Tuesday, June 21, 2011

The City of Hazard stands belly to belly with gay rights group

All it takes is a charge of anti-gay discrimination to strike the fear of God (or possibly some other lesser deity) in the hearts of local officials.

According to recent news reports two city workers in Hazard, Kentucky were reprimanded for asking two men who were kissing in a public pool to leave. One of the workers, Charlotte Pearlman, the manager of the Pavilion facility from which the men were ejected, was reprimanded specifically for "conduct unbecoming a city worker" and for using "inappropriate language" over the phone with a staff member of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 who was trying to conduct an interview with her.

I don't know what exact language Mrs. Pearlman used (we're guessing it was something along the lines of , "@!#?@!."), nor the exact nature of the hand signals she used while saying it, but under normal circumstances, telling off CNN should get you some kind of medal. I have fantasized about doing the very same thing many times. In fact, we just got rid of our old TV set which sported numerous dents incurred by airborne remote controls over the course of a number of years while watching CBS News with Dan Rather.

According to the report in the Louisville Courier-Journal:
City employee Kim Haynes, who was given a week’s suspension without pay for his role in the incident, told investigators that the two men were engaged in an excessive display of affection, and that he would have told any other couple to leave had he seen similar behavior.
The two men had "development disabilities" and were clients of the Mending Hearts, Inc., a local social services agency whose services apparently do not include teaching its clients about socially acceptable public behavior and common courtesy to those around them. Anyone who wants to contact the organization might want to consult their local public bathroom wall: "For a good time, call Mending Hearts, Inc."

What exactly is wrong with telling two people making out in a public pool--no matter who they are--to leave in order to spare other swimmers from having to watch?
At least one witness saw the two men “standing ‘man to man’ or ‘belly to belly’ in the pool … splashing each other with water and pushing each other under the water,” Collins reported. The witness “also said he observed them hug each other on at least one occasion” and give each other a kiss.
Not a spectacle likely to attract swimmers to the local swimming hole.

But Mending Hearts Director Shirlyn Perkins called the Kentucky Equality Federation, which swung (pun--which we just noticed as we were typing this, but are now very pleased with--intended) into action, charging the city pool with discrimination against the two bellied smoochers.

The Kentucky "Equality" Federation is the same group that last year charged that two Eastern Kentucky girls had committed a hate crime when they conducted a mock kidnapping of a gay friend--despite the fact that the girl giggled during the entire episode and gleefully filmed the whole thing on her cellphone. Local law enforcement officials finally just dismissed the case because it was obviously a good-natured prank. But to the Kentucky "Equality" Federation it was a federal crime.

The Hazard City Manager issued an apology to CNN and the staff of Anderson Cooper 360 for Mrs. Pearlman's charge that their staff was a bunch of "@!#?@!" "@!#?@!s" who "@!#?@!ed" their "@!#?@!" "@!#?@!s," although these charges were never actually denied by the network.

In addition, the City Manager ordered that a new pronouncement would be posted at the pool:
As soon as practicable, a new sign will be installed within the Pavilion complex to reinforce the commitment of the City of Hazard that the Pavilion will be open for the benefit of the public and that the services, benefits, and facilities of the complex are available for use without regard to race, ethnicity, color, creed, national origin, age, sexual orientation, or physical/mental disability as required by federal and state law.
Um, can we point out that "sexual orientation" is not currently included in any of the relevant federal or state laws? And that putting them there will require the workings of something called the "democratic process"? You know, that thing we have to use in order to pass laws?

And that just because the Kentucky "Equality" Federation (which lays awake at night worrying that somebody, somewhere might disagree with it on the issue of homosexuality) threatens to sue you does not mean that you have to lay over and play dead--and pass gay rights ordinances that no elected body has ever approved?

And what exactly does this new sign have to do with what happened at the pool with the two men who were smooching "belly to belly"? Does this mean that, if you're gay, you can make out at the pool, but that if you're heterosexual you can't? After all, prohibiting the former is "discrimination," while the other isn't.

That's what the Kentucky "Equality" Federation calls "equality."

27 comments:

Singring said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Singring said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Singring said...

*GASP*

Two men splashing each other with water?

And they HUGGED and KISSED - maybe more than once?!?!

I was gagging as I read such lurid, stomach-churning descriptions.

And they were standing (ye Gods, can I even muster the strength to type this) 'man to man'? Boy, those two rabble-rousers were just asking for it, weren't they? I mean, who in their right mind has ever stood 'man to man'.

That is the most vile and disgusting behaviour imaginable - if any children had witnessed it, they would no doubt have been instantly struck gay. We can't have that.

Thank the heavens we have vigilant people like Martin Cothran who will spring into action and liken those who are protecting civil liberties to monkeys and prostitutes. Now that's what civil behaviour is all about right there.

