Religion

Laws of Public Accommodation and the LDS Church Statement about “respect”

Lesbian Wedding Cake Topper

Laws of Public Accommodation state that you are not allow to discriminate in providing services to the public if you run a business that is open to serve the public. So if you bake cakes, or do wedding photography, or open a restaurant, you have to accommodate members of the public who come to you to pay for your services. If you are a pharmacist, or an emergency medical technician, or a doctor, or a police officer, you cannot turn people away from your service if they are in a wheelchair, or if they are a person of color, or if they are female, or if they fit into a number of other categories. There are no religious exemptions to public accommodations laws, so what you believe or where you worship is not a legally an excuse for turning people away from your public-facing business, according to current law.

The current U.S. law on the books regarding public accommodation is a part of a back of a larger block of civil rights laws that are grouped under this title – U.S. Code Title 42, Chapter 21 — Civil Rights.

Title 42, Chapter 21 of the U.S. Code prohibits discrimination against persons based on age, disability, gender, race, national origin, and religion (among other things) in a number of settings — including education, employment, access to businesses and buildings, federal services, and more. Chapter 21 is where a number of federal acts related to civil rights have been codified — including the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act.

Here is what the “public accommodation” section of that larger group of laws states – 42 U.S.C. § 2000a : US Code – Section 2000A: Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation

(a) Equal access All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. (b) Establishments affecting interstate commerce or supported in their activities by State action as places of public accommodation; lodgings; facilities principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises; gasoline stations; places of exhibition or entertainment; other covered establishments Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this subchapter if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action: (1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence; (2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station; (3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and (4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment. (c) Operations affecting commerce; criteria; “commerce” defined The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this subchapter if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b) of this section; (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b) of this section, it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers of a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b) of this section, it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b) of this section, it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, “commerce” means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country. (d) Support by State action Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this subchapter if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof. (e) Private establishments The provisions of this subchapter shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b) of this section.

This morning, the Mormon Church held a press conference saying that they supported LGBT rights – up to a point. They believe that LGBT people should not be denied housing or employment or basic civil rights. BUT – they asserted that they felt that LGBT people should not be added to U.S. Code Title 42, Chapter 21. They didn’t say it in so many terms; they talked about “respect” and how LGBT “activists” had done terrible things to “disrespect” the religious beliefs of LDS Church members.

Apparently pouring millions of dollars into Prop-8 and trying to deny LGBT people basic civil rights, causing LGBT people emotional & financial hardship and pain, is perfectly “respectable” but fighting back for your basic civil rights after being a marginalized group of people for centuries is not.

But their meaning is pretty clear based on the language they were using. This public press conference is a dogwhistle to their members urging them to pour money into a number of lawsuits that are currently moving through the courts where gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender individuals are seeing redress after being denied public accommodations by business owners citing “religious freedom” as their reason for discriminating against people seeking their services.

If we were just talking about wedding cakes and photographers, this might be an easy issue to dismiss – you can just get a different florist or cake baker, right? But we are not. There have been cases of LGBT people denied emergency medical care, medication that they needed for their health, and police protection because they are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. LGBT people have been denied access to hotels and vacation spots, homeless shelters and domestic violence shelters based on the claims of “religious belief” of the owners or employees of those businesses or services. Some of the cases of denial of public accommodation are in serious, life-or-death situations. People have been irreparably harmed or killed because of this discrimination.

The LDS Church is attempting to frame the civil rights debate over public accommodation for LGBT people as one of “respect” – that LBGT people are being “disrespectful” of the church’s religious beliefs if they are seeking legal redress for being discriminated against. That legal and civil actions, including direct action that LGBT people might take in asserting their rights, are “disrespectful” and “attacks” and that the church is a victim if people challenge the discrimination against them on the basis of their religious beliefs.

It’s an interesting framing, and one that LDS members are anxious to push – I’ve already run across two sets of LDS church members anxious to cast themselves in the role of victim in the debate following this morning’s press conference. Unfortunately it’s also a framing that the average American is primed to accept as legitimate, given the complete lack of understanding of basic civil rights laws in the United States. Hopefully as these lawsuits move through the courts, the legal system won’t be as fooled by the manipulation of language as the average member of the public.

