Alan Friedlander claims that LGBT Jews are pushing a sinister “hidden
agenda” by marching in the Celebrate Israel Parade on June 2. As the
largest pro-Israel event in the world, this parade draws massive crowds
from every segment of the Jewish community—yet Friedlander thinks LGBT
Jews have enrolled solely in “a brazen attempt to force Orthodox Jews to
accept their way of life.” Accordingly, he calls on Orthodox Jews to
boycott and/or protest the entire event. then explain this pictures from last year
sign (reads: we are in every yeshiva) sure looks like an agenda to me
First of all: how self-centered! LGBT Jews are marching to support
Israel, not to push our “agenda” on the Orthodox community. This is what he truly meant to write First of all how self centered the LGBT Jews are. Marching to support Isreal to push our agenda on the Orthodox community. Mr.
Friedlander, our lives are not about you. We do not spend our time
plotting against halachic law and those who adhere to it—which, by the
way, includes many frum gay Jews. We spend our time going to synagogue,
driving our kids to school, walking the dog, and cooking Shabbat dinner.
When we do advocate for LGBT concerns, our “sinister agenda” involves
protecting ourselves from violence, emotional abuse, and discrimination,
so we can go about our lives in peace.
Second, this parade has always seen Orthodox Jews march alongside
nonobservant Jews who eat pork (also toevah) and who are not shomrei
Shabbat (punishable by death). Like these thousands of other Jews, LGBT
groups have joined the Celebrate Israel Parade to place their voices and
bodies on the line in the global struggle to protect the Jewish State.
If the Orthodox can march alongside pork-eating Jews, then animosity
toward LGBT Jews can only stem from prejudice, not halachic duty. So your calling Rav Aharon Soloveichik a bigot? the problem is that you are marching under the banner of rishus.
In fact, more than 100 prominent (not a single major rav) Orthodox rabbis and educators have
issued a statement condemning antigay behavior as the very antithesis of
halakhic values. Published in 2010 (a statement with much bigger rabbis, signed a statement that is much different from his statement), the “Statement of Principles on the Place of Jews with a Homosexual Orientation in Our Community” (check the list for yourselves)
affirms that “embarrassing, harassing or demeaning someone with a
homosexual orientation or same-sex attraction is a violation of Torah
prohibitions that embody the deepest values of Judaism.” Mr. Friedlander
engages precisely in demeaning and harassing LGBT Jews when he portrays
us as sinister conspirators and calls on the Orthodox community to
protest our participation in Celebrate Israel Day. Rav Belsky, and Rav Schorr said the same thing as did many other rabbis
Further, Mr. Friedlander’s accusations and his call for harassment
oddly echo antisemitic conspiracy theories. Even as Jews seek to go
about our lives in peacelike trying to ban Milah, others have always accused us of sinister
plots to corrupt or control the broader society. Precisely the same
accusations commonly fall on the LGBT community. Every Jew who has
encountered such ignorance shares a personal insight with the struggle
of LGBT people—and I call on you to use that insight to critically
examine all statements made against us.
Looking beyond Celebrate Israel Day, Mr. Friedlander’s slander
illustrates the hostility and misunderstanding about LGBT people that
still reign in some corners of the Jewish world. However, many Orthodox
Jews, like much of the world in general, are awakening to the reality
that gay people exist in all communities
—realizing that they already
know and love many gay people, and that these gay people are good and
loving friends, teachers, parents, and Jews. Many are coming to
understand that homophobia, like antisemitism, is a destructive force
fueled only by ignorance, and that it has no place in our holy
community. the Torah assurs all gay behavior if you have a problem with that tough luck. is god also homophobic? (jewishpress)
In the cold of February, as New York City police officers gathered for
their daily orders at roll call, they were given a rather unusual
command, for both its timing and its substance: If they happened upon a
topless woman, they were not to arrest her.
The command was read at 10 consecutive roll calls. Each of the city’s
34,000 officers, in theory, got the message: For “simply exposing their
breasts in public,” women are guilty of no crime.
Whether any officer encountered such a brave-hearted, bare-chested soul
is not clear, nor is the reason for the Police Department’s concern
about such matters in the dead of winter.
