Phyllis Schlafly Has Died. Finally.

They say evil never dies. And so, I'm forced to raise my previous opinion of the late Phyllis Schlafly. Slightly.

[Excerpt]

Phyllis Schlafly, towering social conservative figure, dies at 92

Phyllis Schlafly, a prominent anti-feminist and early leader of the social conservative movement, died Monday at the age of 92 at her home in St. Louis. . .

Read more at: CNN

Who Were the Victims of Orlando Pulse Mass Shooting

We have had numerous shootings in this country since the last "BAD" one, a statement you could make most days. Because no matter what you consider a really BAD one, there has almost always been a series of them that barely register as news. We're so used to them, something has to stand out for it even rise to the level of newsworthy, all-caps BAD. And to push the presidential nomination practically out of the news, it has to really be something.
This most recent one wasn't merely "BAD," it rates as the single-largest mass shooting in American history, and one of the worst terror attacks on American soil in history. It also contains so many hot-button political story elements, as to confuse anybody as to how to approach it, particularly when writing about it. Namely:

- The target was a popular gay bar, the victims obviously gay or gay-friendly,
- The event was "Latin night," providing a second minority in the mix, and
- It's gay pride month in the United States.
- The shooter was of Muslim/Middle-Eastern descent, but
- The shooter was born in the United States, and was a full-fledged citizen, and
- The shooter is alleged to have had Al Qaeda and ISIS allegiances, but
- The shooter very well may have been a lone wolf, glomming on to either or both of the above as inspiration, and not necessarily directed by anyone to carry out this action, and
- It's Ramadan.
- The shooter had violent tendencies, a police record, and was on the FBI's radar, but
- The weapons were legally obtained.

Edward Sotomayor Jr., 34, from source, Los Angeles Times

In this day of extreme political polarity in our country, and instantaneous social media interaction, there is immediate public and political response. But, because of the mixed nature of the elements of this story, it's been interesting (to say the least) to see how conservatives vs. liberals respond, how the presidential candidates respond and see where the media goes with the story.

Personally, I'm torn on the whole "hate crime vs. terrorism" angles on the story. I find this obsession by the political right that President Obama call any attack by a Muslim "Radical Islamic Terrorism" or some variation (their variation) bizarre. As if something magical would happen. I find the focus being taken away from the gay hate crime angle somewhat refreshing and somewhat irritating. As always, I find the ammosexuals' instantaneously rabid response to even the notion of talking about guns and gun laws ridiculous and revolting. Most of all, I'm sorry that all of this distracts from the actual victims of--again--the worst mass murder in American history. So, let's take a moment to focus on that.

Amanda Alvear, 25, from source, LA Times

[Excerpt]

Victims of the Orlando nightclub massacre: Who they were

A gunman opened fire in a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., early Sunday, killing at least 49 people and wounding more than 50 others in the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.

The shooter, identified by authorities as Omar Mateen, 29, of the Fort Pierce, Fla., area, was killed at the scene. Mateen, born in New York to parents who immigrated from Afghanistan, had worked as a security guard in Florida. Authorities said he had pledged allegiance to Islamic State and reportedly had told family members he was disgusted by gay people. . .

Read more at: Los Angeles Times

The Gay Thing: Mississippi Latest State to Embrace Bigotry Over Equality

I realized I'd better get a new post up, before people thought Greenlee Gazette had gone out of business or something! Truth is, as I've noted in my rare posts of late, blogging seems somehow redundant and unnecessary these days. The whole point of it was for me to express thoughts and feelings that I didn't think were being expressed anywhere. And along the way to entertain and to sometimes educate or help illuminate the dark corners of a story that otherwise gets a lot of play.

