5th Circuit Allows Anti-LGBT Law to Go Into Effect

Emboldened by the election of Donald Trump, a number of Republican controlled state legislatures rushed to pass falsely named "religious freedom" laws that would allow open discrimination against LGBT citizens.  Backward hell hole, Mississippi was among the first states to pass such a bill (a less hideous bill in Virginia was vetoed by Democrat Governor Terry McAuliffe).   Now, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit on Thursday ruled that Mississippi can start enforcing a law that will let merchants and government employees cite religious beliefs to deny services to same-sex couples.  The ruling reversed the District Court ruling that had blocked the law before it could take effect last July.  How the Court believes that openly targeting a minority for mistreatment will pass muster under Supreme Court rulings such as Romer v.Evans is baffling.  There has never been much reason to visit Mississippi, now there is even less reason to do so.  To my "friends" and acquaintances who have said that I and other taxpaying LGBT citizens have nothing to fear under Trump/the GOP, my comment is this: when are you going to pull your head out of your ass and wake up to reality? Blogger friend Joe Jervis looks at this disturbing development.  Here are are excerpts:

A federal appeals court says Mississippi can start enforcing a law that will let merchants and government employees cite religious beliefs to deny services to same-sex couples. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday reversed a judge’s decision that had blocked the law before it could take effect last July.

U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves had ruled that the law unconstitutionally establishes preferred beliefs and creates unequal treatment for LGBT people. Republican Gov. Phil Bryant and other supporters say the law protects beliefs that marriage can be between only a man and a woman, and that a person’s gender is determined at birth and cannot be changed.

Via press release from Lambda Legal:

Today, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the injunction against Mississippi House Bill 1523, the discriminatory anti-LGBT legislation challenged in Barber v. Bryant, the federal lawsuit brought by Mississippi civil rights attorney Robert McDuff, the Mississippi Center for Justice and Lambda Legal.  The advocates will continue to fight this discriminatory law. 

Overruling the lower court decision, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit denied that LGBT Mississippians are subject to imminent discrimination by HB 1523 and ordered the block to the law lifted because the plaintiffs—a group of ministers, LGBT residents, community leaders and activists—lack standing since they cannot claim a specific harm caused by the law that has yet to go into effect.

“We had to put guards in front of our church after the bill initially passed because there was a truck with a swastika parked across the street and just this week the Christian Knights of the KKK distributed flyers throughout the Hattiesburg area. Today’s ruling leaves us more exposed, so we will have to be more vigilant than ever before to protect our church, our families and our dignity,” said Brandiilyne Mangum-Dear, Barber plaintiff.

Note: government employees can now discriminate.  So much for equality under the law.  The Christofascists want nothing less than an established religion in violation of the U.S. Constitution.  Political whores in the GOP are only too happy to prostitute themselves to these foul people. 

How the DNC Did Religious Liberty Right

One thing that became clear from the two national party conventions is that Democrats understand the concept of religious freedom envisioned by the Founders while in contrast the Republican view is more like one would have found under the Puritans in early Massachusetts or the Spanish Inquisition. Under the Republican view, only one religion is acceptable - i.e., conservative/fundamentalist Christianity - and it and its adherents should enjoy special rights.  Both parties' views were on open display at their respective conventions.  A piece in Slate looks at how the DNC got the concept right. Here are highlights:

Khizr Khan, a Muslim immigrant whose son was killed while serving in Iraq, brought the Democratic National Convention to tears and raucous applause on Thursday when he held up his pocket Constitution and admonished Donald Trump: “Have you even read the United States Constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy.” Khan’s rebuke was, of course, a profoundly moving and very necessary rejoinder to Trump’s rampant Islamophobia. But that powerful moment, as well as Khan’s entire address, also revealed that after years of surrendering the issue to the GOP, Democrats have finally learned how to talk about and present a progressive vision of religious liberty.

Indeed, that very phrase—religious liberty—has become so freighted with discriminatory overtones that I hesitate to use it. The fight for “religious liberty” has come to dominate the Republican Party in recent years, through a series of campaigns that aim to promote prejudiced Christians’ freedom over everybody else’s. . . . We’ve even seen laws that, under the banner of religious freedom, give mental health counselors and medical doctors the right to refuse to treat gay and trans patients.

In a clever act of doublespeak, Republicans have branded these measures “religious liberty”—but, as a federal judge recently pointed out, they really amount of Christian supremacy. (Or, more accurately, conservative Christian supremacy.) This attempt to legally elevate certain Christian beliefs above all others flatly contradicts the spirit and letter of the First Amendment.

Khan’s address didn’t just throw this hypocrisy into stark relief; it demonstrated exactly how Democrats can seize true religious liberty as a winning issue for progressives. Consider Khan’s precise phrasing. “In this document,” he said, holding up his pocket Constitution, “look for the words liberty and equal protection of law.” Liberty and equality: Two constitutional guarantees that are intertwined and interdependent, each building on the other, each a critical component of freedom in a democracy. “Have you ever been to Arlington Cemetery?” Khan continued. “Go look at the graves of the brave patriots who died defending America. You will see all faiths, genders, and ethnicities.”

An entire cemetery of soldiers—Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists—who devoted their lives to protecting a country that dispenses justice evenhandedly, with preference for none and tolerance for all. Khan might as well have been paraphrasing U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves, who blocked Mississippi’s anti-LGBTQ “religious liberty” law on both Establishment Clause and Equal Protection grounds, holding that it violated both “the guarantee of religious neutrality and the promise of equal protection of the laws.” In America, Reeves explained, religious freedom does not, cannot mean limiting the freedom of those who don’t share your beliefs.

Muslims’ best hope for liberty lies in this preservation of equality—the continued insistence that the government can neither discriminate against certain religions (as Trump would) nor license certain religions to discriminate against others (as Mississippi would). That is the Constitution’s vision of liberty as well, and it is precisely how Democrats should explain their own conception of religious freedom.

