Trump Announces Executive Order to Protect Religious Liberty, 'Eradicate...

SCOTUS Refused SDA's Case.Darrell Patterson Shares Story of The Crisis.S...

African reporter reveals why Karine Jean-Pierre won’t meet with him till...

Disagreement is not discrimination: ‘Do No Harm Act’ is a dishonest act to eject religion

Disagreement is not discrimination: ‘Do No Harm Act’ is a dishonest act to eject religion

To hear supporters of the 'Do No Harm Act' tell it, the federal law protecting religious freedom is a weapon harming minorities. But that's not true.

MATT SHARP | OPINION CONTRIBUTOR | 7:00 am EDT July 4, 2019



For several hours on June 25, I occupied a front-row seat in our country’s ongoing debate over religious liberty. The House Committee on Education and Labor held a hearing on the “Do No Harm Act” — a misleading title if there ever was one. The bill callously carves out pockets within American life where checks, specifically the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), against government-sponsored religious discrimination would no longer apply to people of faith. I testified in opposition, demonstrating why every person should have the same opportunity to seek relief from government restrictions on their faith.

To hear supporters of the bill tell it, religious liberty and RFRA serve now as a weapon wielded against women, minorities and the LGBTQ community — a concerning claim, if it were true. It is not. Throughout the hearing, members of Congress and panelists alike pontificated about their own deeply held beliefs and their firm conviction that certain religious beliefs (specifically those they personally dislike) cannot be followed in the public sphere.

Lawmakers put hostility to religion on display


For instance, Rep. Jahana Hayes, D-Conn., attacked a Christian foster care organization that serves everyone, including children of all faiths, but requires staff to share the organization’s Christian faith. Hayes completely mischaracterized the organization's constitutionally protected freedom to operate within its Christian convictions by saying that it “openly discriminates against foster parents based on their religion,” and chided that “this does not reflect the God I serve.”

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., questions witnesses at a hearing on May 16, 2019.
CHIP SOMODEVILLA/GETTY IMAGES



Questions by supporters of the “Do No Harm Act,” like Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., suggest that the freedom to follow certain beliefs about marriage must be abandoned when baker Jack Phillips opens his shop to sell custom-designed cakes.

Certain beliefs against providing abortifacients that end a human life must be ignored because Hobby Lobby’s family owners operate a thriving arts and crafts supplies business. Why? Because Rep. Susan Wild, D-Pa., believes that religious objections to paying for certain abortion-inducing drugs is “dictat(ing) their religious beliefs upon their employees.”

Univ. of Iowa sued again over religious liberty

by David Roach, posted Wednesday, August 08, 2018 (3 days ago)

IOWA CITY, Iowa (BP) -- For the second time in less than a year, a Christian student group has sued the University of Iowa to protect its right to select leaders who hold traditional Christian beliefs.

InterVarsity Graduate Christian Fellowship has become the second student group in less than a year to sue the University of Iowa for religious discrimination.

University of Iowa photo

InterVarsity Graduate Christian Fellowship has become the second student group in less than a year to sue the University of Iowa for religious discrimination.
University of Iowa photo The InterVarsity Graduate Christian Fellowship filed a lawsuit in federal court Aug. 6 after the university revoked the fellowship's status as an official student organization for requiring group leaders "to share the group's faith and exemplify its Christian values," according to the complaint filed by the nonprofit Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. The university told InterVarsity Graduate via email it would not even be permitted to state in its constitution that leaders were "strongly encouraged" to hold the Christian faith.

In December 2017, the student organization Business Leaders in Christ (BLinC) filed a similar lawsuit against the university after it was kicked off campus for requiring leaders to hold biblical beliefs about human sexuality. A federal judge ruled in January that the university must temporarily restore BLinC's registered status while the case is pending.

InterVarsity Graduate was one of 38 student groups deregistered in July for allegedly failing to comply with the university's human rights policy, according to The Gazette of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Twenty-two of those groups "are organized around religion, culture or ideology," The Gazette reported, including Christian, Muslim, Mormon and Sikh groups.

The university's human rights policy states, according to the lawsuit, "In no aspect of [the university's] program shall there be differences in the treatment of persons because of race, creed, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, pregnancy, disability, genetic information, status as a U.S. veteran, service in the U.S. military, sexual orientation, gender identity, associational preferences, or any other classification that deprives the person of consideration as an individual."

InterVarsity Graduate student president Katrina Schrock said, "We're grateful to have been part of the university community for 25 years, and we think that the university has been a richer place for having Sikh, Muslim, Mormon, Catholic, Jewish, atheist and Christian groups. Because we love our school, we hope it reconsiders and lets religious groups continue to authentically reflect their religious roots," according to a Becket news release.

Iowa City's Press-Citizen reported the university set out in January and February to enforce its human rights policy and reviewed the constitutions of 513 student organizations. The 356 groups that did not include a "full and correct" statement of the university's human rights policy in their constitutions were given deadlines to remedy the perceived problem -- June 15 for most types of organizations and Sept. 4 for sororities and fraternities.

Though InterVarsity Graduate placed the university-required nondiscrimination language in its constitution, its leadership requirements still landed the group among the 38 deregistered.

One argument in InterVarsity Graduate's lawsuit is that the university allows other student groups to discriminate based on gender and personal beliefs while not extending the same prerogative to religious groups. That type of discrimination violates the U.S. and Iowa Constitutions, the complaint claims.

