Reader comments · US: Bill introduced in Washington would allow businesses to discriminate against gay people · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


US: Bill introduced in Washington would allow businesses to discriminate against gay people

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. If this passes, people in Washington can join my new religion. There’s only one edict – ‘Everything it’s members think is always right’. This will then allow you to fire/discriminate against anyone who doesn’t agree with you. Sounds silly? Nope – just following this misguided bill to its illogical conclusion.

    1. Jane McQueen 27 Apr 2013, 8:15pm

      hahaha someone has to do this, it would be so funny

    2. the federal law would override any discrimination that resulted from your religious edict if it affected someone’s race, religion or disability but would still allowed your members to discriminate against lgbt

  2. Liam the God 27 Apr 2013, 4:33pm

    Why did they put a wig on ET? She’s as ugly as her proposal! “I fired him because he was wearing a Poly/Cotton shirt in contravention of Leviticus!!”.

    1. Liam the God 27 Apr 2013, 4:34pm

      Before anyone votes me down for insulting her appearance I should point out that I am a total bastard, so I can’t help it. I have a note from my mum to prove it!

      1. Marcwebbo3 27 Apr 2013, 4:43pm

        Well I for one am not going to disagree with you Liam….we all know the religious lot cherry pick so if your Poiy/Cotton quote from Leviticus is right then she deserves all she gets….her and her hated filled bigot cronies

        1. Liam the God 27 Apr 2013, 5:01pm

          It’s the bit about not wearing cloth made from 2 different threads, Marc :)

          1. Marcwebbo3 27 Apr 2013, 5:21pm

            Cheers…as you can tell my bible isnt good…thank God!!!!

          2. Marcwebbo3 27 Apr 2013, 5:22pm

            Cheers….as you can tell my bible isnt good…..thank God!!!!

    2. Don’t worry, Liam. When I looked at her image my immediate thought was along the lines of “So the devil’s reappeared in Sharon Brown, has he?”

      I mean, if you were making a Hollywood film about an All-American white Christian bigot, female, and if Sharon Brown was an actress, you’d pick her for the role, wouldn’t you.

      1. She does look a lot like the bride of chucky. Maybe she dyed her hair.

      2. Mommy, make the scary lady go away!

        Looks like her head is about to start spinning round… just before she starts projectile vomiting and growling more anti-gay obscenities.

    3. You know if you stare long and hard at this woman’s picture and really concentrate as you do it…I swear to God she morphs into Michael Jackson.

      1. I thought she looked familiar

    4. Lev 19:19 for anyone who wonders about this Biblical commandment.

      It’s far more clear than the so-called anti-Gay verses which this law alleges to protect.

      1. Liam the God 29 Apr 2013, 12:18am

        Thanks. I couldn’t remember the chapter and verse :)

      2. oh heck! I must be damned because I planted some mixed meadow flower seeds in the garden. :-(

  3. bobbleobble 27 Apr 2013, 4:35pm

    I would suspect the chances of this passing are pretty slim. All of the co sponsors are Republicans which mean there’s no bipartisan support. Even though the Republicans just barely control the State Senate the Deomcrats have a substantial majority in the lower house. And even if it did somehow get through the state government I cannot see the governor signing it into law because he’s pretty supportive of gay rights.

    Still the bill is despicable. It doesn’t protect religion, it’s a bigots charter and this idiot of a senator wants to enshrine homophobia in law just as they have in Kentucky. This is a piece of legislation aimed entirely at hurting the LGBT community of Washington and she should be ashamed of herself.

  4. Robert in S. Kensington 27 Apr 2013, 4:45pm

    Closer to home, this is just the type of legislation Christian Concern would like to see enshrined into law. Tory MPs Loughton and Burrowes were pushing for amendments in the equal marriage bill to do just that, plus making religious nutters exempt from prosecution and having to pay for legal representation.

    This stupid woman’s bill hopefully will be thrown out. There are already more than enough state protections and constitutional protections in place for religious bigots. How would she like a bill to protect the rest of us from religious nutters?

  5. “glaring lack of protection for religion in state law” if statements like this one were not dangerous precedents, you’d have to laugh at it. America is a Theocracy in every respect but name. Religion has diseased this country to the core and its proponents dare say they are not protected??? Bigots rule their elected chambers and still they have the cheek to ask for more. Shameful.

    As for the “sincerely held religious beliefs, philosophical beliefs, or matters of conscience.” part, it is so broad that every thought and idea could be construed as a belief. But we know that the ONLY purpose if to protect religious bigotry, which means christian bigotry.

