Connect with us


Sleepless in Seattle: The Chef, the Quarterback and Transgender Rights



The Story of Restaurant Mogul John Howie, Seahawks Star Russell Wilson and Anti-LGBT Initiative 1515 in Washington State

In March 2015, a group calling itself Just Want Privacy filed an initiative to repeal some of Washington state’s protections for transgender citizens.

Inspired by North Carolina’s infamous House Bill 2, the initiative was a response to the Washington Human Rights Commission’s ruling in December 2015 that interpreted the state’s 2006 Law Against Discrimination as allowing people to use gender-segregated facilities based on gender identity.

Although the commission described its ruling as merely a clarification of existing state law, it sparked a backlash among those who claimed that such access to bathrooms and locker rooms could allow sexual predators to prey on women and children.

Conservatives in the state legislature attempted to change the commission’s decision, but when they failed, opponents of transgender rights turned to the state’s initiative and referendum process, which allows citizens to legislate directly.

The approved ballot summary for the initiative read as follows: “This measure would amend the Law Against Discrimination to state that, with exceptions, covered public and private entities may restrict access to ‘private facilities’ to ‘biologically’ male or female individuals regardless of their gender identity and limit state and local regulations governing gender-identity discrimination. It requires that public-school bathrooms and locker rooms open to multiple people be sex segregated, and authorizes lawsuits against schools that grant students access to those facilities based on gender identity.”

Known as Initiative 1515, the proposal excited a great deal of controversy in Washington. Just Want Privacy raised more than $335,000, and an opposing group, Washington Won’t Discriminate, raised a little more than $200,000.

If Just Want Privacy could secure 246,000 valid signatures from registered voters, the repeal of transgender protections would appear on the November 2016 ballot.

Previous Referenda on LGBT Rights

Initiative 1515 was not the first time significant LGBT-rights legislation had been subjected to a referendum in Washington state, so some background is necessary to place the latest attempt to roll back advances for the LGBT community in context.

In 2009, the legislature expanded the state’s limited domestic partnership law to confer on same-sex couples all the rights and responsibilities the state made available to married couples. After passing both houses of the legislature with comfortable margins, the bill was signed by Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire.

However, a conservative organization quickly began the process of gathering signatures to repeal the new law. In September 2009, the Washington secretary of state certified the signatures, despite irregularities in collecting and submitting them.

On Nov. 3, 2009, voters in Washington, by a margin of 53 percent to 47 percent, approved the domestic partner legislation, making Washington the first state in which same-sex partnerships were affirmed by popular vote.

A similar scenario worked out in 2012, when the legislature, after a heart-wrenching but uplifting debate, passed a marriage equality bill. At an elaborate signing ceremony on Feb. 13, 2012, Gov. Gregoire signed the bill into law, making Washington the first state to repeal a so-called Defense of Marriage Act.

Again, opponents of same-sex marriage began the process to repeal the law. When they turned in a sufficient number of valid signatures in June 2012, the marriage equality legislation was suspended pending the outcome of a referendum.

In the historic election of Nov. 6, 2012, Washington voters were asked whether they approved or rejected the marriage equality legislation passed by the legislature earlier in the year. The answer was yes. As with the domestic partnership question, marriage equality was approved by a margin of 53 percent to 47 percent. 

In Washington, the signatures on petitions are considered public information, as are the names of donors to campaigns, including campaigns on behalf or against initiatives and referenda.

In 2009, the proponents of the challenge to the domestic partnership law filed a lawsuit asking to be exempt from the requirement to reveal the names of those who contributed to their campaign, including those who signed the petitions to put the question on the ballot. Citing the anger visited upon donors to Proposition 8 in California, they alleged that their contributors would be harassed and intimidated by those opposed to the referendum.

After being rebuffed by the federal district court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court. In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court in Doe v. Reed upheld the constitutionality of Washington’s Public Records Act. Key to the decision is the finding that participants in the initiative and referendum process are acting as legislators.

In his concurrence, conservative hero Justice Antonio Scalia wrote, “There are laws against threats and intimidation; and harsh criticism, short of unlawful action, is a price our people have traditionally been willing to pay for self-governance. Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.”

The names of the signatories of the petitions to repeal the domestic partnership law, along with the donors to the campaign, were eventually revealed. Despite the dire warnings of the plaintiffs in the case, no incidents of illegal harassment, threats or intimidation were ever documented.

