Aug 312015
 
media/2016/08/doucebagbutton.jpg
This entry is part 6 of 31 in the series Daily Douche-Bag
Scott Lively Homophobe Grifter

Scott Lively,Homophobe Grifter (Photo by Tim Pierce https://www.flickr.com/photos/qwrrty/15724183046/)

Scott Lively is an attorney who heads up something called the “Abiding Truth Ministries.” He’s risen to some prominence lately by taking his message of hate and bigotry towards LGBT people international. He found an especially receptive audience in Ugandan government officials, and helped pass anti-gay legislation which called for the death penalty for homosexual acts. Of course, he later claimed to be against such a bill, and claimed he had nothing to do with it. Unfortunately, some folks in Uganda saw it differently, and the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a federal lawsuit against Lively on behalf of a gay rights group, Sexual Minorities Uganda, under the Alien Tort Statute. The suit accused Lively of violating international law by conspiring to persecute the Ugandan LGBT community, portraying their movement as “pedophilic” and “genocidal”, and linking it “to the Nazis and Rwandan murderers”.

You’ll notice that throughout his career as a hate grifter, Lively’s held Nazis in a special place in his rhetoric, even writing a book called the Pink Swastika, which claims that the Nazis were created by a bunch of hyper-masculine gays. (Yeah, he believes Hitler was hyper-masculine.) I offer this from a recent article on his website as evidence of his animus and hatred, and desire to protect his own ability to discriminate:

Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs) (also known as sexual orientation anti-discrimination policies) are the most devious tactic of the LGBT movement for stripping Christians of First Amendment protections and setting the stage for the “gay” takeover of any social, political or cultural entity.   These SORs are the seed that contains the entire tree of the homosexual agenda with all of its poisonous fruit.

The references to Nazism are never very far away, and he can’t seem to ever discuss anything related to homosexuality without bringing it up. It’s most recently come up in an article on World Net Daily:

Lively“The ‘Equality Act’ should be called the ‘Gaystapo Empowerment Act,’ because if passed it will give homosexual activists and their allies the legal power to attack and punish Christians and other pro-family advocates in virtually every sphere of American life. The trampling of Christian bakers, florists, bed and breakfast hotel owners etc. that we’ve seen this far will instantly transform from a few disturbing anomalies to the ‘new normal’ for nearly everyone who wants to live according to God’s law and values. Now, facing the potential passage of the Equality Act, I wonder if I or my organization, Abiding Truth Ministries, will be among the first targets of its overreach. For the first time in my pro-family missionary career, I’m genuinely concerned ATM’s ability speak freely in America may soon be curtailed – under threat of legal penalties, perhaps even criminal charges. The ‘gays’ are moving with lightning speed to consolidate their power, and their motives are not benign. On my five-stage scale of the LGBT takeover of a society (tolerance, acceptance, celebration, forced participation and punishment of dissenters), Obergefell represents the establishment of Stage 4 as constitutional law. The Equality Act will usher in Stage 5 on a grand scale.”

He is ever so worried that so-called “Christian” business owners will have to treat LGBT people equally, but make not mistake, Lively and others are using these claims as the Trojan Horses to allow a return to Jim Crowe laws. If anyone thinks that the “right to refuse service based on religious beliefs” will stop with LGBT people, think again. It will be just a matter of time before Hispanics and African-Americans are being refused service. Some business owners in South Carolina have already announced it.

For my Christian friends out there, I simply remind you, he’s doing all this in the name of his “Christian beliefs.” You all can sit around all day, and claim he’s just some marginal nutcase, and doesn’t represent the majority of Christians, but the problem is the majority of Christians are doing just what you all are, and ignoring him. This is why he, and others like him, become the face of Christianity, which is driving away young people. Now, if you want your churches and denominations to continue to shrink, you’re doing all the right things by ignoring people like Scott, but if you want to attract new young people, you’d better start stepping up and renouncing this kind of bullshit.

