Braggadocious! - Randy Rainbow Takes on Donald Trump

This has really made the rounds, but in case you haven't yet seen it, give it a twirl. It' quite inventive, especially when you consider how quickly it was produced after last Monday's debate. It's a wonderfully clever take on Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious from Mary Poppins, and skewers The Donald in many great and huge ways. It's tremendous. Believe me.

Breaking: Donald Trump's Response Speech on the Orlando Mass Shooting

Donald Trump's response to the mass shooting at the Pulse gay nightclub in Orlando was truly bizarre. It swayed wildly from compassionate, to almost profoundly rational, to unhinged and nonsensical. Looking particularly badly color-tuned, with day-glo yellow fiberglass looking hair, Trump started out blasting Islamic terrorism, intimating it was the sole consuming issue. Then--surprisingly--he swung into a passionate-though-scripted-sounding defense of gay people and their freedom, and then incoherent sentences with absolutely self-contradictory verbiage.


At one point, he's attempting to thrash Hillary Clinton, using the attack as a foundation, and then goes from there to flat-out lying about her positions on gun control. No, Mr. Trump, Mrs. Clinton has never advocated either "gun grabbing," nor abolishing the 2nd Amendment.

The speech is very difficult to follow, with points to like, points to vehemently disagree with, and parts to just scratch your head at. It will be very interesting to see how it ultimately lands with the people, and with the punditry. As I type this, he still is talking (giving this write-up its own likely somewhat muddled syntax), and is using some facts, some hypebole, some subjective opinions, some objective truth, and far too many parenthetical half-thoughts.

That's a photo from my TV. Do not adjust your set. . .

In short, he's all over the place. But more so than usual. Anti Muslim (except some good Muslims, but they're all bad, except when they're not, and on and on). Pro-Constitution, except when convenient, particularly when finding out about Muslims.

In addition to looking even more garishly colored than usual--bigly or big league, your choice--he also has a curiously audible inhalation every few lines.

Keep your eyes and ears open on this one. Because in the as-it-happens, this is impossible to figure out. He's pro-gun control, anti-gun control, anti-Obama and anti-Hillary to the point of utter dishonesty. He seems to have gone full-throatedly pro-gay, while refusing to be "politically correct." He seems to advocate some implicitly political correct ideas, but misconstrues the concept of PC as inherently bad.

He wrongly states that the shooter was born Syria (he was born in New York), implies that his policy could "Keep them out" (again, he was born in New York), and can't seem to stay on subject beyond one or two sentences. He seems to think that it's been years since the San Bernardino shooting. He jumps from Obama to Hillary, from specific to vague. He's forceful, I'll give him that. That kind of "wrong but strong" that works with dumb people. But if you parse this thing, it's an utter mishmash. It's like someone shoved a microphone in my Step Dad's hand, after he's had a couple of rum and Cokes, and just let him riff.

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

Mr. Tangerine Man (Another Rocky Mountain Mike Song Parody)

It's been a while since I've posted a Rocky Mountain Mike song parody. Not because he stopped making them, or because he hasn't remained funny. But, because this campaign has ground me down to a little blogging nubbin. I'm finding the art of blogging isn't rewarding enough to pay more attention to all the foolishness going on. But this one caught my eye, lifted my spirits, and gave me the gumption to get it up on the ol' blog! A riff on The Byrds' Mr. Tambourine Man about the bloated pumpkin-headed Donald Trump was both obvious and genius. Good goin' Mike!

For more from Rocky Mountain Mike, please go here.

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

Open Letter to Arianna Huffington: "Queer Voices" Has Got to Go

Ms. Huffington:

In recent days, The Huffington Post has unceremoniously re-branded its LGBT news section, "Queer Voices." Its previous name, Gay Voices was deemed to be too exclusionary, as not everyone under the sexual minorities umbrella considers themselves to be gay.

Yes, ma'am, I'm talking to you.

The problem is, "Queer" as a word carries a lot of baggage, most of it quite negative. To many--and I'm one of them--it's plainly offensive, particularly if used by others to define me. If a person wants to identify as "queer?" Knock themselves out. Don't assign it to me. If a gay organization or publication wants to use the word or a "Q" or a variant (such as Queerty)? It doesn't bother me. It's from the community, for the community. There is no hint of malice. But when it's a section of what is essentially an online mainstream newspaper? No. No.

