Michael Simanowitz, And Phillip Goldfeder Vote To Ban Therapists From Helping People Overcome Homosexual Desires

NY Assembly bans gay conversion therapy for kids

on June 16, 2014 at 5:59 PM, updated June 16, 2014 at 6:11 PM

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP)  -- New York's Assembly has passed a ban against health professionals trying to change a child's sexual orientation through therapy.

Why The APA Says repetitive Therapy is harmful

On Monday the Democratic-led Assembly passed the ban 86 to 28. It would prohibit licensed psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, mental health practitioners and physicians from using conversion therapy on anyone under 18 remember many molestation victims go on to develop attraction for members of he same sex, so this bill is pro sexual molestation. Clergy would not be included.
 The American Psychological Association says there is no evidence so-called gay conversion therapy can change someone's sexual orientation . However the former head of the APA Nicholas Cummings, who is led the fight to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness, has admitted gays can change! 

(The New American)

Bans against gay conversion therapy have already gone into law in New Jersey and California. A proposed ban was voted down in Illinois in April.

Opponents of the ban say that it may infringe on a person's freedom of speech. (read this to understand why they also don't say freedom of religion rather only use free speech)

The bill has been sent to the Republican-led Senate for consideration. and BH didn't get voted on before the session ended
(AP)

This is from the opening statement of the bill that the "Orthodox" Michael Simanowitz, Phillip Goldfeder, David Weprin, and Shelly Silver were maskim to by voting for this bill.

 a.  Being  lesbian,  gay,  bisexual  or  transgender is not a disease, disorder, illness, deficiency, or shortcoming.  The  major  professional associations  of  mental  health  practitioners  and  researchers in the United States have recognized this fact for nearly 40 years. (bill)

Remember that many rabbanim (from all circles) stated there was a chiyuv for those who have a teivah for mishkav zachar to go for therapy to get help


Listen to Rav Yoshe Ber Soloveitchik on the possibility of changing homosexual inclination, and his strong opposition, to the liberal view of a therapists role in dealing with homosexuality.



Mordechai Levovitz (YMS) who wants to ban this describes something that is clearly not harmful

“Then modern Orthodox high schools were sending their kids to a conversion therapy program. The school psychologist would try to change them from being gay to straight. Their methods included having the kid repeating the verse in the Bible over and over again for 45 minutes. Looking at pictures of AIDS victims and colorectal cancer victims and say ‘this is what comes of homosexual sex.’ Kids were being "traumatized". We haven’t heard that lately. Now the complaints kids have is that they don’t hear anybody from the administration using the word ‘gay’, and worry about what would happen if they come out. "Orthodox" high schools are starting to think proactively about it,” says Levovitz. “We’re heading in the "right" direction.”
(Haaretz)



For the remainder of this post all those politicians who acted problematically that have a decent sized Orthodox population in their district will be highlighted yellow, those that have a sizable Orthodox community will be highlighted green, 
"Orthodox" politicians will be highlighted blue.


SPONSOR Glick

(MS) COSPNSR Titone, Jaffee, O'Donnell, Barrett, Roberts, Skoufis, Zebrowski, Schimel, Rosenthal, Kavanagh, Bronson, Mosley, Brindisi, Paulin, Cahill, Lifton, Ortiz, Magnarelli, Davila, Weprin, Dinowitz, Moya, Peoples-Stokes, Titus

 MLTSPNSR Arroyo, Braunstein, Brennan, Buchwald, Cook, Hevesi, Lavine, Millman, Ryan, Sepulveda, Skartados, Stirpe, Thiele




A06983 Votes:

