As the LGBT community continues to challenge discrimination and win their cases — be it discrimination by florists, bed & breakfasts, or T-shirt printers — conservatives have portrayed themselves as victims, claiming that recognizing LGBT people equally violates their religious beliefs. Their rhetoric has increasingly suggested the need for a backlash, which is exemplified in a new op-ed from Fox News contributor Pat Buchanan. Writing for the extremist site WorldNetDaily, Buchanan argues that the advent of LGBT equality could mean the so-called “culture wars” might have to become literal with conservatives brazenly violating the law.

Buchanan juxtaposes LGBT rights with the racial civil rights movement, openly admitting that religious leaders will have to preach “principled rejection” and encourage their congregations to disobey laws. He believes “treating black folks decently” is the Christian thing to do, but the same can not be said for the LGBT community:

When Martin Luther King Jr. called on the nation to “live up to the meaning of its creed,” he heard an echo from a thousand pulpits. Treating black folks decently was consistent with what Christians had been taught. Dr. King was pushing against an open door.

Priests and pastors marched for civil rights. Others preached for civil rights. But if the gay rights agenda is imposed, we could have priests and pastors preaching not acceptance but principled rejection.

Prelates could be declaring from pulpits everywhere that the triumph of gay rights is a defeat for God’s Country, and the new laws are immoral and need neither be respected nor obeyed.

Comparing inclusive laws like marriage equality to Prohibition, Buchanan predicts that conservatives will have to break the law, unleashing a true “culture war”:

Something akin to this could be in the cards if the homosexual rights movement is victorious – a public rejection of the new laws by millions and a refusal by many to respect or obey them.

The culture war in America today may be seen as squabbles in a day-care center compared to what is coming. A new era of civil disobedience may be at hand.

Such civil disobedience would be a sight to behold: individuals marching demanding their right to discriminate. It would not likely live up to the nation’s creed as King intended. Fifty years ago today he wrote, “The goal of America is freedom,” and Buchanan and his fellow conservative Christians cannot change the fact that the inclusion of LGBT people is required to achieve that goal.

Louisiana Rep. Alan Seabaugh (R)

Louisiana state Rep. Alan Seabaugh (R) doesn’t care if LGBT citizens are ever discriminated against by employers, if his newly proposed bill is any indication. If passed, HB 402 would prevent LGBT people from ever seeking judicial protection if they’re refused hire, denied promotion, or fired because of their sexual orientation or gender identity:

Provides that suits filed for employment discrimination for any reason other than age, disability, race, color, religion, sex, national origin, pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions, sickle cell trait, and genetic discrimination shall be dismissed and considered frivolous.

In Louisiana, nothing in the law explicitly protects LGBT from employment discrimination, and Seabaugh seems to want to keep it that way. Under this bill, any lawsuit alleging wrongful termination based on a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity would be automatically dismissed as “frivolous,” ensuring that all employers are free to discriminate without fear of civil action.

As Equality Louisiana points out, not only would their complaints not be heard, but then disenfranchised workers would also be liable for damages to their discriminating employers and court costs. In other words, if an LGBT individual is a victim of employment discrimination, the state would actually punish them with a financial burden for even trying to object.

Louisiana is one of 29 states with no employment protections based on sexual orientation and one of 34 states with no employment protections based on gender identity. (HT: Joe.My.God.)

Scott Lively's infamous book claiming the Nazis, including Hitler, were gay.

Washington florist Baronelle Stutzman faces potentially two lawsuits for refusing to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding in violation of Washington’s nondiscrimination protections. As conservatives rush to her defense, they seem all too eager to compare the gay community to the Nazi Party.

Joseph Backholm of the Family Policy Institute of Washington, the Family Research Council’s state affiliate, believes the inability for businesses to openly discriminate is a sign that “brown shirts” are coming:

One wonders what our founding fathers, many of whom left Europe to get away from a religious and philosophical litmus test for being involved in civil society, would think about the Attorney General’s apparent suggestion that you must agree with, or at least cooperate with, the government dogma regarding marriage as a condition of running a business.

Someone looking for a business idea might test just how strong the market for brown shirts actually is in Washington State.

Meanwhile, the hatemonger Scott Lively claims that the laws protecting the LGBT community amount to “homofascism,” complete with his trademark pink swastika (via Jeremy Hooper):

State sues florist over refusing service for gay wedding

Homofascism is a form of extreme left-wing radicalism which attempts to establish rigid totalitarian controls over public discussions and policies addressing sexual morality, and to punish or suppress all disapproval of homosexuality and related sexual behaviors.

