Today in Christian Love: There Is No Funeral Because The Deceased Is Gay

Vanessa Collier was just thirty-three years old when she died last month, leaving behind a wife and children, and a family who just wanted a simple funeral for her. So they contacted the New Hope Ministries in Denver, and arranged to have a service; they even gave the church a memorial video to be played during the ceremony.

But the church lost the video, and asked for a second copy, and then asked the family to edit the video, removing a clip showing Vanessa Collier kissing her wife, Christina Higley, because, you know, love and lesbians and God.

Pastor — and why these not very Christ-like people call themselves pastors is fodder for another blog post — Gary Rolando, told the family:

"We don't want overt, open homosexuality in our sanctuary."

Then he added that he knew the family, loved the family, knew the deceased — her name is Vanessa, by the way, “Pastor” — and that she led an, ahem, 'alternative' lifestyle. I guess by ‘alternative’ he meant that she treated everyone the same regardless of their sexual orientation.

When the family learned that the church wanted the kiss edited from the video, they naturally refused, so on the day of the funeral, moments before it was to begin, New Hope Ministries canceled it, citing ‘technical difficulties.’

Now, to his credit, and mind you, it’s very little credit, Pastor Rolando did conduct the funeral service at another church — since they don’t bury gays at New Hope — though there was no explanation about those alleged difficulties; “Pastor” Ray Chavez [left], the founder of New Hope Ministries, refused to explain why the service was canceled so suddenly, but Rolando blamed a visiting funeral director, saying "the funeral director on that day came from a different funeral home in the chain, and wasn't familiar with New Hope's policies."

Hmmmmm, church policies? What might those be? Love one another? That policy? Judge not lest ye be judged? That one? Or maybe it’s the policy that if two women share a kiss on a memorial video then you can refuse to bury one of them? That policy?

Rolando has since said:

"I'm sorry this happened the way it did. New Hope is very sorry... It's very sad that it happened the way that it did."

Well, “Pastor,” it wouldn’t have happened that way if the leaders of the church, the “pastors” of the church weren’t bigots and homophobes, eh? It wouldn’t have happened that way if the “pastors” of the church simply believed that God is love and that God loves everyone, and it’s only the “pastors” at New Hope that hate.

God is watching New Hope and She is not happy.

via NCRM

UPDATE: Judge Rules Against Florist Who Refused Service To Gay Couple

I’ve written about Barronelle Stutzman and her Richland Washington flower shop, Arlene’s Flowers, several times, the first time almost two years ago, so let’s replay the back-story first:

Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed live in Washington, and, having been together for a while, and since Washington made all of its citizens equal, they decided to get married in September 2013.

And, since during their nearly decade-long relationship they ordered special occasion flowers — birthdays, anniversaries, condolences and such — from Arlene's Flowers, they decided to use the same florist for their wedding flowers, But Arlene’s owner, and that would be Barronelle Stutzman, turned them down because, as she says:

"Rob came into the store and was talking about getting married. I told him because of my relationship with Jesus Christ that I couldn't do his wedding."

Robert Ingersoll talked with Stutzman a bit, respectfully, but he felt hurt by the rejection:

"It really hurt because it was somebody I knew. We laid awake all night Saturday. It was eating at our souls. There was never a question she'd be the one to do our flowers. She does amazing work."

Ingersoll wrote a Facebook post about their disappointment in Stutzman and Arlene's Flowers, and suddenly the story was everywhere, with people leaving comments, both positive and critical of the florist who won't do same-sex weddings.

Many pointed out that Stutzman's refusal to provide flowers for the Ingersoll-Freed wedding just might be against Washington law because, while state law exempts religious organizations from having to perform same-sex weddings, it doesn't allow the same exemptions for businesses.

All of which lead to a lawsuit when Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed a consumer protection lawsuit today against Arlene's Flowers, Barronelle Stutzman, for refusing provide flowers for a same-sex wedding.

The lawsuit alleges that when Stutzman refused to provide goods or services on the basis of sexual orientation in a place of public accommodation, she was violating the state's anti-discrimination law and was, therefore, also violating laws designed to protect consumers. Since Stutzman operates a business that sells floral arrangements for opposite-sex weddings, Ferguson says she must provide that same service to same-sex couples.