Continue ReadingLaws of Public Accommodation and the LDS Church Statement about “respect”

Goodness, gender roles and how to fix a broken gender system

Stemming from a Facebook conversation with a friend, about this sentence:

“To be a good man, one must surround himself with good women.” – Steve Lund

I want to capture here on my blog what I wrote in response to this on Facebook, because there are themes in what I wrote that run through the fiction that I’m writing. I’m going to paraphrase some of the comments because it was rather lengthy. If I do so in a way that doesn’t honor their meaning, I apologize. I challenged the idea of that Lund quote with this:

Here’s why that’s problematic – it’s not the responsibility of women to make men good. It’s the responsibility of men to make themselves good, whether they’re surrounded by good women or not.

To be fair, I didn’t stop to look up Steve Lund or what the context of this statement is. Perhaps I should, and I will at the end of this post, but for the most part, we were parsing this one sentence in our discussion.

David countered my challenge with some thoughtful discussion about male and female role models and what we are taught:

Steph and Sherry, I believe the intent of this statement is that as boys grow into men, they should seek out female role models as well as male role models.

Girls are encouraged to have male heroes and role models from infancy. To the contrary, boys are told never to model behavior after anything female, ever – that female heroes are notable exceptions and are only role models for girls, not boys. Boys are encouraged to surround themselves with men of qualities they would like to emulate. I believe Mr. Lund is saying that amid this pressure, males need to actively seek out and surround themselves with good female influences, too.

That’s an interesting thought, but I still think it’s focusing on the wrong thing. Tracy added this…

Well, lets see if the opposite makes sense or insulting, “To be a good woman, one must surround herself with good men.” Hummm…

I think she was on the right track there, because it started to try to flip the perspective. It didn’t quite help David out of his focus on the current state of affairs between men and women. He wrote a whole series of thoughtful comments about our how children are taught male primacy and how that can damage both boys and girls as they learn how to live in our society:

But, acknowledging that the world is broken, I see no harm in reminding guys that women matter and even though we boys were told otherwise while growing up – men should include women and women’s opinions as equal – and men should include those equal women among the folks they choose as friends, role models .. and heroes.

Am I wrong in thinking this damage to the American male worldview is something that needs corrected, that men need to be challenged and reminded to think differently in regard to women?

…

So, to more thoughtfully answer Tracey’s query, I think reminding girls and women to include men in their worldview is deeply offensive; reminding boys and men to include women in their worldview is a necessary course correction until the world is no longer broken in regard to gender disparity.

I was really thinking out loud during most of this – trying to mull things over and acknowledge my own limitations as a man who has no idea what women experience while simultaneously noting the bizarre anti-women gender-based indoctrination I experienced as a child growing up in Northern Indiana.

I think in asking those questions he’s going far beyond where Lund was going, but also not quite far enough to get us where we need to go. I can actually see some harm in reminding guys that women matter in the way that Lund is doing, because it still reinforces gendered thinking, and doesn’t demand people step outside their role. So I tried a different way to jar perspective, coupled with stepping back several large steps to contemplate what we’re even talking about:

I appreciate you thinking the whole thing through this thoroughly, because I knew you would. Definitely the damage to the male’s world view needs to be corrected, but I don’t know that Lund’s solution is the proper one, or enough to fix things, or specific enough for it to be clear what he actually means.

Let’s take out the genders altogether, as a game. “To be a good person, one must surround oneself with good people.” That makes a lot more sense, except that – must one? Practically, yes – anyone that doesn’t grow up being taught to behave well will probably not spontaneously grow a conscience without examples.

We make systems in society to move people that way. Outside of parental teaching, education and the school system are in place to provide that. And socially this is what we use religion for, because it’s easy and lazy and it’s a “do what I say because I said so and I’m bigger than you are” way of controlling people.

But in theory, should we expect people to be “good” without something propping that up? Are the “role models” in Lund’s example just crutches the way that religion is? Ideally, we do have some expectation as a society that people find their own way to a moral compass, somehow. Education and religion are guardrails to get us there, (although I think we’d agree that religion guardrail is pretty damned rickety) but Lund’s own sentence seems to suggest that the responsibility is on the individual to school themselves: “one must surround oneself.” Speaking of education and religion, if you’re thinking about how you can invest in your child’s future as an Islam, then you might want to invest in line with Islamic principles.

