Some thoughts on the political landscape of the day:
Voter Suppression?
- Apparently Pennsylvania recently passed a law requiring photo ID to vote (it is currently under dispute). I have mixed feelings about this: it's good in that it helps to prevent voter fraud but it may be a voting hurdle for those who do not have picture ID. I think that in conjunction with this law that the state should create a way to easily obtain an official state picture ID and maybe create a marketing campaign to help people be aware of the situation.
- In Florida they are trying to purge the voter rolls of illegal aliens, etc. Some people are outraged because Whites and Republicans are less likely to be targeted. I understand how this may seem unfair but doesn't it mean that there are fewer illegal aliens who are white and fewer illegal aliens who are registered Republicans? Also, if they are ILLEGAL they don't (or shouldn't) have the right to vote anyway.
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/voter-suppression-and-political-polls/
Chick-fil-A -
- First off, I have always thought "Chick-fil-A" was a dumb name. Now, those who flooded Chick-fil-A establishments all over the country yesterday were doing it (supposedly) to back up the owner who expressed that they were in favor of traditional marriage. They also went to show their support of traditional marriage (or against making marriage apply to same-sex couples - however you want to see it). The issue was not pro-homosexuality or anti-homosexuality (I hope. There are always those who miss the point) but about defending marriage and expressing conservative values.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/08/02/no_tolerance_for_chick-fil-a_--_tea_party_critic_morgan_freeman_gets_a_pass_114977.html
Suburban Warfare -
-Perhaps the most startling article I have read recently (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/312807/burn-down-suburbs-stanley-kurtz?pg=2) talks about how Obama is part of a scheme to suppress the conservative vote by slowly forcing the integration of suburbs into cities. It's hard to explain and maybe a bit paranoid but it does bring up some very interesting ideas and definitely deserves some studying.
Showing posts with label homosexuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label homosexuality. Show all posts
August 02, 2012
August 01, 2012
Thoughts for the Day
From Wolfshield:
===========================
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." --Thomas Jefferson
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Arizona and other states are fighting the Obama doctrine of cherry-picking which legal requirements the chief executive will enforce. This was the basis of the policy announced June 15 that the government would give large numbers of illegal immigrants de-facto amnesty by suspending deportation proceedings against them and allowing them to work in the country legally. The Department of Homeland Security added fuel to the fire Monday by announcing it was suspending agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws. These and other actions call into question President Obama's commitment to his sworn executive duty under Article 2, Section 3, Clause 4 of the Constitution to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed.' ... The framers of the Constitution didn't envision a president preventing states from upholding the law. . . . When the federal government abrogates its constitutional duty to protect the states, the states must protect themselves. A statute on the books is useless when the occupant of the White House calculates that it's in his political interest not to enforce it." --The Washington Times
----------------------------------------------------------------
"A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." --economist Milton Friedman (1912-2006)
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Today, when a teenager has a [same-sex] affair, all the campus social-welfare machinery pushes her [him] toward declaring herself [himself] gay and accepting and 'celebrating' it. This is a serious mistake... It is absurd to say that one, two, or more homosexual liaisons make you 'gay' -- as if lavender ink ran in your veins. Young women [men] are often attracted to each other during a transitional period when they are breaking away from their parents, expanding their world-views, and developing their personalities. . . . To identify these fruitful Sapphic idylls with a permanent condition of homosexuality is madness, and the campus counselors who encourage such premature conclusions should be condemned and banished. They are preying, for their own ideological purposes, on young people at their most vulnerable." –Camille Paglia, self-identified lesbian professor, author, scholar
===========================
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." --Thomas Jefferson
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Arizona and other states are fighting the Obama doctrine of cherry-picking which legal requirements the chief executive will enforce. This was the basis of the policy announced June 15 that the government would give large numbers of illegal immigrants de-facto amnesty by suspending deportation proceedings against them and allowing them to work in the country legally. The Department of Homeland Security added fuel to the fire Monday by announcing it was suspending agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws. These and other actions call into question President Obama's commitment to his sworn executive duty under Article 2, Section 3, Clause 4 of the Constitution to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed.' ... The framers of the Constitution didn't envision a president preventing states from upholding the law. . . . When the federal government abrogates its constitutional duty to protect the states, the states must protect themselves. A statute on the books is useless when the occupant of the White House calculates that it's in his political interest not to enforce it." --The Washington Times