Donald Trump's Anti-LGBT Supreme Court Picks

Some have tried to claim that Donald Trump would be less hostile toward LGBT citizens than some of the other Republican presidential candidates would be.  Like so much of what hears from self-loathing (and greed motivated, money loving) gay Republicans,  such claims are seemingly nothing more than wishful thinking.  At least that is the conclusion to be reached from Donald Trump's supposed list of potential Supreme Court justice nominees.  None are gay friendly and some are outright hostile or backed by anti-gay organizations.  The Advocate looks at Trump's toxic list of would be Court nominees.  Here are highlights:

LGBT Americans have reason to worry about Donald Trump’s list of hypothetical Supreme Court nominees, which includes a judge who tweeted about marrying bacon and one who upheld public funding for student groups that discriminate.

All 11 of Trump’s potential picks, announced today, have solidly conservative judicial records. Not all have ruled in LGBT rights cases, but those who have are largely unsympathetic, and some have the backing of anti-LGBT activists.

Here’s a look at some of Trump’s favorite jurists.

Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett: He’s definitely one of the more colorful possibilities, as he’s known for his frequent use of Twitter to comment on legal and political matters. In 2015, as the nation was abuzz over the marriage equality case before the U.S. Supreme Court, Willett tweeted the following: I could support recognizing a constitutional right to marry bacon.  More recently, he made sport of transgender-inclusive school policies.

On Texas’s high court, Willett has not been inclined to recognize same-sex marriage. Last year a Texas judge allowed two women, one with ovarian cancer, to marry before the state’s ban on such unions struck down, and the state Supreme Court dismissed Attorney General Ken Paxton’s challenge to the marriage; Willett dissented. He also dissented from the Texas court’s decision not to take up a case on the validity of a same-sex divorce.

Willett was appointed to the court in 2005 by then-Gov. Rick Perry to fill a vacancy and has been reelected by voters twice. In his 2012 primary, he was endorsed by such religious right types as James Dobson, David Barton, Liberty Institute CEO Kelly Shackelford, and Greg Abbott — then Texas’s attorney general, now its governor.

Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Diane Sykes: Sykes was on a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit that in 2006 affirmed a student group’s right to discriminate against those who engage in “homosexual conduct” but still be recognized as an official campus group and receive public funding. Four years later, “the Supreme Court rejected her approach in a similar case,” notesThinkProgress.  

Minnesota Supreme Court Justice David Stras: In 2012, Stras was among the court majority in a case overruling the secretary of state’s assignment of a new title to an anti–marriage equality constitutional amendment going before voters. The original title, chosen by the state legislature, was “Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman.” Secretary of State Mark Ritchie instead selected “Limiting the Status of Marriage to Opposite Sex Couples,” which legislators thought would make voters more likely to oppose the amendment. 

Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Judge William H. Pryor Jr.: LGBT activists have been wary of Pryor because he filed a friend of the court brief supporting sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas, and he “also cast the deciding vote to oppose hearing a challenge to Florida’s law that banned gay people from adopting,” ThinkProgress reports. He has also derided LGBT rights as “political correctness.”

For the remaining judges on Trump’s list, significant anti-LGBT rulings and comments have yet to surface. They are largely very conservative, though, with records of opposing or at least seeking to limit abortion rights, and seeking to restrict voting rights and workers’ rights.

Federal Judge Orders Alabama Probate Judges to Marry Gay Couples

Robert Povilat and Milton Persinger being married

Once again Alabama has chosen to be forced into accepting equality and modernity in general.  Yesterday Judge Callie V. S. "Ginny" Granade of Federal District Court in Mobile made it clear that her order striking down Alabama's same sex marriage ban applied to all probate judges in the state and that federal law, particularly the U.S. Constitution, trumps state law - something a high school government student should know, but which is beyond the comprehension of the knuckle draggers in Alabama, especially those in the Alabama GOP.  As a result, same sex marriages began late yesterday in Mobile County and today they will begin in Baldwin County on the east side of Mobile Bay.  A piece in the New York Times looks at the forced change finally coming to what ought to be called the "make me state".  Here are excerpts:

A federal judge here ruled on Thursday that the local probate judge cannot refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, potentially adding some clarity to a judicial quarrel that has roiled Alabama for most of a week.

The order by Judge Callie V. S. Granade of Federal District Court came after a brief hearing and prompted cheers and crying in the halls of the probate court here, where several couples obtained licenses and were married before the license office closed.

While Judge Granade had declared Alabama’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional on Jan. 23, the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy S. Moore, insisted in his own order Sunday night that Judge Granade’s ruling did not apply to the state’s probate judges and directed them not to comply. 

The ruling on Thursday was the first in this case with a probate judge as a defendant — Judge Don Davis of Mobile County — and was seen by lawyers for the gay couples who brought the case as a clear signal to probate judges around the state what their duties were.

In a relatively straightforward order, Judge Granade restated her finding that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional and concluded that if the couples before her “take all steps that are required in the normal course of business as a prerequisite to issuing a marriage license to opposite-sex couples, Judge Davis may not deny them a license on the ground that plaintiffs constitute same-sex couples.”

Judge Davis almost immediately began issuing licenses to same-sex couples, but it was unclear whether other probate judges would follow suit. As of noon on Thursday, judges in 23 Alabama counties were issuing licenses to all couples, in 18 counties to straight couples only and in 26 to no couples at all, according to a tally kept by the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group.

Bill English, the probate judge in Lee County, had been declining to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples this week. Reached by phone Thursday afternoon, he said he had read Judge Granade’s order and interpreted it as applying to him.  “We’ll begin issuing licenses tomorrow morning,” he said, adding that “a number” of same-sex couples had inquired about applying for a license this week.

Chief Justice Moore did not return messages seeking comment on Thursday. In past interviews and in his order Sunday, however, he has argued that lower federal court rulings are not binding on state courts.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs said they would not hesitate to bring legal action in other counties if probate judges continued to deny licenses to same-sex couples.

How widespread that may be in rural counties where the probate courts keep limited hours will most likely not be known until Friday or even next week. But none of that mattered in Mobile, where, a little after 4 p.m., the weeklong vigil at the Probate Court became a party. Couples embraced, lawyers cheered and people began taking pictures with the court police officers whom they had gotten to know over the last few days.

First in line before the marriage license window were two of the plaintiffs, Robert Povilat, 60, and Milton Persinger, 47, both wearing boutonnieres and with tears in their eyes.