So if ideally we expect people to school themselves on good behavior, but practically we have social systems to get them there… what happens when we add gender back in?

“To be a good man” – doesn’t that suddenly sound jarring? We were talking earlier about “goodness” as a concept, but suddenly it seems we may not be talking about goodness at all, but about what being a man means. Are we talking about morality, or about gender performance? Do those two things have anything to do with one another? What does gender add to this conversation?

I don’t know enough about Lund to know whether the problem he was fixating on was actually about creating a better society, or about fixing the broken world view about gender, or about performing a male gender role properly. Obviously fixing the second would make better the first, but was his sentence actually concentrating on the first or the second or the third?

For the sake of kindness I’m going to throw out the third – that he was talking about whether he was performing “man” properly – and posit that he was talking about being a better human being.

I do agree that we have a broken societal system when it comes to gender. But the is way to fix that to double-down on gender roles and expectations, or is it to remove gender from the equation and ask that we observe and have empathy with people as human beings first and gendered individuals second?

Could a good man, surrounded by other good men, fix the male world view without good women being in the mix? If we are relying on the individual to take some responsibility as Lund is, then yes, we should expect that.

What is the responsibility of good women here? Well obviously to school ourselves, but is being available to good men as role models our only task? And is there a difference between being a good man and a good woman? What is that difference? Is there some expectation of women here that we don’t have of men?

It should be apparent now, that Tracy’s gender flip is really important, and actually does work to call Lund’s thought into question “To be a good woman, one must surround herself with good men.”

Regardless of our immersion in a broken world view about gender, we still need to think of ourselves as humans first and gendered creatures second if we are going to break free of that broken world view at all.

I’m sure that there will be more to this conversation, but I wanted to capture at least what I wrote here, because these are themes that run throughout my fiction and I want to return to them again as I’m writing.

Lund’s quote seems to come from this interview: The Man Sphere – Men We Admire: Steve Lund.

Do I wear blue because I'm a boy, or am I a boy because I wear blue?

Continue ReadingGoodness, gender roles and how to fix a broken gender system

The Pope’s “new stance” on homosexuality

Let me do the TL;DR up front – it’s the same as the old stance.

Several new stories have come out today about a recent interview Pope Francis did where he expanded on his comments from July on homosexuality and women’s roles in the church. I’ll link to some articles about what he had to say in a moment, but first I want to say this – my issue with what he’s saying is the same as it has been since July – it’s all PR and no substantive change. The articles note specifically that “The pope’s comments don’t break with Catholic doctrine or policy, but instead show a shift in approach, moving from censure to engagement” and that “The catechism, the Catholic Church’s book of official doctrine, condemns homosexual acts, but says gays and lesbians ‘must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.'”

That is not real change. Not at all. For gay people, we need concrete, specifics, and here’s why:

Here’s the story, for the first time I’ve ever told it in any explicit detail, on why I quit attending the Catholic Church just after college, way back in the dark ages, back in 1992. At that time, I went directly to the priest that was in charge of my mother’s church and asked him straight out what the church’s policy on gay people was. I had begun “coming out” in 1987, and in the years after that I fought with my mom tooth and nail over going to church. In July of 1992, this specific paper was released by John Paul II on gay people and the Catholic church [Some Considerations Concerning The Response To Legislative Proposals On The Non-Discrimination Of Homosexual Persons] and it was discussed in some of the gay newspapers at the time. I looked it up at the library, made a copy of it, and took it to the priest of my mom’s church Our Lady of Grace in Noblesville, Indiana. This specifically bothered me:

1. The letter recalls that the CDF’s “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics” of 1975 “took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions”; the latter are “intrinsically disordered” and “in no case to be approved of” (No. 3).

2. Since “[i]n the discussion which followed the publication of the (aforementioned) declaration …, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it “neutral or even good,” the letter goes on to clarify: “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not” (No. 3).

I told the priest that I was gay, that I intended to fall in love with and marry a woman someday. I wanted to know, specifically, what that meant in relation to the church.

