Monday, September 25, 2017

Hate groups and a Christian couple announce intent to discriminate against gays and somehow THEY are victims

Two hate groups, American Family Association and Alliance Defending Freedom, are lambasting a federal judge for upholding the law.
Jeremy Tedesco
Hate group lawyer and bigotry enabler Jeremy Tedesco of
Alliance Defending Freedom
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado will be decided by the Supreme Court this term. However, as things stand today, state and local nondiscrimination laws protecting LGBT people are in full force and effect. That is the law of the land supported by numerous precedents.1

The Current case involves a small company, Telescope Media and its owners, Carl and Angel Larsen. ADF filed a pre-enforcement action on their behalf last December with the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Minnesota’s Human Rights Act makes it illegal “to deny any person the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of a place of public accommodation because of race, color, creed, religion, disability, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, or sex.” [Minn. Stat. Ann. § 363A.11(1)].

At the core of their civil complaint is this nonsense:
The Larsens would violate their religious beliefs about marriage by using their media production and filmmaking talents to produce a video promoting or communicating the idea that marriage can exist between anyone but one man and one woman.

But Minnesota law forces the Larsens to produce videos promoting a conception of marriage that directly contradicts their religious beliefs if they produce videos promoting marriages between one man and one woman
According to Michael Haverluck at AFA's “news” blog: “Minn. judge: Religious liberty bows to LGBT 'rights.' Note the moronic quotation marks around the word “rights” to ensure that people know that gays have no legal rights, at least not according to the rather dim mind of Mr. Haverluck who goes on to write:
An activist Democratic judge in Minnesota has ruled that an LGBT mandate trumps the religious rights protections guaranteed to Americans under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
I find it hard to believe that even conservative Christians would find agreement with this mindless rhetoric, The judge in question is John R. Tunheim who has been a federal judge since 1995 and is currently Chief Judge of that district. As we all know, an “activist” judge is a jurist who makes a decision that someone doesn't like. An LGBT mandate is synonymous with the Homosexual Agenda©. A valid law is in place. It does not provide religious exemptions and gays are a protected class. Those supposed First Amendment rights that Christians insist are theirs do not exist. Free Exercise does not include a right to discriminate in violation of applicable law. What they are seeking is an extension to the First Amendment to provide what amounts to Christian privilege.
Appointed back in 1995 by former President Bill Clinton, federal judge John Tunheim continued his long string of pro-LGBT activism for the Democratic Party on Wednesday by ordering two Christian videographers, Carl and Angel Larsen, to use their filmmaking talents – through their company, Telescope Media Group – to promote same-sex marriage. This promotion of the LGBT lifestyle must take place if the Christian couple produces films that celebrate the biblical construct of marriage as only between one man and one woman.
If there is a “long string of pro-LGBT activism” on behalf of this judge I cannot find it. Indeed, the only applicable case that I found was a ruling that a Pride festival could not exclude some crackpot handing out bibles in 2010. Nor, obviously, has the judge ordered the good Christians to film anything. The ruling requires them to offer their services to gay couples if they offer the same service to heterosexual couples. Moreover, if they did film a same-sex marriage, they aren't promoting anything other than their services.

In fact the self-absorbed sanctimonious couple is no more celebrating a marriage that they might be hired to film than the hypothetical chair rental company that provides seats for asses. Where does this bullshit end? How about the driver of the truck that delivers those chairs? Can he claim some sort of conscientious objection without getting his ass unseated by his employer? Arguably the videographer has a more intimate relationship with the ceremony than that driver. However, neither have a vested interest in the marriage.
Twisting the law

Tunheim made what many Christians and other conservatives consider an outrageous claim when he equated a biblical view on sexuality to racism – in an attempt to make the case a civil rights issue – but a challenge is already under way.

“Their lawyers announced immediately they will appeal the decision by Tunheim, who charged in his opinion that the Larsens’ faith-based objection to creating videos promoting same-sex relationships is ‘akin to a ‘White Applicants Only’ sign’” …
These bigots do not like to be called bigots and they do not like their bigotry to be compared to racism. Many famous civil rights leaders claim otherwise. To quote the esteemed Julian Bond:
African Americans … were the only Americans who were enslaved for two centuries, but we were far from the only Americans suffering discrimination then and now … Sexual disposition parallels race. I was born this way. I have no choice. I wouldn't change it if I could. Sexuality is unchangeable.
I will remind these bigots that white supremacists make the same “faith-based objection” to nondiscrimination laws as they affect Jews, people of color and others.
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) Senior Counsel Jeremy Tedesco pointed out the one-sidedness of the decision.

“Tolerance is a two-way street,” Tedesco argued, according to WND. “Creative professionals who engage in the expression of ideas shouldn’t be threatened with fines and jail simply for having a particular point of view about marriage that the government may not favor. Public officials can’t censor filmmakers or demand that they tell stories in film that violate their deepest convictions.”
I am so sick and tired of the same dishonest BS over and over again. “Tolerance is a two-way street” means that we are supposed to tolerate intolerance. It doesn't make a whit of sense. Furthermore, no one cares about the point of view of Tedesco's clients. They are free to believe that popcorn is ungodly for all I care. Belief and nondiscrimination are two entirely different things. In fact, nondiscrimination laws provide the ultimate freedom to businesses. They can (and should) “render unto Caesar” without concern for what the deity likes or doesn't like. The state is giving them an escape clause. They are free to inform their client that they are donating the profits to Family Research Council if that makes them feel better.

