Skip to main content

View Diary: Did John Boehner just say equal rights are 'frivolous'? (71 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, sure ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    plumbobb

    But that's a separate argument. The headline poses the misleading question, "Did John Boehner just say equal rights are 'frivolous'?" And the correct answer is no, he did no say equal rights are frivolous. He said he believes specific legislation, ENDA, may lead to frivolous lawsuits. That's not the same thing as saying equal rights generally are frivolous. Now it may be the case that Boehner does think equal rights are frivolous but until he says that we should not suggest that he did. It's dishonest in a right-wing sort of way.

    •  So *enforcing* the right is frivolous? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      plumbobb, gramofsam1

      And that's somehow different?  We gay people supposedly have this very serious, non-frivolous right, but if we then choose to exercise the only means of enforcing it, that's frivolous.

      That's kind of like saying Title VII lawsuits are frivolous, but the civil rights of racial minorities and women aren't.  The two things go hand in hand.  They can't be separated.

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 09:40:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Boehner didn't say that either (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        plumbobb, CatKinNY

        He said he believes ENDA may lead to frivolous lawsuits. Period. He didn't say enforcing civil rights laws are frivolous and he didn't say civil rights in general are frivolous. He said he believes if ENDA became law it may lead to frivolous lawsuits. This is a very common conservative, pro-business position that has nothing to do with civil rights or gay rights. It has to do with being against anything that stands in the way of unfettered, unregulated, free market capitalism. That gays rights happens it be involved is incidental. It could just as easily be about any kind of consumer or environmental protection and he'd take the same position. That's how they role.

        •  Exactly so. All laws have, as a by-product, (0+ / 0-)

          frivolous lawsuits (and, of course, non-frivolous lawsuits). My guess is that there are vanishingly few frivolous lawsuits in, for example, Somalia.

          The correct response to John Boehner isn't "you said this thing [which he did not, in fact, say]"

          It is "all laws can result in frivolous lawsuits. That is why we have penalties in place that penalize people who file them"

        •  Well, I guess there's nothing to see here then. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gramofsam1

          After all, we shouldn't do anything other than look at Boehner's statement on its own and entirely outside of the context of homophobia in American society.  We also shouldn't consider it in the context of his party's record on LGBT rights or civil rights in general.  Nor should we look at the actual facts, which show that in states that have protections for LGBT rights, there aren't many lawsuits, and wonder why Boehner would think this law would lead to "frivolous lawsuits."

          We'll just give Boehner the benefit of every possible doubt and assume his comments are just pro-business.  You know, kind of like all those people who make racist remarks about the president and then claim there's nothing racist about them.  And we'll do that because the Republicans have shown themselves to be totally free of bigotry and to be people of unimpeachable good faith.

          (Rolls eyes)

          "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

          by FogCityJohn on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 01:14:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site