This all went back and forth about The Gays and the baby Jeebus and flowers and cakes and weddings and religion and public businesses, and it is still going on because last week Benton County Superior Court Judge Alex Ekstrom decided that the state of Washington has the authority to bring a consumer protection lawsuit against Barronelle Stutzman for refusing to do a floral arrangement for The Gays; he also ruled that Stutzman can be held personally liable for violating the Consumer Protection Act.

The judge still has two more motions to rule on in the lawsuit, including whether the facts case show the florist violated the Consumer Protection Act and the Washington Law Against Discrimination.

Stutzman’s lawyers are saying she declined not because of the couple’s sexual orientation, but because of her religious views on marriage.

But it was her views on marriage of a gay couple, a couple with a different sexual orientation than, allegedly, her own, so that argument is kind of ridiculous; if she didn’t provide flowers because of her views on marriage wouldn’t that mean she wouldn’t provide flowers for straight couples, too?

Look, it boils down to this: the state attorney general is asking for a permanent injunction requiring Stutzman and her shop to comply with the consumer protection law. Simple. You sell flowers, sell flowers, and keep the Baby Jeebus out of it.

I mean, does she check the religious status of all her customers? Does she find out what all the arrangements are for before she makes them? She doesn’t think The Gays should be married because, in her tiny head the Baby Jeebus told her so, but she can’t let the Baby Jeebus tell her how to run her business.

This would have all been a non-story had she just made the flowers. Now it’ll drag on and on … and she’ll still lose.

via LGBTQ Nation

Back Story from ISBL:
Barronelle Stutzman, of Arlene's Flowers, and The Baby Jeebus, Don't Sell Flowers For Same-Sex Weddings
Barronelle Stutzman Gets Busted!

Michigan GOP Seeks To Legalize Discrimination Because ... God

Out there in Michigan, the GOP controlled House of Representatives, led by Speaker Jase Bolger, has passed a bill that would allow discrimination to become sanctioned by the state if you can say you discriminated because God told you it was okay … cuz God is all about discrimination, you know.

This bill, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act [RFRA] is much like one that made nationwide headlines in Arizona before it was vetoed; it appears to allow the government to step aside if a person's "deeply-held religious beliefs" mandate they act, or not act, in a certain manner. Supporters of RFRA claim the bill allows people of faith to exercise their religion without government interference, but the fact is that what these bills do is to allow discrimination under the mask of religion; and, again, we all know that God—whether you believe in Her or not—is all about the discrimination.

Don’t believe me? Let’s take a look at what could happen …

Under the RFRA a pharmacist could refuse to fill a doctor's prescription for birth control, or HIV medication; an emergency room physician or EMT could refuse service to a gay person in need of immediate treatment; a school teacher could refuse to mentor the children of a same-sex couple; a science teacher could teach that the Earth is just 6,000 years old; a DMV clerk could refuse to give a driver's license to a person who is divorced. 

And what if a Catholic-owned hospital refused admittance to people who need a procedure that violates the institution’s religious directives, such as a pre-viability pregnancy termination in the case of a miscarriage; what if that Catholic-owned hospital refused a same-sex couple.

And, what about those religions that allow for a man to beat his wife? Would he be allowed to do so because of his deeply held religious beliefs? It’s not that far-fetched when you allow religious discrimination of any kind.

But Jase Bolger — and the Michigan GOP — doesn’t care about that because the people who are being discriminated against are not part of the goose-stepping GOP base, and so he fast-tracked the bill, which passed solely along partisan lines, and now heads to the Michigan Senate. If successful there, it’s a hop skip and a hate crime to Republican Governor Rick Snyder, though, to be fair, it’s not yet known if he would sign it. 

“I support individual liberty and I support religious freedom,” Bolger said today. “I have been horrified as some have claimed that a person’s faith should only be practiced while hiding in their home or in their church.” — Jase Bolger

I, too, am horrified that he would say that without offering one single case of a person being denied their religious freedom in this country. Oh, if he means the baker who doesn’t wanna bake a cake for a gay couple, then he needs to make sure the baker is a church, and not a publicly run business; or, if he means the clerk who won’t issue a marriage license, then he needs to make sure the clerk is working for a religious organization, and not the state, or federal, government.

