Trump Lauds "Christian" Adoption Agencies for Refusing Same Sex Couples

While the Human Rights Campaign ("HRC") and Equality Virginia ("EV") have foolishly injected themselves into the current chaos of Virginia politics, Donald Trump reminded everyone not overcome with political correctness of where these organizations ought to be focusing their efforts.  Speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast Thursday morning, Trump openly endorsed anti-LGBT discrimination by foster and adoption agencies receiving tax payer funds.  This sort of bigotry ought to be a reminder that 29 states still have no employment non-discrimination protections despite many years of HRC and EV shaking down supporters for money both organizations have failed to deliver on these basic legal protections. Now, in Virginia they have attacked one of their strongest allies. In my view, major changes in their leadership is needed.  But back to Trump and his lauding of bigotry.  Here are highlights from Think Progress:

Donald Trump openly endorsed discrimination by foster and adoption agencies, speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast Thursday morning.

After welcoming Chad and Melissa Buck, a couple from Michigan who he applauded for having adopted five children, he said, “Unfortunately, the Michigan adoption charity that brought the Buck family together is now defending itself in court for living by the values of its Catholic faith.”

“We will always protect our country’s long and proud tradition of faith-based adoption,” he added. “My administration is working to insure that faith-based adoption agencies are able to help vulnerable children find their forever families while following their deeply held beliefs.”

The case Trump referred to is a lawsuit the ACLU brought on behalf of two same-sex couples challenging Michigan’s law granting adoption agencies a license to discriminate, even if they receive state funding.

One of the couples behind the suit, Kristy and Dana Dumont, sought adoption services from St. Vincent Catholic Charities in July 2016 and again in March 2017. The agency told them it did not work with same-sex couples.

During a February 2015 Michigan House hearing on legislation that would protect adoption agencies from being punished for discriminating, St. Vincent’s director of clinical services defended the bill, testifying that the agency would be affected otherwise, as it employed such discriminatory practices. “If they let us know that they’re unmarried, or they’re gay or lesbian, we immediately recommend, make a referral to another agency,” they said.

But the ACLU didn’t sue St. Vincent or any other particular agency that was taking advantage of the law. It sued state officials directly, seeking to overturn the law altogether. The agency, along with the Bucks, chose to intervene in the case to help defend the discriminatory law for which it had previously advocated. If the same-sex couples’ case succeeded, the agency claimed, it would be forced to shut down.

Trump’s assurances at Thursday’s prayer breakfast come weeks after his administration granted a waiver to a South Carolina foster care agency, granting them license to ignore an Obama administration rule prohibiting discrimination. Miracle Hill, an evangelical protestant agency, not only refuses to serve same-sex families but had also refused to place children with a Jewish family.

Anti-LGBTQ groups have prioritized passing more of these laws allowing child placement agencies to discriminate across the country while still receiving public funding in recent years. An effort to chip away at marriage equality, these campaigns demonize same-sex parents, provide special privileges to Christian agencies, and normalize subsidizing discrimination with taxpayer money.

Christian Nationalists' 2019 Anti-Gay, Special Rights Legislative Playbook

As I have often noted, in my more than 25 years tracking "Christian" "family values" organizations, with the exception of perhaps Donald Trump, no one lies more often and disingenuously.  Currently, the favored ruse for gaining special rights for themselves and exemptions from the laws that govern everyone else is the false flag of "religious freedom." The evangelical/Christofascist definition of religious freedom is in reality, the direct opposite of true religious freedom and aims at forcing all of society to accept their poisonous religious beliefs or, failing that, to allow the Pharisee like Christofascists to ignore non-discrimination laws, public accommodation laws, and in the realm of health care, to refuse to treat those they dislike.  Gays, of course, are a favored target, but by extension every other minority group can be targeted through cherry picking bible passages to justify what in truth is nothing more than unvarnished hate and bigotry. As we near 2019 and a new legislative year, the enemies of true religious freedom are preparing to try to turn some of the hate-filled policies into law.  Sadly, one of the architects of this ugly agenda is a Chesapeake, Virginia organization headed by former Congressman Randy Forbes.  A piece in Rewire looks at this anti-religious freedom for all endeavor.  Here are highlights:

State legislatures across the country became showcases for Christian nationalist legislation in 2018. Leading the charge was the ominously named Project Blitz—a coalition of Christian Right groups that are unambiguous about their intentions for the short and long term, to restore America to a Christian nation that never was. The Christian Right groups behind Project Blitz—The Chesapeake, Virginia-based Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation; the National Legal Foundation; and the Wallbuilders Pro-Family Legislators Conference—have published a new state legislative playbook for 2019. [A]bout 74 Project Blitz model bills were considered in 2018. “More than 60 percent involved promoting Christianity in public schools; more than a third were ‘In God We Trust’ display bills,” according to reporting from Church & State.   [O]thers sought to provide religious exemptions (or refusals) from the law in ways that would affect access to reproductive and LGBTQ health care. These included versions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) which had been rebranded as the “Preserving Religious Freedom Act” and the “Marriage Tolerance Act.” . . . . bills are intended to pave the way for far more serious legislation involving religious exemptions from civil rights laws such as FADA, which may be seen as decisive moves towards a theocratic state. Indeed, the 2019 manual, “Report and Analysis on Religious Freedom Measures Impacting Prayer and Faith in America,” is as clear as the previous version in its promotion of a Christian nationalist view of history and a long-term Dominionist political vision that’s profoundly at odds with what most would consider a reasonable approach to religious freedom. While there’s usually some room for religious tolerance on the part of Christian nationalists, there is no tolerance—at least not in the long run—from Dominionists who sustain a long-term vision of organizing all of society and government according to their understanding of the Bible. [A] . . . . Prime Focus, “Resolution Establishing Public Policy Favoring Intimate Sexual Relations Only Between Married, Heterosexual Couples” was published in the current and previous playbooks. The apparent purpose of the nonbinding model resolutions is to help to persuade legislators and executive branch program administrators that not only religious, but also public health, exemptions from the law need to be created, and perhaps litigated, to chip away at marriage equality so that not all marriages need be treated equally under the law. In addition they aim to more generally erode the rights of LGBTQ people. Resolutions on heterosexual marriage, birth gender, and adoption are, they assert, intended to advance “biblical values.” The claim is that there’s sufficient social science data and research in support of their view . . . . refers to pages of material of questionable scientific value about LGBTQ people, leading to the conclusion that LGBTQ people are diseased and dysfunctional. These are used in their argument, for example, in the anti-adoption and foster care bill, to suggest that LGBTQ people are a threat to children. This led them to title the model bill the “Child Protection Act.”   Finally, there is a new section titled “Talking Points to Counter Anti-Religious Freedom Legislation.” This section insists that there cannot be inherent civil rights regarding “sexual orientation” because the term is too vague and there is too much disagreement over its meaning. Similarly, the manual declares: The term “gender identity” has no fixed meaning and, by definition, is the product of an individual, subjective determination that may conflict with how the individual objectively appears to others. Because of its subjectivity, the term can be used by an individual in a temporally inconsistent manner, and legislation based on its use is vague and violates due process.

