Reflections on the Wrongly Decided Masterpiece Cakeshop Ruling

While Christofascists and parasitic "professional Christians" are heralding the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop as a huge victory, the case is no such thing and was very narrowly decided - and in my view, wrongly decided at that. The anti-gay baker should have been handed a full blown defeat.  The Court's sole basis for reversing the ruling of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission came down to finding that the Commission had exhibited "hostility to religion." The sad truth is that religion receives far, far more deference than it deserves in America.  Rather than being a positive good, religion - especially evangelical Christianity - sows hatred of others and exhibits rank hypocrisy and dishonesty virtually on a daily basis. Evangelical support of Donald Trump, an individual who is the antithesis of what evangelicals - the least educated of any religious group - claim to believe underscores the reality that their beliefs are selective and used as weapons against others. Under the First Amendment, people a free to believe the earth is flat, but that doesn't mean their belief is worthy of respect or deference by the rest of society. Moreover, religious belief is a choice and not an immutable characteristic like race, national origin, age, or sexual orientation. A column in the Washington Post looks at the limited nature of the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling which does not afford Christofascists the victory they claim they won.  Here are column excerpts:

In law, as in less civil arenas of conflict, you can lose a battle but win the war. That’s what happened in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the case pitting a Christian baker against a gay couple who sought to buy a wedding cake on the same terms as any other customers.

The court ruled Monday in favor of the baker, but on the exceedingly narrow ground that the state civil rights commission’s consideration was biased by hostility toward religion. Importantly, the court declined to adopt the baker’s principal argument — and the only argument made by the Trump administration — that “expressive” businesses that object to gay and lesbian weddings have a First Amendment right to discriminate. On the contrary, the court reaffirmed our main point: that there is no general First Amendment exception to laws protecting LGBT customers from discrimination. When bakery owner Jack Phillips learned that they were going to use the cake to celebrate their wedding, he turned them away, claiming that his religion barred him from making a cake for a same-sex couple, even though he routinely made such cakes for opposite-sex couples.

The ACLU filed a complaint on behalf of the couple, claiming that Phillips’ actions violated Colorado’s public accommodations law, which forbids businesses that serve the public from denying service on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation and the like. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and next the Colorado Court of Appeals, ruled in our favor.

In the Supreme Court, the baker won, but not on the ground he principally advanced. His main argument was that where a business offers expressive products, the First Amendment prohibition on “compelled speech” bars the government from requiring the business to provide that product when it objects to doing so. The Trump administration backed that argument, . . . . [that] the First Amendment bars states from requiring them to provide them to gay and lesbian customers on the same terms as heterosexual customers.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing the majority opinion, could not have been more clear in rejecting the argument that there is a First Amendment right to discriminate. He wrote that “it is a general rule that [religious and philosophical] objections do not allow business owners . . . to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.”

Kennedy acknowledged that a minister (who is not, of course, a business open to the public) could not be compelled to perform a same-sex wedding if his religious scruples prohibited it, but warned that “if that exception were not confined, then a long list of persons who provide goods and services for marriages and weddings might refuse to do so for gay persons, thus resulting in a community-wide stigma inconsistent with the history and dynamics of civil rights laws that ensure equal access to goods, services, and public accommodations.”

Why, then, did the baker win? The court  . . . cited a commissioner who said that “it is one of the most despicable piece of rhetoric that people can use to — to use their religion to hurt others.” It cited another commissioner saying that Phillips can believe “what he wants to believe,” but cannot act on that belief “if he decides to do business in the state.” 

That aspect of the ruling is wrong. “Despicable” was an unfortunate choice of words, but the commissioner’s statement that one cannot invoke religion to harm others is actually black-letter constitutional law, as is the notion that one cannot invoke religion to avoid complying with a general rule requiring businesses not to discriminate.

But what’s critical is that this reasoning is a one-time ruling for this case only. The court made clear that states are free to require businesses, including bakers, to serve gay and lesbian customers equally, including in the provision of wedding cakes. In fact, Charlie Craig and David Mullins could go right back into Masterpiece Cakeshop today and request a cake to celebrate their wedding anniversary — and if Jack Phillips refused them, he would have no First Amendment right to turn them away.

Sadly, Christofascists are now bellowing that religion deserves deference when that is NOT what the court ruled. Their behavior is not surprising given that over the course of the 25+ years that I have tracked Christian "family values" organizations, they are among the most dishonest groups one can find (outside of perhaps the Trump White House)and the only safe assumption is that, if their lips are moving, odds are strong that they are lying.  So much for "Christian" values. 