Abbate

Y

Corwin

NO

Glick

Y

Lavine

Y

Nolan

Y

Rozic

Y

Titus

Y

Abinant

Y

Crespo

Y

Goldfeder

Y

Lentol

Y

Oaks

NO

Russell

Y

Walter

Y

Arroyo

Y

Crouch

Y

Goodell

NO

Lifton

Y

O'Donne

Y

Ryan

Y

Weinstein

Y

Aubry

Y

Curran

Y

Gottfri

Y

Lopez

NO

Ortiz

ER

Saladin

ER

Weisenb

ER

Barclay

Y

Cusick

Y

Graf

NO

Lupardo

Y

Otis

Y

Santaba

Y

Weprin

Y

Barrett

Y

Cymbrowitz

Y

Gunther

Y

Lupinac

Y

Palmesa

NO

Scarbor

Y

Wright

Y

Benedet

Y

Davila

Y

Hawley

NO

Magee

Y

Palumbo

NO

Schimel

Y

Zebrowski

Y

Blanken

NO

DenDekk

Y

Heastie

Y

Magnare

Y

Paulin

Y

Schimmi

NO

Mr Spkr

Y

Borelli

Y

Dinowitz

Y

Henness

Y

Malliot

Y

Peoples

Y

Sepulve

Y

Braunst

Y

DiPietr

NO

Hevesi

Y

Markey

Y

Perry

Y

Simanowitz

Y

Brennan

Y

Duprey

Y

Hikind

NO

Mayer

Y

Pichard

Y

Simotas

Y

Brindis

Y

Englebr

Y

Hooper

Y

McDonal

Y

Pretlow

Y

Skartad

Y

Bronson

Y

Fahy

Y

Jacobs

Y

McDonou

NO

Quart

Y

Skoufis

Y

Brook-K

Y

Farrell

Y

Jaffee

Y

McKevit

NO

Ra

NO

Solages

Y

Buchwal

Y

Finch

Y

Johns

NO

McLaugh

NO

Raia

NO

Stec

NO

Butler

ER

Fitzpat

NO

Katz

NO

Miller

Y

Ramos

Y

Steck

Y

Cahill

Y

Friend

NO

Kavanag

Y

Millman

Y

Rivera

Y

Stirpe

Y

Camara

Y

Galef

Y

Kearns

NO

Montesa

Y

Roberts

Y

Sweeney

Y

Ceretto

NO

Gantt

Y

Kellner

AB

Morelle

Y

Robinso

Y

Tedisco

NO

Clark

Y

Garbari

Y

Kim

Y

Mosley

Y

Rodrigu

Y

Tenney

ER

Colton

Y

Giglio

NO

Kolb

NO

Moya

Y

Rosa

Y

Thiele

Y

Cook

Y

Gjonaj

Y

Lalor

ER

Nojay

NO

Rosenth

Y

Titone

Y

listen to Rav Yoshe Ber's complete statement!

The Senate sponsors of the bill 

SPONSOR    HOYLMAN

COSPNSR    GIANARIS, AVELLA, CARLUCCI, DILAN, ESPAILLAT, GIPSON,
                       HASSELL-THOMPSON, KENNEDY, KRUEGER, LATIMER, MARTINS, MONTGOMERY,
                      O'BRIEN, PARKER, PERALTA, PERKINS, RIVERA, SAVINO, SERRANO, SQUADRON,
                      STAVISKY, TKACZYK, VALESKY

Satmar Votes For A Gay Congressman Days After His Same Sex "Wedding"

Satmar Votes For A Gay Congressman Days After His Same Sex "Wedding"

The gay Sean Patrick Maloney with KJ's mayor Abraham Wieder

Kiryas Joel gives a "wedding" present to Sean Patrick Maloney in the mist of his Sheva Klallos (Curses)

The boxed area was the vote in Kiryas Joel for the homosexual spitting on the name sake of the village Rav Yoel  (This box is the official vote)

Former Republican Rep. Nan Hayworth she was in favor of every single state deciding for themselves about same sex "marriage" and not involving the federal government in the fight (not sure if that is still her position) either way she is still much better than Maloney in Tuesday won the Independence Party primary for New York’s 18th Congressional District in here first rematch against Congressman Sean Patrick Maloney.

