“BAKE THE FUCKING CAKE AND SHUT THE FUCK UP”

Young Turks Ana Kasparian blasted republican lawmakers in Mississippi on Wednesday over the lengths to which they have gone to promote their “religious liberty” with the passage of HB 1523.

“Religious business owners in the state would rather lose out on business because they’re so hateful toward a specific group of people,” she said. “Think about that for a second. Just bake the fucking cake and shut the fuck up. Seriously, why is it such a big deal? What’s gonna happen? Do you think that as you’re in the process of blending your ingredients, you might think about touching some other man’s dick? What goes through their minds? Just get over it.”

VIDEO COURTESY OF YOUNG TURKS



The law allows employers to cite “sincerely held religious beliefs” as the basis for implementing dress codes and other criteria in the workplace, and also lets businesses choose to refuse to render services to same-sex couples.

It has already provoked criticism both online and from the private sector, has also prompted three states to ban non-essential state travel to Mississippi.

“Here’s one thing that Republican politicians eventually listen to: businessmen,” co-host Cenk Uygur argued. “When corporate powers start telling you to bow your head, that’s what Republican politicians were made for.”

NFTOS
Blogger-In-Chief
Roger West

STAFFER ACCUSES CLOWNSTICK OF SEXISM AND WAGE DISCRIMINATION

A former staffer from Fuckface Von Clownstick’s [Donald Trump’s] 2016 campaign for president alleges that the campaign pays women staffers less than men as a matter of course and that sexism is rampant among the former reality TV star’s campaign staff.

According to the New York Times, former staffer Elizabeth Mae Davidson, 26, filed a complaint with the Davenport, Iowa Civil Rights Commission alleging that men working for the campaign were paid more than women doing the same jobs and that male campaign staffers were allowed to plan and speak at rallies while women were expected to keep quiet and follow orders.

Furthermore, Davidson said, when Trump was confronted with herself and another female campaign volunteer at a rally last summer, the billionaire mogul said, “You guys could do a lot of damage,” in apparent reference to their looks.

When the Times asked Trump if he’d made the apparently sexist remark, he replied, “That is not the worst thing that could be said. But I never said it. It’s not in my vocabulary.”

Davidson filed the complaint on Tuesday in Davenport, Iowa’s third largest city. Until she was fired, she worked as the campaign’s field organizer.

Trump’s campaign claims Davidson was fired for performance-related issues.

“My people tell me she did a terrible job,” he told the Times.

The billionaire real-estate mogul then lashed out at the Times for running the story a day ahead of Monday’s Iowa caucuses, saying the newspaper’s reporting “could damage my chances.”

Davidson alleges that she was fired for making disparaging remarks about high-ranking campaign staff and breaking the nondisclosure agreement she signed as a condition of her employment with Trump 2016.

Her termination came a day after the Jan. 14 publication of a New York Times article that accused the Trump campaign of being “amateurish and halting, committing basic organizing errors.”

Davidson explained in an interview that she made $2,000 per month as a part-time worker for the campaign. Men with similar positions and levels of authority were paid $3,500 to $4,000 per month, she said.

“As a result of this discrimination I have suffered lost wages, mental anguish and damage to my career,” Davidson said in her complaint.

Her lawyer, Dorothy A. O’Brien, told the Times that the complaint would trigger an automatic investigation by the Davenport civil rights agency. After 60 days, Davidson has the option of allowing the agency to continue its investigation or filing suit in state court.

When asked if she would be attending Monday’s caucuses for Trump, Davidson said, “Some of the bad things about him I dismissed, because I was working for the candidate. Now, I’m more critical, especially how he treats women.”

NFTOS
STAFF WRITER

HUCKABEE OFFERS UP EXPLAINATION WHY KIM DAVIS CAN DISCRIMINATE

Extreme right wing nut job Mike Huckabee has been the most vocal supporter of Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk jailed for refusing to issue same-sex marriages licenses. He has said he would go to jail on her behalf and has used her situation to argue for strengthening “religious liberty.” But during Wednesday night’s GOP debate, he proved he doesn’t actually understand the meaning of religious freedom.

