In truth, the Don’t Say Gay bill (HB 1557) seeks to solve a non-existent problem, sold on the premise that nefarious actors in Florida public schools are “grooming” small children. (Sound familiar?)

What’s in the Bill?

While the bill is chalked full of problematic and vague language muddying Florida state law (while also creating a new cause of action that does not currently exist), the most vociferous discussion focused on one section relating to sexual education instruction at the K-3 level (something that already does not happen according to Florida state standards) and limits on “age appropriate” material in other grades. The following language will now be added to subsection (8) of 62 section 1001.42, Florida Statutes:

“Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”

HB 1557

The key word in that sentence is “or” that offers two separate additions to Florida state law:

1. Prohibition on teaching about sexual orientation or gender identity to students in K-3 (which was already prohibited under Florida state law’s existing sex education laws)
2. Prohibition on “classroom instruction by school personnel” that is not “age appropriate or developmentally appropriate” for students outside of K-3

No one wants to teach sex education to children in grades K-3; they do, however, want schools to be safe places for children to receive information and counseling on LGBTQIA issues. The problem with the bill (in its very design) is that it does not differentiate between what constitutes ‘classroom instruction’ and ‘classroom discussion’ (the latter being claimed as still being allowed, though there’s no legal mechanism in the bill to distinguish between the two).

And that’s just one section of HB 1557.

The Don’t Say Gay bill also adds explicit parental notification requirements to Florida state law pertaining to changes in and discussions of a student’s “mental, emotional or physical health.” The bill will give parents legal recourse to sue schools if they aren’t notified their child had a discussion with them about questions on sexual orientation or gender identity at any level – K-3, high school or otherwise.

The relevant section of the bill states:

“In accordance with the rights of parents enumerated in ss. 1002.20 and 1014.04, adopt procedures for notifying a student’s parent if there is a change in the student’s services or monitoring related to the student’s mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being and the school’s ability to provide a safe and supportive learning environment for the student. The procedures must reinforce the fundamental right of parents to make decisions regarding the upbringing and control of their children by requiring school district personnel to encourage a student to discuss issues relating to his or her well-being with his or her parent or to facilitate discussion of the issue with the parent. The procedures may not prohibit parents from accessing any of their student’s education and health records created, maintained, or used by the school district, as required by s. 1002.22(2).”

HB 1557

While Florida Republicans responded to outcry over notifications leading to abuse and violence from those notifications by pointing to another section of the bill, that section doesn’t do a lot:

A school district may not adopt procedures or student support forms that prohibit school district personnel from notifying a parent about his or her student’s mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being, or a change in related services or monitoring, or that encourage or have the effect of encouraging a student to withhold from a parent such information. School district personnel may not discourage or prohibit parental notification of and involvement in critical decisions affecting a student’s mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being. This subparagraph does not prohibit a school district from adopting procedures that permit school personnel to withhold such information from a parent if a reasonably prudent person would believe that disclosure would result in abuse, abandonment, or neglect, as those terms are defined in s. 39.01 [emphasis mine]

HB 1557

There’s a lot to digest there.

While Florida state law now outright bans schools from instituting procedures to prohibit notification to parents, it vaguely ‘allows’ them to adopt procedures if a child’s life may be at risk from notification (but doesn’t require schools to adopt those procedures – it’s completely optional).

What Issue does the Bill Solve?

While the actions of the Don’t Say Gay bill are clear, finding the impetus behind it (and the problems it’s seeking to solve) really are the $64,000 question. If you listened to Republicans in the media and on the floors of the Florida House and Senate, you’d think the state has a massive problem with predators “grooming” children in schools. Here are some examples of how they promoted the Don’t Say Gay bill.

In one of the more prominent examples of how Florida Governor Ron DeSantis explicitly targeted the LGBTQIA community with the bill, his chief spokesperson Christina Pushaw claimed that anyone who opposes the Don’t Say Gay bill is “probably” a pedophile seeking to “groom” 4-8 year old children.

“The bill that liberals inaccurately call “Don’t Say Gay” would be more accurately described as an Anti-Grooming Bill,” she wrote on Twitter. She added, “If you’re against the Anti-Grooming Bill, you are probably a groomer or at least you don’t denounce the grooming of 4-8 year old children. Silence is complicity. This is how it works, Democrats, and I didn’t make the rules.”

In another case of saying the quiet part out loud, Republican state Senator Ileana Garcia – during floor discussion on the bill – argued that “gay is not a permanent thing, LGBT is not a permanent thing.”

“This isn’t at all about targeting. I think this is about perhaps rerouting responsibilities back to the parents,” she said.

More broadly, she spent her time misgendering a personal friend as a part of that narrative.

“Went through the whole transition as an older man, at 58 years old, became a woman. Guess what? He still likes women,” Garcia said. “He went through the whole process. And we’d laugh together and I’d say, ‘Why do you want to deal with the hormones? Why do you want to have to worry about the extension? Isn’t there hair and the boobs and the nails?’ And he loved it. And when he went through the transition and had an experience, a sexual experience. With all due respect, there were children and I say this with respect, you realize that he continued to like women.” [emphasis mine]

She also spent a block of her time providing misleading information about transgender people and transitioning.

“You know, a lot of people don’t know that, I think the statistics are that four out of seven people who do the full transition end up committing suicide because it’s tough. It’s tough on the body,” she argued.

Statistically, gender confirmation surgery has been shown to have an overwhelming positive effect on most trans individuals who choose to go through it.

None of that gets to the heart of what problem the Don’t Say Gay bill was actually supposed to solve for, though.

A Solution Without a Problem

When pressed, Florida Republicans couldn’t show where any K-3 classroom in Florida had teachers ‘grooming’ students. They couldn’t point to lesson plans, curriculums or examples of classes being taught to K-3 students they would deem inappropriate. They couldn’t even find examples in classrooms more broadly outside the state either.

Their efforts hinged on a handful of examples where schools either engaged in actions with individual students, outside the classroom, to assist them with LGBTQIA issues or had policies on parental notification aimed at protecting LGBTQIA student safety.

Tampa Bay Times reported last month:

According to a House bill analysis, some school districts have policies that “exclude” parents from certain discussions, such as confidentiality policies aimed at keeping LGBTQ kids safe.

For example, the analysis cited policies in Hillsborough, Broward and Palm Beach counties that say it’s inappropriate to divulge a child’s sexual identity to a parent without the child’s consent. House staffers cited a case in Leon County in which parents sued the school district for allegedly freezing them out of a discussion about their child’s gender identity.

What’s really at stake – and what the Don’t Say Gay bill will really “solve” – is Florida Republicans’ need to further marginalize LGBTQIA people specifically targeting children as they go into their next election.

Don’t Say Gay is Dangerous

Perhaps the biggest risk HB 1557 poses in its journey to become Florida law is how vague its written. Legal scholars, from the time it was first proposed, debated the meaning of the two prepositional phrases separated by the word “or” in the key section of the legislation. Key to the discussion is the fact that one part outright forbids all instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity (explicitly to students K-3) while the other offers guidance on how to approach those lessons to ensure they are “age appropriate” (indicating to most experts the two phrases are not referring to the same group of students, as outlined above).

Adding injury to that, the wording of the legislation merely referring to ‘appropriateness’ leaves schools open to litigation for the most-offended or most conservative parent who decrees material that offends them – be it LGBTQIA or otherwise – to be inappropriate for their child.

This creates a chilling environment for any school and any teacher as they draw up lesson plans – or even field questions not necessarily directly related to their lessons but during class discussion on those lessons.

Moreover, it eliminates one of the primary safe havens for LGBTQIA students who may feel unsafe speaking about identity issues at home. The legislation not only forbids schools from protecting those discussions, but does not explicitly require them to withhold notification if a child’s life would be put at risk by notifying parents; it’s merely optional if they want to save that child’s life (versus dealing with a potential costly lawsuit).

The legislation is much more insidious than that, however.

Look closely at the examples Republicans offered when discussing the bill. All examples around “grooming” revolved around LGBTQIA identity, not heterosexual or cisgender identity. Those were explicitly omitted despite conservative cries that they weren’t ‘targeting’ LGBTQIA families.

Nowhere in the discussion was Valentine’s Day events for K-3 students – a holiday created around the concept of coupling and romance (two concepts directly related to sexual orientation). The historically heterosexual celebration in schools never came up in Republican discussions though those types of K-3 classroom activities should technically be illegal now under Florida state law. Other topics include books and movies that feature romantic interactions between two heterosexual characters – something teachers frequently fall back on at the K-3 level as they put a Disney movie on or read a book from their classics collection (such as Snow White, Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty). All of those ‘lessons’ should be illegal under the Don’t Say Gay bill, but discussion about them was curiously absent as Republicans focused on transgender children and LGBTQIA families.

What the legislation will do is curb LGBTQIA speech. Explicitly.

Speaking to media about their child, Florida parent Brandon Hensler said, “Imagine being in a classroom where your family doesn’t exist, your elected representatives have erased you from history, literally out of the books.” He added, “That has got to be crushing. That will make my little daughter feel bad about herself, her life, her parents…. It will make [children] have, you know, scarring mental health issues that we can’t even predict right now.”

Under the broad wording of the Don’t Say Gay bill, everyday lessons – even at the K-3 level – could result in harm to LGBTQIA families/students and/or multiple lawsuits against school districts taxpayers would be required to foot.

Take this, for example:

A Kindergarten teacher plans a career day for her class as they discuss what everyone wants to be when they grow up. Parents come in, talk about their careers, and answer questions.

At the end of the day, some students notice differences among the parents and among the careers and – as children are wont do – begin asking questions. This is where Don’t Say Gay enters the room.

“Susie had two moms come in to talk about their careers. Why does she have two mothers?”

“My mother stays at home – why don’t Susie’s moms both stay home? Where is their father?”

“I have two dads and they both work – should I have a mom who stays home with me too?”

The teacher could find herself – and her district – at the receiving end of a lawsuit no matter how she answers those questions. And even if the district wins those cases, the damage would already be done.

Speaking on the bill, openly-LGBTQIA state Rep. Carlos G Smith chastised his peers for putting LGBTQIA families in the crosshairs – particularly at a point when 40% of Florida’s homeless youth population is LGBTQIA. “This bill, from its introduction, has been used as a vehicle to marginalize and attack LGTBQ people,” he said.

Speaking with media Dan Merkan – Director of Policy for JASMYN – had similar remarks.

“We’re really doing harm to young people that are LGBT by, you know, basically stigmatizing and discriminating against the whole categories of people based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and we’re putting teachers in, you know, untenable situations,” Merkan said.

“For the very youngest people, when a lot of things are forming about how they understand the world, the only source of information they’re going to get is what’s in the air around them. But what’s in the air around them, unfortunately, a lot of times this stuff that’s around is talking about LGBT stuff is not necessarily very positive,” Merkan added. “Some families will reinforce negative stereotypes about gay and lesbian people, and there’s not going to be opportunities for instructors or educators to tell young people something different, and that’s going to lead to problems.”

Conspicuously absent from condemnations is allegedly LGBTQIA-friendly Disney – one of the largest companies in Florida and home to the annual ‘Gay Days’ celebration.

Judd Legum covered this topic pretty extensively on Twitter.

The fallout from Disney’s refusal to make a statement and lobby on behalf of the LGBTQIA people it profits from had been immediate and severe – even internally.

In the meantime, the Don’t say Gay Bill is due to be signed into law by DeSantis in the near future.