"The university (rightly) allows fraternities to have only male leaders and members, and female athletic clubs to have only female leaders and members," the complaint states. "Republicans and Democrats can each choose to be led by those who share their political beliefs. Yet while it makes broad exceptions for political groups, fraternities, sororities, and sports clubs to select both their leadership and membership, it denies a narrower accommodation for religious groups to select their leaders."

The complaint also notes two other InterVarsity chapters at the University of Iowa -- Black Campus Ministries and International Neighbors -- were not deregistered even though they hold the same leadership requirements as InterVarsity Graduate.

Becket senior counsel Daniel Blomberg said in the news release, "If public universities really want to foster an intellectually diverse environment, this isn't how to do it. Universities should allow students the space to form their own groups that challenge and grow their sincere beliefs. Banning religious groups from having religious leaders just flattens diversity and impoverishes the campus."

A university spokesperson told BP "the university will not comment on the merits of the case per its policy on pending litigation."

Source

California bans travel to another state based on its 'discriminatory' LGBT

Black Minister asks "What if Whites Strike Back"?

July 13, 2016
Trending

BY MYCHAL MASSIE, THE DAILY RANT

It would serve race mongers well to consider that even a docile old dog will bite you if you mistreat it often enough and long enough.  Tangential to same is the reality of the “laws of unintended consequences.”

I’m tired of seeing, reading, and hearing white people blamed for everything from black boys not being able to read to whites being privileged because of the color of their skin. If I am tired of these Americans being used as scapegoats to further the agenda of race mongers, then it is a sure bet that those being unjustly vilified are especially weary of same.

This isn’t 1860 and it certainly isn’t 1955. There are no slaves in America and there are no Jim Crow laws dictating access based on skin color. Specific to that point it is time to remind people like Obama, Al Sharpton, and the New Black Panther Party that the racial discord they are fomenting can become the harbinger of their own peril.

Obama foments racial unrest and a racial divide to further his neo-Leninist agenda. Sharpton foments racial unrest for personal gain. The New Black Panther Party foments racial hostilities and the demonization of whites in the foolish belief they can bring about a Western version of apartheid where blacks rule.

Too many blacks have lost sight of the fact that it was Africans who were responsible for the enslavement of other Africans. It was war, invasion, conquest, and various caste systems that contributed to slavery. And although one would be hard-pressed to believe it from the invented myths that masquerade as fact, persons of color were not the only slaves.

From Genesis to the Sudan of today, slavery has been a staple around the world. And it should be noted that given the first opportunity in America, the former slaves of color became owners of those whose skin color matched theirs.

But unlike the rest of the world, America had the good sense and decency to end slavery. In America, there is no caste system, and yet at every turn we are bombarded with how bad blacks have it because of whites and how unfair the so-called “white system” is to blacks.

All people, including those who are here illegally, have it better in America than they would have it anywhere else on earth. And yet blacks are encouraged to blame their ills on whites.

Therein the “laws of unintended consequences” come into play. America has shed the blood of her people on her own soil to ensure the freedom of all Americans. Americans joined hands with blacks to end Jim Crow. And, to the detriment of all concerned, political correctness and guilt have contributed to discrimination against whites vis-a`-vis race-based affirmative action initiatives.

Still the bastardization of whites continues. White law enforcement personnel are labeled racist for defending themselves against black criminals, especially when bad things happen to the black criminals.

To put it succinctly, the single greatest non-biblical truth today is that many times the majority of blacks are their own worst enemies. Many blacks go through life with a chip on their shoulder and bad attitudes toward whites. Many blacks growing up in dysfunctional single parent or no parent homes are loathe to realize that their lives are the result of bad decisions made by their families that adversely affect their adulthood – its not the white man.

But as I said, there is a thing called “the laws of unintended consequences.” To that end, sooner or later a pendulum reaches its arc and starts to swing back in the other direction.

How long before white people, many of whom are growing increasingly resentful at being falsely maligned, decide to respond in kind? How much longer will whites stand by and allow the likes of Sharpton and Obama to continually cast them as racist villains?

If the 1915 silent movie, The Birth of a Nation by D.W. Griffith, which depicted blacks as unintelligent and sexual predators of white women, (which was a lie) gave rise to the resurrection of the Ku Klux Klan, what can we expect to be brought about by the heathen behavior of many blacks today?

Many blacks are quick to attack those of us who condemn the untoward, barbaric behavior of some blacks. They curse us for not glossing over their behavior and for not engaging in “blame whitey.” But if a phony movie was able to give rise to at least two generations of condemnation of blacks, what will the in-your-face belligerent hostilities so many of them exhibit today ultimately result in?

America has figuratively bent over backward to assuage its perceived guilt but for many blacks that is not good enough. They accuse and self-alienate but do nothing to incorporate the greatness of America into their lives.

How much longer will America allow blacks to vilify those who have done them no harm – even as blacks attack, terrorize, and condemn those who truly do just want to get along?

* * *

Source

Nevada's Saturday Democratic Caucuses Excludes Observant Jews and Seventh Day Adventists

THE BLOG

02/09/2016 02:32 pm ET | Updated 3 days ago


Laura Goldman

Currently freelances for ABC and the Daily Mail


It seems that the Nevada State Democrat Party did not get the memo that Democrats are the inclusive, big tent party. The Nevada Democrat caucuses will be held on Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 11:00 am PST. Holding the caucuses on Saturday during the day makes it problematic for religious Jews and 7th Day Adventists to exercise their democratic rights and participate in the caucuses. Nevada electoral law requires in person attendance to participate in the caucuses. There are no absentee ballot provisions for caucuses.