The Campaigns For and Against Initiative 1515

Against this backdrop, the campaign for and against Initiative 1515 began. History showed that Washington voters would support equal rights when the distortions and deceptions of the religious right were countered, so the opponents of Initiative 1515 were confident though wary.

The prospect of having to endure and finance yet another expensive campaign over something as basic as access to bathrooms filled many supporters of equal rights with dread. Thus, they formed Washington Won’t Discriminate in order to mount a pre-emptive challenge to the petition gathering by Just Want Privacy. If they could discourage enough voters from signing the petitions, they could avoid a referendum on transgender rights.

The proponents and supporters of Initiative 1515 included the usual suspects, such as the American Family Association, the National Organization for Marriage, the Alliance Defending Freedom and other hate groups, as well as conservative pastors and churches. Most of the leaders of the campaign, including chairman James Backholm, the executive director of the extremist Washington Family Policy Institute, had also been involved in the struggle against marriage equality.

The Just Want Privacy campaign claimed their initiative was not intended to discriminate against anyone, but was all about protecting privacy and ensuring safety for women and children. Indeed, they alleged that the Human Rights Commission was discriminating against them in order to placate a tiny minority.

Their campaign stoked the fear that sexual predators would pretend to be transgender in order to gain access to women’s bathrooms and locker rooms: 

Just Want Privacy was accused of deception in collecting signatures, as when their signature gatherers allegedly misled Pride attendees into believing that their petition was on behalf of a progressive cause. When Backholm told male petitioners “to camp out near women’s restrooms, ask women for their signatures, then follow them into the restroom if they don’t agree to sign,” he was harshly criticized for recommending harassing tactics.

In order to oppose Initiative 1515, Washington Won’t Discriminate formed a broad coalition of clergy members, business leaders and law enforcement officers, as well as leaders of the LGBT communities. Microsoft, Vulcan and Google also signed on to help defeat the Initiative.

Most of the leading newspapers in the state editorialized against the Initiative, including the The Seattle Times, whose editorial board declared that it “would be an utter embarrassment for Washington.”

The editorial pointed out that the initiative “concocts a scenario in which transgender people need their bathroom habits policed. It strips the liberty and dignity of people doing their business in a bathroom matching their gender identity, while putting schools, public universities and even private businesses in a bizarre position to ensure a person’s bathroom choice matches his or her anatomy.”

It also asserted that Initiative 1515 “would put Washington in league with North Carolina, Mississippi and Indiana. Bigotry is bad for business, and corporate leaders in those states denounced the laws.”

Thankfully, on July 7, 2016, Just Want Privacy announced that it had failed to secure a sufficient number of signatures to force Initiative 1515 onto the November ballot. Washington Won’t Discriminate’s pre-emptive tactic of discouraging voters from signing Just Want Privacy’s petitions had succeeded. The progressive community breathed a sigh of relief that for the first time in several general election cycles, in November there would be no referenda sponsored by socially conservative groups intent on attacking equal rights.

Russell Wilson and Ciara

Perhaps the most famous celebrities opposing Initiative 1515 were Seattle Seahawks quarterback Russell Wilson and singer, songwriter and actress Ciara.

Their opposition became apparent when Wilson and Ciara revealed that they had originally planned to be married in North Carolina, but decided to move their wedding because of HB2. The couple celebrated their nuptials in England, where they were married in a lavish ceremony in July:

Ciara was already known as an ally of the LGBT community since she had spoken out in support of Jason Collins when he became the first active NBA player to declare he was gay in 2013. She also made an “It Gets Better” video in 2010:

But Wilson, who played both baseball and football at North Carolina State before leading the University of Wisconsin to the Big Ten championship in 2011, is better known as a devout Christian than a social activist.

Since coming to Seattle in 2012, Wilson has become one of the city’s sports icons. In his first season as a Seahawk, he tied Peyton Manning’s record for most passing touchdowns by a rookie quarterback and was named the NFL Rookie of the Year. In 2013, he led the Seahawks to their first Super Bowl victory; and, in 2014, to another Super Bowl berth.

Hence, the revelation that he is opposed to discrimination against transgender citizens became news.

The Chef and the Quarterback

When Seattle Times food writer Bethany Jean Clement discovered through the Washington Public Disclosure Commission’s database of campaign donors that celebrity chef John Howie had donated $1,000 to the Just Want Privacy campaign, it must have seemed a no-brainer to write a story about it.

