Supreme Court Rejects Church's Challenge To Coronavirus Rules

I have followed extreme right wing "Christian" organizations and related "family values" groups for over a quarter of a century now and several things are a common theme with them: (i) they view themselves above the law, (ii) they want their toxic version of Christianity to be the established religion in America, (iii) their followers seemingly hate almost everyone, but especially gays, who don't embrace their ugly beliefs, and (iv) most have very strong white supremacist overtones and some groups, like The Family Foundation here in Virginia, traces their roots back to strident segregationists.  Simply put, they are NOT nice people and they hold constitutional democracy in contempt unless they are in control and can discriminate and harm those they dislike - which is most of the nation's population.  

In June, 2016, the leaders of these groups - some of which are certified hate groups - made a pact with Donald Trump where they agreed to support a man who embodies the seven deadly sins if he gave them special rights. They bear a huge responsibility for Trump being in the White House and for his part Trump has delivered in the form of reactionary ideologues being appointed to the federal courts, the undoing of Obama administration policies that protected gays and other minorities, and supporting the myth that they are being persecuted when in reality what they face is a majority of Americans saying they are tired of the hate and bigotry that these false Christians represent.  

Enter the Covid-19 pandemic and many of the right wing churches have objected to social distancing and shutdown orders implemented to control the spread of the virus.  Some filed federal lawsuits challenging such orders and claiming they "discriminated against religion (a church in Virginia among them).  Late Friday, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court  rejected their self-centered and selfish claims and ruled against a church in California and several others.  The ruling should be dispositive of the Virginia lawsuit as well.  NPR looks at this welcome ruling that clearly states these people are not above the law.  Here are story excerpts:

The Supreme Court has rejected a California church's attempt to overturn the state's coronavirus restrictions on in-person religious services.

In a 5-4 decision issued late Friday, Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court's liberal bloc in upholding the state's right to impose limits on congregations in order to slow the spread of COVID-19.

"Although California's guidelines place restrictions on places of worship, those restrictions appear consistent with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment," Roberts said, in an opinion that denied a request by the South Bay United Pentecostal Church for relief from the rules.

The Chula Vista-based house of worship sued Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, over an order limiting congregations to 25% capacity or 100 attendees, whichever is lower. The plaintiffs told the court its services typically attract 200 to 300 congregants.

Worship services and nonessential retail were halted for more than two months in California, which has recorded nearly 107,000 confirmed cases of the coronavirus and more than 4,000 deaths.

During the lawsuit's path through the lower courts, the state issued guidelines earlier this week allowing for a limited reopening — but that did not satisfy the plaintiffs, who felt the eased restrictions remained unconstitutional.

In rejecting that challenge, Roberts wrote that the Constitution generally grants broad leeway to state leaders in circumstances of medical uncertainty. In particular, the chief justice found that Newsom's order was consistent in limiting not just religious services, but also various kinds of activities "where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time."

"The notion that it is 'indisputably clear' that the Government's limitations are unconstitutional seems quite improbable," wrote Roberts.

The court's four reliably conservative justices — Samuel Alito Jr., Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas — dissented. Kavanaugh said the guidelines violate the First Amendment because they "discriminate against places of worship and in favor of comparable secular businesses."

In a separate case, the court also rejected a lawsuit from two churches in Illinois seeking to block Gov. J.B. Pritzker's rule limiting religious services to just 10 worshipers. Pritzker later modified the order to allow for up to 100 people at services, and the court denied the churches' request for relief without a noted dissent.

The limits on church services have been a flashpoint in the national conversation surrounding the coronavirus, with President Trump wading into the controversy earlier this month to push for churches' right to reopen. Even as many states — such as California and Illinois — have moved to loosen their restrictions in recent weeks, critics continue to argue that the rules on houses of worship are discriminatory. 

“The precise question of when restrictions on particular social activities should be lifted during the pandemic,” Roberts declared, “is a dynamic and fact-intensive matter subject to reasonable disagreement.” The Constitution leaves such decisions “to the politically accountable officials of the state,” whose decisions “should not be subject to second-guessing” by judges who lack “background, competence, and expertise to assess public health.” Multiple coronavirus outbreaks in California have been traced back to religious services. California has good reason to treat churches more like concerts—where people “congregate in large groups” and “remain in close proximity for extended periods”—than grocery stores, where they can social distance. For courts, that should be the end of the matter.

But Kavanaugh’s assertion that California treats churches and “comparable secular businesses” differently begs the question: what is a comparable secular business? When it comes to the spread of infectious disease, is a church really just like a grocery store, where people spend as little time as possible, separated by aisles and shopping carts, rarely speaking to one another? Or is it more like a concert, where people congregate for lengthy periods, shoulder to shoulder, often speaking or singing and thereby spreading droplets that may contain the coronavirus?
 What is genuinely shocking about Kavanaugh’s dissent is that he does not even address this question. The dispute lies at the heart of the case, and Kavanaugh ignores it. He simply takes it as a given that churches are “comparable” to grocery stores when it comes to risk of spreading COVID-19. By warping the facts, Kavanaugh paints California’s rules as irrationally discriminatory, when in fact they are based on medical advice Newsom has right now. If the justice wants to override public health measures during a pandemic, shouldn’t he at least admit that he’s substituting his own scientific judgment for that of a democratically elected lawmaker’s?

