Indiana House committee tosses hate crimes bill – LGBTQ Nation

Legislation creating the state’s first hate-crime law to help victims targeted because of their race, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion or other specified characteristic is expected to die because it won’t get a committee hearing in the House, leaving lawmakers few options to address civil rights this year.

The measure was introduced as Indiana faced criticism following the Republican-led Legislature’s approval of a religious objections law that, even after changes, opponents said invited discrimination against the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. Sen. Susan Glick, a Republican from LaGrange who authored the bill, said her proposal would help show that Indiana is a welcoming place.
,,,
The decision means lawmakers could end the year with no course of action on extending civil rights protections. The bill could get taken to conference committee, dominated by Republicans. And House Minority Leader Scott Pelath said he hasn’t ruled out proposing more amendments to legislation still in the pipeline.

Indiana House committee tosses hate crimes bill – LGBTQ Nation

UPDATED::BREAKING: Indiana Senate panel kills religious objections proposal – LGBTQ Nation

UPDATE::  So, I am really confused now!  For clarification, SB 344 appears to be the bill that went down in flames ending the gay rights debate in the Indiana General Assembly for the year.

Neither side had been pleased with Senate Bill 344. But Tuesday, religious conservatives claimed a victory while LGBT advocates decried the halt to the debate.

“Rather than further divide Hoosiers and threaten religious freedom, the Indiana Senate wisely chose to put this matter aside and deal with more important and necessary issues,” said Micah Clark, executive director of the American Family Association of Indiana, in a statement.

He touted the death of the legislation as “good news” for religious freedom.

But Freedom Indiana, a group pushing for LGBT rights, framed it as “shameful.”

“We can’t let lawmakers think for one second that this one failed attempt at a short-sighted bill will make this problem, or our movement, magically disappear,” Freedom Indiana campaign manager Chris Paulsen wrote in an email to supporters.

Indiana Competes, a coalition of businesses advocating for LGBT rights legislation, criticized lawmakers for stopping the debate.

"Failure to continue working toward a remedy casts doubt on the sincerity of the Senate’s effort," initiative manager Peter Hanscom said in a statement.

 Why Indiana lawmakers killed the gay rights debate for this year

__
At the time of this writing, it is unclear which bills are being discussed in either article.  Currently, there is SB-100, which according to ThinkProgress,"does add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the state’s nondiscrimination laws as it claims to. However, it expends far more words to limit the extent of those protections, making them all but worthless to most plaintiffs."  And SB-66, "[t]he “Super RFRA” undermines critical protections against discrimination. If this bill becomes law, people would be allowed to use religious beliefs as an excuse to harm others. A landlord could claim their religion requires them to deny housing to an unmarried mother. Or a business owner may refuse service to a same-sex couple, citing freedom of religion.

Both bills where being discussed in the Indiana legislature and it appears that one has fallen to defeat:

An Indiana Senate committee has killed a bill that would have thrown out the state’s contentious religious objections law and replaced it with more robust protections for the rights of worship, speech and bearing arms.

State Sen. Mike Young, an Indianapolis Republican, said Wednesday that critics who “demagogue” and “fear monger” had mischaracterized his proposal.

BREAKING: Indiana Senate panel kills religious objections proposal – LGBTQ Nation

While the other may still be in discussion,

A Washington state florist who became a national figure for refusing to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding is scheduled to testify in Indiana against two LGBT rights bills that will be taken up by a state Senate committee.

Barronelle Stutzman, who was at the center of storm over gay rights for refusing the service, will speak Wednesday against the measures before the Indiana Senate Rules Committee. She says people should not be forced to participate in events that conflict with their beliefs.

Indiana legislative proposals: Washington florist to testify against LGBTQ protection bills

See also::  Indiana Senate leader says LGB rights bill to be called for a vote

Fargo hospital says transgender lawsuit should be dismissed – LGBTQ Nation

Attorneys for a Fargo hospital say a lawsuit brought by a transgender employee alleging discrimination in the workplace has no merit and should be dismissed.

Faye Seidler was born as a male and identifies herself as a female. Seidler says in a federal suit that Sanford Medical Center violated her civil rights. She is seeking unspecified damages and an order to stop the hospital from discriminating against employees who have undergone or are undergoing a gender transition.

Seidler says managers did not treat her fairly and she was wrongly denied access to the women’s locker rooms.