Having lived in Mobile and Baldwin Counties, the area is beautiful and many of the people are truly gracious.  The main problem, as is the case with too many parts of America, is the "godly Christians" who are increasingly the driving force behind hate, bigotry, racism and homophobia as they insist that their rights trump those of everyone else.

God, Gays and the Atlanta Fire Department

The Christofascists are always looking for new "martyrs" who are held up as proof that Christians are "under attack" and subject to "persecution."  It is all part of their agenda to claim special rights for themselves while trampling on the rights of others and, as in the instance of former Atlanta fire chief, Kelvin Cochran, ignoring normal personnel policies and intimidating subordinates.  Despite warnings and a suspension for forcing his self-published book on department employees, Cochran continued to violate directives and ultimately was fired.  Now he is a Christian martyr in the ruse that the "religious liberty" of Christians is under assault.  If anything is truly under assault it is the religious freedom of everyone but far right Christians.  An editorial in the New York Times looks at Cochran's justified firing.  Here are excerpts:

Mr. Cochran, a veteran firefighter, is also a deeply religious man, and he was eager to bring his Christian faith into the daily functioning of his department — or, as he put it in a book he authored in 2013, to “cultivate its culture to the glory of God.”

But, as the book revealed, his religious beliefs also include virulent anti-gay views. He was fired on Jan. 6 by Atlanta’s mayor, Kasim Reed, for homophobic language in the book, “Who Told You That You Were Naked?” Among other things, he called homosexuality a “perversion,” compared it to bestiality and pedophilia, and said homosexual acts are “vile, vulgar and inappropriate.”

Mr. Cochran had already been suspended for a month in November for distributing the book to staff members. Following an internal investigation, the mayor did the right thing and dismissed Mr. Cochran for what he called poor judgment: specifically, for failing to get approval for the book’s publication, for commenting publicly on his suspension after being told not to, and for exposing the city to possible discrimination lawsuits.

Cue up the outraged claims that Mr. Cochran’s rights to free speech and religious freedom have been violated — an assertion that is as wrong as it was predictable.

Mr. Cochran said he was fired “for no reason other than my Christian faith.” But he and his sudden coterie of supporters have it backward. This case is not about free speech or religious freedom. It is, as Mr. Reed said at a news conference, about “making sure that we have an environment in government where everyone, no matter who they love, can come to work from 8 to 5:30 and do their job and then go home without fear of being discriminated against.”

Unfortunately, Georgia’s lawmakers are headed in the opposite direction, considering for the second year in a row a “religious-freedom” bill that, like others around the country, would do little more than provide legal cover for anti-gay discrimination.

The First Amendment already protects religious freedom. Nobody can tell Mr. Cochran what he can or cannot believe. If he wants to work as a public official, however, he may not foist his religious views on other city employees who have the right to a boss who does not speak of them as second-class citizens.

Few are more selfish and self-centered than the "godly folk" who think they are above the law and policies that govern others.

Del. Bob Marshall Introduces Bills Licensing Anti-Gay Discrimination

Few individuals in Virginia seem as constantly obsessed with denigrating gays and keeping them inferior under the law than Del. Bob Marshall (pictured above) who in the past has stated that he'd love to drive every LGBT Virginian from the Commonwealth.   Living up to his reputation as homophobic bigot extraordinaire, Marshall has introduced two bills - at least so far - that would allow individuals and businesses to discriminate against LGBT Virginians merely by claiming that their religious beliefs are offended by gays and homosexuality.   The first bill, HB 1409, deals with public contracts and seeks to bar the Commonwealth from adding non-discrimination protections based on sexual orientation.  In short, contractors dealing with the state would be free to refuse to employ and/or could fire LGBT employees.  Here is the summary of this bill:

Public contracts; nondiscrimination; required provisions. Prohibits agencies of the Commonwealth and other public bodies from requiring any contractor entering into a public contract to agree to additional nondiscrimination provisions that are not otherwise required under the Fair Employment Contracting Act or the Virginia Public Procurement Act.

 Just as pernicious is HB 1414 which would allow state employees to refuse to process license and registration applications if doing so "would violate the religious or moral convictions of such person with respect to same-sex marriage or homosexual behavior."   In short, Marshall seeks to enact a bill that would allow Christofascist state employees to "turn the gays away."  Here's a summary of this bill:

Obtaining or renewing government-issued licenses, etc.; conscience clause. Provides that a person shall not be required to perform, assist, consent to, or participate in any action or refrain from performing, assisting, consenting to, or participating in any action as a condition of obtaining or renewing a government-issued license, registration, or certificate where such condition would violate the religious or moral convictions of such person with respect to same-sex marriage or homosexual behavior.

 The best way to describe these bills is that they seek to give special rights to religious extremists who would be allowed to trample on the rights of other citizens - all under the smoke screen of "religious freedom."  No doubt The Family Foundation and it's gay hating members are cheering Marshall on.

Fourteen Florida Counties Will End All Courthouse Weddings Rather Than Serve Gays

The mindset that lead to the persecution of Alan Turing is alive and well in fourteen Florida counties which have announced that rather than conduct same sex marriages they will end ALL courthouse weddings.  The mindset is akin to that of Virginia's "Massive Resistance" where, rather than allow black children in white schools, counties closed all of the public schools (not coincidentally giving rise to a host of "Christian" academies).   As noted previously, in my view, the county clerks involved need to join the ranks of the unemployed.  No doubt these clerks are patting themselves on the back for their "godliness" and piety.  If you are traveling to Florida, make a point of avoiding these counties. Here are details from the Tampa Bay Times:

As gay marriage comes to Florida, Pasco County's clerk of court is among a growing number of clerks who are refusing to hold courthouse marriage ceremonies.   Rather than extend the practice to gay couples, they are ending it entirely.

From as far west as Santa Rosa County to as far east as Duval County, much of North Florida is opting out. But in the Tampa Bay area, home to the largest gay pride celebration in the southeastern United States, only the Pasco clerk has chosen that route.

Gay couples who wish to be married can get licenses, O'Neil said, but they have to find their own officiants.