The priest told me, straight up: “You will not be welcome in the church if you maintain a sinful lifestyle without any remorse or desire to change your behavior. We expect you to not engage in sexual behavior with women, to confess to your sins in confession, do penance for them, and to be celibate before you would be allowed to take communion. If you don’t, you will be able to attend mass with your family on holidays, but you won’t be allowed to take communion. If you regularly attend church without going to confession or renouncing your sinful behavior, we wouldn’t continue to welcome you in the church on a weekly basis, and we would ask you to stop attending.”

That told me everything I needed to know about where I stood with the Catholic Church, and other than attending on holidays with my family for the sake of family harmony, I haven’t been back.

This is still the Catholic Church’s position.

Nothing in the interviews Francis has given in July or now changes what I was told by my priest back in 1992. What Francis is saying is basically “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” They aren’t going to inquire what I’m doing with my wife under the covers, but it’s still considered a sin. My wife and I still aren’t considered a family to them, and if we were a part of the church, they would expect us to keep our relationship on the downlow. I imagine if I went to confession and told them that I regularly have sex with my wife, they would be forced to confront the issue somehow, and what would come out of it would be exactly what I was told back in 1992, more or less. They might not tell me never to come back, but they would still think my romantic relationship with my wife is a sin.

CNN’s coverage of the interview:

Pope Francis said the church has the right to express its opinions but not to “interfere spiritually” in the lives of gays and lesbians, expanding on explosive comments he made in July about not judging homosexuals.

In a wide-ranging interview published Thursday, the pope also said that women must play a key role in church decisions and brushed off critics who say he should be more vocal about fighting abortion and gay marriage.

Moreover, if the church fails to find a “new balance” between its spiritual and political missions, the pope warned, its moral foundation will “fall like a house of cards.”

And a summary of his remarks from the New York Times:

Pope Francis, in the first extensive interview of his six-month-old papacy, said that the Roman Catholic Church had grown “obsessed” with preaching about abortion, gay marriage and contraception, and that he has chosen not to speak of those issues despite recriminations from some critics.

In remarkably blunt language, Francis sought to set a new tone for the church, saying it should be a “home for all” and not a “small chapel” focused on doctrine, orthodoxy and a limited agenda of moral teachings.

“It is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time,” the pope told the Rev. Antonio Spadaro, a fellow Jesuit and editor in chief of La Civiltà Cattolica, the Italian Jesuit journal whose content is routinely approved by the Vatican. “The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently.

“We have to find a new balance,” the pope continued, “otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel.”

Pope Francis

As I was going over this post, I did a bit of looking through things I’ve written or noted here on this blog about the Catholic Church and the crazy, offensive and hostile things they’ve done over the years. Here’s a short list of bullshit the Catholic Church has been up to in the time I’ve been keeping this blog… Interesting how much Pope Francis’s new statements resemble that link that I posted in November of 2006.

Continue ReadingThe Pope’s “new stance” on homosexuality

Anti-Gay Churches will not have booths at Pride this year

Circle City Pride - 25 years

After meeting with concerned LGBT citizens and with the two churches who had purchased vendor booths for the 25th Circle City Pride Festival this year, the organizers of Indy Pride have decided to return their booth fees and decline their attendance at the festival.

I’m very glad that this has been worked out, and that these two churches will no longer have a platform at the Indy Pride celebration to promote a “convert or go to hell” religious agenda. That was my main concern in writing about this issue. So often when LGBT people come out of the closet, they lose their spiritual anchor at the same time because their church doesn’t support who they really are. For those folks who might seek out other religious organizations to be a part of, they should have a reasonable expectation that churches with booths at the Pride celebration would be nurturing and supportive of them as LGBT people. And most of them do fit that criteria – but these two organizations skated under the radar, unfortunately.

According to a facebook post from the Indy Pride organizers:

Yesterday, members of the Indy Pride, Inc. Board of Directors along with a former Board Member, met with representatives of Castleview Baptist Church and A.C.T for the Gospel, Inc. along with concerned citizens who have raised questions about the participation of these organizations as vendors at the Circle City IN Pride Festival.

It was a very cordial discussion where the remonstrators were able to present their issues, and then both organizations were able to respond. It was then followed by a wide ranging discussion that was very insightful and reached beyond the narrow focus of the meeting, and in the end, everyone involved was grateful to be able to have the opportunity to sit down and discuss this matter at length.