I anxiously await when other egregious 'man to man' offenders like this one:

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/gallery/091223/GAL-09Dec23-3415/media/PHO-09Dec23-195099.jpg

will be tracked down and brought to justice for their abhorrent behaviour.

Martin, a word of friendly advice: Never visit Europe, especially Southern Europe in the summertime. Your head might explode from all the fornicating in the street.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

Thank you for reminding us of the lax morality of Europeans. I will take it into account when making vacation plans.

Lee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lee said...

> Thank you for reminding us of the lax morality of Europeans.

Funny, that with all that f******ting in the streets, there are so few children to show for it.

Which is probably the biggest reason why the official language of Germany will be Turkish in thirty years, and what children there are of today's English and French will be learning Arabic. And the children of today's European post-Christian atheists will be on their bellies facing Mecca every day.

Anonymous said...

Which of the following of his own rules has Martin violated?

1. Name-calling;
2. Questioning the motives or integrity of people you have never met just because you disagree with them;
3. Using obscenities or other expressions not appropriate or necessary to civilized discussion;
4. Taking disagreement personally;
5. Demeaning or insulting remarks.

Martin Cothran said...

Anonymous,

Why don't you go ahead and explain which one I violated and how.

Art said...

One account:

Shirlyn Perkins, executive director of Mending Hearts Inc., said the two men are clients of her organization, which provides support for people with developmental and intellectual disabilities. She said in a statement Monday that the Pavilion staff member used the Bible to urge the couple to leave the facility.

"My staff asked the Pavilion staff why they were being asked to leave, and they were informed that 'gay people' weren't allowed to swim there," she said. "My staff told this man that what he was trying to do was discrimination. The man stated that what he was doing was in the Bible and he could do it. ..."


So, it seems that Martin gets bent out of shape when a city manager amends some rules in ways he detests, but has no problem whatsoever with city employees implementing Christian sharia-style law in public places.

Par for the course.

Lee said...

"Christian sharia-style law"? Thankfully. Because if it had been the *real* sharia-style law, they'd be on death row.

Art said...

LOL.

Lee, you need to keep up with the news. The situation you describe is exactly what Christian sharia, composed and shamelessly promoted by American Christians, would exact on the country of Uganda.

My guess is that TFF would have no problems with similar laws in KY.

So, Lee, when it comes to gays, just how do Islam and Christianity differ?

Singring said...

Lee, this is what Art is talkinga bout:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft_aVLYTLrg

Lee said...

People will kill in the name of pretty much anything. Including atheism, in case the 20th century somehow slipped by without anyone noticing.

Here's how you can tell the good guys from the bad guys: who is condoning the killing?

How hard is it to find fellow Christians who condemn such actions?

We can start with me: I condemn them.

So who's on the other side? Westboro Baptist? Or the Pope?

Singring said...

'Here's how you can tell the good guys from the bad guys: who is condoning the killing?'

Do you doubt that there are many Muslims who do not condone Sharia law?

Lee said...

They're certainly not full-throated in their condemnations. Not that I blame them. Publicly criticizing Islam seems to be an excellent way to wake up dead.

Singring said...

'They're certainly not full-throated in their condemnations.'

Neither are Christians.

So your decisions on who are the 'bad guys' and who aren't strikes me as rather arbitrary.

Martin Cothran said...

I'm unclear as to why treating gays the same as you would treat heterosexuals in terms of behavior at the pool constitutes "Sharia law."

Maybe Art could explain how that works and why it is that treating gays just like anyone else (which is what gay rights groups claim they want) doesn't work for them.

Singring said...

'I'm unclear as to why treating gays the same as you would treat heterosexuals in terms of behavior at the pool constitutes "Sharia law."'

So a teenage boy and girl who stand 'boy to girl', hug, kiss and (horror of horrors) splash water on each other are routinely dismissed from public swimming pools in Kentucky? Married couples also? Retirees also?

Wow - what a fun place to live.
Makes North Korea sound like a veritable libertarian paradise.

Maybe that should be the state motto?

Kentucky - The 'Zer is no kissen in ze public!' state.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

Yeah, I admit, this is a mountain community that has not yet acheived the advanced moral state in which we fornicate in the streets like you Europoeans.

Of course the issue (which you keep fuzzying) is not what is desirable, but what is legal and equitable. On that ground, I don't understand what the problem is.

Lee said...

Tell you what, Singring: find me a few statements by any ordained Islamic clergyman condemning a specific terrorist act perpetrated by Islamic activists. That seems like a good place to start, and it will give us something against which to compare Christian condemnations of terrorist acts by other Christians.

And I don't mean anything generalized, but specific acts. And I don't mean simply deploring what happened, but an outright condemnation of the perps.