Hayworth won 732 to 650, according to unofficial results. almost 25% of Maloney total vote came out of Kiryas Joel

“I am grateful for the support I received throughout the entire district. The people who supported me have sent a message they want Washington to get out of the way and let us grow jobs and opportunity in the Hudson Valley economy,” Hayworth said in a statement. “I thank the voters and realize they want a Representative who will reach across the aisle to provide a genuine voice for the Hudson Valley. I will continue to be that voice.”

As reported by JP last week, the congressman’s "wedding" with his longtime same-gender partner Randy Florke may have cost him the primary. but clearly not in Kiryas Joel

The largest concentration of Independence Party voters in the district reside in Kiryas Joel, the village of Satmar, where approx. 950 residents (5% of registered voters) are eligible to vote in the primary.

Hayworth and Maloney will face each other again in the November 2014 election  BUT WHAT WILL KIRYAS JOEL DO THEN?  when they can be the deciding factor in Maloney winning or loosing the election. Hayworth has the Republican and Conservative Party lines and Maloney has the Democratic and Working Party lines.

(jpupdates)  highlights my additions

Don't think this abandonment of the Torah has not been noticed by the World

In the past two congressional elections, Kiryas Joel has split its vote between the rival factions. This time, Ms. Hayworth got 3,335 votes and Mr. Maloney got 1,518, according to unofficial results. Mr. Maloney won the race by about 8,500 votes.
Some observers say the community is less politically valuable to politicians if the two brothers' factions take opposite sides in elections.
"It hurts them if they stop voting as a bloc and just cancel each other out," said operative Michael Fragin, who did Jewish voter outreach for the Pataki administration.
The votes for Mr. Maloney were especially striking because he is openly gay, which would seemingly be anathema to socially conservative Satmar voters. (Crains New York)

Recently Sean Patrick Maloney Became a sponsor of a bill that would ban people like Rav Moshe sternbauh from entering the United States because Rav Moshe Sternbuch opposed the Chilul Hashem that is the Gay "Pride" Parade in Yerushalim

1) is responsible for or complicit in the extrajudicial killing, torture, or other gross violation of internationally recognized human rights, including widespread or systematic violation of the fundamental freedoms of expression, association, or assembly this means that anyone who tries to ban the Toevah Parade in Yerushalayim, committed against an individual in a foreign country based on actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity;

(2) acted as an agent of or on behalf of a foreign person in a matter relating to an activity described in paragraph (1); or

(3)  is responsible for or complicit in inciting a foreign person to engage in an activity described in paragraph (1). (selected text of the bill) highlights my additions so people will understand what that mean in practice

Satmar How can you claim to follow Rav Yoel when you go against his shitas (raban dikaru)

applicable part of Vayoel Moshe with emendations for American elections that show at least 1 reason why the Satmar Rav would assur voting for Maloney  (remember according to this sefara of the Satmar Rav, voting wrong is even worse in America, where you are voting for a candidate directly and not the party, because even if all members of the party were kosher except for one everybody else goes after the bad one, however in America we're voting directly for the bad one)

Satmar stop spitting on your rebbi

"Jewish" Press Takes Advertisement Endorsing A "Orthodox' Gay Propaganda Group

A Copy of Jewish Press Advertisement

This evil group has been responsible for propagandizing the acceptance of homosexuality in Yeshivas and recently marched  with JQY in New York's Gay "pride" Parade




The head of this Organization is Zac Mordechai Levovitz YMS (who was one of the panilists at the YU gay forum (which the roshei Yeshivas condemned))

"jewish Simcha" Kidush Hashem"?  More like Jewish avelus and chilul Hashem sheain kemahu

This is the video he was talking about (warning after the video it will have links to other videos from the same parade)

This is the "person" who placed the ad in the Jewish Mess at this years gay "pride" parade

In case you did yet realize what sort of low life we're dealing with

These are his comments from his facebook page supporting the placement of the shameful advertisement

Is The Orthodox Union going to turn into the LGBT Union?

