Religion: The Elephant in the Room Behind Anti-Gay Discrimination’

The Founding Fathers had a very limited concept of freedom of religion.  It meant (i) being able to worship in the religion or denomination of one's choice, and (ii) not being forced to financially support an established church - - e.g., in colonial Virginia, all citizens paid taxes to support the Church of England churches whether they were members or not.  Religious belief did not exempt one from compliance with the the civil laws applicable to all citizens nor did it entitle religious institution to tax-exempt status.  

Beto O'Rourke is being pummeled for stating that  anti-gay churches should lose their tax exempt status, yet their tax -exempt status comes not from their religious nature but instead from the generally false assumption that they engage in charitable work and, because this status as a charity, deserve indirect public support via an exemption from paying taxes. If one looks at where the money of many religious institutions - churches in particular - often little or nothing goes to charitable works. Instead, moneys go to support facilities that are akin to a private club (often euphemistically called "fellowship halls") and activities that are in no wise involved in actual worship).  To the extent many of these churches engage in "education" it is actually indoctrination aimed at engendering hatred toward those who are not members of their "club" and/or who do not subscribe to their ignorance based beliefs.   

Turning back to the cases now before the U.S. Supreme Court that will decide whether or not the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the real issue - despite the supposed focus on the wording of that statute - ultimately comes down to evangelical Christians wanting to be above the law and entitled to use their real or feigned religious belief as a weapon against those they hate.  A piece in Religion Dispatches looks at this elephant in the room that opponents to LGBT rights are trying to make invisible.  Here are article highlights (note the disingenuous question by Chief Justice Roberts which ignores the reality that having gay or transgender employees in no way impinges on one's right to worship in the church or temple of their choice): 

“I think this whole category is the elephant in the room.”

That’s what Justice Stephen Breyer said, referring to religion and religious exemptions from laws that ban discrimination against LGBTQ people, during arguments Tuesday at the Supreme Court.

Breyer’s exchange with Solicitor General Noel Francisco came as battle between religious exemptions and LGBT rights returned to the Court in the form of three cases involving employees fired for being gay or transgender.

These disputes, . . . . turn on the interpretation of a provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The law provides that employers may not discriminate “because of” an employee’s or prospective employee’s “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” The fired employees are arguing that courts should interpret the word “sex” to include sexual orientation and gender identity, . . .

Both sides marshalled their favorite methods of statutory interpretation, disagreeing sharply on how courts might determine whether an employer had discriminated within the meaning of Title VII.

There’s much to say about these arguments, including the question of whether the employers were saying, in effect, that it is acceptable to discriminate against LGBTQ people so long as they discriminate against all LGBTQ people. But for those interested in the intersection of law and religion, one of the most curious features of Tuesday’s arguments was the way in which religion was rarely mentioned, yet somehow never quite out of the picture.

Chief Justice John Roberts raised the question of religious liberty in the first set of arguments the Court heard, concerning the gay employees who were fired on account of their sexual orientation. . . . How can the Court protect religious liberty in a nuanced way if its only choice is whether or not to read Title VII to encompass discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?

Justice Breyer introduced hypotheticals about religion into both sets of arguments. Suppose that an employer objects neither to Catholics nor to Jews per se, he imagined, but is deeply opposed to interreligious marriage. If that employer fires a Catholic employee for marrying a Jew, how is that not discrimination on the basis of religion if the employer would not have fired the employee for marrying a Catholic? The same logic, Breyer suggested, applies here.

As Justice Breyer rightly observed, religion was lurking just under the surface of Tuesday’s arguments. Many disputes in recent years have involved claims that employers who hold certain religious beliefs deserve exemptions from generally applicable laws, including nondiscrimination laws designed to protect LGBTQ people.

But despite purporting not to be about religion, Tuesday’s cases attracted input from religious groups across the ideological spectrum. National evangelical associations and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops filed amicus briefs on behalf of the employers, while progressive Muslim groups, Jewish groups, and liberal Protestant churches did so for the employees. As they did in Cakeshop and cases like it, the former trotted out visions of the coercion that they believe religious entities would be subject to if the Court were to read sexual orientation and gender identity into Title VII. The latter affirmed that their faith mandates that they recognize the inherent dignity of all people and seek to prohibit discrimination in a pluralistic public square.

Sometime in the first half of 2020, amidst a campaign that has already featured the country’s first out candidate for the presidency, the Court will hand down rulings that may well decline to expand LGBTQ rights in the context of private-sector employment.

It’s likely that the opinions will have little to say about religion, and Tuesday’s arguments only gingerly touched on a topic that evokes passion and pain on all sides. But whichever way the Court rules, it will not resolve the deep conflicts between conservative religious activism and LGBTQ rights that have divided the nation.

What we are seeing is an effort to far expand the freedom of religion envisioned by the Founders and turn it into a special right for certain religious groups that puts them above the law.  Sadly, it is more of the same horrible legacy that religion has visited on mankind through the centuries be it religious wars in the ancient world, the Spanish (and later American) massacres of Native Americans who were labeled "heathens", the Catholic massacres of Protestants in France during the 1600's, the 30's Years War in Europe, massacres between Hindus and Muslims, the religious wars in England and more recently in Northern Ireland, or the Buddhist massacres of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar (formerly Burma)

.  Religion is too often a divider and a justification for visiting horrors on those of a different faith or no faith.