Amicus Brief Arguments Pile On Against Anti-Gay Baker in SCOTUS Case

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions and a who's who of anti-gay extremists have filed briefs in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission,  now before the United States Supreme Court,  arguing that discrimination against same sex couples - and LGBT individuals in general - is perfectly legal.   Countering these right wing Christian based arguments are amicus briefs filed by an array of progressives and those who believe that equal protection laws apply to everyone.  As Think Progress reports, among those joining in anti-discrimination briefs are more than 200 members of Congress, over 150 mayors, 19 states, more than 35 major national businesses (including Apple, Amazon, Citi, Lyft, and Levi), hundreds of celebrity chefs and restaurateurs (including José Andrés, Anthony Bourdain, Padma Lakshmi, and Carla Hall), and nearly 1,300 faith leaders.  Besides supporting the concept of equal protection and public accommodations laws in general, some of these briefs have laid out the harm that will arise from granting Christofascists special rights and exemptions from the laws that bind the rest of us.  Here are more highlights from Think Progress:

Many of the briefs reinforce arguments made by the ACLU and Colorado Civil Rights Commission that this is a straightforward discrimination case, and that no matter how artistic cakes are, they don’t justify an exemption to equal protection. Others, however, expand on the arguments by emphasizing just how many consequences there would be if the Court decides to allow Phillips’ discrimination.

ThinkProgress reviewed all 44 of the briefs and found that many people’s fates are tied to the rights of the same-sex couple in this case.

Consequences for religious libertyConservatives argue that Masterpiece Cakeshop is a case about the freedoms of speech and religion. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, defending Phillips’ right to discriminate, recently explained that he “has a religious view and he feels that he is not being able to freely exercise his religion by being required to participate in a ceremony in some fashion that he does not believe in. So we think that right is a fundamental right and ought to be respected as we work through this process.”

But as many of the amicus briefs argue, a ruling in favor of Phillips would decimate religious freedom. That’s because opening the door to discriminating against LGBTQ people would likewise opening the door to discriminating against religious minorities and atheists, groups already quite vulnerable to discrimination.  . . . . other religious minorities like them, are legally protected from discrimination on the basis of religion across the country, but if the Supreme Court sides with Phillips, it would gut those protections.

Consequences for the militaryAmong the justifications for Phillips’ discrimination is the fact that other bakers were available to provide Craig and Mullins with a cake. Besides the fact that this argument disregards the harms of discrimination, it also ignores the fact that not every community has as many bakeries as the Denver metro area. As a result, allowing for this kind of discrimination will actually have a disparate impact on members of the military.

Moreover, “many military installations are located in areas within the United States in which local attitudes towards LGBT identities and relationships are less accepting.” . . . .  And that’s only taking into consideration the anti-LGBTQ discrimination such a decision might allow for, let alone the servicemembers with other kinds of identities that would also face unavoidable discrimination in such isolated areas.

Consequences for childrenA group of child and family law scholars explain that discrimination against adults has consequences for their kids. In fact, there is already a litany of examples of how children have suffered as a result of anti-LGBT discrimination against their parents:

In Michigan, a pediatrician refused to treat an infant based solely on the fact that the child had lesbian mothers. In Kentucky, a judge refused to hear adoption cases of children involving LGBT adoptive-parents-to-be. In Tennessee, a nondenominational private school rejected enrollment for a pre-kindergartener and his 8-month-old sister after discovering that the children had two dads.

Overlapping with the military concerns, the negative impact on these children would be far more severe in small or rural communities where services are limited. “These services include access to health and dental care, childcare, educational facilities, grocery stores, and a myriad of day-to-day activities that most people ‘take for granted.’

Again, these arguments only speak to the children of same-sex couples, but given how a ruling for Phillips could open up other forms of discrimination, plenty of other families could be impacted, such as interfaith or interracial couples and their children.

Consequences for people with disabilitiesMany different groups are concerned that a religious justification for discrimination will upend their current protections, including a massive coalition of disability rights organizations. Together with Former Congressman Tony Coelho (D-CA), author of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), they warn the Supreme Court that people with disabilities are prime targets for discrimination.

“Many faiths have at least some citable, scriptural basis for shunning people with disabilities,” they note, adding, “In practice, disability discrimination is often motivated by sincere religious belief.”

Consequences for businesses and communitiesThough conservatives might argue that Phillips’ case is about a business’ right to run itself, a victory for Phillips would actually be very bad for businesses of all sizes — as well as the communities in which they reside.

A brief from groups like Main Street Alliance and the American Independent Business Alliance points out that allowing for discrimination “would lead to an impractical and unmanageable patchwork that would inhibit economic growth. When consumers have reason to worry that some businesses lining Main Street may refuse to serve them, the entire business community suffers.’

Big businesses are similarly concerned about the economic implications. If some businesses can discrimination, “This confusion regarding which companies can opt out of generally applicable laws will disrupt business by creating unpredictability in the marketplace.” If businesses can refuse service to customers, they can also refuse service to other businesses.

Consequences for women

Though many groups stand to lose out if religiously-motivated discrimination becomes legal, women would likely be one of the most immediately vulnerable groups. That’s the case that a massive coalition of women’s groups make in their brief.

“For much of this nation’s history, women were treated as inferior citizens under law,” the belief explains. “Women’s secondary status often was rooted in genuinely held religious beliefs about sex-based hierarchy and women’s role within the family.” Those gender roles have not faded in many conservative religious traditions, and they often inform those traditions’ opposition to LGBTQ equality.