Roberts seems to think so. His opinion ends with a clear swipe at Kavanaugh: “The notion that it is ‘indisputably clear’ that the Government’s limitations are unconstitutional,” the chief justice wrote, “seems quite improbable.” Roberts went out of his way to telegraph his displeasure with the raft of lawsuits contesting COVID-19 restrictions as unconstitutional burdens on religious liberty. Even in borderline cases, he suggested, courts must defer to the people’s representatives if they decide the health crisis requires limitations on public assemblies.

Kudos to Roberts for putting science and medical knowledge above myths and superstition.  Let the charlatans in pulpits and scamvangelist - who put money ahead of public safety - continue to lose money as their flocks stay home.  

Germany Bans ‘Gay Conversion’ Therapy - Other Nations May Follow

The only advocates of so-called "gay conversion" therapy are far right Christians, principally in America and Russia who use the lie that gays can change their sexual orientation in order to (i) justify their anti-LGBT bigotry, and (ii) argue that LGBT individuals need no non-discrimination protects since being LGBT is a "choice," and their political prostitutes.   Every legitimate - meaning not funded by Christofascist organizations or governments beholden to them - medical and mental health association in the world  oppose the fraudulent therapy and recognize that it is both harmful and simply cannot change what is unchangeable. Sadly, here in America, Trump has promised the moon to Christofascists, including attacking LGBT rights to maintain Christofascist and evangelical support just as his BFF Vladimir Putin has done the same with the Russian Orthodox Church, a denomination that  throughout its history has sided with autocrats and sold out the best interests of the common people in order to maintain its power and privileges.  Indeed, with Putin the Russian Orthodox Church has put power and privilege ahead of truth and knowledge much as it did under the most despotic of the Tsars.  Now, Germany - which has a strong anti-gay Catholic element - is banning conversion therapy for minors.  Other nations may follow suit, handing American Christofascist who have sought to export this vicious lie a major defeat.  A piece in Huffington Post looks at the development.  Here are highlights:

NEW YORK, May 8 (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - Germany has banned so-called “gay conversion therapy” for minors as a growing number of countries review legislation regarding the controversial practice designed to change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual.

German lawmakers voted on Thursday to prohibit so-called “conversion therapies” for anyone aged under 18, but stopped short of an outright ban, with advertising or offering treatment carrying fines of 30,000 Euros ($32,500) or up to one year jail.

The United States, Canada, Chile, and Mexico are among other countries seeking to outlaw the treatment, based on the belief that being gay or transgender is a mental illness that can be “cured,” according to LGBT+ advocacy group ILGA.

Advocates say bans spare young people pain and suffering at being harassed and humiliated because of their sexuality, an experience which has led to suicide.

Here is the status of the practice in various locations around the world.

- Conversion therapy is outlawed nationwide in Brazil, Ecuador and Malta.

- There is not a federal ban on conversion therapy in the United States, but over 19 U.S. states, including California, Colorado, New York and Washington, prohibit the practice to some degree.

- About 700,000 Americans have been forced to undergo a form of conversion therapy, according to the University of California’s Williams Institute.

- The Australian state of Queensland is considering the country’s first conversion therapy ban, with jail sentences of up to 18 months for doctors and social workers.

- The Canadian federal government introduced new legislation in March this year to criminalize conversion therapy. Conversion therapy has been banned in some Canadian cities, such as Vancouver and Calgary. Ontario was the first Canadian province to ban the practice in 2015.

- Britain and Ireland have drawn up bills to outlaw conversion therapy but they have stalled.

- Brutal and extreme conversion methods including torture, forced internment, electroshock therapy and sexual violence have been documented in Ecuador, South Africa, the Dominican Republic and China.

- A fifth of gay, lesbian and bisexual Britons who have tried to change their sexuality have attempted suicide.

If one wonders why Christofascists are so obsessed with conversion therapy, the answer is actually very simple: if the Bible verses so loved for arguably condemning gays are wrong about homosexuality, then what else in the Bible is false.  Gays by their very existence threaten the house of cards belief system of far right Christians and evangelicals.   These people would rather harm those they do ot even know rather than admit they based their lives on false premises and beliefs.  To me, it is the ultimate form of selfishness.

SCOTUS Leaves Transgender Student Rights in Place

Yesterday, anti-transgender Christofascists lost a round at the U.S. Supreme Court when the Court refused to hear a challenge from students - no doubt pushed by their parents - who claimed that a school system's bathroom policy allowing transgender students to use restrooms appropriate for the gender identity violated the privacy rights of the anti-trans students.  The rejected challenge is part of a larger Christofascist effort - which is being aided by the Trump/Pence regime - to reverse rights that transgender (and gays) have achieved under the Obama administration. A piece in Bloomberg Law looks at the Court's action.  Here are excerpts:

The U.S. Supreme Court won’t take up the controversy over bathroom use by transgender students. The justices turned away a challenge by four students from Boyertown Area High School in Pennsylvania who claim a school policy of allowing LGBT students to use their preferred bathroom violates their right to privacy.

Controversies have erupted nationwide as school districts decide whether to let LGBT students use bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity rather than their gender at birth.

Some challengers say it’s a violation of federal anti-discrimination laws not to accommodate LGBT students.  The Supreme Court was preparing to hear a similar case at the end of the Obama administration when a policy change by the Trump administration undid much of the lawsuit. The justices nixed the case.