And this whole notion of “restoring” religious freedom annoys me because, again, I have not seen religious freedom stripped away from anyone. Take a drive down any street in South Carolina and you’ll find more churches than gas stations; take a peek at our local channels and you’ll find a church, and its pastor, advertising their faith every morning.

We have always had religious freedom, but what we don’t have is religion trumping the laws of this country; what we don’t have is people using God to inflict their own personal beliefs on anyone else.

But, if that’s how you wanna roll, Michigan, please make an addendum to your bill: please force those business, and hospitals, and pharmacies, and schools, that want to discriminate against people while citing their religious beliefs post a sign at their doors so that people who don’t think God hates anyone, or would discriminate against anyone, or people who don’t believe there even is a God, can go somewhere else.

Make people who want to discriminate against anyone else be forced to advertise their discrimination.

If haters are gonna hate, make them tell people about it.

via NCRM

Rick Snyder: Asshat or Ally?

The last time I spoke about Michigan Governor Rick Snyder was … wait a minute, let me recall, I think it was, it could have been, oh yeah … yesterday.

See, it was just yesterday that Snyder asked that the 300 same-sex marriages performed during the tiny Equality Window that opened in the state last March be declared void now that the Sixth Circuit Court has ruled that it’s okay to discriminate against The Gays in Michigan.

But, lo and behold, I found yet another tale of Rick Snyder, one that has me scratching my head and wondering if there are two Rick Snyder’s governing the state. Last week, fresh from his reelection win, Snyder, a devout Republican, encouraged his state legislature to take up adding LGBT protections to the Elliott-Larson Civil Rights Act before the end of their session.

Yup, just before working to basically annul 300 same-sex marriages, Snyder asked that The Gays be added to the states discrimination laws. And let’s toss in the fact that the very legislature he’s asked to add LGBT protections to the law is a very GOP-centric legislature, with Republicans in control of both houses.

Now, it seems Snyder has made his move now because, come January, the Michigan legislature is expected to be even more conservative with an added Tea Party element. But he might still face an uphill battle with the House Speaker, one Jase Bolger, who believes that LGBT protections should be "balanced" by religious protections; but, with Bolger on his way out the door having lost his election, maybe he’d be more gay-friendly, or, at the very least, less gay-hating?

Still, the questions arises, why Rick? Why now? Why protect The Gays one week and then strip the married gays of their marriages the next?

Money; corporations. It appears Snyder was motivated by his base in the business sector; the very people to whom he gave a tax cut paid for by raising property taxes on Michigan retirees. That group, the Michigan Competitive Workforce Coalition, includes AT&T, Google and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, who have all publicly supported amending Elliott-Larsen with LGBT protections.

So, he didn’t do it for The Gays, he did it for the people to whom he gave tax breaks paid for by people who maybe cannot afford tax breaks. So, while this might be a nice, seemingly, LGBT-friendly move, it’s really just appeasing business while smothering the public under more taxes.

And that’s no surprise coming from a Republican. And an asshat.

Looky there, I answered my own question: Rick Snyder is still an asshat.

source

How Would You Like Your Marriage Voided?

I know firsthand what a feeling it was to go from being “partnered’ to being married; it’s really a subtle difference, maybe a change in speech — This is my husband versus This is my partner — but it felt huge.

Now, imagine that you’ve married your partner, girlfriend, boyfriend, significant other, and you’re feeling that joy, that sense of newness, that sense of equality, only to have the rug yanked out from under when a Circuit Court decides that marriages bans against the gays are just fine.

That’s what happened when the 6th Circuit Court recently ruled that marriage bans are legal and, somehow, just. And since that ruling the state of Michigan is trying to declare that the 300 same-sex couples who received licenses last March, and were subsequently legally married in the state, are now no longer husband-and-husband or wife-and-wife.

How’s that for equality?

The weddings were performed by county clerks March 22, a day after U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman struck down Michigan's same-sex marriage ban; that same day the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati issued a stay on those marriages, but it came after those 300 couples had legally completed the steps to be married.

