Steve King is Worried About Fake Gay People

Rep. Steve King, the dumbest man in Congress not named Louis Gohmert, is worried that if we don’t pass “right to discriminate” bill like the one in Arizona, people will pretend to be gay so they can sue businesses for discriminating against them. Because, of course, they choose to be gay.

KING: It’s clear in the civil rights section of the code that you can’t discriminate against people based upon — and I’m not sure I’ve got the list right — but race, creed, religion, color of skin — those kind of things. And there’s nothing mentioned in there on self-professed behavior. And that’s what they’re trying to perfect is special rights for self-professed behavior. And I think it’s difficult for us to define a law that would protect behavior…

KING: The one thing that I reference when I say “self-professed” is: how do you know who to discriminate against? They about have to tell you. And, you know, are they then setting up a case? Is this about bringing a grievance or is it actually about a service that they’d like to have? And doesn’t free enterprise provide that service if the demand is there? Someone can open up a cake shop, can’t they?

Oh, of course. Like all those people who fake being Christian to take advantage of laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion so they can sue for discrimination, right? By any measure, religion is a far more malleable trait than sexual orientation. People change their religion all the time. So why is King not calling for the elimination of religion as a prohibited basis for discrimination? Oh, yeah. Because this all just a pretext for his real argument, which is “ewwwwwww.”

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://timgueguen.blogspot.com timgueguen

    Too bad King wasn’t just pretending to be a Congressman to take advantage of the system.

  • http://polrant@blogspot.com democommie

    Yeah, Steve, I invite you to call up James O”keefe and have him set up one of his video shoots in your district (a fundie church or C&W bar–your choice) with you playing the part of the “Fauxmo”. I would pay to see that and help to set up a fund to honor you, posthumously.

  • Chiroptera

    lol

    Does it even matter if a person is “faking the gay”? If a business is obeying the anti-discrimination laws that are on the books, then they won’t be getting into trouble to begin with, right?

  • Abdul Alhazred

    @3 The unspoken assertion is that there are not “that many” gay people.

  • http://polrant@blogspot.com democommie

    Dammit:

    “Fauxmo” (c)(SM)(TM) 2014 democommie ministries & media, LLC, LSD & PCP–not to be confused with

    democommie media and ministries LMAO, STP & MDA

    Visit my website democommie@fuckthisshit.com for details on rates and licensing.

  • eric

    @3 – my thoughts exactly. If you pretend to be X, and suffer discrimination because the seller thinks you’re an X, then the seller still broke the law.

    King:

    that’s what they’re trying to perfect is special rights for self-professed behavior

    Um…like religion?

    You really want to open the box of businesses being able to discriminate against anyone who acts Christian?

  • rabbitscribe

    I’ll have to take you at your word that your summary accurately characterizes his point: I can’t make heads or tails out of that balderdash. But if so, and anyone’s contemplating feigning membership in a protected class to gin up grounds for a civil suit, it’s a mug’s game. Trust me, I’ve tried- I dressed up in a cheap polyester suit, tucked a beat up bible under my arm, and hit all the bakeries in the most liberal, gay-friendly neighborhoods in Chicago. Even though I peppered my conversation with, “May the Lord richly bless you!” and the like, they must have seen through the charade. Every single one of them took my money and provided the service they were in business to offer. I can’t imagine it would be any different for gay people in red states.

    Anyone need a wedding cake? I have, like, forty.

  • tubi

    Maybe, if these laws pass, people will start faking being Catholic in order to discriminate against heretics like Steve King. Baseless speculation cuts both ways.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Rep. Steve King…is worried that if we don’t pass “right to discriminate” bill like the one in Arizona, people will pretend to be gay so they can sue businesses for discriminating against them.

    Does this moran have any idea how hard it is to sue a business for any sort of discrimination? Here’s a little hint: real black people have a hard enough time doing that, so it’s pretty absurd to think anyone could pull it off just by pretending to be gay.

  • dugglebogey

    I’d bet that King is one of those guys who says he can tell a Jew just by looking at him.

  • teawithbertrand

    Here’s a thought: what wold stop a bigot from pretending to be Christian just so he can discriminate against gay people (or anyone he thinks is gay)?

  • karmacat

    So if Steve King is worried about businesses being sued, maybe he should back anti-discrimination laws. But of course that kind of logic would just confuse him

  • had3

    I’m gonna pretend to be a gay, black, jewish, handicapped, woman so I can really increase my chances of finding a viable defendant to sue. They won’t even see it coming!

  • caseloweraz

    King: And that’s what they’re trying to perfect is special rights for self-professed behavior.

    No, Mr. King, not “special rights” — universal rights. They would belong to every member of the protected group, and would be identical to the rights other protected groups enjoy. Just as today black people do not have more guaranteed rights than whites, but just the same rights.

    This idea that making gays a protected group will somehow privilege them above other citizens is a pervasive one among those who detest same-sex marriage, and as misguided as it is pervasive.

