Age Verification

Please enter your date of birth to proceed.

Enter the code below:



You Might Like

Videos | Dating

Live Cams | Live Chats

 

NEWS

Christian Organizations Misguidedly Defend Denver Bakery Owner for Refusing to Create Anti-gay Cake

Christian Organizations Misguidedly Defend Denver Bakery Owner for Refusing to Create Anti-gay Cake

Azucar

Marjorie Silva (far left above), the owner of Denver’s Azucar Bakery who refused to bake an anti-gay cake for bigoted customer Bill Jack and is now facing a state investigation into the matter, is finding some unusual supporters of her decision not to bake the hate cake. 

JackNBC reports that Worldview Academy, a prominent nondenominational Chirstian organization in Midland, Texas that lists Jack (right) as a faculty member and cofounder, says it disagrees with his complaint and stresses that Jack filed it as a “private citizen.”

“Worldview Academy believes that God unconditionally loves every person,” it said in a statement. “We also believe in liberty and justice for all. Consequently, we support the Colorado bakery owner’s right — and the right of all other bakery owners — to not undertake work which would violate their core beliefs.”

The virulently anti-gay Christian legal firm Alliance Defending Freedom, which fights for the right to discriminate against gays in the U.S. (and put them in jail overseas), is also siding with the bakery, Buzzfeed reports:

“It was clearly Ms. Silva’s right to decline to promote a message with which she so clearly disagreed,” Jeremy Tedesco, senior legal counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), said in a statement to BuzzFeed News. “Ms. Silva should not be forced to use her artistic abilities to further a message with which she sincerely disagrees.”

Tedesco’s group, although not involved in this latest case, has represented bakers in two similar recent cases in which the business owners were Christian: In Colorado, Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips refused to sell a cake to a same-sex couple, and in Washington State, Arlene’s Flowers is currently being sued for denying gay men flowers for their wedding.

ADF’s token support of Silva in an attempt to appear consistent in its position that private citizens shouldn’t have to do things they disagree with, however, doesn’t really hold water, as Buzzfeed notes:

On the other side of the courtroom in both past cases — Masterpiece Cakeshop and Arlene’s Flowers — the American Civil Liberties Union represented the customers. Now the ACLU, which is also not directly involved in this newest case, supports the baker’s right to refuse service.

“Folks are trying to compare the Azucar Bakery story to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case… but in fact the two situations are quite different,” ACLU staff attorney Amanda Goad said in an email to BuzzFeed News.

The baker refusing service, she said, is “based on a neutral standard of taste that she would apply to any customer,” and is different from barring customers “not because of what the desired cake looked like, but because of who they are.”

In other words, if Silva had refused to bake Jack a wedding cake because he’s heterosexual, things would be different. As it stands, Silva wouldn’t have made a cake with a hate message for anyone – gay or straight – so the two cases are apples and oranges. She’s already said she would have made a cake with a Bible on it no problem. 

In related news, Silva has created a Gofundme page to help the bakery with legal expenses related to the complaint which you can visit and donate to HERE. The page has been up for less than 24 hours and has already raised over $5,300. 


Kyler Geoffroy

www.towleroad.com/2015/01/christian-organizations-defending-denver-bakery-owner-for-refusing-to-create-anti-gay-hate-.html

NEWS

The Supreme Court and the Power of Windsor

The Supreme Court and the Power of Windsor
With the Supreme Court’s announcing it will review marriage discrimination laws in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee, we look to the Court to apply United States v. Windsor, its powerful 2013 decision striking down Section 3 of DOMA, to establish marriage equality nationwide.

Windsor articulates incisively how DOMA’s denying federal rights and recognition to married same-sex couples was an affront to the dignity of same-sex couples and their families. The Court recognized that the decision of the state of New York (Edie Windsor’s home state) to legalize marriage for same-sex couples enabled LGBT couples to “live with pride in themselves and their union and in a status of equality with all other married persons.” The Court explained that “[t]he avowed purpose and practical effect of” DOMA was “to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages ….” It stated that DOMA treated marriages of same-sex couples as “second-class marriages” that are “less respected” than everyone else’s marriages. DOMA’s purpose was to “injure” and “disparage” married same-sex couples and to make them “unequal” to everyone else.

The Court set forth extensively the harm this second-class status caused same-sex couples and their families. The Court explained how DOMA put same-sex couples in an “unstable position” in society by telling the “couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages [were] unworthy of federal recognition.” Further, “DOMA instruct[ed] all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage [was] less worthy than the marriages of others.” “Under DOMA, same-sex married couples [had] their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways. By its great reach, DOMA [touched] many aspects of married and family life, from the mundane to the profound.”

In particular, the Court noted how section 3 of DOMA hurt same-sex couples’ children: DOMA “humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. [DOMA] … makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.”

Justice Scalia Windsor dissent decries the Court’s decision but in the process states that the opinion’s language makes the Court’s striking down state bans on marriage for same-sex couples “inevitable.” He even demonstrates how “easy” the process would be by using changes to show how the Court can adapt Windsor‘s language to rule in favor of marriage equality nationwide.

We couldn’t agree more that Windsor‘s language should compel the Court to strike down all remaining state marriage bans. We hope the result is indeed “inevitable” this Supreme Court term. Same-sex couples in states without marriage equality still suffer overt discrimination. All LGBT couples live with uncertainty and vulnerability when they travel to states without equality. We look to the Court to recognize that we are not just Californians, Minnesotans, Texans, New Yorkers or residents of any of our home states. We are Americans, and we deserve full equality wherever we live or travel in our home country.

John Lewis and Stuart Gaffney, together for nearly three decades, were plaintiffs in the California case for equal marriage rights decided by the California Supreme Court in 2008. They are leaders in the nationwide grassroots organization Marriage Equality USA.

www.huffingtonpost.com/stuart-gaffney/the-supreme-court-and-the_4_b_6529710.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices&ir=Gay+Voices

NEWS

Watch Obama Say Exactly What The Supreme Court Needs To Do About Marriage

Watch Obama Say Exactly What The Supreme Court Needs To Do About Marriage

obama-smiling1Just in case you weren’t paying attention, President Obama is now super-on-board with marriage equality. He endorsed it in 2011 before the last election, he had the Justice Department submit an anti-DOMA amicus brief in 2013, and he even said that married gay couples are “America at its best” during his State of the Union.

And now he’s gone even further, by explaining his position to a YouTube personality, which is pretty much the most official proclamation a sitting president can make.

In a conversation with GloZell Green, a YouTube celebrity who is, like all YouTube celebrities, inexplicably popular, Obama made his position clear. “I’m hopeful the Supreme Court will come to the right decision,” he said. “My hope is they go ahead and recognize what a majority of people in America now recognize. Two people who love each other and treat each other with respect, and aren’t bothering anybody, why would the law treat them any differently?”

He also pointed out that his administration has done a lot to create a climate in which marriage equality is possible. “We’ve done a lot to push it along,” he said. “We argued against the Defense of Marriage Act,” which is no small thing. And although he didn’t mention it, they’ve also reformed immigration policy so that married non-resident spouses can stay in this country.

Considering that the last guy in the White House wanted to put a marriage ban in the U.S. Constitution, it’s pretty nice to hear the president talk this way. Now, hopefully the next guy (or gal) to get the job will be just as good.

Here’s the video:

matt baume

feedproxy.google.com/~r/queerty2/~3/H3EUxOEBImU/watch-obama-say-exactly-what-the-supreme-court-needs-to-do-about-marriage-20150123

You Might Like

Videos | Dating

Live Cams | Live Chats
 

LGBT BLOG




 You must be 18 years old or older to chat