The manual goes on to detail arguments against bans on “conversion therapy” that have been enacted in several states and against repeal of state RFRAs. 

Project Blitz . . . . also reflects the central anti-abortion politics of our time. . . . one bill, (“Licensed Professional Civil Rights Act”) on conscience clause exemptions in professional licensing standards has implications for health workers and pharmacists (who might seek religious exemptions for their role in providing contraception or abortion care), as well mental health practitioners who refuse to help LBGTQ patients. It should also be noted that versions of state-level  RFRAs and FADAs include generous religious exemptions for both institutions and individuals on matters related to reproductive health care. The 2019 legislative session has not yet begun, but Project Blitz is already getting attention. . . . . Platt stressed the importance of preventing the Christian Right from distorting the meaning of religious freedom and bending it to their purposes. She stressed that “it’s really important to … remind ourselves what religious liberty really is, which is the freedom of individuals and communities to practice their religious beliefs, or to practice no religion, in a pluralistic society, free from government persecution, discrimination, or coercion. So this is a foundational constitutional value, and it’s a progressive value.” “They’ve managed to conflate that term [religious freedom] with particular, narrow protections for conservative religious beliefs about sex, marriage, and reproduction, while totally ignoring the enormous variety of views that we know people of faith—including Christians—have had on these matters. And, of course, ignoring completely the very existence of LGBTQ people of faith.”  “My takeaway from all of this would just be don’t play on their turf,” Platt said. “Don’t buy into their idea that all religious exemptions enhance religious liberty, and don’t buy into an inherent conflict between religious liberty and civil rights. These exemptions are … actually violating religious liberty.” 

The Supreme Court Is Headed Back to the 19th Century

If one wonders where America is likely headed with a Supreme Court firmly controlled by a reactionary majority, a very lengthy piece in The Atlantic suggests that we are headed back to Court decisions like those in the 19th Century which protected the powerful, especially corporations, and set the frame work for the Jim Crow laws.  Racial minorities and the LGBT community in particular should be very fearful if the lessons of history show us anything.  Through it all, a pretense of a support for "freedom" will be maintained even as discrimination is maintained.  The Christofascists and white supremacists of Trump and the GOP's base will be thrilled since they will be allowed to victimize and discriminate against others. The rest of the GOP supporters will be complicit in the wrongs done and will need to be held accountable when the day of reckoning does finally come after incalculable harm has been done.  Here are article excerpts (take the time to read the entire article):

When the Louisiana State Militia finally arrived at the Colfax courthouse on April 15, 1873, all it could do was bury the bodies. Two days earlier, a large force of white supremacists had taken control of the courthouse from the mostly black faction protecting it. J. R. Beckwith, the U.S. attorney for New Orleans, told Congress that in the aftermath the ground was “strewn with dead negroes,” their bodies plundered by whites who had come to watch the bloodshed. The dead remained “unburied and mutilated,” Beckwith said, until federal troops arrived days later to shovel them into a mass grave.

“Not a single negro had been killed until all of them had surrendered to the whites who were fighting with them,” The New York Times reported at the time, “when over 100 of the unfortunate negroes were shot down in cold blood.”

President Ulysses S. Grant called the Colfax massacre a “butchery” that “in bloodthirstiness and barbarity is hardly surpassed by any acts of savage warfare.” . . . Many white Southerners saw it differently. Robert Hunter, the editor of The Caucasian, a Louisiana newspaper, told Congress in 1875 that some of his own staffers had participated in the massacre. “I approved it, as most of our people did,” Hunter testified. “Had not the Colfax affair ended as it did, not less than a thousand niggers would have been killed later.”

Seventy-two men were ultimately indicted for their role in the Colfax massacre, charged under the Enforcement Acts of 1870, which were passed to help the federal government suppress the Ku Klux Klan. But their convictions were overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, which concluded that the federal government lacked the authority to charge the perpetrators. . . . And it wouldn’t have mattered if they had, argued the Grant-appointed Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite, because the Fourteenth Amendment’s powers did not cover discrimination by individuals, only by the state. “The only obligation resting upon the United States is to see that the States do not deny the right,” Waite wrote.

This decision, in United States v. Cruikshank, the legal historian Lawrence Goldstone argues, provided a guide for the campaign of racist terrorism that would suppress the black vote and enshrine a white man’s government for generations.

Grant was enraged that “insuperable obstructions were thrown in the way of punishing these murderers … and the so-called conservative papers of the State not only justified the massacre, but denounced as federal tyranny and despotism the attempt of the United States officers to bring them to justice.” . . . By the end, racial segregation would be the law of the land, black Americans would be almost entirely disenfranchised, and black workers would be relegated to a twisted simulacrum of the slave system that existed before the Civil War.