  6. Religious beliefs can’t be an excuse to discriminate other people !! Amen!!

  7. There is protection for religions… We don’t put you in the looney bin, sweetie.

    1. Well said.

      I don’t think some of these loonies realise how hard some of the rest of us find it to stomach their nonsense – they should indeed be grateful that atheists are not (all) as horrible towards them in return.

      My personal view is that religion is a form of mental dysfunction, well described in the tale of the Emperor’s New Clothes. These people don’t realise or care that they are being indoctrinated to be sheep from birth – even when some religions are explicit about describing the process in those terms.

  8. Bishop Rick 27 Apr 2013, 4:54pm

    The law already provides people with protection from discrimination on the grounds of religion.

    What they are asking for is something else – they are asking for the legal right to discriminate against a minority they don’t like. This is turning the purpose of anti-discrimination legislation on its head.

  9. I fail to see how selling flowers to a gay person violates anyone’s religion anyhow.
    It’s a basic transfer of money in exchange for goods and services, the shopkeeper isn’t being coerced into inviting them to their church, attending their wedding or shagging them.
    If the shoe was on the other foot and gay florists weren’t accepting christian trade solely on the basis of being anti-christian, they’d soon be screaming blue murder.
    In any decently run democracy this bill will die on its arse.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 27 Apr 2013, 5:34pm

      You hit the nail on the head, Flapjack. I’ve been saying that for months since the equal marriage debate began. I was hoping I would hear something similar during the Committee Hearings while bigots Loughton, Burrowes and Shannon were pushing for similar protections for individuals and businesses in the UK. It really surprised me that nobody bothered, especially Chris Bryant and Kate Green.

    2. Spanner1960 27 Apr 2013, 5:54pm

      “In any decently run democracy this bill will die on its arse.”
      Very true. However, since when was the USA ever a decently run democracy?

      1. Says the man who wants a fascist state..

        1. Yeah Spanner get lost you are not welcome on Pink News anymore

  10. It’s obvious that anyone could discriminate whenever they please with this law. I would also expect that it could not survive a court challenge for that reason.

  11. Does anyone in our very pleasant PinkNews community (hear that, Spanster?) know enough about how Bills are introduced in the United States to explain how it is that such an offensive Bill as this has actually got so far as to be “introduced”?

    Hopefully by 5pm Monday it’ll have been killed?

    1. bobbleobble 27 Apr 2013, 9:57pm

      It is the right of any member of the legislature to introduce any bill at any time. They simply have to come up with the wording and then hand it over to the clerk who gives it a number and shunts it off to the relevant committee who then assigns it to a sub committee for consideration. Unless the bill has major support it’s unlikely to get any further than that. I doubt this one will ever make it out of committee.

  12. ColinJones 27 Apr 2013, 5:40pm

    It comes down to the same old thing, homosexuality is seen as a choice so it’s OK to discriminate.Religion however is apparently unchangeable for life.

  13. Har Davids 27 Apr 2013, 6:19pm

    Would I get away with: “It’s my sincerely held belief, based on the bible, that black people are inferior to white people and I demand to be able to discriminate them”?

    I don’t think so, even though the bible implies it’s okay, but there’s something for everybody in the holy words of god, written down by some superstitious country-bumpkins, centuries after their stories didn’t happen.

  14. These bigoted religious maroons keep trying it on don’t they?

    Happily, the more you fight against things the more you focus on it and bring it to yourself, so they are going to be bringing a lot more homosexuality in their lives through this bill that Sharon Brown has introduced.

    1. “into their lives” is what I meant to write.

  15. Why are they even bothering to introduce this law if they have every other category as a “protected class” this is just an attempt to legalise anti-lgbt discrimination dressed up as “freedom for religion” … what about freedom from religion, what about to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

    O wait its the USA the constitution means nothing if it contradicts the buy-bullshit.

  16. I think it was Sigmund Freud who once said “America is a mistake, a giant mistake.”

    I think this article only confirms he was right.

    Does anyone have a giant eraser?

  17. That There Other David 27 Apr 2013, 9:25pm

    This again? Really?

    Give it up fundies. The law applies to everyone. That’s sort of the whole point of having it.

  18. .....Paddyswurds 27 Apr 2013, 9:47pm

    So under this bill Gay people can refuse service or services and goods to theists as they are bigots and against my new religion belief or philosophy. Can’t wait for this latest piece of Repukelican wisdom to be passed. One presumes this ugly bint has no children and that she has resigned herself that no sane man would want to phuck her…..