The case is Doe v. Boyertown Area School Dist., U.S., No. 18-658, review denied 5/28/19.

Sadly, the Christofascists continue to believe that their rights override everyone elses and Trump is only too happy to play to this self-centered crowd.

Karen Pence Again Proves She's a Self-Centered Hypocrite

Karen Pence - Hypocrite badly
in need of gay friends for fashion advice.

As readers may recall, Karen Pence, the wife of the sinister Mike Pence, works at a school that bars gays and their children.  She also proudly parades around supporting other aspects of Christofascist hatred towards others while putting on a show of feigned piety. Thus, it is no surprise that she got her (likely ugly) panties in a wad over Pete Buttigieg’s comments this week (i) challenging “the Mike Pence’s of the world” for believing homosexuality is a choice, and (ii) noting that the form of "Christianity" practiced by evangelicals bears little resemblance to Christ's social gospel message.  Ms. Pence whined that people should not be attacked for their religious beliefs no matter how toxic and hypocrisy laden and that children need to learn that at a young age that it is "okay what faith people have," again, no matter how toxic and hate driven. Meanwhile, she thinks it is perfectly fine for evangelicals to abuse and attack those, including gays, who do not share her blind allegiance to Bronze Age myths. 

Sadly, Ms. Pence is the face of Christofascists' self-centered and hypocrisy-filled belief system.  They want one standard of tolerance and respect for themselves but see no one else as deserving similar respect or tolerance. Plainly put, she is not a nice individual no matter how much she pretends otherwise.

The Justice Department Bends Over Backwards to Craft Special Rights for Christofascists

Jack Phillips - the face of a bigot demanding special rights

I have previously noted how the Trump Department of Justice has intervened in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court that has the goal, if successful, of carving out an exception to public accommodation and non-discrimination laws for right wing Christian extremists - those I refer to as Christofascists.   While the effort is largely without precedent, it comes as no surprise given (i) Donald Trump's selling of whatever soul he has to Christofascists during a a June, 2016, meeting at Trump Tower, and (ii) Jeff Sessions' decades old racism and homophobia (Sessions and I were both in the Mobile, Alabama legal community decades ago and, in my opinion, the man has only become more foul with the passage of time).  Given the obsession of the conservative justices on the court with pandering to the myth of Christian persecution and "protecting religious freedom" (Gorsuch is particularly obsessed in this regard), there is a frightening chance that the effort will succeed and the civil rights of many minorities, not just gays, will suffer as a consequence.  The Washington Post editorial board rightly lets loose of Sessions - and by extension, Trump.  One can only wonder how long it will be before blacks - or perhaps Jews given Trump's seeming love for Neo-Nazis - can be targeted for discrimination as long as the bigots claim their religious beliefs justify the mistreatment and segregation.  Here are highlights: 

SHOULD A Colorado baker have the right to turn away a gay couple seeking a custom wedding cake if he disapproves of their upcoming marriage? According to the Justice Department, the answer is yes.

The Supreme Court will soon hear arguments over the conduct of this unwilling baker in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Though the federal government isn’t a party to the case, the Justice Department has made a point of weighing in on the side of Jack Phillips, the “cake artist” whose religious opposition to same-sex marriage led him to refuse to design a cake for a gay couple.

The Justice Department’s legal brief has — rightly — faced criticism from civil rights groups appalled by the government’s argument that Mr. Phillips’s religious beliefs grant him a constitutional right to discriminate against gay customers, despite a Colorado public-accommodations law prohibiting unequal treatment on the basis of sexual orientation. Indeed, the brief is a dispiriting signal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s priorities. The government went out of its way to side with Mr. Phillips, but it has been quiet on any number of other significant cases before the Supreme Court this term.

Masterpiece Cakeshop isn’t really a religious-freedom case at all — though Mr. Phillips’s attorneys do point to their client’s constitutional rights on that front. Because Colorado lacks legislation raising the standard for state infringement on religious belief — unlike many states and the federal government — Mr. Phillips is left with what’s likely a losing argument.

That’s why both Mr. Phillips and the Justice Department focus on the baker’s freedom of expression, arguing that crafting a cake for a same-sex wedding would force Mr. Phillips to celebrate a ceremony of which he disapproves.

The Justice Department’s effort to craft a narrow exception to public-accommodations law risks blowing a hole through the fabric of that law entirely. Mr. Phillips is providing a service to his customers for pay. While he does so, he should be subject to anti-discrimination laws like every other business is.

Two years after Obergefell, cases such as Masterpiece Cakeshop have been relatively unsuccessful and few and far between — a sign of a nation moving forward. The Supreme Court should now resist the Justice Department’s effort to turn back the clock.

The take away?  Fundamentalist and evangelical Christians are not nice or decent people and the mainstream media needs to start facing the reality that these people are self-centered bigots who think that they are above the laws.  Perhaps while exposing their nastiness, an effort should be made to repeal the tax exempt status of churches - the rest of the citizenry should not be forced to indirectly financially subsidize these foul institutions. 