If Sessions and the right wing religious extremists prevail, the rest of us will suffer harm, either directly or indirectly.  The only ones who would benefit would be Christofascist who would be granted a license to discriminate against anyone they claim offended their religious beliefs.

Evangelicals See Trump Win As Their Own

As previous posts have explored, while the election last week was truly a divide between cities and modernity and diversity against rural backwardness and bigotry, the critical tipping point for Donald Trump came from evangelical Christians in states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan (among other states) who voted for Donald Trump who they saw as their last best hope to stop cultural and demographic change that threatened their hegemony and ability to force their fairy tale beliefs on  the rest of society. Now, with Donald Trump the Electoral College winner, these people feel victorious and emboldened to pursue their message of hate against those who do not subscribe to their flawed belief system.  A piece in the Washington Post looks at the phenomenon.  Here are highlights;

For months, Rose Aller kept her support for Donald Trump a secret from her colleagues at the Northern Virginia school where she works as a substitute teacher.

“You’re judged for your beliefs,” she said. “Our media branded you a racist, a bigot, a homophobe if you were Republican.”

So Aller stayed quiet. Only at church did she feel surrounded by people who think like her, people who were distraught by the changing values they saw around them and pulling for Donald Trump as their unlikely standard-bearer to bring their chosen Christian policies back into the White House.

 Eighty-one percent of white evangelicals voted for Trump. Aller, 46, came into school on Wednesday wearing a red-for-Republican T-shirt and beaming at a few other teachers who seemed jubilant instead of despondent about the election results. She wasn’t the only Trump supporter in school, it turns out.

And that night, at church, she was one of hundreds.

During the eight years of the Obama administration, white evangelical Christians, who make up one-quarter of the U.S. population, felt that culture moving away from them. They watched gay marriage become the law of the land and Christians come under fire for saying they didn’t want to provide pizzas or cakes or photographs for those weddings. They heard college students demand “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings”; they heard “Black Lives Matter” and didn’t understand when they were demonized for responding “All Lives Matter.” Their president disparaged people like them who “cling to guns or religion,” and then said that religious employers should subsidize their workers’ birth control and anyone should use any bathroom they like.

And then on Wednesday, evangelicals woke up remembering what it’s like to feel victorious again in American politics. . . . Hartford Seminary professor Scott Thumma, who studies megachurches and nondenominational evangelical churches, wrote in an email. “I have interacted with a few evangelicals since the election … and every one of them were proud and happy to have had a part in Trump’s election — not exactly because of who Trump is, but what he stood for.”

The morning after the election, Aller said, a black second-grader came into her school and declared, “Trump was elected, so we’re moving.”  Aller said she responded, “We’re going to miss you. Let me know when your last day is. We’ll throw you a goodbye party.” She says she’s sure the boy knew she was joking.

While Hispanic Catholics, Jews and some other faith groups voted heavily for Clinton, and white Catholics and mainline Protestants were more divided in their choices, voters like the congregants at Cornerstone turned out in force on Election Day. White evangelicals made up 26 percent of the electorate, according to the exit polls. Three percent more of them voted for Trump than had voted for Romney in 2012.

White evangelicals were so key for Trump that, had no white evangelicals voted, Clinton would have won in a landslide, 59 percent to 35 percent.

Many churchgoers echoed that idea and said that Trump seemed to support the sort of Bible-based morality they craved, which they imagine was standard in the bygone America he offers to bring back.

It’s like every day our morals in America are being chipped away. Now on the radio you can say words you couldn’t say eight years ago,” said Risvold, the military veteran.

“Hopefully, now we can see some progress for some evangelical causes in our country,” Gary Hamrick said. “I feel like we actually have an advocate now in the White House.”  He used another word, too, to describe the mood of white evangelical America waking up as victors once again: “Relief.”

I cannot imagine treating a second graders as described in the column.  The take away that must never be forgotten is that evangelical Christians are among the most selfish on the planet.  They are not kind, decent or compassionate despite their pretenses of piety and decency.  They will do anything to anyone rather than face the fact that their religious beliefs are based on myths and lies.  They, and now thier champion, Donald Trump, are a clear and present danger to America.  They need to become social pariahs and unwelcome by decent people - none will be welcomed in my home - and the media needs to cease affording them deference or any shed of respect.  The embrace of ignorance and bigotry towards others under the smoke screen of religious belief deserves ZERO respect. -

Supreme Court Takes Transgender Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uncensored Trump Rally Videos: "Hang the B*tch!" "F*g!' 'N*gger!"

As the GOP feigns outrage over Hillary Clinton's remarks about the true nature of Trump's supporters, it is useful to revisit the uncensored videos that the New York Times released last month from Trump rallies:  The New Civil Rights Movement reminds us of what Trump's base of support is really like (if you have not done so, be sure to watch these videos, and then ask whether or not Hillary was right in here remarks over the weekend):

"Sieg heil!"

"Fuck you, Hillary!"

"Hang the bitch!"