The justices . . . carefully framed their arguments in terms of limited government and individual liberty, writing opinion after opinion that allowed the white South to create an oppressive society in which black Americans had almost no rights at all. Their commitment to freedom in the abstract, and only in the abstract, allowed a brutal despotism to take root in Southern soil.

The Conservative majority on the Supreme Court today is similarly blinded by a commitment to liberty in theory that ignores the reality of how Americans’ lives are actually lived. Like the Supreme Court of that era, the conservatives on the Court today are opposed to discrimination in principle, and indifferent to it in practice.

Chief Justice John Roberts’s June 2018 ruling to uphold President Donald Trump’s travel ban targeting a list of majority-Muslim countries, despite the voluminous evidence that it had been conceived in animus, showed that the muddled doctrines of the post-Reconstruction period retain a stubborn appeal.

In doing so, he [Roberts] embraced the logic of decades of jurisprudence from his predecessors on the high court, whose rulings ensured that the Constitution would not interfere with the emergence of Jim Crow in the American South. The nation’s founding document is no match for a dedicated majority of justices committed to circumventing its guarantees.

Not since the end of Reconstruction has the U.S. government been so firmly committed to a single, coherent program uniting a politics of ethnonationalism with unfettered corporate power. As with Redemption, as the end of Reconstruction is known, the consequences could last for generations.

The lesson of the post-Reconstruction Supreme Court is that a determined Court majority can prove stubbornly resistant to short-term swings of political fortune. Even if Democrats win the next election cycle, and the one after that, an enduring conservative majority on the Supreme Court will have the power to shatter any hard-won liberal legislative victory on the anvil of judicial review. It will be able to reverse decades-old precedents that secure fundamental rights. It will further entrench the rules of a society in which justice skews toward the wealthy, and the lives of those without means can be destroyed by a chance encounter with law enforcement. It will do all these things and more in the name of a purely theoretical freedom, which most Americans will never be able to afford to experience.

The Supreme Court’s moments of majesty, such as Brown v. Board of Education, which outlawed segregated schools; and Loving v. Virginia, which struck down anti-miscegenation laws; and even Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage, are few and far between. For most of its existence, the high court has been committed less to upholding the rule of law or the Constitution than to preserving its own legitimacy, unwilling to shield the powerless from the mob unless convinced that it has the political cover to do so. Like many things in America, the ideal rarely resembles the execution.

The Colfax massacre is most often remembered as the single worst act of violence during Reconstruction, but it also set a template for the high court’s approach to the bloody restoration of white rule in the South. The men who carried out the massacre had popular support among Southern whites—according to the historian Ted Tunnell, “nearly half the white males” in New Orleans alone belonged to terrorist groups such as the White League, which was willing to use violence to secure political gains or prevent black Americans from voting. With Cruikshank, the justices sent the message that if white Southerners wished to overthrow their state government at gunpoint, the Supreme Court would bar efforts to prosecute them.

The Supreme Court’s growing hostility to federal efforts to protect black rights would come to its logical conclusion in the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson, which upheld segregation in public transportation. Justice Henry Billings Brown, a Rutherford B. Hayes appointee, wrote that “if one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane.” Separate was not inherently unequal, he insisted. . . . As the historian Ibram X. Kendi has written, “Brown relied on racist ideas to support a policy that was clearly discriminatory in intent. It was his job to obscure those intentions.”

In 1898, in Williams v. Mississippi, the William McKinley–appointed Justice Joseph McKenna would write for a unanimous Court that literacy tests and grandfather clauses, two cornerstones of Jim Crow–era disenfranchisement, were constitutional because they also affected some whites. That the devices were consciously used to bar black voters from the polls was of no significance—the Court would avert its eyes and plug its ears.

“The Court increasingly used the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect corporations from state regulation rather than the civil rights of persons.” In case after case, “the U.S. Supreme Court had come to embrace the logic of corporations,” Painter wrote in Standing at Armageddon, her history of the Gilded Age. “These decisions outlawed virtually any attempt by states to limit maximum hours of work, of unions to strike, and of the federal government to curb or regulate monopolies or to curb the accumulation of vast fortunes.” . . . The redistribution of civil rights from American citizens to American corporations helped create the greatest disparities in wealth in the nation’s history, until the present day.

“The Supreme Court contributed to the inequality of the Gilded Age by reinforcing and encouraging racial segregation. By refusing to read the Fourteenth Amendment broadly for minorities, they allowed a system of racial apartheid to go up in the South,” Winkler said. “On the other side, the corporate rulings enhanced inequality by entrenching the power of industrialists, financiers, and wealthy elites at the expense of immigrants and the working class."

Chief Justice Roberts upheld the [Trump muslim] ban, writing that it was “facially neutral” and that “the text says nothing about religion.” His decision echoed the logic of the Supreme Court’s rulings in Redemption-era cases such as Cruikshank and Williams: that as long as the legal language itself did not explicitly mention the group being discriminated against, intent and effect were irrelevant. The implications are larger than one religion: As with the Redemption Court, which gave the Redeemers a blueprint for creating a segregated society through laws that “do not on their face discriminate between the races,” Roberts and the conservative majority have indicated that Trump’s bigotries can be made policy as long as they appear “facially neutral.”

With Anthony Kennedy’s retirement, there is no discriminatory voting restriction the justices will be unable to sanction, no immigration law born in animus they will be unable to approve, no expansion of corporate power they will be unable to accept, no grant of presidential immunity they will be unable to uphold, no financial or environmental regulation they will be unable to strike down, no religious objection to an anti-discrimination law they will be unable to recognize, no worker protection they will be unable to repeal, no limitation on abortion they will be unable to allow, and no abuse of power by law enforcement they will feel compelled to restrict. 