  19. Have you ever seen a more forced and fake smile in your entire life. He eyes show what a nasty piece of work she is.

  20. Its a shame that tey get paid so much to sit and waste time with this crap.. i want a job where i can get 200K a year and sit around and try to show ppl how stupid i am..

  21. Where will it slide down to? the right to discriminate against blacks due to my white supremacist bigotted consciences?. I blame David Cameron and the same sex bill exemption for the cof england, a pure case of monkey see monkey do. NO ONE IS EXEMPTED from antidiscrimination laws in the bible ( old and new testament) it is an abomination against God to do so…on ANY GROUNDS we are to love our enemies ( those different from us those we hate etc …) Love means NOT DENYING ANY RIGHTS

    1. The odds that Senator Brown knows who David Cameron is or can find England on a map are pretty slim. This is US home grown nuttiness.

      If you paid attention you would have seen that race, religion and disability (they forgot sex, national origin and several other classes) are all protected by federal law and hence you won’t be able to use your religious beliefs to discriminate against blacks. The only categories actually affected by the proposed legislation are those covered by Washington law and not federal law. That probably means only sexual orientation.

      While this is very hateful legislation, it has a snowball’s chance of making it into law and it’s no worse that many things that have been proposed in the UK and throughout the EU. Normally, as a US ex-pat, I’m the first to criticise America. However, as citizens of a country with a state religion, some of the commenters on this thread need to take a look at that mote in their own eye.

      1. Shows how much you know!!

        Race is not protected see 42 USC 1983 so get real please…

        and that one was brought in as a result of section 19C Race Relations Amendment Act 2000! which states that any judge can discriminate. or are you one of the deceived that independence from Britain came – see US tax dollars are still going to the Queen as was covenated by the King , yet the kween is not the Queen . see it here in the 1997 Social Security ( USA) Order

      2. @MarkNW8 – sorry if duplicated – but it really shows how much you know.
        Race is not protected see the 42 USC 1983 code which is very discriminatory came in in 2006? after the Section 19 of the UK’s Race Relations Amendment Act 2000 that allows any JUDGE IN ANY COURT to discriminate against blacks and ethnic minorities- it has since been repealed but repackaged as Shc 3:3 , s 156 of the Equality Act 2010 which means it can potentially be extended to Gays and Lesbians and Trans ( who are white!) True. I am lobbyist and know why i lobby.

        Secondly as to your ex pat status am sure that you must know that the Kween still collect taxes from the States – see the Social Security contributions Order that affects the states..

  22. This is a stupid bill and would allow people to discriminate in business and employment against blacks, Jewish people, those from the Islamic faith etc etc as well as gays and lesbians. I can’t believe it will pass, but it does say something about the ethos of the Republican Party.

  23. and what bible say about addiction to botox?

  24. It’ll not get out of committee . This lady needs to read her constitution . To paraphrase “congress shall enact no law with respect to any particular religion”.
    If it Ever passed she would give a green light to every KKKer to say …well in My buybull it says I can discriminate against people of color- then just watch her arse get kicked around Washington

  25. Religious belief should not be given priority over the law of the land!

  26. Everytime someone introduces something like this, the question of who and what proof is required to establish “sincerely held religious beliefs, philosophical beliefs, or matters of conscience” enters my mind.

    Is is a simple statement by the person avering it so… or after a very expensive investigation into their life?

    Could you just imagine a court case where Sharon Brown is defending her “sincerely held religious beliefs”…

    Brown:- “I have the right to discriminate against LGBT persons because of my sincerely held religious beliefs.

    Prosecutor:- “Ms Brown, I have photographic proof of you wearing a linen dress sewn together with cotton thread last summer and I have the sworn statements of witnesses that you consumed a prawn cocktail at a party six years ago. How do you answer these severe breaches of your religion?”

    1. Brown <— "Fail" Lol!

  27. This woman should be removed from office immediately – just because of this one statement: “glaring lack of protection for religion in state law”.

    Religion should not be a factor in the creation of state law. End of discussion, this woman needs to be fired for placing the religious beliefs of some above the basic Human rights of others. She’s disgusting and should not be permitted to continue in government.

  28. Dave North 28 Apr 2013, 5:27pm


    If this passes can I ask a patient if they believe in the bwaby jesus and tell them to F off out of my surgery if they do.

    “Sorry, your clearly not worth medically saving as you are nuts and harmful to others.”

  29. It’s against the law to discriminated for a reason. Let this slip through, next thing you know you can’t work here/we will not service you because your… (fill ethnic background here)(fill religion here)(financial/social status here) etc.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.