What the GOP "Religious Freedon" Orgy Means to the GOP Primary

I've said much about the horrible bigotry now enacted into law in Indiana - and more such laws are pending in other states (the effort in Virginia failed in part because of a veto threat by Terry McAuliffe, but expect it to return and be a topic in campaigns this fall).  Granting special rights to Christians has become an obsession with some in the GOP - even more than pushing reverse Robin Hood policies - and may well play a significant role in the unfolding three ring circus of the GOP presidential primaries.  A piece in Salon looks at how the Christofascists demands for special rights could roil the GOP primary process.  Here are some article highlights:

The rapid realignment of public and judicial opinion over the last decade toward gay rights has embroiled the Christian right in an existential crisis. That’s the way they see it, at least, which is why they’re framing the advance of gay rights in America as an assault on “religious freedom” generally, and Christianity specifically. It’s a bogus argument – the religious freedoms of Christian conservatives are not and never have been dependent upon the denial of rights to gay people – but the cause is being championed by conservatives in state governments who have moved to pass laws protecting discrimination against gays as an expression of “religious freedom.”

One of those conservatives is Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law yesterday. The law will allow business owners who refuse to provide services to gay people to cite their religious beliefs in their own defense if they end up getting sued.. . . . this law and others like it are written very broadly and could allow for all manner of discriminatory behavior.

Paul Waldman, writing at the Washington Post, notes that the controversy over the law could very easily spill over into the 2016 Republican presidential nominating contest:

The more news this Indiana law gets, the more likely it is that it will become an issue in the presidential primaries. And it fits neatly within the key divide among Republicans: on one side you could have business groups that are nervous about negative economic impacts and strategists who don’t want the GOP to be known as the party of discrimination, while on the other side you have candidates eager for the votes of religious right primary voters.

It’s not hard to pick out the 2016 aspirants who would be most likely to support Pence on this one. Basically, if they’ve ever said anything in defense of the homophobic asshole from that stupid duck show – looking at you, Bobby Jindal – then there’s a pretty strong chance they’ll get down with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This fight also fall squarely within Rick Santorum’s and Mike Huckabee’s cultural-resentment wheelhouses.

If there’s anyone this issue is tailor-made for, though, it’s Ted Cruz. When Cruz formally announced his presidential campaign earlier this week, he explicitly stated that he hoped to ride to victory on the backs of Christian conservatives.  . . . . while Cruz doesn’t have a whole lot in the way of “experience” to boast about, he does have something to bring to the table when it comes to fighting on behalf of Christians against government “overreach.”
What will be interesting to see is if and how candidates like Jeb Bush react to the Indiana “religious freedom” controversy. Bush is a Christian and plenty conservative, but he also has an eye on appealing to primary voters outside the Christian right, and appealing to a broader American electorate that is far more supportive of gay rights. For my money, though, the man to watch will be Rand Paul.  Remember, there was a time not long ago when Rand Paul said that even though it was bad business to “exclude anyone” from your establishment, . . . He has, of course, since disavowed ever having believed anything of the sort, but who knows – maybe the Indiana “religious freedom” law and the need to win over some primary voters will rekindle some of that old-school libertarianism.

Despite the downside for those in states enacting such laws, for the Democrats on a longer term basis, these laws may do two things: (i) drive the GOP presidential primary contestants into crazy land and (ii) repulse decent people from supporting the GOP.  As I said, here in Virginia, the entire House of Delegates is up for reelection in November, and I am sure that The Family Foundation will be making support for such laws a litmus test for Republican candidates.

McAuliffe to Veto Pet Far Right GOP Bills

It definitely makes a difference having a Democrat in the Governor's mansion.  As the Washington Post reports, Terry McAuliffe is poised to veto about 20 bills passed by the GOP controlled General Assembly that rang from more restrictions aimed at suppressing the minority vote to granting special rights to Christofascist parents who home school their children yet want the benefit of public school sports programs and other efforts of the GOP's reverse Robin Hood agenda.  Here are highlights from the Post:

Gov. Terry McAuliffe told fellow Democrats this week that he intends to veto about 20 bills, including one that would have allowed home-schooled students to play sports on public high school teams, according to two people familiar with his plans.

 McAuliffe (D) spoke with Democratic legislators by conference call this week to share plans to veto the Tebow bill and a number of other Republican-sponsored measures . . . .

McAuliffe also plans to veto bills meant to tighten restrictions on voting and loosen them on guns, buck Common Core educational standards, undermine local “living wage” rules, and adjust House and Senate district lines.

The package of expected vetoes will send a clear signal about McAuliffe’s agenda and his ideology as a liberal governor. And they will give McAuliffe and other Democrats a chance to flex their muscle for a change in Richmond, where Republicans have long dominated the House — and took narrow control of the Senate last summer.

Republicans have the numbers to override any vetoes in the House but not in the Senate. So after a session in which Democratic priorities including expanding gay rights and restricting access to guns died swift deaths at the hands of the GOP, Democrats will have some sway.

One of the bills McAuliffe seems prepared to veto is the Tebow bill, named for Tim Tebow, the former Denver Broncos quarterback who was home-schooled in Florida and allowed to play football at his local high school. Similar legislation has passed the House since 2005, only to die in the Senate.  . . . . opponents have said it would be wrong to let children compete in sports without requiring them to meet the same academic and disciplinary standards required of students in public schools.

McAuliffe is also expected to veto bills that require voters who apply for absentee ballots to provide a copy of photo identification, just as they must do when voting in person under a law passed last year.

Voter ID has been a highly partisan issue in Richmond and around the country in recent years, with Republicans arguing that tighter standards are needed to ensure the legitimacy of elections, and Democrats accusing the GOP of trying to suppress votes.