I thought the Roshei Yeshiva of YU already paskened that such a forum was assur

Psak issued in YU after Levovitz pushed the first YU toevah forum

a sample of their "normal" advertisements

To contact the OU
Executive Vice President / Chief Professional Officer Allen Fagin 1.212.613.8381 afagin@ou.org 

Senior Managing Director Rabbi Steven Weil 1.212.613.8101 rabbiweil@ou.org  

 

To contact the Jewish Press

NY Telephone Number  718.330.1100

Lakewood Public Library Celebrates Gay "Pride" Month

These Pictures were taken in the Lakewood (NJ) Public Library this year.  (LGBTQ " Pride" Month is in June)

What does Lakewood mayor Menashe Miller plan on doing about it?

Catholic School Sued For Firing Teacher Who Had A Gay "Wedding"

 Next could be a Yeshiva

For the past four years, Flint Dollar has been teaching music at Mount de Sales Academy, a Catholic school in Macon, Ga. He is, by "all" accounts, beloved by his students.

But Dollar won't be leading the band or teaching the chorus in the fall. His contract was not renewed after administrators found out he plans to "marry" a man.

Under federal Anti-"discrimination laws for now Democrats are trying to pass ENDA Supported by many including republicans such as John McCain showing once again that republicans can't be trusted and we must look at the individuals in every single case, employers are not prohibited from hiring or firing people on the basis of "sexual orientation". Dollar is working to change that.

He says when he was hired, he was honest with school administrators about his sexual orientation. But a month ago, just as Dollar was letting his students out for summer, he was called to see the school president.

"When you're called in the last part of the day on the last day of the week, it's not a good sign," Dollar says. "I was told that ... the bishop the Catholic hierarchy for an area of the Diocese of Savannah called and expressed his concern that if I was to return it would be against the teachings of the Catholic Church thus should be allowed under the first amendment even if homosexuality was covered in federal, state, and local anti "discrimination laws, showing once again that homosexual "rights" takes precedence over freedom of religion in the minds of liberals."

What changed? Well, Dollar had announced on Facebook that he plans to "marry" his longtime partner in Minnesota this summer. The Catholic Church's position against same-sex "marriage" is clear thus making this a religious issue and the Catholic church immune in a rational conversation from all discrimination laws, and the diocese says it supports the school in its decision to let Dollar go.

School officials, without addressing this case specifically, released a statement saying they have to consider an employee's ability to teach Catholic doctrine when making staff decisions.  just like a Yeshiva should have the right have not to higher people that they think go against the Torah even as a janitor (who can still have exposure to kids and influence them and it's the Yeshivas prerogative to do so or not to do so)

"I was told very specifically I didn't do anything wrong besides the obvious, that there were no parent complaints, no student complaints, but regardless, I would not be returning," Dollar says. "I'm still kind of processing that."

Since neither federal law nor state law in Georgia expressly forbids employers from discriminating against gays, it initially seemed like there was nothing Dollar could do. But Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which turned 50 this week, does prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex notice how liberals purposely misinterpit "discrimination" based on sex like they did in the Williamsburg stores casehttp://unitedtosaveamerica.blogspot.com/2014/02/how-city-won-their-attack-on.html. Dollar's lawyer, Charles Cox, sees an opening there.

"When you fire somebody because they are engaging in a same-sex "marriage", I "think" that pretty clearly fits with gender discrimination," Cox says. "You're being fired because you're not complying with traditional gender stereotypes, and that's "wrong", and we "believe" it's unlawful."

Enterprising lawyers have been making that argument since at least the 1990s, and federal courts have been saying "nice try" just as long. But in April, a judge in Washington made a ruling in a lawsuit brought by federal employee Peter TerVeer. TerVeer claims his supervisor at the Library of Congress made his work life miserable because TerVeer is gay.