----------------------------------------------------------------
"A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." --economist Milton Friedman (1912-2006)
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Today, when a teenager has a [same-sex] affair, all the campus social-welfare machinery pushes her [him] toward declaring herself [himself] gay and accepting and 'celebrating' it. This is a serious mistake... It is absurd to say that one, two, or more homosexual liaisons make you 'gay' -- as if lavender ink ran in your veins. Young women [men] are often attracted to each other during a transitional period when they are breaking away from their parents, expanding their world-views, and developing their personalities. . . . To identify these fruitful Sapphic idylls with a permanent condition of homosexuality is madness, and the campus counselors who encourage such premature conclusions should be condemned and banished. They are preying, for their own ideological purposes, on young people at their most vulnerable." –Camille Paglia, self-identified lesbian professor, author, scholar
October 12, 2009
Thoughts for the Day
From Wolfshield:
===============================
"As the president's approval ratings fall and rise and fall again, some of his supporters in journalism and politics are returning to days of old when the label 'racist' could end any discussion and force the accused either into stunned silence, or groveling repentance. I suspect the tactic won't work this time because Obama supporters will have difficulty explaining how a mostly white country could elect a black man president last November and ten months later become a racist majority. . . . With Democrats controlling all three branches of government, including significantly wide margins in Congress, isn't there a better explanation than racism for why the president is having difficulty with some of his proposals? . . . There is a better explanation for the growing opposition to President Obama. It has less to do with his ethnicity than it does his credibility. Character, after all, is colorless." --columnist Cal Thomas
"I traveled on the Tea Party Express tour bus as a singer/songwriter, entertainer and spokesperson; 16 states, 34 rallies in two weeks. I experienced vicious racial verbal attacks, not from the tea party protesters. The racial hate expressed against me all came from the left, people who support President Obama's radial socialist agenda. ... These racists are outraged by my opening lines I boldly proclaimed at each rally. 'Hello my fellow patriots! I am NOT an African-American! I am Lloyd Marcus, AMERICAN!' . . . Liberals' response to my YouTube videos, columns and performances on the Tea Party Express have been extremely racist, vicious and hate-filled. In their incredible arrogance, they vilify me for loving my country and not viewing myself as a victim of white America. In the sick minds of liberals, as a black man in America, I must support President Obama regardless of his policies. I must resent white America. I must feel entitled to the earnings of other Americans. My belief that my success or failure is totally in the hands of myself and my God is anathema to them. As to the claim that the tea party protesters are racist, they are not. Quite the opposite. At every rally, with thousands in attendance, I was overwhelmingly showered with affection and thanks for standing up for America. ... These protesters are not racist. They are decent hard working ordinary Americans who love their country and disapprove of the radical changes planned by the Obama administration." --singer, songwriter and columnist Lloyd Marcus
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi berated town hall and tea party protesters this month, tearfully warning they'd incite violence. Well, there's been violence all right, at Pittsburgh's G-20. But it wasn't the tea partiers. It takes gall to characterize ordinary Americans, freely exercising their rights of speech and assembly in civic forums, as 'mobs' while ignoring a pack of leftist thugs now smashing a U.S. city. But that's what Pelosi did, directing her righteous tocsin to the Norman Rockwell-like gatherings of Americans who opposed her expansion of government this past summer. . . . Scroll ahead one week to the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh: Some 1,000 hooded rioters descend on the city waving signs such as 'Smash the G-20' and 'Eat the Rich.' Many take 'direct action' to 'challenge capitalism' in what organizers brazenly call an 'unpermitted protest.' Unlike the town hall citizens, they didn't 'hurl' statements -- just tire irons, bricks and rocks, in an effort to damage private businesses. . . . This kind of violence is nothing new. . . . The unwillingness of the Democratic establishment to defend free markets emboldens the rioters. In destroying private property and impeding trade, these anarchists prove their aims aren't democratic. . . . The outrage of it all raises questions about Pelosi's real agenda in her one-sided criticism of tea partiers. By criticizing only tea partiers and ignoring rampant thugs, she seeks to repress peaceful dissent. With that setup, it's no surprise that there's a mudslide of violence now rolling down on us from an energized radical left." --/Investors' Business Daily/