Also on the chopping block are bills intended to prevent local governments from requiring contractors to pay their employees a wage above the minimum required by state or federal law.

McAuliffe is also expected to strike bills that would prohibit the state Board of Education from replacing its own statewide educational standards, known as Standards of Learning, with federal Common Core standards. The Common Core standards have become a lightning rod for conservatives opposed to perceived federal “overreach.”

 McAuliffe is also expected to veto several bills intended to expand gun rights, including one that would allow anyone who holds a concealed handgun permit to transport a loaded shotgun or rifle in a car on any public roadway.

Kudos for the coming vetoes!

Gaming Convention Threatens to Boycott Indianapolis

Indiana - home of special rights for Christofascists

The Republican controlled Indiana legislature has passed a license to discriminate law that would grant special rights to Christofascists in order to enable them to refuse service to or interaction with those who offend their religious beliefs. It is part and parcel with the larger agenda of the Republican Party to shamelessly prostitute itself to hate-filled, ignorance embracing, knuckle dragging "godly Christians" in order to (i) protect its elected officials from primary challenges and (ii) get the spittle flecked, Kool-Aid drinking set to turn out on election day.  The tawdriest of whores is virtuous compared to today's Republicans.  But the political prostitutes may be hitting the first of many downsides of their disgusting self-prostitution.  The Gen Con gaming convention has sent a letter to Indiana governor Mike Pence threatening to pull its convention from Indianapolis if Pence signs the legislation into law.  Here are excerpts from Gen Con's letter to Pence:

“Legislation that could allow for refusal of service or discrimination against our attendees will have a direct negative impact on the state's economy, and will factor into our decision-making on hosting the convention in the state of Indiana in future years. . . .Gen Con proudly welcomes a diverse attendee base, made up of different ethnicities, cultures, beliefs, sexual orientations, gender identities, abilities, and socio-economic backgrounds,” she wrote. “We are happy to provide an environment that welcomes all, and the wide-ranging diversity of our attendees has become a key element to the success and growth of our convention.”

We ask that you reconsider your support for SB 101.

Candidly, Pence is a nasty piece of work and he is likely to sign the bill.  If that happens, Gen Con needs to follow though on its threat and find a new location for its event.  Hopefully, other organizations will join suit and Indiana will pay a real financial price for its backwardness and bigotry.

P.S. For those in states that have enacted such laws, please read the language of the applicable statute carefully.  If the wording is broad enough, these laws need to be used to discriminate against far right Christians by citing "religious belief" - e.g., they are the modern day version of Biblical Pharisees and need to be shunned.  If (i) I lived in a state with such a law and (ii) I still had my own firm, nothing would give me more joy that showing a Chridstofascist to the door and telling them that they are unwanted.

Rep. J. Randy Forbes Continues to Drink Kool-Aid

Randy Forbes - a pandering political whore

As I have noted before, I went to law school wit now Congressman J. Randy Forbes.  In school, Forbes was not a liberal, but he wasn't a right wing nutcase either.  Now, Forbes has either been subjected to a "Stepford Wife" like transformation or is drinking far right Kool-Aid by the truckload.  How else to explain his co-authoring of an op-ed in the Washington Examiner advocating for a license to engage in religious based discrimination.  The principal target, naturally is LGBT citizens, but Forbes batshitery could equally apply to Jews, blacks and others disliked by the "godly folk."  Here are samples of Forbes' vile pandering to hate merchants.  Natuarlly, if and when Christians become a minority, I suspect that Forbes will be singing a different song.  Here are highlights of his batshitery:

Avid Chipotle customers seeking carnitas burritos for dinner may be disappointed over the coming weeks. The restaurant giant is reportedly no longer serving pork at about a third of its locations after it dropped a pork supplier that failed to live up to the corporation's standards of humane animal care.


It is crucial that the same freedom of conscience enjoyed by the leadership of Chipotle remain equally available to business owners of faith. Indeed, much more so, as freedom of religion is explicitly protected by the First Amendment. We cannot simultaneously laud the leaders of a business motivated by a commitment to environmental sustainability and discriminate against the leaders of a business motivated by religious belief.

If a decision based on moral convictions is celebrated, shouldn't a decision based on the free exercise of religion – a right guaranteed in the Constitution – be even more so?

To be sure, religious freedom is not just a choice of convenience – it is a fundamental right given to all Americans by the Constitution. As we recognize Chipotle's decision, let's remember that a clear constitutionally-supported civil right of religious freedom should be cherished and respected in every corner of this nation.

Americans do not check their religious freedom at the door when they leave their home or place of worship and enter the public sphere.  We must not fall prey to the hypocrisy of defending the freedom of operating a business on convictions of sustainability, but reject that same freedom when the convictions are based in faith.

No doubt Mr. Forbes sees himself as virtuous even as he promotes hate and division and the embrace of ignorance and bigotry.  The truth, however, is that (i) religious belief is 100% a matter of choice and (ii) the most tawdry whore has more integrity and virtue and Forbes and his fellow Republicans who shamelessly prostitute them to the ugliest elements of the party base - the Christofascists and the white supremacists.

Rally Against Oppressive ‘Religious Freedom’

The rallying cry and Trojan Horse of the Christofascists and far right politicians who prostitute them selves to them is "religious freedom" and now laws that claim to protect it while, in fact, granting broad licenses to discriminate.  While the chief targets of such laws are gays, the language is often so broad that any number of other laws may be ignored if one bases one's actions on "religious belief," opening the right to discriminate against blacks, Jews, and a host of other minorities.  These laws thus grant a wide array of special rights to the hate-filled, bigoted set.  A piece in Salon looks at efforts to rally against such a law under consideration in Georgia (amazingly, a similar law was just defeated in West Virginia).  Here are highlights:

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Georgians had another reason to be drinking yesterday besides the obvious one. A new bill could make Georgia one of the least LGBT-friendly states in the country and there’s less than a month left to stop it. . . . the “Georgia Religious Freedom Restoration Act” (GRFRA).