Now, Michigan Governor, and ISBL Asshat winner, Rick Snyder would like those marriages voided since the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage, along with bans in Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.

You can’t get married; you can get married; now your marriage is void. It never existed. You don’t exist as a married couple. Ain’t that America?

Lawyers for the governor, and for the state of Michigan, are saying that "from a legal standpoint, because the marriages rested solely on the district court's erroneous decision, which has now been reversed, it is as if the marriages never existed.”

I mean, bad enough that we are being treated like second-class citizens; bad enough that we are expected to do as everyone else in this country is supposed to do, work, pay taxes, be responsible citizens, vote, and yet we do not have the same rights as those other citizens; bad enough. But to allow us the opportunity to get married when the law is changed, and then to change it back and sue to have our marriages declared void?

That is not America; that cannot happen. These cases need to go before the Supreme Court and have marriage equality declared the law of land everywhere in this country.

Case closed.

Appeals ruling voids300 gay marriages, Michigan argues

UPDATE; Madelynn Taylor and Jean Mixner Will Be Buried Together

I first wrote about Madelynn Taylor — a 74-year-old US … United States … Navy veteran — back in April of this year; see post HERE.

Here’s a recap: Madelynn Taylor met and fell in love with Jean Mixner back in 1995, and they were married in California in 2008; afterwards they moved to Idaho and lived happily ever after until Jean died in 2012.

Madelynn Taylor, who had Jean cremated, wanted to be buried in Idaho’s Veterans Cemetery — she’s a veteran, remember — and she wanted to have Jean’s ashes interred with her. She contacted the cemetery to reserve one single plot for both she and her wife, but was told that they could not be buried together, not because of the space, but because, at that time, same-sex marriage was illegal, and unrecognized in Idaho.

To be clear, however, both Taylor and Mixner could be buried together in a national military cemetery — because their marriage is federally recognized — but Taylor wants to be buried in Boise where there are family close by. She even went so far as to ask a friend to hold onto her wife’s ashes, and hers, should she die before marriage became legal, and have them buried together then. And then, Barry Johnson is a retired U.S. Army colonel who lives in Potlatch, Idaho, became involved after he read Madelynn’s story; see that post HERE.

Barry wrote to Madelynn via The Idaho Statesman:

“I'll tell you what. I will donate the plot I earned in the Idaho State Veterans Cemetery to you and Jean. I am happy to give my fellow veteran that small peace of mind. And I do it to honor all the great Americans I've served with along the way - gay, straight, whatever.”

Now, it looks like he won’t have to do that; now it looks like Madelynn won’t have to have a friend old onto the ashes, because last week Idaho state officials agreed to allow Madelynn and Jean to be buried together.

The first thing Madelynn Taylor did was to head to the Idaho State Veterans Cemetery to make arrangements to have both her ashes and those of her late wife interred together at the cemetery.

Simple, yes, but it took the recent victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which found that Idaho’s ban on marriage equality violated the U.S. Constitution, to allow these women, this couple, the rights that every other opposite-sex married couple in this country has taken for granted forever.

“Words can’t describe how incredibly grateful I am for all the work that went into making our wishes possible. Idaho is where some of our best memories together are and it’s where I want to spend eternity with Jean.”—Madelynn Taylor

It seems such a simple request, one that, for many, is a non-issue, but it’s just another perk of equality for married same-sex couples.

Even in Idaho.

via National Center for Lesbian Rights

Today In Christian Love: God Says Gays Must Be 'Put To Death'

Recently Carols and I sat down to watch The Butler. We hadn’t seen it in theaters last year because, well, Oprah; I can’t with Oprah. I’m sorry, I know that sounds shallow, but I just can’t with Oprah. And it didn’t help that when we saw it on cable, how director Lee Daniels really played up Oprah’s, what should have been, what really was, minor roll. The camera lingered on her in scenes that really had nothing to do with her; at times, when Forrest Whitaker, The Butler, was talking, we saw shots of Oprah.

