Was There Anyone on the Michigan House Commerce Committee Who Could Have Cited Rolon v. Kulwitzky, 153 Cal. App. 3d 289 (1984)?

Sure, its a case from California from 30 years ago.


A bill to extend anti-discrimination protections in the Michigan’s civil rights law was tabled on Wednesday after lawmakers heard testimony about whether or not LGBT people deserved to be considered a protected class.

Republican state Rep. Frank Foster, the bill’s lead sponsor, urged members of the Michigan House Commerce Committee to “check your politics at the door on this one and do what is right for the state.”

Pastor Stacy Swimp testified that it was offensive to compare LGBT rights to the civil rights movement.

“Can you cite one legal case in which a homosexual, a lesbian has been subject to discrimination and denied housing — supported by the public policy — potentially discriminated against, and set at the back of the restaurant?” Swimp asked.

Plessy v. Ferguson was 118 years ago.

That doesn’t diminish the evil the decision embodied – and emboldened.

But, likewise, it shouldn’t be allowed to diminish the reality of other evils.

Rolon v. Kulwitzky involved a lesbian couple being denied the same rights at a restaurant than straight couples received and the California Court of Appeals opinion was in their favor (an appeal against a decision that wasn’t) and most importantly…

It happened.

This leaves me wondering two things in addition to whether any Michigan legislators present knew enough about the subject they were legislating on to respond to such crap.

(1) Does “Pastor” Swimp exercise any special right to not pay taxes?  (Okay, I think we can all guess the right answer to that one.)

(2) Did any of the newly-consecrated, tokenistic HRC-oids who are making a career off of having sat on the sidelines while the real work of fighting against Gay, Inc. transphobia was being done – particularly any who might have some connection to Michigan – know enough about T history to know the peripheral, yet historically substantive, T connection to the case that at least people who are allowed to earn a living either lobbying or field organizing or kool-aid drinking or kool-aid pushing should have known enough about to throw in Swimp’s face?


Leave a comment

No comments yet.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a reply, but don't be a troll. Have a nice day!

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