How Trump Attacks on Gay Rights Hurts Republicans

Sadly, some now former "friends" think Der Trumpenführer's assault on LGBT rights is a barrel of laughs.  In my view such individuals are little better than Germans who went along with Hitler's demonizing and later murder of Jews.  Former Republican U.S. Senator, Alan K. Simpson, a former co-chairman of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, doesn't see these assaults as funny at all and makes the case how attacks on gay rights in order to appease Christofascist extremist is bad for the Republican Party as a whole.  Simpson rightly understands that while hatred of others is a mainstay of today's "conservative," most Americans do not subscribe to their poisonous belief system. He makes his case in an op=ed in the New York Times.  Here are excerpts:

During Donald Trump’s campaign, he repeatedly cast himself as a supporter of L.G.B.T. rights. As president, however, he is being urged by fringe-right groups and raging extremists to sign a “religious liberty” executive order that would allow discrimination against gays, women and religious minorities.

As one Republican to another, I’d like to offer this bit of advice to President Trump: Don’t do it.

I wish it were as simple as pointing out that supporting discrimination against anyone is just a bad idea and that doing so in the name of religion is hypocritical as well. But just for good measure, I’ll offer a few more reasons.

The prospective executive order would authorize wide-ranging, taxpayer-funded discrimination against women, gays and members of minority faiths across federal programs and services. For example, a Social Security Administration employee could cite his religious beliefs to refuse benefits to the surviving spouse of a married same-sex couple.

According to an August poll by the Public Religion Research Institute, 63 percent of Americans oppose these religious exemptions, and only 30 percent back them. The survey affirms what polling has found over the last several years: Americans are becoming more tolerant and inclusive, with support for equal rights continuing to grow. Sixty-two percent of Americans in the survey say they favor same-sex marriage, compared with 47 percent just five years ago.

Even faith leaders (400 of them) sent you a letter last month urging you not to further pursue this executive order, reasoning that, because religion is already fully protected under the law, this would then amount to something even worse: taxpayer-funded discrimination.

So, you say you aren’t afraid of political consequences, and you don’t care what other people think? Well, will you at least consider the rest of your Republican Party? You ran on its ticket.

This executive order would be a political tinderbox that could explode in the faces of Republicans everywhere, reinforcing negative stereotypes about the party’s dislike of L.G.B.T. Americans, women, and religious and ethnic minorities. It reignites a feckless debate that time and time again has forced Republicans to retreat . . .

If you still aren’t concerned about dragging the entire party into another swamp of political quicksand, then let’s focus on what you do care about: the art of the deal.

What would you get out of signing this executive order? You would placate a vocal minority that includes some certified hate groups and far-right activists who are truly out of step with most Americans and many Republicans across the country. What would the other side get — or in other words, what gifts will you be handing to Democrats and others on a silver platter? A great cause, new supporters, new energy and money, the mother’s milk of politics.

That brings us to the judiciary. It’s been a thorn in your side, I know. But based on decisions from around the country, the judiciary is just not buying the pitch that these exemptions have anything to do with “religious freedom.” Rather, it has ruled that these religious exemptions are discriminatory, plain and simple. Maybe those around you don’t care what the courts think, but wouldn’t it stick in your craw to have another embarrassing rebuke of your policies, another executive order stopped dead in its tracks?

I would respectfully suggest that you expend your time and energy on other issues — the solvency of Social Security, the cost of health care, humane immigration reform, building infrastructure and educating kids to succeed . . . 

Supreme Court Takes Transgender Case

An understaffed U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take the appeal of the spineless and bigoted Gloucester County School Board from the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth that struck down the school board ruling denying gender identity appropriate bathroom use to high school student, Gavin Grimm.  With the evenly split court, the ruling when it comes could be a tie and leave the lower court ruling as the binding law for the states within the 4th Circuit (which include North Carolina) while leaving the law unsettled across the rest of the nation.  One can only hope that a majority of the justices will rule in favor of Grimm and transgender individuals across the nation. It should also be noted that notwithstanding lies disseminated by Christofascist organizations (including the disingenuously named and stridently anti-LGBT Alliance Defending Freedom), there are ZERO instances of inappropriate behavior by transgender individuals in restrooms.  The same cannot be said for Republican  elected officials.  Here are highlights from the Washington Post.

The Supreme Court said Friday that it will decide whether the Obama administration may require public school systems to let transgender students use bathrooms that align with their gender identity, putting the court once again at the center of a divisive social issue.

School districts across the country are split on how to accommodate transgender students amid conflicting guidance from courts, the federal government and, in some cases, state legislatures that have passed laws requiring people to use public restrooms that match the sex on their birth certificates.

The justices accepted a petition from the School Board of Gloucester County, Va., seeking to overturn a lower court’s order that 17-year-old Gavin Grimm, who was born female but identifies as male, be allowed to use the boys’ restroom during his senior year of high school.

It is the most high-profile case the eight-member court has accepted since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February. The case will not be heard until next year, and it is unclear whether Scalia’s seat will be filled by then.

In an interview Friday, Grimm said it was unfair that he will continue to be barred from the boys’ bathroom at Gloucester High until the case is decided. He said he tries to avoid going to the bathroom altogether at school but uses the nurse’s bathroom when necessary.

Grimm, referred to as G.G. in court papers, came out as a transgender boy in his freshman year of high school and, as a result of hormone therapy, has a deep voice and facial hair, his lawyers told the court.