I.Can’t.With.Oprah. But that’s neither here nor there. I was thinking about a scene in a church where, right about the altar was a blazing sign made of those big globe-type light bulbs that spelled out the words: God Is Love.

Y’all know I am not a religious man, at least of the organized religious persuasion, but my thoughts on God, or that being or power, are as follows: she is love. Simple; direct. And everything that follows, everything that is done in the name of ‘God,’ should be done in the name of love.

Sadly, however, that is not the case, and it seems that more and more these days, God’s name is used in conjunction with hate and intolerance, division and bigotry, and She would not be happy about that, y’all. And She would especially not be happy with this so-called ‘man of God.’

Robby Gallaty, the pastor at Brainerd Baptist Church, a Southern Baptist church in Chattanooga, Tennessee, was preaching his gospel earlier this week and told the gathering of Christians that they should never repent for discriminating against The Gays, like they had done for discriminating against the blacks because blacks can’t change their skin color.

“God said that the sins of the people had infected the very land in which they live. So what happens to people who engage in this activity, this sexual immoral activity? Go to Leviticus 20, God gives us the punishment for engaging in these sins… ‘If a man sleeps with a man as with a woman, they have both committed a detestable thing. They must be put to death. And their blood is on their own hands.’”

Without dwelling too much on it, though, “Pastor” Robby omitted the parts of Leviticus about shellfish and pigskin and long hair and tattoos because, well, let some things slide through if it works to your advantage to persecute The Gays. But, Robby does want you to discriminate against the Gays because, in the long run, the God of people like Robby Gallaty will kill The Gays.

God is Love, in Robby’s world, unless you’re gay, then God will kill you. So, is it any wonder at all that membership in these types of religions is falling? People are tired of using religion as a weapon of hate. People are tired of hearing that God, God, wants anyone dead; that God smites Haiti because of AIDS; that God sends hurricanes to destroy New Orleans because of a party; that God would hurt anyone at all.

Of course, Robby Gallaty wasn’t done; after telling his people that God will kill The Gays, he also said that God would change us; you know, She would de-gay us, I guess.

“[The Bible says] some of you used to act like this, but now you’ve changed by the grace of God. You were washed! You have been sanctified! You have been justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by the Spirit of God.”

Honey, which one is your God? The one who kills us. Or the one who washes The Gay outta our hair? Seriously, if God could change us, and if God called us all kinds of sin, and if God Hates Fags, then she would ‘a been changing us from birth so that none of us would exist, m’kay? So, save that hate speech wrapped up as gospel with the nice Christian bow, because it’s not a gift anyone really wants or needs.

But Robby isn’t done spreading the hate about The Gays and continued to warn Christians not to accept us, not to believe, as that sign said, that God is Love.

“Here’s the problem with the argument that you closed-minded Christians, one day you’re going to come full circle, and you’re going to realize that you’re being judgmental just like racism was 50 years ago …. [Now] you guys have repented and come full circle, and you’re going to realize that you’re as foolish as we were with the movement of racism. It’s not the same… A black man can’t change his race, a white man can’t change his race, a homosexual can stop engaging in homosexual acts. See, sexuality is a choice. Gender and race are not.”

And therein comes the lie as gospel, and people will believe because this so-called man of God said it. Like a black man, I was born gay; born that way. I have been gay since my earliest memory, and if I were to try and live my life any other way, it would not be a life at all; it would be a death.

And, if God Is Love, Robby, would she really want that for me? Or is that just you?

via The Raw Story

Chase Culpepper Is Suing South Carolina For Telling Him to 'Look More Like A Man'

Show of hands, please. Who hates your driver’s license photo? Uh huh, me, too. All of the license photos I’ve had over the years either make me look like a lunatic or a moron, or a moronic lunatic. And, when they tell you to smile in the photo? Bitch, I will not be smiling when the cops pull me over for speeding so if you want this picture to look like me, let my scowl shine, m’kay?

Chase Culpepper, like most sixteen-year-olds do, went to his local DMV, here in South Carolina, and took his driver’s test; he passed. But when he went to have his picture taken, Chase, a gender non-conforming teen — he identifies as male, but wears makeup and women’s clothing regularly — was told to “go home” and “take off the makeup.”