One possible explanation lies in the person of Holly Van Voast, a Bronx photographer and performance artist known for baring her breasts.
The order was disclosed in an official memorandum contained in a federal
lawsuit Ms. Van Voast filed on Wednesday against the city and the
department. The memo makes clear that bare-breasted women should not be
cited for public lewdness, indecent exposure or any other section of the
penal law.
Even if the topless display draws a lot of attention, officers are to
“give a lawful order to disperse the entire crowd and take enforcement
action” against those who do not comply, the memo says. “Whether the
individuals are clothed is not a factor in making a determination about
whether the above-mentioned crowd conditions exist.”
The suit lists 10 episodes in 2011 and 2012 in which the police
detained, arrested or issued summonses to Ms. Van Voast, 46, for baring
her breasts at sites that included the Oyster Bar in Grand Central
Terminal, in front of a Manhattan elementary school, on the A train and
outside a Hooters restaurant in Midtown. That last episode, the suit
says, ended with her being taken by the police to a nearby hospital for a
psychiatric evaluation.
Each complaint against her was dismissed or dropped, her lawyers said, for one simple reason: The state’s highest court ruled
more than two decades ago that baring one’s chest in public — for
noncommercial activity — is perfectly legal for a woman, as it is for a
man.
But when Ms. Van Voast’s top came off again this year, her lawyers said,
what had seemed to be an annual rite of spring did not follow. “I was
aware that they stopped telling her to put a shirt on, stopped arresting
her, stopped carting her off to mental institutions,” Ronald L. Kuby,
one of her lawyers, said. “But I was not aware why.”
The memo does not allude to its origin, and a department spokeswoman
declined to discuss what had precipitated it. The spokeswoman, Inspector
Kim Y. Royster, said such memos were “periodically circulated to remind
personnel of our policies.” She added that it “comports with the N.Y.S.
Court of Appeals ruling on taking enforcement action against
individuals for public nudity.”
The memo’s language is as clear as it is legalistic. Officers “shall not
enforce any section of law, including penal law sections 245.00 (public lewdness) and 245.01 (exposure of a person) against female individuals who are simply exposing their breasts in public.”
Katherine Rosenfeld, a lawyer at Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady
who is also representing Ms. Van Voast, saw a direct connection between
the memo and her client’s public performances, often done in the
character of a mustachioed “topless paparazzo” called Harvey Van Toast. “It establishes that they’ve been in error in all the times that they’ve charged her,” she said.
Ms. Van Voast, in her lawsuit, is seeking compensation from the city as
well as punitive damages from several named and unnamed officers for her
treatment, which the suit alleges constituted civil rights violations.
The memo reminds the officers that there are still times when they can
detain, arrest or give tickets to women or men for being indecent in
public — “if the actions of any individual rise to the level of a lewd
act (e.g. masturbation, simulated sexual act), regardless of whether the
individual is clothed above their waist,” or if the person is naked
below the waist “and is not entertaining or performing in a play,
exhibition, show or entertainment.”
Of a dozen patrol officers from precincts around the city interviewed on
Wednesday, nearly all correctly cited the law on toplessness, though
none would describe roll call discussions. Each declined to be quoted by
name, citing departmental policy.
“It was told to us,” one said. “But I don’t remember if it was at roll call or in a conversation like this.”
Another said he remembered hearing last summer that “it’s legal to be topless if you’re a man or a woman.”
“I thought you had to have body paint,” a female officer said.
Aroniem (Satmar) rally behind Daniel Squadron who was a key vote for toevah marriage and a lead sponsor behind the bathroom bill.
Both United States Senators from New York, Senators Chuck Schumer
and
Kirsten Gillibrand, have voiced their support for the bill, as did New
York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman who voted for it when he was in
the senate!
The Sponsor of the bill, Williamsburg State Senator Daniels Squadron recently sent out a press release urging immediate passage of this evil bill!
Daniel Squadron took over the role of sponsoring this bill after for the gay Thomas Duane retired
If every single Orthodox Jews in
Williamsburg, and the Lower East Side would have allied together and
voted for the same candidate based on "Toras Hashem" and not "kesef yane
es hakol" they very likley would have put a yorai shomiyiem in the
state senate instead of this low life. It's even possible that toevah
"marriage" never would have passed (it passed by 2 votes and based on
the inside Albany politics they "needed to pass it by 2 votes) Instead Daniel Squadron is now A?the? leading candidate for NYC public advocate! Send a message that the Torah is not for sale by voting against him this year in the primary!