Howie is not simply a private individual. He owns several restaurants in Seattle, including the Seastar Restaurant & Raw Bar, the SPORT Restaurant and Bar, John Howie Steak, and Beardslee Public House and Wildwood Spirits Co., among others. In addition, Howie frequently appears on Seattle TV and radio programs, and has made numerous appearances on national food shows such as Martha Stewart Living, The CBS Morning Show and programs on the Cooking Channel. He is author of a cookbook and is known as a philanthropist.

In her story, published on Aug. 24, Clement not only reported that Howie had signed the Just Want Privacy petition and donated $1,000 to the campaign, but she also contrasted his position with that of Wilson. The contrast is particularly appropriate since Howie was recently awarded a contract to provide food at the Seahawks Stadium.

In the story, Wilson confirmed that he and Ciara moved their wedding from North Carolina because of HB2, and explained his support for equal rights simply and forthrightly: “I just believe that Jesus loves all people. That’s honestly what I believe.”

Howie explained that his decision to support Initiative 1515 was due to concerns about who could gain access to women’s bathrooms. “I think that there’s a chance that the law could be abused by somebody,” he said. “I think somebody who is not transgender, a sex offender, could abuse the law — somebody who is just out to put themselves into a women’s, or a boys’, bathroom, for that matter.

“I have grandchildren that are going to be affected by this law,” Howie added. “Sex offenders scare the living daylights out of me. I think pedophiles can take advantage of this.”

In other words, Howie parroted the talking points of Just Want Privacy.

Within a day, however, Howie completely reversed his position. On Aug. 25, after a sleepless night, “a very eye-opening 24 hours,” he posted an emotional video on Facebook, apologizing for his previous views.

It has been an eye-opening 24 hours. I'd really appreciate it if you'd take the time to watch this.

Posted by Chef John Howie on Thursday, August 25, 2016

“I’m sorry to the people that I have harmed or negatively affected with my words and actions,” he said in the video. “It’s not who I am, and it’s not who I want to be.

“My concerns about the proposed law were based on fear, not facts,” he added. 

During his sleepless night, Howie developed “a much better understanding of how this law would’ve affected many in the community, especially those in the LGBTQ community, and especially those who are transgender.”

After promising that he would never again “support a proposed law that would affect people negatively as this would have,” he pledges that “in the future I will be more diligent, that I will research more carefully, that I will understand the things that I choose to support and make sure that they are the right choice.”

He concluded the video by echoing the words of Wilson, “It’s truly my belief that God loves all people, and that with love and respect, we can all live together.”

The Aftermath

Supporters of Just Want Privacy initially celebrated Howie’s defense of his donation to their cause, calling him “courageous” and a “man of conviction.” But when he recanted, they attacked him on Facebook and other forums as a “flip-flopper” and a coward.

In a post at the Family Policy Institute of Washington, Joseph Backholm declared that the chef had been “shaken down” by “modern day witch hunters.” He counted him among such “victims” of gay “bullying” as Brendan Eich, who allegedly lost his job at Mozilla for having donated to Proposition 8.

Many commenters accused Bethany Jean Clement of writing a hit piece designed to punish Howie for his beliefs. They said that in doing so she violated his First Amendment rights.

At the right-wing GetReligion blog, which bills itself as a journalism site dedicated to exposing shortcomings in the mainstream media’s depiction of religion but that most often uses critiques of journalism simply as a pretext for its own editorializing, Julia Duin criticized The Seattle Times for “outing” Chef Howie and asserted that donors to Just Want Privacy have been harassed.

Describing Howie’s video recantation as “groveling,” she quotes approvingly a Seattle Times reader who says: “This is one of the scariest videos I’ve seen in a long time. It reminds me of the Great Purge Stalin instigated in the Soviet Union in 1930s.”

In contrast to the assumption by the right-wing bloggers and Facebook posters that Howie had been forced to recant his real opinions, the overwhelming majority of the commenters on Howie’s Facebook page were positive. They thanked him for his change of heart and characterized his apology as genuine and moving.

Zack Ford at Think Progress described the apology as “heartfelt.”

Similarly, Kelli Busey of Planet Transgender hailed Howie as a “truly incredible man” whose heart had been opened in a “loving and compassionate way.”

It is, of course, not possible to know with certainty what is in Howie’s heart.

Did he change his mind because his LGBT customers expressed their displeasure? Was he fearful that his restaurants might be the target of a boycott organized by LGBT groups? Did it belatedly dawn on him that it may not be a good business move for a restaurateur in a notably liberal city — presided over by an openly gay mayor — to endorse a socially conservative initiative designed to harm transgender citizens?