    And I think it’s difficult for us to define a law that would protect behavior…

    Difficult for you, perhaps…

  • caseloweraz

    Had3 raises a good point. It would be as difficult for a heterosexual man to succeed at such a lawsuit by pretending to be gay as it is for an able-bodied man to pretend a disability in order to defraud Medicare. It requires keeping up the imposture day and night for months or years.

    For the faux-quadriplegic, this means never displaying the ability to walk, even in the privacy of their own home. A neighbor might see them through the window.

    For the faux-gay, it doesn’t mean having a man stay in the house nights, but merely (!) giving up women — except perhaps under the most extreme discretion.

  • http://polrant@blogspot.com democommie

    ” but merely (!) giving up women — except perhaps under the most extreme discretion.”

    But what if they’re “kiss’n’tell” KKKristian harlots or, worse yet fake WOMEN!!

  • Sastra

    By any measure, religion is a far more malleable trait than sexual orientation. People change their religion all the time. So why is King not calling for the elimination of religion as a prohibited basis for discrimination?

    I’ve got a legal question: is it okay for businesses to discriminate on the basis of political orientation or scientific views? I don’t just mean a sign maker refusing to make a sign (animal rights activist vs. hunting group), but things like restaurants refusing to serve Democrats, or global warming deniers, or people with the wrong view on abortion. Could a landlord legally evict someone just for being in the Tea Party? I wouldn’t think so, but it’s not a “protected class.”

    I would hate for the ‘Free Will’ debate to get that ugly. “We reserve the right to refuse to serve Compatibilists.”

  • dingojack

    Sastra – “Antidisestablishmentarians will not be served – The Management”

  • John Pieret

    dugglebogey @ 1:

    I’d bet that King is one of those guys who says he can tell a Jew just by looking at him

    Why not? He can tell drug runners by looking at their calves.

  • Wylann

    Sastra: Technically, in most places, that is the case. Businesses do have the right to discriminate. Discriminate being used here in the non-pejorative sense. One doesn’t have to accept all business that comes through one’s door. If, for example, the baker had simply said they were too busy, that would be perfectly acceptable. It’s when they climb up on their cross and scream ‘look at me’ while they are doing their best to persecute others is when it gets a bit more complicated (although most often, not so much, they’re just bigots).

  • Sastra

    Wylann #20 wrote:

    Technically, in most places, that is the case. Businesses do have the right to discriminate. Discriminate being used here in the non-pejorative sense.

    Technically, a baker can tell a gay couple or a black man that they are “too busy.” But what if a business discriminates on the basis of politics, science, or philosophy very openly and proudly?

    Would say a Republican have the legitimate right to sue a business (such as a restaurant or bakery) for discrimination if the owner refused to serve them simply because they were Republican and “we don’t want your kind in here?” Had a sign? Put it in an ad?

    I’m particularly interested because most modern atheism claims to be a specific rational conclusion, not a personal identity per se. But perhaps the two might meet if the discrimination is pejorative enough? I don’t know. If a business refuses to deal with atheists can we go after them without classifying atheism as if it were a race or sexual orientation, but as if it were a political/science/philosophical conclusion?

  • Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden

    he can tell a Jew just by looking at him.

    Umm, yeah.

  • rabbitscribe

    Sastra: I don’t have time to do this justice, but atheism is in the same protected class as a religion under the law. Point-of-view discrimination is legal (“We don’t serve Dallas Cowboys fans!”) so long as it doesn’t disproportionately affect members of a protected class. And businesses that are always too busy every time a member of a protected class shows up are investigated the same way workplace discrimination issues are investigated- i.e. the owner gets grilled by professional investigators with a wide variety of law enforcement tools at their disposal and if a pattern is uncovered he or she is penalized.

  • felidae

    Steve King, who is also rabidly anti immigrant, probably believes that if immigration reform passes, people will fake being Mexican to rake advantage of the law

  • steve84

    You need to see Stephen Colbert’s take on this. He called on gays to send photos and videos to King so he can independently verify people’s gayness.

  • leonardschneider

    I think I’ll pretend to be a member of Congress so I can get the same health care benefits they do.

    Um, Rep. King? How did you arrive at this conclusion? Did you run across a TV station that shows reruns of the old Tom Hanks sitcom Bosom Buddies and just extrapolate from there?

    Although there is some precedence for what King is babbling about. Think of all the gay men who pretended to be straight, in order to serve their country in the military. (Although Rep. King’s response would be they only joined up in order to get VA benefits…)

  • http://polrant@blogspot.com democommie

    “Although Rep. King’s response would be they only joined up in order to get VA benefits…”

    He’d be wrong, of course, although not for that reason. Most people who join the military have NO idea about VA benefits. They’re usually young, fit and invulnerable–that may be why it’s not something that they can choose to benefit from.

  • http://www.facebook.com/rebecca.gates.77 Rebecca Gates

    So if anyone wants to see Colbert response (as mentioned by steve84) here it is. It is glorious.

    http://imgur.com/gallery/ZSX1b