Hate Springing Up Like Bluegrass in Kentucky

 Gay Issues, Legislature, Politics, Right Wingnuts, Society  Comments Off on Hate Springing Up Like Bluegrass in Kentucky
Feb 132014
 

The crazy runs deep in the Blue Grass state. By a vote of 72-49, yesterday the Kansas House approved a bill which allows businesses to reject LGBT customers on the basis of “sincerely held religious beliefs.” Just when you think they’ve made a little headway towards equality, here comes the Kentucky legislature with this:

The bill would bar government sanctions when individuals, groups and businesses cite religious beliefs in refusing to recognize a marriage or civil union, or to provide goods, services, accommodations or employment benefits to a couple. Anti-discrimination lawsuits also would be barred. Individual workers and government employees also would get some protections. The measure is a response to the possibility that the federal courts could invalidate the state constitution’s ban on same-sex marriages.

Given that Republicans outnumber Democrats by 31-9 in the Senate, we can count on this passing. Kentucky Republican Tim Huelskamp has been gleefully tweeting all day with things like this:

More Craziness from Kentucky

 Featured, Gay Issues, Legislature, Politics, Society  Comments Off on More Craziness from Kentucky
Mar 122013
 
This entry is part 4 of 4 in the series Hate Groups

It’s not hard to cast Kentucky as a backassword state when they do things like pass a “religious freedoms” law which has no intent other than to allow people to discriminate against LGBT people in cities where non-discrimination regulations have been passed. In order for the bill to be more palatable, the legislators involved in this little scheme made it clear they were targeting gay rights. This was to make the people of Kentucky take their eye off the underlying scope of this bill.

State Seal of KentuckyCertainly the bill targets LGBT people. The bill would give protections to people who refuse to follow state laws based on “sincerely held” religious beliefs. Many people are complaining that an unintended consequence of the bill would allow people to also discriminate against Blacks, Women and other minorities with impunity. This is Kentucky. This will not come as a surprise to the Republican legislators who launched this scheme, and it is not an unintended consequence. They intentionally used this broad language to be able to invalidate any and all civil rights laws. Remember, the Republican Party is the party of legitimate rape, anti-women’s choice, anti-women’s rights, anti- rights for anyone who’s not a straight white Baptist male. Sad for a state with the motto, “United we stand, Divided we fall.”

Now I don’t want to give the impression that Kentucky is completely backasswords. Kentucky has four cities with fairness anti-discrimination laws. Several others are in the works which is why there has been a lot of interest from  conservative groups to quell this movement. Kentucky was an early leader in ending sodomy laws in the United States. It has one of the oldest gay bars and having lived there for a short time, I can say their cup runneth over with homos. Their second largest city has a gay mayor.

But it’s hard to not think of them as living somewhere in the 1800’s when their legislature passes a bill like this. Let’s hope that Democratic Governor Steve Beshear can do the right thing and veto the bill. Kentucky Equality Federation wrote a letter to Beshear last week pushing him to veto it. “House Bill 279 represents a clear and present danger to the gay and lesbian community and other minority groups around the commonwealth,” the letter said. “House Bill 279 does nothing more than give people permission to discriminate based on their religious beliefs, thereby taking it beyond ‘freedom of religion’ to ‘forced religion,’ because they have imposed their religious beliefs on others, with legal authority to do so.”

God’s gentle loving people. Who Would Jesus Hate?

A landlord should be able to discriminate

 Featured, Gay Issues, Legislature, Politics, Society  Comments Off on A landlord should be able to discriminate
Feb 162013
 
This entry is part 2 of 4 in the series Hate Groups

david_smith_ifiAccording to David E. Smith of the Illinois Family Institute, an anti-gay group claiming to be concerned with protecting heterosexual-only marriage, “A landlord should be able to discriminate and say, Look, I don’t want to rent my apartment out or my condo out to anyone who doesn’t share my values.”

This from an article at One News Now, an arm of the SPLC designated hate group, American Family Association, which discusses the recent passage of an equal marriage rights bill in the Illinois Senate. David E. Smith of the Illinois Family Institute tells OneNewsNow that homosexual marriage is not equal. “That’s not to say that homosexual people are not equal — I’m saying that the relationship is not equal; they are two different things,” Smith shares.