In response to a question about Davis during the debate, Huckabee argued that she should be allowed to exercise her religious beliefs and discriminate against same-sex couples because the United States has allowed others, including prisoners, to exercise their own religious beliefs.

“We made accommodation to the Fort Hood shooter to let him grow a beard,” Huckabee said. “We made accommodations to the detainees at Gitmo — I’ve been to Gitmo and I’ve seen the accommodations that we have to the Muslim detainees who killed Americans. You’re telling me that you cannot make an accommodation for an elected Democrat county clerk from Rowan County, Kentucky?”

He continued, alleging the only difference is the “criminalization of her faith.”





The First Amendment guarantees Americans the freedom to practice their religions, but does not guarantee someone the right to discriminate and deny other people their rights because of his or her religion.

Davis was released from jail last week and returned to work — she has said she will not interfere with her deputies as they issue same-sex marriage licences.

Huckabee made a similar false comparison in an op-ed he published in Fox News in which he argued that Davis should be allowed out on bail because “many of the America’s most evil and notorious serial killers, murderers, rapists, mafia bosses and presidential assassins were actually let out on bail.” He went on to list Al Capone, Ted Bundy, and Jack Kevorkian, among others, without acknowledging that none of them were held in contempt of court like Davis.

NFTOS
Blogger-In-Chief

Roger West

“BE THANKFUL STATE DOESN’T EXECUTE GAYS”

Appearing yesterday on CNN, Senator “Tehran” Tom Cotton urged critics of Indiana’s “religious freedom” law to get “perspective,” suggesting the treatment of LGBT people in Indiana compared favorably to countries where gay people are executed.

“I think it’s important we have a sense of perspective,” Cotton said. “In Iran they hang you for the crime of being gay."

Cotton is wrong in suggesting that Indiana’s law was the same as the federal law signed by President Clinton in 1993. Indiana’s law has significant differences that made discrimination LGBT people — and general confusion — more likely. This was acknowledged by Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson, who refused to sign a bill nearly identical to the one passed in Indiana until it was brought into line with the federal model.

Indiana’s law and the original Arkansas bill has drawn criticism from a diverse range of individuals and corporations including NASCAR, Walmart and the Republican mayor of Indianapolis, among many others.

While Cotton is correct that LGBT people in America are not routinely executed, violence against LGBT Americans remains a significant problem.

NFTOS

Blogger-In-Chief

Roger West

HOW IT’S SUPPOSED TO GO

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence and state Republican leaders have been playing damage control this week, claiming that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is not a law that enables anti-LGBT discrimination. Meanwhile, however, the conservatives who advocated for the bill have been spurning this attempted walkback, asserting in the process that the goal was ensuring discrimination all along.

At the forefront of the conservative reaction is Micah Clark, who serves as executive director of the American Family Association of Indiana and who stood right behind Pence as he signed the bill. Speaking Monday to Tim Wildmon, head of the national American Family Association, Clark explained that conservatives should oppose any effort to clarify that the law does not legalize discrimination. “That could totally destroy this bill,” he explained.

Clark has been publicly advocating for the bill as a means for allowing anti-LGBT discrimination since December, long before the legislation was even drafted. This directly contradicts the claims made Monday by House Speaker Brian Bosma and Senate President Pro Tem David Long that the legislation never had anything to do with discrimination.

Eric Miller, Executive Director of Advance America, is another anti-LGBT activist who stood by Pence as he signed the bill. Advance America praised Pence for signing the bill last week, stating that it would allow wedding vendors to refuse to serve same-sex couples and allow Christian businesses to refuse transgender people access to restrooms. Miller was quoted as saying, “It is vitally important to protect religious freedom in Indiana. It’s the right thing to do. It was therefore important to pass Senate Bill 101 in 2015 in order to help protect churches, Christian businesses and individuals from those who want to punish them because of their Biblical beliefs!” Pence and Miller, it turns out, go way back.