The post Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” Bill Passes appeared first on Peacock Panache.

The Worst of the Worst

Though his special is literally littered with “jokes” mocking the LGBTQ community, some parts are more egregious than others.

In an article addressing some of the more damaging things Chappelle said, activist and writer Michael Crawford said,

In his new show, Chappelle quips that DaBaby, the rapper who recently made homophobic remarks, “punched the LGBTQ community right in the AIDS.” He proudly claimed to be “Team TERF,” aligning himself with Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling and others who deny that trans women are women. In response, Jaclyn Moore, the trans showrunner for Netflix’s “Dear White People,” declared that she wouldn’t work with the company as long as it profits from transphobia. And a trans Netflix employee tweeted that Chappelle “attacks the trans community, and the very validity of transness.” Netflix then suspended the employee.

That’s not all though.

Trans activist Jessie Earl (better known online as Jessie Gender) put together a lengthy yet comprehensive video on his special highlighting Chappelle’s damaging remarks. It’s long, but it strikes at the heart of the problem while acknowledging the point he was attempting to make:

Some of the problematic themes she points out include:

• Downplaying J.K. Rowling’s harmful remarks & omitting the real harm she continues to do
• Comparing trans women to blackface (that is, pretending to be “real” women and mocking “real” women by merely existing)
• Normalizing TERF ideology (in addition to proclaiming he’s “Team TERF”) while downplaying their harm & actions that result in the in the harassment, assault and killing of trans people
• Comparing trans women’s genitalia to plant-based meat (a riff on a popular TERF talking point about trans people ‘mutilating’ their bodies and becoming monsters)
• Proclaiming “gender is a fact” while reducing womanhood to periods and the ability to give birth

During the special Chappelle also “joked” about assaulting a lesbian (something that’ll be important later).

Perhaps the biggest problem in Chappelle’s 72 minute performance – hate speech aside – is his erasure of black members of the LGBTQ community – black trans women in particular.

Pitting Communities Against Each Other

The backbone of Dave Chappelle’s comedy – one he readily admits to anytime he’s on stage – is that he’s targeting white people. He even states it in the special when – defending his transphobia – he states, “If you listen to what I’m saying, clearly my problem has always been with White people.”

He goes to great lengths during the special to carve out and erase people of color – black people in particular – from the LGBTQ community. This is especially egregious since black trans women are the most at risk population within the LGBTQ community.

Alvin McEwen – a gay black man and award winning writer for his blog Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters – touched on this in his Chappelle piece. He said:

I don’t know what’s worse about Chappelle’s statement  – the fact that he comes across as a two-faced tone deaf moron or the fact that as far as I’m concerned, he doesn’t even address the main reason why I’ve been pissed at him. And that has to do with how in his special, he dishonestly made his personal attack on the trans community seem like a racial issue by erasing the existence of LGBTQ people of color.  And he does it again with his weak-ass idea of a defiant statement by not having the decency to address us. Even though we haven’t gotten much attention for it, us LGBTQ people of color haven’t been silent with our displeasure about the controversy. 

We take very much offense to being erased yet again by heterosexuals in the black community who either take our lives for granted or act as if we don’t exist, even though we are going through the same mess which hobbles them. In the year 2020, 44 trans people were murdered and the majority of them were of color. But Dave Chappelle won’t mention these trans people. Apparently to him, black lives only matter when they aren’t LGBTQ black lives.

In a previous article on the subject, McEwen also stated:

That is the epitome of all of the bullshit LGBTQ people of color have had to deal with from black heterosexual people – the entitlement mentality. 

That’s the belief that whenever there is talk about issues of the black community, problems of the black community, or the survival of the black community, it’s all about black heterosexuals. God forbid you point to out that  heterosexuality is not prerequisite of being black. 

No matter how many times it is proven to some heterosexual black people that LGBTQs of color exist, that we have families and children, and should be acknowledge as full members of the black community, they will cling to their fantasies of toxic black masculinity and oversexed black femininity with as much passion as a demented Trump voter still holding on to the lie that he was cheated out of victory in the 2020 election. And there is no room in these fantasies for LGBTQ people of color.

He added:

I would suggest, Mr. Chappelle, that before you start on another one of your stupid routines about LGBTQ people, take your bony ass to the library or  better yet, google some names – Bayard Rustin, Monica Roberts, Barbara Jordan, Bessie Smith, Ma Rainey, Angela Davis, James Baldwin, Audre Lorde. You did not get to the place where you can make millions on stage talking shit solely on the backs of black heterosexuals.  And you need to know that.

Lastly, when you are done with that, go the bank and count your millions. Then google the number of black trans men and women who have been murdered this year and the last. Read each of their names. Compare their lives to yours. 

That way, you will truly understand when someone is punching down.

He’s not alone; a not insignificant portion of the black and brown LGBTQ community began speaking out following the release of the Netflix special calling out his attempt to divide the black and LGBTQ communities as if they don’t have substantial overlap (and as if black LGBTQ people somehow don’t experience the same racial issues heterosexual and cisgender black people do).

NPR’s Eric Deggans offered his own thoughts on the subject stating:

In The Closer, Chappelle eventually says he’s jealous of the progress the gay rights movement has made in America. “If slaves had oil and booty shorts on, we might have been free 100 years sooner,” he cracks.

But lines like that assume that the struggle over oppression is a zero-sum game — that because some gay people have access to white privilege in America, all their concerns about stereotyping and marginalization are hollow and subordinate to what Black people face.

It ignores the fact that there are plenty of nonwhite gay people who face oppression for both their sexual orientation and their race. And, of course, opposing these public statements of homophobia isn’t just about making gay people feel better; it’s about keeping the anger and prejudice behind those words from becoming widely acceptable or turning into action.

Too often in The Closer, it just sounds like Chappelle is using white privilege to excuse his own homophobia and transphobia.

He added:

Earlier, Chappelle says this performance, his sixth special with Netflix, will be his last for a while. He also says he won’t joke about LGBTQ topics anymore.

“I’m done talking about it,” he says toward the end of The Closer. “All I ask of your community, with all humility: Will you please stop punching down on my people?”

That line, with all of its terrible assumptions about who “your community” is and who “my people” are, just made me terribly angry and disappointed. Because untangling homophobia, transphobia, racism and white privilege requires a lot more effort and understanding than Chappelle makes here.

But if I were gay and heard a line like that from a wealthy, Emmy-winning comic at the end of a special that millions of his fans will likely watch and cosign, I’d probably have a simpler response:

You first.

That last part is important and ties back to something mentioned earlier in this article.

Chappelle Lied

When he proclaimed he was “done talking about it” – referencing making jokes at the expense of the LGBTQ community – Chappelle appeared to have been offering an olive branch despite using the majority of his special to mock, degrade and attack trans people. Much like the trans people he mocked and degraded throughout his special, the olive branch appears to have been just another tool to rationalize his hate speech.

Following outcry and critical assessments from trans people – including trans employees at Netflix – Chappelle broke his promise and immediately began mocking and degrading LGBTQ people rather than accept an invitation to sit down and discuss why his remarks are harmful.

Events were set in motion not long after people began criticizing the special.

In a PR-nightmare move following outcry over the special, Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos released a statement defending Chappelle stating in part by comparing it to other comedy specials and controversial shows people objected to. Among those, he singled out lesbian comedian Hannah Gadsby.

That mention – much as was the case when Chappelle brought national attention to a trans woman’s name – inundated Gadsby’s social media channels with hate speech and threats. In a statement following that memo, she said in part, “Now I have to deal with even more of the hate and anger that Dave Chappelle’s fans like to unleash on me every time Dave gets 20 million dollars to process his emotionally stunted partial world view,” adding, “You didn’t pay me nearly enough to deal with the real world consequences of the hate speech dog whistling you refuse to acknowledge, Ted.”

Chappelle saw that as an opportunity not only to further mock trans people, but to mock another lesbian (after “joking” about assaulting a lesbian in his stand-up act). He posted a video to his Instagram account this week targeting Gasby while mocking the trans community for wanting to meet with him to discuss the damaging effects of his hate speech.

“First of all, you cannot come if you have not watched my special from beginning to end,” Chappelle said. “You must come to a place of my choosing at a time of my choosing, and thirdly, you must admit that Hannah Gadsby is not funny.”

Suffice to say, a lot of folks didn’t find his attack on Gadsby productive – especially since she was already receiving a substantial amount of negative attention from the memo.

And that’s not to mention Chappelle lied even about that meeting invitation:

In the video, Chappelle also denied reports that he refused to meet with members of the LGBTQ community to discuss the uproar, claiming, “If they had invited me, I would have accepted it, although I’m confused about what we’re speaking about.”

But this doesn’t square with what Ashlee Marie Preston, who helped organize the employee walkout at Netflix, said when she told reporters last week that she had invited him to sit down and talk but “Dave chose not to show up.”

“If you want to meet with me, I’d be more than willing to, but I have some conditions,” Chappelle said in the video. His first demand is that anyone who wants to talk to him must first watch his transphobic special from beginning to end. His second demand is that he gets to pick the time and place where they meet.

“They said you want a safe working environment at Netflix,” he says. “Well, it seems like I’m the only one that can’t go to the office anymore.”

Hmmm. Last we checked, finding resolution required a little bit of bending. Bullying the people you’ve hurt into doing things your way after you’ve already caused them extreme harm is not how progress is made.

Perhaps the best way to describe just how wrong and off-base Chappelle is in his decision to punch down on another marginalized community – a community he obviously has very little understanding of by the way he portrays them in his act – is to listen to the words of another outrage comedian famous for defending shock comedy: George Carlin.

Give it up for George Carlin! pic.twitter.com/75pIrg6cCD

— W. Kamau Bell (@wkamaubell) October 27, 2021

That being said about Chappelle, Netflix’s part in this still needs to be examined.

Netflix’s Culpability

After not one, but two memos defending his company’s decision to pay Chappelle millions of dollars to produce a special promoting transphobic hate speech, Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos finally addressed the PR nightmare he and his company created. And then subsequently fanned the flames of when members of the LGBTQ community attempted to reach out to them about it.

On the evening before the mass Netflix employee walk out over the special, he spoke with media about his decisions and regrets. Nowhere in the conversation, however, did he actually feel regret for profiting off Chappelle’s transphobia. Defending the special (for a third time) he said, “But I do think that the inclusion of the special on Netflix is consistent with our comedy offering, it’s consistent with Dave Chappelle’s comedy brand and this is … one of those times when there’s something on Netflix that you’re not going to like.”

You have to wonder if he’d be defending his company’ choice to air a special from a white man promoting the KKK and “joking” about lynching black people – particularly since that would also have a large, profitable following (among racists and white nationalists). It’s not like well known racist comedians don’t exist. Why isn’t Netflix exploring that “controversial” marketplace opinion?

The walk out itself didn’t ask Netflix to remove the special; they did, however, ask the company to begin remedying the harm it’s caused:

A list of walkout demands reviewed last week by The Times asks the company to remove all references to and imagery of Chappelle — such as murals and posters — from the workplace and acknowledge the harm the special and Netflix have allegedly caused the trans community.

Drafted by members of Trans*, the document also requests that the streamer set aside a fund specifically aimed at cultivating trans and nonbinary talent, both behind and in front of the camera, in addition to investing in more content from trans creators.

Along with reforming “internal processes” leading up to the release of “potential harmful content,” the manifesto also challenges Netflix to hire trans people for leadership roles at the company, such as directors and vice presidents.

Finally, walkout organizers are demanding the streaming service attach a disclaimer to “The Closer” saying it “contains transphobic language, misogyny, homophobia, and hate speech.”

In the end the walkout itself seemed to demonstrate not only the effect Chappelle’s words have on real life trans lives, but how Netflix’s decision to defend those words emboldened extremists:

“A subset of counter-protestors, primarily comprised of white women, shouted anti-trans catchphrases, saying, “self-love, not surgery,” which appeared to be a dismissive reference to gender reassignment procedures.”

At one point, Sarandos proclaimed, “With ‘The Closer,’ we understand that the concern is not about offensive-to-some content but titles which could increase real-world harm (such as further marginalizing already marginalized groups, hate, violence etc.),” adding, “While some employees disagree, we have a strong belief that content on screen doesn’t directly translate to real-world harm.”

Counter-protesters aside, real life has already proven him wrong.

The post Dave Chappelle’s Transphobia & Netlflix’s Culpability appeared first on Peacock Panache.

Former employee Tammy McCoy alleges in the lawsuit filed Wednesday that she was forced to work in a hostile work environment shortly after being hired to work at the Panera on Clairton Boulevard in Pleasant Hills, Pennsylvania in October 2019. That hostile work environment included discrimination based on her religious beliefs, harassment, and retaliation for attempting to contact the company’s human resources department.

How It Began

Shortly after being hired in late 2019, McCoy alleges the management of her Panera location inquired about her religious beliefs. As explained in the lawsuit, she practices Neopaganism – “a movement by modern people to revive nature-revering/living, pre-Christian religions or other nature-based spiritual paths, frequently also incorporating contemporary liberal values.”

The lawsuit noted, “The plaintiff did not discuss her religion or her religious beliefs at work and viewed her (as well as other individuals’) faith as strictly a private matter.”

Conflict only arose when that inquiry occurred:

On or about May 29, 2020, the plaintiff was outside the Panera on a break, along with Show, Dubs and Maria Bruno, Line Opener. They were talking about general topics at first, like the music they like, but suddenly Show started talking about religion. Show disclosed that she was Christian and she turned to the plaintiff and asked her “what religion are you?”

The plaintiff was a surprised by the question. In response, she said, “I’m Pagan”. Although she preferred not to talk about religious beliefs at work, she felt obligated to answer Show’s question since Show was her supervisor.

Show made a face and immediately said, “You’re going to hell.” Dubs, standing near by, vigorously nodded her head in agreement, her facial expression indicating that she was upset with the plaintiff’s disclosure.

The plaintiff did not want to argue with Show or Dubs about the situation because she was concerned about losing her job if she got into a dispute over religion, so she just said, “okay” and walked away. The plaintiff hoped that the subject would be dropped and never brought up again.

It didn’t end there, however.

A couple of days later, on or about June 2, 2020, the plaintiff asked Show when the work schedule would be posted. Show told the plaintiff, “Your hours are being cut until you find God.” She reiterated that the plaintiff needed to “find God” before she would return the plaintiff to her previous schedule.

Show made good on her promise. The plaintiff’s schedule for that week was reduced to three days. Thereafter, the plaintiff was scheduled for fewer hours/days than she was before Dubs and Show found out about her religious beliefs. Further, on days that she was scheduled to work, she was often sent home early – before the end of her scheduled shift – by either Dubs or Show.

Subsequent to the initial meeting, McCoy was allegedly subjected to harassment and intimidation for her religious beliefs. ” They frequently told the plaintiff things like that her religion is false, that she needs to believe in God, that her soul will be condemned to hell and that they would pray for her soul,” the lawsuit states.

After a while, McCoy changed her mind about dropping the subject and attempted to address the ongoing hostile work environment.

Escalation and Retaliation

According to the lawsuit, McCoy approached the store’s district manager when she was on site in June 2020. The interaction did not go well:

The plaintiff approached Diann and told her that Dubs and Show keep bringing up her religion and were harassing her because of her faith. She told Diann that she felt that it was not appropriate to talk about religion at work and that it wasn’t right that she was being harassed because of her faith. Diann downplayed the situation. She told the plaintiff that Dubs and Show are “just joking around”. The plaintiff asked if she could be transferred to another Panera location. Diann told her “no” and said, “we’re probably going to get rid of you anyways.”

The plaintiff then asked for the phone number of PAN’s human resource department. Diann said, “If you call HR about this, you’ll be fired on the spot.”

Following the encounter with the district manager, tensions and harassment escalated to include threats of physical violence against McCoy.

After being informed by a fellow coworker that they overheard her managers conspiring to set her up for stealing in order to terminate her employment, McCoy searched and found the number for Panera’s corporate human resources department to have them intervene in the situation.

The plaintiff was able to get the phone number of PAN’s human resource department, specifically Jenn Zika in PAN’s corporate office in Ohio. She called and left a message about her situation but did not receive a return call or any other contact. Starting around July 13, 2020, the plaintiff called Zika every day and left messages, but never got a return call. She did not tell anyone that she was calling HR.

That last sentence is critical to the lawsuit as evidenced in the next two paragraphs:

On July 27, 2020, Dubs told the plaintiff to put in her month’s notice. In other words, she demanded that the plaintiff resign her job. The plaintiff responded, “what did I do that was so wrong?” Dubs responded, “I don’t like you”.

Later that week, Diann pulled the plaintiff aside and snidely said, “How are those phone calls going for you?” Diann obviously knew that the plaintiff was trying to get a hold of Zika but apparently instructed Zika not to return the calls and not to do any investigation.

A few days later things came to a head when McCoy and her husband were both terminated:

On August 1, 2020, the plaintiff received a phone call from one of her coemployees. This person is not a manager. This person told the plaintiff that she was instructed to tell her that the plaintiff and her husband (who also worked for PAN at the same location) were no longer “welcome” and that their employment was terminated. She also told the plaintiff that Dubs and Show told all of the employees that no one was allowed to talk to her.

Lawsuit

Following the events that culminated in her (and her husband’s) termination, McCoy filed a lawsuit alleging Panera created a hostile work environment through religious discrimination, harassment and retaliation.

Religious discrimination is illegal per Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as is retaliation for attempting to report illegal discrimination.

We reached out to both the Pleasant Hills location and Panera Bread corporate for comment, but did not hear back.

You can read the full lawsuit here.

The post Panera Sued For Religious Discrimination & Retaliation appeared first on Peacock Panache.

Citing religious beliefs, Phillips refused service to a transgender woman seeking to purchase a custom birthday cake. We originally reported on the complaint when it was filed in 2018.

The Lawsuit

On the same day the previous decision on baking a wedding cake for a same-sex couple was announced, plaintiff Autumn Scardina attempted to order a birthday cake from Masterpiece Cakeshop. According to local news source Fox 8, “Scardina, an attorney, requested a cake that was blue on the outside and pink on the inside in honor of her gender transition.”

Reporting on opening arguments in the case, they added:

On Monday, during a virtual trial being conducted by a state judge in Denver, Scardina said Phillips had maintained that, as a Christian, he would sell any other type of product but opposed making the gay couple’s wedding cake because it involved a religious ceremony.

She said she called Phillips’ Masterpiece Cakeshop to place the order after hearing about the court’s announcement because she wanted to find out if he really meant it.

When her lawyer Paula Greisen asked whether the call was a “setup,” she said it was not.

“It was more of calling someone’s bluff,” she said.

In opening arguments, a lawyer representing Phillips, Sean Gates, said his refusal to make Scardina’s cake was about its message, not discriminating against Scardina, echoing assertions made in his defense in the legal battle over his refusal to make a wedding cake for Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins in 2012. With Phillips getting media attention since then, he could not create a cake with a message he disagreed with, Gates said.

“The message would be that he agrees that a gender transition is something to be celebrated,” said Gates, who noted later that Phillips had objected to making cakes with other messages he disagreed with, including Halloween items.

Before filing her lawsuit, Scardina filed a complaint against Phillips with the state, and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission found probable cause that Phillips had discriminated against her. Phillips then filed a federal lawsuit against Colorado, accusing it of waging a “crusade to crush” him by pursuing the complaint.

The lawsuit has the potential once again to make it to the U.S. Supreme Court as its scope falls outside the narrow decision handed down in 2018.

The 2018 Decision

What’s meant by ‘narrow’ referencing the 2018 Masterpiece Cakeshop decision has to do with the scope of the high court’s ruling, not the tally/count (which was a 7-2 decision).

In the case against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC), Phillips argued not only against the state’s anti-discrimination protections themselves, but the way in which the state pursued his case. The high court punted on the more serious considerations but did rule that in that specific case (and that case only), the CCRC overstepped its bounds in the way they approached the case.

The court found:

As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments.

The high court added:

The Commission ruled against Phillips in part on the theory that any message on the requested wedding cake would be attributed to the customer, not to the baker. Yet the [Colorado Civil Rights] Division did not address this point in any of the cases involving requests for cakes depicting anti-gay marriage symbolism.

The court set out intentionally to rule without setting future precedent (instead punting that much larger issue down the road).

Despite that, lower courts still used the decision as precedent – only in a manner casual observers wouldn’t expect. We reported in June 2018 on a case in Arizona:

Though the narrowly tailored Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling focused on the bias of a lower Colorado court, the Arizona Court of Appeals cited it in a case involving a business’ ability to discriminate against same-sex couples. The case – Brush & NIB Studio v City of Phoenix – was brought by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).

The Brush decision actually cited Masterpiece Cakeshop in protecting the rights of LGBTQ consumers.

If anything, Phillips faces an uphill battle in arguing his sincere religious belief should preclude him from running his business afoul of state non-discrimination laws protecting people on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Next Steps

Scardina originally filed her case through the CCRC (to which Phillips responded with a counter lawsuit against the Commission for harassment). Both cases were dropped when Scardina agreed to pursue the case on her own (filed in June 2019) without the assistance of the state. The trial kicked off this week and should span four days.

Prior to the trial the judge released remarks stating Scardina “need not establish that her transgender status was the ‘sole’ cause of the denial of services… Rather, she need only show that the discriminatory action was based, in whole or in part, on her protected status.”

The case itself is straight forward as laid out by attorney John McHugh (who represents Scardina). “They say she asked for a sex-change cake. She says she asked for a birthday cake. That doesn’t matter. What matters is they refused to make her a cake based on her identity.”

You can read the full lawsuit here.

RELATED

• Colorado Court: Anti-Gay Bakery Broke the Law by Refusing Service
• Colorado Civil Rights Commission Rules Against Bakery In Appeal of Discrimination Charges
• Anti-Gay Colorado Baker Defends Position – Would Discriminate Against Pagans As Well
• Colorado: Anti-Gay Bakery Loses Discrimination Appeal
• Supreme Court To Hear Case About LGBTQ Non-Discrimination Laws
• DOJ Files SCOTUS Brief Defending LGBTQ Discrimination
• Two Cases, One Path: The Future of LGBTQ Rights at the Supreme Court
• Freedom From? Or Freedom TO? SCOTUS & Masterpiece Cakeshop
• Supreme Court Poised to Deal Another Blow to LGBTQ Rights
• Masterpiece Cakeshop Wins Supreme Court Case in Narrow Decision
• A Decision That Isn’t: Masterpiece Cakeshop
• Precedent: Masterpiece Cakeshop Ruling Applied in Arizona Case
• Masterpiece Cakeshop Sues Over Transgender Service Refusal Investigation

The post Masterpiece Cakeshop Sued Again Over Discrimination appeared first on Peacock Panache.