Now, it's easy to find statements by Muslims talking about how they want peace. But now we're into semantics: in Muslim theology, peace is the condition when the entire world bows to Sharia law. So, by definition, Islam is a religion of "peace". Just knuckle under, and you'll finally have some.

> Wow - what a fun place to live.
Makes North Korea sound like a veritable libertarian paradise.

Interesting that atheist North Korea is your reductio ad absurdum for behavior you deem too religious.

Singring said...

Lee:

'Tell you what, Singring: find me a few statements by any ordained Islamic clergyman condemning a specific terrorist act perpetrated by Islamic activists.'

Enjoy:

http://www.islamicity.com/articles/articles.asp?ref=AM0109-335

http://karalite.blogspot.com/2010/08/imams-condemn-terrorism.html

Martin:

'Of course the issue (which you keep fuzzying) is not what is desirable, but what is legal and equitable. On that ground, I don't understand what the problem is.'

Martin, you are dodging again. Are heterosexual teenagers or married couples routinely expelled from public areas for kissing, holding hands, hugging in Kentucky?

Maybe you can give some examples or cite some kind of law, regulation or statute that says 'a man and woman who are standing 'man to woman' or are kissing in public are to be expelled from the area'.

Anything like that?

Until you can, let's look at what we know:

- Two young men were alledgedly hugging, kissing and splashing water in a public pool. They were apparently also seen standing 'man to man'.

- A city worker asks them to leave the pool. When asked why he is doing so, he says it's because
'gay people' aren't allowed to swim there and that his justification for his actions was 'in the Bible'.

Now, maybe in your head you can somehow manage to input those data and arrive at the conclusion that

1.) those men were not expelled because they were (apparently) gay

2.) the city worker was basing his decision on written law and legislation and not on religious dogma

I'll leave it up for others to decide what kind of inferrences this allows as to you critical thinking skills.

One Brow said...

I have no trouble believing that a couple splashed each other with water, stood tomach to stomach, hugged, and kissed each other.

I do have trouble believing that a heterosexual couple would be ejected for that behavior, unless the kissing was far more intense than the description indicated. It just doesn't pass the smell test. Since I've spent mostof my life in Missouri, Illinois, and Southwestern Ohio, I don't think the public pool employees around here are too far removed from those in Kentucky.

One Brow said...

Lee said...
People will kill in the name of pretty much anything. Including atheism, in case the 20th century somehow slipped by without anyone noticing.

Communism and facism, sure. Who killed for atheism?

Lee said...

You deny that atheism is a tenet of communism?

One Brow said...

Lee said...
You deny that atheism is a tenet of communism?

There are religious people who are communists.

Monotheism is a tenet of Islam. Would you say the ataackers of the Twin Towers killed in the name of monotheism?

Lee said...

Yes, I'm aware of the "liberation theology" movement.

Of course there are religious folks who are communists. There are Christians who are also Muslims, at least if one woman Episcopal minister who claims also to be a Muslim is to be believed.

Nevertheless, the two positions are logically incompatible and sometimes that doesn't matter to the beholder.

Certainly, the Soviet, Chinese, and Cambodian flavors of communism were atheist. If we can tar Christianity with the sins of certain Christians, I don't believe in letting atheism off the same hook. When some atheists look at Christianity, they see Torquemada and witch-burning. Fine. When I look at atheism, I see Josef Stalin and mass murder.

As I said earlier, people will kill pretty much in the name of anything at all. We don't need much encouragement.

I would call Islam a false religion -- not even a heresy -- but one which shares with Judaism and Christianity its belief in one god. (Unlike either Judaism or Islam, however, Christianity sees God as one being comprising three persons. Hence, God was never alone.) But might as well extend your definitions if it makes you feel good. Why don't we also call Sati a sin of theism because polytheistic Hindus used to do it?

One Brow said...

Lee said...
Nevertheless, the two positions are logically incompatible and sometimes that doesn't matter to the beholder.

Not sure if you are referring to religious beliefs and communism, but there any numbers of religions compatible with all the facets of communism that do not directly deny those beliefs.

When some atheists look at Christianity, they see Torquemada and witch-burning. Fine. When I look at atheism, I see Josef Stalin and mass murder.

Can you tie Stalin's actions specifically to religious motives? Conversely, can you attribute witch-burnings primarily to motives that have no part in religion? Feel what you want, but don't confuse it for a rational argument.

As I said earlier, people will kill pretty much in the name of anything at all. We don't need much encouragement.

I'm not disagreeing. I'm just asking for you to name someone who killed for atheism specifically, as opposed to some other ideology. I have no doubt it's possible, but so far itseems to not have happened.

I would call Islam ...

What you did not do was answer my question. Would you say the ataackers of the Twin Towers killed in the name of monotheism?