There is hope for the Democratic Party in its base. The black and brown workers intimately acquainted with the two-faced nature of American liberty, the rebellious teachers whose surprise strikes brought red-state politicians to heel, the young leftists whose cold-eyed understanding of power mirrors that of their Republican opponents, and the feminists who flooded the streets after Trump’s inauguration forced the nation to reckon with the ascension of predatory men to the highest levels of culture, clergy, and state. But they will have to contend with a party establishment that is so divorced from the lives of those the Trump administration has put in peril that it cannot comprehend what will be required to defeat Trumpism. Democracy is a fight, and the Democratic Party’s leadership has yet to show that it can even wrap its hands.

Be very, very afraid.  America could be poised to revisit some of its ugliest history.

Brett Kavanaugh Is A “Direct Threat” To LGBT People

Kavanaugh and Der Trumpenführer who has been waging a relentless war on LGBT Americans.

While I have been at times critical of the Human Rights Campaign ("HRC") because in the past it has at times put more emphasis on self-promotion and maintaining "access" to politicians by not putting the rights of its LGBT supporters first, when it comes to research, generally does a first class job. Today, HRC released a research piece that concluded that Brett Kavanaugh, Der Trumpenführer's nominee to replace Anthony Kennedy, is a "direct threat" to LGBT Americans.  Why?  Because, Kavanaugh seemingly does not believe in a constitutional right to privacy which is the principle that under grids not only Roe v. Wade, but also Lawrence v. Texas and even the Obergefell marriage ruling. Equally disturbing is Kavanaugh's deference to "religious liberty" claims that increasingly are being utilized by Christofascists to demand exemption from non-discrimination laws and public accommodation laws.  BuzzFeed looks at HRC's concerns.  Here are highlights:

h,The Human Rights Campaign, the country’s largest LGBT advocacy group, has concluded that Judge Brett Kavanaug President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, is “a direct threat to the constitutional rights of everyday Americans and for the LGBTQ community in particular.”

In his dozen years as a federal appeals court judge, however, Kavanaugh has not heard any significant cases addressing LGBT issues and has said hardly anything about LGBT people. As a result, HRC’s opposition to his nomination — detailed in a new report to be released Tuesday, a copy of which was reviewed by BuzzFeed News — drew primarily on Kavanaugh’s opinions regarding reproductive rights and religious liberties, as well as the dearth of information about his work in the George W. Bush White House, to back up its conclusions about the threat the group says his confirmation would pose to LGBT Americans.

The fact that Kavanaugh would replace Justice Anthony Kennedy — the author of all of the Supreme Court’s key decisions advancing LGBT rights over the past 25 years — also appeared to figure into HRC’s stance.

The HRC report also expressed concerns about Kavanaugh’s views on the Affordable Care Act, voter ID laws, and federal agency power, as well as his rulings in employment discrimination cases.

“During his 12 years on the D.C. Circuit, [Kavanaugh] did not substantively address any of the Supreme Court’s seminal LGBTQ decisions in Lawrence v. Texas, Romer v. Evans, United States v. Windsor, or Obergefell v. Hodges, nor its discredited ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick,” the report stated. 

In the absence of opinions on LGBT-related cases, HRC pointed to speeches Kavanaugh gave “extensively praising” former chief justice William Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia — whom the group claimed “have some of the most pronounced anti-LGBTQ records of modern jurists.”

“Judge Kavanaugh’s record on reproductive rights, the right to privacy, and religious liberty indicates a potent combination of ideological views that could significantly and unnecessarily reshape constitutional doctrine and nondiscrimination protections as they apply to LGBTQ persons,” the group concluded.

The next five sections of the HRC report laid out the legal areas where the group argued that Kavanaugh’s opinions and other statements suggest he will be opposed to LGBT people’s interests.

·      Right to Privacy: HRC argued that Kavanaugh’s dissenting opinions in two reproductive rights cases — one involving an undocumented minor seeking an abortion and the other involving the Affordable Care Act’s contraception coverage opt-out procedures — signal a “critical and constrained perspective” on Roe v. Wade. His record, the report concluded, “suggests that he does not accept the enduring precept that the Constitution protects the right to privacy,” adding that this relates to LGBT issues as “the Court’s 2015 momentous marriage equality decision built upon this logic further.”

·         Religious Liberty: The group pointed to Kavanaugh’s dissenting opinion in the ACA case, which the majority of the DC Circuit judges called “a potentially sweeping” interpretation of the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision, and concluded that Kavanaugh “seems all-too-ready to carve out any number of other religious exemptions into statutory and constitutional law.”

·     Nondiscrimination Protections: Calling Kavanaugh’s opinion upholding South Carolina’s voter ID law “troubling,” HRC also noted that the judge repeatedly dissented in discrimination-related cases where his colleagues “upheld a claim or finding of discrimination.”

·         Separation of Powers: Citing his criticism of “independent agencies [as] … a headless fourth branch of the US government” in a case challenging the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the HRC report expressed concern that Kavanaugh’s reasoning “could regularly disempower federal agencies and narrow federal laws, which often serve as crucial bulwarks against LGBTQ discrimination.”

Finally, HRC echoed concerns expressed by Senate Democrats about records from Kavanaugh’s time in the White House — first as a lawyer in the counsel’s office and then as Bush’s staff secretary. Specifically, the group noted that records from Kavanaugh’s work in the Bush administration may include information regarding his views on LGBT issues.

“The years of 2001 to 2006 (when he served in the Bush White House), was an especially consequential period for the LGBTQ rights and marriage equality movement,” the report said. “This era included the Lawrence v. Texas decision, multiple pronouncements by President Bush about the institution of marriage and marriage-related amendments to the federal Constitution, and civil rights litigation and referenda at the state and circuit levels.”