As of Tuesday, the first day gay couples are permitted to wed, there will be large celebrations and ceremonies in Orlando, Fort Lauderdale, and Key West. In Hillsborough County, Clerk of Court Pat Frank said that if her office is overwhelmed with couples hoping to marry, she will hold a large wedding in a downtown Tampa park at noon. She plans to waive the marital counseling class for those who want to be married on the same day they get their license.

[T]he majority of clerks in the conservative Panhandle have chosen to stop performing courthouse weddings. 

[T]he counties that confirmed their decisions to the Tampa Bay Times and other news outlets include: Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Holmes, Washington, Jackson, Calhoun, Liberty, Franklin, Wakulla, Baker, Clay, Duval and Pasco. According to Bay County's website, it no longer offers marriage ceremonies . . . 

There are outliers in the north — Escambia [home of Pensacola], Leon, Jefferson, and Madison counties — where clerks say they are committed to performing ceremonies for all couples, gay or straight.

"I think it's going to be a super Valentine's Day," Escambia County Clerk of Court Pam Childers said. "We're expecting a huge influx next Tuesday."  Childers' offices have been deluged with phone calls from gay couples in Georgia, Alabama and Louisiana who are eager to exchange vows in Florida.

Rather than asking her employees if they were comfortable marrying gay couples, Childers said she flipped the question and asked for volunteers who wanted to help out.  "It really hasn't become an issue, we haven't made it issue," she said.

Kudos to Ms. Childers for her common sense approach.

Kansas Republican Promises To Pass Anti-Gay "Religious Freedom" Bill

In a move that will likely be repeated around the country by anti-gay Republicans - I suspect here in Virginia The Family Foundation will find willing GOP political whores to introduce such a bill - Michigan has passed a bill that would allow "godly Christians" to discriminate against gays based on "religious belief."  Now, a Christofascist Republican in Kansas is promising to introduce a similar bill.  Just like Bush and Cheney who authorized torture and war crimes, the "godly folk" believe that they are above the laws that bind the rest of us.  The New Civil Rights Movement looks at this effort.  Here are excerpts:

The "Protecting religious freedom regarding marriage" bill, also known as the "religious freedom bill," passed in the Kansas House in February by a strong margin, 72-49. It died in the Senate. But now, Rep. Steve Brunk is promising to bring it back and pass it.  "This is an ongoing conversation," Brunk told KWCH. "We're working on the best way to protect Kansan's first amendment rights."

Brunk may change some of the bill's text, but the title alone should make every LGBT person in Kansas, their supporters, and supporters of true religious freedom, concerned.

As it stands now, here's how the bill could impact a same-sex couple:

Say John and Steve are legally married in New York, and John gets a great job at a company in Kansas. The couple decide to move – perhaps John was raised in Kansas – and so they pack their things and head to the Sunflower State. The couple want to rent a hotel, but the manager of the hotel they drive to refuses them a room, claiming his company has sincerely held religious beliefs against same-sex marriage. After searching for another hotel, the couple check in. They go to a restaurant, but are refused service because the waitress sees them holding hands and claims she has sincerely held religious beliefs against same-sex marriage.

The couple need to rent a home, but the real estate broker when the two pull up for an appointment claims he has sincerely held religious beliefs, so the couple are forced to find another agent. Once they do, the company that owns the apartment building says they won't rent to a same-sex couple, because of their sincerely held religious beliefs. Let's not forget that John and Steve have already quit their jobs and packed their belongings. Kansas is starting to look pretty unfriendly.

As it passed the House, the "Protecting religious freedom regarding marriage" bill allows any "individual or religious entity" to deny services to anyone "if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender."

The definition of a "religious entity" in the bill is broad, so, not just churches or synagogues or mosques, etc., but any "privately-held business operating consistently with its sincerely held religious beliefs."

Think of it as a Hobby Lobby-type bill against same-sex marriage.

Specifically, it states, no governmental entity, or law, could require them to "[p]rovide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement."

DC Repeals Anti-LGBT Exemption That Allowed Religious Schools To Discriminate

Brace yourself for shrieks and spittle flecked rants about Christians being persecuted now that the District of Columbia has repealed an exemption that has been used to allow religious schools to engage in discrimination.  It is part of the move to ban so-called "reparative therapy" which has been used by the "godly folk" and charlatans to torment LGBT individuals and keep the myth alive that sexual orientation is a "choice" or something that is changeable.  The big issue now is whether Congress - read the Christofascists' political whores in the GOP - will act to void the legislation.  Here are highlights from The New Civil Rights Movement:

While many were heralding the Washington, D.C. City Council earlier this week for passing an ordinance that bans the practice of anti-LGBT "reparative therapy," also known as "ex-gay therapy," on minors, few noticed that the body also passed another important piece of legislation. The city council repealed a 1989 amendment forced on D.C. by Congress, to the city's Human Rights Act, known as the Armstrong Amendment. That law allowed religious educational institutions, which were loosely defined, to discriminate against LGBT people.

Congress has 30 days to void the repeal of the anti-LGBT provision.

“The time has come for us to get rid of that obnoxious provision,” Rick Rosendall, president of the D.C. Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance, said, according to the Washington Blade.

The anti-gay legal group Liberty Counsel registered extreme opposition to the move.  "The Act's repeal of the religious exemption for religious schools and church schools from D.C. Code provisions regarding homosexual acts, lifestyle, orientation, or belief is of grave concern," Liberty Counsel wrote to the city council. "The First Amendment directly prohibits government from prohibiting the Free Exercise of religion," it reminded them.

“Sexual Orientation” and “Gender Identity or Expression" or "Transgender” are subjective, changeable, behavior-based categories subject to moral choice, and are not immutable characteristics such as race, sex, skin color or ethnicity, nor are they in the category of fundamental rights, such as religious belief.

Of course, that's an opinion being purveyed by Liberty Counsel, an anti-LGBT hate group.

Liberty Counsel did not detail how a religious educational institution would be penalized by the repeal of the ordinance, but claimed, "attempting to impose employment regulations on church schools and religious schools whose doctrines and sincere religious convictions forbid homosexual or cross-dressing affiliation and employment is flatly unconstitutional."  The letter also referred to transgender women as "a man claiming he is a woman on a given day," . . .