Lately--with the exception of the occasional horrific terrorist attach or other world event that takes the news cycle for a day or two--there has been a steady sameness to the news. Every day, in fact, you can find out if anything is going on in the world by turning on any of the cable news channels in the morning. If you are nothing is going on in the world. At least nothing you won't find without digging.

greeted with a round-table discussion of a) how the Republicans can try to stop the Donald Trump juggernaut, or b) how today's news is bad for Hillary Clinton, you can be fairly sure

And I'm sorry to say, blogosphere, that it's sort of anesthetized me to my usual desire to find out anyway. I promise it isn't a permanent condition, but it is a persistent one. So, I need to start paying attention.

Baby steps. Here's one: there is a wave of anti-gay, pro-"religious freedom" bills and laws sweeping the country. The scare quotes are deliberate, because these things are religious freedom in name only. The only thing I've yet to figure out is how many advocates for them (in and outside of politics) really believe the rhetoric behind them, and how many know better, that they're a way to whittle down the successes of the gay rights movement. I'm guessing it's something of a mixture, sort of akin to the Kinsey Scale, only measuring homophobia and religious fervor.

But since I'm sort of easing back into the blogging thing, let's go the humor route to get our feet wet, shall we?

Mississippi Anti-Gay Tourism Video from Funny Or Die

Donald Trump Would Nominate SCOTUS Justices to Overturn Gay Marriage Decision

Okay, here's yet another story where Donald Trump simply doesn't understand how the United States works. He's "not a fan" of the way the Supreme Court ruled in the Obergefell decision that rendered same-sex marriages legal across all 50 states, but he doesn't really have a clue about the issue. He says he'd want the decision overturned, and have it decided in the states.

It was left to the states. The states made a series of anti-gay amendments to their individual constitutions. These amendments were challenged. They worked their way up through local and state courts, to appeals courts to federal courts and ultimately to The Supreme Court of the United States. SCOTUS ruled them unconstitutional. Individual states (and their people) cannot legally enact unconstitutional laws.

THAT IS HOW IT WORKS.

Donald Trump fundamentally does not understand that, apparently. Nor does he seem to remember that as recently as a year ago, he called the whole thing a dead issue. He is clearly some combination of clueless, bullshitter, panderer and ignoramus. I'll let you decide on the percentages.

[Excerpt]

Donald Trump Says He Wants Supreme Court To Overturn Same-Sex Marriage

Donald Trump says he isn't a fan of the way the Supreme Court ruled on same-sex marriage. 
"I would have much preferred that they ruled at a state level and let the states make those rulings themselves," Trump told Fox News. . .

Read more at: Newsy

Ted Cruz Promises Iowa Crowd that Gay Marriage Will Be Reversed at SCOTUS

[Click to embiggen]

I've been toying with creating a Ted Cruz graphic ever since he came out with that "TRUSTED" graphic. It reminded me of United Airlines' ill-fated spinoff, Ted, a budget airlinelet. Cruz may not realize it, but he sort of ripped off their marketing schtick. And he surely didn't realize that a bunch of United employees had some fun with the (Word) + Ted, some unprintable.

I can't stand the man, as you might have surmised by my politics. But it goes beyond simple right vs. left. I find him odious on multiple levels. And when I think he's reached bottom, I find more levels.

This time, it's his promise to voters in Waterloo, Iowa that the Obergefell ruling by the Supreme Court, which effectively legalized same-sex marriage, will be overturned. With the implication, of course, that electing him will cause this "eventuality" to pass. This in a state that has had marriage equality for longer than most of the rest of the nation to no ill effect. Just a bunch of butt-hurt conservative crybabies like Steve Deace, Bob Vander Plaats, and oddly enough, a conservative preacher I went to school with.

So, Ted, here you go. Some brand new slogans to try out. They're more honest.

World AIDS Day: Flashing Back to "When AIDS Was Funny"

AIDS was, of course, never really funny. But for a time, people got titters about it, because it was "gay cancer," and openly gay Americans were rather rare, and the whole subject was treated like a joke. A dirty, truly tasteless joke. The most troubling fact about that, is that it wasn't just 13-year-old boys with pocket "dead baby" joke books treating it that way, but the official stance of the Reagan Administration. How much differently could the AIDS crisis have turned out, had Saint Ronnie treated the subject more seriously at the outset? We'll never know.

