apparently if you are rich and famous you can get taxpayer money to pay police to give you special treatment and escort you around traffic to get to a concert....
more here: http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/dish/201308/police-are-investigating-lebron-james-escort
Friday, August 23, 2013
Welfare Pays Bums $30 an Hour, more than People who WORK!
why get a job when welfare pays you better than what you would get if you were employed?
from the Daily Caller:
Looking for a good paying job? Well, look no further.
No, really, stop looking. In 35 states, welfare benefits pay more than a minimum wage job, according to a new study by the libertarian Cato Institute, and in 13 states welfare pays more than $15 per hour.
“One of the single best ways to climb out of poverty is taking a job, but as long as welfare provides a better standard of living than an entry-level job, recipients will continue to choose it over work,” said Michael Tanner, senior policy analyst and co-author of the study
The study is an updated version of one Tanner put out in 1995 that estimated the full value of welfare benefits packages across the states. The 1995 study found that such tax-free welfare benefits greatly exceeded the poverty level and “their dollar value was greater than the amount of take-home income a worker would receive from an entry-level job.”
Despite efforts to curb welfare spending, many welfare programs and benefits have continued to outpace the income that many workers can receive for working an entry-level job, which disincentivizes work
, according to the study.
“The current welfare system provides such a high level of benefits that it acts as a disincentive for work,” reads the study. “Welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and in 13 states it pays more than $15 per hour.”
According to the study, the federal government funds 126 separate programs designed to support low-income earners. Seventy-two of these programs provide cash or in-kind benefits to recipients. This is on top of additional welfare programs operated by state and local governments.
Welfare recipients in Hawaii get the most benefits, according to Tanner, at $29.13 per hour — or $60,590 pre-tax income annually. However, the state’s minimum wage is only $7.25 per hour, according to the Labor Department. Hawaiians on welfare also earn 167 percent of the median salary in the state, which is only $36,275.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/20/study-welfare-pays-more-than-work-in-most-states/#ixzz2cqDFXEJO
from the Daily Caller:
Looking for a good paying job? Well, look no further.
No, really, stop looking. In 35 states, welfare benefits pay more than a minimum wage job, according to a new study by the libertarian Cato Institute, and in 13 states welfare pays more than $15 per hour.
“One of the single best ways to climb out of poverty is taking a job, but as long as welfare provides a better standard of living than an entry-level job, recipients will continue to choose it over work,” said Michael Tanner, senior policy analyst and co-author of the study
The study is an updated version of one Tanner put out in 1995 that estimated the full value of welfare benefits packages across the states. The 1995 study found that such tax-free welfare benefits greatly exceeded the poverty level and “their dollar value was greater than the amount of take-home income a worker would receive from an entry-level job.”
Despite efforts to curb welfare spending, many welfare programs and benefits have continued to outpace the income that many workers can receive for working an entry-level job, which disincentivizes work
, according to the study.“The current welfare system provides such a high level of benefits that it acts as a disincentive for work,” reads the study. “Welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, even after accounting
for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and in 13 states it pays more than $15 per hour.”According to the study, the federal government funds 126 separate programs designed to support low-income earners. Seventy-two of these programs provide cash
or in-kind benefits to recipients. This is on top of additional welfare programs operated by state and local governments.Welfare recipients in Hawaii get the most benefits, according to Tanner, at $29.13 per hour — or $60,590 pre-tax income annually. However, the state’s minimum wage is only $7.25 per hour, according to the Labor Department. Hawaiians on welfare also earn 167 percent of the median salary
in the state, which is only $36,275.Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/20/study-welfare-pays-more-than-work-in-most-states/#ixzz2cqDFXEJO
Allen West: Will Obama Identify with Black Teens Who Killed White Boy for Fun?
from The Daily Caller:
On the heels of news that three Oklahoma teens allegedly shot and killed an Australian jogger for sport, former Florida Republican Rep. Allen West lashed out at President Obama and the “race industry crew.”
“‘We were bored & decided to kill somebody.’ 3 black teens shoot white jogger.Who will POTUS identify w/this time?” West tweeted Tuesday afternoon with a link to a New York Post article on the matter.
On the heels of news that three Oklahoma teens allegedly shot and killed an Australian jogger for sport, former Florida Republican Rep. Allen West lashed out at President Obama and the “race industry crew.”
“‘We were bored & decided to kill somebody.’ 3 black teens shoot white jogger.Who will POTUS identify w/this time?” West tweeted Tuesday afternoon with a link to a New York Post article on the matter.
San Antonio Threatens to Punish Christians who oppose Homosexual Marriage, allows men in Women Bathrooms
Is this Texas?
The San Antonio City Council proposed an ordinance to punish and ban from employment any Christian who does not believe in homosexual marriage. They even want men to be able to use a woman's bathroom.
they had so much backlash that they changed the proposed ordinance a little bit but it still punishes Christians
from TexasValues.org:
The San Antonio City Council proposed an ordinance to punish and ban from employment any Christian who does not believe in homosexual marriage. They even want men to be able to use a woman's bathroom.
they had so much backlash that they changed the proposed ordinance a little bit but it still punishes Christians
from TexasValues.org:
The San Antonio City Council, Mayor Castro, and LGBT
(lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender) activists are now getting desperate in their effort to pass their so called
“non-discrimination” ordinance – an ordinance that is better described as a
direct attack on Christians and people of faith in San Antonio. With over 20,000 messages to the San Antonio City Council being sent by
concerned Texans and local opposition in San Antonio among Churches and
local citizens continuing to build, the more the ordinance and its true
intentions are exposed, the more citizens are willing to stand up for their
rights.
The San Antonio City Council has already been forced to
recognize the blatant religious discrimination of this proposed ordinance and
has attempted to change the ordinance and introduce new drafts to push back and mislead the growing
opposition to the ordinance. But simply removing one discriminatory and
unconstitutional section (Section 2-552(b) from previous draft) does not change
the fact that there are still serious religious freedom, constitutional, and
practical problems with the ordinance. In fact, the new draft still includes a
section (2-252(b) in new draft) that attacks board members, appointed
officials, and others that oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word or deed…”)
homosexual conduct by requiring that action be taken to “remove the offending
person from office.”