We urge Every single Orthodox Jew in NY to call the state legislators to prevent the passage of this evil bill!
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 are in blue.
The bill:
S195-2013: Prohibits "discrimination" based on gender identity or
expression and includes offenses regarding gender identity or expression
under the hate crimes statute
24 1. The opportunity to obtain employment without discrimination because
25 of age, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, GENDER 26 IDENTITY OR EXPRESSION, military status, sex, marital status, or disa-
27 bility, is hereby recognized as and declared to be a civil right.
This
means that Seforim Store in Flatbush, or a Pizza store in Borough Park,
or a Sheitel store in Williamsburg, will be forced to hire a man who
dresses as a woman and could not fire someone who decides to "change"
from a man to a woman.
30 (a) It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person,
31 being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or
32 employee of any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement,
33 because of the race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation,
34 GENDER IDENTITY OR EXPRESSION, military status, sex, [or] disability or
35 marital status of any person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, with-
36 hold from or deny to such person any of the accommodations, advantages,
37 facilities or privileges thereof, including the extension of credit, or,
38 directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post or
39 mail any written or printed communication, notice or advertisement, to
40 the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities and
41 privileges of any such place shall be refused, withheld from or denied
42 to any person on account of race, creed, color, national origin, sexual
43 orientation, GENDER IDENTITY OR EXPRESSION, military status, sex, [or]
44 disability or marital status, or that the patronage or custom thereat of
45 any person of or purporting to be of any particular race, creed, color,
46 national origin, sexual orientation, GENDER IDENTITY OR EXPRESSION,
47 military status, sex or marital status, or having a disability is unwel-
48 come, objectionable or not acceptable, desired or solicited.
public accommodation includes locker rooms, dorm rooms, and bathrooms.
This
means that you have to allow men dressed as women into any bathroom he
chooses. Besides just the basic moral problems this is almost
guaranteed to increase rapes and pedophiles. Since woman are much less
likely to be a pedophile or to rape someone, if a man who was dressed as
a woman would enter a woman's bathroom where there are no witnesses it
would be easier to get away with the crime.
Even one of the main LGBT organizations
in NY admits that bill will lead to boys using girls bathrooms! "gender
identity" means the "gender" you feel like regardless of what sex you
are.
Furthermore even one of the most read gay blogs queerty admitted that this bill will allow boys in to girls bathrooms
The New York State Senate’s Judiciary Committee today voted down GENDA,
Sen. Tom Duane’s bill that would’ve made all public accommodations —
including restrooms, health clubs, dorm rooms, and even shelters — open
to individuals who identify as a certain gender, even if their
biological sex doesn’t match the facilities’ mandates, allowing a MTF
transgender person to use the lady’s toilet or find refuge at a
women-only domestic violence shelter. The bill was defeated by one
lawmaker in a 11-12 vote. Among those voting no: Sen. Ruben Diaz, the
proud homophobe who helped defeat the state’s gay marriage law. Diaz, who talks publicly about his two gay brothers,
was the only Democrat to vote against GENDA; Sen. George Maziarz, a
Republican, previously said he would support the bill but voted against
it.
the Conservative Party released this statement in 2010 on this bill
"If this bill is enacted, how safe will our most vulnerable be? Will
sexual predators be able to stalk victims by claiming they are allowed
to enter the restroom because they are protected by law? Proponents of
the bill say they are the ones being discriminated against, but what
about the rights of the majority of New Yorkers who expect restrooms to
accommodate their sex only?" they say.
"Many larger public places offer unisex facilities at the present
time, if this law is enacted, the cost to business could be prohibitive
and if small businesses cannot provide for unisex restrooms, trial
lawyers will ultimately put them out of business," the party's statement
continues. "The majority of people do not want the opposite sex in
their restrooms, no matter how they are dressed or feel about their
bodies. People using public restrooms have a right to privacy that
enactment of this proposal would erode."