I understand the impulse to change the name, and it is doubtless true that you've probably received criticism from trans people, bisexual people and anyone else who doesn't identify primarily as "gay." I also understand that coming up with a short, succinct heading is quite difficult, because by its nature, a short name has a difficult job being inclusionary. Somebody is bound to be left out of a lot of the options out there.

My own gay section doesn't try to solve the riddle, since it's
just little old me here. I'm not LGBT, I'm just "G."

This is borne out by the history of the most common identifier of LGBT. We've gone from "Gay" to "Gay & Lesbian," to "Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual," to "GLBT," (which is pronounceable as glibbit, and includes trans-, whether transsexual or transvestite), to LGBT (ladies first, but unpronounceable). That pretty much stuck, but it started to gather barnacles of other letters and symbols, because it still didn't include everybody. And though that seems only natural, it also starts getting unwieldy, and begging your pardon, quite ridiculous.

The entire point of an abbreviation is that it be shorter, and succinct. LGBTTQQF*GPBDS? doesn't do that. And, invariably, it's still going to leave somebody out. So, I can appreciate HuffPo's dilemma. "Gay" doesn't cut it, what are the succinct alternatives?

- LGBT Voices, probably nixed for the reasons listed above
- Pride Voices, reasonable, inoffensive, probably in use somewhere else
- Lambda Voices, probably too obscure
- Rainbow Voices, probably too vague
- Alternative Lifestyles, nearly as bad as Queer Voices for a lot of reasons

So, again, I understand your dilemma. I happen to think you blew it, royally. You'd have done better by inventing a word, and sub-titling it with a description. You could've done something plain like, "Huffington Post Pride Page," or something more vague like, "Our World: Huffington Post's LGBTetc. Pride Page." Ultimately, it's not up to me. That's why you, Ms. Huffington make the big bucks. But changing "Gay" to "Queer" to be more inclusive and less divisive utterly misses the mark.

I wrote this as an open letter for the simple reason that this little dark corner of the internet was inspired by The Huffington Post, though my sights weren't nearly as lofty (thank goodness). Along with John Aravosis' AmericaBlog, I decided to start my own blog because of HuffPo some nine years ago. I've continued to read it daily, and have used it many times as a source for articles and links. I haven't loved everything, and am utterly lost as to why your entertainment writers are seemingly obsessed with the Kardashians to the point of absurdity. But I've always felt included in the Gay Voices section. Queer Voices doesn't feel remotely as welcoming.

Sincerely,

James L. Greenlee, Editor
Greenlee Gazette

David Bowie, Dead at 69

Bowie looking utterly normal.

When I was little, I remember being up late--Mom usually let us stay up late on weekends--and watching The Midnight Special. I don't know how young I was, exactly. But young enough to be baffled at what I was seeing. A man in a bright red fright wig, bright makeup, high-heeled  platform shoes, and a strapless feather dress, singing.  "Does not compute," I thought, if not in those exact words. I had no idea what I was looking at, but I recognized it as daring, different, intriguing.

It was David Bowie, and my first concrete realization that maybe I was different too. I'm not saying I got why, exactly, and I'm not saying that whatever was driving Bowie to be a gender-bender in those days has anything to do with my own sexual identity (especially since I was clueless on that front at the time), but I felt kinship. and though I may have one or two details wrong, I never forgot it.

Along the way, as I started paying attention, I'd catch Bowie being Bowie, and still feel that pull of kinship (but alarming, unspoken kinship), when I saw his Diamond Dogs album cover. And as with Freddie Mercury and Elton John (more of that familiarity for no yet known reason), he was considered to be edgy and cool. I still don't know how he and they managed rock star status in the 70s without any notable backlash.

Bowie's memorable look from Labyrinth

Bowie dropped the glam-rock image over a few more years, and by the time I was in high school, Bowie had gone from Space Oddity to the MTV era. Suddenly, he was simultaneously a rock legend and a hip, with-it, video star. He had hit after hit, and was part of the soundtrack of my teenage years, culminating with a charity duet with Mick Jagger (he of similar otherness and legend status) with Dancing in the Streets.

Bowie started popping up in movies too, and whether the films themselves were notable or not, his image always was. There's something riveting about how Bowie looked, even when he wasn't trying to shock or alarm. The magnetism of his character in Labyrinth for instance is more memorable than anything else from the film.