Here are 5 major problems that still remain in the
ordinance:
1. Ban on speech supporting traditional marriage and
sexuality by board members and other appointed officials. (Sec. 2-252(b))
As mentioned above, the ordinance still includes a section
that tramples on the religious freedom and free speech rights of city
government officials that publicly oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word or
deed…”) homosexual, bisexual, or transgender behavior by requiring that action
be taken to “remove the offending person from office.” This provision could
prevent any government appointee from saying such things as he/she believes
homosexual behavior is immoral, quote Scripture and point out that the Bible
calls those who engage in homosexual behavior to repent, in the same manner as
it calls those who engage in any kind of sexual immorality to repent, or share
the biblical view of marriage and sexuality.
2. Men in the women’s restrooms and changing facilities.
(Sec. 2-592)
As
we highlighted in an earlier post, the proposed ordinance essentially
contains protection for transgender bathrooms. The ordinance makes it illegal
to deny “facilities” because of a person’s “gender identity.” No exemption is
given for places in which people are customarily in various states of undress,
such as a locker rooms or bathroom. In essence, the ordinance would make it a
crime for a business to protect their women and children from a man desiring to
use the womens’ bathrooms and locker rooms because he believes he is a woman.
The dangers of this policy for women and children are clear and, as expressed
by local residents in recent testimony, include increased opportunities for
sexual predators to gain easier access to their targets. The City Council
should be focused on protecting women and children, not placing them at risk.
3. Does not provide a free-exercise of religion exemption
for places of public accommodation and will discriminate against (Christian)
businesses that want to operate according to their religious faith. (Sec.
2-592)
The ordinance would require every place of public
accommodation to provide all of the “advantages, facilities or services offered
to the general public.” The ordinance expressly “shall include every business
within the city, whether wholesale or retail, which is open to the general
public and offers, for compensation, any product, service or facility” – a very
broad definition that will likely include a large amount of San Antonio
businesses.
Just a few recent documented examples of this type of
language being used to target people of faith include: a photographer refusing
to provide services at a same-sex commitment ceremony who is being sued for
discrimination pursuant to a public accommodations law (New Mexico), a
Christian baker refusing to provide a wedding cake to a same-sex “wedding” who
is being sued for discrimination (Colorado), a Christian florist refusing to
provide flowers to a same-sex “wedding” for religious reasons who is being
prosecuted by the state and sued by the same-sex couple (Washington), a
printing company owned by Christians who declined to print t-shirts for a
“gay-pride” festival which is being sued for discrimination (Kentucky).
Clearly, this will have a tremendous negative impact on the ability of San
Antonio’s business to operate according to their beliefs.
4. Bans (Christian) businesses that refuse to add “Sexual
Orientation” and “Gender Identity” to their companies’ nondiscrimination
protections from working with the city. (Section 7)
Everyone that contracts with the city must comply with this
new “non-discrimination” policy. So any person who operates their business
pursuant to their conscience or religious beliefs, if in conflict with this
ordinance, will be barred from doing business with the city. This means that
Christian-run businesses that comply with their religious beliefs will be barred
from entering into any contracts with the city. Effectively, the ordinance will
use government power to force private businesses to share the same beliefs as
the city.
5. Does not give Churches and other religious
organizations clear protection in their hiring practices. (Sec. 2-550(b))
While the ordinance does include a weak exemption for
churches and other religious organizations related to hiring, it is only
limited for employment “to members of the same religion.” This does not address
the situation, for example, faced by a Baptist or Catholic school that receives
an application from a gender-confused man who says he is Baptist or Catholic.
The question then becomes – who gets to say what religion the applicant is? The
ordinance does not say. There are some denominations that self-identify as
Christian and say that those engaging in homosexual behavior can be a member in
good standing. This ordinance sets the stage for government being empowered to
define and dictate to religious organizations what does and does not quality as
their “religion.” This is extremely dangerous. Further, this section does not
give any assurances of protection to any other part of religious organization’s
operations outside of hiring.
More resources on San Antonio’s Anti-Religious Freedom
Ordinance:
- See more at:
http://txvalues.org/2013/08/21/san-antonio-ordinance-still-a-major-threat-to-christians/#sthash.038k5QXt.dpuf
The San Antonio City Council, Mayor Castro, and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender) activists are now getting desperate
in their effort to pass their so called “non-discrimination” ordinance –
an ordinance that is better described as a direct attack on Christians
and people of faith in San Antonio. With over 20,000 messages to the San Antonio City Council being sent by concerned Texans
and local opposition in San Antonio among Churches and local citizens
continuing to build, the more the ordinance and its true intentions are
exposed, the more citizens are willing to stand up for their rights.
The San Antonio City Council has already been forced to recognize the blatant religious discrimination of this proposed ordinance and has attempted to change the ordinance and introduce new drafts to push back and mislead the growing opposition to the ordinance. But simply removing one discriminatory and unconstitutional section (Section 2-552(b) from previous draft) does not change the fact that there are still serious religious freedom, constitutional, and practical problems with the ordinance. In fact, the new draft still includes a section (2-252(b) in new draft) that attacks board members, appointed officials, and others that oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word or deed…”) homosexual conduct by requiring that action be taken to “remove the offending person from office.”
Just a few recent documented examples of this type of language being used to target people of faith include: a photographer refusing to provide services at a same-sex commitment ceremony who is being sued for discrimination pursuant to a public accommodations law (New Mexico), a Christian baker refusing to provide a wedding cake to a same-sex “wedding” who is being sued for discrimination (Colorado), a Christian florist refusing to provide flowers to a same-sex “wedding” for religious reasons who is being prosecuted by the state and sued by the same-sex couple (Washington), a printing company owned by Christians who declined to print t-shirts for a “gay-pride” festival which is being sued for discrimination (Kentucky). Clearly, this will have a tremendous negative impact on the ability of San Antonio’s business to operate according to their beliefs.