Fargo hospital says transgender lawsuit should be dismissed – LGBTQ Nation

ADDENDUM::Tampon-waving woman demands officials protect her right to speak in tongues amid anti-gay rant

In regards to the troublesome equal rights law proposed by Anchorage Assembly member  Bill Evans:

Evans said that he borrowed the religious conscience provision from elsewhere, and that may refer to the recent nondiscrimination protections passed in Utah. The Utah compromise, however, was unique because religious exemptions already existed under state law, for other civil rights protections. Thus, the carveouts were not unique to LGBT people, but were the same as they were for race, sex, and other classes.

In this proposal, Evans is actually doing the opposite in quite a problematic way. He’s trying to create new exemptions specifically to accommodate the addition of LGBT protections. Moreover, he’s not even qualifying them as LGBT-specific, so all of Anchorage’s civil rights protections would be weakened as a result. Refusing to serve an interracial marriage would hypothetically be just as shielded as refusing to serve a same-sex marriage.

We now have this bit of wackiness,

A failed U.S. Senate candidate known for speaking in tongues spoke out against LGBT rights in a wacky, tampon-waving address to city officials in Anchorage.

Kathleen Tonn, [mentioned here] the former Republican candidate, carried a briefcase stuffed with props and wore a wool hat and flannel sweatshirt Tuesday night to the meeting of the Anchorage assembly, which is considering an LGBT rights ordinance, reported the Joe My God blog.

“Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. You like my trumpet? It’s a sound heard around the world,” Tonn said, before pulling a Bible from her briefcase.
,,,
“Since one of my brethren introduced the King James Bible, since I represent the Lord Jesus Christ the great I am, I’m going to add to your public document and your public record from the public document of the great I am,” Tonn told baffled officials.

“Starting with, oh my — a tampon,” she said, pulling a feminine hygiene product from between the pages of her Bible. “Reminds me that little girls in pubescence get periods — female girls.”

Tonn, who is probably best known for a video she posted online showing herself fully clothed and speaking in tongues in a sauna, then angrily read a lengthy passage from the Second Epistle of Peter describing God’s wrathful judgment against Sodom and Gomorrah.

WATCH: Tampon-waving woman demands officials protect her right to speak in tongues amid anti-gay rant

How An Alaska Lawmaker Is Trying To Sneak Anti-LGBT Discrimination Into The Law | ThinkProgress

Three years ago, Proposition 5, which would have created LGBT nondiscrimination protections, failed to pass in Anchorage, Alaska. The defeat followed a very ugly campaign that demonized LGBT people with warnings of “tranvestites who want to work with toddlers” and men sneaking into women’s locker rooms. Now, a member of the city’s Assembly says that he wants to pass those protections into law — or so he claims.

Anchorage Assembly member Bill Evans has proposed an expansion to the city’s equal rights law to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the protected classes, but there’s a catch. His bill has a gaping exemption that will allow religion to continue to justify anti-LGBT discrimination.
,,,

Evans said that he borrowed the religious conscience provision from elsewhere, and that may refer to the recent nondiscrimination protections passed in Utah. The Utah compromise, however, was unique because religious exemptions already existed under state law, for other civil rights protections. Thus, the carveouts were not unique to LGBT people, but were the same as they were for race, sex, and other classes.

In this proposal, Evans is actually doing the opposite in quite a problematic way. He’s trying to create new exemptions specifically to accommodate the addition of LGBT protections. Moreover, he’s not even qualifying them as LGBT-specific, so all of Anchorage’s civil rights protections would be weakened as a result. Refusing to serve an interracial marriage would hypothetically be just as shielded as refusing to serve a same-sex marriage.

How An Alaska Lawmaker Is Trying To Sneak Anti-LGBT Discrimination Into The Law | ThinkProgress

A Little-Noticed Supreme Court Case Could Deny Justice For Sandra Bland

In Taylor v. Barkes, all nine justices shut down a lawsuit by family members of Christopher Barkes, a Delaware man who took his own life within a day of being arrested for violating probation. Jail officials' failure to set up safeguards to keep him from hanging himself, the court ruled, was not a violation of his civil rights.

Barkes had a history of “suicidal ideations” and had attempted suicide on several occasions. This and a fuller mental-health picture were contained in Barkes’ probation file. But the intake nurse at the Howard R. Young Correctional Institution in Wilmington, Delaware, had no access to it, and Barkes only told her about one of these attempts. There also was evidence that the nurse didn’t use the latest version of a standard suicide screening form, and that a qualified mental-health professional should have conducted the screening instead.

The night before his death, Barkes called his wife and told her he "can't live this way any more," and planned to take this life. The next morning, while still in custody, he hanged himself.