LGBT rights attorney Greg Nevins, who is helping with TerVeer's case, "explains" how TerVeer sued under Title VII:

"His romantic or intimate interest in men is something that the women workers at the office were not penalized for, but he was," Nevins says. "He made that claim in federal district court, and the court allowed it to proceed, despite a motion to dismiss by the Department of Justice." possibly the only decent move they have made in recent years

Now the TerVeer case is giving "hope" to people like Dollar. He's filed a complaint with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, alleging sex discrimination. Matthew Franck, a constitutional scholar at Princeton, says that might work — but it shouldn't.

"I realize that in half a century a lot of judicial interpretation has gone into the application of Title VII," Franck says, "but I think it's fairly clear that Title VII's reference to sex as a category of discrimination, that the people who wrote that had nothing like sexual orientation in their minds. It was not contemplated similar to the 14th amendment which Kennedy had no problem reinterpreting to include a constitutional right to practice homosexual acts."

The EEOC said in a 2012 case that "discrimination" against transgender people constitutes sex "discrimination". Franck says he's not a fan of that either, but he thinks it's at least closer to the original intent of the Civil Rights Act.

Back in Georgia, Dollar is playing organ part time at a Presbyterian church while he looks for a job and fights his case. He says getting his old position back is not the goal. forcing religious institutions to violate their religious doctrines in the name of gay rights is

"I don't want anybody else to have to go through what I've been through," he says. "This last month has been up and down. It's been painful. There are days that I don't want to get out of bed."

But as the courts keep rapidly changing the way they view sexual orientation, Dollar hopes that he may be among the last generation of people who risk losing their jobs at a religious institution because they're gay.
(NPR) highlights my additions

Kashruth Council Of Canada ( COR) Gives "Hechsher" To Same Sex "Wedding"

Kashruth Council of Canada ( COR) gave hechsher to gay wedding.

"rabbi" Yacov Felder

Around 1 month ago the same sex "marriage" of Jeff & Jonathan took place in a nightclub on Yonge Street, Toronto.

Tsvi Heber

A week before the event, "Rabbi" Yacov Felder, Chairman of the  COR, called one of his mashgichim (name witheld) and demanded he be the mashgiach on premises for this disgraceful event. The mashgiach refused. The next day, Mr. Tsvi Heber, Director of the COR called the mashgiach and gave him a direct order in the name of Rabbi Shlomo Miller, ordering him to attend. The Mashgiach refused. So Mr. Tsvi Heber had to convince another Masgiach to attend. 

The COR claims that they were "forced" to give a hashgacha do to Canada's gay "rights" laws and they were afraid of being sued if they dropped the "wedding" for "discrimination".

For all non- canadians: Rabbi Shlomo Miller is the מרא דאתרא of Toronto and the COR is more or less de facto under his auspices.


This was an email was part of a correspondence of a few people and was forwarded to me by one of the people in the original correspondence, in light of my partner's putting up this story originally in a way that implicated Rabbi Shlomo Miller (who only clearly had a part in covering up this terrible incident but was only clearly involved after the fact, how much he knew and when is unclear to me and will be reported on in more details as we find out and confirm them) this email was written by someone who was involved in fighting this in Toronto.

he's referring to the original headline that "Rabbi Shlomo Miller Endorses Gay Wedding"

 

If you still think Gay "rights" doesn't directly hurt us (the Jewish community) think again

IH we will soon have more information on this very important story.

Can we trust them on kashrus if they sold their souls on one of the most basic tenants of Yiddishkeit?

Jerry Nadler, And Chuck Schumer Think You Lose Your Freedom Of Religion When You Open A Business?