The GRFRA—also known as SB129—is headed to the Georgia House of Representatives after clearing the Senate by a wide margin and, if passed, it will become what The Daily Beast’s Jay Michaelson has called “the nation’s harshest ‘religious freedom’ law,” granting business owners unprecedented latitude to refuse service to LGBT people and potentially even impeding child abuse investigations.

The law itself makes no reference to these consequences, only citing the need to defend “persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.”  

“We know that this is about discrimination,” said Executive Director of Georgia Equality Jeff Graham at the start of the rally.

SB129 is just one of many state-level RFRA laws that have become the religious right’s reactionary response to recent same-sex marriage gains. With a Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage expected this year, the fight over LGBT rights is quickly moving from weddings to wedding cakes—specifically to whether or not a Christian baker can refuse to make one for a same-sex couple.

The speakers at yesterday’s rally to stop SB129 seemed like an unlikely group of allies: a rabbi, a Republican, a lawyer, a Baptist. One organizer told The Daily Beast that it was “like the start of a bad joke.”  But the diverse array of speakers revealed the breadth of groups who oppose the bill while highlighting the fact that LGBT Georgians will need to make some strange bedfellows to keep it off the governor’s desk.

 While LGBT Georgians continue to write emails and flood phone lines, the fate of SB129 remains uncertain in the House. On one hand, Speaker David Ralston (R) has been skeptical of SB129 in recent comments on Georgia public television.

But Ralston’s caution has already earned him the ire of those further to his right. Erick Erickson of RedState has concluded from his comments that “Speaker of the House David Ralston does not believe Christians need their faith protected” and that Ralston is “willing to see Christians surrender their ability to live their faith outside of 11 AM to noon on Sunday.” The religious right in Georgia will be making phone calls as well.

 The hatred of others and extreme selfishness of the "godly folk" is chilling. Again I ask, when are moral and decent folk going to stop giving them - and religion in general - undeserved deference?

Anti-Gay Military Chaplain Faces Dismissal

Faux Christian Martyr Modder

The far right are preparing to make a martyr out of Lt. Cmdr. Wesley Modder, a Pentecostal chaplain once assigned to elite Navy SEAL units, who is facing dismissal because of his behavior towards gays and unmarried woman within the command to which he was assigned.   Modder was given a "detachment for cause" letter on Feb. 17 after his commanders concluded that he is "intolerant" and "unable to function in the diverse and pluralistic environment" of his current assignment.  The usual suspects and liberty counsel are claiming that Modder is being persecuted for being a Christian when the truth is that he refused to recognize the freedom of religion rights of military members at his assignment and sought to force his religious beliefs on them.  As is always the case with Christofascists, they construe "religious freedom" as their unfettered right to inflict their beliefs on others with zero regard for the rights of others.  Ultimately, it is form of extreme selfishness and contempt for others.  The Navy Times has details.  Here are highlights:

Navy Capt. Jon Fahs, NNPTC commander, cited several specific incidents in which Modder offered inappropriate counseling to sailors in the command, according to the detachment for cause letter. The letter states that Modder:

• Told a female that she was "shaming herself in the eyes of god" for having premarital sex.
• Told another student that homosexuality was wrong and that "the penis was meant for the vagina and not for the anus."
• Suggested to a student that he, Modder, had the ability to "save" gay people.
• "Berated" a student for becoming pregnant while not married.

Commanders felt that allowing vulnerable sailors to be counseled by Modder is "a recipe for tragedy," according to the letter.

The issue arose after multiple sailors filed equal opportunity complaints about Modder with the command, alleging discrimination.

Modder's Liberty Institute attorney, Michael Berry, said the effort to fire him reflects a broader cultural change in the military.

"I think what we are seeing is a hostility to religious expression in the military now," Berry said. "What we're seeing is this new modern, pluralistic, Navy where service members are encouraged to be hypersensitive, especially about issues of faith, marriage and family."

Commanding officers feel that "if we don't silence this immediately, then somebody is going to complain that my commanding officer didn't do anything about it," Berry said.

When confronted with the complaints, Modder told his command that "he will not follow Navy policy if it conflicts with his faith," according to the letter.

Kudos to the Navy.  I hope Modder is kicked out.  It is far past time that the Christofascist realize that they are not above the law and rules and regulations.  If they cannot abide by the military's rules, then get out.  Nothing is preventing Modder from embracing his ignorance and fear based beliefs - he simply doesn't have the right to force them on others.

Texas Republicans Introduce Bills to Bar LGBT Non-Discrimination Laws

State Rep. Matt Shaheen (R-Plano)

Proving yet again that the GOP is the enemy of LGBT Americans, four Texas Republicans have introduced bills in the Texas legislature that would bar localities and cities from enacting non-discrimination laws and ordinances to protect LGBT citizens from employment and housing discrimination.  The measures were prompted by the city of Plano's recent adoption of a non-discrimination ordinance.  The move is part of a nationwide Republican effort to grant open license to Christofascists to discriminate against LGBT citizens.  Here are highlights from the Texas Observer:

Four Republican lawmakers from the Plano area plan to introduce legislation that would bar cities and counties from adopting ordinances prohibiting discrimination against LGBT people, the Observer has learned. The proposed legislation also threatens to nullify existing LGBT-inclusive nondiscrimination ordinances in cities that are home to roughly 7.5 million Texans—or more than one-quarter of the state’s population.