This failure to properly screen Barkes and take steps to prevent his suicide, his family charged, amounted to cruel and unusual punishment -- a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.

But a unanimous Supreme Court disagreed. “No decision of this court establishes a right to the proper implementation of adequate suicide prevention protocols,” the court said in a short, unsigned opinion that was decided without briefing or oral arguments. “No decision of this court even discusses suicide screening or prevention protocols.”

In other words, Barkes had no right to be kept alive while in custody.

If that sounds harsh, it’s because the dirty little secret of the case is that it was less about “a troubled man with a long history of mental health and substance abuse problems,” as the court put it, and more about the controversial doctrine of qualified immunity, a legal shield the Supreme Court created decades ago to protect government officials accused of constitutional wrongdoing.

The law of qualified immunity is thorny and rife with controversy. But as characterized by the court, its purpose is as simple as it is overarching: It “protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law” from being sued. And not just any law, but “clearly established” law at the time of the violation.

A Little-Noticed Supreme Court Case Could Deny Justice For Sandra Bland

Gay Marriage Isn’t About Justice, It’s About Selma Envy

At lest this pile of dung was well written and pleasing to the eyes.  Usual Reich talking points veiled by flowery words.  See how many you can spot,,,

Then, one day, manna descended from heaven in the form of gay marriage. Here it was! The cause we’d longed for all these years had finally arrived! Here was an injustice no one had ever opposed before. Here was a group of marginalized people no one had ever defended. So by embracing this cause, we would instantly be more compassionate, more accepting, more saintly than every human being who had ever lived.

What did it cost us to embrace this cause? Absolutely nothing! It required no moral consistency, no financial sacrifice, no effort. We could sleep with as many people as we wanted, divorce as many people as we wanted, father and then abandon as many children as our hearts desired, and lose no credibility. We could spend our entire adult lives defecating on the institution of marriage and this could not sully our gay marriage halos.

On top of that, these oppressed souls were so gainfully employed that they paid for their own lawyers and lobbyists, so we didn’t need to give them a cent. All we had to do was change our profile pictures on Facebook and beatification was ours. Our prayers were answered. The bright, shiny diamond of righteousness no other generation could claim had been placed into our hands.

,,,
So when you argued that disapproving of gay marriage didn’t deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as oppression of black Americans, we knew you were right. Of course we know that politely telling a customer you’ve served for nine years that you can’t, in good conscience, provide flowers for his wedding isn’t in the same moral universe as murdering a black teenager for talking to a white woman. Of course saying “you don’t get to vote because your skin has a different amount of melanin than mine” is logically indefensible, while saying “I don’t think a union that’s biologically incapable of procreation fits the definition of marriage” is an argument that needs to be fairly considered, even if we don’t agree with it. But we wouldn’t consider it, wouldn’t even let your words embed in our ears because we would not risk having to surrender our halos in the offhand chance that you maybe, sort of, kind of had a little bit of a point.

Likewise, when you insisted that not all opposition to homosexuality is created equal, we knew this was true. We knew the vast majority of you would never have assaulted a gay classmate or kicked your lesbian daughter out on the street. We knew that you have gay friends, gay siblings, gay uncles that you love, cherish, laugh with, and have over for Thanksgiving Dinner while still not approving of that one particular aspect of their lives. We knew that you look at your gay children with the same ratio of love and disapproval as a devout Catholic mother who would give her life for her atheist son yet weeps that his children aren’t baptized. We objectively know you’re not hateful bigots. But we called you that anyway because, in order to keep our righteousness shiny, someone had to play the role of Bull Connor, and you were the best fit we could find.

Gay Marriage Isn’t About Justice, It’s About Selma Envy

What Same-Sex Marriage Teaches About Social Change and the Supreme Court | Michael C. Dorf | Verdict | Legal Analysis and Commentary from Justia

Thus, the road to same-sex marriage looks like it has been a long slow slog, followed by a sprint. The issue was placed on the national agenda in the early 1990s, when a state court ruling in Hawaii led a panicked Congress to enact DOMA, but for roughly two decades, the fear of same-sex marriage was a bogeyman invoked by right-leaning politicians to turn out socially conservative voters. Then, in just a couple of years, opposition to same-sex marriage came to be regarded as nearly as retrograde as racism. Where the Justices in 2003 and even 2013 might have worried about backlash if they recognized a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, today they have more to fear if they fail to recognize such a right.