 A DMV employee removed Chase from the line and made him wait for a department manager, who also said that he needed to go home and remove “all of it” and then said, “[i]f your name is David Jones and it says you are a male, then you should look like a male."

Trouble is, that’s Chase. He wears make-up, so what?

Now, though, Chase is suing the ate of South Carolina, arguing that by denying him the right to have his driver’s license photo taken as Chase appears every day, constitutes sex discrimination and violates his right to free speech and expression under the United States Constitution. The suit, filed by the Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund [TLDEF] also “seeks a ruling under the U.S. and South Carolina Constitutions that the DMV’s photo policy is unconstitutionally vague, too broad, and lets DMV employees arbitrarily decide how a driver's license applicant should look, without regard for the rights of the people they are supposed to serve."

Let me make this queer: that picture is Chase Culpepper. It’s how he presents himself to the world every day; it's how his family sees him, it's how his friends see him; it's him. And if we are going to let the folks at the DMV refuse to take our photos unless we present ourselves in a way they deem appropriate, then let’s play real fair. 

All those men and women who lie about their weight on their licenses, when it’s clear they’re packing on at least another twenty-five pounds or more, should be told to step on a scale first; that woman with the bad blond dye job should be told to change back to her normal color; any man that does not look manly — whatever that means — should be sent packing until they look masculine; and the same goes for the woman who looks a little less feminine; tell her to go home and put some makeup on because if their license says Diana Jones, and says you are a female, then, gosh darn it, she best look like a woman!

"My clothing and makeup reflect who I am. The Department of Motor Vehicles should not have forced me to remove my makeup simply because my appearance does not match what they think a boy should look like. I just want the freedom to be who I am without the DMV telling me that I’m somehow not good enough. I want to take my license photo again, with makeup, so I can be myself and express to the world who I truly am.” — Chase Culpepper

Now, the DMV is arguing that Chase is trying to disguise his appearance by not appearing as a male when, in fact, all he is doing is expressing himself, daily. And Beth Parks, a DMV spokeswoman, dismissed the notion that the DMV's policy on altered appearances did not apply to Chase because he normally wears makeup.

"I understand that he does wear makeup all the time, and for women, regular everyday makeup is acceptable, but it is unusual to see it on a young man."--Beth Parks

I guess that’s true, it is unusual, especially here in South Carolina, but who are we, who is the DMV, to say that a young man who wears makeup shouldn’t? I don’t see anyone rushing to tell women who don’t wear makeup to slather it on. And if, one day, Chase Culpepper decides he no longer wants the makeup, I imagine he will be first in line at the DMV to get a new photo taken, but until then, let Chase be Chase, makeup and all, because what does it hurt?

If we can’t be ourselves, and we have to be whatever the DMV arbitrarily thinks we are, or should be, we are in a heap of trouble. I mean, if we have to live in a world where other people dictate how we present ourselves in public, then I'm headed down to The WalMart to start sending people home to change.

source

Lorraine Fleming of Cake Pros Says Jesus Told Her Not To Bake For The Gays

It’s happened again: WeddingCakeGate.

This time it’s Lorraine Fleming, the owner of Cake Pros in Schuylkill Haven, Pennsylvania who has refused to bake a cake … bake a mother-effing cake … for a same-sex wedding because she says it violates her Christian right to bigotry, homophobia and just plain discrimination.

And I, for one, am so sick of this shiz.

It all started when Jennifer and Bethany Petrich wanted a cake for a vow renewal ceremony and Jennifer’s mother, who was planning the event, scheduled an appointment with Cake Pros to taste some cakes. During the conversation it came up that it was a cake for :::gasp::: two women, and a couple of days later, before the appointment, Lorraine Fleming called to say that Cake Pros — 'pro' is short for professional which does not apply to this particular business — would not bake a cake because they don’t ‘do’ same-sex weddings … or vow renewal ceremonies.

Lorraine Fleming used the ‘Christian’ excuse for denying service, and then added the she had … wait for it … it’s rich … “talked to Jesus for two weeks” and that because the cake was for a couple of Lesbians Jesus told her not to bake the cake.