Jolie Brislin, Nevada regional director of the ADL, said, "We are dismayed to learn that no religious accommodation will be made for those Democratic caucus members who celebrate the Sabbath on Saturday and, therefore, are unable to participate in this key component of the election process. As an organization committed to safe-guarding religious freedom, we feel it is patently unfair to exclude someone from the caucus process because they are religiously observant. We urge the party leadership to reconsider this decision."

The Nevada State Democratic Party justified the choice of a Saturday date by saying it was the most convenient time for the majority of Nevadans. Stewart Boss, the Nevada State Democratic Party spokesman, told the Las Vegas Review- Journal, "Saturday at 11 a.m. is the best time to increase access as much as possible for Democrats across Nevada to participate in our First in the West caucuses. Keeping this date is critical to preserving our early-state status in the presidential nominating calendar." The Review-Journal, owned by Sheldon Adelson, was the first to report the problematic Saturday date this election cycle.

Rabbi Shea Harlig, executive director of the Chabad of Southern Nevada, found it strange that the Democratic party chose a Saturday date after the Nevada Republican Party received similar complaints when the 2012 caucuses were held on a Saturday. Harlig said, "I am disappointed in the Democratic Party for their lack of sensitivity in scheduling their caucus on a Saturday which will exclude Sabbath observant people from participating. Four years ago when the Republican Party scheduled their caucus for a Saturday, after realizing their mistake, they scheduled a special caucus for Saturday night for all Sabbath observant people. I hope the Democratic Party will do it as well."

Harlig estimated that 300-400 people participated in the 2012 evening Republican caucus. Two registered Democrats in Nevada, Amy Henry and Tracy Banner, told me that they would have caucused if the caucuses were not held during the Jewish Sabbath. When Henry was called by the Clinton campaign about going to the caucuses, she explained to them that she couldn't because of the Sabbath. As of press time, neither the state party nor the office of the senior US Senator from Nevada, Harry Reid, would answer my questions about the possibility of any accommodations for observant persons. Reid's office referred all questions to the state party.

However, someone from Bernie Sander's campaign, Taimus Werner-Gibbings did contact Rabbi Harlig. He told the rabbi that he will see what he can do to have a caucus on Saturday night. Sanders, being Jewish, might be more sensitive to this issue than the others.

My questions caught the attention of Jon Ralston, the dean of the Nevada political press corps, probably because Nevada zealously guards its first in the West status. He mistakenly thought I was working for a well known Israel supporter. No matter what happens the national party has to think long and hard about front loading the future electoral calendar with the Iowa and Nevada caucuses. Democracy is not achieved by settling votes with coin tosses or disfranchising religious groups.

Two registered Democrats in Nevada, Amy Henry and Tracy Banner, told me that they would have caucused if the caucuses were not held during the Jewish Sabbath. When Henry was called by the Clinton campaign about going to the caucuses, she explained to them that she couldn't because of the Sabbath.

Source

.

Surprise! U.N. reason no Christians among refugees

Wednesday, December 2, 2015 | 

Bill Bumpas (OneNewsNow.com)

A religious think tank is pushing for changes to America's refugee resettlement policy, which is not permitting self-identified Christians to seek refuge.

OneNewsNow reported in recent days that less than three percent of 2,184 Syrian refugees allowed into the U.S. since 2011 were Christians.

According to 2015 figures maintained by the State Department, nothing has changed during the current fiscal year: 97 percent of resettled Syrian refugees identify as Muslim.

The problem, explains Mark Tooley of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, is that the U.S. accepts refugees who come from UN-run refugee camps.

But Christian refugees avoid those camps, he says, because they face the same persecution and terror from which they fled.

The State Department, meanwhile, claims there's no policy of discrimination.

"And so there needs to be other avenues opened up to the Christians to allow them to have equal opportunity for coming to the U.S.," Tooley tells OneNewsNow.

Under U.S law, persecuted groups are supposed to receive favor if they seek safety in the United States. One of those allowances for acceptance is religous persecution.

Source

.

When cops are dismissed as bad guys

The left’s war on the police leaves communities defenseless

The Left’s War on Police Illustration by Greg Groesch/The Washington Times more >



By Robert Knight - - Sunday, May 31, 2015


Since the riots over robbery suspect Michael Brown’s death last summer in Ferguson, Mo., and several other deaths of black suspects, America has been awash in a “dialogue” about police and race.

Here’s the condensed narrative: Cops are bad, perps are oppressed, and crime is the product of racism and underfunded welfare programs. Disagree and you’re a racist.

Stung by an avalanche of bad publicity following the tragic death in police custody of Freddie Gray on April 19, the Baltimore police have retreated, booking half as many suspects as they did last year.

The result: In the first month after Mr. Gray’s death, 30 Baltimore homicides were recorded. Over Memorial Day weekend, despite the indictment of six police officers in Mr. Gray’s death, 28 shootings left nine more dead.

The pullback began during the Gray riots, about which Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake acknowledged giving “those who wished to destroy space to do that.”

Here’s a retired officer’s take: “You get sworn in to uphold the law. We would never give anyone ‘space’ to ‘destroy.’ ” Regarding the indictments, he said, “I’m not going to say they all acted perfectly, but this is nothing but riot control, and everyone knows it. Well, the riots are going to be after the acquittals.”