Alliance Defending Freedom’s Open Letter to San Antonio Pastors
PDF of latest version of ordinance
PDF of earlier version of ordinance
- See more at: http://txvalues.org/2013/08/21/san-antonio-ordinance-still-a-major-threat-to-christians/#sthash.038k5QXt.dpuf
The San Antonio City Council has already been forced to recognize the blatant religious discrimination of this proposed ordinance and has attempted to change the ordinance and introduce new drafts to push back and mislead the growing opposition to the ordinance. But simply removing one discriminatory and unconstitutional section (Section 2-552(b) from previous draft) does not change the fact that there are still serious religious freedom, constitutional, and practical problems with the ordinance. In fact, the new draft still includes a section (2-252(b) in new draft) that attacks board members, appointed officials, and others that oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word or deed…”) homosexual conduct by requiring that action be taken to “remove the offending person from office.”
Here are 5 major problems that still remain in the ordinance:
1. Ban on speech supporting traditional marriage and sexuality by board members and other appointed officials. (Sec. 2-252(b))
As mentioned above, the ordinance still includes a section that tramples on the religious freedom and free speech rights of city government officials that publicly oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word or deed…”) homosexual, bisexual, or transgender behavior by requiring that action be taken to “remove the offending person from office.” This provision could prevent any government appointee from saying such things as he/she believes homosexual behavior is immoral, quote Scripture and point out that the Bible calls those who engage in homosexual behavior to repent, in the same manner as it calls those who engage in any kind of sexual immorality to repent, or share the biblical view of marriage and sexuality.2. Men in the women’s restrooms and changing facilities. (Sec. 2-592)
As we highlighted in an earlier post, the proposed ordinance essentially contains protection for transgender bathrooms. The ordinance makes it illegal to deny “facilities” because of a person’s “gender identity.” No exemption is given for places in which people are customarily in various states of undress, such as a locker rooms or bathroom. In essence, the ordinance would make it a crime for a business to protect their women and children from a man desiring to use the womens’ bathrooms and locker rooms because he believes he is a woman. The dangers of this policy for women and children are clear and, as expressed by local residents in recent testimony, include increased opportunities for sexual predators to gain easier access to their targets. The City Council should be focused on protecting women and children, not placing them at risk.3. Does not provide a free-exercise of religion exemption for places of public accommodation and will discriminate against (Christian) businesses that want to operate according to their religious faith. (Sec. 2-592)
The ordinance would require every place of public accommodation to provide all of the “advantages, facilities or services offered to the general public.” The ordinance expressly “shall include every business within the city, whether wholesale or retail, which is open to the general public and offers, for compensation, any product, service or facility” – a very broad definition that will likely include a large amount of San Antonio businesses.Just a few recent documented examples of this type of language being used to target people of faith include: a photographer refusing to provide services at a same-sex commitment ceremony who is being sued for discrimination pursuant to a public accommodations law (New Mexico), a Christian baker refusing to provide a wedding cake to a same-sex “wedding” who is being sued for discrimination (Colorado), a Christian florist refusing to provide flowers to a same-sex “wedding” for religious reasons who is being prosecuted by the state and sued by the same-sex couple (Washington), a printing company owned by Christians who declined to print t-shirts for a “gay-pride” festival which is being sued for discrimination (Kentucky). Clearly, this will have a tremendous negative impact on the ability of San Antonio’s business to operate according to their beliefs.
4. Bans (Christian) businesses that refuse to add “Sexual Orientation” and “Gender Identity” to their companies’ nondiscrimination protections from working with the city. (Section 7)
Everyone that contracts with the city must comply with this new “non-discrimination” policy. So any person who operates their business pursuant to their conscience or religious beliefs, if in conflict with this ordinance, will be barred from doing business with the city. This means that Christian-run businesses that comply with their religious beliefs will be barred from entering into any contracts with the city. Effectively, the ordinance will use government power to force private businesses to share the same beliefs as the city.5. Does not give Churches and other religious organizations clear protection in their hiring practices. (Sec. 2-550(b))
While the ordinance does include a weak exemption for churches and other religious organizations related to hiring, it is only limited for employment “to members of the same religion.” This does not address the situation, for example, faced by a Baptist or Catholic school that receives an application from a gender-confused man who says he is Baptist or Catholic. The question then becomes – who gets to say what religion the applicant is? The ordinance does not say. There are some denominations that self-identify as Christian and say that those engaging in homosexual behavior can be a member in good standing. This ordinance sets the stage for government being empowered to define and dictate to religious organizations what does and does not quality as their “religion.” This is extremely dangerous. Further, this section does not give any assurances of protection to any other part of religious organization’s operations outside of hiring.More resources on San Antonio’s Anti-Religious Freedom Ordinance:
Recent posts and media interviews on the ordinance from Texas ValuesAlliance Defending Freedom’s Open Letter to San Antonio Pastors
PDF of latest version of ordinance
PDF of earlier version of ordinance
- See more at: http://txvalues.org/2013/08/21/san-antonio-ordinance-still-a-major-threat-to-christians/#sthash.038k5QXt.dpuf
The San Antonio City Council, Mayor Castro, and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender) activists are now getting desperate
in their effort to pass their so called “non-discrimination” ordinance –
an ordinance that is better described as a direct attack on Christians
and people of faith in San Antonio. With over 20,000 messages to the San Antonio City Council being sent by concerned Texans
and local opposition in San Antonio among Churches and local citizens
continuing to build, the more the ordinance and its true intentions are
exposed, the more citizens are willing to stand up for their rights.
The San Antonio City Council has already been forced to recognize the blatant religious discrimination of this proposed ordinance and has attempted to change the ordinance and introduce new drafts to push back and mislead the growing opposition to the ordinance. But simply removing one discriminatory and unconstitutional section (Section 2-552(b) from previous draft) does not change the fact that there are still serious religious freedom, constitutional, and practical problems with the ordinance. In fact, the new draft still includes a section (2-252(b) in new draft) that attacks board members, appointed officials, and others that oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word or deed…”) homosexual conduct by requiring that action be taken to “remove the offending person from office.”