By Kristina Peterson

June 30, 2014 3:11 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON—Monday's Supreme Court decision enabling some private companies to opt out of the federal health law's some contraception coverage requirements ignited partisan dueling over not just the 2010 health-care law but over a 1993 religious-freedom law cited in the decision

The high court's decision in the Hobby Lobby case refocused attention on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that passed Congress overwhelmingly in 1993, with the support of some lawmakers still serving in both the House and Senate. this law was passed by congress after the Supreme Court in Employment Division v. Smith (1990) (opinion written by Scalia) weakened the first amendment's religious protection from the government having a compelling interest (banning suicide bombings) to only a rational reason for the law (a law that forces grocery stores to be open 7 days a week would be a rational based reason due to the government's interest in allowing consumers to shop any day of the week) that would infringe on religion , congress passed this law to restrengthen it back to it's original protection.  The RFRA was later weakened by the Supreme court again in 1997 in the case of state laws. The statute requires federal laws to accommodate individuals' religious beliefs unless there is a compelling interest as opposed to a rational reason as was the case after the 1990 court decision at stake that can't be attained through other means.

While Republicans on Monday triumphantly pointed to the law's role in the decision, Democrats said they hadn't anticipated the law would be so broadly expanded or more accurately that it would be applied to a law they agree with.

The Supreme Court's so-called Hobby Lobby decision attracted a lot of attention this week because it's an important ruling on the Affordable Care Act. WSJ's Jerry Seib discusses the decision's long-term political ramifications. 

In the case, the owners of Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., an Oklahoma City arts-and-crafts chain owned by an evangelical Christian family, and other companies challenged the Affordable Care Act by saying their religions consider certain birth-control methods that were abortion-like immoral and therefore they weren't obliged to help provide them under the religious-freedom law.

The Supreme Court's majority agreed, citing the religious-freedom law in its decision and not the first amendment like they should have.

Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the lead Republican sponsor of the religious-freedom law when it passed the Senate in a 97-3 vote, said Monday's decision affirmed Congress' decision to pass the law in the first place.

"As the Supreme Court rightfully said today, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could not have been clearer in saying religious liberty of all Americans must be equally protected and not unnecessarily burdened," Mr. Hatch said in a statement. "That's why RFRA passed Congress overwhelmingly more than 20 years ago."

The bill passed the House on a voice vote and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. 

The U.S. Supreme Court said "closely held" companies can, on religious grounds, opt out of covering employees' contraception costs in health-care plans.

But Democrats who had supported the religious liberties law in 1993 said Monday they hadn't intended it to be used to enable for-profit employers to avoid complying with federal laws so that would mean if chas veshalom they would make a law mandating a store (under the interstate commerce clause) opening up on Shabbos they would interpret that as a constitutional law and the RFRA to not cover it . The law shouldn't shield businesses from meeting the health law's requirements or the working on shabbos law, they said. The 1993 law refers to "persons," and the Obama administration contended that the law doesn't include for-profit companies like Hobby Lobby or your store under the shabbos work law.
 
"No matter how sincerely held a religious belief might be, for-profit employers—like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood—should not be allowed to wield their beliefs as a means of denying employees access to critical preventive health-care services," or the law mandating stores open up on Saturday said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.) who supported the law in 1993. At the time, lawmakers kept in place a principle that religion doesn't exempt for-profit businesses from complying with civil rights laws, for example, Mr. Nadler said.

The bill was introduced in March 1993 by Charles Schumer of New York, then in the House, now a member of the Senate's Democratic leadership. Mr. Schumer joined a group of 18 other Senate Democrats who filed an amicus brief supporting the Obama administration in the Hobby Lobby case. In the brief, the Democrats had urged the court to clarify that the religious-freedom law doesn't permit for-profit businesses to deny health coverage or close on Saturday to their employees based on their owners' religious objections.

In a statement Monday, Mr. Schumer called the Supreme Court's decision "dead wrong," saying the law he introduced was intended to give individuals the ability "to exercise their religious beliefs without government interference." The law "was not intended to extend the same protection to for-profit corporations, whose very purpose is to profit from the open market a Jewish business is required to follow all laws even if they go against the Torah," he said.

Republicans had filed their own briefs supporting the challengers and arguing that the health law's mandate violated the religious-freedom law.

