PFOX seems to be happy with the result:
August 25, 2009
Contact: Regina Griggs, Executive Director, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX), 804-453-4737, PFOX@pfox.org
Washington, D.C. – In a precedent setting case, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia has ruled that former homosexuals are a protected class that must be recognized under sexual orientation non-discrimination laws. The Court held that, under the D.C. Human Rights Act, sexual orientation does not require immutable characteristics.
“We are gratified that the ex-gay community in Washington D.C. now has the same civil rights that gays enjoy,” said Regina Griggs, executive director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX), which had filed the lawsuit against the District of Columbia government for failing to protect former homosexuals in the Nation’s Capital. …
Full release at the end of the post after the jump.
But Dr. Throckmorton says that “PFOX Loses Appeal of NEA Discrimination Case: (actual language was quoted by Throckmorton and put in bold text here to clearly delineate those statements from his thoughts.”
However, the court found that the NEA did not discriminate against PFOX. The way the press release reads, it sounds like a victory for PFOX against the NEA. Not so.
In fact, the DC court said that the DC Office of Human Rights did err by saying a protected class must demonstrate an immutable characteristic. Originally, the NEA did not want to give PFOX space because they felt their message was offensive to gays. PFOX claimed sexual orientation discrimination and appealed to the DC Office of Human Rights. The OHR said no discrimination occured because ex-gayness was not immutable (by definition I suppose). However, as Judge Ross pointed out the DC Human Rights Amendment protects many practices and preferences which are mutable.
“the HRA [Human Rights Amendment] clearly does not limit itself only to immutable characteristics. The premise of the HRA is simple: to end all discrimination based on anything other than individual merit. Numerous protected classes listed in the HRA include mutable traits. Furthermore, the definition of sexual orientation defines an individual’s sexuality as a “preference” or “practice.”
The conclusion of the decision provides the real scoop. In fact, the main event was a denial of the discrimination claim.
“PFOX asks the Court to reverse OHR’s final decision finding no probable cause that NEA discriminated against PFOX on the basis of sexual orientation when it denied public accommodation services to PFOX by refusing to provide PFOX with exhibit space at EXPO 2002. As a matter of law, OHR erred in determining that ex-gays are not a protected class under the HRA. Regardless of whether or not OHR erred in its classification of ex-gays, it correctly found that PFOX’s exhibit booth application was rejected for non-discriminatory reasons. Furthermore, while EXPO 2002 was held in Texas, OHR did have jurisdiction over the charge because the rejection of PFOX’s application occurred in D.C., where NEA was headquartered. Therefore, Petitioner’s request to reverse the OHR’s decision, the requested relief, is DENIED. An order denying PFOX’s request will be concurrently issued with this Memorandum Opinion.”
The approach of PFOX is interesting. They want ex-gays to be a protected class in the same way gays are a protected class. However, many social conservatives might quarrel that gays are not (or should not be) a protected class. Has PFOX conceded this point?
Which then leads me to the Advocate.com (gay magazine) coverage of the lawsuit:
In a case with potentially far-reaching implications, the superior court of the District of Columbia has ruled that individuals who formerly identified as gay or lesbian are a protected class that must be recognized under nondiscrimination laws pertaining to sexual orientation, reports the Fox Business network.
I am blogging about this because such public policy decisions point to serious overarching questions. The law must protect not just gay individuals or those, like me, who formerly identified as gay, but every human being regardless of their orientation or attractions. This decision will cause more mixed messaging, affirm a vague “ex-gay community” identity and empowers pro-gay advocacy in public policy.
I agree that gay activists often demand equality, and many don’t respect people who have a different view of how to steward their lives. But, the ultimate result of this case is a legal precedent that reinforces sexual orientation as a protected class, completely undermines the immutability argument that has been a standard for all but one protected class (religion) and classifies people like myself into an “ex-gay community” needing the state to protect us.
