Gays Terrorists Boycot Oregon Store For Owners Facebook Post Against Same Sex "Marriage"

Owner's "anti"-gay views cause furor over soon-to-open Sellwood grocery store

 

By Harry Esteve | hesteve@oregonian.com
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on April 03, 2014 at 3:43 PM, updated April 03, 2014 at 4:40 PMAnother controversy has erupted over a Sellwood-Moreland business, this one over the owner’s views on gays and same-sex "marriage".

Facebook and other social media sites have exploded over a soon-to-open fresh meat and vegetable store called Moreland Farmers Pantry. Neighbors and nearby business owners, once excited by the prospect of the new shop, are now backing away.

“They’re choosing to open a business in a very open-minded neighborhood,” said Tom Brown, owner of Brown Properties and president of the Sellwood Moreland Business Alliance. “I think their personal views are going to hurt.”
Located on a busy block near Southeast Milwaukie Avenue and Bybee Boulevard, the store is taking the place of a former antique shop. Remodeling has been under way for months, and anticipation of what appears to be a new, high-end place to buy food has been building.
Recently, neighbors found Facebook postings by owner Chauncy Childs that brought them up short. She wrote a long post about her opposition to same-sex marriage, complaining that “a tiny minority is dictating a change of our social structure.” She also posted an article, written by someone else, supporting the right of businesses to refuse to serve gay people.

One neighbor posted a seven-minute video on YouTube about the issue, including snippets of Childs' posts on Facebook, documents that show she is the owner and other information that shows she tried to change her Facebook name to Lynn Brice.

In a telephone interview with The Oregonian, Childs said she never thought her Facebook views would become public and that they don’t have anything to do with the store she’s trying to open.

A Sample of her Facebook Posts

“We aren’t discriminating,” Childs said. “We have no anti-gay or anti-racial bias or anything like that. We have members of our family who are homosexual.”

Childs said she is religious and has a libertarian view that government should not be allowed to dictate whom a business does or doesn’t serve.

“We’re not going to refuse to serve anybody,” she said. “But we believe a private business should have the right to live their conscience.”

A Sample of her Facebook Posts

She said she believes that gay "marriage" is wrong because it is the start of a slippery slope that could eventually lead to pedophilia and bigamy. But she said those are her private religious beliefs and don’t reflect how the store will operate.

A Sample of her Facebook Posts

Childs, who owns a farm in Oregon City, said her idea was to open a place where she could sell her own GMO-free produce and dairy along with other GMO-free products made by local vendors.

Beth Ramsey, who runs Chou Chou a Beauty Parlor in Sellwood, said she was initially excited about the prospect of shopping at the new store but now doubts she will go in.

“I’m disappointed,” said Ramsey, who is lesbian. “It’s not like a boycott kind of energy. But I don’t need her to have my money.”

About two years ago, Sellwood neighbors raised a storm of protest over a business that offered counseling services to sex offenders. The business eventually moved.

Ramsey said she is a bit surprised by Childs' naivete, not just about Facebook but also about the neighborhood she picked.

“This neighborhood is like Mayberry. Everybody knows everybody. Everybody is talking to everybody.”

Childs said she’s already had to deal with a number of headaches getting the store ready because of the age and size of the storefront she is remodeling. But she still plans on opening this month.

“It’s been a nightmare,” she said. “Now, with this happening, we’re going, ‘Wow.’”
(oregonlive)

New California Law, Allows Confused Boys In Girls Locker Rooms

Jerry Brown is the one with out the hat

This bill would require that a pupil be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs, activities, and facilities, including athletic teams and competitions, consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.

see actual bill!

relevant text
(f) A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs, activities, and facilities, including athletic teams and competitions, consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.

Calif. governor signs transgender-student bill

By TOM VERDIN The Associated Press

 By TOM VERDIN

Associated Press

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- California on Monday became the first state to enshrine certain "rights" for "transgender" K-12 students in state law, requiring public schools to allow those students access to whichever restroom and locker room they want.

Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown announced that he had signed AB1266, which also will allow transgender students to choose whether they want to play boys' or girls' sports. The new law gives students the right "to participate in sex-segregated programs, activities and facilities" based on their self-perception and regardless of their birth gender.

Supporters said it will help "reduce" bullying and discrimination against transgender students. It comes as the families of transgender students have been waging local battles with school districts across the country over what restrooms and locker rooms their children can use, disagreements that have sometimes landed in court.

The National Center for Lesbian Rights and the ACLU of California were among the bill's supporters. Detractors, including some Republican lawmakers, said allowing students of one gender to use facilities intended for the other could invade the other students' privacy.

Such fears are "overblown", said Carlos Alcala, spokesman for the bill's author, Democratic Assemblyman Tom Ammiano of San Francisco. In general, he said, transgender students are trying to "blend in" and are not trying to call attention to themselves.

"They're not interested in going into bathrooms and flaunting their physiology," Alcala said.

He also noted that the state's largest school district, Los Angeles Unified, has had such a policy for nearly a decade and reported no problems. San Francisco schools also have had a policy similar to the new law, and numerous other districts signed on in support of the legislation.

"Clearly, there are some parents who are not going to like it," Alcala said. "We are hopeful school districts will work with them so no students are put in an uncomfortable position."

Brown signed the bill, which amends the state Education Code, without comment. Assembly Speaker John Perez, D-Los Angeles, said the law "puts California at the forefront of leadership on transgender rights."

The Gay-Straight Alliance Network said two states, Massachusetts and Connecticut, have statewide policies granting the same protections, but California is the first to put them into statute and require them in all school districts.

A Sacramento-based conservative organization that opposed the bill said previous state law was sufficient to address the concerns of transgender students and their families. Before Brown signed AB1266, state law already prohibited schools from discriminating against students based on their gender identity.

Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute, criticized the Legislature and governor for spreading "San Francisco values" throughout the state.

"The answer is not to force something this radical on every single grade in California," she said.

She said the new law does not require students to prove they have a gender-identity issue, but rather requires school administrators to rely on students' opinions of themselves. England also noted that there is no accurate way to gauge the effect of such policies because no uniform data on student or parent complaints is being collected.

"What about the right to privacy of a junior high school girl wanting to go to the bathroom and having some privacy, or after PE showering and having to worry about being in the locker room with a boy?" she said.

She predicted school districts will face lawsuits from parents of other children who feel their rights have been violated by the new law.

Hours after the governor's signing was announced, a conservative legal group based in Sacramento issued a news release soliciting plaintiffs for a future lawsuit against the law, which will take effect Jan. 1. The Pacific Justice Institute says AB1266 has the potential to raise privacy questions and lead to a type of reverse discrimination if it prevents students from making a sports team "because someone from the opposite gender took their place."
_________________________________________________________________________
"They didn't need to force this on every single California school district," said Karen England, a spokeswoman for the Capitol Resource Institute.

England said the law is too vague and provides no guidelines for implementation or to guard against abuse.

"Most Californians don't want their daughters showering or going to the restroom with boys," she said.
(Reuters)

)Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/08/12/3558293/calif-governor-signs-transgender.html#stoylink=cpy

Washington State Republicans Sponsor Bill To Protect Religious Liberties From Gay Terrorists

Florist Shop That Gay Terrorists are Suing

read the bill

opening section of the bill

The legislature finds that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of our nation, and this body has full confidence in its ability to endure all tests. Many immigrants came to our nation to escape government-sanctioned persecution of their faith. This body believes that any law which is designed to restrict the liberty of one faith tradition erodes the founding principle of religious liberty and that it is, as James Madison wrote in 1785, proper to "take alarm" at any such "experiment on our liberties." Our state has a history of embracing an individual's right to practice the faith tradition of his or her choice within the law and free of government interference. The legislature also finds that a multiplicity of religious beliefs, traditions, and heritages bring strength to our state. This body believes that it is not the role of the legislature of Washington state to disparage or marginalize any religious tradition. This body finds abhorrent all forms of discrimination, including those forms of discrimination targeting religion or belief. Our state benefits from a number of individuals and institutions whose faith motivates them to provide food to the hungry, shelter to the needy, inexpensive or free health services, and other humanitarian services. Religious leaders who facilitate conflict resolution often achieve results that ease the burdens on our courts.