Just a few recent documented examples of this type of language being used to target people of faith include: a photographer refusing to provide services at a same-sex commitment ceremony who is being sued for discrimination pursuant to a public accommodations law (New Mexico), a Christian baker refusing to provide a wedding cake to a same-sex “wedding” who is being sued for discrimination (Colorado), a Christian florist refusing to provide flowers to a same-sex “wedding” for religious reasons who is being prosecuted by the state and sued by the same-sex couple (Washington), a printing company owned by Christians who declined to print t-shirts for a “gay-pride” festival which is being sued for discrimination (Kentucky). Clearly, this will have a tremendous negative impact on the ability of San Antonio’s business to operate according to their beliefs.
Alliance Defending Freedom’s Open Letter to San Antonio Pastors
PDF of latest version of ordinance
PDF of earlier version of ordinance
- See more at: http://txvalues.org/2013/08/21/san-antonio-ordinance-still-a-major-threat-to-christians/#sthash.038k5QXt.dpuf
The San Antonio City Council has already been forced to recognize the blatant religious discrimination of this proposed ordinance and has attempted to change the ordinance and introduce new drafts to push back and mislead the growing opposition to the ordinance. But simply removing one discriminatory and unconstitutional section (Section 2-552(b) from previous draft) does not change the fact that there are still serious religious freedom, constitutional, and practical problems with the ordinance. In fact, the new draft still includes a section (2-252(b) in new draft) that attacks board members, appointed officials, and others that oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word or deed…”) homosexual conduct by requiring that action be taken to “remove the offending person from office.”
Here are 5 major problems that still remain in the ordinance:
1. Ban on speech supporting traditional marriage and sexuality by board members and other appointed officials. (Sec. 2-252(b))
As mentioned above, the ordinance still includes a section that tramples on the religious freedom and free speech rights of city government officials that publicly oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word or deed…”) homosexual, bisexual, or transgender behavior by requiring that action be taken to “remove the offending person from office.” This provision could prevent any government appointee from saying such things as he/she believes homosexual behavior is immoral, quote Scripture and point out that the Bible calls those who engage in homosexual behavior to repent, in the same manner as it calls those who engage in any kind of sexual immorality to repent, or share the biblical view of marriage and sexuality.2. Men in the women’s restrooms and changing facilities. (Sec. 2-592)
As we highlighted in an earlier post, the proposed ordinance essentially contains protection for transgender bathrooms. The ordinance makes it illegal to deny “facilities” because of a person’s “gender identity.” No exemption is given for places in which people are customarily in various states of undress, such as a locker rooms or bathroom. In essence, the ordinance would make it a crime for a business to protect their women and children from a man desiring to use the womens’ bathrooms and locker rooms because he believes he is a woman. The dangers of this policy for women and children are clear and, as expressed by local residents in recent testimony, include increased opportunities for sexual predators to gain easier access to their targets. The City Council should be focused on protecting women and children, not placing them at risk.3. Does not provide a free-exercise of religion exemption for places of public accommodation and will discriminate against (Christian) businesses that want to operate according to their religious faith. (Sec. 2-592)
The ordinance would require every place of public accommodation to provide all of the “advantages, facilities or services offered to the general public.” The ordinance expressly “shall include every business within the city, whether wholesale or retail, which is open to the general public and offers, for compensation, any product, service or facility” – a very broad definition that will likely include a large amount of San Antonio businesses.Just a few recent documented examples of this type of language being used to target people of faith include: a photographer refusing to provide services at a same-sex commitment ceremony who is being sued for discrimination pursuant to a public accommodations law (New Mexico), a Christian baker refusing to provide a wedding cake to a same-sex “wedding” who is being sued for discrimination (Colorado), a Christian florist refusing to provide flowers to a same-sex “wedding” for religious reasons who is being prosecuted by the state and sued by the same-sex couple (Washington), a printing company owned by Christians who declined to print t-shirts for a “gay-pride” festival which is being sued for discrimination (Kentucky). Clearly, this will have a tremendous negative impact on the ability of San Antonio’s business to operate according to their beliefs.
4. Bans (Christian) businesses that refuse to add “Sexual Orientation” and “Gender Identity” to their companies’ nondiscrimination protections from working with the city. (Section 7)
Everyone that contracts with the city must comply with this new “non-discrimination” policy. So any person who operates their business pursuant to their conscience or religious beliefs, if in conflict with this ordinance, will be barred from doing business with the city. This means that Christian-run businesses that comply with their religious beliefs will be barred from entering into any contracts with the city. Effectively, the ordinance will use government power to force private businesses to share the same beliefs as the city.5. Does not give Churches and other religious organizations clear protection in their hiring practices. (Sec. 2-550(b))
While the ordinance does include a weak exemption for churches and other religious organizations related to hiring, it is only limited for employment “to members of the same religion.” This does not address the situation, for example, faced by a Baptist or Catholic school that receives an application from a gender-confused man who says he is Baptist or Catholic. The question then becomes – who gets to say what religion the applicant is? The ordinance does not say. There are some denominations that self-identify as Christian and say that those engaging in homosexual behavior can be a member in good standing. This ordinance sets the stage for government being empowered to define and dictate to religious organizations what does and does not quality as their “religion.” This is extremely dangerous. Further, this section does not give any assurances of protection to any other part of religious organization’s operations outside of hiring.More resources on San Antonio’s Anti-Religious Freedom Ordinance:
Recent posts and media interviews on the ordinance from Texas ValuesAlliance Defending Freedom’s Open Letter to San Antonio Pastors
PDF of latest version of ordinance
PDF of earlier version of ordinance
- See more at: http://txvalues.org/2013/08/21/san-antonio-ordinance-still-a-major-threat-to-christians/#sthash.038k5QXt.dpuf
The San Antonio City Council, Mayor Castro, and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender) activists are now getting desperate
in their effort to pass their so called “non-discrimination” ordinance –
an ordinance that is better described as a direct attack on Christians
and people of faith in San Antonio. With over 20,000 messages to the San Antonio City Council being sent by concerned Texans
and local opposition in San Antonio among Churches and local citizens
continuing to build, the more the ordinance and its true intentions are
exposed, the more citizens are willing to stand up for their rights.
