Chinese general Sun Tzu once said you must know your enemy. In that spirit, I present a video from the hate group the Alliance Defending Freedom. The video features Washington State florist Barronelle Stutzman. Hers is not the case in front of the Supreme Court right now, but the video bears watching so it can show how skilled ADF is in making anti-LGBTQ discrimination sound reasonable and not as far reaching at it truly is. A key thing to think about - ADF and Stutzman claims the gay couple could have easily gone somewhere else, but as you can read via another article in these news briefs, ADF is steadily working to eliminate the "somewhere elses" that LGBTQ people can go to when it come to many businesses besides florists.(BTW the "dislikes" of the video is far ahead of the "likes." Feel free to add your opinion.)
Washington Supreme Court rules against florist who discriminated against same-sex couple - And by the way, here is the true and complete story of Stutzman.
Six key takeaways from The Nation's investigative report on Alliance Defending Freedom’s “legal army” - AND most importantly, let's talk about the Alliance Defending Freedom, the group propping Stutzman up, by way of summarizing a special report of its "activities" against the LGBTQ community.
Turning Away Gay Homebuyers Isn’t Religious Liberty, It’s Discrimination - And this right here is why we must not be tricked by the narrative ADF is pushing. Last week, California Republican Dana Rohrabacher said homeowners should be allowed to turn away potential LGBTQ buyers. Michelangelo Signorile spells out what's dangerous about this and how it connects to Stutzman and the baker's case which will soon be decided by SCOTUS:
Last year a federal judge, in a first, ruled that LGBTQ people are in fact protected under the FHA. But if the Supreme Court rules that a baker may turn away a gay couple seeking a wedding cake ― and that seemed to be a very real possibility during oral arguments last fall ― all bets are off as to how the court might rule in other areas.
That’s because the arguments in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case center on the baker’s “religious liberty,” something that Justice Neil Gorsuch broadly views as allowing for discrimination ― and which the Supreme Court previously allowed for in the Hobby Lobby decision. That ruling allows employers to opt out of offering contraception to women in their health care plans based on corporate owners’ religious beliefs.
But if “religious liberty” is reason for a baker who’s open to the general public to say he can’t make a wedding cake for a gay couple, why should it be any different for a landlord or a home seller or a bank, all serving the general public? If religious liberty is paramount, then, as Rohrabacher said, a homeowner “shouldn’t be required to be in business with someone they think is doing something that is immoral.” Rohrabacher’s comments expose the slippery slope the Supreme Court might put us on. They also underscore how deeply rooted bigotry against LGBTQ people is, and how religion is used to exempt it.
Gay, black and HIV positive: America's hidden epidemic – video - Sad but necessary video.