As most readers will recall, the George W. Bus White House used anti-gay marriage initiatives and anti-gay animus in general as a means to rally the Christofascist vote in 2004.  What role Kavanaugh played in this anti-gay witch hunt and demonizing of LGBT Americans needs to be made public BEFORE any vote takes place on Kavanaugh's nomination. 

Alliance Defending Freedom: The Face of Anti-LGBT Hate

As noted in previous posts, the Trump/Pence Department of Justice under the very racist and very homophobic Jeff Sessions (my experiences with Sessions date all the way back to the late 1970's/early 1980s) is pushing a so-called task force to protect "religious liberty," a euphemism used to mask the agenda of the far right Christians to exempt themselves from non-discrimination laws and public accommodation laws. A piece in Rewire News (formerly Religion Dispatches)  

At the summit, DOJ attorneys assured attendees they are protecting the religious rights of everyone in the United States, all while conservative Christian politicians and advocates voiced a need for stepped-up federal protections beyond those they already enjoy. It was also a forum for Sessions to announce the next phase of Trump’s May 2017 executive order: a task force that will likely implement those very protections and, in doing so, safeguard conservative Christians’ ability to discriminate against vulnerable groups.

With the highest incidence of religious based discrimination and hate crimes being against Muslims, the summit acted as if this reality did not exist and made it clear that if one is Hindu, gay, or of some non-Christian faith, one would be treated as if invisible by the task force. A driving force behind this special rights for Christofascists agenda is Alliance Defending Freedom, a certified anti-gay hate group that for years has disseminated malicious falsehoods against the LGBT community both in America and abroad and, which if it could, would criminalize homosexuality.  A piece in The Advocate looks at the sinister specter behind the DOJ's agenda.  Here are highlights:

One hate group that compares LGBTQ people to pedophiles is laying the groundwork to usher in a new age in this country where civil rights laws are rendered moot. And unless we stand in their way, they are going to win.

NO GAYS ALLOWED was plastered onto a storefront in Tennessee after the United States Supreme Court ruled that the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop would have his case reheard by Colorado officials over his refusal to make cakes for same-sex weddings. The court did not rule that businesses can ban LGBTQ people. But, the reaction in Tennessee to this ruling gave us a glimpse into the future we are headed toward. It is a future where LGBTQ people are refused services at stores, turned away from jobs, and denied care at hospitals. Things that, all too often happen today but may soon be court sanctioned and brought to you by America’s most successful anti-LGBTQ hate group: the Alliance Defending Freedom.

ADF’s version of religious freedom is not the idea that one may believe or worship as one pleases. For them, it means a cakeshop owner can turn away a gay couple, as Phillips did, that a doctor can decline to treat someone if they deem someone morally offensive, and even a teacher can refuse to call a transgender student by their name.

ADF’s been designated as an anti-LGBTQ hate-group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. They’ve advocated for the criminalization of LGBTQ people in the United States and abroad.

It’s founder, Alan Sears, while president of ADF, published a book that falsely claimed being gay was “intrinsically linked” to pedophilia. Sears’s book was on ADF’s legal fellows reading list as recently as 2015.

The group also appears to have close ties to the Trump administration, and their clients frequently speak at government events about ADF-style religious freedom. In January, Sara Hellwege, an ADF client, praised ADF as she spoke at the Department of Health and Human Services’ announcement that it would attempt to allow doctors’ morality to determine which patients will be treated. On July 30, when Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the creation of a so-called Religious Liberty Task Force, he mentioned Jack Phillips three times in his speech before Phillips spoke at the event. Former ADF staffers now working for Sessions are believed to have helped in the creation of this task force.

It seems even more likely that ADF will rack up anti-LGBTQ victories with the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. If Trump’s pick, Brett Kavanaugh, replaces Kennedy, he will be the fifth hard-right justice on the court.

The group has become so emboldened from their legal victories that on July 17, ADF declared it will charge forward with a “proactive defense of freedom” and challenge the constitutionality of non-discrimination laws as soon as they are signed into law.

We know what ADF is doing, their playbook is simply: Push lots of small cases, make ties with federal leaders, and claim they don’t support discrimination — it’s just a minor byproduct of religious freedom. Where we fail is that instead of taking on ADF directly, the LGBTQ movement tackles each case, government edict, and ADF victory separately, never tying it all together to ADF’s overall strategy, sometimes not even mentioning ADF’s involvement at all.

Without this bigger picture the simple truth gets lost: a hate-group is trying to find any argument it can to justify discrimination against LGBTQ people. Period.

New Sex Abuse Scandals as US Catholic Bishops Back Federal Anti-Gay Law

Despite the crocodile tears of Pope Francis and other high Catholic hierarchs - some of whom looked the other way to protect predators - the Catholic Church leadership remains a moral cesspool.   Sex abuse of children and youths continue literally across the globe and far too many bishops and cardinals put "protecting the Church" and predators above the rights and lives of abuse victims.  Among the stories about sexual abuse by priests today, two stand out.  One involves police raiding Bishop Joseph Cistone's residence, the Catholic Diocese of Saginaw, Michigan offices and St. Mary's Cathedral in Saginaw.  Why?  Because authorities grew frustrated with Bishop Cistone and the diocese's failure to cooperate in investigations of sexual abuse allegations.  Here are highlights from ABC News 12:

A contingent of law enforcement officials from multiple agencies raided Bishop Joseph Cistone's residence, the Catholic Diocese of Saginaw offices and St. Mary's Cathedral in Saginaw.

Police obtained the three search warrants that were being executed as part of the investigation that started Feb. 25 with the arrest of the Rev. Robert DeLand.

Saginaw County Assistant Prosecutor Mark Gaertner said Cistone and the diocese have not lived up to promises to support investigators looking into sexual abuse allegations against DeLand and other church officials.

"Contrary to the statements from the diocese and the bishop that they would fully cooperate with law enforcement, they did not," Gaertner said. "Therefore, it was necessary for law enforcement to utilize other investigative tools, including search warrants."

