Michigan GOP Kills Anti-Discrimination Bill, Lies About the Reason

The Michigan House of Representatives killed a bill that would have added sexual orientation and gender expression to the state’s anti-discrimination laws. But they want you to know that they really, really wanted to pass it but those damned liberals insisted on including those icky transgender people in it.

House Speaker Jase Bolger’s office on Wednesday declared legislation prohibiting discrimination against gays and lesbians dead for the year because Democrats refused to vote for it without legal protections for transgender people.

“The extremists on the left were successful in preventing civil rights protections for gays and lesbians in Michigan,” Bolger spokesman Ari Adler said late Wednesday.

Bolger, R-Marshall, has opposed Democratic demands that “gender identity or expression” be added to the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, arguing transgender individuals are already protected from discrimination under the classification of “sex.”

“They demanded extra language for a group that is already protected,” Adler said. “By taking a hard line and insisting that we provide double protection for transgender individuals, they blocked protection for gays, lesbians and bisexuals.”

Yes, of course. They totally wanted to protect gay people against discrimination, you guys, but not for those icky transgender people. And it’s all the fault of those “extremists on the left” for killing the bill that the Republicans could have passed on their own with any language they wanted to put in it because they have an overwhelming majority in both houses of the legislature. They could have passed a version protecting sexual orientation but not gender identity or expression if they wanted to without a single Democrat voting for the bill.

Besides, trans people already have those protections, which explains why the GOP is so adamantly opposed to giving them those protections. I mean, it would obviously be a disaster if trans people were protected under two different parts of the legal code (even if that were true, which it isn’t). It totally makes sense, doesn’t it?

See, this is why I could never be a spokesperson for a politician. Your job is professional liar. Your job is to look right into the camera and say something so egregiously stupid and dishonest that no ethical person could say it without feeling ashamed, and to do it with complete confidence and feigned sincerity.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • peterh

    “They’re already protected, so we [Republicans] don’t have to protect them.” Right. “Except they’re not but we aren’t going to do it & we can blame someone else in the process.”

  • illdoittomorrow

    Ari Adler, lying shitheel: “By taking a hard line and insisting that we provide double protection for transgender individuals, they blocked protection for gays, lesbians and bisexuals.”

    Translation: “Look what you made me do!” said the bully.

  • doublereed

    I would be more impressed with his outmatched insincerity if it didn’t make me ill.

  • John Pieret

    As Republicans have shown over and over, passing extra laws to protect minorities are just counter productive! After all, were those heavily melaninated people really happier since the passage of the Voting Rights act of 1964? If so, how come it was so easy to gut it, huh? … answer me that!

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Good news, everyone:

    [House Speaker] Bolger is still advancing a separate bill to expand religious liberties that was originally proposed as a counterbalance to granting gays and lesbians the same protection against discrimination as racial and religious minorities have.

    Thank goodness! It takes a brave man to stand up against the thing he’s pretending to be for while quietly undermining it with what he’s really for.

  • cptdoom

    Of course they can’t provide double protections for citizens, which is why the same chamber passed their version of the AZ “license to discriminate” bill to ensure people have freedom of religion.

  • http://artk.typepad.com ArtK

    “We had to destroy that village in order to save it.”

  • donkensler

    Of course, with the legislature set to pass the Michigan Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which would exempt the Truly Religious from civil rights (and potentially other) laws, any protections for us LGBTs (or the LGB subset thereof) from extending Eliot-Larsen would be pretty minimal. Another example of (some) Reps wanting to have it both ways – passing LGB rights, but making sure it doesn’t cause discomfort to their religious base voters. After HB 5958 becomes law, I’ll be waiting for the first “We don’t serve Muslims, Jews, or Catholics” sign to go up, or for the first fundie to beat a child or wife beating rap by claiming it’s part of his religion.

  • martinc

    insisting that we provide double protection

    What’s wrong with double protection? Does the fact that murder is a form of assault mean that we can’t have a law against murder and a law against assault?

  • smrnda

    Double protection is, at the very worst redundant, but so many laws are redundant that this is a pretty silly complaint. There are any number of local laws which pointlessly replicate state laws or federal laws.

  • http://www.pandasthumb.org Area Man

    The right is under the self-imposed delusion that traditionally discriminated against groups get extra-special protections and rights that no one else gets. This just feeds into it.

  • drowner

    It’s just so juvenile and intellectually insulting, like something a child would say.

  • scienceavenger

    This is just a trial balloon for their strategy of blaming the Democrats for the impending government shutdown.

    How are they doing?