NOM’s new “Right to Refuse Service” campaign harkens to pre-Civil Rights days

And you thought refusal of service ended in 1964 with the Civil Rights Act…

By Cathy Kristofferson, April 23, 2013
Trans-Equal-Access

In Massachusetts one of the legislative campaigns we are working on is the Act Relative to Equal Access in Hospitals, Public Transportation, Nursing Homes, Supermarkets, Retail Establishments, and all other places open to the public.  

The bill  will give the trans community the public accommodations rights they were cheated out of in last year’s Trans Civil Rights bill negotiations.  Cheated, of course, by the hate machine that propels the ‘Bathroom Bill‘ wherever gender identity and/or gender expression legislation is brought forward.  Cheating many States’ residents their equal access to all public places, because a few can’t get past their own bigotry towards one component of these bills, bathroom and locker room access.

Last month at a City Council meeting about the MA Dept. of Education’s new Gender Identity guidelines, we were all reminded that every single one of the trans community members who had come to share testimony could be asked to leave and they would have no recourse.  The proponents of the ‘Bathroom Bill‘  in that room, were there resisting the school department’s adoption of the guidelines, and were the ones we could thank for that potential “refusal of service” for the trans folks, which could occur at any moment, for absolutely no given reason.

public accommodation” is any establishment, public or private, that is open to the general public and that provides, or endeavors to provide, some type of goods and/or services to the general public.

We-Reserve-the-RightAnd now in a week where Uruguay, New Zealand and France have legalized marriage equality, and Rhode Island, Delaware and Nevada have moved marriage bills forward,  the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) appears poised to do more harm in the LGBT equality sphere, launching a new campaign  to move existing public accommodation protections backwards!  They are holding tight to their First Amendment right to be bigots hoping to use their religious freedom to deny those they don’t like serving, while violating nondiscrimination protections already in place.  Service, as is food in a restaurant, flowers at a florist, a room in a hotel, a book in a library, etc.

It reminds me of that recent case where a florist for years had been happy to take money for flowers from two men who she knew were gay right up until they asked her to do their wedding.  Then suddenly she had a religious problem with them.  How hypocritical!  Actually NOM’s campaign reminds me of ‘Whites Only’ water fountains and some folks sitting in the back of the bus…

Right-to-Refuse-ServiceActually it’s hard to tell from NOM’s two campaign posters if they are in fact only targeting sexual orientation, since they say ANYBODY and This Includes YOU, or if they are seeking to reverse other decades old existing protected class non-discrimination laws, even federal ones, since we all know that it was their Bible that was used to justify the racism behind interracial marriage bans and slavery.

And don’t believe their claim that the culprit in all this is mere marriage equality.  NOM’s  suggested ‘refusal of service rights’ are violations of nondiscrimination protections and not some requirement to accept something you claim your religion gives you license to reject.  One wonders how far they will take this…


Editor’s Note:
  Thank you Cathy for this critical piece – having lived through Apartheid in South Africa, these signs by NOM are terrifying in their suggestion. They smack of the old Apartheid regime, which for decades sought to justify their bigotry on religion; and while this seems to me to be a desperate ploy by NOM, as they lose the battle against equality,  they embrace the disgusting larger point, of across the board apartheid.

Related links:-


13 thoughts on “NOM’s new “Right to Refuse Service” campaign harkens to pre-Civil Rights days

  1. Incredible! Showing the minds of bigots, separatists and narrow minded people. Rather than going forward, with progress, it seems that this is all intended to keep us as a society “in the back of the bus”. To which we say NO!!!
    Great reporting! Thx for sharing!

  2. I love watching NOM’s and the Republicans’ dual race backwards in this world and life in general. They really do feed our appetite for non-progressive causes.

  3. Reblogged this on It Is What It Is and commented:
    This is unbelievable!! Taking us back …. rather than forward!! At a time when 14 countries have approved marriage equality and several states in the US are headed that way ….. ?? This is going backwards!! We say .. Noooo!!!

  4. All members of society are interested in the due observance of the Laws of Nature, hence they have all a right to praise or condemn another man’s actions according as they are conformable or contrary to these laws. They have even a kind of obligation in this respect, lest men be wanting in their duty to society and to individuals, were they not to testify, at least by their approbation or censure, the esteem they have for probity and virtue, and their aversion, on the contrary, to iniquity and vice.

    1)Same-sex marriage is not a useful law, as of itself does not tend to the preservation and perfection of mankind.

    2)Same-sex marriage is not a just law, as it does not conform to the will of the supreme legislator; whether that be called “God” or “Evolution”.