[Excerpt]

The Reagan Administration’s Unearthed Response to the AIDS Crisis Is Chilling

One of the most prominent stains on the reputation of the much-mythologized Reagan administration was its response, or lack of response, to the AIDS crisis as it began to ravage American cities in the early and mid-1980s. President Reagan famously (though, not famously enough) didn’t himself publicly mention AIDS until 1985, when more than 5,000 people, most of them gay men, had already been killed by the disease. Filmmaker Scott Calonico’s new documentary short, When AIDS Was Funny, exclusively debuting on VF.com, shows how the Reagan administration reacted to the mounting problem in chilling fashion. Not even Reagan’s appointed mouthpiece, notorious press secretary Larry Speakes, had much to say about the crisis beyond derisive laughter. . .


Read more (with video) at: Vanity Fair

Faux Christian Martyr Kim Davis in Jail, Conservative Twitterverse in Full Outrage Mode

Image from source, Boston Globe.

Yes, the Kounty Klerk from Kentucky has refused to do her job, issuing marriage licenses (to either gay or straight people), all the way to jail. She's flat-out wrong in her assertions that religious beliefs trump the rights of her constituents, or that they have any relevance whatsoever to her job duties. She honestly has no legal leg to stand on, and this is clear if you know even basic civics, and have a working, functional brain, unclouded by "truthiness" or overpowered by religious fervor.

Overwhelmingly, public sentiment (at least most places I've frequented in my admittedly unscientific studies) seems to be against Kim Davis and her quixotic quest. But a vocal (and very loud) contingent of conservative keyboard commandos is in full outrage mode. And so are several politicians and pundits, including some GOP presidential aspirants.

Now, while many of these people are crazy, there are sane, smart people among them. I may have a visceral distaste for some of them, like Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal and Mike Huckabee, but I don't think any (okay, most) of them are stupid people. So that leaves a few options here:

1. They are genuinely confused by the difference between "holy matrimony" and civil marriage, and/or ignorant of the fact that they are legally not the same thing.
2. They haven't thought through the ramifications of allowing a county-level politician to choose which laws to follow, or the consequences of giving religious exemption to a religious clerk over which laws they should enforce.
3. They are ignorant of the premise of the separation of church and state in the United States.
4. They are so blinded by homophobia, that it stunts their thinking processes.
5. They are pandering to the prejudices of the base conservative voter, either for their votes or to other ends (such as chipping away at the already earned right for same-sex couples to marry).

I'm betting on a mixture of 4 and 5. Ted Cruz can't really believe this is persecution for religious belief. It isn't. Ms. Davis' religious beliefs are intact, no matter if she issues legal documents or not. She is not a pastor or church official, she's civil servant. Her beliefs have nothing to do with the issuance of marriage licenses, anymore than it does with hunting licenses, gun licenses, driver licenses, business licenses or building permits.

She is 100% wrong, and anyone defending her now, or alleging some phony "War on Christianity" is either seriously confused about the facts of the case, is too invested in religion-based bigotry to see the facts clearly, or is being disingenuous. Period.

[Excerpt]

Kim Davis follows the footsteps of George Wallace
 
Kim Davis is in jail for contempt of court for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but make no mistake: this uncivil civil servant isn’t a religious freedom fighter. She’s a homophobe, pure and simple. “The court cannot condone the willful disobedience of its lawfully issued order,” said Judge David L. Bunning of Federal District Court. “If you give people the opportunity to choose which orders they follow, that’s what potentially causes problems.” Davis, county clerk for Rowan County, Kentucky, will be released when she complies with the law and issues marriage licenses to same-sex couples. . .

Read more at: Boston Globe

Civil Marriage to End in Alabama to Thwart Gay Marriage Ruling?

Okay, first of all, this doesn't make very much sense. Secondly, it would probably be unconstitutional. It is also pretty much the definition of "cutting off your nose to spite your face," and "taking your toys and going home, if you don't get your way." But overall, it doesn't really seem to fundamentally change anything either. I'm not sure what problem this "solves," if people can still sign a marriage contract. Apparently, they're just eliminating the licensing step? I would think the only effect is to deprive the state of some fees. But, I guess symbolically, they get to prove--yet again--that Republicans are mean, and that legal discrimination is a central tenet of the GOP/Evangelical religion.

[Excerpt]

Committee approves bill to take Alabama out of marriage biz

A state Senate committee has approved a bill to take Alabama probate judges out of the wedding license business following the U.S Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage. . .

Read more at: WIAT.com

The Gay Thing: "Sweet Cakes by Melissa" Story Built on Lies (Update: Minus One Lie)

UPDATE: This story has been updated by its source, RawStory. Update is below.

Because of the way court cases wend their way through processes and appeals, this moldy old case, Sweet Cakes by Melissa keeps coming around. It's a case about an Oregon bakery that ran afoul of public accommodation laws by refusing to sell a cake to a lesbian couple. I've written about it, and related other cases, several times before, here, for one instance.

Image from source, Raw Story

Let me start this time, by saying that the entire tactic being used by the religious right regarding wedding vendors, civil clerks and magistrates in resistance to same-sex marriage is 100% bullshit. Not just in places, or in some cases, but complete bullshit in every case. It's so wrongheaded, and wrong in so many places, that it's rather difficult to write about, because the list of wrongs--and the tangents it takes you down--are so extensive. But the short version is, we're talking about civil marriage, which is a contract, not a religious sacrament. Civil marriage has coexisted with "holy matrimony" for eons, without causing a religious crisis for vendors, businesses, magistrates and clerks. A lengthy list of examples of past civil marriages that do not comport with mainstream religious beliefs can be hastily brought to mind, and yet there was no flurry of RFRA laws and other attempts to skirt around the rights of Americans to get civilly married. Shorter still: atheists don't have problems buying wedding cakes.

That only happened when gay people started the quest to get the right to marry. Suddenly, religiously delicate wedding vendors were coming out of the woodwork claiming that these civil marriages conflicted with their "sincerely held beliefs." Apparently, only The Gay Thing is "sinful" enough to warrant this brand new understanding of "religious freedom," meaning the right to be exempted from certain laws (or to ignore them), and to trample and trump the empirical rights of gay customers. Oddly enough, they rarely even try to define which "sincerely held belief" prevents them from selling their wares to gay couples, or how these beliefs enter into a typical business transaction in the first place. There's lots of bogus talk about them having to "participate in," "celebrate" or "condone" the ceremony by selling their product or service, all claims that are either in extreme dispute, or flatly disprovable.



Apparently, this is either "Sweet Cakes," or "Melissa."

What makes the Sweet Cakes by Melissa story even more of a lie, is that it started out before there was legal gay marriage in Oregon. This was a story about a couple, the Kleins, who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple's commitment ceremony reception. Not a sacred and/or legal ceremony. The Kleins broke the law doing this, since there is a state law that prohibits businesses from discriminating against sexual orientation, along with the standard list of gender, religion, race, and what have you. Yet, whenever the Kleins' story is recounted, you will be told (usually by the Kleins or by some of the loudly religious groups that have helped martyr them) that this had to do with the legalization of same-sex marriage. The Kleins' legal drama is consistently touted as a consequence. It wasn't.

[Excerpt]

Oregon bakers weren’t fined over cake — they were punished for sharing lesbian couple’s home address [See correction below]

The anti-LGBT owners of an Oregon bakery were not fined simply for refusing to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple – they were ordered to pay $135,000 in damages for intentionally causing their would-be customers emotional distress. e case has attracted widespread media attentiothe couple first filed their complaint in Januay 2013, and that is largely through the efforts of Aaron and Melissa Klein, the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa.