"Kill her!"

"Trump the bitch!"

"Get out of here, you fag!"

"Fuck that nigger!"

"Hillary Clinton needs to get her ass spanked!"

"Ignorance and immigrants. They mix together!"

"Fuck those dirty beaners!"

"Hillary is a whore!"

The video, clearly, is disturbing, but what's more disturbing is the culture Trump has created, fostered, nurtured, and allowed at his rallies. 

The man who literally threw a mother and her crying baby out of a rally on Tuesday but not a 10-year old child who repeatedly yelled, "take the bitch down!" about Hillary Clinton, has made his priorities and what he finds acceptable crystal clear.

Perhaps even more revealing are the comments of one Trump supporter included in the video, an older man who says he feels Trump is his last chance to "preserve the culture I grew up in."

Trump's supporters have defined themselves by their own words and actions.  If they do not like how Hillary, I and others describe them, then they need to take a good look at themselves and change their behavior.  Sadly, we all know that that will never happen.  Indeed, I'm sure to much of Trump's base, I just a "filthy faggot" - or worse.   

When Will the Media Condemn All Homophobic Denominations?

If one takes the time to research the origins of homophobia, it always eventually traces back to Christianity and some of the ugliest passages of the Old Testament.  While many are quick to point to Islam as the main source of anti-gay animus in the wake of the Orlando massacre of 49 gays and gay allies, that assessment is ultimately incorrect since Islam adopted the homophobia that increasingly permeated Christianity.  Before this adoption of Christianity derived animus, Islam was relatively tolerant of those of different sexual orientations.  And while much progress been made in many Christian denominations in terms of how LGBT individuals are treated, the root causes of anti-gay hatred and animus remain alive and well in the Bible and the Old Testament in particular.  This fact made clear after the Orlando horror as a string of "Christian" pastors lauded the murderous rampage and others could not even bring themselves to note the sexual orientation of the victims - and their own complicity in maintaining an anti-gay atmosphere in society.  A piece in the New York Times looks at this lingering poison that taints Christianity.  Here are highlights:

After the massacre in Orlando, Fla., American religious leaders spoke in a largely unified voice, condemning the killer and mourning the dead. But at some extreme conservative Christian churches, there was another message: good riddance.

In the weeks since 49 people were slaughtered at a gay nightclub, remarks by pastors celebrating the deaths have brought attention to several outposts of anti-gay hostility across the country that until now had been operating mostly under the radar.

“The tragedy is that more of them didn’t die,” Roger Jimenez, a Sacramento preacher, exhorted his congregants on June 12, the day of the assault. “The tragedy is — I’m kind of upset that he didn’t finish the job! Because these people are predators! They are abusers!”

Rebecca Barrett-Fox, a visiting assistant professor of sociology at Arkansas State University who has researched Christian extremists, said she had tracked about five churches — in California, Texas, Arizona and Tennessee — where preachers had endorsed the killings in Orlando.

Many of the preachers identify themselves as so-called independent Baptists, meaning that they are not a part of any of the denomination’s groupings, such as the Southern Baptist Convention. Dr. Barrett-Fox said the Baptist emphasis on church autonomy — recognizing no central authority — allowed pastors to interpret the Bible for themselves.

The independent Baptist churches where anti-gay hatred has flourished tend to have small congregations, more likely to number in the dozens than the hundreds, experts said.

Sermons posted online since the attack have been interspersed with dehumanizing labels for L.G.B.T. people reminiscent of those used by the perpetrators of historical genocides. The Orlando victims were “sodomites,” “reprobates,” “perverts” and “scum of the earth,” preachers have said.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups, said it was alarmed by the comments of extremist pastors after the mass shooting in Orlando. Heidi Beirich, the center’s director of intelligence, warned that they should not be dismissed as empty rhetoric.

“I think it is entirely possible that someone could be inspired by this and kill gay people,” Ms. Beirich said. “This kind of message is exactly akin to Hitlerian ideas of exterminating Jews. It’s that extreme. It’s basically genocidal toward a population.”

However, while many conservative Christian leaders no longer want to be seen as anti-gay, the change in tone should not be interpreted as full acceptance, Dr. Barrett-Fox said. The “love the sinner, hate the sin” approach to homosexuality continues to be deeply woven into Christian thinking.

When all is said and done, Dr. Barrett-Fox said, “They don’t really believe that these people had a right to be peacefully doing what they were doing, partying at a gay bar.”

The bottom line is that until denominations fully and loudly reject the "love the sinner, hate the sin" approach to LGBT people, they remain an enemy and a threat.  Until the theology is fully repudiated, we cannot be lulled into thinking "they're not really so bad"  This applies to the Southern Baptist Convention, the Roman Catholic Church (not withstanding Pope Francis' latest disingenuous statements) and many other denomination. Saying words of condolence when we are murdered doesn't wash away the guilt that comes from the failure to reject anti-LGBT dogma.  Dogma that is based on ignorance and Bronze Age levels of knowledge. 

