The Ruth Institute: Photographing a same-sex marriage like tattooing a swastika
The latest from the Ruth Institute, a former affiliate of the National Organization For Marriage:
Because Christian love, ya know?
Protecting vulnerable people from discrimination makes you non-Christian?
In a new ad that's drummed up lots of attention over the past week, Democratic U.S Senator Mark Pryor (AR) professes to be a bible-believing Christian for whom God is "my compass, my North Star." Yet this simply cannot be so, asserts the anti-LGBT movement's Andrea Lafferty, since Pryor voted in favor of a law that would strengthen workplace protections pertaining to LGBT people:
"I was outraged when I saw this [ad] because that is the furthest thing from the truth," says Lafferty, noting that Pryor recently voted for ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
"And what that bill does is override Arkansas law and will require schools to hire and retain transgender teachers," Lafferty alleges.
SOURCE: One News Now
Let me first admit that I'm not Sen. Pryor's biggest fan. He is one of only three Senate Democrats who opposes marriage equality, with his opposition stated in both a personal and political way. I've already said that his opposition, here in the historic year when a bipartisan majority of his colleagues came out in favor of equality, was a boneheaded move that very well might cost him his political future, as it will depress enthusiasm among crowds that would otherwise support him. I still believe that.
That said, supporting ENDA was a good move on his part. Not only is it on the right side of history, but it is also one of the most loving, most tolerant, most Christian things he could've done. One need not even support LGBT rights, in full, to support the notion of judging workers on the basis of their qualifications rather than on their sexual orientations and/or gender identities. In fact, you can be a theologically anti-LGBT evangelical and still see the common sense need for such protections. There is no conflict.
Yet here we have Andrea Lafferty, longtime purveyor of anti-LGBT animus, citing these very basic protections as the reason to deny Sen. Pryor of his personal faith? That is just plain ludicrous, even for someone who proudly carries water for a societal vision that forcibly excludes LGBT people from every facet of life. It's also more terrible PR for a church that might want to pay some mind to the alienation and exodus-ing that years of this kind of thing has cultivated here in America.
Louisiana: Republican state senator refers to Tony Perkins as 'extremist' associated with hate group
As you may or may not know, rabidly anti-LGBT figure Tony Perkins is considering seeking a U.S. House seat that is opening up in his home state of Louisiana. If he were to move forward, this would obviously lead people like me to step up and point out just how extreme Tony Perkins really is. But get this funniness: a fellow local Republican who is seeking the same seat is going ahead and doing the job for me:
Referencing [Tony] Perkins' rumored intentions, [State Sen. Dan Claitor, R-Baton Rouge] said he was "not excited" by the idea of "some of our candidates having questionable associations with certain hate groups." Perkins' Washington, DC-based FRC is a designated "anti-gay" hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
"I don't want Louisiana to become the focus of the national media because we have extremists running for a particular office," he said, likening Perkins to former state legislator and KKK Grand Wizard David Duke, who grabbed headlines when he ran for governor and lost against Edwin Edwards in 1991.
FULL: Baton Rouge lawmaker Dan Claitor will run in Louisiana's 6th Congressional District [The Times-Picayune]
MORE: Hate Group Ties Become Issue for Tony Perkins in Possible Run for Congress [SPLC]
This is crazy hilarious, and I really don't see how Tony can escape it. There are already several candidates stepping up to run for this seat. In a primary where the other Republicans will be looking for anything to get the leg up over their fellow partisan, Tony's well-documented extremism is right there on a silver platter. Why would GOP voters hoping to win a general election go for someone with this kind of record?
See Tony, I told you years ago to lay off the over-the-top hostility and make amends. Sure, it may have helped you make a "culture war" profit. It's also going to cost you any chance at a place on Capitol Hill.
Yet another Alliance Defending Freedom defendant all like, 'but, but—you said we're the victims!'
Once again, a judge is telling the far right's fake "victims" what we all told them long ago: that you can't just discriminate against gay couples because you and your personal faith beliefs feel like it. The ACLU brings the good word:
A Colorado judge today determined that the Masterpiece CakeShop unlawfully discriminated against [a same-sex couple] by refusing to sell them a wedding cake.
David Mullins and Charlie Craig visited Masterpiece Cakeshop last year, with Craig's mother, to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception. Mullins and Craig planned to marry in Massachusetts and then celebrate with family and friends back home in Colorado. Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips informed them that because of his religious beliefs the store’s policy was to deny service to customers who wished to order baked goods to celebrate a same-sex couple’s wedding.