"We warned of things to come, of the danger inherent in unwarranted government involvement in things not its proper province. What we warned against has come to pass. And today more than two-thirds of our citizens are telling us, and each other, that social engineering by the federal government has failed. The Great Society is great only in power, in size and in cost. And so are the problems it set out to solve. Freedom has been diminished and we stand on the brink of economic ruin. Our task now is not to sell a philosophy, but to make the majority of Americans, who already share that philosophy, see that modern conservatism offers them a political home. We are not a cult, we are members of a majority. Let's act and talk like it. The job is ours and the job must be done. If not by us, who? If not now, when? Our party must be the party of the individual. It must not sell out the individual to cater to the group. No greater challenge faces our society today than ensuring that each one of us can maintain his dignity and his identity in an increasingly complex, centralized society. Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business, galloping inflation, frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise. They are the residue of centralized bureaucracy, of government by a self-anointed elite. Our party must be based on the kind of leadership that grows and takes its strength from the people." --Ronald Reagan
Obama Seeks to Strike Down the Defense of Marriage Act:
"For the purposes of any Federal law in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual's marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State." --So-called Respect for Marriage Act, HR 3567
"[T]he Department of Justice has filed a response to a legal challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged. This brief makes clear, however, that my Administration believes that the Act is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress. I have long held that DOMA prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. While we work with Congress to repeal DOMA, my Administration will continue to examine and implement measures that will help extend rights and benefits to LGBT couples under existing law." --Pres. Barack H. Obama
"With a president who is committed to repaling DOMA and a broad, diverse coalition of Americans on our side, we now have a real opportunity to remove from the books this obnoxious and ugly law." --Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-NY, co-sponsor of HR 3567
"Marriage is not just any two people in a committed relationship. There's more to a marriage than that. A decisive majority of Americans believe this, and they are tired of being treated with contempt by politicians. . . . Many of those in favor of this bill argue that the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act is not intended to force same-sex 'marriage' on all the states. If that is not the intent, its supporters wouldn't be seeking to repeal the section of DOMA that makes it clear that states have a right to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman." --ADF (Alliance Defense Fund) Senior Counsel Brian Raum
===============================
"As the president's approval ratings fall and rise and fall again, some of his supporters in journalism and politics are returning to days of old when the label 'racist' could end any discussion and force the accused either into stunned silence, or groveling repentance. I suspect the tactic won't work this time because Obama supporters will have difficulty explaining how a mostly white country could elect a black man president last November and ten months later become a racist majority. . . . With Democrats controlling all three branches of government, including significantly wide margins in Congress, isn't there a better explanation than racism for why the president is having difficulty with some of his proposals? . . . There is a better explanation for the growing opposition to President Obama. It has less to do with his ethnicity than it does his credibility. Character, after all, is colorless." --columnist Cal Thomas
"I traveled on the Tea Party Express tour bus as a singer/songwriter, entertainer and spokesperson; 16 states, 34 rallies in two weeks. I experienced vicious racial verbal attacks, not from the tea party protesters. The racial hate expressed against me all came from the left, people who support President Obama's radial socialist agenda. ... These racists are outraged by my opening lines I boldly proclaimed at each rally. 'Hello my fellow patriots! I am NOT an African-American! I am Lloyd Marcus, AMERICAN!' . . . Liberals' response to my YouTube videos, columns and performances on the Tea Party Express have been extremely racist, vicious and hate-filled. In their incredible arrogance, they vilify me for loving my country and not viewing myself as a victim of white America. In the sick minds of liberals, as a black man in America, I must support President Obama regardless of his policies. I must resent white America. I must feel entitled to the earnings of other Americans. My belief that my success or failure is totally in the hands of myself and my God is anathema to them. As to the claim that the tea party protesters are racist, they are not. Quite the opposite. At every rally, with thousands in attendance, I was overwhelmingly showered with affection and thanks for standing up for America. ... These protesters are not racist. They are decent hard working ordinary Americans who love their country and disapprove of the radical changes planned by the Obama administration." --singer, songwriter and columnist Lloyd Marcus