Notice that Steven Cymbrowitz voted no even though in past years he was a sponsor
this is because Cymbrowitz just ran a very close race against a Orthodox Jew "Ben Akselrod" who ran a campaign based on Torah values where he only won by 294 votes.
This shows us that we can effect politicians votes if we vote based on the Torah!
______________________________________________________________________________
Proof we can defeat this bill
In 2010 this bill was defeated by 1 vote despite the fact that the democrats controled the senate because democratic senator Ruben Diaz held strong in the vote in the Judiciary Committee despite the democrat establishments pressure on him to vote for that bill. It is almost guaranteed this evil bill would have passed if it went to the whole floor. for more info about the vote
S2406-2009 Votesthe highlights here are based on the time of the vote
The Cake Shop that refused to help out in that "wedding"
DENVER – A gay couple is pursuing a
discrimination complaint against a Colorado bakery, saying the business
refused them a wedding cake to honor their Massachusetts ceremony, and
alleging that the owners have a history of turning away same-sex
couples.
As more states move to legalize same-sex "marriage" and civil unions,
the case highlights a growing tension between gay rights advocates and
supporters of religious freedom.
"Religious freedom is a fundamental right in America and it's
something that we champion at the ACLU," said Mark Silverstein, the
legal director of the group in Colorado, which filed the complaint on
behalf of the couple. "We are all entitled to our religious beliefs and
we fight for that. But someone's personal religious beliefs don't
justify breaking the law by discriminating against others in the public
sphere."
The attorney for Jack Phillips, one of the owners of Masterpiece Cakeshop, sees it differently.
"We don't believe that this is a case about commerce. At its heart,
this is a case about conscience," said Nicolle Martin. She said the
matter is important because it will serve as an example for future cases
across the country as more gay couples gain legal recognitions for
their relationships.
"It brings it to the forefront. I just don't think that we should
heighten one person's beliefs over and above another person's beliefs,"
she said.
The Colorado Attorney General's office filed a formal complaint last
week after the ACLU initiated the process last year on behalf of David
Mullins and Charlie Craig. The case is scheduled for a hearing in
September before Colorado's Civil Rights Commission.
Nationwide, 12 states now allow gay" marriage", with Rhode Island,
Delaware and Minnesota doing so this year. And in a year that Colorado
lawmakers approved civil unions, they also elected the first gay Speaker
of the House.
But Colorado's civil union law does not provide religious protections
for businesses despite the urging of Republican lawmakers. Democrats
argued that such a provision would give businesses cover to
discriminate.
Mullins, 28, and Craig, 33, filed the discrimination complaint
against Phillips after visiting his business in suburban Denver last
summer. After a few minutes looking at pictures of different cakes, the
couple said Phillips told them he wouldn't make one for them when he
found out it was to celebrate their wedding in Colorado after they got
"married" in Massachusetts. Phillips has said making a wedding cake for
gay couples would violate his Christian religious beliefs, according to
the complaint.
"We were all very upset, but I was angry and I felt dehumanized and
mortified," Mullins said. He said he vented his frustration on Facebook
and was surprised at how "the story ended up catching fire," with
responses from local media and bloggers in other countries posting about
it.
"We felt that the best way to honor the support that they had given
us was to follow this complaint through," he said. In the process, the
ACLU said they found out about two other gay couples who had been
refused a wedding cake from the same shop. Both have written affidavits
in support of the discrimination claim.
Recent advances on gay rights only underscore Colorado's difficult
past on the issue. In 2006, voters banned gay "marriage". More notably, in
1992, voters approved a ban on municipal antidiscrimination laws to
protect gays, leading some to brand Colorado a "hate state." Four years
later, the U.S. Supreme Court said the law, known as Amendment 2, was
unconstitutional.
The complaint seeks to force Masterpiece Cakeshop to "cease and
desist" the practice of refusing wedding cakes for gay couples, and to
tell the public that their business is open to everyone.
If Phillips loses the case and refuses to comply with the order, he
would face fines of $500 per case and up to a year in jail, his attorney
said.
"It would force him to choose between his conscience and a paycheck. I just think that's an intolerable choice," Martin said.