The San Antonio City Council has already been forced to recognize the blatant religious discrimination of this proposed ordinance and has attempted to change the ordinance and introduce new drafts to push back and mislead the growing opposition to the ordinance. But simply removing one discriminatory and unconstitutional section (Section 2-552(b) from previous draft) does not change the fact that there are still serious religious freedom, constitutional, and practical problems with the ordinance. In fact, the new draft still includes a section (2-252(b) in new draft) that attacks board members, appointed officials, and others that oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word or deed…”) homosexual conduct by requiring that action be taken to “remove the offending person from office.”
Just a few recent documented examples of this type of language being used to target people of faith include: a photographer refusing to provide services at a same-sex commitment ceremony who is being sued for discrimination pursuant to a public accommodations law (New Mexico), a Christian baker refusing to provide a wedding cake to a same-sex “wedding” who is being sued for discrimination (Colorado), a Christian florist refusing to provide flowers to a same-sex “wedding” for religious reasons who is being prosecuted by the state and sued by the same-sex couple (Washington), a printing company owned by Christians who declined to print t-shirts for a “gay-pride” festival which is being sued for discrimination (Kentucky). Clearly, this will have a tremendous negative impact on the ability of San Antonio’s business to operate according to their beliefs.
Alliance Defending Freedom’s Open Letter to San Antonio Pastors
PDF of latest version of ordinance
PDF of earlier version of ordinance
- See more at: http://txvalues.org/2013/08/21/san-antonio-ordinance-still-a-major-threat-to-christians/#sthash.038k5QXt.dpuf
The San Antonio City Council has already been forced to recognize the blatant religious discrimination of this proposed ordinance and has attempted to change the ordinance and introduce new drafts to push back and mislead the growing opposition to the ordinance. But simply removing one discriminatory and unconstitutional section (Section 2-552(b) from previous draft) does not change the fact that there are still serious religious freedom, constitutional, and practical problems with the ordinance. In fact, the new draft still includes a section (2-252(b) in new draft) that attacks board members, appointed officials, and others that oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word or deed…”) homosexual conduct by requiring that action be taken to “remove the offending person from office.”
Here are 5 major problems that still remain in the ordinance:
1. Ban on speech supporting traditional marriage and sexuality by board members and other appointed officials. (Sec. 2-252(b))
As mentioned above, the ordinance still includes a section that tramples on the religious freedom and free speech rights of city government officials that publicly oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word or deed…”) homosexual, bisexual, or transgender behavior by requiring that action be taken to “remove the offending person from office.” This provision could prevent any government appointee from saying such things as he/she believes homosexual behavior is immoral, quote Scripture and point out that the Bible calls those who engage in homosexual behavior to repent, in the same manner as it calls those who engage in any kind of sexual immorality to repent, or share the biblical view of marriage and sexuality.2. Men in the women’s restrooms and changing facilities. (Sec. 2-592)
As we highlighted in an earlier post, the proposed ordinance essentially contains protection for transgender bathrooms. The ordinance makes it illegal to deny “facilities” because of a person’s “gender identity.” No exemption is given for places in which people are customarily in various states of undress, such as a locker rooms or bathroom. In essence, the ordinance would make it a crime for a business to protect their women and children from a man desiring to use the womens’ bathrooms and locker rooms because he believes he is a woman. The dangers of this policy for women and children are clear and, as expressed by local residents in recent testimony, include increased opportunities for sexual predators to gain easier access to their targets. The City Council should be focused on protecting women and children, not placing them at risk.3. Does not provide a free-exercise of religion exemption for places of public accommodation and will discriminate against (Christian) businesses that want to operate according to their religious faith. (Sec. 2-592)
The ordinance would require every place of public accommodation to provide all of the “advantages, facilities or services offered to the general public.” The ordinance expressly “shall include every business within the city, whether wholesale or retail, which is open to the general public and offers, for compensation, any product, service or facility” – a very broad definition that will likely include a large amount of San Antonio businesses.Just a few recent documented examples of this type of language being used to target people of faith include: a photographer refusing to provide services at a same-sex commitment ceremony who is being sued for discrimination pursuant to a public accommodations law (New Mexico), a Christian baker refusing to provide a wedding cake to a same-sex “wedding” who is being sued for discrimination (Colorado), a Christian florist refusing to provide flowers to a same-sex “wedding” for religious reasons who is being prosecuted by the state and sued by the same-sex couple (Washington), a printing company owned by Christians who declined to print t-shirts for a “gay-pride” festival which is being sued for discrimination (Kentucky). Clearly, this will have a tremendous negative impact on the ability of San Antonio’s business to operate according to their beliefs.
4. Bans (Christian) businesses that refuse to add “Sexual Orientation” and “Gender Identity” to their companies’ nondiscrimination protections from working with the city. (Section 7)
Everyone that contracts with the city must comply with this new “non-discrimination” policy. So any person who operates their business pursuant to their conscience or religious beliefs, if in conflict with this ordinance, will be barred from doing business with the city. This means that Christian-run businesses that comply with their religious beliefs will be barred from entering into any contracts with the city. Effectively, the ordinance will use government power to force private businesses to share the same beliefs as the city.5. Does not give Churches and other religious organizations clear protection in their hiring practices. (Sec. 2-550(b))
While the ordinance does include a weak exemption for churches and other religious organizations related to hiring, it is only limited for employment “to members of the same religion.” This does not address the situation, for example, faced by a Baptist or Catholic school that receives an application from a gender-confused man who says he is Baptist or Catholic. The question then becomes – who gets to say what religion the applicant is? The ordinance does not say. There are some denominations that self-identify as Christian and say that those engaging in homosexual behavior can be a member in good standing. This ordinance sets the stage for government being empowered to define and dictate to religious organizations what does and does not quality as their “religion.” This is extremely dangerous. Further, this section does not give any assurances of protection to any other part of religious organization’s operations outside of hiring.More resources on San Antonio’s Anti-Religious Freedom Ordinance:
Recent posts and media interviews on the ordinance from Texas ValuesAlliance Defending Freedom’s Open Letter to San Antonio Pastors
PDF of latest version of ordinance
PDF of earlier version of ordinance
- See more at: http://txvalues.org/2013/08/21/san-antonio-ordinance-still-a-major-threat-to-christians/#sthash.038k5QXt.dpuf
The San Antonio City Council, Mayor Castro, and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender) activists are now getting desperate
in their effort to pass their so called “non-discrimination” ordinance –
an ordinance that is better described as a direct attack on Christians
and people of faith in San Antonio. With over 20,000 messages to the San Antonio City Council being sent by concerned Texans
and local opposition in San Antonio among Churches and local citizens
continuing to build, the more the ordinance and its true intentions are
exposed, the more citizens are willing to stand up for their rights.