We are seeing that emergence play out in today’s Republican Party.

In the 1970s and 80s, when I was active in the GOP, I encountered people who expressed racist , anti-Semitic and homophobic opinions, but they were a distinct minority. If others with whom I worked shared those prejudices, they kept them to themselves; furthermore,  a significant number of  Republicans–including then-mayor Bill Hudnut– were vocal proponents of inclusion and anti-discrimination policies.

Maybe acceptance of diversity was easier at the time because most Americans didn’t anticipate the demographic changes that are now seen to threaten continued White Christian dominance–or maybe the current crop of GOP “leaders” is genuinely representative of the Republicans who remain after the “good guys” have mostly headed for the party exits.

Whatever the reason, those who are left in the GOP no longer feel the need to be coy about their White Nationalist beliefs. The recent CPAC meeting was held on a stage modeled on a recognizable Nazi symbol, and ABC’s recent report on the CPAC meeting was titled, “GOP congressman headlines conference where organizers push White Nationalist rhetoric.”

GOP Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona was the surprise keynote speaker at a conference Friday night in Orlando, Florida, where speakers spread white nationalist rhetoric, organizers railed about the U.S. losing its “white demographic core,” and some called for further engagement like the ire that drove the Capitol attack on Jan. 6.

Gosar wasn’t the only “usual suspect” who appeared at the meeting. Others included former Iowa Representative Steve King, whose most notable “achievement” in the House was a long history of explicitly racist comments, and the equally offensive conservative commentator Michelle Malkin.

Gosar’s keynote was followed by a speech by a man named Nick Fuentes, identified as  founder of the America First PAC, who filled his talk with white grievance and anti-immigration rants. He is quoted as telling the crowd that “If [America] loses its white demographic core … then this is not America anymore.”

Fuentes went on to praise the Capitol attack, boasting about it leading to a delay in the certification of the election results.

“While I was there in D.C., outside of the building, and I saw hundreds of thousands of patriots surrounding the U.S. Capitol building and I saw the police retreating . I said to myself: ‘This is awesome,’” Fuentes said to the applause of the crowd….

“To see that Capitol under siege, to see the people of this country rise up and mobilize to D.C. with the pitchforks and the torches — we need a little bit more of that energy in the future,” he said.

The most terrifying part of that description is the sentence recording “the applause of the crowd.” The attendees applauded the perpetrators of the treasonous January 6th insurrection that left five people dead and did thirty million dollars of damage to the nation’s capitol.

The entire event revolved around fidelity to Donald Trump and acceptance of his Big Lie–from the “Golden Calf” Trump statue (which was reportedly made in China…), to Trump’s willingness to make his first post-Presidency appearance at a meeting of far-right, proudly racist extremists.

I find admiration–let alone fidelity–to Donald Trump incomprehensible–but then I consider the effect of tribalism and political polarization. I still remember my long-ago discussion with a party “regular” about a Republican candidate that we all knew to be incompetent and probably corrupt. He didn’t disagree with my evaluation, but he smiled. “He may be a son-of-a-bitch,” he said, “but he’s our son-of-a-bitch.”

Trump may be the antithesis of the “family values” these good “Christians” claim to be about, but he hates and fears the same people they do. He’s their White Nationalist.

[Originally published at SheilaKennedy.net]

The post They Aren’t Even Pretending Anymore appeared first on Peacock Panache.

Responding to Rep. Marie Newman (D-IL) hanging a transgender flag outside her office door to support transgender rights (a personal issue for her since her child is transgender), Greene hung a sign outside her office – directly across the hall from Newman’s office – stating, “There are TWO genders: MALE & FEMALE. “Trust The Science.””

There’s a lot to unpack here.

Greene’s Anti-LGBTQ Stance

Marjorie Taylor Greene is a staunch anti-LGBTQ advocate and conspiracy theorist who regularly speaks out against LGBTQ rights using misinformation (claiming those myths are science – they aren’t).

Prior to hanging the sign, she declared on the House floor she opposes the Equality Act “because she believes prohibiting discrimination against trans Americans is ‘disgusting, immoral, and evil.’”

During her speech against the Equality Act, Greene drudged up boogeyman myths about the transgender community and cited religious concerns courts have already addressed.

In a recent tweet, for instance, she regurgitated the LGBTQ-pedophile association myth:

The Equality Act puts sexual and gender identity above all rights and anyone who goes against it is considered discriminating.

Does the #EqualityAct protect pedophiles?

Would it protect John Weaver’s from @ProjectLincoln desire for underage boys?

— Marjorie Taylor Greene (@mtgreenee) February 24, 2021

“The Equality Act puts sexual and gender identity above all rights and anyone who goes against it is considered discriminating. Does the #EqualityAct protect pedophiles? Would it protect John Weaver’s from @ProjectLincoln desire for underage boys?” Greene said.

To wit: the Equality Act is explicitly about sexual orientation and gender identity. It has nothing to do with pedophilia, which has zero to association with consensual adult relationships or the gender spectrum. And that’s aside from the fact that pedophilia is already criminalized as children cannot give legal consent. The Equality Act would modify the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to add sexual orientation and gender identity to other protected classes having the effect of expanding existing employment protections (confirmed through the Supreme Court last year) to include housing, public accommodation, education and other provisions protected by the historic act. That includes striking down so-called “religious freedom” laws that give businesses license to explicitly discriminate against the LGBTQ community.

In her speech om the House floor opposing the Equality Act, Greene said, “God created us male and female. In his image, he created us. The Equality Act that we are to vote on this week destroys God’s creation.” She added, “It also completely annihilates women’s rights and religious freedoms. It can be handled completely different to stop discrimination without destroying women’s rights, little girls’ rights in sports, and religious freedom, violating everything we hold dear in God’s creation.”

The Democrats' so-called “Equality” Act is an attack on God's creation.

Today, I rose in OPPOSITION. pic.twitter.com/e6qP1qTT8j

— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (@RepMTG) February 23, 2021

Her speech drew on debunked conspiracy theories about trans athletes competing in sports that don’t actually have a basis in scientific fact or reality.

Following those actions and words, the escalation that lead to Greene targeting a fellow Congresswoman (and her transgender child) ensued.

Greene’s Transphobic Attack

As is the case with most conservative evolution on social topics like LGBTQ rights, most people only change their minds (and hearts) when they personally know someone that’s gay or transgender. This has proved time and time again to be one of the most effective methods of eliminating hate and stigma by removing a generic , faceless ‘other’ and putting real faces and real names to a label like LGBTQ. It’s harder to condemn and demonize a group of people when you’re telling your neighbor or student they should not have the same rights as you. At least, in theory.

That’s part of why Rep. Newman hung a transgender flag outside her office – she wanted to not only support trans rights, but to show Greene that the Equality Act affects real people like her transgender daughter.

Our neighbor, @RepMTG, tried to block the Equality Act because she believes prohibiting discrimination against trans Americans is “disgusting, immoral, and evil.”

Thought we’d put up our Transgender flag so she can look at it every time she opens her door pic.twitter.com/dV8FatQFnx

— Congresswoman Marie Newman (@RepMarieNewman) February 24, 2021

Speaking on the House floor about the Equality Act, she said, “The right time to pass this act was decades ago. The second best time is right now.” Newman added, “I’m voting yes on the Equality Act for Evie Newman, my daughter and the strongest, bravest person I know.”

Without the Equality Act, millions of Americans like my daughter can be denied housing, education, and more simply because they identify as transgender.

I’m voting to pass the Equality Act for my daughter – the strongest, bravest person I know. pic.twitter.com/vnt6yeDQOh

— Congresswoman Marie Newman (@RepMarieNewman) February 24, 2021

As can be expected from someone who used boogeyman conspiracy theories about LGBTQ people folks haven’t believed in decades, Greene decided to launch an attack claiming science is on her side (it’s not).

Our neighbor, @RepMarieNewman, wants to pass the so-called "Equality" Act to destroy women’s rights and religious freedoms.

Thought we’d put up ours so she can look at it every time she opens her door https://t.co/7joKpTh6Dc pic.twitter.com/aBGRSiIF6X

— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (@RepMTG) February 24, 2021

pic.twitter.com/gcL1QZzAXt

— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (@RepMTG) February 24, 2021

As many have already pointed out, ‘the science’ doesn’t actually support Greene’s point of view. In fact, it says just the opposite.

Not only did she hang the sign; she directly attacked Newman’s transgender daughter online.

As mothers, we all love and support our children.

But your biological son does NOT belong in my daughters’ bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports teams. https://t.co/ex0LXGHAew

— Marjorie Taylor Greene (@mtgreenee) February 24, 2021

“As mothers, we all love and support our children. But your biological son does NOT belong in my daughters’ bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports teams,” Greene tweeted directly to Newman knowing her daughter would see the cyberbullying attack pulled straight from the Trump playbook.

It should be noted at this point that the entirety of the House GOP voted with Greene in her attempt to shut down any conversation on the Equality Act demonstrating the fundamental difference in basic morality between the two major political parties.

Reaction

Peers on both sides of the political aisle condemned Greene’s attack almost immediately.

There’s no lower low than going after someone’s kids.

What a horrible performance by Congress’ worst transphobic conspiracy theorist. Stay (Q)lassy, Marjorie.

I stand with you, @RepMarieNewman. https://t.co/WmuPNVi3NE

— Rep. Jennifer Wexton (@RepWexton) February 25, 2021

“There’s no lower low than going after someone’s kids,” Rep. Jennifer Wexton (D-VA) said.

This is sad and I’m sorry this happened. Rep. Newmans daughter is transgender, and this video and tweet represents the hate and fame driven politics of self-promotion at all evil costs. This garbage must end, in order to #RestoreOurGOP https://t.co/gcPZ5Cu7Vr

— Adam Kinzinger (@RepKinzinger) February 25, 2021

“This is sad and I’m sorry this happened,” Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) wrote. “Rep. Newmans daughter is transgender, and this video and tweet represents the hate and fame driven politics of self-promotion at all evil costs. This garbage must end, in order to #RestoreOurGOP.”

Bravo, @RepMarieNewman.

I hung mine up for Trans Remembrance Day in 2019 and it’s stayed up since. @RepMTG should probably avoid the Rayburn building too if she doesn’t want to see another “disgusting” symbol of love and acceptance. https://t.co/VUQ08kSXIH pic.twitter.com/QbuKWBNfYX

— Rep. Gerry Connolly (@GerryConnolly) February 25, 2021

Referring to his trans flag, Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) tweeted, “I hung mine up for Trans Remembrance Day in 2019 and it’s stayed up since. @RepMTG should probably avoid the Rayburn building too if she doesn’t want to see another “disgusting” symbol of love and acceptance.”

Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL) didn’t mince words in his reaction:

Sickening, pathetic, unimaginably cruel.
This hate is exactly why the #EqualityAct is necessary and what we must protect @RepMarieNewman’s daughter and all our LGBTQ+ loved ones against. https://t.co/4sfeyQlGLd

— Rep. Sean Casten (@RepCasten) February 25, 2021

“Sickening, pathetic, unimaginably cruel. This hate is exactly why the #EqualityAct is necessary and what we must protect @RepMarieNewman’s daughter and all our LGBTQ+ loved ones against,” Casten said.

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) didn’t just chastise Greene; he pointed to the actual science behind being transgender in the process:

Dear @RepMTG: Your sign is incorrect because it’s not what the science says.

“The science is clear and conclusive: sex is not binary, transgender people are real.” https://t.co/wlSyYOKfbj

Also, why do you want to discriminate against Americans who happen to be transgender? https://t.co/r2VtmYCW9F

— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) February 25, 2021

“Dear @RepMTG: Your sign is incorrect because it’s not what the science says. ‘The science is clear and conclusive: sex is not binary, transgender people are real.’ Also, why do you want to discriminate against Americans who happen to be transgender?” Lieu said.

Conservative political pundit S.E. Cupp also responded to Greene’s attack on Twitter:

Rep. Newman’s daughter is transgender. Public servants of good faith argue policy. Ghouls who believe they’re only representing themselves, not actual people, get personal and nasty. https://t.co/luJ0cVKpmB

— S.E. Cupp (@secupp) February 25, 2021

“Rep. Newman’s daughter is transgender. Public servants of good faith argue policy. Ghouls who believe they’re only representing themselves, not actual people, get personal and nasty,” Cupp said.

Despite Greene’s best efforts to stall or halt the Equality Act, her actions may have had the opposite effect in making her position toxic to more moderate Republicans. Regardless of that, the legislation will most likely pass the House and go to the Senate (where the real challenge will happen).

The post Marjorie Taylor Greene Launches Transphobic Attack appeared first on Peacock Panache.

In the first of several social media postings, co-owner Bryan Quinn stated:

Camp Boomerang is a private, membership-only RV park/campground that allows only ‘guys,’” said Boomerang’s Bryan Quinn in a Facebook posting to the camp’s page. “A ‘guy,’ in terms of this discussion, is defined as a person with a penis, [who] presents himself as male and has a state-issued ID that says ‘male.’

We understand this statement, unfortunately, may not make everyone happy, but feel it needs to be clarified,” Quinn went on. “It is our hope that everyone who visits Camp Boomerang enjoys a comfortable, safe, non-confrontational environment going forward. Being a ‘private membership only’ entity allows us the ability to build a like-minded atmosphere.

We don’t mean for this to come off as a ‘like it or leave it’ attitude, but we feel it’s necessary for everyone to know exactly what our vision is for Camp Boomerang.

The announcement caused immediate backlash and a deluge of posts asking follow-up questions about the policy. One individual inquired on their Facebook page if they would be inspecting the genitals of those staying at the campgrounds to which Quinn doubled down on his anti-trans statements.

“Listen guys, we NEVER said anything about ‘penis checks,’ but let’s be real here,” Quinn stated, adding, “If we let women that act like men in, and they go naked at the pool, that’s when it’s obvious that there’s no penis. Sorry to put it bluntly. But if you don’t like the rules, quietly leave.”

Suffice to say, this became the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Quinn and his co-owners began deleting all posts, questions and comments about their transgender ban and blocked those individuals from being able to further post on their company’s Facebook page. Several of the posts and conversations in question were captured prior to deletion evidencing their existence (and the campground’s attempt to quell the issue).

Kenn Kennedy pointed this out before he was blocked from the page.

“I find it pretty cowardly that you put up your campgrounds stance on not allowing trans people without having a penis even if their driver’s license has the male designation and decided to disallow comments,” Kennedy said. “If you believe so strongly in your stance then have the backbone to hear the other side of the conversation.”

Camp Boomerang deleted Kennedy’s post within minutes.

In a post to his own page, Kennedy pointed out one of the larger issues of requiring government identification with specific gender identification (in this instance, showing trans men are designated male). In many states it’s difficult (and in some, nearly impossible) to have that gender designation changed. And that’s not to speak of the issues gender non-conforming and non-binary people face in these situations.

Transcend The Binary Co-Founder and Executive Director Brayden Misiolek echoed this when speaking to Between the Lines (BTL) about Camp Boomerang’s policy.

“Any type of policy that would require someone to prove their gender identity is counterproductive to advancing LGBTQ rights and divides our community,” Misiolek told BTL. “As someone who lives with dysphoria, this news is very dehumanizing. Any kind of discriminatory policies like this erase us as a community. It invalidates our lived experiences and perpetuates narratives of illegitimacy, which can and does lead to harm for trans and non-binary people.”

While Camp Boomerang may be the most vocally anti-transgender in their policies, they aren’t the only gay campground with such policies.

Campgrounds like CreekRidge Campground (CRC) – also in Michigan – have similarly-worded policies though they haven’t taken the extra step of targeting trans men explicitly in social media postings.

“The only requirement is that their identification is that of a male due to being an all-male campground. We have had several campers throughout our four years of operation who have identified as transgender, and, in fact, had no issues and truly enjoyed themselves,” CreekRidge co-owner Ron Jamison told BTL. That position is somewhat more evolved than their stance just two years ago where they stated, “…if the trans has been complete and no female genitals are visual, if you now have male genitals you are welcome.”

Windover Women’s Resort (also in Michigan) has a similar anti-trans policy geared toward excluding transgender women.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, Campit Outdoor Resort (also in Michigan) openly welcomes people of all gender identities and reaffirmed that in the wake of Camp Boomerang’s public statements:

Trans men are men. Trans women are women. All gender expressions are valid. What genitalia you have is none of our business. All who believe love is love and all humans are valid and deserving of love no matter where they fall on the LGBTQIA+ spectrum are welcome at Campit. Love you and can’t wait to see you there in 2021.

They followed up on this statement speaking with BTL noting:

At Campit, there is no such ID requirement and the campground is open to men and woman cisgender and trans alike. Michael O’Connor is Campit’s owner and the webmaster for the Gay Camp Association.

“Our policies and our cultures [at Campit] are 180 degrees from Camp Boomerang,” O’Connor said. “They can do what they want to do. But we don’t support policies like that at all at Campit. We are very trans-welcoming. As for the Gay Camp Association, we don’t have any policies or bylaws for members. It’s essentially a cross-marketing organization. Boomerang is a member, but we don’t have policies [related to membership].”

Still, O’Connor is not happy with Boomerang’s stance.

“We welcome other gay campgrounds to Michigan and, I think, we’re now in a position where Michigan may be the center of gay campgrounds,” O’Connor said. “But we hope that the gay community, in general, will stop discriminating against other members of our community. I’d really like to see that everyone is welcome.”

Both Peacock Panache and BTL reached out to Camp Boomerang RV Park and Campground for comment, but received no response. We were actually blocked from their Facebook page for inquiring for comment for this story, in fact.

The post Gay Campground Camp Boomerang Bans Transgender Men appeared first on Peacock Panache.

The Tweets

In a series of tweets, Rep. Brady threatened that invoking constitutional processes would incite violence, drawing a clear map for the insurgents who have not yet been arrested by law enforcement. He said:

Those calling for impeachment or invoking the 25th Amendment in response to President Trump’s rhetoric this week are themselves engaging in intemperate and inflammatory language and calling for action that is equally irresponsible and could well incite further violence.

— Rep. Kevin Brady (@RepKevinBrady) January 10, 2021

They are placing a desire for vengeance above the best interests of the country. President-elect Joe Biden is right to reject calls to go down this dangerous path which will only further divide the country.

— Rep. Kevin Brady (@RepKevinBrady) January 10, 2021

We have great and important tasks to accomplish soon and we must focus on defeating Covid, rebuilding our economy and getting back to normal as quickly as possible. I am committed to working together with President-elect Biden to do just that.

— Rep. Kevin Brady (@RepKevinBrady) January 10, 2021

To summarize, he said:

Those calling for impeachment or invoking the 25th Amendment in response to President Trump’s rhetoric this week are themselves engaging in intemperate and inflammatory language and calling for action that is equally irresponsible and could well incite further violence.

They are placing a desire for vengeance above the best interests of the country. President-elect Joe Biden is right to reject calls to go down this dangerous path which will only further divide the country.

We have great and important tasks to accomplish soon and we must focus on defeating Covid, rebuilding our economy and getting back to normal as quickly as possible. I am committed to working together with President-elect Biden to do just that.

Just as Trump’s words have inflamed and incited violence, now too do Rep. Brady’s.

Historical Pattern

This isn’t the first time Republicans have made such threats. Each and every time someone on the left side of the aisle recommends holding Trump accountable for his actions – particularly those that incite violence among his base – the GOP is quick to argue that holding the sitting president accountable would cause further damage and violence and that constitutional mechanisms themselves are inflammatory or somehow unconstitutional.

For instance, two years ago now-convicted “MAGA Bomber” Cesar Sayoc sent 16 mail bomber targeting 13 prominent individuals. He targeted politicians like former former President Barack Obama, President-elect Joe Biden, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. He also targeted actors, Democratic financial supporters and major media organizations. Even as that happened Republicans didn’t just fail to condemn Trump, they joined in on the incitement. It would lead to further violent incitement by the sitting president.

A year later a self-identified neo-Nazi made repeated threats to a Miami-area Latinx family – all in the name of Donald Trump.

Again, nothing came of this and Trump faced no repercussions as Republican blamed the process, not the man, for the ensuing violence.

And now, much like before, a sitting GOP politician appears to be stoking further violence.

Reaction

Simon Rosenberg, founder of New Democrat Network and the New Policy Institute, responded to Rep. Brady’s tweets saying, “The extremism which has taken hold in GOP is so deep that a House Republican leader seems unaware that he’s explicitly threatening more violence if Dems try to protect our democracy, ensure rule of law prevails. GOP now operating completely outside norms of democracies.”

Benjy Sarlin, a policy editor at NBC News, said, “Wow, the line here went overnight from ‘It’s deeply offensive to suggest Trump or his supporters are violent’ to ‘You can’t punish Trump, his supporters will get even more violent.'”

Asha Rangappa, former FBI Special Agent, lawyer, and faculty at the Yale University Jackson Institute, said, “If your base responds to a constitutional process they don’t like with violence, just like they responded to an election of which they didn’t like the outcome with violence, maybe the real problem here is…your base? Just thinking out loud here.”

Here are some others:

Yes, the jury is always as equally irresponsible as the murderer. What a firm grasp of reality you have!

— Matt McDermott (@mattmfm) January 10, 2021

You tried to overturn the will@of the people and contributed to a deadly indirection by appeasing trump and his supporters. There has to be consequences and removal from public life of dangerous people before the healing can begin. Trump deserves none of the post president perks

— Tim Vigon (@timatcoalition) January 10, 2021

Love it how, to powerful white people, seeking accountability for high crimes is just a "desire for revenge." Funny how quick the law and order crowd forget their supposed principles when it's them on trial.

— Noelle Devoe (@Noelle_CD) January 10, 2021

Trump told them to stand by. Told them to fight. Told them to come to DC. Told them to stop the steal. Told them to go to the capitol. Told them to make pence stay strong and stop certification of trump’s loss. Waited to send national guard to stop them. Told them he loved them.

— Luke Zaleski (@ZaleskiLuke) January 10, 2021

This is a man who openly admits that if anyone speaks about the president being unfit for office, it ‘could well’ result in further bloodshed. I’m guessing he’s part of the ‘Alamo’ event later this week.

— Cameron Sinclair (@casinclair) January 10, 2021

Yup. This is true for all crimes, in fact. Everyone knows the best way to stop a murderer is to not doing anything to him which is why no one investigates murders or tries to put murderers in jail. You are nailing this.

— Mikel Jollett (@Mikel_Jollett) January 10, 2021

Maybe you can lecture people on tone after you apologize for fomenting lies that led to a domestic terror attack on our country that left 5 people dead pic.twitter.com/wtWj5EKq8u

— Mike Royce (@MikeRoyce) January 10, 2021

Much like those conservatives calling for immediate “unity” without addressing the harms of the last few years, Brady’s words are either ignorant or disingenuous. At worst, they’re stochastic terrorism.