In Cleveland, the Justice Department announced a settlement on May 26. Cops must submit paperwork every time they unholster a gun, whether or not it’s fired. They can’t use neck holds and can use force against someone who is handcuffed only if it is “objectively reasonable and necessary to stop an assault or an escape.” They can’t fire warning shots, and cannot use force against people “who only verbally confront them.”

“Some of that’s reasonable,” my police friend said. “We couldn’t fire warning shots, because you might hit innocent people, or use neck holds. And you should use force only if the guy is a threat. But this stuff about not taking your gun out? Say it’s 2 or 3 in the morning and you’re approaching a vehicle in the dark. Sure you have your gun out, because [suspects] sure don’t keep theirs holstered. I know an officer who got shot right in the face.”

Cleveland Mayor Frank G. Jackson said the rules are “built on the strong foundation of progressive change, sustained trust and accountability.” But Great Society “progress” over the last 50 years has destroyed the black family, turning many urban areas into hellholes.

The settlement came after a white Cleveland officer was acquitted in the fatal shooting of two unarmed blacks in 2012, and follows a Justice Department report in December accusing Cleveland cops of using “excessive force.”

Police are under fire all over the country. The Justice Department is investigating more than 20 departments and has 16 agreements with law enforcement agencies, including consent decrees with Baltimore and eight other cities.

The deaths that sparked outrage are tragic for the families and communities, and there is little doubt that some police can be guilty of abuse and excessive force. But the attacks on police will not make blighted areas any safer. In Baltimore, reducing police presence has emboldened armed criminals and turned residents into inmates in their own homes.

As New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani showed during the 1990s, policing even minor crimes greatly reduces major crime. Under current Mayor Bill de Blasio, who has eased enforcement, New York City is becoming less safe, with Manhattan’s murder rate up 45 percent this year over last year.

None of this seems to impress liberal pundits. In a blog post on the American Civil Liberties Union’s website, Salon writer Jason Williamson lamented the Michigan city of Grand Rapids’ police tactics, saying they’re racist.

“Between 2011 and 2013, the Grand Rapids Police Department either cited or arrested approximately 560 people for trespassing on business property ” Mr. Williamson writes. “In a city in which black people make up roughly 20 percent of the population, 59 percent of those detained for trespassing under this policy were black.”

The bias claim is worth examining, but crime has gone down in Grand Rapids in all categories. Rapes went from 90 in 2010 to 46 in 2012; thefts from 7,050 in 2005 to 4,433 in 2012; murders from 22 in 2006 to 10 in 2011.

Apart from cultural change and policies restoring marriage and families, aggressive policing is the best way to lessen crime, but it’s become problematic in the cop-bashing climate.

Could anyone now blame officers for avoiding scenes that could easily explode, leaving them as poster children for racism and police violence?

“You’re not really risking your career anymore; you’re risking your freedom,” my friend the cop said. “They’re looking to put officers away for life. Citizens need to think about what this means, when police say, ‘I’m in no hurry to get there.’ “

As we’re seeing in Baltimore, the thin blue line against chaos can be very thin, indeed.

• Robert Knight is a senior fellow for the American Civil Rights Union and a Washington Times contributor.

Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/31/robert-knight-lefts-war-on-police-leaves-communiti/#ixzz3bqHfBh86 

.

.

Arkansas legislature passes religious freedom bill

THIS JUST IN

March 31, 2015

Win McNamee/Getty Images


Arkansas on Tuesday passed a religious freedom bill largely similar to the one in Indiana that has sparked an intense public backlash and boycott threats. The state's Republican governor, Asa Hutchinson, has signaled he will sign the bill when it reaches his desk.

Like Indiana's law, the Arkansas version goes further than a federal iteration and those elsewhere around the country in that it protects against "burdens" on religious freedom even when the state is not a party in the litigation. Amid unrelenting criticism, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) on Tuesday said his state would "fix" its law to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. Jon Terbush

Source

.

.

Fear of Black Men: How Society Sees Black Men And How They See Themselves

MARCH 31, 2015 4:58 AM ET



MICHEL MARTIN

Listen to the Story

Morning Edition

6 min 59 sec

Playlist

Download

Transcript

How does the fear of black men in America affect society, and them?Magdalena Roeseler/Flickr


It's an open secret among African-American men and boys that people are often afraid of them. This week, we've brought that conversation to the airways and social media.

We spoke with Paul Butler, a Georgetown University law professor, and Doyin Richard, a blogger at a parenting blog, Daddydoinwork.com, to talk about how these experiences have affected them.

Fear Of The Black Man: How Racial Bias Could Affect Crime, Labor Rates

CODE SWITCH

The Fear Of Black Men In America: Join Our Twitter Chat #FearAndRace

Interview Highlights

On being racially profiled

Prof. Paul Butler: [I was] walking home in my beautiful upper-middle-class neighborhood in D.C., when the cops start following me —kind of like this cat and mouse thing. They are in their car, and you know, every time I move they move. And we get up to my house and I just stop on the street and say 'what are you doing? And then they say 'what are you doing?' I say 'I live here.' They say 'prove it.' They made me go to my porch, and then when I got there I said, 'you know what, I don't have to proof nothing.' I knew this because I am a law professor. They said, 'we are not leaving until you go in the house, because we think you're a burglar.' I say 'you're doing this because I am black.' They said, 'no, we are not, were black too,' and that was true. These were African-American officers. Even they were racial profiling me, another black man.