(AP)
The key point of the states legal "claim" is that to refuse to help a toeivah "wedding" is the same thing as refusing to help the person because their a toevanick. This is what gay "rights" really means. The state doesn't (choose to) understand that there is a big difference between refusing to provide a wedding cake for a toeivah "wedding" versus refusing to sell a toevanick a slice of pizza (which can also be a problem if there are 2 together for example).
Notice how they confuse the person with the avarah, this is what all gay "rights" bills do
While the Board prided itself on defending such Jewish institutions
as shechitah and brit milah, he said that “to protest against
legitimising homosexual relationships was no less important from a Torah
view”. Dayan Yisroel Lichtenstein
The Federation of Synagogues this week launched a blistering attack
on Board of Deputies president Vivian Wineman for failing to back his
interfaith adviser in opposing same-sex "marriage".
Federation Beth Din head Dayan Yisroel Lichtenstein said that “in his
burning desire to represent all strands of Judaism, Mr Wineman winds up
representing no one and has only brought shame to the Jewish
community”.
On Monday Mr Wineman dissociated the Board from a letter, co-signed
by its interfaith adviser Rabbi Natan Levy, which called on the
government to halt legislation to approve same-sex weddings.
Rabbi Levy, the former minister of Shenley United Synagogue, was the only Jewish figure to put his name to the letter to the Daily Telegraph, which was signed by more than 50 people, predominantly Christian or Muslim.
They wrote that it had been “wrongly assumed that opposition to the
redefinition of marriage is confined to a small number of Christians”.
Mr Wineman said that Rabbi Levy had signed the letter “in a personal
capacity” and, while entitled to his views, they “do not represent those
of the Board”.
The Board was “cross-communal”, Mr Wineman said, “and has worked with
civil servants and ministers to ensure that the final legislation works
to allow each denomination of Judaism to practise their chosen beliefs
as they best see fit and to ensure that no-one is obliged to act
contrary to his own beliefs.”
Other signatories of the letter included the Anglican Bishop of
Bristol Michael Hill, Sheikh Abdul Qayum of the East London Mosque and
controversial preacher Sheikh Haitham al-Haddad.
Dayan Lichtenstein said that it was “a sad day” when "the rabbi’s
attempt to publicise the Torah view on this matter was quashed by a lay
leader of Anglo-Jewry.
“The Torah view on homosexuality is clear. It is a forbidden
relationship and the Talmud praises those non-Jews who refuse to
legitimise it.”
While the Board prided itself on defending such Jewish institutions
as shechitah and brit milah, he said that “to protest against
legitimising homosexual relationships was no less important from a Torah
view”.
He added: “And yet when the board’s rabbi on interfaith matters,
Rabbi Natan Levy, courageously states the Torah’s view, instead of being
applauded, the president of the Board of Deputies rushes to assure
everyone that Rabbi Levy did not speak on behalf of the Board.”
Dayan Lichtentstein queried whether the Board had consulted its
ecclesiastical authorities, including Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks, whose
view, he maintained, was “well-known”.
Suggesting that Mr Wineman’s position reflected a wish “not to upset
some of the non-Orthodox movements”, he remarked: “It sadly appears that
Orthodoxy cannot rely on the Board of Deputies.”
Lord Sacks did not attend this week’s debate when the Lords voted by a
massive majority to allow the same-sex legislation to proceed.
Jewish peers voted by six to one against an amendment attempting to block it.
Speaking in favour of the government’s Bill, Baroness Neuberger said
that at her West London Synagogue, there were around 30 gay couples,
most in civil partnerships, who were “waiting for the day when they can
"marry" under the chuppah, the wedding canopy, with their parents under
that canopy, witnessing them make their vows.”
The legislation was about “righting a wrong”, she said.
“I expect the first days after it becomes law, as I hope it does, to
consist of "marriage" after "marriage" in my synagogue, bringing joy,
equality and renewed commitment to people who, until this point, have
been denied it.”
Two weeks ago, Lord Sacks publicly denied that he had “come out
strongly” against the Bill and said that, while Judaism had clear sexual
ethics, “religions should never seek to impose their view on society as
a whole”.
His comments struck a different tone from the response of his own
rabbinical court, the London Beth Din, to a government consultation on
same-sex "marriage" last year. Opposing legislation for both civil and
religious "marriage" for same-sex couples, the Beth Din – of which Lord
Sacks is the titular head – said that this would undermine the concept
of marriage.