Rosenberg put it succinctly when he added, “GOPers should be reflecting a bit more on what happened to the first President of their party – he was assassinated by white supremacist extremists. If there was any cause GOP should be rallying for it should be to counter the threat of white supremacist political violence.”

The post House GOP Leader Kevin Brady Threatens Violence Over Impeachment appeared first on Peacock Panache.

This stunt follows an extensive and virulently anti-LGBTQ history Gabbard made several proclamations she’d moved beyond during her failed run for the White House. Among those views was opposition to basic marriage equality (labeling those seeking equal treatment under the law as “homosexual extremists”).

The Legislation

H.R.8932 – otherwise known as the ‘Protect Women’s Sports Act’ – is a product of a collaboration between Gabbard and Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK). The legislation’s intent is: ” To provide that for purposes of determining compliance with title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 in athletics, sex shall be determined on the basis of biological sex as determined at birth by a physician.”

At no point does the legislation define “biological sex” – something that has the effect of broadly targeting all transgender and non-binary people (as the phrase is a complicated term with many facets used incorrectly by anti-LGBTQ activists and TERFs seeking to make a grey medical issue black and white). It’s unclear how a physician would determine “biological sex” as that term encompasses chromosomal make-up (which is anything but binary), genitalia, testosterone levels, and more.

In her joint announcement of the legislation with Mullin, Gabbard stated:

“Title IX was a historic provision championed by Hawai‘i’s own Congresswoman Patsy Mink in order to provide equal opportunity for women and girls in high school and college sports. It led to a generational shift that impacted countless women, creating life-changing opportunities for girls and women that never existed before. However, Title IX is being weakened by some states who are misinterpreting Title IX, creating uncertainty, undue hardship and lost opportunities for female athletes. Our legislation protects Title IX’s original intent which was based on the general biological distinction between men and women athletes based on sex.”

She added, “It is critical that the legacy of Title IX continues to ensure women and girls in sports have the opportunity to compete and excel on a level playing field.” 

HR 8932 is similar to another bill that passed the Idaho state legislature earlier this year targeting transgender student athletes. Working with the ACLU, LGBTQ+ advocates challenged and obtained an injunction against the law.

Similar Legislation

In his granting of a preliminary injunction against the Idaho law, Judge David Nye noted, “The State has not identified a legitimate interest served by the Act that the preexisting rules in Idaho did not already address, other than an invalid interest of excluding transgender women and girls from women’s sports entirely, regardless of their physiological characteristics.”

In challenging the law – something that places a spotlight on the broad-brushed HR 8932 – transgender advocates took a two pronged approach. They argued the Idaho law unfairly targeted transgender women only (allowing transgender men to participate in men’s sports). They additionally argued that the mechanics of the law – the same mechanics at play in HR 8932 – forced women to undergo invasive physical examinations to “prove” their gender.

Following that, Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-GA) introduced similarly worded legislation in the U.S. Senate requiring local sports organizations and school sporting programs to deduce “reproductive biology and genetics at birth” to prevent transgender girls from participating in women’s sports.

Much like the Idaho legislation, Loeffler’s bill did not delineate specifically how gender would be determined leaving many to speculate invasive physical examinations would be necessary – and only for female students.

Suffice to say, the road leading to the introduction of HR 8932 has been clear with how these sorts of laws would have to work in action (invasive exams) and how they are typically seen as unconstitutional – particularly after the Supreme Court’s recent decision barring employment discrimination based on gender identity.

It’s a Pattern

When she ran for President, Gabbard’s anti-LGBTQ history became a focal point – particularly since many advocates believed her words were more for show than actual sincerity.

Prior to that failed White House run, Gabbard had virulently anti-LGBTQ history stemming from work at her father’s anti-LGBTQ organization Alliance for Traditional Marriage (as well as Stop Promoting Homosexuality). That group touted the dangerous and widely discredited conversion therapy practice that’s resulted in numerous suicides nationwide.

When she originally ran for state office nearly two decades ago, she cited this experience as a way of endearing herself to voters. At the time, she stated, “Working with my father, Mike Gabbard, and others to pass a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage, I learned that real leaders are willing to make personal sacrifices for the common good.”

She would later deny supporting her father’s work or conversion therapy when she began developing a national platform as she said her views ‘had changed.’

Those proclamations didn’t convince activists within the LGBTQ+ community – particularly since she made contradictory comments such as accusing members of her own party of “fomenting religious bigotry” when they opposed the nomination of a judge whose beliefs included imposing his Christian beliefs on others. That particular nominee – Brian Buescher – was also virulently anti-LGBTQ as well. When he ran to become Nebraska’s AG, he said, “I do not believe homosexuality should be considered the same way race or ethnicity is considered with regard to anti-discrimination laws which currently apply to race or ethnicity.”

Additionally, during her run for the White House, Gabbard refused to fill out the Human Rights Campaign questionnaire (and was the only Democratic nominee to do so). Reporting on the refusal, the Washington Blade noted:

But her record on LGBTQ issues isn’t spotless. The Hawaii Democrat was among a handful of congressional Democrats last year who didn’t sign a friend-of-the-court brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to rule anti-LGBTQ discrimination is a form of sex discrimination, therefore illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Gabbard also made statements later on that contradicted her initial apology claiming her views on the LGBTQ+ community hadn’t actually changed – she just wouldn’t ‘act’ on those impulses:

It was, she says, the days in the Middle East that taught her the dangers of a theocratic government “imposing its will” on the people. (She tells me that, no, her personal views haven’t changed, but she doesn’t figure it’s her job to do as the Iraqis did and force her own beliefs on others.)

It appears even that statement was in error as she’s now attempting to legislate her personal anti-LGBTQ beliefs into law.

Reaction

Immediately following the introduction of HR 8932, people expressed outrage.

Charlotte Clymer –  the former press secretary for rapid response at the Human Rights Campaign – published a tweet stating, “Tulsi Gabbard is now introducing a blatantly transphobic piece of legislation aimed at trans and non-binary young people. Of course, that’s hardly surprising for a Republican.”

Zeke Stokes – former chief programs officer at GLAAD – also didn’t mince words. “Remember when @TulsiGabbard tried to convince us she was an LGBTQ ally? We knew she was a liar, a fraud. Here’s the proof.,” he tweeted.

Sarah McBride – the first transgender woman to win election as a state senator (in Delaware) – offered a succinct response. “Tulsi Gabbard: assigned Republican at birth,” she said.  

To the relief of most LGBTQ+ activists and transgender/non-binary community members, HR 8932 has little chance of passing the Democratically-controlled House (making the legislation more of a parting gesture than anything).

The post Tulsi Gabbard Targets Transgender & Non-Binary Students appeared first on Peacock Panache.

The list of individuals was a small part of a larger file of approximately 2,000 people Maddock received purporting to be part of a significant voter fraud scheme. In releasing the private personal information of live voters, Maddock argued in the Facebook post that those 150 individuals  “voted in Wayne County by absentee ballot that are CONFIRMED deceased.”

Alas, they weren’t.

Not Dead

Bridge Michigan initially reported on the controversy as the voters Maddock claimed she confirmed were dead began commenting on her Facebook post to let her know they – or someone they knew on the list – were alive. They reported:

But Maddock’s purported confirmation quickly crumbled, as commenters began pointing out glaring and obvious flaws, including addresses in communities like Walled Lake and Novi, which are in Oakland County not Wayne.

“I am certainly not dead!” wrote one woman, whose name and address appeared on the list despite online evidence she was alive, including holiday photos of her family she had recently posted.  

“Two people in my neighborhood are on this list,” wrote another man. “They’re very much alive. Hell, their boys play baseball with my sons.”

They added:

Among the alleged dead was Bill Babcock, a Grosse Pointe Woods voter who said Tuesday he is “doing fine,” aside from the grueling year-end inventory he was performing in his job as a swimming pool salesman. 

“I think it sucks,” he told Bridge Michigan on Tuesday, less than 24 hours after Maddock posted his name and home address in an attempt to prove voter fraud that state officials have not found. 

“Can’t we just move on? There are bigger problems out there, like getting this vaccine thing situated,” Babcock said.

This latest backfired stunt follows Maddock’s unsuccessful “Stop the Steal” effort across the state that involved protests and falsely accusing voting centers of fraud without substantiation. Ultimately that plan (and other collective efforts under the same banner) lead to the removal of all “Stop the Steal” pages from Facebook for election disinformation.

It also follows Maddocks participation in and condoning of armed protests across Michigan opposing COVID-19 quarantines – some of which Maddock personally organized.

This latest incident, however, has the potential to land Maddock in hot water should any of the 150 persons on the list take action against her for publishing their private addresses without consent.

Doxxing

While Michigan doesn’t have a generalized doxxing law making any act of releasing a person’s private details illegal, it does have an anti-harassment piece of legislation outstanding: 2020 House Bill 6206. Michigan Capitol Confidential reported on the legislation noting:

Republican State Rep. Beth Griffin has introduced a bill in the Michigan House that would make “doxxing” a crime.

House Bill 6206 says doxxing happens when a person “publishes private or identifying information about a specific individual on the internet with malicious intent.” Under the bill, a first offense would be a misdemeanor. But if the act is part of a “continued pattern of harassing or intimidating behavior,” a conviction could bring five years in prison, and 10 years if the victim dies.

Add to that it’s already illegal to cyberbully individuals in Michigan after 2019 legislation passed there outlawing the practice.

Should one of the 150 individuals file a report against Maddock for doxxing them claiming it’s cyber-harassment (particularly now as gun-toting protesters have been violently threatening government officials they believe are ‘stealing’ the Trump vote), she could face criminal charges under the 2019 law.

We reached out to Maddock for a comment but received no response. Should she respond, this article will be updated.

The post Michigan GOP chairwoman Meshawn Maddock Doxxes Voters appeared first on Peacock Panache.

The Dissent

In their dissent, Justices Alito and Thomas stated:

Context

It’s essential – before discussing the U.S. Supreme Court’s future – that it’s history be examined. Specifically, the vote in the 2015 Obergefell decision (a 5-4 split court ruling). Not only has the justice who wrote the majority opinion (Kennedy) stepped down from the bench, but one of the other five justices voting to confirm the LGBTQ community’s right to marry just died. Of the justices remaining on the high court, three dissented in the Obergefell ruling: Thomas and Alito (who wrote this dissent) and Chief Justice Roberts. (The fourth was Justice Scalia who passed away in 2016 and was replaced in Trump’s first term by equally conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch).

Not long thereafter, Kennedy stepped down and was replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh (thereby shifting the balance of the court as Kennedy was a reliable swing vote whereas Kavanaugh leans heavily to the right).

With Justice Ginsburg’s seat open, the high court’s composition faces the serious possibility of swinging far right for at least the next generation barring any intervention (such as court packing).

With Kavanaugh’s appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, anti-LGBTQ conservatives already had the power to potentially overturn the court’s historic 2015 decision. The trouble? Chief Justice Roberts – though he dissented – has frequently upheld precedent even when he disagrees with it. That constitutional doctrine (called stare decisis) is what people typically refer to when they say there is ‘legal precedent’ for an issue.

Enter Amy Coney Barrett

Amy Coney Barrett

We’ve actually written about Barrett previously when she was up for another federal seat. You can read that 2017 coverage here.