For the "godly folk," religious freedom means having a license to mistreat others and to disseminate hate and bigotry towards others.  Just like ISIS in the Middle East.

Texas GOP Legislator Seeks "License to Discriminate" Against Gays

Campbell with Nutcase closet case, Rick Santorum

Jumping on the bandwagon of trying to legislate special rights for right wing Christian extremists, Texas state Sen. Donna Campbell (R) has introduced a proposal would strengthen existing protections in Texas for the “right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief."   While dressed up as a way to protect "religious freedom," Campbell's proposal seeks to create a license to discriminate.  While gays are perhaps the first intended target, non-Christians and minorities had best get prepared to face discrimination based on feigned religious belief.  As usual, it's all part of the Christofascists' self-centered selfishness and view of themselves above the law.  Here are highlights from Think Progress:

Texas businesses would be allowed to fire LGBT employees and turn away LGBT customers under a new proposal issued Monday by state Sen. Donna Campbell (R).

Campbell’s proposal would strengthen existing protections in Texas for the “right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief,” a legal maneuver that critics have described as a “license to discriminate.” This year, many state legislatures have considered putting the religious rights of business owners over the civil rights of would-be customers. Similar proposals in Kansas, North Carolina, South Dakota, Arizona, and Oregon ultimately failed this year, while a number of other states have held that the law protects LGBT folks from discrimination even if that discrimination is based in scripture.

These laws have come into vogue after numerous anti-LGBT small business owners have refused service to LGBT clients in Kentucky, Hawaii, Oregon, Vermont, New Mexico, Iowa, Colorado, and other states in recent years. Many of these disputes involve bakeries and other vendors who refuse to contract for services at same-sex weddings, but some businesses have refused to print Pride t-shirts or put rainbow frosting on an order of cookies.

Conservative political forces have leaped to these companies’ aid, arguing that their religious convictions about sexuality trump everyone else’s civil rights against discrimination. Those calls grew louder after this summer’s Supreme Court decision that a retailer called Hobby Lobby did not have to provide health insurance that covers birth control due to the company’s religious views, a ruling that reversed decades of precedent whereby legal protections tied to religious faith were limited to actions that did not impede other people’s rights.

Sen. Campbell’s new proposal in Texas is her second bite at the license-to-discriminate apple. Her first, in 2013, didn’t go very well. Critics pointed out that by amending the state constitution as she proposes, lawmakers would empower Westboro Baptist Church protesters to attend military funerals rather than protesting them from afar.
While many conservatives are convinced that the religious liberty to discriminate against LGBT coworkers and clients is under attack, there are still 29 states where it is completely legal to fire someone for their sexual orientation. Workplace discrimination against transgendered people remains legal in 32 states.

Kentucky Halts Taxpayer Financing for Creationist Museum

The United States Constitution and virtually ever state constitution bars the establishment of a particular faith or dogma as the official religion and likewise prohibits the provision of special state benefits to a particular religious group.  This means that if one is receiving taxpayer derived funds, one cannot impose discriminatory requirements for employment at the taxpayer funded facility.   It's really a very simple concept unless, of course, one is a Christofascist who believes that the laws apply to everyone else, but not themselves. As Slate reports, Kentucky stupidly issued state bonds to help finance a a Noah’s Ark–themed creationist amusement park under the guise that it would supposedly  create 600 to 700 jobs.  Now, the state has ceased advancing funds because the theme park - Ark Encounter - has put in place discriminatory hiring practices and requiring applicants to sign a extreme Christofascist statement of faith.  Obviously, the state financing should never have been awarded to the project in the first place.  Here are highlights from Slate on the debacle:

The trouble began when the park, officially called Ark Encounter, listed its employment opportunities in August. Nestled among the requirements for all job applicants were three troubling obligatory documents: “Salvation testimony,” “Creation belief statement,” and a “Confirmation of your agreement with the AiG statement of faith.” (AiG is Answers in Genesis, Ham’s ministry and Ark Encounter’s parent company.) These first two requirements are problematic enough: The park is quite openly instructing all applicants to pledge that they personally believe in creationist Christianity. If an applicant has other beliefs, her application to Ark Encounter isn’t welcome.

But the third requirement is far, far worse. AiG’s statement of faith is no mere loyalty oath: It’s a four-part theological declaration mandating that all signatories accept dozens of fundamentalist Christian principles. Employees at Ark Encounter don’t just have to believe in God; they have to believe in Christ, the Holy Spirit, Satan (as “the personal spiritual adversary of both God and mankind”), Adam and Eve, “the Great Flood of Genesis,” a 6,000-year-old Earth, and the eternal damnation of “those who do not believe in Christ.” All employees must follow “the duty of Christians” and attend “a local Bible believing church.” Just for good measure, employees must oppose abortion, euthanasia, gay rights, and trans rights.

Ark Encounter isn’t privately funded; the citizens of Kentucky have been roped into paying for it, whether they like it or not. Earlier this year, Kentucky’s Tourism Development Finance Authority gave preliminary support for $18.25 million in tax credits for Ark Encounter, citing Ham’s promise that the project would create 600 to 700 jobs. And that’s just for the first phase of construction; ultimately, the state could grant Ark Encounter up to $73 million in tax breaks.

Tax breaks come with government oversight—and right now, the Kentucky government doesn’t like what it sees. As Americans United for Separation of Church and State pointed out, Section 5 of the Kentucky constitution states that the government may never preference “any religious sect, society, or denomination” over another. Courts have interpreted this section to mean that the state may not create benefits for the public that are available only to specific religious groups. Yet that is precisely what Kentucky has done by funding Ark Encounter with taxpayer money.

One voice has been conspicuously absent from the debate over Ark Encounter’s intolerance: that of Christian conservatives.  . . . . This collective conservative shrug at Ark Encounter’s discriminatory practices is as revealing as it is unsurprising. The persecution complex of conservative Christians is based upon a fever dream, a strangely aspirational fantasy that they will someday face the same kind of persecution that minority groups face on a daily basis. Actual persecution—of gay and trans people, say, or non-Christians—seems to not bother them.