On the national stage, conservatives are similarly defending the RFRA and arguing it needs no fixing. Andrew Walker, Director of Policy Studies for the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, perhaps best summed up the distortion conservatives are using to argue that it’s not discriminatory:

A wedding vendor who chooses not to service a same-sex wedding is not discriminating against a person’s being. Instead, the vendor believes that material cooperation in a particular event encroaches on his conscience… To give relief to a particular wedding vendor who feels uncomfortable servicing a gay wedding isn’t in any way comparable to state-sponsored discrimination… To require a wedding vendor to service a same-sex wedding is not eliminating discrimination against the gay couple. It’s coercing the wedding vendor.

Walker is simultaneously admitting that the law is designed to allow businesses to discriminate against LGBT people while denying that it’s actually “discrimination” that’s taking place. Radio host Bryan Fischer, formerly, took the Christian self-victimization a step further. “This law is not something that provides for discrimination against gays,” he explained. “It is something that prevents discrimination against Christians… This thing is an anti-discrimination bill because it prohibits governmental discrimination against Christians in the state of Indiana.”

The Heritage Institute’s Ryan T. Anderson used this messaging to try to take on Apple CEO Tim Cook, who wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post this week calling these so-called “religious freedom” laws dangerous. According to Anderson, “the only person in favor of discrimination in this debate is Tim Cook.” As one of his examples, Anderson claims, “It is Tim Cook who would have the government discriminate against these citizens, have the government coerce them into helping to celebrate a same-sex wedding and penalize them if they try to lead their lives in accordance with their faith.”

Using as his example Washington florist Barronelle Stutzman — who was fined last week for refusing to serve a same-sex couple — Anderson reiterates the distortion: “This debate has nothing to do with refusing to serve gays simply because they’re gay, and this law wouldn’t protect that. But should the government force a 70-year-old grandmother to violate her beliefs? Should the government coerce her into helping to celebrate a same-sex wedding?” Anderson later highlights Aaron and Melissa Klein, bakery owners who also face fines for refusing service to a same-sex couple, as somehow another example of how RFRA is not about discrimination. He echoed these talking points on MSNBC last night as well, offering the caveat that nothing guarantees a vendor will win if they defend their discrimination with RFRA.

The Family Research Council has been making the media rounds as well. In addition to defending Pence and the law on their website, both Tony Perkins and Peter Sprigg have taken to cable news this week to defend their positions. Sprigg went toe-to-toe with CNN’s Chris Cuomo Monday morning, where he acknowledged that wedding vendors trying to discriminate could use the law to defend themselves, but like Anderson, he tried to couch that in the idea that they wouldn’t necessarily win. The only thing these Christian wedding vendors object to, Sprigg suggested, “is using their expressive abilities to communicate a message that they disagree with by saying that marriage can be a union of two men or two women,” adding that it’s “forcing them to do something that violates their faith.”

On Fox News Monday night, Perkins continued to falsely conflate Indiana’s RFRA with laws by the same name in other states, adding, “Let’s be very clear what RFRA is. This is a shield to protect one’s belief from government. It is not a sword to be used against anyone else and it cannot be… This is only a defense and it is not an iron-clad defense at that.” Perkins went on to describe the notion that some people want to “force people to engage in a behavior such as weddings — photographers, florists. In a civil society, what we would say is, ‘Oh, you don’t want to service me? Fine, I’ll go next store. I’ll go down the street.'” Borrowing a rather mockable talking point from Mike Huckabee, he added, “Who would fathom the idea of someone going into a Kosher deli and demanding a ham sandwich?”

Despite conservatives all asserting that RFRA is designed to allow businesses to refuse to offer products and services to same-sex couples that they offer to others, Pence continued to defend the law as not being discriminatory in a Wall Street Journal op-ed posted Monday evening. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it’s The Onion that has one of the most accurate headlines this week: “Indiana Governor Insists New Law Has Nothing To Do With Thing It Explicitly Intended To Do.”