Longstanding Colorado state law prohibits public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation. Mullins and Craig filed complaints with the Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD) contending that Masterpiece had violated this law. Earlier this year, the CCRD ruled that Phillips illegally discriminated against Mullins and Craig. Today’s decision from Judge Robert N. Spencer of the Colorado Office of Administrative Courts affirms that finding.
Charlie Craig and David Mullins v. Masterpiece CakeShop [ACLU]
Let these anti-LGBT legal groups dupe you at your own professional peril, discriminatory vendors.
GLAAD: Parade of nonsense: On the 'Kinky Boots' non-controversy
Video: ESPN's Chris Broussard doubles down on saying Jason Collins is in 'open rebellion to God'; 'I don't have a problem with the way I articulated it'
ESPN commentator Chris Broussard made national headlines when he claimed that openly gay basketball player Jason Collins is living "in open rebellion to God." Now listen to him continue to claim he simply "disagrees" with Collins and that his condemnation is simply "diversity of opinion":
It's so annoying the way that one host claims (around 7:14) that people were trying to shut down Broussard's opinion. No! Did someone shut Broussard's mic? Did a government body prevent his TV appearance from going out over the airwaves? No and no! People PUSHED BACK against the commentator's opinion, thus expressing their own opinion that Broussard was wrong. Scrutiny is not silencing! And in fact, it's this wacky idea that "freedom of speech" means freedom from resistance that is truly undermining debate in this country.
NOM: It's 'outrageous' how equality activists outraise us
I've written several posts about the odd and duplicitous way that National Organization For Marriage personalities refer to their historic losses in the 2012 election, specifically how they overlook the fact that our side's fundraising advantage in those races is itself a statement about where we are in this fight. But now check this one out. In his latest beg for cash, NOM prez Brian Brown goes so far as to call our 2012 cash advantage "outrageous":
The only time we've lost a state by popular vote was last year when the playing field was extremely skewed by both an extremely liberal political environment and an outrageous, three to one spending advantage by those who sought to redefine marriage — approximately $32 million to $10 million (of which NOM contributed over $5.5 million...).
What was outrageous about it, exactly? Both sides put out their messaging and both sides asked for cash. The pro-equality side was able to bring in a whole lot more of it. That's it. Our request just happened to be more compelling and our pool of (bipartisan) donors much larger. That's because our arguments hold merit and our goals are in line with progress.
What's really outrageous is how NOM heads continue to demand more cash from donors who it continues to let down (*while collecting six figure salaries). I mean, it's a good thing that NOM is failing them, since these failures are saving these donors from their own misguided efforts. But for those who don't yet realize this and who continue to hand NOM cash, you'd think they'd demand to see some results before the give in to this continued begging for MORE, MORE, MORE.
Credible science vs. Peter 'I'd prefer to export homosexuals from the United States' Sprigg
The American Medical Association vocally opposes the ban on gay male blood donation because the AMA knows that (a) medical science is at a point where all blood donations can be (and are) vigorously screened for HIV/AIDS and (b) being a gay man does not automatically put someone in a "high risk" category.
You can trust the AMA, or you can trust one of the most viciously anti-LGBT organizations working today:
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Family Research Council (FRC) Senior Fellow Peter Sprigg today testified at a hearing of a federal advisory committee which heard reports on the latest research related to blood donations by men who have sex with men (MSM). Currently men who have had sex with men since 1977 are barred from donating blood because they are at a higher risk for contracting HIV.
FRC Warns Against Proposed Changes to Blood Donor Policy [FRC]
FRC sent an "expert" who has admitted he'd like to either "export" or criminalize gay people. You'll have to forgive me if I roll my eyes at anything he says about my life, love, or blood.
Look, the fact of the matter is that I am one of the lowest risk individuals in America. I have been with only one man for over ten years, and will be with that same one man for the rest of my life. Yet despite this reality, despite the vigorous screen, and despite the allowance of many heterosexuals who are, in fact, in high risk groups, I am still banned from giving blood—for life. When a blood drive someday comes to my daughter's school, I'll have to explain to her that her daddies are not allowed simply because of who they are. There is no way to do that without it coming out as wrong and discriminatory. That's because it is.
***The shocking admission that I referenced in the headline: