While most people don’t think of Missouri as a hotbed of political or cultural liberalism, according to the Human Rights Campaign’s Municipal Equality Index, St. Louis is one of the top LGBT-friendly cities in America, and one of only eleven cities (including Seattle!) to score a 100%.
Basically, this means that St. Louis City’s laws extend as much equality to people who are gay, bisexual, or transgender as is measured (and honestly I don’t know how those figures are tallied but yay!). Of course, it’s important to keep in mind that this is only a Municipal Equality Index, and as that is specific to a city, it doesn’t really include the entire state. I don’t think Missouri will ever grant marriage equality or numerous other basic human rights in my lifetime, because unfortunately, most of Missouri is full of inbred, meth-addicted, flag-waving, everybody-hide-behind-the-cross-and-cast-your-votes-from-there yokels. Don’t get pissy, it’s true. Whenever somebody here asks me if I miss St. Louis, I say yes. When they ask me if I miss Missouri, I say I don’t know because I always tried to avoid most of it. When the country’s largest meth producer has more anti-abortion billboards than anti-drug billboards along its interstates, something’s rotten.
It is terrific that the bias protection ordinance has been extended in St. Louis County, though, as the County is typically a pretty traditional place. Basically, this law requires equal treatment by employers and businesses to LGBT individuals, which, I mean, yeah. It seems so obvious to me and everyone I know (or at least everyone I know who isn’t afraid to look like a bigoted jackass in front of everyone else), but apparently, some people aren’t totally convinced:
“Many who spoke against the measure cited their Christian faith, including Kathryn Holloway of Sunset Hills.
After quoting founding father John Adams on the definition of freedom, Holloway said: “Liberty was never intended for establishing a sexual free-for-all.” She added: “Christians are being accused of being the intolerant ones for expressing a biblical worldview.”
Numerous speakers called for the inclusion of a “freedom of conscience” clause in the bill for businesses whose owners have a religious, ethical or moral objection to homosexuality.
Bill Hannegan said such a clause was especially needed for workers in the wedding industry, as well as for those whose jobs include crafting messages, such as sign painters, printers, calligraphers, artists, bakers and florists. “It’s not fair to put those people in a morally difficult position,” Hannegan said.”
Really, Kathryn Holloway and Bill Hannegan? Really? Perhaps you were misquoted, or perhaps I’m misreading your comments, so maybe you can explain to me exactly what you mean. To avoid any of that confusing logic or double-talk your kind seems so fond of, I’d like to break down my requests personally. Also, I’d like to type your names as frequently as possible so that anyone who chooses to Google you (your kids, grandkids, bosses, clients, everyone!) knows that you’re intolerant assholes. That’s in addition to the 600+ readers I’m averaging a day, of course, any of whom could know you personally or change their business decisions because of what you were quoted as saying.
Kathryn Holloway, by “sexual free-for-all,” did you mean to imply that refusing to exclude someone from employment based on their private sexuality – that is, the sex they have outside of the workplace – is the same thing as allowing just anyone to have an orgy in the copy room?
Bill Hannegan, did you mean to imply that excluding someone from being a customer based on a biological certainty such as sexual orientation – or other biological certainties like gender, skin color, ethnicity, and height – is a legitimate moral choice, and that keeping people from exacting this kind of discrimination should they so choose is unfair?
Kathryn Holloway, did you mean to interpret the granting of civil rights of a group of Americans as the persecution of Christians, who are actually the largest and most well-represented, well-funded, and politically-vocal religious group in the world?
Bill Hannegan, did you mean to say that selling anything to anyone of a different sexual orientation is “difficult,” or at least more difficult than selling any of those things to a heterosexual person convicted of embezzlement, child molestation, or a DUI? Or is that only when a person identifies themselves as such, perhaps by wearing a special armband?
Kathryn Holloway, has a homosexual ever stormed into your church and converted hundreds of congregants en masse, thus threatening your understanding of a deity’s feelings towards people doing whatever the hell they want on a safe and consensual basis?
Bill Hannegan, did you perform any research into basic economics?
Kathryn Holloway and Bill Hannegan, are either of you responsible for the lives of other people? Are either of you allowed to drive? Are either of you aware that you are of the utmost caliber of ignorance and hatred disguised as ethics? Does it piss you guys off to see black people use the same drinking fountains as everyone else?
I’m glad this measure passed, and I’m glad that the majority of the Council proved that people like Kathryn Holloway and Bill Hannegan do not speak for all residents of St. Louis County. I’m glad that people like Kathryn Holloway and Bill Hannegan could be fading away into irrelevance, and that the people I know seem to agree with me.