All those scenarios are possible, but it is also possible that the chef simply listened to the stories of LGBT men and women and learned how they would have been affected by Initiative 1515. He may have educated himself or been educated by others as to the discrimination faced by transgender people. He may also have learned about the deception practiced by the proponents of the initiative and how they traffic in fear rather than fact.

In any case, the idea that Clement “outed” Chef Howie is ludicrous. His donation and signature are public information. Duin’s post to the contrary, it is the purpose of journalists to disseminate information, not conceal it. There is no reason to believe that Clement revealed the donation with an intent to harass or even embarrass Howie, who initially seemed quite happy to own and defend his donation to and support for Initiative 1515.

It is telling that the right-wingers believe that the names of donors to anti-LGBT initiatives should be kept secret. Although their patron saint, Scalia, is the great champion of “civic courage” and of people willing to stand up for their beliefs, the proponents of anti-LGBT initiatives and referenda want to cloak their actions in darkness. 

Even if, as the right-wingers suggest, Howie was threatened with a boycott, that hardly makes him a victim. Boycotts are a cornerstone of American democracy, used by both sides of controversial issues. Indeed, the anti-LGBT crusaders themselves frequently threaten pro-LGBT businesses with boycotts. They have boycotted a host of corporations, from Disney to Target. 

The charge that Clement somehow violated Howie’s First Amendment rights in disclosing his donation to Just Want Privacy is also absurd. One hardly violates a person’s free speech rights by giving them space in a newspaper article to speak. Moreover, First Amendment rights include the freedom of the press as well as the rights of individuals to speak freely without fear of government censorship.

Such charges actually reveal how little the opponents of equal rights understand about freedom of speech. What they want is the right to make outrageous statements about LGBT people without experiencing any negative consequences. They seem not to understand that LGBT people also have free speech rights, and those include the right to counter their statements and even to say unkind things about them. Freedom of expression also includes the right not to patronize businesses owned by those who further discrimination.








Continue Reading
Click to comment

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.


Ethics Complaint Against Sinema Urges Investigation Into Staffers’ Duties and Her Possible ‘Abuse of Taxpayer Dollars’



If you are hired to work in Senator Kyrsten Sinema‘s office on Capitol Hill there is a 37-page memo you’ll want to read detailing all the responsibilities her staffers are required to perform, from getting her groceries, calling Verizon and going to her D.C. home to wait for a repair person if the internet goes out, scheduling massages, and ensuring her very detailed airplane requirements are met.

“It is your job to make her as comfortable as possible on each flight,” the memo says, as The Daily Beast first reported in December.

But now a group of 13 non-profit organizations have joined to file an ethics complaint against Senator Sinema (I-AZ), a new Daily Beast report reveals Friday, including details from that 37-page memo which the newly-independent lawmaker directed to be drawn up. Dated Thursday, the complaint is titled: “Letter to Senate Ethics Committee Regarding Reports of Sinema Abusing Taxpayer Dollars.”

“Senate Ethics guidelines stipulate that staff should not be asked to perform personal errands for members. This is an unambiguous ethical boundary,” the group’s complaint reads.

READ MORE: Santos May Owe Thousands in Unpaid Traffic Violation Fines and Fees Across Two States: Report

It also points to that 37-page memo, which it says, “indicates that staff are required, as a condition of their jobs, to carry out numerous tasks that are outside the scope of public employment, including doing personal errands for the Senator, carrying out household tasks at her private residence, and advancing their own funds for her personal purchases. It makes unreasonably precise scheduling demands, and former staff have confirmed some of the allegations.”

The allegations continue.

“And, most troubling, it calls on staff members, who are employed and paid by the public and explicitly barred from campaign activity, to schedule and facilitate political fundraisers and meetings with campaign donors, presumably during the workday while they are on the clock and physically on federal property.”

“Senate staff are prohibited under your guidelines from engaging in political activity ‘on Senate time, using Senate equipment or facilities.’ While you have not prohibited campaign activity outside work hours, the plain language of the memo clearly implies that Sen. Sinema expects her staff to carry out these scheduling tasks during the workday. And these tasks may separately violate Senate Rule 41.1, which explicitly prohibits Senate employees from ‘solicit[ing]’ campaign funds.”