“We’re prepared to make our case to the court and to make sure the Supreme Court and people in general see Gavin as who he is and see trans kids across the country for who they are,” said Grimm’s attorney, Joshua Block of the American Civil Liberties Union. Grimm “is not trying to dismantle sex-segregated restrooms. He’s just trying to use them.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit sided with him in April, ruling that his case could move forward. It deferred to the Obama administration’s position that Title IX, the federal law banning sex discrimination in public schools, protects the rights of transgender students to use school bathrooms that align with their gender identity.
A month after the 4th Circuit decision, the U.S. Education Department issued that same guidance to the rest of the nation’s public schools.

The petition said the case provides the court an opportunity to reexamine a 1997 precedent, Auer v. Robbins, that affords deference to an agency’s interpretation of its regulations. It has been criticized by several conservative justices, but the court earlier this year turned down a chance to revisit it and did the same in accepting the Gloucester case.

“This is one of the most important days in the history of the transgender movement,” Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said in a statement. “Whatever the court rules . . . may ensure that transgender people are accepted and included as equal members of our society, or it may relegate them to outsiders for decades to come.”

Remember that the entire issue arose in Gloucester County because of the insistence of a group of rabble rousing Christofascists who seek to inflict their belief system on all citizens.  It their view, only they have rights and everyone else must defer to their beliefs.  They represent, in my view, a toxic cancer on society.

Trump Supporters View Everything Since the 1950's As Terrible

I have often argued that the goal of today's GOP has been to somehow turn the clock back to the 1950's when, according to the party base's view, everything was golden and perfection.  Unless, of course one is black, Hispanic, a woman, LGBT and/or non-religious.  Indeed, everything that has made America a more equal society is viewed as bad by Trumpkins who long for unchallenged white privilege and a time when open bigotry was more acceptable.  A piece in Salon looks new poll findings and at the troubling world view of Trump's base of support.  It is an indictment of what the GOP has become and the ugliness that it has long cultivated.  Now, it has spun out of control.  Here are article excerpts:

If you ever had the sneaking suspicion that “Make America Great Again” was code for “Turn America’s clock back to the 1950s,” a new poll suggests you were absolutely right.

According to a survey published by the Public Religion Research Institute, 72 percent of likely voters supporting Donald Trump say America has changed for the worst since the 1950s. By contrast, 70 percent of likely voters supporting Hillary Clinton say that America has changed for the better since that decade.

Not surprisingly, these findings are also sharply divided based on racial lines. While 56 percent of white Americans say America has changed for the worse since the 1950s, 62 percent of African-Americans and 57 percent of Hispanic Americans say that it has changed for the better.

That said, 56 percent of college-educated white Americans also believe that America has changed for the better since the 1950s; 65 percent of white Americans without college degrees say that it has not.

The group that most yearns for the 1950s? White evangelical Protestants, 74 percent of whom think things have gotten worse.

Across the board, the study found that Democrats were more likely to care about social justice issues than Republicans. . . . 61 percent of Democrats said race relations mattered to them personally compared to only 31 percent of Republicans.

Sixty-three percent of Democrats believe that immigrants strengthen American society, whereas 73 percent of Republicans say that immigrants threaten American customs and values.

Finally, 77 percent of Democrats say that America would benefit from more women serving in political leadership roles, a sentiment 62 percent of Republicans disagree with.

The 1950s is a decade closely associated with the Cold War, McCarthy era witch hunts, and violent backlash to the civil rights movement. Although not explicitly incorporated in the themes of Trump’s campaign, the Republican nominee’s critics have long noted that “Make America Great Again” could be viewed as a dog whistle for a return to an era before our society’s major strides in racial and gender equality.

[The] message where ‘I’ll give you America great again’ is if you’re a white Southerner, you know exactly what it means, don’t you?”

Note how southern evangelical Christians lead the way in longing for the bad old days of the 1950's. The remain among the most selfish and self-centered people (and racist) and display a contempt for the Gospel message they claim to support by their opposition to equality and social justice.  They should not be welcome in polite and decent society. 

New IKEA Ad Will Drive Christofascists to Hysteria

Big corporations have learned that diversity is good for business and the corporate line.  This reality continues to be lost on the Republican Party and, in particular, the Christofascists who want to impose a form of Christian Sharia Law on all Americans.  The result is that time after time the professional Christian crowd goes into spittle flecked rants every time a major corporation either runs an ad featuring a gay couple or, the horror, a interracial couple, or places ads in LGBT media outlets. Now, IKEA has launched an ad campaign that says that all homes are equal and then features an interracial gay couple.  Ad Week looks at the new campaign.  Here are highlights:

[T]he state of the American dream is a touchy issue. And while politicians running for the Oval Office obviously have to take on middle- and working-class angst, brands might prefer to steer clear of something so contentious and polarizing.

Ikea, however, is not among those brands. In its latest marketing effort, the home-furnishings giant goes right to the heart of a difficult topic, asking, "Where did the American dream go?"

As it turns out—according to related research Ikea conducted in partnership with the Economist Intelligence Unit—the dream hasn't gone far, though it has changed significantly.

"One of the things we've seen since [the recession of] 2008 is a change in people's perception of what it means to make it in today's society," said Christine Whitehawk, Ikea U.S.'s communications manager. "So you see a shift happening."

That shift, according to Ikea, means consumers are measuring the American dream less in terms of material accumulation—the suburban McMansion with a new SUV in the driveway—and more in terms of making the most of what they have, living life on their own terms, and focusing on creating memories instead of just accumulating more things.