Federal Judge Guts Mississippi License to Discriminate Law

It's been a truly bad day for the Bible thumping crowd.  Between the Supreme Court ruling today striking down Texas' anti-abortion laws and last weeks ruling upholding affirmative action, many among the "godly Christian" white supremacist crowd must be truly having the vapors if not falling down in conniption fits.  Now, as icing on the cake, a federal judge has largely gutted Mississippi's license to discriminate law that made it open season for gay bashing.  In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves held that Mississippi clerks of court cannot cite their own religious beliefs to recuse themselves from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  Oh, the horror!! Christofascsts will not be above the law!!  Kudos to Jude Reeves.  I hope this is the beginning of a line of cases that will hold the "godly folk" to the letter of the law like everyone else.  If performing a CIVIL law marriage so offends their sensibilities, there is a very easy solution: resign from your position as clerk.  The full ruling can be found here.  Here are excerpts from Towleroad on the decision:

A federal judge in Mississippi has ruled that county clerks cannot cite their own religious beliefs as a valid legal reason to deny issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The ruling guts part of Mississippi’s HB 1523, one of the worst religious freedom bills to be passed to date in the United States.

The AP reports: 

[U.S. District Judge Carlton] Reeves is extending his previous order that overturned Mississippi’s ban on same-sex marriage. He says circuit clerks are required to provide equal treatment for all couples, gay or straight.

Mississippi’s religious objections measure, House Bill 1523 , was filed in response to last summer’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage nationwide.

Reeves has not yet ruled in two other lawsuits seeking to block all of the religious objections law, including provisions that could affect schools’ bathroom policies for transgender students.  HB 1523 is set to go into effect this Friday.

The case was argued by Roberta Kaplan, who won the historic Supreme Court DOMA case.  Kaplan, who is representing the Campaign for Southern Equality, argued HB 1523 violates First Amendment separation of church and state. She told CSE after today's ruling, "Judge Reeves reaffirmed the authority of federal courts to say what the United States Constitution means."

It is far past the time that undeserved deference to feigned religious belief as an excuse for bigotry and discrimination cease forever.  In America, the Constitution and the rights it insurers to ALL CITIZENS (not just white Christofascists) is the law of the land.  The Bible, the Koran, and any other half-baked "book of scripture") takes second place.  It is really that simple. 

Religiously Inspired Hate Is Still Hate

As regular readers of this blog well know, one of my pet peeves is the undeserved deference that religion is afforded both by the media and by America's political establishment.  Take something that would never otherwise be respected or catered to and wrap the smoke screen of religious belief around it and suddenly it becomes acceptable and critics are labeled as "anti-religion."  Throughout history all kinds of atrocities and rape and pillaging have been justified because of conflicting religious beliefs.  Hate and, in some cases, genocide don't suddenly become something different merely because the perpetrators point to the Bible or Koran for justification.  It is long past time that the "get out of jail free" given to hate filled religious extremists end and their words and actions be judged for what they are regardless of the claimed justification on "deeply held religious belief."  A piece in Huffington Post looks at a controversy in Canada  over the accreditation fight over Trinity Western University ("TWU") proposed law school.  TWU is a Christian extremist institution that openly discriminates against the LGBT community.  Properly, the Canadian accreditation bodies have to date refused to approve TWU application because of its discriminatory policies.  Now, three courts will determine whether such refusal was appropriate.  Here are article excerpts:

The complete picture of what occurred in Orlando last week, of what motivated the worst mass shooting in United States' history, is complicated and may never fully emerge.

But what we do know is that the shooter targeted an LGBTQ club, and that most of the people he murdered and injured belonged to the Queer community. We also know that this was not a coincidence. Gay, lesbian, and transgendered folks in the United States, and elsewhere, are among the most vilified -- the most hated -- minorities in the world.

In Canada, courts in three provinces are poised to issue decisions related to Trinity Western University's ongoing efforts to establish an accredited law school in British Columbia. TWU, as many are aware, requires its students, staff, and faculty to sign a contract promising not to engage in "sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman." The University cites biblical passages vilifying and condemning homosexuality to support its policy of discrimination against gays and lesbians. The passages refer to homosexuality as "vile" and "shameful."

Law Societies in Ontario, British Columbia, and Nova Scotia decided that TWU's law degree could not be accredited because the University excludes gays and lesbians. TWU appealed those decisions and courts in each of these provinces are now faced with striking the right balance between TWU's freedom of religion and the equality rights of sexual minorities. Getting this balance right is critically important.

The issue is not whether TWU should be able to teach law. The issue is whether public bodies, like law societies, should accredit TWU's law degree given its discriminatory policy. These three law societies were rightly concerned about the detrimental impact on the equality interests of sexual minorities that would occur if they accredited an institution that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.

Why was it right for them to deny accreditation? Because, unfortunately, our society remains filled with hatred for sexual minorities. This is not, as Justice Jamie Campbell of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court grossly mischaracterized the issue, a matter of "hurt feelings." Queer people are beaten, raped, and murdered because of our sexual orientation and gender identities.

