The untruthiness (or ignorance) of our state Democrat legislators

Some of you may have seen the video of the business owner asking state senator Jeff Danielson about the impact of adding "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to the state's civil rights code. That is the video in which Danielson accused that citizen of being hateful. Danielson and two other legislators (Dotzler and Kressig) denied the predictions of what would happen if those two categories were added to the civil rights law. However, everything predicted has now been affirmed by One Iowa, the state's largest LGBT advocacy organization. Either these legislators were ignorant as to what would happen, or they were dishonest, neither of which is good. This is also evidence that the predictions made by the business owner were not just fear tactics, or "hate in [his] heart", or "digust" for people who practice that behavior, as Danielson claimed.

An interesting sidenote is that Danielson asserted that the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law for a "whole host of enumerated traits". First of all, there are no enumerated traits in the Fourteenth Amendment. Second, having protected classes in the state's civil rights code actually violates the spirit of the Fourteenth Amendment, as it offers greater protection to some classes of people than to others. I wonder how Danielson--Pro Tempora of the Iowa State Senate--can uphold and defend the Constituion, as he acknowledged he is obligated to do, when he doesn't know what it says and/or understand what it means?

Here's the video with Danielson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2R7ISGE794

It is too late to do anything about this. Too many of us were uninformed and/or unmotivated to call our legislators. However, it is good to know this information if you ever get into a discussion with someone about this subject. It can be especially valuable come next election time. However, we can't just wait for the next round of campaigns to heat up. We need to do a better job during the time between election cycles (if there IS such a thing as time between election cycles anymore!) of informing the public of the effect of laws that are being pushed by the Dems, or that have already been passed. Let's not be asleep at the wheel if the same-sex "marriage" issue comes up again.

If you haven't watched the video of Chuck Hurley's meeting with the Des Moines Register's editorial board, I encourage you to do so. I know it is long, but it is a great demonstration of where both sides are on this issue, the arguments being used, and the rebuttals being offered.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200881208013

You can find the complete text from which the below excerts were taken at:

http://www.oneiowa.org/web/beInformed/civilRights/faq/

Keep in mind, this is not a proposed law--it is already in effect.

Emphasis below (and comments in parenthesis) is mine.

Dress codes:

...dress codes are not precluded by state or federal law as long as an employer allows an employee to appear, groom and dress consistent with the employee's gender identity.

("Gender identity" is self-identified, and is whatever the individual decides it is at any particular moment)

Restroom usage:

It is still legal in Iowa for businesses to maintain gender-segregated restrooms. The new law does require, however, that individuals are permitted to access those restrooms in accordance with their gender identity, rather than their assigned sex at birth. And, just as non-transgender individuals are entitled to use a restroom appropriate to their gender identity without having to provide documentation or respond to invasive requests, transgender individuals must also be allowed to use a gender-identity appropriate restroom without being harassed or questioned.

(Ladies, don't be surprised if you run into a man who has defined himself as female next time you use a public restroom)

"Harassment" and "hostile work environment":

Workplace harassment is any unwelcome verbal, written or physical conduct that either denigrates or shows hostility or aversion toward a person on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity that:

Has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment;

(A person could say the workplace was hostile if they knew there was a Christian there who believed homosexuality is a sin. The believer wouldn't even have to verbalize it for the person to claim they are offended having such a person in their workplace.)

Has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an employee's work performance

(An employee could claim that having such a person as mentioned above in the workplace was interfering with his performance.)

Employers should ensure their employees are protected not only from other supervisors and coworkers, but also from harassment by third parties, such as service users and vendors.

(So employers are not only responsible for themselves and their employees, but also their customers and suppliers?)

Public accommodation:

Harassment, intimidation, or other demonstration of hostility

(This is wide open to interpretation. If a person has Bibles in his business for people to take, would that be considered harassment or intimidation?)

Does the law apply to churches?:

Sometimes. Iowa law provides that these protections do not apply to religious institutions with respect to any religion-based qualifications when such qualifications are related to a bona fide religious purpose. Where qualifications are not related to a bona fide religious purpose, churches are still subject to the law's provisions, e.g. a child care facility operated at a church or a church service open to the public.

Letters to the Editor About Danielson's March 10 Verbal Attack on a Citizen

The following links are self explanatory, so I won't add much further comment. The first link is a letter from Alvira Morris, responding to the behavior she observed Senator Danielson exhibit at the March 10, 2007 legislative forum. At the end of the letter is a response that the Waterloo Courier solicited from Danielson.

The second link is a letter from Al Manning, responding to Danielson's response to the first letter, as well as his remarks at the forum.

Alvira Morris' Letter

Al Manning's Letter

Blog Post (Including Video) About Danielson's Tirade at the Forum

Danielson Tells a Citizen He Has Hate in His Heart

This is an excerpt from the legislative forum held March 10, 2007. There is too much misinformation and propaganda in this video to address it all here, but let me hit on a couple of points:

-Danielson said there is a "whole host of enumerated traits" in the Fourteenth Amendment. There are no enumerated traits in the Fourteenth Amendment. The framers wanted the rights to apply equally to everyone, without carving out certain categories of people more worthy of protection than others. You would think a legislator charged with upholding the Constitution, and who bases his votes on the Constitution, would at least know what it says!

-Senator Dotzler's comment that an employer could fire an employee who didn't adhere to a dress code was technically right, but didn't address the specific question. An employer could have a dress code prohibiting employees from wearing dresses/skirts, makeup, etc. But if he allowed the female employees to wear them, he could not prohibit the males from also wearing them.

I would like to see more Republicans/conservatives/Christians attend these forums, rather than have 90%+ of the audience be liberal Democrats, and 90%+ of those be from the education establishment.

Bite tongue, engage brain before speaking

At a forum for Black Hawk County legislators held yesterday at the AEA 267 building, State Senator Jeff Danielson lost his cool, telling a citizen at the microphone that he (the citizen) had "hate" in his heart. What brought forth such a strong judgment from Danielson? The constituent merely asked how a proposed bill that Danielson supports would affect his business.

The bill would add "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to the list of protected classes in the state's civil rights code. The business owner questioned what he would be able to do if a male employee decided to come to work dressed as a female. He also wondered if such a person would have to be allowed to use the women's restroom, or if a third (or fourth) restroom would need to be added to accommodate men who define themselves as female (and possibly women who define themselves as male)?

Among the several inaccurate and/or disingenuous comments made in response to the questions the business owner asked, one of the most blatant was the statement by Danielson that the Fourteenth Amendment "basically guarantees equal protection under the law for a whole host of enumerated traits". Someone needs to tell the senator that 1) "Sexual orientation" and "gender identity" are not "traits", 2) the Fourteenth Amendment has no "enumerated traits", but rather says "any person", and 3) the proposed law would actually be in violation of the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as it provides greater protection to some people than it does to others.

It is sad to think that a person with a Bachelor's Degree in Public Administration, a Master's Degree in Public Policy, and who is serving as the President Pro Tempore of the Iowa State Senate, does not have an accurate understanding of this important amendment to our Constitution, especially when it will influence how he votes on laws. He stated at the meeting that he took an oath of office to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America". How can he do that if he doesn't even know what the Constitution and its Amendments say?

Or, do you suppose he really does know, but assumes his constituency is too ignorant to know?

I'll write more on this issue in coming days.