Karen Newman, spokesman for the Jewish Gay and Lesbian Group,
commenting on Lord Sacks’s recent comments, said; “Given the raucous
voices with which he is surrounded urging him to be stridently opposed, I
think his commitment to acknowledging, whether tacitly or overtly, the
diversity within the present Anglo-Jewish community is truly impressive,
choosing, wherever possible, not to align himself with the views of
those comfortable with upholding discrimination.”
She also welcomed the Board’s move to distance itself from the views of its interfaith adviser.
Welcoming the vote, the co-chairman of Liberal Judaism’s rabbinic
conference, "Rabbi" Aaron Goldstein, said: “We are now looking forward to
celebrating the first fully legal and fully "Jewish" "marriage" under a
Liberal chupah”.
Under the proposed law, religious organisations who are opposed to
same-sex ceremonies will remain exempt from having to perform them.
(JEWISH CHRONICLE)
they also asked the first openly homosexual basketball player to throw out the first pitch
The Red Sox extended the invitation to Collins via the team’s
official Twitter feed the day Collins made his announcement in a Sports
Illustrated article.
After receiving a nice ovation from the crowd, Collins opted to go out of the wind-up to deliver his pitch to Farrell.
(providencejournal)
A
controversial spin will mark Thursday's Boston Red Sox game against the
Texas Rangers with the addition of "Pride" Night at Fenway Park that will
include the celebration of "Pride" Week and the first pitch being thrown
out by openly gay NBA player Jason Collins, who will also be marching in
Boston's Gay "Pride" Parade.
Zineb Curran, the director of
corporate communications for the Boston Red Sox, told The Christian Post
the organization "extended the invitation to Jason Collins to throw out
the ceremonial first pitch to celebrate his courage." She also noted
that several groups will be at the game, among them being Boston "Pride",
an LGBT organization that promotes Gay "Pride" Week and other events.
This event is a first for Fenway Park, and according to Brian Camenker, president of the pro-family organization MassResistance, public sporting events, especially baseball which he said is traditionally a family event, should be void of LGBT propaganda.
"It's
very inappropriate for a sports team that attracts kids to get involved
in this movement," Camenker said. "For a professional sports team to
promote behavior that's destructive, both socially and medically, is
problematic. A baseball game should be one place where people can go to
get away from the anti-family agenda." And he predicts there will be a
backlash from the public and fans after tonight's game.
Camenker
believes that "Pride" Night is being promoted at Fenway Park because the
team's owners are liberal and are driving the agenda. Thus far, he said
MassResistance has received a lot of support and feedback in opposition
to "Pride" Night at Fenway Park. Curran, on the other hand, told CP that
she's unsure of fans' response to the Red Sox organization hosting the
event.
Sylvain Bruni of Boston "Pride" said that viewers watching
the game at home and fans who are at the ballpark will be able to see
that "Pride" Week is being recognized by the Boston Red Sox organization
with the acknowledgement of Boston "Pride" on the jumbotron, and with
Collins throwing out the first pitch.
The
Boston "Pride" website also states that the Boston Red Sox will donate a
percentage of their proceeds to benefit the LGBT nonprofit organization.
Camenker
said his organization is asking the public to call the Boston Red Sox
office to let them know they don't support the organization's decision
to celebrate Gay "Pride" Week.
Which he said includes "obscene events, such as Friday's Boston Dyke
March that takes place at a location heavily populated by tourists, who
are exposed to vulgar signs" carried by LGBT activists at the parade,
which takes places from 7 to 8 p.m., a time when parents are out with
their children.
Since
I'm writing this slightly less than 36 hours after the fact I'm sure
your all wondering, how come we have not seen the video that appeared in our last story on the Jewish
websites. Or the fact that no Jewish reporter reported even in print on the heated Bris Milah
debate that happened in the forum or Quinn's pushing her
"perverse morality" by talking about her "wife".
