Analyzing and refuting the inaccuracies lodged against the lgbt community by religious conservative organizations. Lies in the name of God are still lies.
It's rather sad that the Family Research Council, an organization which claims to be devoted to Christianity, morality, and values, prays to God for the legal right to discriminate against the LGBTQ community while knowing fully well how this could devastate the LGBTQ community, particularly our children:
May God preserve and protect the freedom of Christians and other Americans whose consciences say, "God made marriage between a man and a woman." May He powerfully anoint the briefs and arguments presented to the Court on behalf of Jack Phillips. May He specifically intervene to guide each member of the Supreme Court to uphold religious freedom for every American and to stop the widespread recrimination of LGBT activists against Christians.
What the Family Research Council is asking God to give them the ability to do:
But what about the GOP tax plan currently in the Senate, you ask? The one, if passed, would raise taxes on middle class Americans in order to give a tax break to the wealthiest earners? The one which also contains provisions devastating Obamacare, thereby robbing millions of healthcare and repealing the Johnson Amendment, thereby insuring that churches would be traffickers of unethical dark money campaign funds?
FRC is encouraging its supporters to pray for its passage. So in essence, this supposed Christian organization is praying to God for the legal right to discriminate against the LGBTQ community, including children; for taxes to be raised on middle class Americans; that healthcare be taken away from Americans; and for churches to be able immerse themselves in the corruption of the political system.
And the sad irony is even after this, FRC will be still be thought of and referred to as a Christian organization by members of the mainstream media.
No wonder people are wanting to #EmptyThePews . It's the only way they can keep from getting covered with the stench of hypocrisy.
In a few days, the United States Supreme Court will be hearing the case of a Colorado baker who claims that his religious beliefs should allow him not to serve a gay couple. On it's face - and in the hands of the anti-LGBTQ industry - it is a simple case about a baker supposedly having the right to choose his customers.
But it's so much more:
The bakery’s claims are constitutional ones (free speech, freedom of religion), meaning if they win, they will gain a constitutional right to discriminate that can’t be undone with a legislative fix.
A win for the bakery could extend to any kind of business with a creative or custom element—hair salons, restaurants, florists, uber drivers, school counsellors, etc. So it won’t just be that refrain we sometimes hear about “why don’t they go to another bakery?” it will be that throughout people’s lives, they will have to live in fear of discrimination and humiliation, across a whole range of circumstances, and we won’t be able to pass laws to stop it because this will be legal even when nondiscrimination laws are in place.
A win for the bakery could allow for discrimination against many types of people, not just LGBT people but people of color, religious minorities, women, etc. Many assume that existing legal protections against racial discrimination and other forms of discrimination won’t or can’t change. But think about the fact that we are in a country considering a wall, a Muslim ban, where the Supreme Court gutted part of the Voting Rights Act, where white supremacists kill protestors and the protestors are blamed, etc. Once we start chipping away at the foundations of nondiscrimination laws, we are in danger. If a bakery can refuse a gay couple, what’s to stop a florist refusing service to an interracial couple celebrating a wedding anniversary?
We know people support freedom of religion, so that makes them conflicted. But that freedom doesn’t give any of us the right to impose our religious views on others, to harm people, or to discriminate. The bakery owner is still free to believe what he believes and go to the church he goes to.
. . . if the bakery loses, this does NOT mean a Jewish bakery would need to make a swastika cake (or similar examples). Businesses can decide WHAT to sell (wedding cakes but not swastika cakes) but once they sell something (e.g., wedding cakes) they can’t refuse to serve certain kinds of customers in violation of nondiscrimination laws.
In the context of a nation rocked by racial discrimination at levels unseen in decades, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on December 5th in a case that could gut not only state nondiscrimination laws but also erode the Civil Rights Act—and turn back the clock to a time when businesses could tell people, “we don’t serve your kind here.”
In response, a broad coalition of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT), civil rights, racial justice and allied organizations have launched Open to All, a national campaign to focus attention on the far-reaching, dangerous risks of the Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case.
'In the name of God,' the Alliance Defending Freedom is attempting to create a federal court with an anti-LGBTQ bias.
The Christian Legal Army Behind ‘Masterpiece Cakeshop’ - By far the scariest article about the anti-LGBTQ industry I've ever read. While we are busy mocking the 'Fred Phelps' gang or laughing at people like 'Porno' Pete LaBarbera, a hate group of lawyers have quietly trying to rig our court system against the LGBTQ community by instilling themselves in state attorney general offices and becoming federal justices. And with the Trump, they just got a shot in the arm. The Alliance Defending Freedom is truly the most dangerous group we ever faced because the effects of its acts is like a nuclear cloud - highly destructive and lingering for decades. These are some points you need to remember:
Trump's solicitor general "one of its allied attorneys in an establishment-clause case that Francisco helped ADF litigate in 2016"-- a fact he neglected to list on the Senate questionnaire he filled out for his confirmation hearing.
"At the state level, at least 18 ADF-affiliated lawyers now work in 10 attorney-general offices; all of them were appointed or elected in the past five years."
