“We will fight these vermins called homosexuals or gays the same way we are fighting malaria-causing mosquitoes, if not more aggressively.” — Gambian President Yahya Jammeh
In response to Gambia’s hideous treatment of gays and lesbians, the Human Rights Campaign calls on President Obama to restrict Gambian President Jammeh’s access to the United States and freeze his assets:
We know that President Jammeh has close connections to the United States. In fact, he owns a $3.5 million dollar home in Potomac, Maryland, and visits the US regularly. We also know that he cares about his international image and being part of the international community. So we believe that calling him out for his actions, and making it difficult for him to move around the world freely, might have an impact.
Therefore, HRC is calling on the U.S. government urgently to restrict entry to the U.S. for him and his associates, and to freeze any assets he may be holding here. It is essential that the U.S. deliver a strong message that human rights violators will not be welcome in the US, and that they must be held accountable for their crimes. Please join us in this action, and help protect LGBT Gambians. You can read and sign the petition here.
Gambian President Yahya Jammeh has signed into law legislation which makes being gay punishable by life in prison:
The law targets those with a previous conviction for homosexuality, those living with HIV, and same-sex partners of people with disabilities – all of whom could be imprisoned for life.
Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, said on Thursday the law violates fundamental human rights – among them the right to privacy, to freedom from discrimination and freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention.
“I call on The Gambia to fulfil its international obligations to promote and protect the human rights of all persons without discrimination, to repeal all provisions of the Criminal Code that criminalise relations between consenting adults and to put in place an immediate moratorium on arrests on the basis of such laws,” he said in a statement.
Our good friend Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association cheered the passage of the bill via Twitter when it was passed in September.
But remember – Mr. Fischer says he has no animus towards the gays at all…
The extreme right-wing, anti-gay folks like Bryan Fischer are promoting Idaho’s The Hitching Post as a “victim” of pro-gay policies with the arrival of same-sex marriage to the state.
Coeur D’Alene is one of the few cities in Idaho which include sexual orientation in it’s nondiscrimination laws regarding public accommodation. In other words, if you are a public business, you can’t refuse service to gays and lesbians based on their sexual orientation.
Churches and religious organizations operating as 501(C)3s are exempt from the law. The Hitching Post is not one of those organizations.
The story the haters would like you to buy is that the wedding venue has been “threatened” with jail time and fines for refusing to perform same-sex marriages.
The FACTS are:
• No one has asked the venue to perform a same-sex marriage • No one has filed a complaint against the venue • The Hitching Post is not a church; it is a FOR-PROFIT wedding business • The “ministers” of the venue are ordained for the purpose of performing weddings; they do have “minister” to any congregation or flock • No one has ordered anyone at the venue to do anything
But if you listen to the Bryan Fischers and Tony Perkins of the world, the two “ministers” of The Hitching Post are about to be drawn and quartered. Take a look at this recent tweet from Bryan Fischer:
Let’s not forget: Couer D’Alene is STILL determined to lock up politically incorrect pastors for 180 days. — Bryan Fischer (@BryanJFischer) October 22, 2014
Coeur D’Alene City Spokesman Keith Erickson has publicly stated, “We have never threatened to jail them, or take legal action of any kind.”
Via Pulitzer Prize winning political cartoonist and commentator David Horsey
After the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found Nevada’s same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional, gay and lesbian couples have been legally allowed to marry in the state.
But according to a recent news investigation, some Las Vegas wedding chapels are refusing to perform the nuptials based on religious beliefs.
After making calls to about 15 wedding chapels, 8 News NOW found that several of them refused to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.
The Elvis Wedding Chapel, which welcomes traditional and Elvis-themed weddings, said they wouldn’t marry same-sex couples. However, when the 8 News Now cameras were rolling as we tried to get their stance on camera, they refused to open the door.
“I’m not going to tell you,” David with the Elvis Wedding Chapel said, “It just — there is no story here.”