The recent change in attitudes towards same-sex marriage is remarkable for its speed, but that may simply reflect the well-known “tipping point” phenomenon popularized and arguably oversold by Malcolm Gladwell. Even if some of Gladwell’s examples are controversial, however, the underlying phenomenon undoubtedly exists. For example, ice remains ice as one heats it from sub-zero temperatures to above 32° Fahrenheit, and then it rapidly melts.

Tipping points are especially likely in the political realm because of majoritarianism. A position that lacks support will meet with little success, even as it gains considerable support, but then, when popular opinion crosses the fifty percent threshold, rapid legal change can ensue.

What Same-Sex Marriage Teaches About Social Change and the Supreme Court | Michael C. Dorf | Verdict | Legal Analysis and Commentary from Justia

New Mexico Is The Second State To Ban Police From Seizing Innocent People's Property | ThinkProgress

Last week, New Mexico became the second state to ban the practice of civil asset forfeiture, which allows state and local law enforcement agencies to seize property from innocent people.

Gov. Susana Martinez (R) signed HB 560 on Friday, which states that property can only be seized if a person is “arrested for an offense to which forfeiture applies, the person is convicted by a criminal court of the offense, and the state establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the property is subject to forfeiture.” In other words, property seizure is only permitted if a person is guilty of a crime. The bill, which received unanimous approval in the state legislature, was first introduced by Rep. Zachary Cook (R).

Under civil asset forfeiture laws across the country, people don’t have to be found guilty or charged with a crime to have their property taken from them. The laws incentivize the seizure of property to the benefit of law enforcement agencies, at the expense of innocent people — who are, often, low-income people of color. No type of property is off-limits, as cash, cars, and houses are routinely seized. And in many cases, law enforcement agencies collect assets under the guise of drug enforcement.

New Mexico Is The Second State To Ban Police From Seizing Innocent People's Property | ThinkProgress

Baking a cake is not a religious principle

A baker insists that baking a cake for a gay couple's wedding violates his principles. How can baking a cake be a violation of his principles? He bakes cakes every day. It doesn't matter who he bakes them for. The baker claims that it means he is participating in the couple's wedding, of which he disapproves. How can he make that claim? He is not at the wedding (in fact, the cake is not likely to be at the wedding itself either). He is not overseeing the vows, he did not participate in the couple's decision to marry, he is not issuing the license. He is baking a cake. Its purpose is to be eaten. By whom does not matter. Same with the florist, or the lunch counter worker who is serving a meal. Their services are simply that - services.

Some will argue that this line of reasoning could be used against the companies that manufacture drugs that wind up being used for the death penalty. There is a distinct difference. The baker bakes a cake, and the purpose of that cake is to be eaten. The cake is (hopefully) not a potentially lethal item that could cause great harm if misused. The drug manufacturer makes a drug whose purpose is NOT the taking of a life, but that drug is misused to kill. While the baker can't argue that the purpose of his cake is not to be eaten by gays, but only by straight people, the drug company can legitimately state that they will not sell their drugs for the purpose of being misused. While the wedding can happen with or without a cake, i.e., the cake does not cause the wedding, the death penalty cannot be brought about (at least not by lethal injection) without the lethal products to inject, and the drug causes the death. Thus, the baker of the cake is not a participant in bringing about the wedding, but the drug manufacture is a participant in bringing about the death. This is where not selling a drug to prisons is a matter of principle, where baking a cake is not a principle.

Baking a cake is not a religious principle

Ben Carson: Congress Should Oust Judges Who Rule For Marriage Equality | Right Wing Watch

Speaking last night with Iowa talk radio host Steve Deace, Carson said that Congress should “reprimand or remove” federal judges who issue “unconstitutional” rulings striking down state bans on same-sex marriage.

What the president and what the Supreme Court need to reiterate is that the states have a mechanism whereby they can determine the will of the people, it’s called ballot referendum. It has been done multiple times already, 32 states have indicated that marriage is between a man and a woman, and a few judges have come and overturned that. That, as far as I’m concerned, is unconstitutional, and Congress actually has oversight of all what they call the inferior courts, everything below the Supreme Court, and that’s where those overturns have come. And when judges do not carry out their duties in an appropriate way, our Congress actually has the right to reprimand or remove them.

After Deace alleged that a Supreme Court victory for marriage equality advocates would undermine freedom and lead to the “persecution of the church” and “open season on Christians,” Carson said Congress should intercede if the Supreme Court deems same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional.