The second story focuses on the Catholic Diocese of Buffalo under pressure disclosing the names of 42 priests facing allegations of sex abuse, including 27 priests whose names had not previously been linked in public to molestation complaints.  The Buffalo News has details:  

Bishops for the Catholic Diocese of Buffalo refused to acknowledge anything about priests who were accused of molesting minors.

Bishop Richard J. Malone altered course Tuesday morning by disclosing the names of 42 priests facing allegations of sex abuse, including 27 priests whose names had not previously been linked in public to molestation complaints. The diocese joined about 30 other dioceses in the country that have disclosed the names of clergy accused of sexual misconduct.

Most of the priests on the list were never prosecuted on criminal charges or sued in civil courts. Some of the priests were quietly removed from ministry under the guise of early retirements or medical leaves. The diocese on Tuesday did not provide any information about the specific allegations against each priest, or disclose where the living priests are residing.

Meanwhile, the Buffalo News has this: 

Malone was in the state Capitol lobbying with other Catholic bishops from across the state against a provision in the proposed Child Victims Act that would allow victims of child sexual abuse to sue dioceses decades after the alleged abuse occurred.

These two stories are just part of the dozen plus stories from around the world that my Google search agent delivers to me each and every day.

But what are the Conference of Catholic Bishops focused on?  Not cleaning their own ranks of enablers and abetters of sexual predators or cleansing the priesthood of predators or justly compensating victims of abuse.  No, their focus is on backing a proposed federal law that would legalize discrimination against law abiding LGBT citizens under the ruse of "protecting religious liberty."   It's enough to make one want to vomit and certainly explains why the younger generations are walking away from Catholicism (and organized Christianity in general).  Here are highlights from blogger friend Joe Jervis' blog:

Via press release:  Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz of Louisville, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Committee for Religious Liberty, and Bishop James D. Conley of Lincoln, chairman of the Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, gave their strong support for the First Amendment Defense Act, which was recently introduced by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) in the U.S. Senate:

“We welcome and applaud the recent reintroduction of the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA). The USCCB has been vocal in support of the legislation since its inception. FADA is a modest and important measure that protects the rights of faith-based organizations and people of all faiths and of no faith who believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

“The Church will also continue to stand for the ability of all to exercise their religious beliefs and moral convictions in public life without fear of government discrimination. We are pleased to support the First Amendment Defense Act, and we urge Congress to pass this important legislation.”

 What of the civil rights and religious freedoms of those with differing beliefs?  To the bitter old men in dresses, they simply do not matter.  Only the beliefs of modern day Pharisees deserve protection. The hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy is staggering.

GOP Senators Re-Introduce Federal License to Discriminate Law

In an apparent desperate attempt to motivate their base now that (i) Der Trumpenführer likely trade war may wipe out whatever meager take home pay increases the working class elements of GOP  base might have experienced from the GOP/Trump tax cuts - a column in the Washington Post looks at this topic and others here - and (ii) the Stormy Daniels story seemingly gaining steam, 22 GOP U.S. Senators have re-introduced the falsely named "The First Amendment Defense Act" ("FADA") which would bar the federal government from taking any action against Christian extremists (and arguably other homophobes) who engage in discriminate against same-sex couples or others based on "a sincerely held religious belief."  With polls showing congressional Republicans down by double digits compared to a generic Democrat and Trump's polling still in the toilet, Republicans see pandering to still loyal evangelical Christians critical in the lead up to the 2018 midterm elections. The Hill looks at this disgusting effort at self-prostitution.  Here are excerpts: 

A group of 22 GOP senators is reintroducing a controversial measure that would protect opponents of same-sex marriage from federal actions intended to curb discrimination. 

The First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) would bar the federal government from taking any action against individuals who discriminate against same-sex couples or others based on "a sincerely held religious belief."

The bill would also protect those who discriminate against marriages not recognized under federal law or individuals who engage in sex outside of marriage.

The measure was introduced by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and 21 Republican co-sponsors, including Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.), Ted Cruz (Texas) and Orrin Hatch (Utah). 

FADA was introduced in both the House and the Senate in 2015, but only received a hearing in the House.  The bill never advanced to a full vote, however, amid protests from Democrats and concerns among Republicans that then-President Obama would veto the measure if it reached his desk. 

Supporters of the bill say that it is necessary to protect First Amendment guarantees, while opponents argue that it ultimately amounts to an attempt to legalize anti-LGBT discrimination. 

As a presidential candidate, Trump indicated that he would sign the measure if it were sent to his desk, saying that it would "protect the deeply held religious beliefs of Catholics and the beliefs of Americans of all faiths."

Note that Ted Cruz - a man with a long history of homophobia and self-prostitution to Christofascists  - is one of the bill's sponsors.  This bill would allow Christofascists - and arguably homophobic Muslims - to ignore non-discrimination laws while demanding protections for themselves under they very laws they seek to ignore.  As stated often, NO ONE is more selfish and self-centered - and more hypocrisy filled - than the "godly folk."

The Proper Understanding of "Religious Freedom"

Being at the inaugural events this past weekend, including the the inaugural ceremony itself which is held on the south portico of the Virginia Capitol, it is hard not to feel the history of the ceremonies and, of course, the role of the Founding Fathers from Virginia.   Among those is Thomas Jefferson who designed the Capitol building, founded the University of Virginia, and authored the Declaration of Independence.  But Jefferson was equally proud of his authorship of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which in many ways lay the ground work for the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.  As evangelical Christians - the Christofascists - seek to exempt themselves from laws binding on the citizenry on the duplicitous claim that to do otherwise deprives them of "religious freedom," it is important to understand what Jefferson and his fellows understood religious freedom to be and that it is the exact opposite of what is now being put forth by Christofascists whom I suspect Jefferson would have loathed.  Indeed, the exemplify some of the evils of religion that Jefferson and the Founders decried.  A piece in Religion Dispatches by a legitimate historian (as opposed to faux historians favored by the "godly folk") reminds us of what religious freedom means and that it does not grant licences to discriminate.  Here are excerpts:

To listen to the Christian Right, which has been busy seeking religious exemptions from laws governing reproductive rights and LGBTQ rights, one might think that armies of secularists are swarming like locusts over the land, seeking to snuff out the light of religious freedom and ultimately, of faith itself.