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi berated town hall and tea party protesters this month, tearfully warning they'd incite violence. Well, there's been violence all right, at Pittsburgh's G-20. But it wasn't the tea partiers. It takes gall to characterize ordinary Americans, freely exercising their rights of speech and assembly in civic forums, as 'mobs' while ignoring a pack of leftist thugs now smashing a U.S. city. But that's what Pelosi did, directing her righteous tocsin to the Norman Rockwell-like gatherings of Americans who opposed her expansion of government this past summer. . . . Scroll ahead one week to the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh: Some 1,000 hooded rioters descend on the city waving signs such as 'Smash the G-20' and 'Eat the Rich.' Many take 'direct action' to 'challenge capitalism' in what organizers brazenly call an 'unpermitted protest.' Unlike the town hall citizens, they didn't 'hurl' statements -- just tire irons, bricks and rocks, in an effort to damage private businesses. . . . This kind of violence is nothing new. . . . The unwillingness of the Democratic establishment to defend free markets emboldens the rioters. In destroying private property and impeding trade, these anarchists prove their aims aren't democratic. . . . The outrage of it all raises questions about Pelosi's real agenda in her one-sided criticism of tea partiers. By criticizing only tea partiers and ignoring rampant thugs, she seeks to repress peaceful dissent. With that setup, it's no surprise that there's a mudslide of violence now rolling down on us from an energized radical left." --/Investors' Business Daily/
"We warned of things to come, of the danger inherent in unwarranted government involvement in things not its proper province. What we warned against has come to pass. And today more than two-thirds of our citizens are telling us, and each other, that social engineering by the federal government has failed. The Great Society is great only in power, in size and in cost. And so are the problems it set out to solve. Freedom has been diminished and we stand on the brink of economic ruin. Our task now is not to sell a philosophy, but to make the majority of Americans, who already share that philosophy, see that modern conservatism offers them a political home. We are not a cult, we are members of a majority. Let's act and talk like it. The job is ours and the job must be done. If not by us, who? If not now, when? Our party must be the party of the individual. It must not sell out the individual to cater to the group. No greater challenge faces our society today than ensuring that each one of us can maintain his dignity and his identity in an increasingly complex, centralized society. Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business, galloping inflation, frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise. They are the residue of centralized bureaucracy, of government by a self-anointed elite. Our party must be based on the kind of leadership that grows and takes its strength from the people." --Ronald Reagan
Obama Seeks to Strike Down the Defense of Marriage Act:
"For the purposes of any Federal law in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual's marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State." --So-called Respect for Marriage Act, HR 3567
"[T]he Department of Justice has filed a response to a legal challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged. This brief makes clear, however, that my Administration believes that the Act is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress. I have long held that DOMA prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. While we work with Congress to repeal DOMA, my Administration will continue to examine and implement measures that will help extend rights and benefits to LGBT couples under existing law." --Pres. Barack H. Obama
"With a president who is committed to repaling DOMA and a broad, diverse coalition of Americans on our side, we now have a real opportunity to remove from the books this obnoxious and ugly law." --Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-NY, co-sponsor of HR 3567
"Marriage is not just any two people in a committed relationship. There's more to a marriage than that. A decisive majority of Americans believe this, and they are tired of being treated with contempt by politicians. . . . Many of those in favor of this bill argue that the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act is not intended to force same-sex 'marriage' on all the states. If that is not the intent, its supporters wouldn't be seeking to repeal the section of DOMA that makes it clear that states have a right to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman." --ADF (Alliance Defense Fund) Senior Counsel Brian Raum
November 24, 2008
Proposition 8 Aftermath
So I finally have the time to post on this issue. For those of you who have been avoiding the news like the plague here it is: Proposition 8 passed in California (although no by much) and now the homosexual community is calling for the resignation and/or boycott of anyone who contributed to the cause of passing it.
I have been reading plans of boycotts of people and places that did their Patriotic Duty by voting on an issue they felt strongly about. There was even a mob that descended on the LDS temple in Los Angeles.
One of the members of Film Independent (they help run the California Film Festival) supported proposition 8 and now there are many folks calling for his resignation and plans to boycott the festival.
I am a getting weary of the cry that homosexuals are being denied their "constitutional rights" and that this campaign is just like the civil rights campaigns in the 60's.
What civil rights? What constitutional right?
If I really want penguins to be recognized as Catholic priests, it's to bad; They are penguins and I don't have the right to change the definition of a priest.
My point is that there is no "right to be married." No one has the right to be married. It is a religious institution dating from the beginning of man (and before?). No matter how much people say that it's about love or equality marriage is between a man and woman. That's it. Sorry if it doesn't work for you. Please stop trying to graffiti the civil and social and cultural painting that is our country.
We all have problems but We The People learn to deal with them rather than force others to deal. We have the right to the pursuit of happiness; we are not guaranteed anything we want.