Blogger Doyin Richards: When I was out with my oldest daughter, who's [four-years-old], we were in a shopping mall, in a garage in Los Angeles...and there was a lady, who was with her husband. And I could tell they were just really nervous around me. And then we went to an ATM — I had to get some money — and there's another couple and I heard the woman say 'Hurry up, let's go, let's go.' Like I was going to rob them, and my daughter was all like 'What happened dad? What was that all about?' And I have to go into this conversation, 'Well honey, sometimes people look at the color of my skin and they think I am a threat to them.'

"When you're in an elevator or walking behind somebody and you feel like you have to perform to make them feel safe, it's like apologizing for your existence."

- Paul Butler, Georgetown University Law professor

On how to appear non-threatening

Blogger Doyin Richards: Sometimes if I am walking down a street or something, I am whistling Frozen songs just to prove that ... 'Hey I have kids, I am not a threat to you. I just want to go home to my family.' So often people just view this as, 'Oh gosh, you're just whining,' or 'they are just making excuses or pulling out some mythical race card that doesn't exist.' This is a real thing.

Prof. Paul Butler: When you're in an elevator or walking behind somebody and you feel like you have to perform to make them feel safe, it's like apologizing for your existence. So I am in an elevator with a white woman and I have to look down to make her feel comfortable. It's like 'excuse poor black me.' And you get angry and you get tired. But as a prosecutor, you also kind of understand where some these attitudes come from. Because while most black men don't commit any crime, of men who commit crime, a disproportionately number are African-American. And so yeah, sometimes there's a tendency to say, 'Well, gee if you other brothers weren't doing this, I wouldn't have to be in this position."

On being proud of being a black man.

Prof. Paul Butler: one problem with conversations like this, is it doesn't get across that I love being a black man. I feel connected, like when I see President Obama's swag, I get that as a black man. When I hear Jay Z's cool ... I kind absorb and relate as well. Sometime we don't talk about the joy of this identity, and how proud I am to be African-American and a man.


Source
.

Indiana governor signs state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act

BY NICOLE HENSLEY 

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS 

Published: Thursday, March 26, 2015, 10:52 AM

Updated: Thursday, March 26, 2015, 2:20 PM

DARRON CUMMINGS/AP
Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, pictured Wednesday, signed the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law to prohibit the government from impeding on a person’s religious rights.

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence went behind closed doors to sign a controversial measure that would effectively legalize discrimination against same-sex couples by those who object on religious grounds.

Senate Bill 101 was passed by the state House and Senate despite pleas from LGBT activists, Indiana businesses, the Republican mayor of Indianapolis and even leaders of the Disciples of Christ church.

The measure bars the government from impinging on a person’s religious convictions without a “compelling” justification.

Opponents fear the legislation is broad enough to justify an array of discriminatory treatment to residents based on sexual orientation.

Pence, a Republican who assumed office in 2013, promised Monday to sign it into law, and he took the action during a private ceremony Thursday, according to a statement released by his office.

“Today I signed the religious Freedom Restoration Act, because I support the freedom of religious for every Hoosier of every faith,” Pence said.

The legislation garnered an array of criticism by those willing to take their business elsewhere instead of facing the state’s possibly discriminatory law.

It’s believed the bill would provide a valid defense to caterers, photographers or bakers to deny goods and services to same-sex couples.

Seattle-based convention group Gen Con, whose organizers threatened to leave Indianapolis, flaunted its $50 million economic impact that would be at stake over the legislation.

That statement prompted Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard to voice his own concerns about the initiative, saying he fears it would send the “wrong signal” about Indiana and deter commerce.

“Indianapolis strives to be a welcoming place that attracts businesses, conventions, visitors and residents,” Ballard, a Republican, said in a statement Wednesday. “We are a diverse city, and I want everyone who visits and lives in Indy to feel comfortable here."

The measure's approval elicited concern from leaders of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), who are considering taking their General Assembly, which gathers about 6,000 attendees, out of Indianapolis when it next meets in 2017.

The state’s capital is set to host the NCAA Final Four next week and though the basketball organizers based in Indianapolis did not openly criticize the legislation, they acknowledged it could prove troublesome.

"We are examining the details of this bill, however, the NCAA national office is committed to an inclusive environment where all individuals enjoy equal access to events," the college sports governing association said in a statement.

The state’s new policy is the first bill of its kind to be signed into law this session; coinciding with similar bills in Wyoming, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Utah that were quickly defeated.

Another wave of religious freedom measures were introduced in Montana and North Carolina legislatures during the past two weeks, just weeks before the Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments on marriage equality.

American Civil Liberties Union attorneys have taken note of the legislation’s timing and warned it could have implications for required vaccinations and child welfare cases.

A state-by-state break down of controversial legislation.

“The bill was introduced as backlash reaction to achieving marriage equality for same-sex couples in Indiana,” director of ACLU’s Indiana office said in a statement. “We are deeply disappointed that the governor and state lawmakers have been tone-deaf to the cries of legions of Hoosiers.”


Supporters of the bill, including Pence, have repeatedly said the act was intended to protect religious rights, not to codify prejudice.

The state law is patterned after the federal measure enacted by former President Bill Clinton in the early 1990s, but it is most directly inspired by last year’s religious freedom bill in Arizona that fail with Gov. Jan Brewer’s veto.

The federal measure counteracted a Supreme Court decision that upheld the firing and denial of benefits to two Washington state employees whose religious rituals violated state law.

“This bill is not about discrimination, and if I thought it legalized discrimination in any way in Indiana, I would have vetoed it,” Pence wrote. “For more than 20 years, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act has never undermined our nation’s anti-discrimination laws, and it will not in Indiana.”