Informed people on all sides also tend to agree that the taproot of religious freedom in the United States is the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, originally drafted by Thomas Jefferson in 1777 and shepherded through the Virginia legislature by James Madison in 1786. The following year, Madison served as the principal (but certainly not the only) author of the Constitution, and in 1789, as the principal author of the First Amendment.

Historian John Ragosta, author of Religious Freedom: Jefferson’s Legacy, America’s Creed (University of Virginia Press, 2013), has been writing about the origins of the U.S. approach to religious freedom, particularly the Virginia Statute, the circumstances that gave rise to it and what it means for understanding religion, law and politics in our time.

What exactly is the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and how did it come to be?

The Virginia Statute is probably the most robust and certainly the most poetic statement of religious freedom in our history.  . . . . it played a critical role in development of the First Amendment and in the way the states defined religious freedom. It was far better known in the nineteenth century when historians, students, newspaper editors and politicians regularly turned to the Statute to understand religious liberty.

Its history is equally important: After the American Revolution there was an effort to impose taxes to support all Christian religions; this was seen as an improvement over colonial laws which had favored specific Christian sects, e.g. Anglican or Congregational. If that effort had succeeded, we could say that America was somehow officially or legally a “Christian Nation.” Fortunately, James Madison and a broad coalition of evangelicals rose up to oppose state interference with religion, even support for religion, and instead managed to have Jefferson’s Statute enacted. 

Thomas Jefferson . . . wanted to be remembered as author of the Declaration of Independence, “Father of the University of Virginia,” and author of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.

Jefferson saw these three things as the great accomplishments of his life: political freedom, religious freedom, and educational freedom and opportunity. Of the three, he thought religious freedom was the foundation because without freedom to think and believe, you could not have the other two. A republic could not work if government and church officials (what Jefferson referred to as an alliance of “kings, nobles, and priests”) were trying to control what we think or prescribe what was the “best” religion or which people were the “best” citizens based upon their religious beliefs. If people were to make informed political choices themselves, they had to be free to think for themselves, especially about religion. For Jefferson and his supporters, religious freedom for all was central to our democracy.

Jefferson emphasized that the bill was meant to protect everyone, including as he later wrote, “the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.” This idea–that one’s religious identity should be neither an advantage nor a disadvantage under the law–seems to be as relevant today as it was then.

The Statute was intended to create a free market of ideas, including religious ideas. Religion would thrive based not on government decisions but on what people believed and chose to support–the “voluntary principle.” The result was an explosion in religious ideas and denominations, and religious leaders were held responsible to their congregants rather than the government.

At the same time, while belief is completely free from government regulation and government cannot directly regulate the free exercise of religion, government can pass “neutral” laws (not targeted at religion) which may happen to be inconsistent with a person’s beliefs.

The best modern example is laws against racial discrimination: While many people insisted that interracial dating or marriage violated their religion, the Supreme Court, in the 1983 case of Bob Jones University v. United States, rightly refused to grant an exemption to anti-discrimination laws based on religion.

This is exactly what is at issue in the claims for exemptions from laws dealing with LGBTQ rights. Government cannot tell a church that it must marry gay people (that would be a direct regulation of religion), but government can say that if you want to run a business (using public streets, public utilities, police and fire protection, etc.), you cannot discriminate against customers based on race, gender, or sexual orientation. Of course, if people don’t like particular laws, they can be changed, but Jefferson was very clear that you can’t use religion or religious freedom to claim an exemption from an otherwise valid law.

During a crisis, President Jefferson was asked to make an official proclamation calling on people to pray for the country; he refused, saying that it would violate the Constitution. Even if there was no criminal penalty or fine for not praying, Jefferson said that he believed the proclamation would give the erroneous idea that “good” citizens would join in prayer. This was the “tyranny over the mind of man” that Jefferson fought against.

The Declaration of Independence includes very broad and general language about a “creator,” but it is telling that the only reference to God or religion in the Constitution is Article VI which mandates that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust.” This was not a mistake. These religious people decided that it would be better for the country, for both government and religion, to keep them separated.

Jefferson once suggested that perhaps the only thing that we should require of anyone to be tolerated in our society is their commitment to tolerate others.

Eighteenth century Presbyterians and Baptists would often note that if government could discriminate in favor of any religion, even all Christian religions, it also had the authority to attack a particular religion or all religions. They realized that complete separation of church and state was the best way to promote true religion.

U.S. Supreme Court Leaves Intact Mississippi Anti-Gay Law

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a case arising from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals that involved challenges to Mississippi's extreme license to discriminate law that places the "religious beliefs" of Christifascists over the civil rights of others.  While gays are the primary target of the legislation, its scope is so broad that many heterosexuals may to their surprise when they find themselves refused service or medical treatment.  The Supreme Court's reasoning for refusing the case was that none of the plaintiffs had yet suffered harm as a result of the law. Thus, the door is open for a future appeal by those who will no doubt suffer at the hands or religious extremists who operate businesses, serve as medical personnel or pharmacist who find gays, unwed mothers, co-habitating couples, etc. and find such things "offensive" to their beliefs.  Frighteningly, Mississippi is not the only state that has passed such "religious freedom" laws.  Indeed, such a bill was introduced in the Virginia General Assembly last year which thankfully dies.  Given that Virginia will have a Democrat for governor for the next four years the likelihood of such a bill passing anytime soon is remote.  The Advocate looks at the cowardice displayed by the Supreme Court.  Here are excerpts:

The U.S. Supreme Court will not hear challenges to Mississippi’s “license to discriminate” law, the court announced today.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit last year ruled that those who brought suit against Mississippi’s House Bill 1523, the Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act, did not have legal standing to challenge it because they had not actually been harmed by it, as it had yet to go into effect. It did not rule on the merits of the law. That ruling, overturning a federal district court's injunction blocking the law, allowed HB 1523, signed by Gov. Phil Bryant in 2016, to take effect in October. The Supreme Court’s decision not to review the case lets the law stand. The high court rejected the case without comment, as is the usual practice.