Among the findings of the brand's report, titled "Discovering the New American Dream," is that 60 percent of people now believe that the American dream has "more to do with achieving satisfactory quality of life defined in ways other than obtaining material possessions." While 45 percent of people still believe the American dream means buying a home, for example, a much bigger number, 57 percent, believe the dream is lived "though everyday moments with friends and family."

Literal diversity also figures big. One of the print ads shows two gay men chilling out on a sofa in front of a flag that reads "All homes are created equal." This is hardly the first time Ikea has put a gay couple in its advertising—it cast one as far back as 1994—but this time the image reads less like the spotlighting of one segment of the population and more like an image of a diverse population overall. (The couple's not just gay but mixed race, too.)

"There are so many different ways that Americans live—multigenerational, gay parents, etc.—that define the real portrait of the America that's really out there," Stone said. "If we'd put across 20 different living situations, they'd all be equally powerful."

The new creative is the opening salvo in a year's worth of creative under the slogan "We Help You Make It," all of it intended to teach consumers that, whatever their definition of the American dream might be, Ikea can help with it.

"People are finding it harder to make it in today's society, but the optimism is still there," Whitehawk said. "We're trying to get the message out that we're here to partner with them to create that everyday better life that they want to have."

   

New IKEA Ad Will Drive Christofascists to Hysteria

Big corporations have learned that diversity is good for business and the corporate line.  This reality continues to be lost on the Republican Party and, in particular, the Christofascists who want to impose a form of Christian Sharia Law on all Americans.  The result is that time after time the professional Christian crowd goes into spittle flecked rants every time a major corporation either runs an ad featuring a gay couple or, the horror, a interracial couple, or places ads in LGBT media outlets. Now, IKEA has launched an ad campaign that says that all homes are equal and then features an interracial gay couple.  Ad Week looks at the new campaign.  Here are highlights:

[T]he state of the American dream is a touchy issue. And while politicians running for the Oval Office obviously have to take on middle- and working-class angst, brands might prefer to steer clear of something so contentious and polarizing.

Ikea, however, is not among those brands. In its latest marketing effort, the home-furnishings giant goes right to the heart of a difficult topic, asking, "Where did the American dream go?"

As it turns out—according to related research Ikea conducted in partnership with the Economist Intelligence Unit—the dream hasn't gone far, though it has changed significantly.

"One of the things we've seen since [the recession of] 2008 is a change in people's perception of what it means to make it in today's society," said Christine Whitehawk, Ikea U.S.'s communications manager. "So you see a shift happening."

That shift, according to Ikea, means consumers are measuring the American dream less in terms of material accumulation—the suburban McMansion with a new SUV in the driveway—and more in terms of making the most of what they have, living life on their own terms, and focusing on creating memories instead of just accumulating more things.

Among the findings of the brand's report, titled "Discovering the New American Dream," is that 60 percent of people now believe that the American dream has "more to do with achieving satisfactory quality of life defined in ways other than obtaining material possessions." While 45 percent of people still believe the American dream means buying a home, for example, a much bigger number, 57 percent, believe the dream is lived "though everyday moments with friends and family."

Literal diversity also figures big. One of the print ads shows two gay men chilling out on a sofa in front of a flag that reads "All homes are created equal." This is hardly the first time Ikea has put a gay couple in its advertising—it cast one as far back as 1994—but this time the image reads less like the spotlighting of one segment of the population and more like an image of a diverse population overall. (The couple's not just gay but mixed race, too.)

"There are so many different ways that Americans live—multigenerational, gay parents, etc.—that define the real portrait of the America that's really out there," Stone said. "If we'd put across 20 different living situations, they'd all be equally powerful."

The new creative is the opening salvo in a year's worth of creative under the slogan "We Help You Make It," all of it intended to teach consumers that, whatever their definition of the American dream might be, Ikea can help with it.

"People are finding it harder to make it in today's society, but the optimism is still there," Whitehawk said. "We're trying to get the message out that we're here to partner with them to create that everyday better life that they want to have."

   

Anti-Gay Hate Merchant Tim LaHaye Dead at 90

Tim LaHaye and his equally foul wife, Beverly LaHaye

It is said that it is poor form to speak ill of the dead.  But when the dead individual promoted hatred, sought to denigrate the lives of others, and peddled religious extremism and discrimination, it is not a time to mutter neutral platitudes.  Therefore, I for one can say little positive about Christofascist extremist Tim LeHaye, who with his wife Beverly (a founder of the stridently anti-gay Concerned Women for America), did much to hold back LGBT rights and to maintain discrimination while enriching himself in the process.  The Washington Post looks at the passing of this truly foul individual with a sugar coated piece.  Here are highlights:

LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins wrote the 16-book series starting with “Left Behind” in 1995. With the theme of the end of the world and characters including the Antichrist, the books blended faith and fiction and sold more than 65 million copies.

Before he started writing fiction, LaHaye was highly active as a pastor. He founded San Diego Christian College and a dozen Christian grade schools and secondary schools, according to his ministry. He organized pastors to support political candidates including George W. Bush. He and his wife Beverly, the founder of the conservative organization Concerned Women for America, hosted a radio show together.

Time magazine called him one of the 25 most influential evangelicals in the United States

However, if you want a true glimpse at the real LaHaye, this piece gives some at just how hate filled and homophobic the man was.  Here are a few excerpts:

Given how much influence LaHaye’s books had in certain circles, and how many American homes contained his work, one of the titles on my reading list was called The Unhappy Gays: What Everyone Should Know About Homosexuality.

