Comments on: HB 300 Will Lead To Same-Sex Marriage

By: Marie

Marie — Mon, 11 May 2009 17:33:32 +0000

Even if someone believes homosexuality is immoral, it doesn’t give them a right to fire people for it. If we start firing employees on the basis of their “sins,” we’ll all soon be unemployed.

Hiring someone who happens to be gay doesn’t mean you “accept their lifestyle,” (whatever THAT means); it just means you found them a qualified candidate for the job. I just don’t see how someone’s sexual orientation has any bearing whatsoever on their ability to do their job?

By: Jarod

Jarod — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:39:36 +0000

Well said Thomas. It is an embarrassment that PA is falling behind in civil rights. How does one explain that people in PA are AGAINST protecting citizens who are gay and that it should be OK to deny them housing, schooling, etc. based on that (read talking points)! The talking points on why one should be against HB 300 is like something out of another place and time. I’ve met so many people who think like those talking points, but I let them get to me first, then tell them I am gay, and you know what, every single time they change their position.

By: Thomas Waters

Thomas Waters — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:16:58 +0000

Dan,
The Supreme Court decision was over-turned by a referendum, and was based solely on the justices reading of the CA constitution. This document is not the same as the PA constitution, so to think that the PA justices would do the same is really stupid. But that said, Inter-racial marriage was not won on a state by state basis. It was the decision, Loving vs Virginia that ended the ban on interracial marriage across the country. We will see the same thing with gay marriage, and it is already too late to stop that. HB 300 will have nothing to do with it.
It is sad , as I look at your timeline. PA was at one time a leader in civil rights, but falls further and further behind.

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:44:40 +0000

1959: California Unruh Civil Rights Act: “All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever." 1955: Pennsylvania Human Relations Act: “Prohibiting certain practices of discrimination because of race, color, religious creed, ancestry, age or national origin by employers, employment agencies, labor organizations and others as herein defined.”. 2005: Legal protections for sexual orientation, gender and marital status added to the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. 2009: HB 300: If passed, would add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity and expression” to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. May 15, 2008: The CA Supreme Court ruled that sexual orientation was a ‘suspect classification’. The court determined that since the law distinguishes people according to their sexual orientation, there was no ‘compelling interest’ to withhold marriage to same-sex couples. Therefore, the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage. ???? ??, ????: If HB 300 passes into law, what is stopping the PA Supreme Court to say sexual orientation is a “suspect classification” and legalize same-sex marriage?

By: Thomas Waters

Thomas Waters — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 04:03:17 +0000

Whomever wrote this blog post clearly hasn’t read PA HB 300 and has no real clue what it says or what it would do. The basis of it has absolution nothing to do with elevating any behavior and it totally and completely about protecting women and men for being discriminated against in employment, housing and public accommodations. This protection is already explicit in the vast majority of the Fortune 500 companies, and is policy in all of the leading economic companies across our country today. There is nothing radical about it. This legislation is already present in 13 various municipalities across the state including the largest metropolitan areas. Pittsburgh has had these policies in place for over 20 years! Most of PA’s neighbors already provide this protect as well as many locations across the country.

It is an outright lie to claim that these protections would lead to same-sex marriage, and it is also a lie to suggest that anti-discrimination legislation has play any role what-so-ever in any state’s actions towards marriage equality.

I really don’t care if everyone believes this is a good thing, but I find it frightening that the so-called moralists use lies and half-truths to try and persuade people to see things their way. Lying is a sin!

By: Jarod

Jarod — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:50:58 +0000

Right now if my partner and I wanted to rent an apartment, the landlord could deny us a lease based on the fact that we are gay. This bill would protect us in that situation. Chuck Colson is right, its not about taking rights away, but it is about offering protection. Which unfortunately we need due to the judgement that we are subjected to of which this site offers an excellent example.

By: Jeff Machamer

Jeff Machamer — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 18:12:30 +0000

I agree with Mr. Colson and others that this is not an issue of respect or equality on any level, and don’t be fooled into believing otherwise. It is yet another bold & deceiving move to thurst into the mainstream ideas that undermine that basis of our society – turning every kind of perversion into a MUST BE ACCEPTED issue, thereby distroying all value to life with Moral value going first but quickly followed by all the rest.

HB 300 has got to fail, or society and life as we now know it surely will.

By: Jerre Snider

Jerre Snider — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:29:21 +0000

Vote NO on this madness