The law in question was originally intended to nullify a decision from Justice Antonin Scalia in the early 1990s that denied religious exemptions from generally applicable laws last year he explicitly said that would include legislation to ban Milah Scalia's view on the lack of freedom of religion may in the future make him just as dangreous as Ruth Bader Ginsburg currently is, if the liberals push in laws that mandate following liberalism over Judaism (this has applications in way more areas than the obvious wedding cake for a same sex "wedding"ex. the gays push an anti Milah law and Scalia signs off on it). The dispute arose when Oregon denied unemployment benefits to adherents of a Native American religion who used peyote, a controlled substance, in their ceremonies.
—Jess Bravin, Beth Reinhard and Louise Radnofsky contributed to this article.
Write to Kristina Peterson at kristina.peterson@wsj.com
(Wall Street Journal) highlights our additions

What Hobby Lobby Decision Means For Religious Liberty, When In Conflict With the Gay Agenda

What Hobby Lobby decision means for the LGBT "community"

 By Jonathan Capehart June 30 at 2:07 PM

Meshuguna Protesting The Hobby Lobby Decision

 What Hobby Lobby Decision Means For Religious Liberty, When In Conflict With the GAY Agenda

Now that we know that some corporations are run by people whose sincerely held religious beliefs must be respected even in their role as the head of corporations, the next logical question is this: Is this good for religious people when dealing with the gays? The short answer is yes and no — for now.

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores click to read the decision, the question before the court was whether corporations providing health coverage to their employees could get out of the Obamacare mandate that said policies offer post-contraceptive services the ones objected to were after fertilization because doing so would violate the sincerely held religious beliefs of the company’s owners. By a decision of 5 to 4, the Supreme Court said yes.

The decision is limited in scope. The “corporations are run by people, my friend” ruling only applies “closely held corporations” Internal Revenue Service defines them as a company that “has more than 50% of the value of its outstanding stock owned (directly or indirectly) by 5 or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of the tax year.” Adding to the narrowness of the ruling was what Justice Samuel Alito said his decision wasn’t in response to the dissent.

The principal dissent raises the possibility that discrimination in hiring, for example, on the basis of race notice Alito doesn't say sexual orientation, or same sex "wedding" might be cloaked implying there are certain discriminations that are clearly religious as religious practice to escape legal sanction….Our decision today provides no such shield. The government has a compelling interest in providing an equal opportunity to participate in the workforce without regard to race, and prohibitions on racial discrimination are precisely tailored to achieve that critical goal.

That the majority opinion specifically warned that its opinion does not shield “employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice” is a great thing. And it should be a brake on unscrupulous employers looking to use it to justify their bigotry. But this is where the gays come in. Many folks always seem notice how the Washington Post doesn't seem to think that it's based on religion to invoke their religious beliefs when talking about and expressing their opposition to issues related to abortion or the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) "community". So, it wasn’t a far leap to fear that bosses would try to apply the same rationale to thinning their ranks of gay employees. After all, sexual orientation is not a protected class or characteristic like race is under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Nor was it unwise to fear that employers would try to deny LGBT workers coverage for, say, HIV medication or hormone replacement therapy for transgender men and women notice that the washington post wants an employer to pay for this too. Alito was clear on that last point when he wrote that the majority opinion “is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate.” But that’s cold comfort bcause then the goverment can still violate the first amendment to persecute religious people for not helping a same sex "wedding.

One LGBT rights advocate and strategist I spoke with on background immediately after the ruling came down called it a “mixed bag.” While Alito makes it clear what corporations can’t do, there is recognition that that won’t stop companies from overstepping their legal bounds or affected employees from taking them to court. Another was advocate was slightly more optimistic. “The judges obviously were worried about the ‘slippery slope,’ so they drew a firm line between the contraception mandate and what they called ‘illegal discrimination,” said Lanae Erickson Hatalsky, director of social policy and politics at Third Way. “Because they specifically mentioned race but not sexual orientation, I’m sure some folks will still cite this decision in their arguments in favor of "discrimination" meaning the gays are afraid that this court decision can be used to protect religious people from being sued for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same sex "wedding" against the LGBT community, but it’ll be a hard legal row to hoe.”