Read more at: RawStory

"Correction: An earlier version of this article contained a significant error that resulted from failure to distinguish the difference between the agency’s recommendation and the commissioner’s final ruling. The bakers were not, as previously reported, punished for threats by others against the couple, as the agency had recommended. They were ordered by the commissioner to pay damages to the couple for emotional harm caused by their unlawful discrimination. We regret the error, and we would like to thank Eugene Volokh for clarifying the distinction." --RawStory 07/12/15

The Gay Thing: What About The Anti-Gay Side of the Marriage Decision?

I could go on at length (and have) about the anti-gay side of the marriage equality battle. After Friday's Supreme Court decision, however, my extreme case of schadenfreude has me feeling especially disrespectful, uncaring for their feelings, and absolutely heedless of their "sincerely held beliefs." My give-a-shit meter is officially pegged in "don't."


Image from source, Salon.

So, rather than spend all evening on a rant about these all of these chuckle-heads, sore losers, illogical douche waffles and hateful homophobes, I'm going straight to an excerpt of an excellent post on the subject by Bob Cesca. He's snarky--and even a bit rude--but he's better at it than I am.

[Excerpt]

The GOP’s apocalyptic gay-marriage freakout: “I will not acquiesce to an imperial court”

It was just over 11 years ago, and I distinctly recall sitting in my garage, tears rolling down my face, feeling completely and utterly crushed. George W. Bush had just been re-elected in arguably the most cynical, awful way possible. It turns out that ballot initiatives banning same-sex marriage in two-dozen states motivated social conservatives to vote in higher numbers, tipping the balance in favor of that horrendous chief executive and his even more horrendous vice president. In all my years of covering politics, election day 2004 was possibly the darkest day up to that point. . .

Read more at: Salon

Rachel Maddow Indulges in Some Franklin Graham Schadenfreude

The fact that televangelical dynasties are a thing now ought to bother people. Sure, folks like Jerry Falwell and Oral Roberts and Billy Graham caught on with the (gullible) public for some reason. Fine. I get that. But now that the first generation is gone or going, each seems to have a son following in the "family business," and for some reason they're given a similar level of reverence and relevance. Why? What did this idiotic, hateful son of Graham do to warrant him even being newsworthy?

Well, for some reason televangelists are now apparently like car dealership dynasties, and will get to hold down a corner of their "industry" in perpetuity. Since they won't fade into obscurity, at least they will continue to say ridiculous things, and make idiotic public stands like this one. It helps to be able to laugh heartily at their expense.
 

The Gay Thing: Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal Issues Anti-Gay Executive Order

Wow. Just wow. Not only is Gov. "Bobby" Jindal willing to publicly mix his religion with his politics, willing to go to the mat for this "sincerely held religious belief" bullshit about marriage and wedding vendors in the face of intense bipartisan backlash. . .he's willing to do it unilaterally, and by actually pointing out that this is about The Gays. Usually, they don't do that.

Okay, so I've said it a lot, but I'm saying it again: this issue is bogus, from top to bottom. There is no doctrine that forbids Christian businesspeople from selling their wares to gay people. Or for weddings that their own church doesn't recognize. This was never an issue for any of the countless heterosexual "courthouse weddings," never an issue before gays got legal recognition. Moreover, the public sale of common goods or services is not taking place under the guise of religion, or in a religious context. Religion does not enter into the business transaction. It didn't work as an argument during the 60s civil rights era, and it shouldn't work now.

Image from source, Joe.My.God.

There are other issues with their line of argument, namely that though these things are dreamed up by Christians from a Christian perspective about their mysterious fixation on a "sin" that is scarcely mentioned in the Bible, Christianity is not the only religion. Also, weddings aren't the only events a religious person could have religious beliefs toward. Nor are civil marriages even necessarily religious in nature n the first place. Annnnnd, of course, a person's religious rights apply to themselves, not their customers, not their employees. You--as a business owner, proprietor, cashier, whatever--don't get to shun me because my religious beliefs down align with yours! It's absurd!