According to Godwin’s Law, invoking a reference to Adolf Hitler or Nazis counts as an automatic concession in any argument, but in cases like this, such references are particularly offensive. First of all, to refer to gay people as Nazis ignores the fact that the Nazis persecuted over 50,000 gay men, marking them with pink triangle concentration camp badges. Secondly, it is the gay men who were denied a public service — not the florist. Though conservatives are obviously trying to paint Stutzman as a victim, it makes no sense to paint the couple nor the attorney general as oppressors when the law is on their side.

Taeko Bufford and Diane Cervelli (Photo Credit: Eric Risberg/AP)

A judge in Hawaii’s first circuit has ruled that the Aloha Bed & Breakfast in Hawai’i Kai was violating state law when it discriminated against a same-sex couple and imposed an injunction preventing it from ever doing so again. Lambda Legal represented the couple, Diane Cervelli and Taeko Bufford, but the Hawai’i Civil Rights Commission (HCRC) also joined in the suit.

The couple had been visiting a close friend and her newborn baby, and they contacted the Aloha B&B because it was near where she lived. When they asked for a single bed, owner Phyllis Young asked if they were a lesbian couple, and when they confirmed they were, the owner said she was uncomfortable having lesbians in her house because of her religious views. During an HCRC investigation, Young admitted that she turned the couple away because she believes that same-sex relationships are “detestable” and that they “defile the land.”

Hawaii first passed LGBT nondiscrimination protections in public accommodations in 2006, and Cervelli and Bufford experienced their discrimination in 2007. The law stipulates that it is illegal to refuse services based on sexual orientation. Notably, Hawaii does not have same-sex marriage, so though conservatives have already started to claim that this lawsuit victory “tramples religious liberty,” they cannot claim that this case has anything to with the advance of marriage equality. Instead, it’s a clear example of how religious beliefs simply do not justify blatant discrimination.

Ally Robledo

An Idaho Rosauers grocery store has filed trespassing charges against transgender woman Ally Robledo, banning her from ever shopping there. Her violation, according to Lewiston, Idaho Police Captain Roger Lanier, was “urinating while standing up”:

LANIER: The store security officer said he had been dealing with a problem over a couple days with the person going into the women’s restroom and urinating while standing up. [...] A male subject who was using the female restroom, and that made some women customers uncomfortable because of the appearance that a male was using their restroom.

The store employees didn’t want any further problems, and they chose to exercise their right to trespass this individual from the business. Anyone who owns or controls their property can make that decision.

Indeed, Idaho is one of 37 states that does not offer nondiscrimination protections based on gender identity in public accommodations, and state law entitles the owner of a property to deny access to anybody.

Robledo, who is 25, explained that when she was in school, she would be harassed in the men’s room:

ROBLEDO: When I did use the males (restroom) there would be people that would harass me in school. I would feel really embarrassed and there were times when I found myself in a lot of dangerous situations. [...] I’m a female trapped in a man’s body. It’s natural for me to go to the ladies’ room. Getting the no trespassing order for a public restroom was really painful.

Lanier said it wasn’t the police’s job to figure out “what makes a transgender.”

Robledo’s plight parallels an attempt by Arizona state Rep. John Kavanagh (R) to ensure businesses can similarly ban trans people from using bathroom and locker room facilities. He fears that young girls will be traumatized if they happen to see a trans woman’s body in a changing area. Similarly, Michigan state Rep. Tom McMillin (R) believes that restrooms that might be used by transgender people should be marked with warning signs.

Meanwhile, transgender people are just trying to buy groceries and go to gyms like everybody else.

Amanda Brown has set up a legal defense fund to support her father, Roger Gorley, to challenge the Research Medical Center in Kansas City, Missouri for using police force to separate him from his husband Allen’s hospital bedside. She explained the intent of the fund to the New Civil Rights Movement:

BROWN: We are going to use the money to fund Roger and Allen’s legal defense. Any money left over will be split among the LGBT organizations that have helped us during this traumatic injustice. We only want the hospital to apologize for what they did, re-educate their staff as to the proper procedure, educate their staff, including security, as to the current laws in place to protect individuals/ couples who identify within the LGBTQQIAA movement, and on a national level ensure every police department and medical establishment educates their staff as to what their regulations are and how they need to coincide with the current laws.

As details about the incident continue to surface, the hospital has refused to take any responsibility for its treatment of Roger Gorley, continuing instead to blame him for being disruptive, even though it was Allen’s brother, Lee, who was inappropriately trying to exert medical authority over Allen’s care. Amanda posted another update on Sunday sharing that Roger is now visiting with Allen, whose condition is improving. Still, they are worried that Allen’s family may still try to usurp medical control over him by other legal means:

Allen is quite upset that his brother acted the way he did and does NOT want his family to make legal decisions for him. He made it very clear to us and the State Health Department that he told the nurse that first night in the ER that Roger is his husband, has legal power of attorney, and didn’t want him to leave the room.