The bill comes in response to the Plano City Council’s passage last month of an equal rights ordinance banning discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodations.

“There is legislation that’s being worked on,” Rep. Matt Shaheen (R-Plano) told a group of pastors who gathered in mid-December at Plano’s Prestonwood Baptist Church in response to passage of the city’s equal rights ordinance, according to an audio recording obtained by the Observer.

Shaheen said. “There’s actually four state representatives that represent Plano—all of us will be joint authors of that legislation—but Rep. Leach will lead that effort.”

Shaheen declined the Observer’s request for an interview about the legislation, which had not yet been filed as the session got under way Tuesday. Shaheen, Leach and the other two GOP Plano lawmakers—Reps. Pat Fallon and Jodie Laubenberg—wrote a letter to the Plano City Council opposing the equal rights irdinance prior to its passage. Calls to the offices of Fallon, Leach and Laubenberg went unreturned.

Texas Pastor Council Executive Director David Welch, whose group is leading efforts to repeal equal rights ordinances in Plano and Houston, told the Observer the legislation would prohibit political subdivisions of the state from adding classes to nondiscrimination ordinances that aren’t protected under Texas or federal law—neither of which covers LGBT people.

“It should be a uniform standard statewide, and cities can’t just arbitrarily create new classes that criminalize a whole segment of the majority of the population,” Welch said.

Meanwhile, state lawmakers in both the House and Senate have introduced proposed constitutional amendments—branded by progressives as “license to discriminate” measures—that would carve out broad religious exemptions to local anti-bias laws.

But the Plano Republicans’ bill would need only simple majorities in both chambers, instead of two-thirds for a constitutional amendment. And the bill is effectively a nuclear option that could abruptly end fights in Houston and Plano. Other cities with LGBT-inclusive nondiscrimination ordinances at risk of being nullified include Dallas, El Paso, Fort Worth and San Antonio. In some cases, the laws are decades old.

Pastor Welch - how long until he gets busted seeking to suck dick?

Why Houston Subpoenaed Pastors’ Sermons

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) speaking at a rally in defense of the Houston pastors.

The hyperventilating among Christofascists over the decision of the City of Houston to subpoena the sermons of a small number of pastors seemingly knows no limits and one is hearing claims that it represents a war on Christians and rants about homo-fascists.  The real fascists, of course, are the Christofascists.  And then there's the real issue: whether or not these pastors were violating the laws that restrict the political activity of tax-exempt churches.  As noted countless times on this blog, the Christofascists believe they are above complying with the laws that govern the rest of us.  Think Progress looks at what is really behind the city of Houston's subpoenas.  Here are excerpts:

There has been a new clash this week in the fight over the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO), a law that would protect LGBT individuals and other targeted groups from discrimination. The latest hubbub involves the city subpoenaing five pastors for their sermons, which has prompted conservatives to claim that religious liberty is under attack and that the subpoenas are a form of intimidation.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, was on Fox News last night claiming that Houston Mayor Annise Parker (D) is “taking a bulldozer to that wall of separation [of church and state]” and trying to “dictate what pastors preach.”

The Houston City Council approved HERO in May with a vote of 11-6. In addition to its inclusion of LGBT protections, it was actually the city’s first nondiscrimination bill protecting any classification, including race, sex, and religion. Houston was one of the only large cities in the country with no nondiscrimination policy on the books.

After the law passed, a coalition formed known as “No Unequal Rights,” spearheaded by local church groups like the Houston Area Pastor Council and Baptist Ministers Association of Houston. The anti-LGBT coalition began collecting signatures to challenge HERO with a referendum.

Enough of the pages were disqualified to bring the number of signatures below what was required, leading Feldman and Parker to announce that the petition effort had failed.  Opponents of the law responded by immediately filing a lawsuit against the city, demanding the referendum be placed on the ballot.

[T]he case largely hinges on the validity of the signatures and the process by which they were collected. A video posted by Equality Texas shortly after the suit was filed shows Pastor David Welch, director of the Houston Area Pastor Council, training signature collectors about the very city rules that Feldman used to disqualify entire pages of signatures. The subpoenas seek to collect additional information about how pastors like Welch communicated with their congregations about the petition process.

The subpoenas targeted five pastors in Houston: David Welch, Steve Riggle, Khan Huynh, Magda Hermida, and Hernan Castano. The requests seek documents related to the funding of the petition effort, t he training of petition circulators, and the messaging used to convince individuals to sign. What has particularly drawn conservative ire was the request for “All speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession.”

The fate of the subpoenas will ultimately be determined by the court. In the meantime, conservatives seem intent on using the controversy to spread myths about the petition, the implications of the subpoenas, and more of the same anti-LGBT rhetoric they used to unsuccessfully oppose HERO in the first place.

If these pastors and their churches were funding this petition effort, they have likely violated the provisions of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and should lose their tax exempt status.

"Religious Liberty" - The Far Right's Next Attack on Marriage Equality

If one follows Christofascist organizations' websites, one sees constant messaging that gays are child molesting perverts going to hell, woman who use contraception are whores and sluts, and that the "sanctity of marriage is under attack even though it is evangelicals themselves who have the highest divorce rate.  One also sees constant whining that "religious freedom" is under attack.  In the mind of the Christofascist this translates to the fact that increasingly, the larger society doesn't want Christofascist religious beliefs imposed on them.  To the sick minds of the Christofascists, anything that restricts their ability to ride rough shod over others and/or to ignore the rights of others is an attack on their "religious freedom."  It's a very selfish mindset, but, in my view, there are few people more selfish than far right Christians.  