I have been reading plans of boycotts of people and places that did their Patriotic Duty by voting on an issue they felt strongly about. There was even a mob that descended on the LDS temple in Los Angeles.
One of the members of Film Independent (they help run the California Film Festival) supported proposition 8 and now there are many folks calling for his resignation and plans to boycott the festival.
I am a getting weary of the cry that homosexuals are being denied their "constitutional rights" and that this campaign is just like the civil rights campaigns in the 60's.
What civil rights? What constitutional right?
If I really want penguins to be recognized as Catholic priests, it's to bad; They are penguins and I don't have the right to change the definition of a priest.
My point is that there is no "right to be married." No one has the right to be married. It is a religious institution dating from the beginning of man (and before?). No matter how much people say that it's about love or equality marriage is between a man and woman. That's it. Sorry if it doesn't work for you. Please stop trying to graffiti the civil and social and cultural painting that is our country.
We all have problems but We The People learn to deal with them rather than force others to deal. We have the right to the pursuit of happiness; we are not guaranteed anything we want.
October 14, 2008
Homosexual "Rights" Infringing on Others
The basic idea of the Constitution is that you have the right to almost anything as long as it does not infringe on the right of others. It also does not place government power over private organizations. More and more rights are being infringed on, changed and taken away in the name of "equality." Here is an article that tells about the kinds of things going on.
To be clear, I believe that homosexuality is wrong. For all those of you who just scoffed and yelled and cursed my name: I am not a homosexual-hating, death-monger. I believe that homosexuality is a sin just like viewing pronography, doing drugs, or stealing. Some people are VERY vulnerable to these things; even to the point where they feel they cannot control it. I can understand this but it does not make it good or right. It does not mean an alcoholic is just programmed that way and therefore should just give in and expect other to make exceptions for him. I feel sorry for those who have to deal with homosexuality. I still believe that it is wrong and a sin.
Here is the article
======================
To be clear, I believe that homosexuality is wrong. For all those of you who just scoffed and yelled and cursed my name: I am not a homosexual-hating, death-monger. I believe that homosexuality is a sin just like viewing pronography, doing drugs, or stealing. Some people are VERY vulnerable to these things; even to the point where they feel they cannot control it. I can understand this but it does not make it good or right. It does not mean an alcoholic is just programmed that way and therefore should just give in and expect other to make exceptions for him. I feel sorry for those who have to deal with homosexuality. I still believe that it is wrong and a sin.
Here is the article
======================
When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash
NPR.org, June 13, 2008 ·
In recent years, some states have passed laws giving residents the right to same-sex unions in various forms. Gay couples may marry in Massachusetts and California. There are civil unions and domestic partnerships in Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Oregon. Other states give more limited rights.
Armed with those legal protections, same-sex couples are beginning to challenge policies of religious organizations that exclude them, claiming that a religious group's view that homosexual marriage is a sin cannot be used to violate their right to equal treatment. Now parochial schools, "parachurch" organizations such as Catholic Charities and businesses that refuse to serve gay couples are being sued — and so far, the religious groups are losing. Here are a few cases:
Adoption services: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination" — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.
Housing: In New York City, Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize same-sex marriage, but in 2001, the state's highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City's ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.
Parochial schools: California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls' parents sued, saying the school was violating the state's civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.
Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state's civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman's right to medical treatment will trump the doctor's religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.
Psychological services: A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee's religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.
Civil servants: A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.
Adoption services: A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple's application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California.
Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple's legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.
Wedding facilities: Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division ruled that the boardwalk property was open for public use, therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. In the interim, the state's Department of Environmental Protection revoked a portion of the association's tax benefits. The case is ongoing.
Youth groups: The city of Berkeley, Calif., requested that the Sea Scouts (affiliated with the Boy Scouts) formally agree to not discriminate against gay men in exchange for free use of berths in the city's marina. The Sea Scouts sued, claiming this violated their beliefs and First Amendment right to the freedom to associate with other like-minded people. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled against the youth group. In San Diego, the Boy Scouts lost access to the city-owned aquatic center for the same reason. While these cases do not directly involve same-sex unions, they presage future conflicts about whether religiously oriented or parachurch organizations may prohibit, for example, gay couples from teaching at summer camp. In June 2008, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to review the Boy Scouts' leases. Meanwhile, the mayor's office in Philadelphia revoked the Boy Scouts' $1-a-year lease for a city building.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)