Walker pushes workplace discrimination/the firing of gay employees based on religious freedom and the conscience clause.

Make no mistake about it Scott Walker has a backup plan to allow gay discrimination to flourish if he had his way.

In February 25, 1082, Republican governor Lee Dreyfus signed the nations first Gay Rights Law. The reason? 

Dreyfus: “(The) fundamental Republican principle that government should have a very restricted involvement in people's private and personal lives.”

Not so principled now, it’s just a law that could and will be repealed or weakened at any time, especially by Walker. In this Meet the Press exchange, Chuck Todd asked Walker if he believes gay workers could be fired. Here it comes, the old "That means you have to have that balance" BS. You know, firing gay people because of your religious liberties and conscience represents a "balance:"



Todd could have followed up Walker's answer with a whole slew of questions, like what would gay workers do if they're in a state that doesn't have a law protecting them from from getting fired? Will Walker suggest they move? Acquiesce to being a second class citizen? Yes.

Guys like Walker have a blind spot when it comes to religious freedom, how one person could infringe on the religious freedoms of another. It's an easy concept to grasp.

But Walker's best chance to discriminate is in the state Constitution; the “conscience clause,” and he knows it:

Walker: "The Wisconsin constitution explicitly protects the rights of conscience of our citizens … the government will not coerce you to act against your religious beliefs. I call on the president and all governors to join me in reassuring millions of Americans that the government will not force them to participate in activities that violate their deeply held religious beliefs. No one wants to live in a country where the government coerces people to act in opposition to their conscience."

And if that doesn't work? Well, like all conservative politicians, they have no problem promising to pass a constitutional amendment that, for the first time, would limit freedoms and take rights away:

Walker: "We will need a conservative president who will appoint men and women to the Court who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws … to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage."

Walker Editorial tries to Shame Justice Department into backing off School Choice Discrimination investigation.

One party could not be this hypocritical...or could they?

For a party that continues to seek out proof Obama messed up Benghazi, might be to blame for the mess in Iraq, possibly faked his birth certificate, and broke the law with signing statements, they’re now crying foul over the Department of Justice’s investigation into possible discrimination against students with disabilities in the school choice programs? Amazing!

And Scott Walker is leading the down-the-rabbit-hole charge by saying that without proof, how can the justice department turn up...proof? It’s like calling off the John Doe investigation to uncover wrong doing because there’s no proof of wrong doing. My head is hurting now.

Along with being one of the dumbest excuses yet, Walker and Jindal seem to think that without parental complaints, laws weren't broken. Basically, we're supposed to believe the word of business. Plus, Walker chose to ignore the fact that school choice had expanded well beyond minority groups:

jsonline: Gov. Scott Walker has co-authored a commentary in Politico Magazine with Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal criticizing the Obama Administration for challenging school choice programs in Wisconsin and Louisiana.

In the piece: "Why would the federal Department of Justice cite the Civil Rights Act and the specter of segregation to try and block a school choice program where more than nine in 10 participants come from racial minority groups? Or use the Americans with Disabilities Act to claim another school voucher program discriminates against individuals with disabilities, without so much as a single complaint from a student or parent to prove their case?"

The two governors are citing a National Review commentary co-authored by Rick Esenberg and C.J. Szafir, both of the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, criticizing a Department of Justice inquiry into whether private schools in Wisconsin were turning away students with disabilities.

Ellen Canale, public affairs specialist at the Justice Department, said the agency was working to make sure school choice programs are adhering to civil rights laws.

If laws weren't broken, then why is Walker and Jindal opposed to looking into the choice program? After all, the public has a right to know how their money is being spent, right?

UPDATE: I thought this comment was important enough to include in this post:

The Walker/Jindal statement about there being no parent complaints is misleading/untrue on two levels.

Level 1: The fact is that no formal state complaint mechanism exists... in other words, if we do not allow official complaints, then there will be none.

Level 2: But there WERE complaints. In the absence of a state complaint mechanism, families of students with special needs took their charges to Disability Rights Wisconsin and the ACLU. Those two organizations filed a formal complaint in 2011, which in turn led to the very DOJ investigation that the Politico piece is decrying! In other words, it's all ABOUT the family complaints!

A summary of some of those family complaints was published in a Journal Sentinel column in May 2013.

The ACLU has also responded in a July 8 piece of their own.

To me, the most disturbing thing about the Walker/Jindal column is the way it "disappears" families of students with special needs. Their experiences of discrimination, that they documented to DRW and the ACLU, apparently simply don't exist, because they've been declared not to exist. 

An ACLU article highlighted this reason for asking documentation:

"DPI must further ensure that voucher schools, absent a valid ADA defense, do not expel/exit a student with a disability unless the school has first determined, on a case-by-case basis, that there are no reasonable modifications to school policies, practices or procedures that could enhance the school's capacity to serve that student."

A GOP Purified America!!! Arizona's "Religious Freedom" Bill Backers Borderline Frightening.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner was surprised to see how others took NSA spying well beyond what he thought the law allowed. Well, that’s the real problem isn’t it?