READ MORE: ‘Bioweapons? FFS’: House Oversight Chairman Mocked for Pushing Unfounded Balloon Conspiracy Theories

The complaint also alleges that “Sen. Sinema required her staff to schedule three physical therapy and massage sessions a week related to her training for athletic competitions, and to tightly manage her dietary schedule — while allotting only a 30-minute period on Wednesdays for meetings with the constituents she represents.”

The carefully-worded complaint adds, “the allegations paint a picture of a Senator who is not only unresponsive to her constituents, but also disrespectful and even abusive to her employees and wholly unconcerned about her obligations under the law.”

The Daily Beast has posted a copy of the complaint here.

You can read The Beast’s full report here.



Continue Reading


Santos May Owe Thousands in Unpaid Traffic Violation Fines and Fees Across Two States: Report



When he left for Washington, D.C., U.S. Rep. George Santos also appears to have left a string of unpaid traffic violation fines and fees in two states, including red light, double parking, and overtime parking citations totaling thousands of dollars.

The embattled serial liar and freshman New York GOP lawmaker “may owe more than $3,400 in unpaid citations, according to records from New York City and Florida,” CBS News reports.

Included in that total is $1,299.10 from Florida for toll violations that “racked up late fees and were ultimately sent to collections agencies.”

READ MORE: George Santos Says Man Interviewed for Staff Position ‘Violated’ His Trust After Secretly Recording Conversation

It appears that in November of 2016, as soon as he got his New York driver’s license after having one in Florida, a car previously ticket via a red light camera whose plates match one registered to Santos “began piling up citations in New York City — 29 in the next two and a half years, according to city government records, which do not identify the drivers of vehicles being ticketed.”

“More than $1,800 in payments were made for 17 citations, but another 12 remain unpaid, with $2,142.61 still due, according to city records.”

CBS News also points to a New York Post report from January revealing “a Nissan Rogue driven frequently by Santos in recent months had been issued speeding tickets at least five times since he was elected on Nov. 8, ‘including four times in school zones.'”

Santos is under numerous state and federal investigations that span the gamut from campaign finance to allegedly stolen charity funds donated to save the life of a veteran’s service dog. The dog died after the vet could not afford to pay for the operation.

READ MORE: ‘Bioweapons? FFS’: House Oversight Chairman Mocked for Pushing Unfounded Balloon Conspiracy Theories

Continue Reading


‘Breathtaking’: Economists Stunned by Job Growth ‘Boom’ as Unemployment Drops to Level Not Seen Since 1969



The year was 1969: Congress certified the results of the election, officially declaring Richard Nixon would be the 37th President of the United States, Joe Namath led the New York Jets to win Super Bowl III, The Beatles released the soundtrack from their hit film “Yellow Submarine,” and unemployment was 3.4%.

It’s been 54 years since unemployment was at 3.4%, but the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics released January’s report  Friday morning, stunning economists who expected unemployment to go up, not down.

Economists projected 187,000 new jobs would be added to the U.S. economy in January. Instead, the number came in at 517,000, Forbes reported. Prior months were also adjusted to be better than first reported.

READ MORE: ‘Anyone Who Thinks This Is Economy Is in Recession Is Bananas’: Economists Cheer ‘Hot’ Biden Jobs Report

“This is a breathtaking number. That spike in stories about layoffs? It was about a small unrepresentative slice of the economy. Real America is still getting back to work,” crowed Professor Justin Wolfers, the popular University of Michigan School of Economics professor, a senior fellow at Brookings.

“Average job growth over the past 3 months is a cracking +356k. A boom!” Wolfers cheered.

“We haven’t seen unemployment this low since before Woodstock, baby,” he added. “Groovy.”

Wolfers wasn’t done. He blasted those who continue to talk about recession: “This is a final nail in the coffin of all the 2022 recessionistas. When average job growth is this high we call it a BOOM.”

READ MORE: ‘When Was Your Most Recent Period?’: Student Athletes in Florida May Be Required to Share Menstrual History

For those who just want the bottom line, Wolfers offered this take on the jobs report: “It’s all good news.”

“January marked the 25th straight month of solid job growth,” The Washington Post reports, observing that the “labor market shattered expectations.” The Post adds: “the labor market remains formidable, inflation is beginning to normalize and there are signs that the global economy may be on stronger footing than originally feared.”


Image: President Joe Biden delivers remarks on the economy, Thursday, January 26, 2023, at Steamfitters Local 602 United Association Mechanical Trades School in Springfield, Virginia. Official White House Photo by Erin Scott via Flickr

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.