Well first I was told
by a witness that there was a man going around to reporters after the
event and begging them not report on the event and specifically Erick
Salgado. One of the "reporters" that this man spoke to was Shimon
Gifter, Gifter recently removed a video from his youtube page that on Shimon Weiser specifically because it was on this blog. I had multiple reports by people that Leon Goldenbeg (who donated 4,950$ to the lesbian Christine Quinn) was visibly upset by the fact that Erick Salgado was there. In fact someone high up in COJO even
threatened to fire someone because Erick Salgado showed up "early" to
the forum and got to say his opinions to the Jewish community. I've
confirmed that it was Leon Goldenberg himself that "invited" Mr Salgado
to show up after the event was supposed to be over (9:45) after the
FJCC, and COJO rescinded their invitation.
The "jester of good will" only came after many Orthodox Jews made phone
calls and sent Emails to COJO and the FJCC demanding that they put in
the only candidate standing up for morality and the Jewish community's
religious freedom and therefore is the only candidate with real rabbaniems support. Since you may be wondering "where that video came from" ? The answer is this came from a private video (so this will not come out
on a video search) that's address was given to a gay blog (Queerty) that attacks everyone but BDB, and the lesbian Quinn. The Queerty article was based on a Politicker articleby Ross Barkan article that (?purposely?) misunderstood what Erick Salgado said and therefore the candidates response.
A
mayoral candidate forum sponsored by Flatbush Jewish Community
Coalition became a litmus test on which candidates would speak out for
the LGBT community in the face of a hostile audience — and just as
significantly, who would not.
Erick Salgado, a minister who is a minor (to be charitable)
candidate, started the chain of events during long-winded remarks in
which he reminded the audience, which had significant representation
from the Orthodox Jewish community that he believed that they were
“persecuted.” As an aside, he threw in a remark about the other
candidates. “They are marching here every year in the New York gay pride
parade, they’re marching over here, trying to band together,” Salgado
said. Needless to say, Salgado got a big hand for his comments
Two other candidates followed Salgado and said nothing: Bill
Thompson, the former city comptroller, and Anthony Weiner, the former
Congressman and captain of his own crotch rocket. It took Bill de Blasio, the city’s Public Advocate, to call Salgado out;
“First of all, I’m not sure exactly — Erick Salgado’s, your point
before — I’m not sure exactly what you’re suggesting,” Mr. de Blasio
said. “But I just want to say, I think as mayor of New York City it
would be my job to protect the rights and needs of the Orthodox
community and protect the rights and needs of the LGBT community.”
This earned de Blasio boos from the audience and at least one cry of
“shame.” To his credit, de Blasio kept at it, even though this was not
the audience for his remarks. “This is a place for everyone and the
government’s job is to protect everyone and their needs,” he said.
Christine Quinn (pictured, above), who stands a good chance of
becoming the city’s first openly lesbian mayor, weighed in as well, and
forcefully. “You have to be a city where everyone gets to be who they
are without ‘shame’ being screamed at them at an auditorium,” Ms. Quinn
said, her voice rising. “Without somebody walking up to them on the
street and attacking them, without somebody burning a mezuzah, without
somebody, quite frankly, just two weeks ago walking up to a man in my
district in Greenwich Village and shooting him in the face and killing
him because he was gay.”
So now we know who has the cojones to speak up for us. And his photos aside, it doesn’t look like Weiner, or like Thompson.
Watch the whole thing yourself. By:
John Gallagher On: Jun 5, 2013
If your wondering how good the candidates are for the Jewish community watch their reaction to Mr Salgado at the FJCCForum while he is saying that the attack on MBP is really an attack on Milah itself and specifically on the point that groups trying to ban Bris Milah march in the NY gay pride parade.
their immediate reaction Bill Thompson, was listening intently (before and after the parade was mentioned) then looks like he just came up with a idea and stares at the lesbian Quinn and smirks. Anthony Weiner, was enthusiastic and clapping at Mr Salgado's comments about people trying to ban Bris Milah, and was listening intently when he mentioned the parade, then writes something down and jots a look at Quinn and smirks. Bill DeBlasio and John Liu, both are straight faced the entire time. "Married" Lesbian Quinn, has a holier than though smirk on the entire time up until Mr Salgado mentions the gay pride parade, she then has a annoyed confused face until after Mr Salgado finished saying there trying to ban it all together, then she looks like her dog was shot, she then goes from biting her tongue, to redoing her hair before going back in to her usual condescending smirk.