"in just one year,
Trump has nominated at least four federal judges who have ties to ADF—Amy Coney Barrett, recently confirmed to the Seventh Circuit; Kyle Duncan, nominated to the Fifth Circuit; and Jeff Mateer and Michael Joseph Juneau, both nominated to district courts."
Trump is a disaster of an embarrassment of a president. But one thing about him I will consider a positive is how the religious right and anti-LGBTQ industry have no compunctions about publicly humiliating themselves to figuratively kiss his feet.
There've been a lot of wise men in the White House. But this Christmas, there are three more in the East Room, where the Trumps are highlighting a larger-than-life nativity scene. That's just one of the ways the First Family is separating itself from the Obamas, who came dangerously close to ditching the 50-year-old display in 2009. There wasn't room for Jesus at the inn -- and for eight years, there wasn't much room for him at 1600 Pennsylvania either.
The Obamas famously wanted a "non-religious Christmas" (which makes about as much sense as a vegetarian barbeque). But they were outed by their social secretary, Desiree Rogers in an eye-opening profile piece for the New York Times. "The lunch conversation inevitably turned to whether the White House would display its crèche, customarily placed in a prominent spot in the East Room. Ms. Rogers, this participant said, replied that the Obamas did not intend to put the manger scene on display -- a remark that drew an audible gasp from the tight-knit social secretary sisterhood. (A White House official confirmed that there had been internal discussions about making Christmas more inclusive and whether to display the crèche.)
Ultimately, the Obamas caved to pressure and included the nativity in its décor. For two terms, that was the extent of Christmas in the White House. There were no mentions of Christmas on official cards -- and only a smattering of references in eight years of greetings and special events. After eight years of making political correctness a state religion, it's really no wonder Americans flocked to a man who isn't afraid to call the season what it is.
"You go to stores, you don't see the word Christmas," Donald Trump argued on the campaign trail. "It says 'happy holidays' all over. I say, 'Where's Christmas? I tell my wife, 'Don't go to those stores'... I want to see Christmas." Thanks to the president and First Lady, Americans are seeing Christmas. The White House is alive with tradition, from the "Merry Christmas" on the White House card to its official hashtag #WHChristmas. To the Trumps, it's just another way of keeping their promise.
"Something I said so much during the last two years, but I'll say it again, as we approach the end of the year, you know we're getting near that beautiful Christmas season that people don't talk about anymore," the president said at last month's Values Voter Summit. "They don't use the word Christmas because it's not politically correct. You go to department stores, and they'll say 'Happy New Year,' and they'll say other things. It'll be red. They'll have it painted. Well, guess what? We're saying Merry Christmas again."
The crowd erupted in cheers -- completely baffling the media. Like most liberals, they couldn't understand why the issue resonated so much with conservatives. Other reporters almost mocked the line, latching on to it as another silly soundbite on an issue they consider so trivial. But to every Christian in that room, the president was talking about a lot more than the war on Christmas. He was speaking directly into the fight for religious liberty in America.
Maybe the mainstream media didn't notice how stifled Christians were under Barack Obama's government -- how everything they said or wore or posted was scrutinized (or worse, punished). After two terms of the most hostile administration to faith the country has ever seen, I guarantee no one takes the simplest expression -- "Merry Christmas" -- for granted. To the people who elected Donald Trump, this isn't just about putting Christ in a day. It's about putting faith back in American life.
First of all, let me make a quick sidebar here. I for one, am so sick of people like Tony Perkins bogarting the word "Christian" as if God gave them the patent to it. If you asked another group of Christians, say African-American Southern Baptists, about feeling stifled under Obama, they would have a totally different reaction.
But back to the subject at hand - Perkins isn't the only conservative celebrating over this nonsense, but it is the height of shallowness that he refers to a 2009 article spotlighting former Obama social secretary Desiree Rogers (and probably truncated by his group) to attack the former president.
It is even more shallow, more ridiculous, and just downright sad that Perkins seems to be implying that Trump is a better president than Obama because his Christmas decorations include a Nativity scene or that he makes it a point to say "Merry Christmas."
The GOP is hoping that 'religious leaders' such as Tony Perkins of FRC will help get tax bill passed.
Senate Republicans Will Give Christian Right an Easy Victory in Exchange for Tax-Bill Lobbying - If you see organizations like the Family Research Council and the American Family Association and people like Franklin Graham lobbying for the GOP tax bill or urging their followers to do so, it's not because they think it will benefit Americans. It is because the tax bill will give these so-called religious entities more power in endorsing candidates and funneling campaign donations through churches. They don't give a rip about how damaging this bill would be for the country.
The GOP’s effort to let churches endorse candidates is deeply unpopular - And even though the idea of churches becoming more politically powerful (while most likely keeping their tax-exempt status) is unpopular, it won't stop these folks. It was never about morality or values. It was always about power and the forcing of their views on the country because of their sense of entitlement. And if you think this won't cause havoc for the LGBTQ community, think again.