We have reason to believe his brother and sister have spoken to Social Services and are going to try and use “senior abuse” laws (even though Allen is only 46) to try and have him declared incompetent and seize my father’s right to make decisions with/for him. We will fight this… they will lose.

He’s doing well and is ready to come home. He wants to release his own statement, and will probably do a  few interviews, when he gets home and is rested. He will clear up some things for everyone and is happy that this situation, however difficult, has allowed people to have an important conversation about gay rights in this country. We appreciate everyone’s kind words and support. They have already racked up a few thousand dollars in medical bills from this (on top of having to cancel their trip to Amsterdam this week… non-refundable reservations).

More information about the family’s efforts to raise funds for their legal and medical bills is available here.

There has been a lot of speculation as to what actually transpired when Roger Gorley was arrested away from his husband Allen’s bedside in a Missouri hospital earlier this week. Despite the fact Roger and Allen have granted each other power of attorney for medical decisions, the Research Medical Center claimed that Roger was “disruptive and belligerent,” arguing that is why the police arrested him and removed him from the facility.

Now, Roger’s daughter Amanda has shared a detailed account of what transpired that paints a picture even more offensive than many may have imagined. The full account can be read here as well as some additional details she shared in an interview with blogger John Aravosis. Here is a breakdown of the family’s circumstances and what transpired in that hospital room according to Amanda:

The Couple’s Background

• Allen suffers from severe depression and is currently undergoing electro-shock treatment (ECT) twice a month because his medications are no longer allowing him to function normally.
• Allen has specifically excluded his family from having any say over his medical decisions because they have not been understanding of the impact of his depression.
• Not only have Roger and Allen granted each other power of attorney, but they are known throughout the hospital as a proud gay couple because they are regularly there for Allen’s treatments.
• Allen’s family has not been supportive of his relationship with Roger.

How Allen Was Admitted On Tuesday

• Amanda was taking care of Allen while Roger was at work at Tuesday, but when they returned home from a few errands, Allen’s brother Lee and sister Pat were waiting at the door with paramedics and police.
• Due to Allen’s sluggish state, the police determined he was a “danger to himself” and decided to take him to the hospital against his will. Rather than taking him to St. Luke’s Hospital in Lee’s Summit, the local hospital where his regular doctors are, they took him to the Research Medical Center in Kansas City, which he only goes to for his ECT. They ignored Amanda’s attempts to explain Allen’s medical needs and procedures.
• Amanda called her father, Roger, and urged him to get to Allen’s side immediately. When he arrived at the hospital, Lee was also there.

The Family Confrontation

• Lee asserted that he was not going to allow Roger to make decisions for Allen and that he would instead. This enraged Roger, who replied, “No you won’t! This is my husband.  I know what he wants and needs. You are never around.  You need to leave.”
• The nurse informed Roger that because of his agitated state, he needed to leave. When he explained that he intended to stay with his husband, she replied, “I know who you two are. You need to leave.” Refusing to acknowledge their legal relationship, she called the police to have Roger forcibly removed.
• Allen, who was in and out of consciousness, objected as he was able, saying, “I want him here.”
• A follow-up story from Fox 4 suggests that Roger and Lee were having a loud fight, but doesn’t otherwise contradict this account.

Read more

Barronelle Stutzman

The state of Washington has recently filed suit against Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers, for refusing to sell flowers to a same-sex couple for their wedding last month. Even though they had been regular customers, she explained that she could not because of her “relationships with Jesus Christ.” That couple, Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed, are now threatening their own suit with support form the ACLU, but they have offered Stutzman a compromise to avoid the suit. Here are the conditions the couple’s lawyers provided to the discriminating florist:

• You agree not to refuse to provide flowers and other goods and services to any person on the basis of his or her sexual orientation.
• You agree to write a letter of apology to Mr. Freed and Mr. Ingersoll to be published in the Tri-City Herald.
• You agree to donate $5,000 to the Vista Youth Center, in lieu of payment of attorneys’ fees.

The Vista Youth Center provides social services to LGBT youth in the area with a goal of reducing bullying and harassment while promoting leadership development.

The lawyers’ letter also details the harm the couple has experienced as well as the history of attempting to justify discrimination with religious beliefs:

Your refusal to sell flowers to Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Freed for their wedding has hurt them very deeply. It is a disturbing reminder of the history of discrimination and disparate treatment that they and other gay men and women have experienced over the years. Your rejection is especially painful to Mr. Freed and Mr. Ingersoll because they felt they had a meaningful relationship with you and Arlene’s Flowers. More to the point of this letter, your conduct was a violation of Washington law. [...]