Dolly Deleon, the owner of the Vegas Wed Chapel, said she’s a born-again believer in Jesus.
“My faith won’t allow me,” Deleon said.
She did not know that a couple who is turned away based on race, sex, or sexual orientation could file charges against her. That could then lead to a misdemeanor arrest.
“I would be a hypocrite if I said I’m a Bible-believing person and yet I would perform marriage that believe is solely against God’s law,” Deleon said.
Because nothing says “sanctity of marriage” like being married by an Elvis impersonator, right?
The problem for businesses like Vegas Wed Chapel is that in 2011, sexual orientation was added to the state’s public accommodation law making it a misdemeanor offense for businesses to discriminate against gays and lesbians.
“The difference between a church and a place of worship and a wedding chapel, is that a wedding chapel is a business so that is covered under the Public Accommodations Law of Nevada,” said Tod Story, ACLU.
“Any Las Vegas wedding chapel that operates as a business is covered under Nevada’s public accommodations law and is not allowed to discriminate against same-sex couples seeking a wedding ceremony, or any other couple for that matter,” says Tod Story, executive director for the ACLU of Nevada. “Currently, the way the law is written, it’s a misdemeanor crime. Any couple refused service has to file a complaint with the state. … [Vegas Wed] has turned away couples. I don’t know if [those couples] even knew there was a law that protected them.”
The news isn’t all bad though. Gay partners Jamie Richards and Ron DeCar own and operate the Viva Las Vegas chapel in Las Vegas, and have in the business of same-sex ceremony packages since 1999, even though they were not legally binding.
“From Day One we were doing commitment ceremonies,” Richards told the Daily Beast. “I worked at the MGM (Grand) years ago when you literally went to board meetings and stuff, and nobody could know you were gay. And now all the hotels embrace the gay population, and they embrace the gay dollar. It’s got to help the economy.”
The state of North Carolina has informed magistrates — agents of the state whose responsibilities include performing civil marriages — that there are no special anti-gay discrimination rights.
The state has issued a memo saying the magistrates must comply with the law and perform marriages for same-sex couples, or they will be disciplined.
The anti-gay Heritage Foundation is helping these “for-profit” business owners try to portray their violation of the New York State Accommodations Act as a threat to their “religious liberties.”
If you watch the video, note the carefully crafted language(clearly coached by their lawyer) that gets a bit slippery: Cynthia Gifford repeatedly refers to the property in question as “the farm” or “our home.” The Gifford’s farm is the site of their business, not just their place of abode.
By referring to the property where the business is located their “farm,” the owners of Liberty Ridge Farm make themselves and the property very “homey” and all that. Very nice. But it is a business; a business which obtained a business license from the state of New York and therefore must follow the laws of the state.
Don’t operate a wedding venue if folks who can legally marry – like gay people – can’t get married there. Businesses can’t get to choose which customers they want to accomodate.
The New York State laws regarding public accommodation are clear, and you can’t run a wedding venue and decide which legal weddings you do or don’t want to based on sexual orientation of the customers. It’s against the law. Period.
And by the way, while some may argue over whether sexual orientation is or isn’t a “chosen” trait, choice of religion IS chosen. For some folks, they may change from one religion to another to suit a marriage arrangement or some other situation. Choice (of freedom from) religion is a choice. Many experts would tell you that sexual orientation is not. As a gay man myself, I am confident I did not “choose” to be straight or gay. I simply am gay.
One last thing: the lawyer and Cynthia Gifford, in another use of slippery language, seem to insinuate that recording the initial conversation between one of the women looking to book the venue with Ms. Gifford was somehow illegal or nefarious. The laws of New York state make it a crime to record to record a telephone conversation unless one party to the conversation consents (N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00, 250.05.) The person recording the call WAS consenting by making the recording.
Eleven states have laws that require “two-party consent” – but New York state is not one of them.