    3)Same-sex marriage is not an honest law, as it is not conformable to the maxims of right reason, agreeable to the dignity of our nature, deserving of the approbation of man, and consequently, no respect and honor to the person that does it.

    Those who take part in same-sex marriage are well acquainted with the Laws of Nature which they ought to follow, but they see themselves as their own judges leaving their whims and passions left unchecked, and they understand no obligation to contain themselves within the limits of that regard and respect which they owe to civil society, the tranquility of families, and the happiness of children. They deem themselves the arbiter of their own actions, having a right to being the judge themselves, both of Natural and Civil Laws, and of the manner in which they ought to apply them. This independence and excessive liberty must only be productive of disorder and confusion anytime there happens to be a clashing of their interests and passions with civil society.

    Liberty, under which we must comprehend all the most valuable enjoyments, has two enemies in civil society. The first is licentiousness and confusion; and the second is oppression arising from tyranny. The first of those evils arises from liberty itself, when it is not kept within due bounds. The second is owing to the remedy which mankind have contrived against the former evil. As laws permitting or encouraging homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage do not conform to the Laws of Nature, they are not just laws to the conscience of virtuous men, thereby; tyranny becomes the legislator, oppression the enforcer.

    Same-sex marriage proponents are the vicious oppressors. They are the bigots who through their own prideful prejudices seek vengeance; whether it be by slandering anyone with whom they disagree by labeling them a “homophobe”, demanding the criminalization of anyone who refuses them service, mandatory indoctrination of our youth by the State, or the destruction of religious charities and institutions; their agenda violates the very maxims of Natural Law leaving them only legislative oppression as their only justification.

    1. Stupidity unfortunately is not a reason to NOT allow Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui’s comments – Does idiot rhyme with bigot? But such stupidity gets to grace our gorgeous BLOG page but once and then bigot is cut off…. especially when he calls LGBT the bigots for standing up for our rights…. His premise is a lie – no one forces any church to marry same-sex couples and most inclusionary legislation excludes religious groups. But we should not ven need inclusionary legislation, because our rights are inherent. We should simply be allowed to marry just like everyone else.

      But here is the idiocy of someone buried in a hole – called his own singular world – where he gets all and others get nothing – jsut because he has one specific religious belief.

      Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui keeps saying “Same-sex marriage is a law….” NOPE he is wrong it IS NOT A LAW – Once marriage is allowed for anyone- it is a legal civil right – and hence according to our constitution is inherently a right for all.

      If different gender couples get rights and obligations under the law then same-gender couples MUST also get the identical rights and obligations under that same law. Plain and simple.

      The right to share in the civil law is inherent in the constitution. To deny a portion of the population their inherent rights is UN-AMERICAN – UN-DEMOCRATIC – again There is no such thing as same-sex marriage “being” a law as your assertion says. Hence the rest of your argument, is purely idiotic and of no use.

      You are Un-American to even begin to assert that ALL Americans are compelled to believe YOUR religion and YOUR ideas that pertain to that religion. We have the freedom in America to be Jews, Budhhhist, Atheists. Muslims, Agnostics, Zagagabagagoobies, Zombies, Goths, Boogers and Witches and whatever the hell we want to be or believe in. Hence what you say means NOTHING in a democracy that has civil right to be shared by all. The Civil law protects all equally regardless of religious assertions.

      How dare you come on my BLOG and tell me I have to believe your religion. And that as an American because of your religion I am not entitled to my equality under the law.

      As for the laws of nature – well why do animals partake in same-sex attraction behavior? Not because they intelectualize it, but because its inherent in their nature and hence the natural order. You are treatened by homosexual attraction – you fear it – and so you proclaim it unnatural? Your religious beliefs are yours and you are entitled to tem. But please keep them out of my civil right to equality. Thank you Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui!

    2. But plagiarism seems a good reason to NOT allow all this cut & paste nonsense, Melanie. These so-called comments are nothing but text stolen from the real Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui who died in 1748. We all know how to Google. Some of us even know how to think for ourselves.

        1. Well, gee. You booting me off OBLOGDEE, dakotahgeo? That would make me sad. I suggested that the re-incarnated Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui’s comments, always cut&pasted from http://www.constitution.org/, be excluded here and you tell me to go. Wow…

            1. Well, dakotahgeo that will be up to Ms. Nathan. If she never accepts another of my submissions I will know I am not welcome. Funny since you have commented positively to some of mine in the past, last week even, I might have thought you to found them worthwhile. Just goes to show what I know.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.