With News Wire Services.

nhensley@nydailynews.com

Source

.

Idaho Pastors Face Jail Time, Thousands in Fines for Not Performing Gay Weddings

BY ANUGRAH KUMAR , CHRISTIAN POST CONTRIBUTOR
October 20, 2014|8:37 am

(PHOTO: REUTERS/ADREES LATIF)

A same-sex couple marries in New York, June 20, 2012.


Two ordained Christian pastors in Idaho have filed a federal lawsuit and a motion for temporarily restraining Coeur d'Alene city officials from forcing them to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies or face prosecution for violating "non-discrimination" laws.

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed the lawsuit and the motion on behalf of Donald Knapp and his wife, Evelyn, who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel and have been required by city officials to perform gay ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines.

The city says its non-discrimination ordinance requires them to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies because the courts have overridden Idaho's voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

"The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines," ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco said in a statement.

"Many have denied that pastors would ever be forced to perform ceremonies that are completely at odds with their faith, but that's what is happening here — and it's happened this quickly," Tedesco added. "The city is on seriously flawed legal ground, and our lawsuit intends to ensure that this couple's freedom to adhere to their own faith as pastors is protected just as the First Amendment intended."

The city is "unconstitutionally coercing" the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies "in violation of their religious beliefs, their ordination vows, and their consciences," the lawsuit states.

The couple, both in their 60s, can either violate their religious convictions and ministerial vows by performing gay wedding ceremonies or follow their religious convictions and vows by declining to perform such ceremonies and face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines, it adds.

"Worse, each day the Knapps decline to perform a requested same-sex wedding ceremony, they commit a separate and distinct misdemeanor, subject to the same penalties. Thus, if the Knapps decline a same-sex wedding ceremony for just one week, they risk going to jail for over three years and being fined $7,000," the lawsuit explains.

"The government exists to protect and respect our freedoms, not attack them," Tedesco underlined. "The city cannot erase these fundamental freedoms and replace them with government coercion and intolerance."

It seems the city expects ordained pastors to "flip a switch and turn off all faithfulness to their God and their vows," ADF Legal Counsel Jonathan Scruggs said. "The U.S. Constitution as well as federal and state law clearly stand against that. The city cannot mandate across-the-board conformity to its interpretation of a city ordinance in utter disregard for the guaranteed freedoms Americans treasure in our society."

Compelling the couple to "speak words in ceremonies that they think are immoral is an unconstitutional speech compulsion," Eugene Volokh, the Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law, wrote in an op-ed piece on the case for The Washington Post.

"Given that the Free Speech Clause bars the government from requiring public school students to say the pledge of allegiance, or even from requiring drivers to display a slogan on their license plates, the government can't require ministers — or other private citizens — to speak the words in a ceremony, on pain of either having to close their business or face fines and jail time."

Source

.

Obama signs executive order banning LGBT discrimination

Gregory Korte, USA TODAY

3:28 p.m. EDT July 21, 2014



(Photo: Jewel Samad, AFP/Getty Images)



WASHINGTON — President Obama signed an executive order Monday expanding the protections for federal workers and contractors from discrimination based on sexual orientation.

"In too many states and in too many workplaces, simply being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender can still be a fireable offense," Obama said. "So I firmly believe that it's time to address this injustice for every American."

Since President Bill Clinton, the federal government has banned discrimination against gays and lesbians in federal employment. Obama's action Monday expanded that protection to transsexuals.

The two-part order also bans discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity for companies receiving federal contracts.

Some religious leaders had called on Obama to include a religious-based exception to the executive order, following the Supreme Court's decision in the Hobby Lobby case June 30. The court ruled that closely held companies with religious objections cannot be forced to provide coverage for certain contraception or abortion-inducing drugs.

The order Obama signed Monday stopped short of that. It does, however, maintain a provision from a 2002 executive order signed by President George W. Bush that exempts religious organizations that discriminate based on religious beliefs.

A number of more liberal religious leaders attended the signing ceremony Monday in the East Room of the White House, and frequently shouted "Amen!" during Obama's speech.

Obama told a crowd of a few hundred gay rights activists, religious leaders and lawmakers that their "passionate advocacy and the irrefutable rightness of your cause" led to Monday's action.

Broader legislation banning employment discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals passed the Senate last year, but the House of Representatives has not acted on it.

Source

.

.

President Obama seeks political boost from LGBT executive order

This will be a week of the administration trumpeting its gay rights record. | GettyClose

By EDWARD-ISAAC DOVERE and JENNIFER EPSTEIN | 6/16/14 12:19 PM EDT Updated: 6/17/14 3:18 PM EDT


President Barack Obama’s 2014: “pen and phone” — and politics.

Monday, the White House announced Obama will sign an executive order that would prohibit federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

This will be a week of the administration trumpeting its gay rights record, with Obama appearing Tuesday night at the Democratic National Committee’s annual LGBT Gala in New York. Thursday, the Justice Department is set to release a report detailing all the ways it has broadly interpreted the Supreme Court’s United States v. Windsor decision which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act last year.

(PHOTOS: 26 gay-rights milestones)

The White House will host a meeting Thursday afternoon about the executive order and the report, which will identify Social Security and veterans affairs benefits as the two areas where the federal government has not been able to apply the Windsor decision, according to sources briefed on the plans.