Crossposted from thinkprogress

NFTOS

STAFF WRITER

WASHINGTON JUDGE LAWS THE LAW DOWN TO ANTI-GAY FLOURIST

A Washington state judge has ruled that florist Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers, broke state law when she refused to provide flowers for the wedding of Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed. Stutzman, represented by anti-LGBT legal juggernaut the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), had been sued by the same-sex couples and the state’s attorney general for breaking both the Washington Law Against Discrimination and the state’s Consumer Protection Act. She counter-sued, seeking the right to engage in such discrimination based on her religious beliefs.

Though Stutzman has become a darling of the religious right for asserting her Southern Baptist beliefs about same-sex marriage, her arguments about religious freedom fell flat in court. Benton County Superior Court Judge Alex Ekstrom concluded in his decision that “to accept any [of] the Defendants’ arguments would be to disregard well-settled law.”

In fact, the case was rather open-and-shut. On March 1, 2013, “Stutzman refused to provide to Ingersoll a service she provided to others,” Ekstrom wrote. What she believes about same-sex marriage is immaterial, because the law’s protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation “address conduct, not beliefs.” Agreeing with the plaintiffs and the attorney general, Ekstrom asserted that “no Court has ever held that religiously motivated conduct, expressive or otherwise, trumps state discrimination law in public accommodations.” He also pointed out that Stutzman is not a minister nor is Arlene’s Flowers a religious organization. Likewise, the law does not specifically target her because of her beliefs, but is “neutral and generally applicable” to all people of all beliefs.

Ekstrom agreed that “the State’s compelling interest in combating discrimination in public accommodations is well settled” and is not superseded by an individual’s religious beliefs. As the Supreme Court wrote in the 1982 case United States v. Lee, “When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity. Granting an exemption… operates to impose [the follower’s] religious faith on the [person sought to be protected by the law.]”

ADF argued in the case, as it continues to argue in the wake of the ruling that Stutzman’s religious beliefs should be catered to so long as Ingersoll and Freed could still find flowers elsewhere. ADF Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner explained in a press release, “The two men had no problem getting the flowers they wanted. They received several offers for free flowers, and the marketplace gives them plenty of options.” Ekstrom pointed out that a rule where discriminating businesses simply refer customers to non-discriminating businesses “would, of course, defeat the purpose of combating discrimination, and would allow discrimination in public accommodations based on all protected classes, including race.” Religious justifications for racial discrimination have certainly been proffered before. “There is no slope, much less a slippery one,” Ekstrom wrote, “where ‘race’ and ‘sexual orientation’ are in the same sentence of the statute, separate by only three terms: ‘creed, color, national origin…'”

Ekstrom also rejected ADF’s arguments that a distinction could be made between the couple’s sexual orientation and the act of getting married. “The United States Supreme Court has long held that discrimination based on conduct associated with a protected characteristic constitutes discrimination on the basis of that characteristic,” he noted, referencing in particular the case Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. In that case, a university student group claimed it wasn't discriminating against gay members, only against those who engaged in or supported same-sex intimacy. The Supreme Court did not find the distinction compelling.

The non-discrimination law in no way violates any constitutional principles, Ekstrom concluded, because, “For over 135 years, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that laws may prohibit religiously motivated action, as opposed to belief. In trade and commerce, and more particularly when seeking to prevent discrimination in public accommodations, the Courts have confirmed the power of the Legislative Branch to prohibit conduct it deems discriminatory, even when the motivation for that conduct is grounded in religious belief.”

Following the ruling, Stutzman claimed, “The government is coming after me and everything I have just because I won’t live my life the way the state says I should. I just want the freedom to live and work faithfully and according to what God says about marriage without fear of punishment.” Damages and fines in the case have not yet been determined.

The decision follows a near-identical ruling in Oregon last month against a bakery that refused a cake to a same-sex couples. The string of losses in similar cases follows back to an Iowa wedding venue, aVermont reception venue, a Colorado bakery, and a New Mexico photographer who all similarly tried to refuse services related to a same-sex commitment ceremony. All of those states have laws protecting against discrimination based on sexual orientation, but there are still 29 states that have no such laws.

[h/t thinkprogress]

NFTOS

STAFF WRITER