The citizens of Kentucky shouldn’t be forced to subsidize a religious group or its discriminatory practices. It is their religious freedom—not Ken Ham’s—that is truly at stake.

The Christofascists - America's Less Violent ISIS

While they have not resorted to beheadings, rape and torture, American Christofascists share something in common with the monsters of ISIS.  They hate others and point to selective phrases in the Bible - ISIS points to the Koran - to justify denigrating others and seeking to force others to conform to their sick, hate based form of religion.  The rights of others must be subordinated to their beliefs.  With the advance of LGBT civil rights, these haters are organizing to resist the equal rights and treatment of others.  A piece in Christian News Wire - an outlet that values truth and veracity about as much as Fox News - looks at the efforts of pastors and "christian leaders" in Michigan to block non-discrimination laws for LGBT citizens.  Here are some excerpts:

Hundreds of Michigan Pastors and Christian leaders gathered on the steps on the State Capital in Lansing, Michigan to hold a press conference in opposition to the growing movement within the Michigan Legislature to amend the State's Civil Rights Act- Elliott Larson- to include sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.

"We, the undersigned Christian Pastors of the State of Michigan declare our opposition to adding sexual orientation, gender identity or other similar designation to the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act." -- Pastor Doug Levesque, Immanuel Baptist Church, Corunna, Michigan, reading a pastor's joint statement. 

The Pastors said that legislation in other states that were allegedly intended to protect homosexuals actually ended up discriminating against people of faith . . .

"The homosexual agenda is an anti-freedom movement which has led to the persecution of pastors and Christian business owners across the nation, whose freedom of speech and freedom of religion are being taken from them, under the guise of so called gay rights. There is nothing civil about that!"-- Minister Stacy Swimp, President, National Christian Leadership Council

"Those wanting special rights for sexual orientation are seeking to rewrite the traditional moral fiber of our society." -- Tim Berlin, senior pastor at Faith Baptist Church in Warren

"I don't know of another example of pastors' sermons being subpoenaed, except for in Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. I find it ironic that the first example of that happening in America is from the LGBT community." -- Pastor R.B. Ouelette, First Baptist, Bridgeport, Michigan.

The pastors asserted that the job of the Michigan Legislature is to affirm and uphold constitutionally protected freedom for everyone – including business owners – not pass laws that grant special favors, give special status or guarantee special protections for some while coercing and punishing others.

Swimp concluded, "Let there be no doubt that, if you should decide to go forward with this grave injustice, I, every born again believer I know, as well as every pastor you see here today, shall disobey your unjust law.

Yes, it's more of the Christian persecution myth and if anyone is guilty of persecuting others, it is the godly Christians and their fore-bearers who have used nonadherence to Christian belief in part to justify genocide against Native Americans.  This law needs to be passed - indeed, an equivalent in every state - and the Christofascists need to be prosecuted if they put themselves above the law.  These people are a menace.

Federal Judge Rules Gays Are Protected by Sex Discrimination Laws

Library of Congress

Today it remains perfectly legal in 29 states for employers to fire gays because of their sexual orientation regardless of how well they perform their job duties.  Religious based bigotry is allowed to trump all else.  Meanwhile, the Republicans in the House of Representatives are blocking a vote on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act ("ENDA") and Barack Obama blathers and sits on his hands rather than sign an ENDA executive order - evens as Democrats daily demand money from LGBT citizens.   It is a disgusting situation.  Now, a federal judge has very sensibly ruled that gays are protected under current laws barring discrimination based on sex (I would add that bans on religious based discrimination should apply as well as suggested by the judge).  The Advocate looks at the development which will no doubt have Christofascists howling.  Here are highlights:

A federal judged has determined that gays and lesbians who have experienced bias in the workplace can find relief under existing sex discrimination laws.

U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly has ruled that Peter TerVeer, a gay man who is suing his employer, the Library of Congress, because his supervisor created "a hostile environment in which he imposed his religion and sexual stereotypes," falls under the protections of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

In a preliminary ruling that allowed the lawsuit to move forward, Kollar-Kotelly found that discrimination that stems from noncomformity to “gender stereotypes associated with men” is prohibited by Title VII, which prohibits workplace discrimination due to sex.

As Kollar-Kotelly notes in her preliminary ruling issued Monday, “Title VII prohibits an employer from discriminating ‘against any individual … because of such individual’s … sex.’ Under Title VII, allegations that an employer is discriminating against an employee based on the employee’s non-conformity with sex stereotypes are sufficient to establish a viable sex discrimination claim.”

“Here, Plaintiff has alleged that he is ‘a homosexual male whose sexual orientation is not consistent with the Defendant’s perception of acceptable gender roles,’ that his ‘status as a homosexual male did not conform to the Defendant’s gender stereotypes associated with men under Mech’s supervision or at the LOC,’ and that ‘his orientation as homosexual had removed him from Mech’s preconceived definition of male," she continued.

“As Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant denied him promotions and created a hostile work environment because of Plaintiff’s nonconformity with male sex stereotypes,” she concluded, “Plaintiff has met his burden of setting forth ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief’ as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s sex discrimination claim (Count I) for failure to state a claim.”

Because TerVeer’s boss, John Mech, also allegedly imposed antigay religious views upon his employee, TerVeer may also be able to find relief under religious discrimination, noted Kollar-Kotelly. The preliminary ruling listed several instances of such acts. On June 24, 2009, Mech told Vermeer “putting you … closer to God is my effort to encourage you to save your worldly behind.” A few months later, TerVeer also received an email from his Catholic boss that contained photographs of assault weapons. The caption read “Diversity: Let’s Celebrate It.”

In 2012 the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission made the landmark ruling that Title VII does not simply prohibit discrimination based on biological sex, but also includes “protections sweep far broader than that, in part because the term 'gender' encompasses not only a person’s biological sex but also the cultural and social aspects associated with masculinity and femininity.”

Since this ruling, several transgender people have found relief under Title VII, but TerVeer would be the first to obtain a ruling that these protections cover sexual orientation.