The irony, of course, is that same civil law sex marriage and other claimed threats would never be seen as attacks on religious liberty by the Founding Fathers who viewed religious liberty quite simply: citizens should be allowed to attend the churches that they wanted to attend, no particular church would have a monopoly on performing marriages - e.g., there was time in Virginia when only marriages in Anglican churches were "official" - and the general citizenry not be required to pay taxes to support a particular denomination.  None of the things the Christofascists rail about run afoul of this simple concept of freedom of religion.  Rather, their complaint is they are not being allowed to force others to live by their fear and hate based religious dogma.  

A piece in the Virginian Pilot looks at the coming Christofascist attack on marriage equality under the banner of protecting religious freedom.  It's a disingenuous story line, but one ran expect Republicans to none the less stampede to prostitute themselves to the Christofascists by embracing the lie.  Here are highlights:

Alarmed by the broad expansion of same-sex marriage set in motion by the U.S. Supreme Court, religious conservatives are moving their fight to state legislatures - seeking exemptions that would allow some groups, companies and people with religious objections to refuse benefits or service for gay spouses.

Winning sweeping carve-outs for faith-affiliated adoption agencies or individual wedding vendors, though, will be an uphill battle. Public attitudes against exceptions have hardened, and efforts by faith groups in states where courts, not lawmakers, recognized same-sex unions have had little success.

Gay advocates say broad carve-outs perpetuate the discrimination they had been working to end. 

That argument gained currency after the high court's Hobby Lobby ruling in June. It decided the arts-and-crafts chain and other "closely held" private businesses with religious objections could opt out of providing employees the free contraceptive coverage required by the Affordable Care Act. Liberal groups were outraged, and many promised to aggressively oppose exceptions for faith groups.

"I think there's a broad consensus that the rules should apply to everyone, which is why we withdrew our support from ENDA," said Jennifer Pizer, senior counsel at the national gay rights group Lambda Legal. "If you have different standards, then it communicates a message that some kinds of discrimination are not as serious as others."

The religious exemption fight isn't about what happens inside the sanctuary. First Amendment protections for worship and clergy are clear. . . . the high court decision last week to turn away appeals by states trying to protect their same-sex marriage bans moves the debate over exemptions into territory that is more conservative, politically and religiously. Utah, Nevada and Idaho are heavily Mormon. South Carolina, where the attorney general is fighting to uphold the state's gay marriage ban despite the court ruling, is largely evangelical Protestant.

But a controversy in Arizona in February over exemptions showed the limits on the public acceptance of broad opt-outs, even in conservative-leaning states. When lawmakers expanded protections in the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the national backlash from business leaders, gay rights groups and others was so intense that Republican Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed the measure.

"There will be a temptation to enact broad exemptions in states that otherwise would oppose same-sex marriage," said John Green, a religion and politics expert at the University of Akron's Bliss Institute of Applied Politics. "However, overly broad exemptions can backfire as well: They can be perceived as intolerant and discriminatory."

It is safe to say that here in Virginia, at the direction of The Family Foundation, a hate group in all but formal designation, some Republican political whores will be introducing exemption bills so that the "godly folk" can continue to mistreat others. 

Despite Marriage Victories, Gays Still Lack Employment Protections in 29 States

Click image to enlarge

Part of the Christofascists' agenda to punish LGBT individuals for not conforming to far right religious dogma has been to deprive us of legal recognition of our relationships with our life partners.  The other equally insidious piece of this stigmatization and state sponsored discrimination has been to deprive us of employment protections.  Sadly, despite the victories on the marriage equality front, in 29 states LGBT individuals can still be summarily fired from their jobs simply for being LGBT.  Virginia, all too typically, ranks among such anti-gay states thanks in no small part to the hate group known as The Family Foundation and its political prostitutes in the Virginia GOP.  A piece in Huffington Post and a column in the Washington Post look at this unfortunate reality.   First some highlights from the Post:

I hate to be the skunk at the gay wedding, especially after swooning over those happening in the most unlikely places. But it’s time we deal with a couple of inconvenient truths that won’t change until both the Supreme Court and Congress act. And only the court is poised to actually act.

Writing for The Post’s Monkey Cage, New York University professor Patrick Egan highlights the dilemma facing same-sex couples marrying in states without protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Gay people can now get legally married in more states than where they are legally protected from job discrimination.  As this map shows, there are now five states — Indiana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Virginia — where gay people can get legally married and where it is perfectly legal for an employer to fire someone for being gay.

But don’t think this fear of discrimination based on sexual orientation is some abstract concern. Doug Schilling of Iowa wrote to me after reading my post on all the gay couples getting married last week. Noting that his state was the second in the nation to legalize marriage equality, Schilling said he was suing his former employer “who fired me for being gay after I gave my partner a kidney.” Schilling has legal recourse because Iowa prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

What’s needed is employment discrimination protection on the federal level. There was great hope that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) would provide such protection. But the legislation has languished in the House since it arrived from the Senate with 64 votes nearly a year ago. Rising concern over proposed religious exemptions to the bill, combined with dim prospects of passage in the House, have led many LGBT activists and organizations to withdraw their support for ENDA and call for a comprehensive civil rights law that adds sexual orientation to the nation’s anti-discrimination statute. This won’t happen any time soon.

