Quantcast

«

»

Nov 20 2013

Staver’s Anti-ENDA Hyperbole

Mat Staver, the dumbest lawyer in America not named Larry Klayman or Orly Taitz, has been making the rounds of the usual outlets spouting all sorts of hyperbole and lies about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. It’s so horrible that it will lead to a revolution!

“I think that if that continues to move forward in that respect we’re moving down the road toward a revolution; you’re either moving to persecution or you’re moving to revolution or you’re moving to both,” Staver said on the TPU call. “Unless there is a reversal of this huge government intrusion into our basic shared liberties, we’re moving toward revolution or we’re moving to persecution or both.”

The overwhelming majority of Americans support anti-discrimination protections for LGBT people, even a majority of Republicans. Does he really think this kind of hysterical claim is going to convince anyone who isn’t already delusional on the subject?

Staver, who previously warned that ENDA will lead to death and sexual assault, told Crosstalk host Vic Eliason that ENDA is a “very dangerous bill” that will “literally turn all women’s restrooms into free-for-alls for some man or some voyeur or some person who wants to do mischief or harm.”

Ah yes, that lie. 17 states and more than 100 cities already have such protections. Can Staver name a single case of this happening anywhere? And remember, if that does happen it will be straight people doing it. We’re supposed to discriminate against LGBT people to prevent straight people from hypothetically taking advantage of the law to victimize women?

11 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Chiroptera

    Remind me again: what’s preventing straight men now from dressing up as women to use the women’s restroom?

  2. 2
    doublereed

    I talked to an conservative about ENDA, and he basically said that anti-discrimination laws are basically harmless. Employers can really only get sued if they’re flagrant about their prejudice and they’re really stupid about covering their tracks. Which is pretty much how the laws are supposed to work. Such lawsuits are always stacked in the employer’s favor.

  3. 3
    Gregory in Seattle

    “We’re supposed to discriminate against LGBT people to prevent straight people from hypothetically taking advantage of the law to victimize women?”

    Not at all. The thing about straight people is simple justification: What Staver and the other bigoted idiots want is “We’re supposed to discriminate against LGBT people.”

  4. 4
    MikeMa

    @Chiroptera,
    What stops them? Well, their Christian morals of course. Pay no attention to the prison stats on incarcerated Christians. They are not TRUE Christians.

  5. 5
    borax

    Even if ENDA was passed, the deck is still stacked in favor of employers, especially in right to work states.

  6. 6
    John Pieret

    Does he really think this kind of hysterical claim is going to convince anyone who isn’t already delusional on the subject?

    But those are the people who send him money!

    Chiroptera @1:

    Remind me again: what’s preventing straight men now from dressing up as women to use the women’s restroom?

    Straight men are really bad at it while the gayz are so good at it that Dog-fearing, Xian men can … pant … be fooled … slobber … into sin by those … groan … minons of Satan!

  7. 7
    dugglebogey

    These people shot their wad on the “there’s gonna be a revolution” schtick on abortion. If there’s no revolution over “killing babies” bullshit, then nobody’s going to perform a coup d’état over queers being able to keep their jobs.

  8. 8
    dingojack

    I think this is the totally appropriate juncture to remind everyone that Ted Haggard is totally heterosexual. (Glory How He Blew Ya)
    :) Dingo

  9. 9
    eric

    @2:

    Employers can really only get sued if they’re flagrant about their prejudice and they’re really stupid about covering their tracks.

    I suspect that is getting slowly less and less true. Regular business conversations are getting more and more electronically-mediated, which means that more of them leave a permanently accessible record (and an obvious “hole” if they go missing). Ten years ago I might have told my boss in personal conversation why he should/should not hire some prospective person. Or I would’ve handed him a piece of paper that gets shredded after the decision is made. Now I fill out an electronic form and send it via email.

    What’s more, AIUI (and this is not my area) ten years ago that email might have been routed through some internal network or mainframe – remaining completely under the control of my company, at every stage. Now when I send an email to someone – even if their office shares a wall with mine – it probably goes through (and can be copied by) a third-party service provider.

    Modern uber-connectivity is certainly a mixed bag, but the fact that normal, run-of-the-mill business decisions are getting more and more transparent (when they need to be accessed) is probably one of the good things about it.

  10. 10
    Michael Heath

    ENDA will make a positive difference. Managers will be increasingly aware of their obligations and will therefore be more cautious and protective of people’s rights. This can’t be fully measured by merely looking at the number of lawsuits filed, before and after such laws pass. Laws like ENDA change the operating environment – for the better.

  11. 11
    dingojack

    Oh noes!!! Matty’s gonna have a revolution if ENDA passes!
    Look out for a couple of dozen people milling around some obscure park in Washington waving poorly written signs.
    Any day now, any day.
    @@
    Dingo

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site