But back to Bobby. His state legislature nixed this kind of nonsense, amazingly enough. So, he's doing an end-run, and issuing an executive order. Specifically addressing marriage. It's got to be unconstitutional, and it's certainly mean-spirited. It's also tremendously out of step with the times. And it sets up a whole host of problems that Bobby likely gave almost no thought to, including but not limited to demands from Christians for exemptions to other laws, whether anti-gay, or anti-someone else; demands from other existing religions for exemptions to other laws, and. . .just wait for it. . .demands from possibly newly born religions for exemptions based upon "sincerely held beliefs" about. . .well, whatever they can dream up.

Because the nifty (and bizarre) thing about "sincerely held belief" is that it need not be backed up with doctrine, or commandments, or anything more than what's inside your noggin. These beliefs can even be contradicted by empirical fact (as in Hobby Lobby, which was actually cited in the order), and still be sincerely held.

[Excerpt]

LOUISIANA: Bobby Jindal Issues Executive Order Legalizing Anti-Gay Discrimination
 
Earlier today a Louisiana House committee rejected the bill that would have legalized anti-gay discrimination. That rejection came after big business, including IBM, denounced the bill. Unswayed, Gov. Bobby Jindal has already followed through on his vow to issue an executive order that bypasses the state legislature. . .

Read more at: Joe.My.God.
 

The Gay Thing: Texas Continues Assault on Gay People (and the Constitution)

It's no secret that the climate for liberalism in general and gay people in particular is not a friendly one. You could set a Google Alert containing the words "anti-gay" and "Texas," and you'd likely get news just about every day. But it is difficult to take seriously when you see stories like this one.



Cletus McGoober Cecil Bell

Here, you have state legislators passing laws that are clearly unconstitutional, and ridiculous on their face. They wear their animus completely openly, right up front. And the man leading the charge looks like a cartoonish villain, straight out of a B movie. Cecil Bell is his name, and even that sounds invented. "All hat, no cattle" seems to have been invented for him as well.

I'm sorry for my Texan gay friends and family that you have to put up with these indignities. But at least they give it to you with huge doses of comedy.

[Excerpt]

Texas Lawmakers Advance 'Pastor Protection Act,' Continue Full-Fledged Assault On Same-Sex Marriage

Last week, we told you how witnesses compared same-sex marriage to bestiality and pedophilia when they testified in support of a bill that would prevent churches and pastors from being forced to participate in gay weddings. On Monday, the Texas Senate responded by advancing the bill in a 21-10 vote, with one Democrat joining the chamber's 20 Republicans. . .

Read more at: Towleroad

The Gay Thing: Rick Santorum and Ted Cruz Get "Would You Go to a Gay Wedding" Question

Human irritant (and redundantly named) Hugh Hewitt asked two of the many human irritants running for the GOP presidential nomination, about whether or not they'd attend a gay wedding. Predictably, they give pander-to-the-base answers, but at least Rick (don't Google me) Santorum comes right out and says it: NO. His logic is a mess, but at least he gets right to the point, even if he tries to make his reasoning less douchey than it actually is. Ted Cruz just goes full politi-speak douche.

 

Jon Stewart: A Million Gays to Deny in the Midwest

Brilliant, per usual. Jon, I'm going to miss you.

The Daily Show
Daily Show Full Episodes,  More Daily Show Videos,  Comedy Central Full Episodes

The Daily Show
Daily Show Full Episodes,  More Daily Show Videos,  Comedy Central Full Episodes

The Gay Thing: Here is Why Religious Objections to Gay Marriage are BUNK

Yes, The Gay Thing again. Sorry for being sort of a one-track-blog lately, but this topic just keeps bobbing up to the top. And the level of stupid amongst blogs, social media, Right Wing World and even from elected officials, is really starting to irritate me to the point of distraction.