“We certainly cannot give up if, in fact, that turns out to be the case because we do still have the Congressional mechanism,” Carson said. “And the key here in our country, values and principles cannot be drummed out of us. They’re going to try and the only way we maintain a country with values and principles is we have to be brave enough to stand up for what we believe.”

Two issues with what Carson states. First, he is ignoring the Constitutional promise of equality, saying it should be voted on. Second, Congress cannot simply remove a judge for ruling in a way the majority disagrees with. Governing by intimidation never works

And whilst pondering that, Carson, has never held an office of public trust; but at the same time he is motivated by his religion, not by a deep understanding of American political history. I am wondering what exactly does this man think he would be doing if the SCOTUS had decided to let each and every state decide if he was more than three fifths of a person? Does Jim Crow ring a bell?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Civil rights are not up for a vote. They are dependent on the Constitution, which guarantees them.

Ben Carson: Congress Should Oust Judges Who Rule For Marriage Equality | Right Wing Watch

Lawsuits: AL jailers let prisoners die from easily treatable illnesses to save money

Three lawsuits recently filed in federal court accuse the state of Alabama of denying prisoners with easily treatable illnesses or injuries proper medical care resulting in the prisoner’s death.

According to AL.com, the lawsuits have been filed over the deaths of three inmates, including a 19-year-old who died naked on a cell floor from gangrene.

The three suits allege the jailers in Madison County withhold the basic medical care in order to save money, believing that the insurance carried by the out-sourced medical contractor will cover any lawsuits filed against them.

[,,,]
Civil rights attorney Hank Sherrod who filed all three lawsuits claims that the Madison County jailers are relying on the insurance coverage maintained by Advanced Correctional Healthcare to shield them from lawsuits, and to save money by not dealing with inmate medical problems..

“ACH’s business model, reflected in the agreement, succeeds by underbidding the competition and implementing severe cost control measures,” Sherrod said. “The necessary result of which is inmate suffering and liability claims (dealt with through liability insurance.)”

Jeff Rich, attorney for Madison County, would not comment on pending litigation, saying the three lawsuits are “being vigorously defended.”



Lawsuits: AL jailers let prisoners die from easily treatable illnesses to save money

For those of you who say apathetically that both parties are the same, I beg to differ

"When one provokes in a child a fear of the dark, one awakens in him a feeling of atavistic dread. Thus this child will be ruled all his life by this dread, whereas another child, who has been intelligently brought up, will be free of it."

Adolf Hitler,  "Table Talk" discussions on the night of July 11-12, 1941, p. 12

__

I've been thinking about what I wrote above concerning the SCOTUS decision - regarding Hobby Lobby - being a Reich wet dream and the possibility that their grand scheme may backfire.  I really didn't pull those ideas out of my ass, others have been pondering this thought as well.  Just maybe not in the same colorful language.

When one looks at the decision rendered by SCOTUS it has to be through the lens of the Reich's overall agenda -  starting with a "reformed" interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause or an outright repeal of the First Amendment,  continuing with the abolition of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, ending with the implementation of dominionist ideology in order to govern by theocratic control.  With the ruling in Hobby Lobby, the Reich will "now" be able to exempt themselves from any laws that they don’t like; that they find “religiously objectionable.” 

Now here's where it gets a bit tricky.  I have more or less insinuated on various occasions that nothing done within the ranks of the Reich are individually motivated. Green's personally held religious convictions no matter how "sincere" they may be, have an agenda attached.  That agenda, "Hobby Lobby-related entities are some of the biggest sources of funding to the National Christian Charitable Foundation." 

According to Eli Clifton, the National Christian Charitable Foundation then funds "a range of causes including climate science denial, charter schools, free market and pro-life advocacy."  One of their biggest grant recipients,  Alliance Defending Freedom, one of the bulwarks behind Arizona's failed SB 1062 legislation. And their mission, "'[making] certain that governmental laws cannot force people to violate their faith unless it has a compelling governmental interest–a balancing of interests that has been in federal law since 1993.'”

So what does this have to do with Hobby Lobby and the Reich's agenda.  First Steve Green has a personal agenda.  One I have highlighted before.

That’s our goal, so that we can reintroduce this book to this nation. This nation is in danger because of its ignorance of what God has taught,,, Someday, I would argue, it should be mandated.  (Starting about the 4:28 mark)

Book? Mandate?  WTF you talking 'bout?

For those unaware, one of the goals of Mr. Steve "Hobby Lobby" Green,  is to have a 4 year Bible curriculum, that they (the Green Scholars Initiative) write, be mandated in all public schools.  Currently, the Mustang School Board (OK) approved Green's curriculum although it is still in draft.