When it was his turn it, Bill DeBlasio attacked Erick Salgado for fighting for arguably (kares) most important mitzva in torah, and DeBlasio only cared about the implied 100% true insult to the gay "community". His attack led to heckles from the more than 90% orthodox audience, and Christine Quinn starting to lead a vibrant clap consisting of her and Liu and a few reporters. This in turn led to booing and caused moderator Avi Schick to ask people to "hold their comments till the end".
John Liu in response to BDB said "This is a great city, where we can embrace our true diversity, whether it be the "pride" that is exciting with members of the LGBT "community", or the growing Orthodox community right here in Brooklyn and other parts of the city."
Christine Quinn YMS then proceeded to lecture the Jewish community on "tolerance" while NEVER addressing the fact that there is a movement to ban Bris Milah, She "forgot" that the only "attack" on the gay "community" was the fact that the gay pride parade allows a group to march in their parade that wants to ban Bris Milah. she then proceeded to say she will keep Bloomberg's regulations with out ever adressing the fact that their is a move to ban Bris Milah in this country that is led by members of the said gay "community".
The shocking part is that may have not been Christine Quinn;s most egregious attack on the Jewish community in the forum which was easily over 90% Orthodox. Christine Quinn spoke about her "wife" 3 times. The most egregious of these was in a question about what sports team she liked she responded "when I married my "wife"
Erick Salgado won the event by being the strongest on MBP and other religious infractions even linking MBP to the previous Bris Milah ban attempts and the FACT that gays march every single year in NY's gay "pride" parade. He further spoke about how the Jewish community came to this country for Freedom of Religion and how that is under assault. He also spoke very strongly about defending the Yeshiva Parents from high tuitions.
Rumor has it that COJO and the FJCC are very upset that Erick Salgado attended the event and even worse gained support in the Orthodox community.
From Yeshiva World News
It’s
only a straw poll, so don’t give too much thought to the results.
However, based on the response to our questionnaire by a diverse group
of ages and gender, the results of our straw poll, conducted Tuesday
night after the FJCC mayoral forum, reflect the overall public opinion
polls.
There’s one exception though. Christine Quinn, who didn’t hide the
fact that she’s from the LGBT community, switched places with Erick
Salgado. Mr. Salgado, whose Orthodox supporters are passionate about his
candidacy, got the support of 26% while Ms. Quinn was the preferred
choice by 7.4%. Former Councilman Sal Albanese didn’t pick up any
support among attendees at the forum. Yet he managed to impress, good
enough to be considered as the second choice by 22%.
A whopping 62 percent said they do not trust the candidates based on
their promises on the campaign trail while 20% said they do trust the
candidates. 18% expressed no opinion.
While the Democrats can rely on the Orthodox Jewish voters to turn
out in the primaries and influence the vote, they are unlikely to get
the same level of support in the general elections when faced with a
Republican challenger. According to our straw poll, only 26% are
committed voting for the Democratic nominee in the November election
while 34% plan to vote for the Republican nominee. 40 percent were
undecided.
Full results below: Q #1: If primary elections for mayor of New York City were held today who would be your choice in the Democratic party?
Erick Salgado 26%
Anthony Weiner 18%
Bill de Blasio 15%
Bill Thompson 11%
Christine Quinn 7.4%
John Liu 4%
Undecided or NE 18.6% Q #2: Who is your second choice?
Bill Thompson 27.5%
Sal Albanese 22%
Bill de Blasio 17%
John Liu 16.5%
Anthony Weiner 6%
Christine Quinn 5%
Erick Salgado 5% Q #3: Do you trust the candidates based on their campaign promises?
Yes 20%
No 62%
No opinion 18% Q #4: In the general election November 5th, would you vote for the Democratic nominate, the Republican or an Independent?
Democrat 26%
Republican 34%
Undecided 40%
(Jacob Kornbluh – YWN)
Lloyd Schofield (2nd from the left) was the main person (gay of course) behind the ban, Matthew Hess (immediately to the left of Schofield) who's responsible for the Anti Semitic, pro gay, Anti Bris-Milah comic book (who found out about the Anti Bris Milah at a San Diego Gay Pride Parade). This bill would have banned Bris Milah altogether!