I've struggled with writing a streamlined rebuttal to all of these "Religious Freedom Restoration Acts" that keep cropping up, and with the arguments behind them. Then I realized, there is a very simple reason why "marriage" isn't some special, sanctified, sacred, religious haven immune to ordinary laws. And here it is:


Attention RFRA Supporters: Not a church.

Civil marriage and "holy matrimony" have coexisted for decades, centuries even, and have not heretofore presented a religious conflict for wedding and formal event vendors.

That's it. That proves, a) that the perspective of the religiously sensitive cake baker or florist is anti-gay bigotry wrapped in religion, and b) that legal protection for their position is unnecessary.

Everyone knows that the Catholic Church, for example, has been free to ignore the validity of any couple's marriage that they don't deem to fit with their doctrine. Even congregants in good standing have been denied a "church wedding" within its walls. This is still true now, and will remain true unless the Vatican changes its mind on the subject, not whether or not the United States changes its civil laws. The same is true for any church or religion, as it pertains to what they consider valid in their religion.

Wedding reception hall (cakes, flowers, catering):
Also, not a church.

At the same time, many marriages have either no formal religious endorsement, or no religious component at all. There has been no recent prohibition against marriages by atheists, agnostics, interfaith couples, previously married couples, excommunicated Catholics or really, hardly any combination of unrelated, consenting adults. These marriages have co-existed with those considered to be religiously sanctified for time immemorial. These people have purchased cakes, flowers, catering, photography, tuxedos, dresses, hired reception halls, been listed on gift registries, been featured in newspapers, and managed to do it all without creating  religious crises for any of the vendors involved.

The fact that now--now that same-sex marriage is a reality, and soon probably a nation-wide one--suddenly "requires" special exemptions to laws, and protections for religious belief ought to be very telling to everyone what this is really all about: anti-gay bigotry. How can all of the above be true, and this simple fact not be obvious? These vendors managed to ignore any "sincerely held beliefs" about their clients' private lives and personal morality before. Why has that suddenly changed for this particular category of "sinner?" And how can it possibly be legally justified?

Well, it can only be justified if you ignore precedent, logic, reason and go merely for truthiness and "gut-feel," and if you have a tendency to feel squishy about religious teachings. Because even if we did have to bend over backwards for religious belief in any and all case law, Christians have thus far been unable to present which commandment or bit of doctrine forbids selling wares to "sinners" in the first place. But, now I'm off on a tangent. Here, read this excellent article that tends to back me up, won't you?

Image from source, Think Progress

[Excerpt]

Why The Christian Right May Never Recover From Indiana

Maurice Bessinger built his fortune serving barbecue. At the half-dozen locations of his Piggie Park restaurants, customers could enjoy meats slathered in the yellow, mustard-based sauce unique to South Carolina. That is, of course, unless they were black, for Bessinger was also a proud racist. As late as the twenty-first century, Piggie Park distributed tracts to its customers claiming that the Bible is a pro-slavery document — one of them claimed that African slaves “blessed the Lord for allowing them to be enslaved and sent to America.” After Congress banned whites-only restaurants in 1964, Bessinger reportedly put up an uncensored version of a sign warning that “[t]he law makes us serve n***ers, but any money we get from them goes to the Ku Klux Klan. . .”

Read more at: Think Progress

The Gay Thing: After Extreme Silliness, Louisiana Deadly, Seriously Anti-Gay

Even though I haven't blogged very much of late, most of it has been on the same theme: anti-gay legislation by Republicans. There is a "gay panic" going on over the perceived imminence of a Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality. Religious conservatives are desperate for a way to wiggle out of having to recognize, acknowledge, "participate in" or even catch a glimpse of legal same-sex marriage.

Some of these new stories manage to take hold in the public, and take over news cycles, but they veer wildly from righteous indignation (on the LGBT/ally side) to hyperbolic shrieking (on the religious nutbar side), to extreme knee-jerk overreaction (on both sides) to extraordinarily stupid analogies (mostly on the nutbar side), and eventual subject burnout. I'm exhausted by the subject at the moment. But then, it suddenly gets real again.