That will come as the anti-gay marriage National Organization for Marriage on Thursday holds its own march from the Capitol to the Supreme Court, followed by a gala dinner at the Willard Hotel.

For LGBT advocates, the executive order is so important that they call it the third leg of the stool of Obama’s revolutionary record on gay rights, along with repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and backing same sex marriage. For Obama and Democrats, it’s a fresh way to try to energize the LGBT community and liberals heading into the midterms.

(Also on POLITICO: Hobby Lobby aims for Christian nation)

The White House made the unusual move Monday of announcing that Obama had asked for the order to be drafted, though activists say Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett told them the Justice and Labor departments had vetted a version of the order two years ago. A White House official said the advance notice was due to the “intense interest” in the topic.

“The action would build upon existing protections, which generally prohibit federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” the official said. “This is consistent with the president’s views that all Americans, LGBT or not, should be treated with dignity and respect.”

The order would cover 28 million workers overall, and what advocates estimate is one in five LGBT employees nationally.

“This is a signal to the ‘rising electorate’ needed to turn out in midterms (LGBT, African American, Latinos and young people) that there’s a reason to come out and vote,” Winnie Stachelberg, an executive vice president for the Center for American Progress said in an email, “so it’s helpful for sure.”

(Also on POLITICO: Obama's Bush hangover)

The delay over the final text is seen by some who’ve been watching developments closely as due to the upcoming Supreme Court’s decision on the Hobby Lobby case, on the religious exemption for businesses to claim leeway from Obamacare’s contraception mandate. If the court were to issue a broad exemption, LGBT advocates worry it could have implications for their community as well, by potentially enabling employers to justify discrimination by saying their religion does not approve of LGBT people.

Activists expect that the White House will wait to issue the executive order until after that decision arrives — expected by the end of the month — and that sexual orientation and gender identity will be written into the existing executive order language about workplace discrimination in a way that addresses the decision.

The White House did not comment on what role Hobby Lobby is playing in officials’ thinking.

Signing the order would fulfill a promise that dates back to Obama’s days as a candidate, but that lingered through the first term and has been tabled since Jarrett told advocates in a 2012 meeting that they’d have to keep waiting until after the re-election campaign.

They’ve kept waiting since then, watching with a what-about-us frustration as the president announced in his State of the Union in January that he’d lead by example and raise the minimum wage for government workers, then in April that he’d lead by example and sign an executive order on pay equity for government contractors — all while repeatedly calling for Congress to pass the Employee Non-Discrimination Act, which would cover much of the same legal ground.

That bill has passed the Senate but been stalled in the House, though advocates hope that the executive order will now increase political pressure on Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and his conference to hold a vote.

“While the specifics of this executive order are not yet clear, I believe it must include the same religious protections that are included in the bipartisan Employment Non-Discrimination Act that passed the Senate,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). “ENDA strikes a good balance to ensure that discrimination based on sexual orientation will not be tolerated, but also that one of our nation’s fundamental freedoms — religious freedom — is still upheld.”

Stachelberg, who’s spoken often with the White House about these issues, praised the administration’s “careful consideration of this issue and its strong commitment to widening the circle of opportunity,” saying that brings, “the goal of true workplace fairness for all Americans is closer than ever before.”

But for all the breadth of that record, Obama managed to get overshadowed on endorsing same sex marriage by Vice President Joe Biden, whom many in the LGBT community credit with having accelerated the president’s own timing by unexpectedly voicing his own support two years ago in a “Meet the Press” interview. Even last week, during a screening of a new movie about the court battle to repeal California’s Proposition 8, a clip of that Biden interview drew heavy applause from the audience, while a clip of Obama endorsing gay marriage was greeted mostly with silence.

The executive order should help Obama reclaim some of the attention for being the one whose administration has racked up so many victories for the LGBT community that many were wary even criticizing the delay. Beyond repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the gay marriage endorsement, advocates have widely praised how the Justice Department has continued to respond to Windsor.

All that will matter to the LGBT community, advocates say. But it will also matter to the voters Obama is trying to turn out in the midterms.

“There’s absolutely no doubt that this president has fulfilled 99.9 percent of his promises to the LGBT community, and this is yet another important example of that,” said Fred Sainz, the vice president for communications at the Human Rights Campaign. “I wouldn’t simply apply this to LGBT people. I think it sends a message to progressives overall, much like you saw his support for marriage excite them.”

Jarrett celebrated the imminent action with a post on Twitter. “Executive action to ban fed contractors from discriminating against #LGBT workers is good for America & for business #WorkplaceEquality,” she wrote.

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the lead sponsor in the Senate of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, welcomed the White House’s plans and called on Boehner to hold a vote on ENDA — which passed in the Senate late last year — so that discrimination protection would apply to Americans in all workplaces.

“Most Americans don’t know that it’s still legal in many states to fire someone for their sexual orientation or gender identity,” Merkley said. “That’s because it not only defies common sense, it goes wholly against who we are as a nation. No more excuses. It’s way past time for Speaker Boehner to allow ENDA to have a vote in the House. No one should be fired because of who they are or whom they love.”



Source: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/obama-lgbt-nondiscrimination-executive-order-107900_Page2.html#ixzz34vX4zdvC

.

.

House Judiciary Comittee hearing on Religious Liberty (2014)

House Committee on the Judiciary

USHR02 Committee on the Judiciary

« Back to Live Stream


Broadcast live streaming video on Ustream

Source
.

