Civil & Human Rights

The Arizona Republic: One step forward, two steps back on religious bigotry

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Arizona Republic's E.J. Montini addresses a point today that I have made many times over the years about the FAUXification of the news with their "fair and balanced" bullshit. O'Reilly unfair? Yes. But it shouldn't matter.

Fairness is a fallacy.

In politics, there is no such thing as fair.

* * *

Unfair questions can still get at the truth.

Fairness isn’t our problem.

Our problem, on a much larger scale, is willful ignorance.

Humans come with a built-in ability to disregard or disbelieve facts because they’ve been presented by people with whom we disagree philosophically, as if anything that contradicts our preconceived notions of a person or situation or issue cannot be true.

The media used to fight such notions. Now, some of us encourage it.

If there is a danger in the media these days it is not that we are unfair, it’s that rather than challenge a reader’s or viewer’s willful ignorance we embolden it. We treat the news, which changes daily, like a religion, which is based on longstanding consistent unshakeable beliefs.

* * *

Our problem isn’t fairness.

Our problem is that too many people in the media are allowing, even urging, audiences to turn a blind eye to unpleasant facts.

And, worse, doing so ourselves.

Too bad the editorial page editors of the Republic ignored Mr. Montini.

Religious Bigotry Bills Advance in House

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Arizona Daily Star's creative headline writer strikes again today. The headline in the Star reads Bill enhancing religious defense advances in Arizona Legislature. That's some spin there. These bills are about giving religious bigots a "get out of jail free" card to discriminate against anyone with whom they disagree supposedly based upon their "sincerely held religious beliefs" — the new code word for "haters gotta hate."

I do believe that Howard Fischer intended the factually correct headline which appears in the East Valley Tribune. Bill to allow businesses to bar service based on 'sincerely held' religious belief moves forward in House. It's time for the Daily Star to reprimand or to fire the biased copy editor responsible for these politically biased creative headlines. Howard Fischer reports:

[A] House panel voted 5-2 Tuesday to give individuals and the businesses they own more rights to refuse to provide services based on their religious beliefs.

The vote by the Government Committee came despite comments from several individuals that the measure would allow anyone to claim a “sincerely held” religious belief as an defense in discrimination lawsuits.

“This bill allows anyone who should normally comply with state or local laws that are neutral to claim that those laws burden their religious beliefs,” said Rep. Martin Quezada, D-Phoenix.

But Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, R-Gilbert, sponsor of HB 2153, said it protects business owners from being forced to do anything that would violate their faith, and Farnsworth lashed out at foes of the legislation for being intolerant of the religious views of others.

“This is pretty remarkable and ironic the screaming and yelling about tolerance apparently flows only one way,” he said. “They want the (religious) tolerance simply to be I'm going to tolerate their opinion and my opinion counts for nothing.”

Yes, people should tolerate "Fast Eddie's" religious bigotry, because "haters gotta hate."

Action Alert: Religious Bigotry bill on the agenda on Tuesday

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

One of life's imponderable questions:

Why do the very people who believe an individual, association, partnership, corporation, trust, foundation or other legal entity (because "corporations are people my friend") possess a religious liberty to not comply with state and federal anti-discrimination laws simply by invoking the "magic words" that it is "my sincerely held religious belief" to discriminate against gays — or women, or other religious faiths, or people of color, or other nationalities, etc.

. . . are the very same people who do not believe in the religious liberty or moral conscience choice of a woman to make medical decisions in consultation with her doctor regarding her own body for contraception and abortion? Shouldn't a woman be allowed to invoke her "sincerely held religious belief" in exercising her constitutional rights to contraception and abortion by logical extension of this argument?

Maybe someone should try to get an answer to this moral dilemna from Cathi Herrod and her Christian Taliban at the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) on Tuesday when she is expected to testify in favor of Rep. "Fast Eddie" Farnsworth's House version of the Religious Bigotry bill, HB 2153 (.pdf), in the Committee on Government, at 2:00 p.m. in House Hearing Room 4.

This bill is a "get out of jail free card" for compliance with the public accommodations provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Arizona Civil Rights Act, as amended. Since religion is defined under his bill as an individual's "sincerely held religious beliefs" rather than that of a religious institution — and the government cannot discriminate among religious beliefs under the First Amendment — an individual's "sincerely held religious beliefs" that he or she may discriminate against persons of other religious faiths, or another race, ethnic origin, or sex would be permissible. Such a "get out of jail free card" for compliance with laws based upon the mere assertion of "sincerely held religious beliefs" leads to anarchy.

Virginia is for Lovers: Court hearing on same-sex marriage tomorrow

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Washington Post reports on the latest from Virginia, Race on same-sex marriage cases runs through Virginia:

The race to get the Supreme Court to decide whether it is unconstitutional for states to withhold marriage from same-sex couples may run through Virginia.

* * *

Equal[T]he Virginia cases are moving quickly, and some lawyers are hopeful they emerge through the appeals process as favored vehicles for an ultimate decision by the Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Michael F. Urbanski ruled Friday that a suit brought by American Civil Liberties Union lawyers in Harrisonburg on behalf of four lesbians should become a class action covering Virginia’s estimated 15,000 same-sex couples who might want to marry. [Harris, et al. v. McDonnel, et al., U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virgina – Harrisonburg Division (Civil Action No. 5:13-cv-00077)]

And Tuesday, in a courtroom just over 200 miles away in Norfolk, U.S. District Court Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen will consider for the first time Virginia’s startling reversal of the commonwealth’s legal position on same-sex marriage. [Bostic v. Rainey, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia – Norfolk Division (Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-395)]

New Attorney General Mark R. Herring (D) said the state’s ban, approved by voters in 2006, is unconstitutional and cannot be defended.

Stop pissing away taxpayer money on lawsuits: Repeal the remnants of SB 1070

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Arizona's lawless legislature does not hesitate to piss away taxpayer money on lawsuits defending their unconstitutional and unlawful extremist agenda in court. It does this all the time, and frequently loses in court. The real losers in the end are Arizona's taxpayers who have to pay the attorneys fees and court costs for these ideological extremists.

Our lawless legislature — the Tea-Publican leadership — currently has three lawsuits in court challenging the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC), the citizens initiative that created it, and the 2012 redistricting maps. This is a purely partisan endeavor that the Arizona GOP should be paying for out of its own deep pockets, not the taxpayers of Arizona.

Presente_LicensePlateAZ_300pxThe most recent example of our lawless legislature pissing away taxpayer money on lawsuits defending their unconstitutional and unlawful extremist agenda in court is the continuing litigation over the remnants of SB 1070, most of which was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, which came with a warning from the Court that it would strike down the remainder of the law when a proper case and controversy under the remaining provisions of SB 1070 reached the Court. The writing is on the wall.

This week, the legislature approved using taxpayer money to pay the court costs of Republican politicians — some of whom are no longer in the legislature — in response to discovery requests in the litigation over SB 1070. Lawmakers approve funds for SB 1070 defense:

Saying they were protecting the legislative process, the House and Senate voted along party lines Thursday to hire a lawyer to help them fight subpoenas over the state’s controversial 2010 immigration law.

The legislation sets aside up to $100,000 to contest a request by the American Civil Liberties Union for the personal emails and other correspondence between some current and former lawmakers and those who might have helped them craft or line up votes for SB 1070.