Now, I've written in this space how difficult a topic this is to tackle, because there is so much wrong with the right's straw man arguments. There is sort of a field full of straw men, each assembled from so much wrong stuff, there's no straight-ahead approach to mow them all down. I keep trying, but it ain't easy. Suffice it to say that the conservative case for discrimination-as-freedom side is 10 kinds of wrong. Check my previous recent posts for further info on the subject, the tangent is too long to get back into here.

No, the subject of this post shows that the silliness of the pizza place (now fat with cash, thanks to bigot-bred fundraising) story was an aberration. The real danger is still steaming down the tracks, and the latest train comes from Louisiana, which is poised to go "full Indiana" on us, only they've cranked it up to 11. They've done us the favor of actually singling out gay people though, which may finally unwittingly shine a truth flashlight on this thing, that can't be dodged.

[Excerpt]

Extreme ‘Religious Liberty’ Bill Could Make Louisiana The Next Indiana

Louisiana is the latest state considering adopting a religious freedom bill, after state Rep. Mike Johnson (R) introduced legislation Friday that could allow businesses to refuse service for same-sex weddings and deny benefits to employees in same-sex marriages. The legislation follows bills passed in Indiana and Arkansas that led to outcry from an array of businesses and conventions, and according to experts who spoke to the New Orleans Times-Picayune, “would be a license to the private sector to refuse, for religious or moral reasons, to recognize same-sex marriages.” But while Indiana and Arkansa’s Religious Freedom Restoration Acts safeguard business owners who might discriminate, the Louisiana bill, titled the “Marriage and Conscience Act,” specifically endorses that discrimination. . .

Read more at: Think Progress

The Gay Thing: "Memories Pizza" is First Indiana Business to Publicly Endorse RFRA

So, apparently there is this mom-n-pop pizza joint in Indiana. And they are either a) courting controversy to drum up business, b) really want to jump on the "fame by martyrdom" conservative lecture circuit or c) want to go out of business. Perhaps it's some combination of those. The business has allegedly been around for nine years, but had to this point only ever garnered a couple of Yelp reviews.

Not anymore! They are full to the edge of the crust with Yelp reviews now! And many of them are hilarious. My favorite:



(Hilarious) image from source, Yelp reviews.

"Ever since this business came out against homosexuals i worry about it. I worry that people will order carry out over and over and over with out picking it up. I think this would ruin this fine establishment and these fantastic people. That would be super duper wrong. These fine Christlike people also deliver. Please DO NOT use your gay powers to call in fake deliveries. This would be equally detrimental to a heterosexual business struggling to make its way in an increasingly homo world."

Read for yourself: Click here: Memories Pizza - Walkerton, IN | Yelp

OMG! A Keith Olbermann Special Comment on Indiana Anti-Gay Law

Oh wow, do I miss Keith Olbermann. I kind of wish I had the barest interest in sports. . .
 

Indianapolis Star Demands: Governor Pence, Fix This Law

Wow. Front page, pretty much the entire "above the fold" section of the paper. Of course, The Indianapolis Star has to give Governor Pence the benefit of the doubt by couching the demand in "whatever the original intent of the law" language (we know the intent, it was clear, despite the back-peddling). But I'm impressed with the swift and furious response to this law, something Pence obviously thought was going to work to his advantage. He couldn't have been more wrong.

[Excerpt]

Image from source, IndyStar

Editorial: Gov. Pence, fix 'religious freedom' law now
 
We are at a critical moment in Indiana's history. And much is at stake. Our image. Our reputation as a state that embraces people of diverse backgrounds and makes them feel welcome. And our efforts over many years to retool our economy, to attract talented workers and thriving businesses, and to improve the quality of life for millions of Hoosiers. . .

Read more at: IndyStar