Bill 2, on its face, is written to enshrine in state law special protections for homosexuals by classifying them as a protected civil rights group. But hundreds of pastors – whose churches include tens of thousands of evangelical Christians – are horrified by what they see advancing virtually without opposition.

“Senate Bill 2, in the Oregon House of Representatives, if passed, will limit your free speech rights and rights of conscience; require public schools to teach that homosexual/lesbian/bisexual behavior is ‘okay’ and ‘moral’; impact your rights as a business owner; and put judges in authority on certain church matters,” according to David Crowe, of the Christian ministry called Restore America.

The bill would affect churches even though it has a so-called church exemption, he said, because it would require every church operation that isn’t directly in support of its primary mission goal to be subject to mandatory homosexual hiring requirements and other restrictions. And it would leave the determination of what is in support of a church’s primary mission to be determined by a secular judge.

Gay rights is not about equal rights. It is most certainly about special rights.
Note first of all that Bradfield only quotes secondary sources. He never actually provides evidence from the legislation that any of his breathless predictions would become true. So I’ll challenge you to read the legislation and see if his predictions have any validity.

All this legislation does is add sexual orientation to the other protected categories, such as gender, race, religion, and age. In other words, the legislation makes it illegal to discriminate in employment against anyone because you don’t approve of the sexual organs of those who they’re attracted to.

If this is a “special right”–the right to be protected from discrimination–then so is similar legislation (the legislation that this bill would ammend) that stops companies from firing employees for being black, for denying raises to women, and to harassing those with disabilities into quitting. And if that is what Bradfield is truly objecting to, then he should have the honesty to say so.*

He continues with more secondary sources which do not provide evidence:

Here’s the kicker, and all the reason you need to understand the difference between equal rights and special rights:

“The law – and this is onerous – has a clause that talks about developing a program of education to change our attitudes,” Crowe said. “To change our attitudes? Is it the government’s business to change attitudes? But that’s precisely what’s in the bill.”

It is not the government’s job to change attitudes, but it damn sure is its job to protect its constituents from discrimination, and to ensure that its people are treated fairly. And attitude change isn’t what the bill argues for, it’s an explanation of why bigotry isn’t okay. Mr. Bradfield, you don’t have to like gay people, but you damn sure don’t have a right to keep children from being educated as to why discrimination is wrong. Teach your kids to hate in your own time, but don’t expect it to be appropriate for the state to go along with it.

The proposal clearly opens the door to liberal judges to redefine and decide the “primary purpose” of a church, and violates citizens’ rights. Go sign the sign a petition to encourage legislators to oppose the plan.

He’s provided zero evidence for the first claim, and the second is exactly the opposite of the truth: this law, and those like it, protect the rights of everyone, not just straight white protestants like Bradfield. And that is what he’s really objecting to.

Behavior should not elevated to “civil right” status, and cannot be legislated without opening the flood gates to countless other “behaviors” that desire to become legalized, as well as trampling on the rights of at least 1,710,700 (half) Oregon residents, if not more, and sets a precedence over other states that omits church protection from such a law.

Behavior is already protected, Mr. Bradfield: religious expression, freedom of speech, freedom of the press–we have behavioral protections already. And you claim to want to defend those rights, but it seems you truly only defend them when they benefit you. This bill has zero effects on any rights except to a) protect the rights of gay people and b) deny bigots like you the “right” to discriminate against them in the public sphere by such actions as firing them without cause.

The ony “special rights” here is the right people like Bradfield demand to have the government sanction their attempts to systematically deny the rights of others. A read-through of the bill will tell you that it serves only one purpose: to extend basic protection under the law that we all enjoy to yet another group of marginalized people. And that is what Bradfield wants to stop. Tough luck, Bradfield. We won’t let you.

 www.stampandshout.com

*Prediction: he will not do so. Instead, he will claim that those things are different because they are not “choices,” as though a) it’s a foregone conclusion that homosexuality is merely a choice, and b) it makes any difference. Religion is a choice too, and if someone fired Bradfield for being a Christian, I would be the first one to object.