Yet despite that fact that the Senate attached an amendment that explicitly states no church or other religious organization will be forced to solemnize same-gender marriages, that’s just not enough for Smith.

And why would that not be enough. Well, because despite their claims:

This fight has never been about marriage. Gay people aren’t clamoring to get married in churches (most want nothing to do with church), they simply want the same legal protections offered by the government to people in long-term committed relationships. The fight is because David E. Smith, despite claiming to be a Christian, is really a liar. In one breath he says he believes homosexuals are equal, yet in another he says business owners should be able to discriminate. That’s not “equal.”

You see David E. Smith is either one of the biggest idiots in Illinois, or one its biggest liars. The article goes to state, “Smith remains concerned that, should the measure become law, people of faith who own businesses such as hotels, bed and breakfasts, and wedding halls will be forced to do business with homosexuals.” Well, I hate to tell him this, but they are already prohibited, by Illinois state law, from discriminating. This changes nothing.

So David, which is it, are you an idiot or a liar, or both?

Florida State Legislator-The Law Is Supposed To Discriminate

 Gay Issues, Legislature, Politics, Society  Comments Off on Florida State Legislator-The Law Is Supposed To Discriminate
Aug 062008
 

Well, it seems that African-American Florida House Representative Darryl Rouson has some pretty nasty things to say about Gay and Lesbian people.

First Rouson makes the blanket statement that:

“I still think that there ought to be ways for us to provide a loving environment for children without sending a wrong message to them early, or a message that we have to sit down and try to explain some psychological damage or emotional damage or something later on in life.”

Now, this is from a guy who is apparently on his third wife, and who was estranged for many years from the children of his first marriage because of his drug use. While I admire that he appears to have undergone rehab and cleaned himself up, does he not think he has some explaining to do to his children, “psychological damage or emotional damage or something later on in life?” You can read an article about Rouson by Bob Andelman here.

Making it even worse, he goes on to say, as an African American:

“I think that lesbianism and homosexuality is morally wrong and the law’s supposed to discriminate sometimes.”

Let’s see, so the law is supposed to discriminate sometimes? When would be those times Rep. Rouson? When we put up signs saying “No Coloreds?” When we ask African Americans to not use public drinking fountains? When we don’t allow “coloreds” to eat at the lunch counter…Would that be one of the times?

When asked about the comments, he first tried to deny even saying these things. When will these tools learn about video?

He made sure he got his when he made headlines by demanding a “fair share agreement” for African-American and other minority contractors on the $41 million rebuilding of Gibbs High School in St. Petersburg. And when the city announced in December that a new cruise ship would be docking in the municipal port, Rouson wasted no time calling for minority representation on the ship’s board of directors. I guess these were not the times when the law was supposed to discriminate.

As Plato said, “Justice will only exist where those not affected by injustice are filled with the same amount of indignation as those affected.”

Hat tip to Bilgrimage for calling this to my attention.

Jun 252006
 

I’ve let the dust settle some from the recent insistence of Congressional Republicans to throw their “base” a bone. I am referring to, of course, the recent attempt to ingrain discrimination against gay people into the Constitution.

I naturally called my Senators. I expressed by belief to the intern answering the phone in Mel Martinez’s office that protecting marriage was best done by making divorce illegal. I asked her if the Senator would introduce appropriate legislation to make divorce illegal, given his strongly stated desire to “protect marriage.” I guess I might have stumbled across one of the few honest people on Capitol Hill. This young lady told me, “the Senator’s not interested in protecting marriage, he’s interested in protecting the definition of marriage.”

There is something queer about this Senate crusade to outlaw gay marriage. If you listen closely, the leaders who oppose single-sex unions refuse to talk about gay people. They talk about activist judges, welfare rolls, the rights of voters and the birthrate of single mothers in Scandinavia. But there is not a gay man, a lesbian woman or a bisexual teenager in the mix.