As I have said over and over again, special rights based on adherence to ignorance based religious beliefs need to end.  For too long Christofascists have been allowed to punish others who do not conform to their fear and hate based belief systems.  Kudos to Judge Kollar-Kotelly

 

Arizona Gay Discrimination Law Pits Big Business Against GOP Base

While I do not like Arizona Governor Jan Brewer whatsoever, it is somewhat delicious to see her find herself caught in a war between the Christofascists of the GOP base and big business which ultimately finances statewide and national campaigns.  And as Ken Cuccinelli discovered last year, extremism on social issues does not play well with big business outside of the circle of the Koch brothers and a few others.  Hence, Brewer faces being attacked by spittle flecked Christofascists if she vetoes SB 1062 on the one hand and alienating big business if she doesn't veto it.  Towleroad looks at the big businesses, including Apple and Marriott which are putting demands on Brewer for a veto of SB 1062.  Here are excerpts:

Earlier today we reported that the Arizona Chamber of Commerce was leading a call for Governor Jan Brewer to veto SB 1062, the heinous bill that would allow businesses to discriminate against gays based on religious beliefs.

Companies have been signing on all day and now Apple has joined the 83 other companies calling for a veto of the bill, the Arizona Capitol Times reports:

Brewer spokesman Andrew Wilder said the governor spoke on the phone with the company.

The request comes as Apple prepares to open a new sapphire glass manufacturing plant in Mesa. The plant, which Brewer and other political leaders have touted as economic development coup for Arizona, will employ about 700 full-time employees.

Also, Marriott, American Airlines, and the National Business Inclusion Consortium (NBIC) have called on Brewer to veto the bill. Scott Wooledge is keeping tabs on the state's top businesses insofar as who has urged a veto or taken a position on the bill.

Both Arizona Senators McCain and Flake have urged a veto. Three Republican state senators who originally voted for the bill have decided it was a mistake.

Obviously, I hope Brewer vetoes this foul piece of legislation which seeks to give far right Christians special rights and open a flood gate of anti-gay discrimination. 

Terry McAuliffe to Veto Bill On Religious Expression in Schools

Here in Virginia as elsewhere Republicans have been busy passing bills that seek to grant special rights to far right Christians and to empower them to trample on the civil rights of others.  A case in point is a GOP backed bill that claims to be aimed at protecting the rights of students to "express religious viewpoints" on public school grounds.  If enacted, the law would allow proselytizing on school grounds and allow denigration of gays if anti-gay slurs reflected "religious beliefs" of the bullies.  It is but another example of the Christofascists seeking exemption from the laws that govern everyone else.  Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe has stated that he will veto the bill if it reaches his desk.  Here are highlights from the Roanoke Times:

Gov. Terry McAuliffe will veto a bill aimed at protecting the rights of students to express religious viewpoints on public school grounds if the legislation reaches his desk, his office said Monday.

A McAuliffe spokesman outlined the governor’s opposition to the bill after it cleared a House of Delegates committee Monday morning. The legislation, which passed the Senate last month, should come up for a vote in the full House later this week.

“He’s very concerned about the constitutionality of the bill, but he’s also concerned about the unintended consequences,” McAuliffe spokesman Brian Coy said.

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Bill Carrico, R-Grayson County, said the veto threat is premature.  “As the Bible calls a double-minded man, if he’s going to veto a freedom of expression for students in school on religious viewpoints, yet his first executive order he signs is a freedom for sexual orientation, [for] bisexual people to express themselves, I find a little double standard there,” Carrico said.

The House Education Committee advanced Carrico’s bill (SB 236) Monday on a 12-10 vote, despite warnings from representatives of Virginia school boards and school superintendents that the measure will invite lawsuits. Three Republicans, including Joseph Yost of Pearisburg, joined the committee’s seven Democrats in opposing the bill.

The Senate passed the bill last month on a largely party-line vote of 20-18. The bill passed before special elections won by two Democratic senators were decided. The Senate, now evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, likely would sustain McAuliffe’s veto.

Carrico’s bill would require every Virginia school division to adopt a policy permitting student speakers to express religious viewpoints at any school event in which students are allowed to publicly speak. Those events would be treated as “limited public forums.” Principals would be required to provide disclaimers to underscore that school divisions don’t endorse the speakers’ religious views.

The last thing Virginia needs is religious proselytizing and the denigration of other students in its public schools.  Kudos to McAuliffe for seeing this bill for the batshitery that it is. 

Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee Denounces Arizon Anti-Gay Bill

The furor over Arizona's "special rights for Christifascist" a/k/a the "turn the gays away" bill continues to grow and both of Arizona's U.S. Senators have called on Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer to veto the bill.  Similar bills have been introduced at the demand of Christofascist organizations and their political prostitutes in the Republican Party, but the uproar taking place in Arizona may make some of these states to rethink such legislation.   WTAR News looks at the controversy, including the denunciation of the bill made by the Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee.  Here are excerpts:

After the weekly media meeting for House Democrats at the capitol Monday, Democratic House Minority Leader Chad Campbell said Senate Bill 1062 could affect the 2015 Super Bowl in Glendale, Ariz.

"I think that the sports community is going to start looking at this and take a serious second look at whether or not they actually want to have the biggest sporting event in the world hosted in a state that is openly promoting, bigotry and discrimination," Campbell said, adding that bill really makes the state look bad.

Campbell went further, calling SB 1062 a "horrible bill."

"Both morally and economically it is a horrible bill," he said. "You're talking about really putting a sign on the front door of Arizona saying ‘We don't want a certain group of people here.'"

In a statement, the Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee said it does not support SB 1062.

We share the NFL's core values which embrace tolerance, diversity, inclusiveness and prohibit discrimination. In addition, a key part of the mission for the Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee is to promote the economic vitality of Arizona. On that matter we have heard loud and clear from our various stakeholders that adoption of this legislation would not only run contrary to that goal but deal a significant blow to the state's economic growth potential. We do not support this legislation. Instead, we look forward to continuing to promote the NFL's values while focusing on the economic momentum apparent in Arizona and capturing the positive worldwide attention associated with hosting Super Bowl XLIX.

Campbell compared SB 1062 to Arizona not recognizing Martin Luther King, Jr. Day back in the 1990s. 

"We have a history of the legislature passing bills that end up in court and then being tossed," he said. "Senate Bill 1070 is another great example of that."