“To me, this is a no-brainer”: Catholic lawmaker introduces LGBTQ rights measure in Kansas

Thursday, Mar 13, 2014 01:37 PM EST


 "We’re defeating our own purpose as a country that wants to be inclusive," explained state Rep. Louis Ruiz

Katie Mcdonough

 

 
(Credit: AP Photo/Mathew Sumner)


A Democratic state lawmaker in Kansas has proposed an LGBTQ nondiscrimination measure just a month after his colleagues in the Kansas House passed a bill allowing businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ people.

Rep. Louis Ruiz, a practicing Catholic, called his nondiscrimination measure a “no-brainer.”

“What’s our message when we have these type of discriminatory bills that come out at either the federal or the state level? We’re defeating our own purpose as a country that wants to be inclusive. To me, this is a no-brainer,” he told the Wichita Eagle.

The measure would add gender and sexual identity and expression to existing anti-discrimination statutes around race, religion and gender. And while religious lawmakers he serves with in the House have used their faith as a justification to enshrine discrimination into Kansas law, Ruiz said he believes his faith is well protected and wants to see those same protections extended to his fellow Kansans.

The need for such a bill, particularly so soon after the House passed a measure to legalize discrimination, is clear, advocates say.

“If you look at the bills that people are trying to pass that would permanently enshrine open discrimination against gay and lesbian Kansans, can you think of a better reason why we should introduce something [like this bill]?” Witt said at the Capitol on Tuesday.

Katie McDonough is an assistant editor for Salon, focusing on lifestyle. Follow her on Twitter @kmcdonovgh or email her at kmcdonough@salon.com.


Source
.

Methodist Pastor Defrocked Over Gay Marriage Service

By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS
Published: December 19, 2013




The United Methodist Church on Thursday defrocked a Pennsylvania pastor who officiated at his son’s same-sex wedding six years ago and refused to agree not to perform other gay marriages.




Matt Rourke/Associated Press

The Rev. Frank Schaefer and his wife Brigitte on Thursday left a meeting with officials of the Eastern Pennsylvania Conference of the United Methodist Church in Lebanon, Pa.





The pastor, the Rev. Frank Schaefer, who had been at the Zion United Methodist Church of Ionain Lebanon, Pa., told church officials that he was unable to follow the denomination’s code of laws because it discriminated against gays and lesbians. Church doctrine forbids same-sex marriage and the ordination of homosexuals, and teaches that homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.

Bishop Peggy Johnson, who leads nearly 900 United Methodist churches in Pennsylvania, said in a statement that Mr. Schaefer had been defrocked.

“He no longer holds the ministerial office in the Eastern Pennsylvania Conference by virtue of his decision,” Bishop Johnson said in the statement, according to Reuters. “Rev. Schaefer met with the board of ordained ministry today and declared that he is not willing or able to uphold the laws of the Book of Discipline in its entirety in the future as required by the trial court’s verdict.”

“When asked to surrender his credentials as required by the verdict, he refused to do so,” the statement added. “Therefore, because of his decision, the board was compelled by the jury’s decision to deem his credentials surrendered.”

In 2007, Mr. Schaefer performed a wedding for his son in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal. A member of Mr. Schaefer’s congregation later reported the wedding to church authorities, and the pastor was found guilty last month of violating church law and given a 30-day suspension.

Mr. Schaefer had until Thursday to agree to abide by the United Methodist Book of Discipline, the church’s rules and doctrine.

Mr. Schaefer could not be reached for comment Thursday, but at a news conference in Philadelphia earlier this week, he said: “I cannot uphold those discriminatory laws and the language in the United Methodist Church’s Book of Discipline that is hurtful and harmful to our homosexual brothers and sisters in the church.”

In a note posted on her blog this week, Bishop Johnson acknowledged that portions of the Book of Discipline were biased.

“Several statements in our Book of Discipline are discriminatory (forbidding ordination of homosexual persons, forbidding the performing of same-gender marriages and considering the practice of homosexuality incompatible with Christian teaching),” she wrote.

Those prohibitions, Bishop Johnson continued, taken together with the church’s message of inclusion, “has led to confusion by many from the outside of the church wondering how we can talk out of two sides of our mouth.”

She assured readers however, that “our L.G.B.T. sisters and brothers are of sacred worth regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.”


Laurie Goodstein contributed reporting.


Source
.

From Discrimination to Dignity: Standing with Women, Girls and LGBT People Worldwide

Photo (Courtesy) http://www.sonsadesign.com/upload/projects/images/03_IS_AJWS.jpg

Please join American Jewish World Service President
Ruth Messinger

For a lecture, brunch and dialogue:
From Discrimination to Dignity
Standing with women, girls and LGBT people worldwide

In many societies, women, girls and LGBT people are second-class citizens, facing rampant violence and violations of their human rights. Join us for this special event to learn how people of all faiths can stand together with women, girls and LGBT people worldwide. Hear Ruth Messinger speak at the Rector’s Forum at All Saints Church, followed by a unique opportunity to talk with Claudia Samayoa, a Guatemalan human rights activist and AJWS grantee.

$18 per person for brunch. Space is limited, so make your reservation today!

Immediately followed by:
Private Brunch and activist discussion with Ruth Messinger and Claudia Samayoa at McCormick & Schmick’s next door

December 8, 2013
10:15 a.m.
Rector’s Forum, All Saints Episcopal Church
132 N. Euclid Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91101

Map this location

For more information, please contact LAevents@ajws.org or 310.843.9588.



Source
.