The San Antonio City Council has already been forced to recognize the blatant religious discrimination of this proposed ordinance and has attempted to change the ordinance and introduce new drafts to push back and mislead the growing opposition to the ordinance. But simply removing one discriminatory and unconstitutional section (Section 2-552(b) from previous draft) does not change the fact that there are still serious religious freedom, constitutional, and practical problems with the ordinance. In fact, the new draft still includes a section (2-252(b) in new draft) that attacks board members, appointed officials, and others that oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word or deed…”) homosexual conduct by requiring that action be taken to “remove the offending person from office.”
Just a few recent documented examples of this type of language being used to target people of faith include: a photographer refusing to provide services at a same-sex commitment ceremony who is being sued for discrimination pursuant to a public accommodations law (New Mexico), a Christian baker refusing to provide a wedding cake to a same-sex “wedding” who is being sued for discrimination (Colorado), a Christian florist refusing to provide flowers to a same-sex “wedding” for religious reasons who is being prosecuted by the state and sued by the same-sex couple (Washington), a printing company owned by Christians who declined to print t-shirts for a “gay-pride” festival which is being sued for discrimination (Kentucky). Clearly, this will have a tremendous negative impact on the ability of San Antonio’s business to operate according to their beliefs.
Alliance Defending Freedom’s Open Letter to San Antonio Pastors
PDF of latest version of ordinance
PDF of earlier version of ordinance
- See more at: http://txvalues.org/2013/08/21/san-antonio-ordinance-still-a-major-threat-to-christians/#sthash.038k5QXt.dpuf
The San Antonio City Council has already been forced to recognize the blatant religious discrimination of this proposed ordinance and has attempted to change the ordinance and introduce new drafts to push back and mislead the growing opposition to the ordinance. But simply removing one discriminatory and unconstitutional section (Section 2-552(b) from previous draft) does not change the fact that there are still serious religious freedom, constitutional, and practical problems with the ordinance. In fact, the new draft still includes a section (2-252(b) in new draft) that attacks board members, appointed officials, and others that oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word or deed…”) homosexual conduct by requiring that action be taken to “remove the offending person from office.”
Here are 5 major problems that still remain in the ordinance:
1. Ban on speech supporting traditional marriage and sexuality by board members and other appointed officials. (Sec. 2-252(b))
As mentioned above, the ordinance still includes a section that tramples on the religious freedom and free speech rights of city government officials that publicly oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word or deed…”) homosexual, bisexual, or transgender behavior by requiring that action be taken to “remove the offending person from office.” This provision could prevent any government appointee from saying such things as he/she believes homosexual behavior is immoral, quote Scripture and point out that the Bible calls those who engage in homosexual behavior to repent, in the same manner as it calls those who engage in any kind of sexual immorality to repent, or share the biblical view of marriage and sexuality.2. Men in the women’s restrooms and changing facilities. (Sec. 2-592)
As we highlighted in an earlier post, the proposed ordinance essentially contains protection for transgender bathrooms. The ordinance makes it illegal to deny “facilities” because of a person’s “gender identity.” No exemption is given for places in which people are customarily in various states of undress, such as a locker rooms or bathroom. In essence, the ordinance would make it a crime for a business to protect their women and children from a man desiring to use the womens’ bathrooms and locker rooms because he believes he is a woman. The dangers of this policy for women and children are clear and, as expressed by local residents in recent testimony, include increased opportunities for sexual predators to gain easier access to their targets. The City Council should be focused on protecting women and children, not placing them at risk.3. Does not provide a free-exercise of religion exemption for places of public accommodation and will discriminate against (Christian) businesses that want to operate according to their religious faith. (Sec. 2-592)
The ordinance would require every place of public accommodation to provide all of the “advantages, facilities or services offered to the general public.” The ordinance expressly “shall include every business within the city, whether wholesale or retail, which is open to the general public and offers, for compensation, any product, service or facility” – a very broad definition that will likely include a large amount of San Antonio businesses.Just a few recent documented examples of this type of language being used to target people of faith include: a photographer refusing to provide services at a same-sex commitment ceremony who is being sued for discrimination pursuant to a public accommodations law (New Mexico), a Christian baker refusing to provide a wedding cake to a same-sex “wedding” who is being sued for discrimination (Colorado), a Christian florist refusing to provide flowers to a same-sex “wedding” for religious reasons who is being prosecuted by the state and sued by the same-sex couple (Washington), a printing company owned by Christians who declined to print t-shirts for a “gay-pride” festival which is being sued for discrimination (Kentucky). Clearly, this will have a tremendous negative impact on the ability of San Antonio’s business to operate according to their beliefs.
