Next week, at the Pacific APA, a petition on discrimination will be presented to the APA. The petition asks the APA to either enforce its own policy against discrimination (specifically, de facto discrimination against homosexuality by certain religious institutions that require their employees to commit to having no sex outside marriage) or change its policy.
In response, there is a counterpetition, which is also being presented to the APA, asking the APA to do nothing, because the alleged discrimination is not actually discrimination.
As I pointed out before, it should be blindingly obvious to anyone whose mind is not clouded by prejudice that the alleged discrimination is, in fact, discrimination – and should be denounced by the APA as such. Reason: unlike heterosexuals, homosexuals aren’t allowed to get married! (Except in a few states.) As a consequence, homosexuals, unliike heterosexuals, are requested by the institutions in question to give up ALL sexual activity. If this is not a crystal clear case of discrimination, I don’t know what is.
Now Mark Murphy, who apparently is a bona fide philosopher of law, has written his own letter to the APA concurring with the counterpetition that the alleged discrimination is not, in fact, discrimination. His “argument” is a long-winded way of saying, more or less, that when religious organizations discriminate against homosexuals, we should tolerate it and not call it ‘discrimination’ because, well, it’s based on their religious belief.
This kind of bogus rationalization of bigotry (by a philosopher!) makes me so mad! I hope the APA will take this opportunity to do the right thing.
Other people took the time to give a more articulate response to Murphy’s letter.
By the way, Murphy is soliciting feedback on his letter (well, more precisely, he is inviting others to sign his letter) at email@example.com. Feel free to let him know what you think.