After careful consideration and the exercise of due diligence in making our decision, the Board of Directors of Indy Pride, Inc. has decided it is in the best interest of the patrons of our Festival, the vendors themselves, and the Board to terminate the registration of these two vendors.

This decision is not one we have made lightly. Our mission is one to both honor the history of and celebrate the diversity in the LGBTQ community, so that we can create unity between members of our community and beyond. This sometimes means we allow in voices that may not be in agreement with our own. However, in the end, we made a decision based on the safety of everyone involved, and we are making steps to formalize a process to handle these matters in the future.

Nicholas A. Murphy,
President,
Indy Pride, Inc.

I’m a little concerned that some board members are framing their decision as a public safety issue, rather than as a decision based on the incompatibility of these two churches with the fundamental meaning and goals of the Pride celebration. There was an implication that threats of violence were coming from people inside the LGBT community, which is disappointing, to say the least. I hope that if there were overt threats that they’ve been passed along to the police department to deal with.

I also hope that festival organizers will consider putting in place the suggestion of a “core beliefs” document that vendors would have to sign with their booth application, so that groups that have an agenda harmful to the LGBT aren’t able to get booth space in the future.

Continue ReadingAnti-Gay Churches will not have booths at Pride this year

Anti-gay churches have booths at Indianapolis Gay Pride event

2013-05-29 UPDATE: According to a facebook note from the Indy Pride Organizers, These two churches will no longer have booths at this year’s Pride celebration.

Last year and for the past few years apparently, there have been two churches from Indianapolis — Castleview Baptist Church and A.C.T. For The Gospel — who have had booths at the Indianapolis Pride Celebration and who have marched in the Pride Parade, with the purpose of trying to convert LGBT people from the “sin” of homosexuality. Unlike many churches in Indianapolis who are affirmative and supporting of gay and lesbian people, these two churches have a secret agenda for appearing at Pride: telling LGBT people they are sinners. These same two churches have reserved booth space at this year’s Pride Festival as well.

The issue was recently brought to the attention of the gay and lesbian community by Rev. Marie Siroky, a minister in the United Church of Christ and leader of Interfaith Coalition on Nondiscrimination (ICON), a multi-faith organization of faith communities and leaders advocating for LGBT equality and justice in Indiana. Siroky raised the issue on the facebook page for the group Indiana Equality, where she shared some examples of the two churches problematic beliefs.

A.C.T. For the Gospel’s blog post on “converting” gay and lesbian people:

June 9th, 2012 we had a booth for the second year at the Indy Pride Festival. We had great conversations with several people. We focused on heart issues rather than singling out any specific sin. Our goal was not to win arguments, but to win souls for the kingdom. That does not mean that we affirmed any sin, but we lovingly addressed what we all have in common (our need for a savior).

We had a button this year that helped start conversations. You can click here to see the art work. We addressed the heart issue of pride and our need to humble ourselves before the almighty God. There were at least four people that prayed to be born again, confessing Jesus as their Lord and asking Him for victory over their sin. {emphasis added}

There were many other great conversations. Our Lord was lifted up.

Click here for a short video on how and why we developed the button.

ACT Church's Anti-Gay Button
Note the fine print – “Pride goes before destruction”

The video referenced in the blog post quoted above is this one – on it you can see why this organization isn’t friendly to LGBT people.

Eric Bancroft, senior pastor at Castleview Baptist Church in Indianapolis, also has a problematic paper trail on the internet that illustrates why this church shouldn’t be marching in Gay Pride Parades or having outreach booths at our Festival. Bancroft participated in a Prop 8 panel discussion at Southern Baptist Thelogical Seminary called Marriage in a Post Prop. 8 Culture and shared some thoughts on gay marriage that are very disturbing to say the least. There isn’t a transcript and I wasn’t able to embed the video, but you can view it at the link. I’ll watch the whole thing in the morning and transcribe Bancroft’s remarks and add them here. The video is 48 minutes long, so be prepared for a long and painful slog as you watch it. Wear some teflon.