From the perspective of those of us who remain the subject of this disgust and detestation, it matters not whether this hatred is born of religious belief. The effects of religiously inspired homophobia are every bit as real as homophobia motivated by fear of difference or intolerance of others. Practices of exclusion based on views that perpetuate this type of hatred, whether intentionally or inadvertently, are no less damaging when supported by scripture.

Public institutions, such as law societies, are obligated not to put their stamp of approval on an organization that excludes one of the most vilified minorities in Canada and around the world. They are legally obligated not to contribute to the hatred of sexual minorities.

This does not mean that TWU should be prevented from practicing its beliefs or from teaching law from its evangelical Christian perspective. But as with all rights, there are limits to freedom of religion. For example, it must be balanced with equality. Requiring public bodies to accredit an institution that discriminates against a despised minority, a group subject to the most violent hate crimes in Canada, would allow freedom of religion to trump equality.

The mass murder of gays and lesbians that occurred last week in Orlando provides a horrific example of what can occur when a country allows one of its constitutional rights to run amok.  Let's hope that the British Columbia Court of Appeal, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, and the Ontario Court of Appeal recognize that a just and humane balance between freedom of religion and equality protections for sexual minorities draws a line between what a religious organization can do privately and what our public bodies will accept. Let's hope these courts recognize that offering state sanction to an organization that discriminates against gays and lesbians because of a religious belief that homosexuality is "vile" and "shameful" would contribute to the kind of hatred that makes LGBTQ communities the target of such virulent homophobia.

Here in Virginia we see two law schools that routinely use follow practices  like those advanced by TWU.  Regent University and Liberty University both  have law schools that support hate and bigotry as part of their agenda.  Sadly, both received accreditation from the American Bar Association.  Shame on the ABA. 

Did Catholic Church Sex Abuse Amount to Organized Crime?

If the Mafia had engaged in a systemic system of sexual abuse against children and youths with a coordinated plan across the hierarchy to cover up and in some cases abet the molesters, it is probably a safe bet that this would be deemed to be "organized crime" and prosecution under racketeering and other laws would be brought to bear on those coordinating and participating in the scheme.  Yet, due to undeserved deference to religion and the Catholic Church in particular, no such prosecutions have occurred anywhere in the world.  Meanwhile, more and more cases from across America and the globe continue to show just how pervasive the abuse of children and youths has been and how time and time again the Church protected the predators rather than the victims.  A piece in Religion Dispatches makes the case that RICO laws should be applied against the Church.  Here are excerpts:

The Catholic Church has been trying desperately to suggest that the days of rampant sexual abuse of minors by priests and subsequent cover-ups by bishops are a thing of the past and that the church has moved into a new, more transparent future. But to paraphrase a classic mob movie, just when they think they’re out, they get pulled back in.

First, it was Spotlight’s focus on the Boston-area abuse scandal that proved to be the tipping point for public awareness of widespread abusive priest-shuffling. It also reminded people of just how hard senior Vatican officials like Cardinal Bernard Law worked to keep the church’s complicity covered up.

And just when the publicity over Spotlight’s Academy Award dies down, now comes a hard-hitting report chronicling 50 years of abuse in the Altoona-Johnstown Diocese in Pennsylvania. 

It’s the conspiracy nature of the long-running pattern, with both church officials (including two consecutive bishops, and local authorities, including police, judges and district attorneys) colluding to cover up abuse, that led the authors of the report to call the whole mess “soul murder.”

One state legislator is calling for a RICO investigation of the conspiracy, calling it “nothing less than organized crime.”

Despite the pledges by Pope Francis and other Vatican officials to take a zero-tolerance position on abuse and to make a full reckoning of sins of both omission and commission, it appears that the church is still dedicated to protecting its power and privilege over seeking justice for abuse victims. 

The New York Times reports that lobbyists for the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference have been working overtime to quash a move to open a “window” that would allow previous abuse victims to sue under a bill moving through the legislature that would remove the statute of limitations for sex abuse crimes and allow victims to sue past the current limit of their 30th birthday.

On one hand, the Vatican is happy to promote its new anti-abuse expert with a high-profile interview with Crux. But on the other, on the ground where it counts, it still flexes its muscle to block a full reckoning with the past—even if financial settlements are an imperfect means of justice.

And in case there’s any doubt that a reckoning is still needed, some 250 additional victims have come forward in Altoona-Johnstown just since the release of the report in March. But due to the church’s lobbying, it doesn’t appear their voices will be heard. On Tuesday, the abuse bill passed a House committee with the window for past abuse cases firmly slammed shut.