But that would not make them feel better. They require a super-legal “right” to demonstrate their disapproval. It's a win-win. Either they enjoy that right and are able to demean gay people or they are denied the right in which case they claim victimhood. Of the two there seems to be a marked preference to be victims — an opportunity to share in biblical suffering at the expense of others.

You see they have already done their damage. At taxpayer expense (and there will be more) they have had the opportunity to claim that gay couples are inferior and their marriages evil. Tedesco is already planning an appeal which will extend the exposure to his homophobia. Let us remember that Jeremy Tesesco is in the employ of a malevolent hate group. These pro bono law firms do not have clients controlling expenditures so they will take every case as far as they can go. In fact the economic logic is the reverse of an ordinary law firm. The more they expend on these cases, the more donations they receive from the faithful. The donations outstrip the expenses.
He [Tedesco] said forcing one’s opinions on others and silencing those who hold different views violates the rights guaranteed to Americans by the Constitution.

“[People] should have the freedom to disagree on critical matters of conscience, which is why everyone, regardless of their view of marriage, can support the Larsens,” the legal expert insisted. “The same government that can force them to violate their faith and conscience can force any one of us to do the same. That’s why we plan to appeal this ruling to the 8th Circuit.”
The dishonesty is appalling. It says something about ADF's constituency. The Larsens are those who want to force their opinions on others and they are not being silenced in any way whatsoever. The Larsens continue to have the legal right to disagree all they want and keep in mind that now they will never have to video a same-sex wedding. They pulled that card from life's deck by exposing their bigotry so publicly. Furthermore, they are no more being forced to violate their faith than the Klansman who is required to seat a black customer in his restaurant, He would excuse his bigotry with the same religious objection.2
“[Our business] exists to tell great stories that honor God,” the couple declared in a statement attained by ADF. [We are expanding into wedding video services to] reanimate the hearts and minds of people about the goodness of marriage between a man and a woman.”

Yet this vision is prohibited by Judge Tunheim and the state of Minnesota, who insist that the couple’s faith must bow down to the state’s pro-LGBT definition of marriage that includes homosexual relationships – running in direct opposition to the Bible’s one man, one woman definition.
So of course they have incorporated their business as a nonprofit organization. No? No. Actually this has little to do with marriage since I would bet that our little bigots would not film a commitment ceremony either. Moreover, the state's definition of marriage is represented by Obergefell v. Hodges. It might be pro-LGBT but, according to the Supreme Court, it is pro-Constitution and involves the concept of civil marriage. There are myriad beliefs concerning what constitutes a marriage. It depends on one's flavor of superstition.

Imagine how batcrap crazy these people would be if a Muslim refused service to a Christian couple based on their religious beliefs.
Confusing ‘LGBT rights’ with civil rights

It is contended that current tide that continues to erode religious liberty in America was started by former President Barack Obama, who insisted that the U.S. was never a “Christian nation” – despite the fact that 97 percent of its Founding Fathers were Christian.

“During the last year of Obama’s administration, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) under his direction lamented how many restrictions there were on the government’s ability to restrict the impact of religious beliefs.
Oh, blame the negro. In point of fact, sexual orientation was incorporated into Minnesota's Human Rights Act in 1993. President Obama would have been 32 years of age. Furthermore, whether these hate groups approve or not, civil rights are the rights of people to political and social equality. What the hate groups mean is that the constitution rights of African-Americans are more important than the constitutional rights of LGBT people.

Whether or not they respect the civil rights of black people is another question. Their agenda is to create friction between the black and LGBT communities. The insinuation is that we are taking something away from African-Americans. It is a sinister and un-American endeavor. They are using blacks more than they are protecting them.

The rest of the post relates to Obama and his evils. It is not worth my time and it is irrelevant to this issue which is one of state law.

We will have to endure this nonsense until Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is settled by the Supreme Court next June. ADF is not interested in law as much as they are interested in Christian supremacy.

———
1Among the precedents are Reynolds v. United States (1879) and Employment Division v. Smith (1990). In Reynolds the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a religious duty does not provide an exemption to applicable law and that, while it is impermissible for the state to regulate belief, it can regulate conduct. In Smith, the Court ruled that there are no religious exemptions to otherwise valid laws. Scalia wrote the opinion for the majority in Smith.

Justice Blackmun's dissent in Smith (joined by Brennan and Marshall) focused on the broader issue of whether or not the state had a compelling interest in limiting the religious use of peyote. There can be no doubt, I suspect, that the state has a compelling interest in preventing discrimination. If precedence means anything, the Court will rule in favor of Colorado in the pending action, including Chief Justice Roberts.

2In 1968 the Court awarded full attorney's fees to the plaintiff in Newman v. Piggie Park which presupposes the validity of Newman having prevailed in the lower courts. Piggie Park, a chain of fast-food restaurants did not seat black people. The owner claimed that “his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever.” Piggie's pretext was plunked.

Related content:



No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.