Tuesday, December 05, 2017

LGBTQ equality vs. 'Religious liberty' has its court date



The SCOTUS oral arguments about the Colorado baker attempting to use religion as an excuse to discriminate took place today and I have to tell you honestly:

Like they always do, people overemphasize  and underemphasize what the Justices said, what questions they asked, what points they made. People are looking for the smallest clue as to how they will rule. But I don't know what the ruling will be. Of course I also said that about marriage equality and probably have said that about every court case about LGBTQ equality even if I were sure. I do know that a lot of folks on our side freaked out - as they always do.

My advice is that we have a long time from now until the case is publicly decided - spring of 2018. Let's not flip out. That includes no constant insane speculation. But I will say that the best article I read on the case was from Chris Geidner and Dominic Holden of Buzzfeed.

I found it to be precised, not opinionated - which was very needed - and inclusive of many details other articles didn't contain, like the following:

Waggoner walked a fine line between saying she wanted a ruling for her client but not a decision that creates a slippery slope, thereby possibly eroding civil rights laws for other classes of people or protecting an endless type of service providers. And yet, she sought a decision open-ended enough that other creative businesses that sell wedding services could turn away same-sex couples. Waggoner drew this line by insisting she wasn't asking to protect tailors and chefs, for example, but rather the baker's cake, which is inherently a message. 
Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned why — even if there is a line to be drawn — the cake baker should be on the exempted side of the line. "The primary purpose of a food of any kind is to be eaten," she said. "There are sandwich artists," she said, but a sandwich-maker does't claim to create a First Amendment-protected lunch. 
Kagan synthesized the these scenarios into three "axes" of questioning, each one exploring how ruling for the baker opens further questions in a different direction. Many questions centered around which sort of business would be afforded the right to refuse service, and at what point their wares became a constitutionally protected form of expression. "A second axis is, well, why is this only about gay people?” she said, touching on questions about how a ruling could apply to racial discrimination, sex discrimination, or even, as raised at one point, disability discrimination. "Why isn't it about race?" Finally, she questioned how a decision could be confined solely to products for weddings. "What else counts?" Kagan asked — saying a funeral, bar mitzvah, or birthday could be affected. 
"So there are all three of these that suggest like, whoa, this doesn't seem like such a small thing," Kagan concluded.

Give it a read. It will calm your nerves. Also, remember that whatever the outcome, we will use it as an advantage. We will not give in to fear or despair if we lose or excessive giddiness if we win. Regardless of either outcome, this isn't over by a long shot. And when it is over, we will win because we will strive to win.

Monday, December 04, 2017

'Religious liberty' is merely the newest weapon in the 'war on the gays'



And here we go again with what I like to call "the eternal struggle." I call it that because we've been through this before and we'll probably go through it several more times in the future.

The anti-LGBTQ industry will meet us yet again at SCOTUS combat with the stakes being our equality. More specifically, a Colorado baker, with the assistance of groups who live to rip away LGBTQ equality, will see if he can use his religion as an excuse to discriminate against the LGBTQ community. The case has far reaching implications.

Don't be fooled by the spin pushed forth by anti-LGBTQ industry groups such as hate group the Family Research Council and the baker's lawyers from another hate group, the Alliance Defending Freedom. This case is not about a simple Christian being attacked or persecuted by pushy gays (which is always the spin that side puts out there) nor is it about a cake. It's not about religious freedom or religious liberty, What it's about is the same thing as the fight for marriage equality, the sodomy laws, or even the fight over adoption has been about.

It's about groups with lots of money and influence who are willing to hide their animus against the LGBTQ community behind a religious veneer while constantly working to deprive us of equality. When you pull back the phony religious layer, you will see that we are talking about decades of ugliness.

In the 70s, they said the children must be protected from "recruitment" since gays supposedly can't reproduce.

In the 80s, they exploited the ignorance regarding the AIDS crisis to make lgbts seem like deserving pariahs.

In the 90s. it was all about keeping us from receiving unfair "special rights."

And in the early 2000's, it was all about "protecting marriage."

So now we are in the middle of yet another con job propagated by slick verbiage, straw man arguments, junk science, and anecdotal stories taken out of context - i.e. "religious liberty."

'Will SCOTUS allow 'religious liberty' to send America back to the bigotry of the past?' & other Mon midday new briefs

This week's SCOTUS case is not just about a cake, but a question of have we learned anything from history?

A Supreme Court ruling in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop would destroy discrimination law. - Will a supposed adherence to a form of the Christian religion allow discrimination against LGBTQ customers and bring in an era in which anyone - particularly African-Americans, people of the Jewish faith, the Latino community, and the rest who are considered as "the other" - can be put at risk for the idea of "religious liberty." It's never been about a cake.

The Trump administration could cost the anti-LGBTQ cake baker a victory in the Supreme Court - Oh really? Do tell. 

Roy Moore: Immorality Is At A New Low - Get a load of this liar.

Democrat appeals decision striking down his order banning discrimination. - Louisiana Gov. Bel Edwards goes to bat for the LGBTQ community. 

Transgender rights: Los Angeles families complain of insensitive treatment during court hearings - This is a mess. Judges should carry themselves with a form of objectivity, particularly when dealing with children and especially OUR children.

Sunday, December 03, 2017

When 'religious liberty' puts children at risk

The video below says it all when it comes to children up for adoption. Should decisions about their well-being be based upon the personal religious beliefs of the childcare worker instead of the best interest of the child?

That question shouldn't even be up for the discussion, but thanks to the anti-LGBT right's argument about "religious liberty," a lot of money behind their cause, and a heavy dose of propaganda from them and other folks in conservative think tanks and media (i.e. Fox News, The Daily Caller, One News Now), here we are:



Editor's note - LGBT adoption in no way harms a children.In addition, the Child Welfare League of America has affirmed this  as a fact.

Thursday, November 30, 2017

'Christian' organization prays for anti-LGBT discrimination, raised taxes, wrecked healthcare, and religious/political corruption

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.

'Roy Moore blames LGBTQ community for his sexual misconduct allegations' & other Thur midday news briefs

Roy Moore

Roy Moore Just Blamed His Sexual Misconduct Allegations On Lesbians, Gays, And Socialists - You know, should he become a Senator - and I really am hoping that he doesn't - Roy Moore would actually be a benefit to the cause of LGBTQ equality. I'll give him six months before he says something to get his own party exasperated.

In 2008 audio, Roy Moore compares marriage equality to Nazism and pines for sodomy laws - See news brief 1.

Mat Staver: Roy Moore Election About Whether We ‘Have Same-Sex Marriage For The Rest Of Our Lives’ - Those who are thinking that the religious right won't attempt to get the SCOTUS decision on marriage equality overturned, come here and let me slap some sense into you.

South African Court Rules a Gay Couple Can’t Adopt Because One of the Men Is Closeted - I agree with this decision as a condemnation of how homophobia in society makes it difficult for the LGBTQ community to lead normal lives.