I can see how these problematic churches would slip by Pride Organizers. They probably don’t have time to vet every single booth, especially groups like these two who are being fairly subtle about their anti-gay messages to the public, but open about it to their own church members. It’s interesting that in A.C.T.’s blog post they mention having been at Indy Pride two years previously, though. At some point no one brought this anti-gay group to anyone’s attention?

Update: apparently, this was brought to the attention of Pride organizers last year, according to a post by Marie Siroky on ICON’s web site. But organizers took their money and accepted their application again this year, knowing who they were. I have a real concern, given that ACT has claimed that they have four converts to their preaching last year.

From what is being discussed on the Indiana Equality page, Pride organizers have told members of the LGBT community that they are planning to have vendors sign a Core Beliefs document next year when they apply for booth space, along with a method for lodging complaints, but the two churches will still have booths in place for this year’s pride festival.

Where these two churches are on the festival map, in case you want to check out their booths. What I’m going to do – recruit a camera person (my wife) and visit the booth, introduce myself, and ask them some questions about what their outreach to LBGT people is about. I want to specifically ask “Do you believe homosexuality is a sin?” and get a filmed response. I’m good at parsing what people are saying vs. what they really mean, and teasing out ambiguity, so I think I can get them to say the truth on camera. Which I will promptly post on my blog, of course.

Other people are suggesting “Angel Protests” where folks dress in angel costumes and shield the booths from view. That’s an interesting idea, but not one I really know how to organize.

Circle City Pride festival map

A.C.T. for the Gospel is at booth #52, along the side of Meridian Street, just south of the beverage tent. Castle View is at booth #116 on the same site of the event site, but far south, just near the festival security operations booth.

Pride Map 2013

Continue ReadingAnti-gay churches have booths at Indianapolis Gay Pride event

Republicans block child nutrition, Catholics protest gay portrait exhibit

An update on things famous assholes are doing to wreck your life. First – more on the GOP being assholes to poor people:

Republicans block child nutrition bill

WASHINGTON – House Republicans have temporarily blocked legislation to feed school meals to thousands more hungry children. Republicans used a procedural maneuver Wednesday to try to amend the $4.5 billion bill, which would give more needy children the opportunity to eat free lunches at school and make those lunches healthier.

House Democrats said the GOP amendment, which would have required background checks for child care workers, was an effort to kill the bill and delayed a final vote on the legislation rather than vote on the amendment.

Because the nutrition bill is identical to legislation passed by the Senate in August, passage would send it to the White House for President Barack Obama’s signature. If the bill were amended, it would be sent back to the Senate with little time left in the legislative session.

And while that’s going on, our old friend William Donohue is up to his old anti-gay hatred:

VIA NPR – Smithsonian Under Fire For Gay Portraiture Exhibit
The Smithsonian Institution is under fire for an exhibition called Hide/Seek that is being touted as the “first major exhibition to focus on sexual difference in the making of modern American portraiture.”

There are some very famous artists represented in the show: Andy Warhol, Walt Whitman and Jasper Johns, among many others. But the work that so far has been the most controversial is a provocative video from 1987 by the late artist David Wojnarowicz called A Fire In My Belly.

Martin Sullivan, director of the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery, says the artist created the piece as a response to the “agony and suffering” of his partner who at the time was dying of AIDS. Using “vivid colors, and some fairly grotesque scenes, it’s more a meditation on the fragility of the human flesh,” Sullivan says.

But included in that meditation is a crucifix — a cross bearing the body of Christ — crawling with ants. The image, according to Catholic League President Bill Donohue, is offensive. He calls the video “hate speech” and says that “the Smithsonian would never have their little ants crawling all over an image of Muhammad.”

Donohue says he complained to members of Congress and the Smithsonian’s Board of Regents. “My principle is very simple,” he says, “If it’s wrong for the government to take the taxpayers’ money to promote religion, why is it OK to take taxpayers’ money to assault religion?”

We don’t need taxpayer money to assault Donohue’s religion – I’ll do it for free! Leave the arts alone, you noxious windbag of hate.

Continue ReadingRepublicans block child nutrition, Catholics protest gay portrait exhibit

links for 2010-04-13

Continue Readinglinks for 2010-04-13

links for 2010-03-30

Continue Readinglinks for 2010-03-30