Two suits had challenged the law, which allows broad discrimination by businesses, nonprofits, and individuals, including government employees, if they cite religious or moral beliefs that “marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman”; that “sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage”; and that “male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth.” It could allow discrimination against not only LGBT people – same-sex couples seeking wedding services, transgender people seeking medical procedures -- but single parents and any others who offend these beliefs.

The Supreme Court’s rejection of these cases does not mean an end to challenges. Now that the law is in effect, “a new round of challenges is expected from residents who have been denied service, and the issue could come back to the Supreme Court's doorstep,” NBC News reports.

Lambda Legal, which is representing plaintiffs in the Barber case, vowed to go on fighting.

“The Supreme Court’s decision not to review this case is not an endorsement of HB 1523 or the wave of similar discriminatory laws across the country, and it does not change what the court clearly ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges, and more recently in Pavan v. Smith, that same-sex couples and their families should be treated like other families in this country and not to do so is harmful and unconstitutional,” Lambda attorney Beth Littrell said in a press release.

“Twenty years ago we fought a similar battle in Colorado against an anti-LGBT law that singled out LGBT people for unequal treatment, in Romer v. Evans, and we won,” Littrell continued, referring to the Amendment 2 case. We will keep fighting in Mississippi until we overturn this harmful law, and in any state where antigay legislators pass laws to roll back LGBT civil rights. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court’s decision today leaves LGBT people in Mississippi in the cross hairs of hate and humiliation, delaying justice and equality.” She asked that anyone who suffered discrimination because of HB 1523 or feared that they would to contact the organization.

Other LGBT groups denounced the Supreme Court’s inaction. “This latest punt on LGBTQ rights by the nation’s highest court promotes state-stationed discrimination by upholding a law that allows hotels, ER doctors, business owners, and even pediatricians to legally deny services to hardworking LGBTQ families in Mississippi,” said Sarah Kate Ellis, president and CEO of GLAAD, in a press release. “While freedom of religion is a fundamental right, it should never give people the right to impose their belief on others and openly discriminate against others in the name of religious exemptions.”

“The Supreme Court’s decision not to review HB 1523 is a missed opportunity to swiftly strike down the nation’s most extreme anti-LGBTQ law,” said Masen Davis, CEO of Freedom for All Americans. 

The Trump/Pence regime promised Christian extremists that anti-gay judges would be appointed to the federal courts.  That promise was kept when Neil Gorsuch was placed on the Supreme Court and Trump continues to nominate extreme ideologues to the lower courts.  Every individual - including so-called "friends" - who voted for Trump/Pence bears responsibility for the harm being done to LGBT citizens.   If they feel any remorse and want any measure of forgiveness, they need to vote Democrat in November, 2018, so that the war on LGBT citizens can be lessened or halted. 

Nation's Larges Naval Shipbuilder Scores High on LGBTQ Polices

As the crow flies, I live perhaps 5 or 6 miles from Newport News Shipbuilding, Virginia's largest employer and the builder of America's nuclear powered aircraft carrier fleet and many of the U.S. Navy's nuclear submarines.   For the last several years the company has been a champion of LGBT rights locally and a presenting sponsor for the HR Pride event each summer.  The Christofascists, of course, must be having conniption fits.  Unlike Virginia Republicans, Newport News Shipbuilding when your policies are welcoming to all and discrimination is banned, you can hire the best and the brightest employees.  Who they love really should play no role whatsoever in employment decisions.  Moreover, such policies make a region and/or state attractive to other progressive, forward looking businesses.  A piece in U.S. News & World Reports looks at the company's LGBT friendly polices.  Here are highlights:

One of the nation's leading gay rights groups is praising the LGBTQ-friendly policies of the nation's largest military shipbuilder.

The Daily Press in Newport News reported Friday that Huntington Ingalls Industries received a 100 rating on a corporate survey from the Human Rights Campaign Foundation.

The survey evaluated policies that include domestic partner benefits and transgender-inclusive medical benefits. The company builds aircraft carriers and submarines. It was one of 609 major businesses that earned a top rating.

The shipbuilder first participated in HRC's survey last year and scored an 85. The company's score was higher this year for a few reasons.

One was the addition of medical benefits for gender transition. The benefits include surgery, mental health services or other measures.

A piece in the Daily Press provides more on the views of the company's leadership and that of its parent company, including opposition to GOP backed license to discriminate laws masquerading as "religious freedom" laws:  

The nation’s largest military shipbuilder began ramping up efforts on diversity and inclusion several years ago at the behest of CEO and President Mike Petters.

He has vowed to change the culture of a corporate giant built on a foundation of shipyards, a traditional, male-dominated workplace. At Newport News, senior shipbuilders started walking the waterfront decades ago — back when attitudes on race, gender and sexual orientation were far different — so things won’t change overnight.

Changing the culture also means speaking out when necessary.

When the state of Mississippi advanced what supporters termed a religious freedom law, LGBTQ advocates rallied to oppose it.

Major business interests in the state opposed the bill, including MGM Resorts International, which operates casinos in the state, and Nissan North America. HII joined the opposition on behalf of its Ingalls Shipbuilding division in Pascagoula, Miss.