new section of the Washington state law
4) Nothing in this section may burden a person or religious organization's freedom of religion including, but not limited to, the right of an individual or entity to deny services if providing those goods or services would be contrary to the individual's or entity owner's sincerely held religious beliefs, philosophical beliefs, ormatters of conscience. This subsection does not apply to the denial of services to individuals recognized as a protected class under federal law applicable to the state as of the effective date of this section. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief, philosophical belief, or matter of conscience may not be burdened unless the government proves that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that  interest.




OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — Several Republican lawmakers filed a bill Thursday seeking an exemption to the state's anti-discrimination laws just weeks after legal action was taken against a Richland florist who denied service to a gay couple for their upcoming wedding.

The bill introduced by Sen. Sharon Brown, R-Kennewick, would allow businesses the right to deny services or goods if they felt doing so was contrary to their "sincerely held religious beliefs, philosophical beliefs, or matters of conscience."

The measure would not apply to the denial of services to people under a protected class under federal law, such as race, religion or disability.

Brown said the measure seeks to protect people or religious organizations from legal persecution. "There's a glaring lack of protection for religion in state law," she said.

Also signing on to the bill were Sens. Janea Holmquist Newbry, Mike Hewitt, Jim Honeyford, Don Benton, Barbara Bailey, Mike Padden, John Braun, John Smith, Ann Rivers, and Linda Evans Parlette.

The bill has not yet been referred to a committee or scheduled for a public hearing, and is not likely to before the regular legislative session ends on Sunday. However, if a special session is called, as expected, the bill could be heard during that time.

Earlier this month, the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington state filed a lawsuit in response to a March 1 incident in which Barronelle Stutzman refused to provide flowers for Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed's wedding, despite the two men being longtime patrons of her shop — Arlene's Flowers and Gifts in Richland, which is in Brown's legislative district. Previously, Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed a consumer protection lawsuit in the case.

Ferguson had sent a letter in March asking her to comply with the law, but said Stutzman's attorneys responded saying she would challenge any state action to enforce the law.

Her attorney, Justin D. Bristol, has said he expects to take the legal battle to federal court and argue Stutzman's refusal of service based on the 1st Amendment's right to free speech.

While Washington voters legalized gay marriage in November, protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation were codified in 2006, in one of the first initial pushes to expand civil rights to the gay community in the state.

Under state law, it's illegal for businesses to refuse to sell goods, merchandise and services to any person because of their sexual orientation.

Josh Friedes, a spokesman for Equal Rights Washington, said that the bill seeks to undermine the state's anti-discrimination laws "and it undermines our entire approach to ensuring the equality of all Washingtonians in commerce."
"It is discrimination, pure and simple," he said.

Brown argued that the bill is not intended to undermine the law or the rights of gays and lesbians in the state and isn't a commentary on same-sex marriage.
"The citizens of the state clearly weighed in on that issue," she said. "It's intended to protect religious freedoms."

Democratic Sen. Ed Murray, a gay lawmaker from Seattle who sponsored the civil rights expansion bill in 2006 as well as the state's gay marriage law, said the proposal seeks to revisit long settled civil rights legislation, arguing that the nation has long moved beyond that discussion.
"I don't think we want to go into our civil rights laws and decide who gets served and who doesn't get served," he said.

Joseph Backholm, executive director of the Family Policy Institute of Washington, said that while he knows the bill is not likely to gain any traction in the Legislature this year, he hopes it sparks a discussion.
"The government is now saying if you have a conviction about an issue that we happen to disagree with, then you as a business owner are going to be fined or shut down because of that," he said. "People should and do have the right to their own convictions."
(AP)

This is what a liberal senator from Washington State thinks of your religious liberty!
“I haven’t seen a law this backwards and mean-spirited since before the civil rights victories of the 1960s,” said Sen, Jeanne Kohl-Welles in an email blast.