4. Bans (Christian) businesses that refuse to add “Sexual Orientation” and “Gender Identity” to their companies’ nondiscrimination protections from working with the city. (Section 7)
Everyone that contracts with the city must comply with this new “non-discrimination” policy. So any person who operates their business pursuant to their conscience or religious beliefs, if in conflict with this ordinance, will be barred from doing business with the city. This means that Christian-run businesses that comply with their religious beliefs will be barred from entering into any contracts with the city. Effectively, the ordinance will use government power to force private businesses to share the same beliefs as the city.5. Does not give Churches and other religious organizations clear protection in their hiring practices. (Sec. 2-550(b))
While the ordinance does include a weak exemption for churches and other religious organizations related to hiring, it is only limited for employment “to members of the same religion.” This does not address the situation, for example, faced by a Baptist or Catholic school that receives an application from a gender-confused man who says he is Baptist or Catholic. The question then becomes – who gets to say what religion the applicant is? The ordinance does not say. There are some denominations that self-identify as Christian and say that those engaging in homosexual behavior can be a member in good standing. This ordinance sets the stage for government being empowered to define and dictate to religious organizations what does and does not quality as their “religion.” This is extremely dangerous. Further, this section does not give any assurances of protection to any other part of religious organization’s operations outside of hiring.More resources on San Antonio’s Anti-Religious Freedom Ordinance:
Recent posts and media interviews on the ordinance from Texas ValuesAlliance Defending Freedom’s Open Letter to San Antonio Pastors
PDF of latest version of ordinance
PDF of earlier version of ordinance
- See more at: http://txvalues.org/2013/08/21/san-antonio-ordinance-still-a-major-threat-to-christians/#sthash.038k5QXt.dpuf
The San Antonio City Council, Mayor Castro, and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender) activists are now getting desperate
in their effort to pass their so called “non-discrimination” ordinance –
an ordinance that is better described as a direct attack on Christians
and people of faith in San Antonio. With over 20,000 messages to the San Antonio City Council being sent by concerned Texans
and local opposition in San Antonio among Churches and local citizens
continuing to build, the more the ordinance and its true intentions are
exposed, the more citizens are willing to stand up for their rights.
The San Antonio City Council has already been forced to recognize the blatant religious discrimination of this proposed ordinance and has attempted to change the ordinance and introduce new drafts to push back and mislead the growing opposition to the ordinance. But simply removing one discriminatory and unconstitutional section (Section 2-552(b) from previous draft) does not change the fact that there are still serious religious freedom, constitutional, and practical problems with the ordinance. In fact, the new draft still includes a section (2-252(b) in new draft) that attacks board members, appointed officials, and others that oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word or deed…”) homosexual conduct by requiring that action be taken to “remove the offending person from office.”
Just a few recent documented examples of this type of language being used to target people of faith include: a photographer refusing to provide services at a same-sex commitment ceremony who is being sued for discrimination pursuant to a public accommodations law (New Mexico), a Christian baker refusing to provide a wedding cake to a same-sex “wedding” who is being sued for discrimination (Colorado), a Christian florist refusing to provide flowers to a same-sex “wedding” for religious reasons who is being prosecuted by the state and sued by the same-sex couple (Washington), a printing company owned by Christians who declined to print t-shirts for a “gay-pride” festival which is being sued for discrimination (Kentucky). Clearly, this will have a tremendous negative impact on the ability of San Antonio’s business to operate according to their beliefs.
Alliance Defending Freedom’s Open Letter to San Antonio Pastors
PDF of latest version of ordinance
PDF of earlier version of ordinance
- See more at: http://txvalues.org/2013/08/21/san-antonio-ordinance-still-a-major-threat-to-christians/#sthash.038k5QXt.dpuf
The San Antonio City Council has already been forced to recognize the blatant religious discrimination of this proposed ordinance and has attempted to change the ordinance and introduce new drafts to push back and mislead the growing opposition to the ordinance. But simply removing one discriminatory and unconstitutional section (Section 2-552(b) from previous draft) does not change the fact that there are still serious religious freedom, constitutional, and practical problems with the ordinance. In fact, the new draft still includes a section (2-252(b) in new draft) that attacks board members, appointed officials, and others that oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word or deed…”) homosexual conduct by requiring that action be taken to “remove the offending person from office.”
Here are 5 major problems that still remain in the ordinance:
1. Ban on speech supporting traditional marriage and sexuality by board members and other appointed officials. (Sec. 2-252(b))
As mentioned above, the ordinance still includes a section that tramples on the religious freedom and free speech rights of city government officials that publicly oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word or deed…”) homosexual, bisexual, or transgender behavior by requiring that action be taken to “remove the offending person from office.” This provision could prevent any government appointee from saying such things as he/she believes homosexual behavior is immoral, quote Scripture and point out that the Bible calls those who engage in homosexual behavior to repent, in the same manner as it calls those who engage in any kind of sexual immorality to repent, or share the biblical view of marriage and sexuality.2. Men in the women’s restrooms and changing facilities. (Sec. 2-592)
As we highlighted in an earlier post, the proposed ordinance essentially contains protection for transgender bathrooms. The ordinance makes it illegal to deny “facilities” because of a person’s “gender identity.” No exemption is given for places in which people are customarily in various states of undress, such as a locker rooms or bathroom. In essence, the ordinance would make it a crime for a business to protect their women and children from a man desiring to use the womens’ bathrooms and locker rooms because he believes he is a woman. The dangers of this policy for women and children are clear and, as expressed by local residents in recent testimony, include increased opportunities for sexual predators to gain easier access to their targets. The City Council should be focused on protecting women and children, not placing them at risk.3. Does not provide a free-exercise of religion exemption for places of public accommodation and will discriminate against (Christian) businesses that want to operate according to their religious faith. (Sec. 2-592)
The ordinance would require every place of public accommodation to provide all of the “advantages, facilities or services offered to the general public.” The ordinance expressly “shall include every business within the city, whether wholesale or retail, which is open to the general public and offers, for compensation, any product, service or facility” – a very broad definition that will likely include a large amount of San Antonio businesses.Just a few recent documented examples of this type of language being used to target people of faith include: a photographer refusing to provide services at a same-sex commitment ceremony who is being sued for discrimination pursuant to a public accommodations law (New Mexico), a Christian baker refusing to provide a wedding cake to a same-sex “wedding” who is being sued for discrimination (Colorado), a Christian florist refusing to provide flowers to a same-sex “wedding” for religious reasons who is being prosecuted by the state and sued by the same-sex couple (Washington), a printing company owned by Christians who declined to print t-shirts for a “gay-pride” festival which is being sued for discrimination (Kentucky). Clearly, this will have a tremendous negative impact on the ability of San Antonio’s business to operate according to their beliefs.