Yup, she's saying that Jesus said, Oh hell no.

Here’s the deal, Cake Pros … and Jesus , if you’re listening and actually said what she says you said … you are not being asked to participate in the wedding; you are not being asked to condone it; you are not being asked to sanctify it, dance at it, celebrate it or even like it. You are being asked to do what you do: bake an effing cake.

And it doesn’t matter what the people who order the cake and pay for the cake do with it once it leaves your shop. These women could take it out in a rowboat and set fire to it and it’s not your business.

It’s.Not.Your.Business. Your business is to bake cakes.

Jennifer and Bethany took to Facebook to let everyone know about their story … as folks should when a public business refuses services to them … and the bakery has received a lot of attention. Lorraine Fleming says some of her employees have been harassed and that, too, is wrong.

Go on and spread the word that Cake Pros won’t sell cakes for same-sex weddings, and talk about Lorraine Fleming all you want, but her employees do not set policy, or make decisions; hell, her employees might have loved baking that cake because, you know, they’re there to work and get paid … for baking.

Lorraine Fleming has said she sorry “as far as hurt feelings" and then, naturally, played the I have gay folks in my family card, but this is about religion and the Baby Jeebus and if the Bay Jeebus said Don’t Serve The Gays, well, she’d probably tell her gay family to go away, too.

Cuz that’s Christian love, y’all.

And for those of you who say, “Why not just go to a different bakery” well, I agree. But I also think the word should be spread that a public business is discriminating against people based on sexual orientation.

I mean, would we be acting as if Jennifer and Bethany are over-reacting if they happened to be a Black heterosexual couple refused service? No, because that’s a crime, but discriminating against The Gays is still legal in much of the country, and unless, and until, we point out every single business owner who hides behind religion to refuse service, our fight will never truly be won.

Rant over. Soap box stored away for another day.

Except … oh yeah … if you live anywhere near Cake Pros, try a different bakery.

source

W.W. Bridal Boutique Is A "Straights Only" Business

First it was the bakers, who refused to bake cakes for same-sex couples to celebrate their weddings. And then it was the florists, who said ‘Hell no’ when it came to supplying flowers for a gay couple’s ceremony. So, is it really any surprise that Victoria miller, owner of W.W. Bridal Boutique in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, where same-sex marriage is legal, has refused to sell a wedding dress to a same-sex couple?

Not really surprising, though it isn’t any less frustrating.

Two women — who wish to remain anonymous — called W.W. Bridal Boutique to schedule a fitting for herself and her partner. She was reportedly placed on hold for several minutes, and then told, “Unfortunately she would not be able to schedule an appointment for us because they currently do not service same-sex couples — it’s just not something they do.” She was told that servicing a same-sex couple by selling them a couple of dresses would be a violation of their “religious beliefs.”

Wait. W.W. Bridal Boutique, a business, an inanimate object, has “religious beliefs”? Of course it doesn’t; the beliefs are those of the owner, Victoria Miller, who says that "providing those two girls dresses for a sanctified marriage would break God's law."

Now, the Bloomsburg Town council is involved, saying they will consider whether to propose legislation to ban businesses from refusing to serve gays and lesbians. Miller, for her part, spoke through her attorney to say that she has a "liberty interest" in refusing to take part in a process that would violate "firmly and honestly held religious beliefs."

Let me make this perfectly queer for you, Victoria Miller: you are not being asked to take part in the ceremony; you are not being asked to condone the wedding; you, naturally, would never be invited to the wedding. What you are being asked to do is to open your business, your public business, to everyone and to make a sale.

But if you don’t want money from The Gays then please post a sign in the window of W.W. Bridal Boutique that tells the world that you are a bigot and a homophobe and hiding behind some notion of religious belief in running your business. And please be ready to have The Gays and The Gay Friendlies take their business elsewhere. But do not, when your business fails because of your intolerance, complain that The Gays did this to you.

You did it to yourself.

via Raw Story

In Italy, A Teacher Is Fired For Refusing To Deny She Is Gay

Yesterday I posted about Jim Gaylord, the Tacoma, Washington school teacher who was fired from his job because he was gay. Now, to be fair, that was in 1972, and times have changed, you know … or have they?