The pertinent portion of that coverage pertains to her take on stare decisis. In the article, we cited Alliance For Justice (AFJ) – a progressive judicial advocacy group – and their comments on her extensive academic writings on the subject:

Barrett takes the extreme view, unsupported by virtually anyone in the legal community, that a judge does not have to adhere to precedent if she believes a case was wrongly decided. This approach would threaten a wide range of rights and protections established by past court rulings, including rights for workers, LGBTQ Americans’ rights, and voting rights, in addition to women’s reproductive rights. Her views are completely at odds with the way in which our justice system works, and would make it unworkable if adopted by judges.

We added:

One example of Barrett’s view of stare decisis in action is Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch’s dissent in the Pavan v. Smith decision. That case involved an Arkansas law that treated same-sex couples differently than opposite-sex couples in having both names on their children’s birth certificates if both parents were not the biological parent(s).

Though birth certificates had been included both in state law for opposite sex couples as well as in the full “constellation of benefits” associated with the legal institution of marriage as outlined in the historic Obergefell decision recognizing same-sex couples’ right to legally marry, Gorsuch dissented. While he offered legally questionable reasoning in that dissent, many legal observers noted he was simply refusing to accept Obergefell as legal precedent.

This is the type of system Barrett argued for in her academic writing – a contention that legal precedent should be ignored, particularly if personal religious belief does not comport with that precedent.

Though she’s written about the subject repeatedly, her 2003 University of Colorado Law Review article entitled “Stare Decisis and Due Process” sums up her position succinctly. In the article she argued the doctrine violates litigants’ due process rights because it eliminates the right to hear an argument on its own merits rather than relying on legal theory decided in similarly heard cases.

The issue of legal precedent becomes more pressing given a 2016 lecture she gave questioning the court’s role in protecting LGBTQ people’s rights. AJF noted:

Barrett questioned Obergefell, suggesting that courts shouldn’t decide the issue of marriage equality, but rather leave it up to the states – an argument widely used to give states a license to sanction discrimination. Moreover, she argues that transgender people (referring to transgender women as “physiological males who identify as female”) do not deserve protections from discrimination under federal law, claiming “it seems to strain the text of the statute” to say that federal law “demands it.”

More broadly, Barrett has actually written a significant body of work on stare decisis repeatedly attacking the doctrine with some articles even attacking the notion that it should be a legal doctrine. Here are a couple more that offer insight into her thinking on the doctrine:

• Symposium: Constitutional Foundation: Precedent and Jurisprudential Disagreement
• Statutory Stare Decisis in the Courts of Appeals

Barrett’s position puts several important precedents in danger – not just marriage equality. Among the top concerns are legal and safe abortion access as her religious beliefs (when paired with her disdain for legal precedent) signal her support for overturning Roe v. Wade.

You can read the full updated review of where she stands on vital issues here.

The coming weeks leading up to the election could have potentially life-altering and long-lasting effects for women, minorities and marginalized communities. While there’s not much that can be done by the average citizen at this point, voting and contacting your representation are two things you can actively do. And should.

The post SCOTUS Takes Aim At Obergefell LGBTQ Marriage Equality Ruling appeared first on Peacock Panache.

In an article published at In These Times, Moshe Marvit and Shaun Richman argued “cancel culture” empowers employers who already have too much power over employees via at-will employment. While the cause of ending at-will employment has been a noble (and generally left-leaning) cause for many years, the association the authors make has the effect of actually making an argument against ending at-will employment based on its defense of racists.

The Authors

The tone deaf nature of the article – titled ‘If “Cancel Culture” Is About Getting Fired, Let’s Cancel At-Will Employment‘ – should come as no surprise based solely on the racial composition of its authors (you can see them here and here).

But it goes deeper than that.

According to the biographies they provided to In These Times, Moshe Marvit is “an attorney and fellow with The Century Foundation and the co-author (with Richard Kahlenberg) of the book Why Labor Organizing Should be a Civil Right.”

Shaun Richman is “the Program Director of the Harry Van Arsdale Jr. School of Labor Studies at SUNY Empire State College.”

Despite impressive credentials in economic and labor justice, neither of these authors promote or appear to hold any credentials in racial justice. This is important.

“Cancel Culture“

The article argues “cancel culture” – that is, publicly confronting people over problematic speech and expression (usually racism) – actually harms the economic movement to end at-will employment. The article opens by stating:

That status quo is so widely accepted that some progressives don’t think twice about appealing to the authoritarian power of bosses in the pursuit of social justice: Many high profile social media campaigns have been employed to get people who are caught on video committing racist acts in their everyday lives fired from their jobs. But the desire to hold racists and sexists accountable—or the related struggles against sexism, homophobia and fascism—need not be in conflict with the principles of workplace rights.

That last sentence hedges the bet Marvit and Richman make against “cancel culture.”

Before diving into their arguments, however, it’s important to define what people mean when they use that phrase.

While the phrase has gained mainstream popularity in the last few years since the onset of the Black Lives Matter movement, ‘cancel culture’ has deep roots in the Black community dating back to the civil rights movement and Black empowerment.

Speaking to Vox last year, Anne Charity Hudley, the chair of linguistics of African America for the University of California Santa Barbara, explained, “While the terminology of cancel culture may be new and most applicable to social media through Black Twitter, in particular, the concept of being canceled is not new to black culture.” Vox added, “Hudley, who studies black vernacular and the use of language in cultural conversations like this one, described canceling as ‘a survival skill as old as the Southern black use of the boycott.'”

Hudley added:

“Canceling is a way to acknowledge that you don’t have to have the power to change structural inequality. You don’t even have to have the power to change all of public sentiment. But as an individual, you can still have power beyond measure.

“When you see people canceling Kanye, canceling other people, it’s a collective way of saying, ‘We elevated your social status, your economic prowess, [and] we’re not going to pay attention to you in the way that we once did. … ‘I may have no power, but the power I have is to [ignore] you.’”

Writing for The Root, Danielle Butler hit the nail on the head in describing the problem with demonizing cancel culture:

However, much like how the use of the word “culture” in the phrase “cancel culture” is unsupported by our definitions of what actually constitutes a “culture”—even falling short of internet standards—so are the claims of the harm it causes. Cancel culture is paradoxical in that its opponents manage to claim it’s both harmfully punitive and performative virtue signaling.

She added:

Conflict and dissent are very human behaviors, and with social media there are groups of people who have a relatively new platform to express these very human behaviors and be heard—imperfect as some of these expressions may be. However what people do when they invoke dog whistles like “cancel culture” and “culture wars” is illustrate their discomfort with the kinds of people who now have a voice and their audacity to direct it towards figures with more visibility and power.

Compounding that problem are tone deaf – mostly middle class – progressives (like the authors of the In These Times article) who react as if marginalized communities have equal footing with those they’re “cancelling.” Vox noted:

To Rose, and for many opponents of cancel culture, the bottom line in the debate is a need to believe that other people can change, and treat them with according optimism. The difference between cancel culture and a more reconciliatory, transformational approach to a disagreement is “the difference between expecting amends and never letting a wound close,” he said. “Between expressing your rage and identifying with it forever.”

“I get that, but that’s a really middle-class, white privilege way of coming at this,” Charity Hudley countered when I summarized Rose’s viewpoint for her. “From my point of view, for black culture and cultures of people who are lower income and disenfranchised, this is the first time you do have a voice in those types of conversations.”

Charity Hudley’s point highlights what seems to many to be the bottom line in the conversation around cancel culture: For those who are doing the calling out or the canceling, the odds are still stacked against them. They’re still the ones without the social, political, or professional power to compel someone into meaningful atonement, to do much more than organize a collective boycott.

“I think that’s why people see [cancel culture] as a threat, or furthering the divide,” she said. “The divide was already there.”

Which is to say, portraying “cancel culture” negatively from the onset without nuance or qualification sets a very specific tone. And it doesn’t get better from there.

The Argument

Before segueing into their argument about at-will employment and the need for “a just cause ‘right to your job’ law,” Marvit and Richman ended their poor description of “cancel culture” by stating:

Depending on what websites you read, “cancel culture” could be portrayed as the biggest threat to society outside of a pandemic with no end in sight, a cratering economy with tens of millions of people out of work and facing eviction, and unidentified men wearing camouflage and carrying machine guns removing protestors from the streets of Portland. The terms of the debate are so problematic that Trump used the occasion of his July 4 speech to complain of leftists that, “one of their political weapons is ‘cancel culture’—driving people from their jobs, shaming dissenters, and demanding total submission from anyone who disagrees.” Then, because the concept of irony has apparently died of complications from Covid-19, he continued, “This is the very definition of totalitarianism.”

Did you think there was another paragraph somewhere to finish that thought? You’re not mistaken – the paragraph’s introductory clause implies there will be a comparison of some sort between two seemingly hyperbolic extremes. But they only present one specific side that appears to support their view.

It’s at this point – after several similar preceding paragraphs – the authors state:

Three years ago, we published an op-ed in the New York Times explaining how U.S. workers lack a basic right to their jobs that many workers in other countries enjoy as a legal standard. As a solution, we proposed a just cause “right to your job” law as a badly needed labor law reform. Since then, we’ve been encouraged to see the issue turn up on many progressives’ agenda.

Were this paragraph to stand on its own, separate from any conversation about race, racism, or “cancel culture,” it would be fine. But it doesn’t stand alone. The next paragraph goes on to argue:

In the debate between a right to your job and the need to de-platform bigots, some have raised concerns that without the boss’s right to fire an employee for any reason, racists and sexists would get more of a free pass at work. But this argument misses what “just cause” means. It doesn’t mean that employees cannot be fired, it means they can’t be fired for a reason that’s not related to work. Racism, sexism, harassment and other forms of conduct in and out of the workplace that make other employees feel unsafe and violate policies around respect and equity are grounds for discipline and termination—but are also subject to due process. When you look at how “just cause” plays out in areas where it exists—in the public sector, under many union contracts, or in other countries—it’s clear that racists, sexists and harassers are, in fact, disciplined.

And thus begins the real narrative.

Due Process

Throughout the remainder of their article, Marvit and Richman make the argument for offering racists (and other offenders, such as homophobes and misogynists) ‘due process’ before they are terminated from their jobs after they’re publicly exposed for espousing abhorrent beliefs.

Since the examples the authors note are predominantly related to race, let’s focus exclusively on the repercussions of these proposed actions.

In offering one of several examples, Marvit and Richman stated:

Amy Cooper, the entitled white lady who called the cops on “an African-American” birder in the Ramble of New York’s Central Park is a slightly more complicated case. Cooper was caught on video reacting in a reflexively racist way to a Black man who just wanted to protect some birds from getting gored by an off-leash dog, threatening to unleash some unpredictable police response upon him. She was quickly doxxed, and angry internet hordes demanded she be fired from the investment firm that she worked for. The firm, Franklin Templeton didn’t hesitate to fire her to protect its own reputation. But even Amy Cooper deserved due process.                                    

The targeted campaign against the investment firm arguably made Cooper’s behavior in Central Park a work-related cause of damage to her employer’s business. More relevant is how uncomfortable her presence in Zoom meetings and on email CC lines would be for her co-workers in the immediate aftermath of her scandalous behavior. It would not be unreasonable for an employer to move directly to a suspension under those circumstances. It could be a suspension without pay while she cooled her heels and consulted with anyone willing to represent her in an appeal. If the employer decided that her time away from regular duties should be spent in implicit bias training or anger management counseling, then the suspension could continue some form of compensation.