SB 1062 would make it legal for a business to deny services on the basis of someone's sexual orientation. Gov. Jan Brewer has until the close of business Saturday to sign it into law or veto it.

Feel the Love: Kansas Restaurant Bans Gays

The sense of entitlement that the Christofascists feel and the open bigotry they proudly display appears to be growing.   Case in point?  A restaurant in Kansas - which has no public accommodation law - has put up a sign stating that gays will not be served at the restaurant.   It may be but the opening round of a new aspect of the culture wars where we will see the Christofascists do whatever they want because they believe they are above the law not to mention devoid of common decency.  These people are rank hypocrites as they divorce, lie, cheat others in business and ignore countless passages in the Bible while clinging to select passages to justify bigotry towards others. The situation shows that there is a need for a national public accommodation law.  I hope it also will prompt businesses and professionals to begin turning away Christofascists on the basis that their "sincere religious beliefs" prevent them from serving modern day Pharisees.  These people truly need to become social and business pariahs.  Topeka News has details on this new, open bigotry:

Proposed Jim Crow laws for gay people are already taking effect in Kansas.   38-year-old Johnny Quinns-Smith wanted to get an egg-salad sandwich for himself and his fiance, Erique Boltzman.  He went to his local diner outside Franton, near Scranton, a place where he and Boltzman had occasionally ate over the past 6 years.  In fact, it was at this diner that the two met during a lunch hour.

But today, Quinss-Smith encountered something he thought he would never see in his lifetime:  a sign.  A sign that said, “Service Refused To Gay Couples.”

“I was in absolute shock, I mean, I could not even fathom what was going on,” he said.  When he went into the restaurant, all went silent.  The locals looked at him, with several pointing and whispering.  Wiping out a cup, a server behind the restaurant’s main ordering station stared at him and then looked over at one of the newest signs next to the cash register.

“I looked at where several people’s eyes were tracking.  Then there it was, it was a sign that said ‘No Gay Eating Here’.”Shock: “No Gay Eating Here”.

Not wanting to make a scene, Quinns-Smith quickly walked up to the stand where he had always been able to order his food.  The server who had taken his order and brought him his food for years stood there in front of him and asked, “How can we help?”

“What is wrong.  What is this sign meaning,” Quinns-Smith asked, feeling uncomfortable as eyes rested on him.

“It means you and your boyfriend can’t come eating in here no more, unless you find God,” a customer seated offered a response before staff said anything.

“You need to find God and the Bible,” someone else yelled out.  The floodgates were open.

“We don’t want your germs on the silverware.”  ”Just repent son, you can still be forgiven and be normal.”  ”Being gay is not natural.  It is not God’s way.”

The Kansas House of Representatives recently passed a bill with a 73-49 vote that  allows government workers and businesses the right to refuse services to gay couples.  Fortunately, the bill lost traction in the Kansas Senate, but it is still alive and could become law in the state.   The story of this restaurant will become reality for more gay couples across the state, facing an unprecedented showing of ignorance that has unfortunately reached back from the turbulent 1960s and into our modern age of progress.

I hope states like Kansas will become pariahs in the larger business community and that when given the option, businesses will choose to locate elsewhere - and tell officials in Kansas why they are doing so. Backward bigoted areas need to decline economically so that bigotry has an increasingly high price associated with it.

The Right's Crusade For Christian Sharia Law

With the recent insane examples of proposed legislation in Kansas and Idaho which would legalize anti-gay discrimination in those states and statements by RNC members about the Devil's role in GOP set backs, the Republican Party and its Christofascist base are no longer even trying to look rational.  Their goal - especially on the part of the Christofascists - is nothing less than a form of Christianist Sharia law.  Here in Virginia, one need look no farther than The Family Foundation and its efforts to force its hate and fear based version of Christianity (with large doses of racism and anti-immigrant bigotry) on all Virginians.  A piece in The Daily Beast looks at this increasingly extreme and frightening agenda of the GOP base and their all too willing political whores in elected office.  Here are excerpts:

The question isn’t: Will conservatives push to enact laws based on the Bible? We are way beyond that.  The real questions are: 1. How many more of these laws do they want to impose? And, 2. What will our nation look like if their crusade is successful to bring America’s laws into agreement with “God’s law”?

To some on the right, America is a “Christian nation”—like Saudi Arabia is a Muslim nation—meaning that our nation’s laws should be based on their religious text. These forces aren’t moved by Thomas Jefferson’s famous letter in which he spoke of the need to create, "a wall of separation between church and state.” Nor will they be swayed by citing Ronald Reagan’s words, "Church and state are, and must remain, separate.”

Just last week we saw another example of creeping Christian Sharia Law with a bill passed by Kansas’ House of Representatives that would allow people and businesses to deny services to same sex couples if it violated their “religious beliefs.” This proposed law would in essence legally sanction discrimination against gay Americans because same sex marriage is not approved by the Bible.  Similar bills are pending in other State's including Mississippi, Idaho, and Arizona.

And in the past few years, we have seen pro-life Christian groups successfully lobby State legislatures to restrict access to abortions. They have also raised religious, not public policy, objections to the government funding birth control.

We saw that in 2012 when Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum declared his belief that the laws in our country must “comport” with God’s law. 

And former Governor Mike Huckabee, who is considering running for president in 2016, proclaimed during his 2008 presidential race that our laws should be in accordance with God’s. In fact, Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, went as far as to say: “…I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view…”

[W]e should take a look at some of the more concerning passages from the Bible in case they truly mean it when they say our laws should be revised to agree with God’s law: . . . 

With each success the right has seen, they have become more embolden and pushed for even more radical laws.

For example, not too long ago mainstream abortion opponents did not object to abortions in the case when a woman was raped. But in light of their recent success in restricting abortions, mainstream conservatives now advocate a stricter version of “God’s law” with no abortion exceptions—meaning that women would be sentenced to carrying a rapist’s child to term.

In upcoming elections, we need to ask any candidate who cites the Bible as the rationale for their political position specifically how far do they intend to take that. At least then we won’t be surprised when they push to pass laws to silence women or stone women to death who aren’t virgins on their wedding night.