I won't harp too much on the obvious (besides the legalities) but is this the "re-education" that Richard Mourdock, Tony Perkins, Austin Miles  and Rick Santorum are talking about?  In my mind, this curriculum is the gateway to theocratic rule with "its primary intent the conquest of the land — of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ.”

Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ — to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness. But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest.

As Leah Burton explains, "This notion of having to 'reclaim' something that they truly believe they lost is pervasive. In order to understand that they must convince you that we always were a Christian Nation and now it must be reclaimed by them in order to save our country from moral decline."

And what better way to indoctrinate the notion of Christian Nation ideology, "Give me just one generation of youth, and I'll transform the whole world."  Sound familiar?  It should, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin Steve Green said that, "We're working on 4 year public school bible curriculum.  The first year will be a summary of all three of those section. It's history, it's impact and it's story.  Then the next 3 years is going in depth in each of those -- a year for the history, a year for the impact and a year for the story -- in some order,,,."

“We're working on 4 year public school bible curriculum.  The first year will be a summary of all three of those section. It's history, it's impact and it's story.  Then the next 3 years is going in depth in each of those - a year for the history, a year for the impact and a year for the story - in some order,,, The nation is in danger because of its ignorance of what God has taught,,, If we don’t know it, our future is going to be very scary,,, we really want to get,,, be into the,,, high school level because we want to reach as many as possible.  Someday, I would argue, it should be mandated.  Here's a book that's impacted our world, unlike any other, and you're not gonna teach it? There's,,, something wrong with that."

We all are well aware that there is a slippery-slope in regards to the decision in favor of Hobby Lobby's demands.  Many writers are taking the high road of optimism.  I on the other hand, I see things getting more tumultuous  before they get better.  And this is where the Reich's agenda comes into play (keeping in mind Green's Bible curriculum takes care of the implementation of the dominionist/theocratic ideology) . From Clifton's article cited above,

'Individuals and entities with religious objections to certain laws that protect others are seeking to use their religion to trump others,' Brigitte Amiri, senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union’s Reproductive Freedom Project, told Salon.
,,,
Center for Arizona Policy president Cathi Herrod heralded the Hobby Lobby lawsuit as a rare example of a 'business willing to step out in faith and literally risk it all to hold fast to their faith,,,'

Clifton then goes on to discuss how Green/Hobby Lobby is the poster child of the Reich by outlining some recent cases.  Cases that where funded by or through the National Christian Charitable Foundation:  McCullen v. Coakley, Elane Photography v. Willock, and the various "religious liberty" bills similar to SB 1062 that appeared in 13 other states.

Think of that as our starting point, testing the water of the SCOTUS if you will.

Remember what I said about the First Amendment?  Here is what the Hobby Lobby ruling has done by placing too much emphasis on the phrase "closely held."

The corporate plaintiffs' argument that they enjoy free exercise rights under the First Amendment and RFRA is in conflict with the text, history, and purpose of the First Amendment's free exercise guarantee. Amicus submits this brief to demonstrate that throughout our nation's history, corporations have been treated differently than individuals when it comes to fundamental, personal rights of conscience and human dignity. The First Amendment's free exercise guarantee has always been viewed as a purely personal liberty, guaranteeing the right of individuals to worship and exercise religion consistent with the dictates of their conscience. It has never been considered a right possessed by secular, for-profit corporations. Indeed, in the more than 200 years since the First Amendment's ratification, this Court has never held that secular, for-profit corporations may assert rights under the Free Exercise Clause. 
,,,
The Hobby Lobby case, of course, deals in part with the question whether the federal [Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)] was or is intended to benefit the owners of large, for-profit, nonreligious corporations. Hobby Lobby's interpretation that it does would open the floodgates to exempt every business owner in the United States from the anti-discrimination laws, because there is no real middle ground. The forces behind Hobby Lobby have tried to argue that the Court should hold for Hobby Lobby because it is "closely held," but that would not limit the holding to a few instances, because over 90% of corporations are "closely held." If the Court sides with Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, it will open the Pandora's box of corporate law.

As for civil right, please consider this in regards to the LGBTI community:

The Associated Press reported this weekend that social conservatives believe they have an opening to bring the state's religious freedom bill back in 2015. The legislation failed this spring; it passed the House, but stalled in the Senate after significant backlash from business groups. It would have prevented businesses from being sued if they refused to serve LGBT people for religious reasons.