I didn’t really know what to expect in terms of either social prescriptions or theology, other than knowing this book was, at one time, the go-to manual for a conservative family that discovered they had a gay child. I had no idea how bad it was. Dear God, it’s no wonder so many of these young kids killed themselves. In a literal sense, no hyperbole intended, the closest parallel I’ve ever read is the anti-Jewish literature in the buildup to World War II and the “anti-negro” writings of white southerners in the aftermath of the Civil War through the Civil Rights era. LaHaye is right up there with the pre-reformed George Wallace. Part of me wants to acquire his works and fund a museum somewhere to demonstrate how brainwashed by hatred and prejudice a person can be. This is an incredible example of irrational ideological animus.

Here are just a handful of excerpts from the book. Imagine being 14 years old and your parents making you read this because they found out your secret. The suicide rates make sense now. Keep in mind this was considered a compassionate Christian book on the market about the topic at the time. Writings like this were the reason we now have a generation of old Senators and pastors being caught with hookers and in public bathrooms while insisting they are straight. The psychological damage is profound.

According to Tim LaHaye, gay people may be demon possessed…

No doubt some homosexuals are indeed demon possessed. – Page 141

According to Tim LaHaye, gay people might be vulnerable to demons even if they are cast out…

Even after a demon is cast out, if indeed that is necessary, the individual still has to overcome the homosexuality that caused him to become so rebellious toward God that he made himself vulnerable to the demons in the first place. – Page 141.

Got it so far?  Gay people are lying, self-indulgent, selfish, suspicious, angry, women-hating, possibly-demon possessed monsters who are unable to control themselves.  The compassion is overwhelming.

According to Tim LaHaye, gay people are a disease comparable to a plant infection…
Homosexuality is a blight on humanity … – Page 150

According to Tim LaHaye, many parents would rather have their child die than turn out gay…

Many such parents would prefer the death of their child to his adopting the unhappy wretchedness of homosexuality. – Page 157.

[A]ccording to Tim LaHaye, even when they were murdered by friends and family, it’s kinda cool because having your head split open by rocks being thrown at you was really compassion…

[When talking about the death penalty for gays in the Old Testament] This may seem “cruel and inhuman treatment” by today’s standards, but our leniency has caused today’s widespread problems. This is not to suggest that Christians advocate the death penalty for today’s homosexuals, but I do have a question that needs consideration. Who is really being cruel and inhuman – those whose leniency allows homosexuality to spread to millions of victims who would not otherwise have been enticed into this sad and lonely life style, or those who practiced Old Testament capital punishment? – Page 107.

According to Tim LaHaye, you know that despite practically every gay ever telling you they’ve known since they were a child, just like straight people, it’s totally a choice for them to be gay because otherwise God is completely unfair when He said they should be murdered.

God would never have commanded the death penalty for homosexuality if a person was really “born that way.” All capital punishment was for crimes a person committed voluntarily. Homosexuality is no exception (Leviticus 20). – Page 187

According to Tim LaHaye, since it’s not okay to kill the gays anymore, people should still try to stop them from getting laws passed to protect them against housing or employment discrimination…

 There is much more.  Suffice it to say, if there is a Hell, LaHaye must have a special reserved seat.  The world is a better place without LaHaye in it. 

Father Refused to Claim Body of Orlando Shooting Victim

I will confess that I have a growing contempt for religion in general and Christian fundamentalists and conservative denominations in particular.  While claiming to be supporters of "family values," this in fact fundamentalist Christianity holds family relationships in low regard and rant that one must be willing to put god - their imaginary friend in the sky - ahead of spouses and children.   And stories like this one in the wake of the Orlando massacre at Pulse, the gay nightclub, show just how despicable these people truly are - and how self-centered they are.  Orlando Latino looks at the father of one of the victims who lost his life refusing to accept his son's body.  Indeed, other relatives had to step up and see to the young man's burial. Here are story highlights:

All the Pulse nightclub shooting victims’ bodies have been released to next of kin. Even the shooter’s body has left the Orange County Medical Examiner’s building off Michigan Avenue, according to information released this week.

“We effectively and efficiently completed the identification, notification and autopsy process within a 72-hour period – a monumental task,” according to an earlier statement by OCME, which worked with the Florida Emergency Mortuary Operations Response System to complete the gruesome task.

 

But it was touch and go for one particular shooting victim whose father didn’t want to claim the body. Because the son was gay. Because the father was ashamed. Finally and after much convincing, the body was released to Orlando-area relatives.

 

This young man shall remain anonymous so as not to further victimize the deceased, who was Puerto Rican. But Orlando Latino confirmed the information with several sources. The tale is part of the untold stories of the Latino victims of the Pulse nightclub massacre.

 

The pain of being Puerto Rican and gay is real. In the island’s macho culture (relative to the states), anti-gay bias is not subtle and has reached the highest levels of government.

 

Perhaps this why it took pop star Ricky Martin a while before declaring his sexual orientation. He is now the most famous gay Puerto Rican and no doubt his coming out in 2010 helped many others to do the same. In Puerto Rico, everybody loves Ricky Martin – he is famous, wealthy, good looking and more.

But nobody knew the Orlando shooting victim. No coming out on Oprah for him. And the victim’s family – or at least his father –didn’t accept the son’s sexual orientation, adding further insult to the sad and sensational circumstances of his death.