Let’s be clear: Marvit and Richman are proposing Cooper’s firm should have kept her employed while she “appealed” what was already a video recorded incident, and potentially remedied it through implicit bias training.

To wit: unconscious/implicit bias training is not a tool to punish or reform racists who create a hostile working environment; it’s a tool to prevent that hostile work environment before it happens.

Marvit and Richman went on to argue, “If the goal of ‘cancel culture’ is to ‘make racists afraid again‘ by making their despicable behavior carry real-world consequences, then Cooper very nearly losing her job would likely have been as effective as her actually losing her job.” They added, “And under a just cause standard, she probably wouldn’t have been immediately fired for this one terrible offense.”

And therein lies the problem.

Coddling Racists

The position Marvit and Richman make in this article isn’t new. In fact, it’s just the latest iteration of an ongoing white narrative propping up systemic racism. The onus for responsibility is removed from the employer – which is the point of their argument – but it is subsequently placed squarely in the laps of non-white people. Specifically, in the case of Cooper, it would force her Black coworkers to continue working with her and performing the actual heavy lifting.

Let’s not mince words: anything short of immediate loss of employment when someone is caught, on video, engaging in acts of racism will not act as any sort of deterrent to future racism. Much like wealthy people view fines for parking or speeding as insignificant costs, implicit bias training and temporary suspensions before being allowed to return to work in and around (and often, in positions of power over) the Black community are nothing more than stumbling blocks. They’re minor costs for actions they’ll assuredly engage in again at some future point.

Unlike work performance – which is something that should be the subject of ‘just cause’ discussions – racism isn’t something a person simply turns off after a one or two hour training session. Black people know this; Marvit and Richman appear to think otherwise. In fact, knowing they have protection from being terminated (and the ability to merely attend a training to remedy things), racists would be the exact opposite of afraid given the argument presented in the article.

And to be clear, attempting to separate racist acts at work from those in a person’s personal time is a distinction without a difference. A Black person will be equally uncomfortable working with a person who called the police on a Black neighbor as they would a racist white coworker who said or did something racist on the job. Offering a ‘Get Out Of Jail Free’ card to racists would only serve to further burden Black workers who already face heavy workforce burdens dealing with both well-intentioned white peers as well as outright racists. Providing racists a workable defense to allow them continued access to and power over Black coworkers in the name of worker justice actually makes an argument against ending at-will employment.

Update [August 4, 2020]

Subsequent to the publication of this article, Shaun Richman – one of the two authors of the aforementioned In These Times article – offered a public response to the critical feedback offered here (as well as feedback offered previously). He said:

Here is the previous exchange he’s referencing:

After angrily assuming no review of his article had preceded the critical feedback offered, Richman chose not to respond thereafter until the article was published (at which point he again chose to attack the person delivering the feedback rather than addressing the racial justice issues being pointed out).

As of now, Richman’s non-response is the only reply to these criticisms as neither In These Times nor Marvit have offered any response to the feedback on their article.

The post The Caucacity: “Cancel Culture” and At-Will Employment [UPDATED] appeared first on Peacock Panache.

Herman Cain

Before contracting COVID-19, former Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain attended Donald Trump’s Oklahoma rally:

Subsequent to this rally, Trump had social distancing stickers removed from seats at the rally site encouraging people to sit closer to one another in addition to promoting falsehoods about mask use.

Leading up the rally, he tweeted:

Following the rally, Cain was not only diagnosed with COVID-19, but hospitalized:

Cain later died on July 30, 2020. After his death, the Oklahoma rally tweet above disappeared from his Twitter account.

Cain is joined by Turning Point USA co-founder Bill Montgomery (who also recently died due to COVID-19 complications).

Bill Montgomery

Prior to Bill Montgomery’s death, his organization tweeted this:

Immediately following Montgomery’s death, the organization deleted this tweet as the organization’s other co-founder tweeted:

The parallels between the two high profile deaths – while not shocking – provide further evidence of a longstanding tradition in conservative culture of ignoring the advice of scientists and doctors until it personally affects a person.

Perhaps pundit Ana Navarro-Cárdenas put it best when she tweeted this week, “Herman Caín thought Covid was a hoax, scoffed at wearing a mask. Died of Covid. Bill Montgomery, co-founder of pro-Trump, Turning Point USA, scoffed at virus. Died of Covid. Rep. Gohmert refused to wear a mask. Has Covid.” She concluded, “See a pattern? Covid doesn’t care about partisanship.”

The post Tweets Disappear After Conservative Deaths From COVID-19 appeared first on Peacock Panache.

Political commentators worried about Trump trying to hang on to power see a narrow win for former Vice President Joe Biden as an invitation to a coup. In this scenario, results in states like Michigan and Wisconsin would be so close that Trump would allege voter fraud tipping the scales, refuse to concede defeat and use his lame duck months in office to undermine the election’s legitimacy and stay in office after 20 January, 2021.

However unlikely you think this possibility is, the solution offered by many media worthies is simple. If Biden wins by a decisive landslide, they say, there’ll be no denying the scale of Trump’s defeat and Republicans won’t dare go along with any attempt to keep him in power.

The seeds of that landslide are certainly there. If the election were held this week, Biden would likely sweep the Midwestern states Trump narrowly won four years ago. He’d pick up Florida and perhaps Georgia, while Ohio is effectively a toss-up. It’s possible Biden could eke out a narrow victory in Texas – this unlikely event would be definitive proof of the landslide if nothing else. But Biden doesn’t need the Lone Star State for a stunning victory, or even some of the southern states that are wavering. If Trump truly has lost his appeal in swing states, his defeat will be devastating.

Will a landslide defeat chasten Trump and convince to leave office quietly? In a word: no. This is a man who claimed millions had voted illegally in an election he won because he couldn’t stand losing the popular vote. His attacks on mail-in ballots and warnings that the election will be stolen should end any doubts about what he’s planning after 3 November. If Trump loses, he’ll simply claim he didn’t.

This is where the Biden landslide gets tricky. It might seem counter-intuitive to say that a huge Democratic victory will play into Trump’s hands, but just imagine how it would pan out. States where Trump had razor-thin victories plump for Biden. Trump categorically refuses to accept this and alleges fraud in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Georgia goes blue? Impossible. There must be fraud since (white) Georgians wouldn’t betray the president. Texas opts for a Democrat earlier than psephologists predicted? Insanity. How could the conservative heartland vote for Biden’s (imaginary) socialist agenda?

And on and on it will go. Every state that’s considered competitive in a normal election cycle will have its results challenged in this abnormal time. Conversely, states that were a lock for Republicans under usual circumstances may swerve toward Biden – maybe for just this one election – adding fuel to the fire of voter fraud conspiracies. But the scale of Biden’s victory will be challenged in general terms, too.

It will be alleged that Democrats stole the election and decided to create a landslide to be certain of victory. The mere fact of a large Biden win will be seen as evidence of wrongdoing. Moreover, this supposed massive electoral fraud will be evidence of that the “Deep State” is still working against Trump. And if Republicans lose the House and Senate as well, can claims of a coup be far off? We’ve already heard this rhetoric and hardcore GOP voters are primed for it.

It’s worth remembering how President Barack Obama’s unhinged opponents compared him to a dictator and accused him of funding voter fraud efforts. These two accusations are clearly related. Dictatorships today often hold sham elections to legitimize their regimes and run into the notorious “dictator’s percentage” problem. It’s not hard to see how the GOP could deploy these well-known criticisms to undermine a genuine, overwhelming popular vote victory.

This may be a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. A narrow Biden win will be challenged down to the last metaphorical hanging chad. But a landslide will have exactly the same effect. In truth, Trump and his cronies will try to deny any Biden victory, no matter how large. All the prognosticators calling for a blue wave to sweep Trump away fail to appreciate the enormity of his conceit and the willingness of large sections of his party to defy norms and laws.

Democrats need to prepare now for Trump’s inevitable attempt to deny the election results. It doesn’t matter how much Biden wins by or how many millions of voters repudiate Trumpism. The huckster from Trump Tower will not go easily into obscurity.

The post A Democratic Landslide Won’t Guarantee Trump Will Go Quietly appeared first on Peacock Panache.

One of the most difficult things for us to understand about the American Civil War is why so many apparently ordinary men fought under the Confederate flag to preserve slavery. And make no mistake – that is why they fought. That’s clear from their own diaries and letters. They weren’t just fighting to preserve an economic system where around a third of Southerners owned slaves, or to maintain their own sense of identity contrasted with the enslaved – many were fighting out of fear. What they feared wasn’t ‘Northern Aggression’ but ‘Servile Insurrection.’

On its face this was a simple idea – Slaves, long oppressed and abused, would, once freed, rise up against their former masters with great violence. They would attack white people indiscriminately, raping, murdering and torturing. In short, freed Blacks would destroy white society in an orgy of racial vengeance. There had been slave revolts before, some of them extremely violent, few very successful, at least in the U.S. But the fear of Servile Insurrection was little more than a conspiracy theory. When the war ended and slavery came to a legal end with it, there were no uprisings whatsoever.

And yet this fear did not dissipate. The formation of the Ku Klux Klan in the immediate aftermath of the war and later depictions of freed Black people as dangerous savages speaks to this. The race war never came, though African Americans in the South had every reason to pursue change through violence. History may well have vindicated an open rebellion against Jim Crow and lynching, but it never came.

By the 1960s, Servile Insurrection had morphed into fear of the Black Panthers and similar movements, while Richard Nixon was able to capitalize on these deeply ingrained prejudices in his dog-whistling ‘Law and Order’ campaign in ’68 and the War on Drugs that followed.

We can trace this thread all the way through our recent history. Barack Obama, the nation’s first African American president, suffered virulent racism and rampant conspiracy theories that clearly linked him to the imaginary threat of mass Black-on-white violence. And today, as African Americans take to the streets to protest for their very lives, the same rhetoric is being deployed.

Sadly, it is the President of the United States, along with his political and media allies, who’s indulging in the ugly, racist chicanery of ‘Servile Insurrection’. The protesters are ‘Anarchists’ and ‘traitors’ trying to destroy America, as evidenced by their targeting of monuments to racists. The parallel with Confederate paranoia is almost too perfect.

In this conception of race relations in America, ‘Black Lives Matter‘ isn’t a truth that needs to be heard. It’s a threat that needs to be stamped out. It’s the nature of the oppressor to judge the oppressed by his own twisted standards. Just as the Confederate soldier could not envision a peaceful end to slavery, so millions of white Americans, imbued with the centuries-old rhetoric of fear, cannot see an end to racism but instead imagine a reversal of historic conditions. The ‘Black Supremacists’ are coming, and they hold white lives cheap.

That’s the true hideousness of ‘All Lives Matter’. It’s an assertion of fear. But it’s also an admission of the wrongs done by white society against Black people: “You don’t have the right to kill us, despite what we’ve done.” And yet today’s white Americans can’t be held responsible for slavery or Jim Crow. They can only be responsible for their own actions toward Black Americans. And in some ways, white people, too, are victims of a system that teaches them that racial justice is impossible without racial violence.

When that wealthy white man with his gun says he was scared for his life, I believe him. Not because the protesters were ever really a threat, but because America is sickened with the disease of racism and the fear of race-based rebellion is in the country’s bones. Waving a rifle around won’t solve that problem. But understanding the continuum of racism and the pervasiveness of its lies is a place to start.

The post ‘All Lives Matter’ – An Expression of White Fear as Old as Slavery appeared first on Peacock Panache.