Catholic Clergy Sex-Abuse Remains Pervasive and Needs to be Spotlighted

The Roman Catholic Church hierarchy continues to wage a war against the LGBT community and women and clerics continue to wrap themselves in feigned piety and religiosity.  Meanwhile, as a grand jury report from Central Pennsylvania which I have mentioned before shows that the church hierarchy despite the more open attitude of Pope Francis remains a moral cesspool.   Sex abuse and the cover up of past abuse remains rampant and will never be stamped out without (i) vigorous efforts of police and civil authorities, the Church being unable/unwilling to police itself, and (ii) a drastic change in the Church's sick, psychotic approach to sexuality in general.  I remain convinced that much of the cause of priestly sexual abuse traces to the emotional and psychological damage done by being raised in Catholic schools and seminaries.  A column in the Washington Post looks at just how pervasive the abuse of children and youths has been in a central Pennsylvania diocese, much of it shielded by undeserved deference to the Church.  Here are highlights:   

Like many longtime reporters, I celebrated the Oscar victory for “Spotlight” and the fearless journalism that exposed the Catholic Church’s clergy sex abuse scandal.

I would soon see the story, and the scandal, from a very different perspective.

Two days after the Oscar ceremony, news broke about another widespread church coverup. I found myself poring over a grand jury report outlining in sickening detail the abuse of hundreds of children by at least 50 priests and religious leaders in western Pennsylvania’s Altoona-Johnstown Diocese — in my hometown.

I moved away long ago, but I still have family there. I visit regularly, and my mom was a devoted parish volunteer during her lifetime. I figured I might recognize a few of the accused or some of the churches. I quickly realized things stretched far beyond that.

The names of priests and parishes from my childhood appeared, one after another, all familiar. My grade school priest. Not one but two pastors from my neighborhood parish, a half block from my childhood home. The principal, vice principal and music director from my high school. A priest I once met with to consider officiating my wedding. The priest at the church my four nieces and nephews attended. The chaplain of the nearby Catholic hospital, where my mom volunteered.

I couldn’t believe what I was reading. Two of the priests, leaders at Bishop McCort High School, where my parents sent me and my three brothers in the 1970s to receive a quality religious education, were “sexual partner[s]” who worked together to molest a 13-year-old boy, the report said. They coordinated visits to his house. Once one priest had “satisfied himself,” the report said, the other “took advantage of a victim he believed to be compliant.”

One had been my religion teacher.

First, I called my brothers, to vent. Then I tried comprehending the scale of the abuses. The Spotlight team identified about 80 predatory priests in an archdiocese of 1.8 million Catholics. The grand jury report found at least 50 priests and religious leaders in a diocese of fewer than 100,000. That was stunning enough. But there was more.

“Spotlight” depicted the Catholic clubbiness of Boston that allowed for abuse. In small-town Pennsylvania, corruption extended into all corners of the community. The church exercised “overwhelming access and influence,” even handpicking community leaders, including the police and fire chiefs. “The mayor would have them come to me, and I would interview them and I would tell him which I would pick,” a top bishop’s aide testified.

George Foster, manager of an outdoor billboard advertising company and a former high school classmate of mine, emerges as the hero — not an investigative reporting team.

Foster’s brother was a priest; the two heard rumors of abuses and began looking into them. In 2002, Foster wrote an op-ed for the local paper, calling on the church to clean up its house.

Immediately, he was inundated with tips and evidence from victims, attorneys and even the police. He also did something no journalist had: He went through the files at the Blair County Courthouse from the 1994 civil trial of the Rev. Francis Luddy, a priest accused of molesting boys. The lawsuit against Luddy was filed in 1987, but records were sealed at the church’s request. They became public during the trial.

Foster found in the files documents showing church officials knew of credible allegations against many additional priests but kept them secret. He confronted then-Bishop Joseph Adamec. If this were a movie, outraged authorities would have taken action. But that didn’t happen. Adamec rebuffed him.

Finally, in 2014, state investigators in a different child abuse case contacted Foster, and he provided his files. The report cited them extensively and called Foster’s actions “nothing short of heroic.”

I wondered where the journalists had been.  I called Richard Serbin, the attorney in the Luddy case, who regularly represents clergy sex-abuse victims. There wasn’t a paper with the prestige of the Boston Globe to make an impact, Serbin said. It happened in a small community in decline, and few noticed or cared. “The facts were all there, back in 1994,” Serbin said. “And no one bothered to look at them.”

Again, I ask myself how a decent moral person can remain part of a church that is so utterly bankrupt morally?  Similarly, why do politicians continue to fawn and give deference to high clerics who have been part of a world wide criminal conspiracy?  Is it really that frightening to let go of brainwashing that one received as a child?  And as with the author of the column, why are journalist so afraid to take on such and evil empire? 

France - and America - Struggle With Faith on the Job

In the wake of the terror attacks in Paris, France's strict legal separation of religious and civic life which formally discourages, and in some situations expressly bans, public religious expression is ruffling feathers, particularly with Muslims.  Personally, I approve of the policy and wish that America had a similar approach to keeping religion out of the work place.  True, it would prompt screams of religious persecution from Christofascists who believe their rights trump those of everyone else, but at some point, but at some point dress codes and restrictions on conduct are in keeping with some types of jobs.  If one refuses to comply, the solution is simple: find other employment. I suspect that as time goes by, America will face a similar balancing act, except it will be right wing Christians who will be making the loudest demands for special rights.  Indeed, the legislatures in Georgia and West Virginia along with Virginia have passed bills granting special rights to religious extremists (thankfully, the Virginia bill is headed towards a veto).  The New York Times looks at the issue in France.  Here are excerpts:

Reconciling the religious precepts of observant Muslims with the secular norms in the European workplace has long been a sensitive subject. France’s strict legal separation of religious and civic life — a legacy of the French Revolution known as laïcité — formally discourages, and in some situations expressly bans, public religious expression. It is a brand of secularism that coexists uneasily with Islamic traditions, making workplace negotiations about religious practice particularly difficult and prone to misunderstandings.