But that’s a long-term worry for Capehart, who wrote this article compared to the millions I think he's slightly exaggerating the number of women who will lose or not get post-contraceptive care through their employer now that corporations are people.
(Washington Post) highlights are our additions

Will Hobby Lobby decision affect business owners who don't want to serve gay weddings in Oregon and Elsewhere?

Monday's Supreme Court decision on contraceptive coverage and religious beliefs could reverberate in the Oregon dispute over business owners who don't want to serve same-sex "weddings".

In its decision, the court ruled in favor of two family-owned businesses, Oklahoma City-based Hobby Lobby craft stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. of East Earl, Pa., that objected on religious grounds to the mandated coverage for contraception contained in the new federal health care law.

Christian conservatives who have been watching the case said the decision would help in their effort to battle state actions against businesses in Oregon click to read our previous coverage of a story like this in Oregon that don't want to serve gay "weddings".

However, a spokesman for Labor Commissioner and former state senator Brad Avakian who supported Oregon's non "discrimination" law as a senator. said the decision "did not appear" to affect state law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  And Jeana Frazzini, executive director of Basic Rights Oregon, also argued that it wouldn't affect "discrimination" cases involving same-sex "marriages".  In short since many liberals can interpret this decision as being in line with their twisted understanding of American Law, so will the liberal justices.

The issue of whether photographers and other wedding-related businesses can refuse to participate in same-sex "nuptials" took center stage in Oregon when state labor investigators charged early this year that Sweet Cakes Bakery in Gresham violated the state's non-discrimination law by refusing to make a cake for a lesbian couple's "wedding".

The bakery case also helped spur the Oregon Family Council to file an initiative that would have allowed individuals and businesses to opt out of serving gay weddings or commitment ceremonies if it violated their religious beliefs.  The group later dropped the initiative but says it is planning a lawsuit challenging the law.

Shawn Lindsay, a former Washington County legislator and council's legal counsel, called the decision "good news for religious freedom advocates" and said it would strengthen their case.

Meanwhile, Beaverton attorney Herb Grey, who represents the owners of Sweet Cakes, said he also planned to cite the Supreme Court decision in his defense of the couple.

Currently, the case is before an administrative law judge who will make a recommendation to Avakian. Grey said he has filed a motion asking that Avakian be disqualified from decided the case, saying he had made public statements suggesting the owners, Aaron and Melissa Klein, had violated the law.

Charlie Burr, Avakian's spokesman, said in a statement that he wouldn't comment on a pending motion, but added:

"Commissioner Avakian takes his role as a quasi-judicial decision maker seriously. We "weigh" each case on its unique "merits". As you know, our agency has found no substantial evidence in the vast majority of Oregon "Equality" Act complaints filed with our agency."

Burr also said Monday's decision "does not appear to have any impact on our ability to protect people from "discrimination" on the job because of sexual "orientation" or gender "identity"."

Frazzini agreed, pointing to language in the decision saying that it does not "provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal racial discrimination as a religious practice."

Grey argued that the decision spoke directly to family-owned businesses involving owners who have sincere religious objections to taking part in a particular activity.
-- Jeff Mapes
(oregonlive) highlights our additions

• It's for that last reason that Mark Joseph Stern at Slate thinks the ruling was "surprisingly good for gays." Many had feared that a pro-Hobby Lobby ruling would allow corporations to, say, fire gay workers on religious grounds. But Justice Alito's majority opinion specifically said that the ruling could not be used to shield "discrimination in hiring notice they keep missing the based on race" as a "religious practice to escape legal sanction," and Anthony Kennedy the most powerful man in the country "clarified" in his separate opinion that this included anti-gay discrimination. this later part is why this will only be a slight stall in the Gayization of America

(newser) highlights our additions


In short I think this new decision will only be a slight stall to continuous process of destructing this once great republic