You told Mr. Ingersoll that you would not sell flowers for his and Mr. Freed’s wedding because of your religious beliefs. We respect your beliefs and your right to religious freedom. However, we live in a diverse country, and religious beliefs, no matter how sincerely held, may not be used to justify discrimination in the public spheres of commerce and governance. Instances of institutions and individuals claiming a right to discriminate in the name of religion are not new. Religious beliefs have been invoked to justify denying women the right to vote; to prohibit men and women of different races from getting married; and to support segregation in schools, businesses, and other public places. Just as courts have held that those forms of discrimination are not permitted, even on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs, so is discrimination based on sexual orientation unlawful.

Stutzman could face a $2,000 fine from the attorney general’s suit in addition to the couple’s complaint. According to her lawyers’ response to the state’s suit, she intends to fight and her legal team has already reached out to “a number of national non-profit organizations that are ready for the fight.” Indeed, the Family Research Council expressed its support for Stutzman, claiming that “religious hostility is in full bloom.” Joseph Backholm of the Family Policy Institute of Washington, FRC’s state affiliate, opined that “liberty is at stake for all of us,” encouraging supporters, “Don’t ignore the bully just because he hasn’t punched you in the mouth yet.” Neither group expressed concern for Ingersoll and Freed’s liberty.

In March, Arlene’s Flowers & Gifts in Richland, Washington refused to provide wedding flowers to Rob Ingersoll and his partner, even though they’d been long-time customers of the florist. After owner Barronelle Stutzman informed Ingersoll that she could not provide the flowers because of her “relationship with Jesus Christ,” Ingersoll shared his story online and the news went viral.

Now, State Attorney General Bob Ferguson has filed a consumer protection lawsuit against Arlene’s Flowers for violating the state’s nondiscrimination protections based on sexual orientation:

FERGUSON: As Attorney General, it is my job to enforce the laws of the state of Washington. Under the Consumer Protection Act, it is unlawful to discriminate against customers based on sexual orientation.  If a business provides a product or service to opposite-sex couples for their weddings, then it must provide same sex couples the same product or service.

The suit asks for a permanent injunction against future discrimination and a $2,000 fine for every violation. An employee at Arlene’s told KEPR-TV that “none of us will have any comment.” Stutzman’s attorney’s warned Ferguson that “a number of national non-profit organizations… are ready for a fight,” perhaps referring to groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which regularly defends individuals when it believes their “religious liberty” has been infringed upon.

It’s important to note that Stutzman would have been violating Washington law even if marriage equality had not passed in November. State nondiscrimination policies protect gay couples from any business that would try to refuse them service, whether the service was related to a wedding or not. Incidentally, ADF recently highlighted five examples of how same-sex marriage “threatens”  biblical beliefs, but none of them actually took place it states where same-sex marriage was legal.

The city of Royal Oak, Michigan was on track to become the 22nd city in the state to establish LGBT nondiscrimination protections, but that measure is now being challenged at the ballot through a citywide referendum. State House Rep. Tom McMillin (R) issued a news release explaining why he thinks the protections would “violate the privacy rights of women and children”:

MCMILLIN: Why the city would want to force places like schools, businesses and fitness centers to allow men to use a women’s restroom or locker room – and allow boys to access girl’s restrooms and locker rooms in schools, is beyond me.

It certainly violates the privacy rights of women and children. At the very least, the council should have also included a requirement for warning signs on women’s and girl’s public restroom and locker room doors saying that women and girls may be confronted there by men who think they are women.

Like Arizona state Rep. John Kavanagh (R), McMillin seems to be afraid that women and children might see a transgender woman’s penis. But transgender women are not “men who think they are women,” they are women. They are not predators, nor does anybody need to be warned that they might be in the same space. Indeed, McMillin seems to have little concern for transgender people’s same right to privacy or for their basic dignity and safety to use a gender-appropriate facility.

McMillin’s statement also claimed that requiring Christians not to discriminate against LGBT people is tantamount to “bullying”:

MCMILLIN: The discrimination and coercion this ordinance supports — that a Christian photographer or baker must, if asked, offer their services to a so-called ‘gay wedding’ or face a $500 per day fine is wrong… Bullying Christians is wrong, too.

Tom McMillin has previously said that homosexuality is a “lifestyle” and a “choice” that people have “come out of.” In 2011, he proposed a bill to ban any Michigan municipality from extending LGBT nondiscrimination protections.