I personally prefer to not be seen as an “ex-gay” fighting for “equality.” I am a member of the Body of Christ, a Christian, who is concerned with preserving religious liberty, freedom of speech and conscience. Regardless of the merits of pro-gay public policy concerns, sexual orientation should not be a protected class and I personally reject the limited and stigmatized label of “ex-gay.” The creation/reinforcement of both limits our (people living beyond the gay vs. straight paradigm) concerns to yet another special interest group looking for the state to protect us. This undermines the totality of our experience and, in my personal opinion, true civil rights protections.
MORE:
About Randy Thomas
I received the PFOX email earlier today and, after reading it a few times, I had a similar question. I thought the goal was not to single out homosexuality as a protected class at all. Now, there is a new ruling to give some leverage to homosexuality and the un-homosexualed equal “protection” as though the homosexual was especially protected! I do have an ongoing beef with the PFOX line. One one hand they offer a bit of a network for families looking for support in dealing with the homosexuality of their loved ones. Yet, on the other hand, there is an historic confrontation and assertion of discrimination. They say that they fight on MY behalf. I often feel just a little bit embarrassed that the strong rhetoric uttered on MY behalf. I don’t feel very represented by their efforts. Your post is inviting me to voice these things. I honestly don’t feel silenced out there is the big, cruel world. I’ve been at the center of the shout-downs and am not willing to say that I’m being discriminated against. The day is coming, however. I don’t think rulings like this one are going to protect me in that day.
Laura Leigh, thank you for your comment. I do hope these posts will inspire dialog and it be honest and constructive.
I don’t know that I have a “beef” like you do but I understand your viewpoint and think those are pretty good questions regarding their purpose, messaging and the implementation of that purpose.
Yet, having been in their shoes (with regard to those same kinds of questions on different matters) I am alllllll for extending abundant grace
Even so, we can politely, directly and publicly disagree when something happens on this large of a scale.
This decision impacts all of us, PFOX thinks it’s a positive thing, I don’t. Even so, they have every right to do what they did and we have a right to respond with disagreement.
It’s nothing personal of course but it is a very important subject to address.
Of course you already know all that! I just wanted to thank you for your comment and would welcome more if you want to continue.
Long ago somebody said (I dunno, maybe it was Bob Davies or Joe Dallas or SOMEbody) that whomever picks the lingo wins the game. Or, somethin’! I just long to be a better voice. Something happens in the exchange and devoted people wind up looking silly. Each time it has happened to me it is sickening. I don’t long for the ultimate voice but to be faithful to my own and to obedience. The language of “discrimination” implies helplessness.
Agreed.
I have mixed feelings about this entire issue.
Lord… Make Us One.
Amen to that.
You must have mixed feelings because that is one of the shortest blog comments I’ve ever seen come from you before
(Hope you don’t mind me pickin’ just a little 
)
Oh my brother… not at all.
I just didn’t want to say something I would regret later… I guess both parties mention as sources have their leanings left and right; and in between… I certainly lean right; and yet I want to lean into wisdom… so sincerely I pray… Lord, Make Us One. I am praying this for myself as well.
There is so much going on in this world of ours… I had a dream the first week of July. I was prayed over at church by a very prophetic person who asked God to speak to me in dreams. He does, or has… yet that very day during a nap, I had a shocking dream about our country. I wished I could have blamed it on watching too much Fox News; but alas; it was more. I have journaled it all; it was eerie; as it was about strife breaking loose in our country. I saw all kinds of angry people. The country was divided. I saw a map. The middle of the country was red, but not politically it was mad. I saw the east and west coasts a sleep, it was dark. In the dream I saw that it got a lot worse in our country after August. I saw much more that I cannot write, accept to pray OH GOD… Make US One… there is a lot to this in my mind.
Am I a tired random or what?
I have no doubt you were tired when you posted that comment at 12:41am last night but I think you are more of a scary random then a tired one
.
I certainly hope your dream is simply your mind trying to process the implications of what is happening around us.
Oh and please click reply at the bottom of the comment you are directly responding too. That will help with various discussions that come up in a comment thread
.