Watch the video below. It’s very warm and fuzzy, and you may feel for the woman. But they broke the law of New York state. Whether or not she is likable, or you are Christian, doesn’t play into the fact that the law was broken.
The House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, by a vote of 13-12, rejected an amendment that would update Title 38 of the U.S. Code to ensure that spousal benefits of gay, lesbian and bisexual veterans would be available no matter the state of residence.
Committee Chairman Jeff Miller (R-Fla.) said he opposed the amendment because it would interfere with states that have enacted laws related to marriage.
Section 103(c) of Title 38 of the U.S. Code governs veterans benefits. And currently, the code is dictated by the state of residence, not the state of celebration.
In other words, veterans benefits for spouses are predicated on where you live, not where you got married. So even if you are legally married, if your current state of residence doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage, those same-sex spouses are out of luck in regards to receiving the same benefits afforded heterosexual veterans and their spouses.
Lori Hensic, director of research and policy for the LGBT military group known as the American Military Partner Association, issued this statement:
“The ability of our nation’s veterans, no matter their sexual orientation, to access their earned benefits should be an issue that transcends partisan politics,” Hensic said. “It’s a sad reflection on the state of our Congress when our elected officials cannot put aside their differences to end this discrimination.”
A California man is suing pizza company Little Caesars (crappy pizza anyway) because he was denied health benefits for his husband – a benefit that every other legally married employee receives.
The Advocate has the details:
Frank Bernard started working as a manager for the pizza chain in March and became eligible for benefits after 90 days, reports Courthouse News Service. However, the company declined to insure his husband, Carl.
He complained multiple times to Little Caesars Enterprises and its parent company, Ilitch Holdings, both based in Michigan, and he was told company policy is not to offer benefits to same-sex spouses. He received a letter from human resources explaining the company’s definition of spouse for benefits purposes: “Spouse means the one person to whom you are legally married under the laws of the state in which you reside, including a common law spouse, and who is the opposite gender from you.”
In a marriage equality state like California, if employers offer benefits to opposite-sex spouses, they generally have to offer them to legally married same-sex spouses as well, noted Bernard and his attorney, Gloria Allred. But Ilitch Holdings officials told Bernard that since the company is based in Michigan, where same-sex couples do not have marriage rights, it did not have to offer the benefits.
Watch the report from Los Angeles ABC affiliate KABC:
LGBT ally Chris Kluwe and his former employer, the Minnesota Vikings, have reportedly come to a settlement. The former Minnesota Viking punter had threatened to sue the Vikings over his claims of discrimination.
Kluwe alleged he was fired for his public support of the LGBT community and same-sex marriage.
The Associated Press reports “Kluwe vowed to sue because he was unhappy with the team’s resolution of his complaint against special teams coordinator Mike Priefer for alleged anti-gay slurs.”
Lawyers for the Vikings and Kluwe’s legal team apparently agreed to try to come to an agreement one last time. On Friday, Kluwe and his attorneys said that an agreement was reached.
The details of the agreement will be released next week, according to Kluwe’s attorney Clayton Halunen.
Just after 3am last night, Mayor Tom Hanel said he didn’t think Billings, Montana, was ready for a nondiscrimination ordinance regarding equal treatment under the law for the LGBT community.
Hanel said he applied a standard from Rotary International to help him reach his decision: “I needed to ask myself, is this fair to everyone, beneficial to everyone? Will it build goodwill and friendships? I can’t say for sure,” he said of the NDO.
The vote was 6-5, with council members Shaun Brown, Rich McFadden, Denis Pitman, Angela Cimmino and Mike Yakwich joining Hanel against the ordinance, which would have amended city code to protect people from being discriminated against on the bases of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.
So, just to be clear: if you are gay or lesbian and you find yourself in Billings, Montana, it is perfectly fine with the folks there for you to be denied a hotel room or be served in a restaurant.
You can be turned down trying to rent an apartment.
All good because in the mayor’s eyes, that wouldn’t be “fair to everyone, beneficial to everyone.”