Republicans don’t seem to think that the “letter of the law” is an issue. In their minds, they know what they originally intended, and no one would ever think to use the letter of the law in their sloppily written legislation to force right wing purity onto other Americans…ever.

In the clip below, CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" takes on Arizona State Sen. Al Melvin (R) who only sees SB 1062 legislation as a preemptive strike supporting religious freedom, while allowing discrimination against LGBT individuals. He continually claims he would never discriminate, and knows no one who would, despite the fact the law would legally allow it. Cooper is amazed by Melvin's answers. 

But first, Lawrence O'Donnell's the introduction with multiple clips showing us where Gov. Jan Brewer and other low information Arizona politicians want to take this nation:

So Cooper asked Melvin if he could cite a case where religious freedom was "under attack" in Arizona. Melvin bizarrely responded "not now, no, but how about tomorrow?"

Cooper then tested Melvin with a hypothetical: what if he were a loan officer, and thought it was against his religious beliefs to do business with an unwed mother or a divorced woman?

That's when Melvin's argument imploded. "I think you're being farfetched," the lawmaker told Cooper. "I don't know of anybody in Arizona that would discriminate against a fellow human being."

"Really? Discrimination doesn't exist in Arizona?" Cooper asked.

"Well, maybe you ought to move to Arizona," the lawmaker responded. "We're more people-friendly here, apparently."

Because no one would ever follow the letter of this new law allowing discrimination based on exercising one’s religious freedom.

Republicans in Washington State seek Exemption to Non-Discrimination Law.

The “conscience clause” scheme by bigots, racist and religious zealots has always fascinated me.

We’re seeing this unfold now over Obamacare’s requirement to provide free birth control to women.

Businesses are trying to use the conscience clause to deny coverage for religious or just about any other reason.

The trouble is, your First Amendment rights can't infringe on, or take away someone else's.  

Republicans have a way of standing up for the Constitution, all the while redefining it and twisting into knots. Have you ever seen so court challenges?  

Here comes another amazing down-the-rabbit-hole shredding:

News Tribune: Bill seeks exemption to non-discrimination law: Several Republican lawmakers filed a bill Thursday seeking an exemption to the state's anti-discrimination laws just weeks after legal action was taken against a Richland florist who denied service to a gay couple for their upcoming wedding.

The bill introduced by Sen. Sharon Brown, R-Kennewick, would allow businesses the right to deny services or goods if they felt doing so was contrary to their "sincerely held religious beliefs, philosophical beliefs, or matters of conscience."

And Brown see’s nothing wrong with this. Of course this would open the flood gates of discrimination. Just as bizarre, Brown is willing to give up “matters of conscience” if it’s already a federal law.

The measure would not apply to the denial of services to people under a protected class under federal law, such as race, religion or disability.

I’m pretty sure “denial” can’t be used as evidence in a court of law:

Brown argued that the bill is not intended to undermine the law or the rights of gays and lesbians in the state and isn't a commentary on same-sex marriage. "The citizens of the state clearly weighed in on that issue," she said. "It's intended to protect religious freedoms."

Not enough jobs to go around? Solution: Let's deny former felons work!

Hey, I call ‘em like I see ‘em. Just look at the picture to the right.

It’s not nice calling anyone a name, but when what they do effects so many other people, it’s necessary to call attention to the problem.

Rep. Joel Kleefisch is dumb! Really, really dumb! And he talks.

We’re talking about a proposed bill that would make it okay for employers to avoid hiring felons, no matter how long ago the infraction, and no matter how unrelated the violation was to the job being pursued. Right now, it’s illegal to discriminate over a person’s criminal history.

Which brings me to the very dumb, Rep. Joel Kleefisch, husband of bubblehead Lt. Gov. Rebecca. See if you can make any sense out of his twisted thought process:

Postcrescent: Lawmakers who back the bill say it would benefit ex-cons entering the workforce. "More employers will be willing to give a person a chance knowing that a person won't turn around and sue them," Kleefisch said.

Huh? Is has that been one of those "unreported" problems wreaking havoc in the workplace? No, it’s a made up problem so Republicans can discipline and discriminate:

The state does not keep data on the number of lawsuits that have arisen out of such situations — which Kleefisch called "a real gray area." But he added, "It doesn't matter if this happened once or a thousand times, right now we're in an era to create jobs."

A jobs crisis means we should turn away former felons so others can get work? Is he insane?

If passed, Filz said the bill wouldn't affect his job but added he's concerned that people who may have held a job for years could suddenly be fired. "I just hate to see a bunch of people become unemployed," Filz said.

State Sen. Mary Lazich, R-New Berlin, who introduced the Senate version of the bill (said) the issue is not a matter of job creation, but of workplace and customer safety. She didn't know of any specific cases of an ex-offender creating an unsafe work situation, but said employers should feel free to fire someone if they discover a problem, rather than being deterred by a potential lawsuit. The bill also would preempt counties, cities, towns and villages from amending the switch — they would have to comply.

More of that big Republican government; one size fits all lawmaking. Not all are on board:

Sandy Neisen, Appleton’s city's human resources director. said. "Someone shouldn't be barred from employment forever."

What kind of angry, bitter world do these Republicans think they’re living in?