A teacher, who only gave her name as ‘Silvia,’ was fired from her teaching position at Sacro Cuore, a Catholic school in Italy, for being gay … or for not being gay ... or maybe because she just refused to answer.

The school, saying it needed to “protect the school environment” fired ‘Silvia’ simply for refusing to confirm or deny the rumor that she is a lesbian.

“What happened to me is medieval. Maybe I’m a lesbian, maybe I’m not. But asking me about my sexual orientation as a condition for renewing my contract is unacceptable.”

But, she was given an option, saying that Sister Eugenia Libratore, the headmistress and Mother Superior, told her that the school would turn a blind eye to the rumors if Silvia was willing to “solve the problem” of maybe being gay.

Libratore confirmed to local media that she chose not to renew ‘Silvia’s’ contract, even though she’d worked at the school for five years, after hearing gossip that she was a lesbian, even though Italy has laws in place prohibiting anti-LGBT discrimination in the workplace.

Stefania Giannini, Italy’s education minister, is said to be investigating the matter and will “act with due severity” if the allegations were found to be true.

You think times change, you think people change, but just yesterday we learned of a teacher being fired ion 1972 for admitting to being gay, and here in 2014 we learn of another educator who was fired because she wouldn’t admit to being gay.

One step forward is still a few steps behind.

via Pink News

ISBL Asshat of the Week: North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory

Up there in neighbor to the north, North Carolina that is, Republican Governor Pat McCrory has opted to pass over protections for LGBT workers when he signed a new executive order that bars employment discrimination for state workers on the basis of “race, religion, color, national origin, sex, age, disability and genetic information.”

Let me make this queer: he wants to make sure that no one is discriminated against in the state’s hiring policies unless those people are LGBT and then let the discrimination roll!!

And while North Carolina LGBT advocates have condemned the policy, and are demanding an explanation, a McCrory spokes-tool, Ryan Tronovitch, claims McCrory’s new executive order mirrors federal employment language which already includes protections for LGBT workers.

Except that isn’t true.

Still, McCrory declared, as he signed the order, “This order ensures fairness and encourages people to work for state government. Insisting on nondiscrimination will strengthen our state and demonstrate that we value diversity of thought and each of our citizens’ unique backgrounds.”

Nondiscrimination, though, does not apply to sexual orientation or gender identity. So, really, it’s not nondiscrimination, it’s discrimination.

North Carolina — one of 29 states were LGBT employees can be fired based solely on their sexual orientation and gender identity — currently has no employment protections for LGBT workers. And efforts to pass employment protections for state workers and teachers have consistently stalled in the Republican –controlled state legislature because, well, gay.

Workers tied directly to the federal government are already protected under pre-existing presidential executive orders and rulings from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and last week President Obama said he would issue an executive order more clearly prohibiting discrimination in federal employment on the basis of gender identity.

It might be a tough sell in North Carolina because the Governor, and his flunkies, don’t seem to know what the law entails, or what it even means. See, when asked to comment on the lack of employment protection for North Carolina LGBT employees, McCrory Deputy Communications Director Ryan Tronovitch stated that McCrory’s executive order was similar to both federal language and past executive orders from previous North Carolina governors:

“This Executive Order mirrors federal language as well as orders issued under Governors Hunt, Martin, Easley and Perdue over the course of more than 30 years. Insisting on fairness and nondiscrimination for employees and applicants to North Carolina’s state government is a tradition that Governor McCrory is proud to continue.”

But, federal equal employment policies do, in fact, cover sexual orientation, instituted by executive order of President Barack Obama, as well as gender identity, as interpreted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. And when this fact — and you know how republicans handle facts … they act like they don’t exist — was pointed out to Tronovitch, he replied, “Actually…you are wrong” and then directed the writer from qnotes — the source for this post — to an outdated 2009 version of federal employment policies.

And when it was pointed out, again, that he was wrong, Tronovitch finally acknowledged his earlier, incorrect statement, but then fell back on that old, still untrue, standby argument that McCrory’s new executive “mirrors” federal regulations.

Like I said, they don’t need no stinking facts.

Asshats never do.