The issues have become thornier after the latest wave of terrorist activity, including the November attacks in Paris that left 130 dead. With much of the region on edge, the French government has set a forceful tone, granting sweeping emergency powers to the police and stepping up the scrutiny of mosques, Islamic associations and individuals. The sense of unease is particularly palpable for companies operating in sensitive areas like transportation, security and infrastructure.

Adding to workplace conflicts like the one at Securitas, as well as reports of tensions at other large employers, is that many Muslims have become more assertive in fighting stigmatization on the job. But many managers and union leaders in France report feeling ill equipped to respond to employee demands for things like dedicated prayer rooms or pork-free canteens — let alone to detect and combat genuine radicalization at work.

“Today, we are in a very complicated situation,” said Philippe Humeau, a researcher at InAgora, a consultancy that specializes in religion and the workplace.

While France’s workplace rules around religion are relatively distinct, the broad concerns are playing out globally, as countries confront the rise in terrorist activities. . . .  “Most companies don’t know much about Islam,” he said. And in the current climate, “we are seeing companies confuse strict religious practice, which is already difficult to accept in France, with radicalization.”

The risk is that companies, in a quest to protect their staff and their clients, unfairly profile certain employees.

The security company said the beard rules, and the subsequent firings, adhered to the law. As a private company working on behalf of public sector clients like the airport, Securitas said it must conform to France’s strict secularism laws.

“We are confident,” Michel Mathieu, the head of Securitas’s French operations, said, in reference to the decision to fire the Orly guards. The company has not accused the guards of any illegal activities, nor has it presented any evidence that they engaged in radical behavior on the job. But he said that recent events had led Securitas to revisit its approach to all forms of religious practice in the workplace.

What some might view as overt religious profiling, Mr. Mathieu insisted had become a necessity for a company like Securitas, whose mission is to protect against potential dangers that now include Islamic terrorism. The risks, he added, were no longer abstract. Last year, Securitas alerted the French authorities to four security agents who, despite a rigorous vetting process that includes multiple background checks, were found in possession of jihadist propaganda on the job.

The principle of laïcité, however, applies only to those who work in France’s vast public sector economy. For private companies like Securitas, the situation is murkier. . . . .  Some labor union leaders complained that managers, fearful of complaints from Muslim employees, had long tolerated religious behavior on the job that was explicitly prohibited by the company’s own policies. 

Officially, France’s vigorous brand of secularism applies to all religious faiths. But over the last decade, regulations on laïcité (pronounced lie-EE-see-tay) have tended to focus on Islam. A law prohibiting government employees and high school students from wearing head scarves and other “conspicuous” religious attire was introduced in 2004. A specific prohibition against women wearing full-face veils in public went into effect in 2011.

Opinion polls show such bans have broad public support — and they have been upheld recently by Europe’s top human rights court. But they are resented by many of France’s five million Muslims who see the rules as unfairly stigmatizing their religion.

Under French labor law, private employers are required to respect the religious freedom of their employees, meaning that such companies are expected to tolerate religion on the job. Only proselytizing and acts of pressure toward other employees are expressly banned.

The regulations do, however, allow for a number of exceptions, like employee health and safety, operational continuity and protecting commercial interests. . . . In strict practice, the rules mean that an employee who accepts a job at a butcher shop, for example, could not refuse to handle pork. A train driver would not be allowed to stop on the tracks to pray. A waitress could not decline to serve alcohol to customers.

Employers indicate that conflicts over religion in the workplace are on the rise. A 2015 survey of 1,300 French companies by the Observatory of Workplace Religious Practice, a research group based at the Institute of Political Science in Rennes, France, found that 12 percent of human resources managers had faced disputes over religious practices that were difficult to resolve, up from 6 percent in 2013. Among the most difficult situations cited included employees’ rejection of the company’s authority to set limits on religious behavior as well as refusals by some men to work alongside women, either as a colleague or a boss.

There is more that is worth a read.   Given my view that religion is toxic and an embrace of ignorance, I admittedly have little sympathy for anyone regardless of faith who cannot let go of what amounts to superstition, myths and ignorance.  They, not society are the ones that need to change.  If you want to live in a backward country that places adherence to myths and legends ahead of modernity, then move to one of the hell holes in the Middle East or Africa.  And this applies to Christofascists as much as Muslims.  It's the 21st century, not 1000AD.  The toxicity of religion needs to be eradicated.