[O]lder same-sex married couples will find themselves in a bind when the need for Social Security benefits arises. Attorney General Eric Holder determined last February that “same-sex marriages valid in the place where the marriage was celebrated” would be viewed as legal under federal law. Unless that law is the Social Security Act, as we learned in June. That’s when the Social Security Administration announced that federal law required it “to follow state law in Social Security cases.” What that means for the partner of a lesbian couple who married in New York state but live in Georgia, where marriage equality doesn’t exist (yet), is that your claim for survivor benefits will be put on hold

Huffington Post continues the analysis and underscores the discrimination that gays face even in states that now have marriage equality:

For many activists, the top priority after marriage is federal legislation that would outlaw a broad range of discrimination against lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people. There's no such federal law now, and more than half the states do not ban discrimination by employers or public accommodations based on sexual orientation.

As a whole, the LGBT population is elated by the expansion of gay marriage. Yet according to a 2013 Pew Research Center survey, about 40 percent of LGBT adults aren't interested in getting married, compared to 24 percent of the general public. And nearly 40 percent of the LGBT respondents said the marriage issue had drawn too much attention away from other concerns.

Gay-rights groups are looking ahead to the next session of Congress. Sainz of the Human Rights Campaign said there will be an aggressive push for a comprehensive LGBT civil rights bill that would seek anti-bias protections even beyond the workplace — in realms such as housing and access to credit.

In past years, broad GOP support for such a bill would have seemed impossible, but Sainz foresees a new era.

"The constant expansion of the marriage map changes the reality for Republicans," he said. "With every passing day, those who oppose LGBT equality increasingly look like dinosaurs."

Shannon Minter, the center's legal director [National Center for Lesbian Rights], said the "breathtaking progress" on marriage equality shouldn't weaken the broader drive for LGBT rights.

"Every day, LGBT people are fired from their jobs, kicked out of families, and stigmatized in their communities," Minter said. "Our future work must assure that every LGBT person, no matter who they are or where they live, enjoys equality, dignity, and justice."

In short, there is still a huge amount of work to be done.  Each of us can aid in the task by living as "out" and proudly as our circumstances permit.  That means coming out to friends and family members even if one must remain closeted at work.

Will North Carolina Governor Enforce Gay Marriage Ruling?

North Carolina governor Pat McCrory (R) has stated that he fully supports gays’ rights to marry following the federal court rulings that struck down North Carolina's Christofascists/GOP inspired Amendment 1.  With some court magistrates in true Christofascist form believing that they are above the law and refusing to perform same sex marriages, McCory may soon be called to put his money where his mouth is and seek disciplinary action - hopefully firings - of magistrates who think that they are above the law.  As the Virginian Pilot reports, a magistrate in nearby Pasquotank County, one magistrate has already refused to do their job:

William Locklear and his partner showed up at the county courthouse Monday expecting to get married after 31 years together.  The couple didn't get the chance.  A magistrate turned them away.

"He said, 'I won't be performing your marriage because of my religious beliefs,' " Locklear said.

A federal judge struck down the state's gay marriage ban late Friday. Monday was the first full business day that same-sex marriages could be performed.  "He has to do his job," Locklear said. "He is not there to preach to us."

Pasquotank County Clerk of Superior Court Connie Thornley confirmed that a magistrate declined to perform the marriage.  Magistrates must marry gay couples or risk losing their jobs, she said.

The court website lists four magistrates in Pasquotank County. Thornley had concerns that more than one magistrate could resign over his or her beliefs, which could lead to a shortage, she said.

Frankly, an example needs to be made of this magistrate who needs to be promptly fired if such refusals continue.   Meanwhile, Towleroad reporst on McCrory's claim that he will uphold the law.  Here are excerpts:

North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory (R) has stated that he fully supports gays’ rights to marry following U.S. District Court Judge Mac Cogburn Jr.’s decision that overturned the state's same sex marriage ban. Speaking to the Carolina Connection, the Governor admitted that while accepting gay marriage would require a fair amount of cultural evolution for North Carolina, his job as a public official was to uphold the court’s ruling.

“I think it's a time for healing on all sides,” he said. “Now that the disagreement has been resolved in the courts, it's our job to live together and work together and play together and respect each other together.”

McCrory’s election to the governor’s seat in 2012 marked the first time that the Republican party controlled both North Carolina’s senate and its general assembly since 1870. His tenure in office thus far has been marked by a number of classically conservative initiatives such as cutting unemployment benefits, opting out of Obamacare, and repealing the state’s Racial Justice Act. Most recently McCrory made headlines after the US Attorney’s Office launched an investigation into his administration’s potential involvement in settling environmental lawsuits on behalf Duke Energy.

As the quoted article notes, McCrory is a nasty piece of work and his feet will need to be held to the fire by citizens and the courts.

Pennsylvania Teen Faces Prison for Blasphemy Charges

Reads scoff at me when I equate the Christofascists and some of America's antiquated laws with milder version of ISIS and other nations where blasphemy statutes can lead to prison terms or far worse.  But a pending case in Pennsylvania underscores that my comparison of Christofascists and some of America's laws with something out of the Middle East is more on point than many Americans care to admit.  What makes the situation even more outrageous is that the owner of the religious object involved did not want to prosecute.  Rather, the jihad is being driven by a prosecutor who obviously is anxious to prostitute himself to far right voters.  KRON TV4 has details on the initial story:

Pennsylvania (KRON) — A Pennsylvania teenager is facing criminal charges after posting pictures to Facebook of him simulating a sex act with a statue of Jesus.