Note how the father was ashamed.  Not for his lost son, but rather it was all about him and "what will people think?"  These people are vile and churches that foster such bigotry deserve to be destroyed.  It's one of the reasons why I favor taxing churches just like every other business. Why should I and others be forced to indirectly subsidized such misogyny?  Moreover, if these nests of haters and vipers cannot survive without tax exempt status, then they deserve to wither and die.   

 

Americans Learn LGBT Hate Starting At A Young Age

While Republicans and anti-gay religious extremists want to point to Islam as the real enemy of LGBT individuals, they totally ignore their own equally toxic contributions to keeping homophobia alive and well.  Indeed, as one of my children, the only difference between anti-gay Christians and anti-gay Muslims is that the majority of such Christians do not advocate killing us.  The merely want us to be invisible and/or open targets of their discrimination which, like anti-gay Muslims, they justify on the basis of their "deeply held religious beliefs."  A piece in Think Progress looks at how children in America are still taught to hate those who are LGBT despite the efforts of some to end religious based hatred.  Here are some excerpts:

Parents who object to seeing expressions of affection between two people of the same gender — expressions such as the one that reportedly offended the gunman who opened fire in a gay nightclub in Orlando last weekend — typically argue that’s inappropriate because they have no way to explain what’s happening to their children.

But when schools offer to do this work by developing curricula that would help children understand concepts related to gender and sexuality in a developmentally appropriate fashion, those some parents tend to get angry.

From sex ed classes to gender neutral bathrooms to gay pride, school administrators are often pressured by angry parents and conservative groups to roll back efforts at LGBT inclusion.

These type of controversies in the classroom could have a lasting impact on how young kids grow up to see LGBT people. The backlash not only deprives students of an education about LGBT issues; it also communicates to them that issues that are important to the LGBT community are not worth their consideration and at worst, are offensive.

Here are just a few examples of efforts across the country . . . that it’s okay to celebrate hate against LGBT people — or, at the very least, to ignore their existence:

Silencing LGBT teachers

Omar Currie, a third grade teacher in North Carolina, found himself amid a national controversy last year after he read a book to his elementary school class that featured gay characters. After Currie — who is openly gay — noticed a bullying incident against a child, he decided read the book King & King to his class to teach them more about same-sex couples. Parents railed against his decision to read the book, saying they should have been informed he would read the fairy tale to the class. Most of the people who were angry about the reading didn’t actually have kids in his class.

Fighting against inclusive sex education

Sex and health education advocates have long pushed for classes that teach students how to use protection against pregnancy, how to protect themselves against STIs, and how to recognize whether their partner consents. But advocates have also begun to do a better job of recognizing that a comprehensive sex and health education also requires acknowledging LGBT students.

Right now, only 12 states ask teachers to mention sexual orientation during their sexual health discussion, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Four states require that when sexual orientation is discussed, only negative information should be shared.

An LGBT-inclusive sex education would challenge gender roles and acknowledge the existence of different kinds of families, including same-sex parents.

Accusing LGBT student clubs of having a “gay agenda”

LGBT students and their allies also face opposition when they attempt to introduce a Gay Straight Alliance to their schools. There have been various instances of schools and parents resisting GSAs and facing legal action from the ACLU as a result.

Most recently, after students at a Winchester, Tennessee high school started a GSA, they were accused by parents, community members, and anti-LGBT groups of pushing a “gay agenda.” During this outcry, the school board considered placing restrictions on all student organizations, such as requiring students to get permission from their parents to join. For some LGBT students and their allies, a request for parent permission would guarantee they couldn’t join the club, and could face consequences for even asking.

Protesting against gender-neutral bathrooms

Despite clear communication from federal courts and the U.S. Department of Justice that transgender people have the right to use the bathroom corresponding with their gender, there is still fierce opposition from hate groups to gender-neutral bathrooms, which are often one stall bathrooms that don’t require two people to share them.

Policing LGBT people’s clothes

Despite all of the progress that has been made in securing marriage equality and in ongoing victories for trans students’ right to use the bathroom, administrators are still accusing of LGBT students of “disruption” and “lewdness” when they wear a T-shirt that expresses their sexual orientation or LGBT pride.

Earlier this year, one administrator told a California student that her “Nobody knows I’m a lesbian” T-shirt was an “open invitation to sex.” He also said the T-shirt could be “gang-related,” and that students aren’t allowed to wear shirts stating their “personal choices and beliefs.” Her school eventually reached a settlement with the ACLU and agreed to change its dress code.

Administrators often police student’s clothing until media attention adds pressure on the school or courts require them to back off.

Not allowing LGBT people to enjoy prom

Administrators’ attempts to control LGBT student expression often extend to formal events such as dances as well. This year, a member of school staff attempted to stop two boys from attending prom together and a principal attempted to stop two girls from being nominated as prom royalty.

The two boys, who went to French Settlement High School in Louisiana, were told they couldn’t come together as dates by the assistant principal. When a local television station inquired as to why the boys were prevented from attending together, the school said it would investigate the matter. The boys attended as each other’s date and wore matching tuxes. 

It must be noted that it is ALWAYS the self-anointed "godly folk" who lead the charge to denigrate LGBT individuals.  Like Islam, in far to many ways Christianity is a religion of hate.  Blather about love of other is just disingenuous lip service.  It's really all about hate.