There have undoubtedly been many other Bowie eras in his career that I didn't take such note of. He was noted for his constant reinvention, perhaps only rivaled by Madonna in that regard. But beyond the remixing and reissue of his 70s classic Fame (which featured John Lennon), they don't stand out in my memory. It doesn't matter. He was solidly, permanently part of the rock and roll Mount Olympus.

The passing of David Bowie is more than the death of a celebrity. And though it's not a personal gut punch, I'm positive it is for a lot of people. To some, I'm sure it's as momentous as the passing of Mercury, Elvis Presley or John Lennon. He's at least as important of an icon. RIP, Mr. Bowie. And RIP to another part of my life's soundtrack.

[Excerpt]

David Bowie Dies at Age 69 After Battling Cancer

David Bowie has died after a battle with cancer, his rep confirmed to Billboard. He was 69.

"David Bowie died peacefully today surrounded by his family after a courageous 18 month battle with cancer. While many of you will share in this loss, we ask that you respect the family’s privacy during their time of grief," read a statement posted on the artist's official social media accounts. . ."

Read more at: MSN


I couldn't find the exact Midnight Special that I can conjure from my memory, but here is David Bowie (in his Ziggy Stardust era) looking every bit as shocking, from that period.



And a much more mainstream, handsome Bowie from my high school years.

Lindsey Graham Collapses on His Fainting Couch, Out of the Race

Oh my gay stars! The 2016 GOP Clown Car is losing a rider, though he was probably always going to be in the rumble seat anyway. Look for Graham to continue going between getting the vapors, and having fits of histeria on the Sunday morning political shows, more than ever.

[Excerpt]

Lindsey Graham suspends his presidential campaign

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) ended his long-shot presidential bid today, telling supporters in a web video that he succeeded in changing the conversation about how to fight the Islamic state. . .

Read more at: Washington Post

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

Justice Scalia Proves Himself Unfit for the Bench

Image from Washington Post

I got a bit of a snicker out of hearing that Justice Antonin Scalia still has his face all in a scrunch over the Obergefell gay marriage decision. I mean, the man is such a harumphy sourpuss, it's hard to not take a little joy when he's extra pissed about something.

But Scalia goes a bit beyond whining about the result, and finger-wagging at the other justices. No, in my opinion, when he reaches for something so stupid as to say that the decision goes against a lot of peoples' religious beliefs? That my friends, is where the man proves himself unsuited to his own job.

Why? Because he apparently is unclear on the separation of church and state, which is rather important for a justice whose job is to help decide the constitutionality of things. But even more than that, Scalia also seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding about what Obergefell was about in the first place.

So listen up, Tony, you demented little religious tyrant: The entire marriage equality movement has been about--has always been about, and only been about--civil marriage. Not holy matrimony. Not church weddings. Religion DOES NOT ENTER INTO THE EQUATION. Even if for some bizarre reason, a person thinks a civil contract between two citizens is against a third party's religion, it does not matter. There is no religious component to a civil contract, any more than there is for a business license or a building permit.

I can't believe he's stupid, and he has no need to pander to any constituancy. So, I can only think he never really grasped the fundamentals of the cases before him.

[Excerpt]

Justice Scalia Is Still Hopping Mad Over The Gay Marriage Ruling
 
With less than two weeks before the start of the new Supreme Court session, Justice Antonin Scalia is still lamenting Obergefell v. Hodges, the June ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. At a Tuesday speech at Rhodes College, which his grandson attends, the justice blasted the decision, calling it the "furthest imaginable extension of the Supreme Court doing whatever it wants," according to The Associated Press. . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

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

The Gay Thing: Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Given ONE MORE DAY?

Okay, long story short, after the Supreme Court effectively legalized marriage between same-sex couples in the entire United States, there was some foot-dragging and stone-walling by several elected officials. They were scattered around the country, and most have been resolved. But there's this clerk in Kentucky--represented by muckraking Right Wing World attorneys, naturally--who is loudly and proudly defiant in the face of the ruling.

She was thought to have exhausted all potential trump cards, and should have had to start issuing licenses on Tuesday morning. She didn't. She is brazenly defying all courts including the Supremes, using extraordinarily flimsy, baseless, illogical and frankly goofy reasoning. But, since she's an elected official, she can't get fired directly. But she is in contempt of court, and also refusing to do her job, though she won't resign. She hasn't got a legal leg to stand on, but she's still stamping her feet.