The young man posted that he took the pictures in late July at the statue of a kneeling Jesus in front of the “Love in the Name of Christ” Christian organization in his hometown of Everett.

The criminal charge, which will be heard in family court, consists of “Desecration of a Venerated Object.” 

Pennsylvania law defines desecration as “Defacing, damaging, polluting or otherwise, physically mistreating in a way that the actor knows will outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or discover the action.”

The teen, whose name has not been released, could face up to two years in a juvenile jail if convicted.

Joe My God has details on recent events and a protest against the ridiculous Pennsylvania law.    Here are highlights:

Remember the teenager in Pennsylvania who faces two years in juvenile detention for posing on a statue of Jesus? This happened this weekend:

A successful protest, where several dozen people rallied in favor of free speech, was marred on Saturday, when a belligerent group of counter protesters, including two from what appeared to be a motorcycle gang, crashed the demonstration and threatened those in attendance, including a 14-year old boy arrested for “desecrating” a Jesus statue and Truth Wins Out’s Executive Director Wayne Besen. Incredibly, there was not a single police officer on-hand to prevent potential violence and this left the protesters vulnerable to thugs and forced them to fend for themselves. “The Bedford police placed us directly in harms way and their inaction nearly caused a full-blown melee,” said Truth Wins Out’s Executive Director Wayne Besen. “This is the first time in two decades of protesting that I’ve been put directly in harm’s way by town officials. We call on Bedford to immediately review its policies for protecting the free speech rights of those who demonstrate in their town.”

What is truly disturbing is that no damage was done to the Jesus statute and, again, the owners did not want to press charges.  One has to wonder if next Pennsylvania will legalize the stoning of adulterers or those using curse words involving the Trinity?  Meanwhile, of course, the Christofascists are free to lie and spread hate and division without any accountability.  The prosecution needs to be dropped and the statute repealed.  Far too much deference has been given to individuals like this one:

Are Anti-Gay Christofascists Unpatriotic/Guilty of Conspiring with Foreign Governments?

Brian Brown in Russia conspiring with anti-gay forces

I have often maintained that the Christofascists ultimately seek to establish a theocracy in America and rewrite - if not overthrow - the U.S. Constitution, they are technically guilty of sedition and/or treason.  Equally disturbing is the willingness of some "godly Christians" to conspire with foreign governments and/or legislators to push for foreign laws at odds with the rights guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution.  Sadly, too many in the media fail to call out the mouth pieces of the Christian Right who would overthrow the First Amendment, if not the entire Constitution, and who willingly deal with foreign governments to further their theocratic agenda. A case in point (and exception to the rule) is when Mike Huckabee said some years ago on Morning Joe, that he thought the U.S. Constitution should be replaced with the Bible as the nation's governing document.   Thankfully, Joe Scarborough challenged Huckabee, but too many "journalists" and news anchors don't do so.  Another example is NOM's Brian Brown working with the Putin regime to pass anti-equality laws. Now, Congressman Adam Schiff has called these foul individuals out for what they are.  FrontiersLA.com has details.  Here are highlights:

[O]n Sunday, he [Congressman Adam Schiff] went so far as to question the patriotism of anti-gay religious leaders such as Brian Brown, the President of the National Organization for Marriage, who seem to place their own ideology over the best interests of America.

Told that Brown had attended a forum in Moscow despite forum sponsors (billionaire Vladimir Yakunin, a senior advisor to Russian President Vladimir Putin and the forum’s funder and parliament member Elena Mizulina) being on the Treasury Department’s list of sanctioned individuals, Schiff said:

“I think it’s awful and whether it’s people going to Russia to help propagate these discriminatory laws that are increasing in places like Russia and East Europe and Africa or whether it’s some of our captains of industry that are going to Moscow and trying to seize of business opportunities like this. It really calls into question their commitment to our country and its ideals. So I think it’s horribly counter-productive and only a further incentive to the belligerent, dangerous, backward policies of Putin and his cronies.”

Schiff’s comments come a day before the Human Rights Campaign released a major expose entitled “Global Advocacy of American Anti-LGBT Extremists Exposed,”  HRC opens the report saying:

There is a network of American extremists who work tirelessly to undercut LGBT people around the world at every turn. They spew venomous rhetoric, outrageous theories, and discredited science. Some claim that LGBT people are responsible for the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, and the spread of HIV/AIDS. Others argue that LGBT people are luring away children, and that acceptance of LGBT people will lead to the destruction of families around the world. Some even suggest that the death penalty could be an appropriate punishment for simply being LGBT.

Last October, Fred Karger of “Rights Equal Rights” wrote Sec. of State John Kerry  and Attorney General Eric Holder asking that they investigate whether  Brown violated the Logan Act, a “federal statute making it a crime for a citizen to confer with foreign governments” against US interests. Karger notes that Brown testified before Russian Duma officials—including a subcommittee chaired by Mizulina, who then helped write the anti-gay propaganda and adoption laws—and asks in Brown did so without prior authorization of the US government.

Schiff thinks the criteria for American investment in other countries should include non-discrimination laws. He said:

I definitely think it should be a factor and if you look at the Millennium Challenge Corporation—it evaluates levels of corruption and whatnot in terms of whether a country is a suitable candidate for investment. I think we also ought to look at their progress towards equality and if they’re moving backward, to me, they’re not a great place for investment. And that might be a good and powerful and yet subtle way to say we’re prioritizing non-discrimination and we’re going to take into consideration anywhere we put our money.

 It is far past time that Christofascist be held to compliance with this nation's laws and that it be made very clear that they are not above the law. 

Adam Schiff

Adam Schiff