4. Bans (Christian) businesses that refuse to add “Sexual Orientation” and “Gender Identity” to their companies’ nondiscrimination protections from working with the city. (Section 7)
Everyone that contracts with the city must comply with this new “non-discrimination” policy. So any person who operates their business pursuant to their conscience or religious beliefs, if in conflict with this ordinance, will be barred from doing business with the city. This means that Christian-run businesses that comply with their religious beliefs will be barred from entering into any contracts with the city. Effectively, the ordinance will use government power to force private businesses to share the same beliefs as the city.5. Does not give Churches and other religious organizations clear protection in their hiring practices. (Sec. 2-550(b))
While the ordinance does include a weak exemption for churches and other religious organizations related to hiring, it is only limited for employment “to members of the same religion.” This does not address the situation, for example, faced by a Baptist or Catholic school that receives an application from a gender-confused man who says he is Baptist or Catholic. The question then becomes – who gets to say what religion the applicant is? The ordinance does not say. There are some denominations that self-identify as Christian and say that those engaging in homosexual behavior can be a member in good standing. This ordinance sets the stage for government being empowered to define and dictate to religious organizations what does and does not quality as their “religion.” This is extremely dangerous. Further, this section does not give any assurances of protection to any other part of religious organization’s operations outside of hiring.More resources on San Antonio’s Anti-Religious Freedom Ordinance:
Recent posts and media interviews on the ordinance from Texas ValuesAlliance Defending Freedom’s Open Letter to San Antonio Pastors
PDF of latest version of ordinance
PDF of earlier version of ordinance
- See more at: http://txvalues.org/2013/08/21/san-antonio-ordinance-still-a-major-threat-to-christians/#sthash.038k5QXt.dpuf
Muslim Brotherhood Killing Christians and Burning Churches in Egypt
from Fox News:
Across Egypt, at least 60 churches have been targeted, along with Christian schools, homes,businesses and even an orphanage, according to conservative estimates. In the areas of Minya, Beni Suef, Fayoum and Assiut, Christian homes and businesses have received leaflets warning them to leave or face reprisals by Islamists, Christians said.
Christian homes and businesses in Minya have reportedly been marked with black X's to single them out for attack.
Across Egypt, at least 60 churches have been targeted, along with Christian schools, homes,businesses and even an orphanage, according to conservative estimates. In the areas of Minya, Beni Suef, Fayoum and Assiut, Christian homes and businesses have received leaflets warning them to leave or face reprisals by Islamists, Christians said.
Christian homes and businesses in Minya have reportedly been marked with black X's to single them out for attack.
Friday, August 16, 2013
Black Rep. James White Criticizes Holder and GOP Rep. Sensenbrenner for implying that Texas Restricts Minority Voting Rights
 |
| James White |
Rep. James White, a Texas Tea Party Conservative, knows quite a bit about the voting rights of minorities in Texas because, well, he is a minority in Texas.
 |
| James "Jim" Sensenbrenner |
 |
| Eric Holder |
says that statistics show the minority vote is not being restricted in southern states. White even pointed out that black voter turnout was higher than white voter turnout in recent elections. White then suggested that, instead of suing Texas, Holder should investigate harassment by the IRS toward groups that provide an opportunity for people to exercise their 1st Amendment rights.
 |
| Elbert Guillory |
The following is a press release from State Rep. James White regarding the situation with Holder and Sensenbrenner:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 15, 2013
State Representative James White Criticizes Holder and Sensenbrenner for Going After Texas
State Representative James White (R-Hillister) recently sent a letter to Republican Wisconsin Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner criticizing him for supporting Attorney General Eric Holder's move to put Texas back under the Section 5 preclearance requirements of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) after the Supreme Court struck down procedures in Section 4 that determine which states are subject to these requirements. Instead of encouraging Congress to update those procedures, as the Supreme Court directed, Holder is opting to use the "bail-in" provision of Section 3, which allows the federal government to apply the preclearance requirements to states where there are allegations of intentional discrimination. Representative White deplored this politicization of the judicial system. "Holder's decision to attack Texas's laws is a violation of its sovereignty and the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution," White said. "Instead of suing Texas, Holder should investigate harassment by the IRS toward groups that provide an opportunity for people to exercise their 1st Amendment rights."
White questioned Sensenbrenner's inconsistent advocacy of Holder's attempt to apply the VRA to Texas. "Why are you advocating the targeted enforcement of a provision of this law without suggesting that same level of scrutiny apply to your home state?" White asked. He noted that the Supreme Court did not throw out the VRA in its entirety but sent it back to Congress for it to update the procedures that determine which states should be subject to Section 5 preclearance. White continued, "Instead of aiding and abetting political harassment from the Holder Justice Department, it seems to me your focus should be on improving the VRA and ensuring that voters in Wisconsin have the optimum access to the ballot box."
White shared compelling data to demonstrate that the Justice Department's tactics are misguided and overtly political. In 2012, the national black voter turnout rate was higher than the white voter turnout rate. The Southern states primarily targeted with VRA preclearance have seen increases in minority voter registration levels, election turnout rates, and representation among elected officials since the enactment of the VRA, and these figures are on par with other regions of the country. White explained, "These facts raise serious doubts about the validity of allegations of intentional discrimination by states like Texas toward minorities."
White acknowledged that the VRA is a successful piece of social policy because it focused on expanding individual liberty. "I stand proudly on the shoulders of those before me that fought for this precious right," White said. "However, the recent application of the VRA has interfered with 10th Amendment rights. Instead of promoting the popular will of all the people, politicos have gamed the system for partisan gain." The Court did not ditch the VRA, it just told Congress to fix it. "Please," White asked Sensenbrenner, "refrain from supporting this politicized Justice Department's obstruction of the voting process. I urge you to go to work to reform this great piece of legislation that protects all voters from sea to shining sea and ensure that the march for individual liberty continues throughout this next great American century."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)