Kansas Republican Sam Brownback, a 2008 presidential contender, led the charge for a constitutional amendment on the Senate floor , dominating the debate with a handful of blue-and-white charts that he said showed the need to ban same-sex marriage. He had line graphs, bar graphs and circle graphs. He spoke about French law and Dutch sociology. He went on about the benefits of two-parent families. “It’s important that a child be raised between a loving couple,” Brownback declared, a phrase that seemed, at first, to be an argument in favor of gay marriage. “Developmental problems are less common in two parent families.” He said that welfare encourages out-of-wedlock births and called for more research on marriage. But the Republican senator made no real mention of men who love men or women who love women.

In fact, the principal argument mounted by social conservative leaders like Brownback has more to do with the fragile state of heterosexual marriage than homosexuality. Their convoluted logic works like this: If society approves of long-term homosexual monogamy, then the “institution of marriage” will be weakened. This will lead straight people to abandon monogamy and harm the welfare of the nation’s children, who benefit from stable, two-parent families. “Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them,” explained President Bush in his Monday address to amendment supporters. “And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure.”

This is why Brownback has been spending so much time studying Nordic marriage trends. He believes there is a direct (albeit inverse) correlation between gay marriage and heterosexual fidelity. “Where gay marriage finds acceptance, marriage virtually ceased to exist,” he said in the Senate, reading aloud from one of his big blue-and-white posters, this one labeled “Scandinavia.” “The institution no longer means much of anything.”

These straight-marriage-in-trouble arguments are everywhere in the current debate. They had dominated a press conference in the Capitol, just a few feet off the Senate floor. “When marriage declines, children and society suffer,” explained Matt Daniels, the founder of the Alliance for Marriage, an umbrella group of churches and synagogues that wrote the anti-gay-marriage amendment. “Violent crime, youth crime, welfare dependency and child poverty track more closely with family breakdown than with any other social variable, including race and income level.”

Continue reading »

Alito's America A Scary Place

 Politics, Right Wingnuts, The Courts  Comments Off on Alito's America A Scary Place
Oct 312005
 

I might as well get a post about Bush’s Supreme Court Nominee out of the way. In bowing to the religious fanatics on the right, he’s pretty much sealed the fate of our Constitutional rights to be left alone by the government.

The right wing demanded the withdrawal of Harriet Miers so she could be replaced with a judge who met their rigid, ideological litmus test. This morning, the conservatives got what they wanted. President Bush will nominate Third Circuite Appeal Court Judge Samuel Alito as the replacement for swing-voter Sandra Day O’Connor. (In contrast, John Roberts replaced the very conservative William Rehnquist.) On NBC’s Today Show, law professor Jonathan Turley said there "will be no one to the right of Sam Alito" on the Supreme Court. Alito’s record supports Turley’s view. His history of right-wing judicial activism will be a key issue during his hearings.

ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting the restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in the late 1980s. Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected Alito’s view and also voted to reaffirm Roe v. Wade. [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1991]

ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION: Alito dissented from a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have protected racist employers by “immuniz[ing] an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer’s belief that it had selected the ‘best’ candidate was the result of conscious racial bias.” [Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 1997]

ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION: In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, the majority said the standard for proving disability-based discrimination articulated in Alito’s dissent was so restrictive that “few if any…cases would survive summary judgment.” Summary judgment allows a case to be dismissed before it goes to trial. [Nathanson v.Medical College of Pennsylvania, 1991]

ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) "guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one." The 2003 Supreme Court ruling upholding FMLA [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003] essentially reversed a 2000 decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law. [Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, 2000]

ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito argued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip-searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]

ALITO HOSTILE TOWARD IMMIGRANTS: In two cases involving the deportation of immigrants, the majority twice noted Alito’s disregard of settled law. In Dia v. Ashcroft, the majority opinion states that Alito’s dissent “guts the statutory standard” and “ignores our precedent.” In Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, the majority stated Alito’s opinion contradicted “well-recognized rules of statutory construction.” [Dia v. Ashcroft, 2003; Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, 2004]