Thrice-divorced, four-times-traditionally married marriage defender,
Kim Davis, in stunning blue. From source, LGBTQNation.

All of this is made somewhat hilarious by the fact that this woman, Kim Davis, has apparently been married four times and divorced three. She continues to conflate "holy matrimony" with civil marriage, confuses the county courthouse with a church, and confuses her government job with some sort of religious consecration. She's either a dim bulb, a nutbar or a disingenuous grafter hoping for a big score and some fame. But for some reason, they're giving her yet another day to come to her senses.

But here's a point to ponder, for any of you Kim Davis supporters out there:

Should a Muslim DMV worker be allowed to refuse issuing drivers licenses to women, if he says it's against his religion? How would that be any different?

[Excerpt]

Judge: Kim Davis has until end of day Wednesday to respond
 
A federal judge says a Kentucky county clerk who won’t issue marriage licenses to gay couples because of her religious beliefs has until close of business Wednesday to respond to the latest motion in the case. . .

Read more at: LGBTQNation

The Gay Thing: Ted Cruz's Disingenuous "Religious Freedom" Video

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

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

Rachel Maddow Interviews Rick Santorum

Obviously, within the context of a couple of segments of her nightly show, Rachel Maddow was unable to get to every point we'd like her to ask Rick (don't Google me) Santorum. But this segment did a couple of newsworthy things: it undoubtedly gave Santorum a little bit of buzz, evidenced by the fact that the story is currently trending on Twitter. Secondly, Santorum fans might just discover that Maddow is a different breed of cable pundit. I can't imagine a similar interview of a Democratic candidate on Hannity, for example.

 

The Gay Thing: LGBT Employment Rights Federally Mandated All Along?

Well, this is kind of nifty. And no big hoopla, or anything. I've used the 1964 Civil Rights Act as an example for quite a while when arguing against discrimination in public accommodations. You know, those oddly religiously sensitive bakers and florists who won't sell to gay folks getting married? Though sexual orientation wasn't part of that act nationally, it's illustrative. But who knew it applied to discrimination in employment already? This is such new news, I wonder if it might not also apply to public accommodations? If so, this is a rather nifty end-run around all of those RFRA thingies, isn't it? I'm hoping so.

Image from source, Buzzfeed

[Excerpt]

Sexual Orientation Discrimination Is Barred By Existing Law, Federal Commission Rules
 
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has ruled that existing civil rights law bars sexual orientation-based employment discrimination — a groundbreaking decision to advance legal protections for gay, lesbian, and bisexual workers. . .

Read more at: Buzzfeed

Discriminating Cakes. . .for Discriminating Tastes

Cute.

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

HOAX The Gay Thing: President Obama Calls for June 26 to be "National Equality Day"

THIS STORY HAS BEEN REPORTED AS A HOAX.  So, good one, pranksters. I guess. It wasn't particularly funny, but you got me as well as several legit news outfits, so score one for you.  

June 26th was a day of great importance, and has featured three major civil rights victories at the Supreme Court for gay rights. Though I'm doubtful that the current Congress will vote for a national holiday, it would be nice to get Representatives and Senators on record. And it would also be interesting to see if a future Republican president would have the temerity to revoke Obama's Executive Order.

Of course, even with gay rights at the root of Equality Day, the notion of civil rights equality wouldn't be confined to that specific issue alone. This is a tremendous idea.

Image from source, USAToday

[Excerpt]

President Obama to Declare 6/26/16 National Equality Day

President Obama called the Supreme Court decision requiring states to recognize same-sex marriage “a victory for America.” Now the Commander in Chief is set to honor those who fought for marriage equality by issuing an executive order declaring 6/26/16 National Equality Day. . .

Read more at: USA Today

The Gay Thing: Explaining Where "Gay Marriage" is in the Constitution

Yes, The Gay Thing again. Get used to it, it's probably going to be newsworthy for a few more days, at least.

One of the counter-arguments I've heard most from anti-marriage equality folks is that there is no right to gay marriage in the Constitution. They say this rather triumphantly, which is rather odd. I mean, it's kind of plain to me as a case of equal treatment under the law. Straight couples get scads of legal rights, benefits and responsibilities by getting married, and gay couples didn't. That's pretty simple.

But if that doesn't convince you, this clip is extremely instructive, and not just a little entertaining. This guy knows his stuff, speaks clearly and concisely, and would be very, very difficult to argue with.