"We are not going to let it die. We are very committed," Rev. Terry Fox, a leading Southern Baptist minister, told the AP. "The Body of Christ is a powerful movement when it comes together."

Gay rights advocates and social conservatives alike had watched the Hobby Lobby case to see how it might influence their cause. The Court's decision was decidedly narrow in its language, and some legal experts pointed TPM to Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurring opinion in the case as evidence that he would not support discrimination against LGBT people on religious freedom grounds.

But others warned on the day of the ruling that conservatives would likely take Hobby Lobby's win as their chance to resuscitate religious freedom legislation.

"The opinion really doesn't really resolve the question of whether for-profit businesses can seek religious exemptions from anti-discrimination law," Douglas NeJaime, a law professor at the University of California-Irvine, told TPM. "If I'm one of those groups, I'm going to pursue this."

Or this in regards to women:

At a time when women make up more than half of the workforce, the ruling also further denies women equal rights in the workplace. “By setting women’s reproductive health care apart from all other forms of health care the Roberts’ Court has legally enshrined a new kind of gender-based inequality where only women are specifically subject to interference from their employer when it comes to personal medical choices,” continued Cotler. “We hope that the President will explore ways to ensure that women who will otherwise be denied reproductive health care by their employers are not left without coverage.” 

And what about an individual employee's religious beliefs:

The First Amendment's establishment clause prevents the government from requiring people to bear the burden of religions to which they do not belong and whose teachings they do not practice. To be sure, the U.S. government should accommodate religious beliefs and practices but only when doing so does not impose significant burdens on others. We accommodate, for example, those who object for religious reasons to sending their children to public school; no one is hurt if these families opt for a private school or home-schooling.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court consistently has condemned government accommodations that shift the cost of practicing a religion from those who believe it to others who don't. For example, the court struck down a state law that gave employees an absolute right not to work on their chosen Sabbath because of the burden it imposed on others. If most employees were Christian and took Sunday off, the statute would have forced the remaining, non-Christian employees to work every Sunday. This, the court said, violated the establishment clause: "The First Amendment ... gives no one the right to insist that in pursuit of their own interests, others must conform their conduct to his own religious necessities."

If the court grants these businesses the religious exemption they seek, it essentially would be directing the women who work for these businesses to bear the cost of the owners' anti-contraception religion.

And for shits-and-giggles, consider this bizarre case that is pending in regards to individual employee's religious beliefs:

To explain, the Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby did more than simply allow religious business owners to ignore a federal rule requiring them to include contraception coverage in their employees’ health plans. It tore down decades of law protecting workers from bosses who, in the words of one Supreme Court decision, would “impose the employer’s religious faith on the employees.” Prior to Hobby Lobby, that same Court decision held that “[w]hen followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.” Today, that is no longer the case.
,,,
Should Eden Foods prevail, however, it could shatter what may be the most fundamental assumption of any law protecting the free exercise of religion — religious exercise laws protect religious exercise, they don’t protect the right of an anti-government CEO to make a federal case out of every single thing the government does that he disagrees with.

Don't be lulled into believing that this "concern" for your religious liberty is mere coincidence.  This is a well thought out and implemented plan beginning with the take-over of the GOP in the 1990s by the Religious Right:

The formula they've concocted has been called the "15 per cent solution" by the Christian Coalition. Even in a well attended presidential election, only 15 per cent of eligible voters determine the outcome,,, "We don't have to worry about convincing a majority of Americans to agree with us," Guy Rodgers, the Christian Coalition's national field director declared at the 1991 Road to Victory conference. Most of them are staying home and watching Falcon Crest."

,,, "What the Christian right spends a lot of time doing," says Marc Wolin, a moderate Republican who ran unsuccessfully for Congress from San Francisco last year, "is going after obscure party posts. They try to control the party apparatus in each county. We have a lot to fear from these people. They want to set up a theocracy in America."

"They have acquired a very detailed and accurate understanding of how political parties are organized," says Craig Berkman, former chairman of the Republican Party in Oregon:

Parties are very susceptible to being taken over by ideologues because lower party offices have no appeal to the vast majority of our citizenry. Many precincts are represented by no one. If you decide all of a sudden because it's your Christian duty to become a precinct representative, you only need a few votes to get elected. Increasingly, they have the key say so on who will be a delegate at the national convention, and who will write the party platform and nominate the presidential candidate,,,

And if that candidate wins, guess what?  We have a SCOTUS filled with the likes of Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts.

Not a single justice appointed by either President Bill Clinton or President Barack Obama sided with Hobby Lobby. It was indeed only the justices appointed by socially conservative presidents who voted to keep women trapped in a bygone era. This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone, because both sides of the aisle have been saying for the last few election cycles how important it is with our aging Supremes to have someone in the position to nominate justices of an ideological bent they agree with, and the proof of that concept is in Citizens United, McCutcheon v. FEC, and now the Hobby Lobby case. These narrow decisions will have a lasting impact on American society, and they are decisions made by men who have not been in power for decades in some cases, a half decade in one case.

So for those of you who say apathetically that both parties are the same, I beg to differ.  For those that say your vote doesn't count, yes it does; even if it is not for your ideal candidate.

September Is 'Ex-Gay Awareness Month,' According To Family Research Council Groups

Hmm,,Let's see they had 10 people show up at their original "Ex-Gay Pride" event,,,how many do they honestly think will support this dreck for a whole month,,,

The original "Ex-Gay Pride" might have been an overall bust, but that hasn't stopped the right-wing group behind its inception from trying a second time.

As Right Wing Watch originally reported, Voice of the Voiceless and Equality and Justice for All have declared September "Ex-Gay Awareness Month," which will include a special "lobbying day and evening dinner" in Washington, D.C. on Sept. 30.

Details of those events, which include a "pre-event get-together and lobby education training" event on Sept. 29, can be found here.

Both Voice of the Voiceless and Equality and Justice for All are two new ex-gay rights organizations that were to be launched by the Family Research Council's legislative affiliate, FRC Action, in July.

September Is 'Ex-Gay Awareness Month,' According To Family Research Council Groups

Bayard Rustin to be Posthumously Awarded Presidential Medal of Freedom | Human Rights Campaign

The White House today announced Bayard Rustin, the late civil and human rights advocate will be posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States. An aide and confidant to Dr. Martin Luther King, Rustin was the main organizer of the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, an iconic moment in the history of our nation. HRC President Chad Griffin wrote President Obama a letter earlier this year urging him to posthumously grant the medal to Rustin. Griffin today made the following statement:

“Bayard Rustin’s contributions to the American civil rights movement remain paramount to its successes to this day,” said HRC President Chad Griffin. “His role in the fight for civil rights of African-Americans is all the more admirable because he made it as a gay man, experiencing prejudice not just because of his race, but because of his sexual orientation as well.”

The Presidential Medal of Freedom is an award bestowed by the President of the United States and is—along with the comparable Congressional Gold Medal bestowed by an act of U.S. Congress—the highest civilian award in the United States. It recognizes those individuals who have made "an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors”.

Bayard Rustin to be Posthumously Awarded Presidential Medal of Freedom | Human Rights Campaign

Tea Party And Conservatives Are Declaring War On America After Obama Win | The New Civil Rights Movement

Claiming the Obama campaign’s narrative “worked with brutal efficiency—the definition of winning ugly,” (apparently, the Wall Street Journal editorial board believe the lies mitt Romney told day after day after day), they announced their contempt for the non-white vote:

Mr. Obama was able to patch together just enough of these voting groups,” “single women, the young and culturally liberal, government and other unions workers, and especially minority voters,” as the WSJ defines them, “to prevail even as he lost independents and won only 40% of the overall white vote, according to the exit polls.”

Because of course, the “overall white vote,” as Politico suggested too, is the “gold standard” of votes.

Because the non-white vote is only three-fifths of a vote, perhaps?

We should start reminding the disloyal opposition, aka the GOP, the Tea Party, and conservatives, that 150 years ago, America fought the Civil War. And America won.

From a personal perspective this will be war and yes it has just begun,,,from what some of my friends have been bombarding me with the bigotry and hatred is amping up and getting out of control,,,

Tea Party And Conservatives Are Declaring War On America After Obama Win | The New Civil Rights Movement

Evangelicals Fight Over Therapy To 'Cure' Gays : NPR

I'll believe it when I see it,,,

Evangelicals Fight Over Therapy To 'Cure' Gays : NPR

Curtis Knapp, Kansas Pastor Who Said Government Should Kill Gays, Defends Statements

Follow up to and earlier posting,,,

"We punish pedophilia," Pastor Curtis Knapp of the New Hope Baptist Church in Seneca, Kan. "We punish incest, we punish polygamy and various things. It's only homosexuality that is lifted out as an exemption."

[,,,]

"Oh, so you're saying we should go out and start killing them? No, I'm saying the government should. They won't, but they should."

Curtis Knapp, Kansas Pastor Who Said Government Should Kill Gays, Defends Statements