FRC Withdraws Support For FADA Because New Language Also Legalizes Anti-Straight Discrimination

Yesterday the House Oversight Committee held a five-hour hearing on the so-called First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), which would bar the federal government from acting against businesses or individuals who discriminate against LGBT Americans on the basis of “religious belief or moral conviction.” Among the witnesses were “experts” from several viciously anti-LGBT hate groups including the Heritage Foundation, the Witherspoon Institute, and Alliance Defending Freedom.

Today the Family Research Council withdrew its support for FADA because of a change made to the bill last week which would also legalize discrimination against married straight couples on the same grounds cited above. Via press release from Tony Perkins:

Unfortunately, the proposed language of FADA was changed late last week by bill sponsors in response to criticism to make it protect the view that marriage is the union of “two individuals of the same sex” as well as the view that it is “two individuals of the opposite sex.” The hearing made clear that this “two views” approach has done nothing to mitigate opposition to or win support for FADA.

The Court’s ruling and the Obama administration is already promoting such views, but natural marriage supporters are not protected from government punishment at all. Rep. Bonnie Waston Coleman’s (D-N.J.) commented that this “two views” version of FADA, which was meant to appease the Left, is a “facade”. It is unfortunate that the bill sponsors decided to affirm the Court’s redefinition when it is clear the Left does not want a live and let live policy which the original version of FADA supported.

That policy and reference to FADA’s nondiscrimination protections for supporters of natural marriage was added in two places to the conservative GOP platform! Members of Congress should not be asked to implicitly affirm the Supreme Court’s illegitimate decision in Obergefell v. Hodges in order to protect religious liberty or conscience rights, a message that was clearly articulated in the GOP platform this week. Because of the weakened language of the bill FRC has reluctantly withdrawn its support for FADA.

The amended portion of FADA is below.FADAchange

RELATED: FADA’s two originating sponsors, Sen. Mike Lee and Rep. Raul Labrador, are graduates of Brigham Young University. As is Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee who called yesterday’s hearing. You may recall that it was the Mormon Church who also spearheaded the successful campaign for California’s Proposition 8.

  • Lumpy Gaga

    Live by the cake, die by the cake.

    • Gustav2

      What is good for the goose…

      • Christopher

        …is probably gonna give you shits for a week!

  • Butch

    Shoe’s on the other foot?

  • coram nobis

    Don’t they proofread this stuff?

    • Gustav2

      It was probably written by the ADF with help from the Liberty Council and you know how well the do.

  • kirtanloorii

    They don’t like the taste of their own medicine.

  • Ninja0980

    Gee, discrimination isn’t as much fun when it’s directed at you is it?

    • zhera

      I wasn’t able to keep up with the live feed and commenting on the hearing, so I’m confused. This new language was there before the hearing started, and PerKKKins only reacts to is now?
      Did the bigots think they could allow that language in the law but no-one would notice and no-one would slam it back in their faces?

      Like I said: I’m confused. I expect reason and logic. It’s my biggest flaw.

      • BlueberriesForMe

        With Tonette, you don’t even get an extra egg roll. Only hate, bigotry, and the belief that the whole world is based on what he and his “friends” think is “right” and “moral”.

  • Queequeg

    So the House wasted five fucking hours of our time trying to come up with more efficient ways to discriminate. What about Zika funding, hearings for a new Supreme Court Justice (yes, that’s the Senate), gun laws, and a myriad of other legitimate concerns? Are they done persecuting Hillary?

    • WeRTheSquirrels

      No. No. No. No. and No. But I didn’t have to tell you that.

    • nocadrummer

      No. We’re likely to have at least ONE (if not several) more hearings on Clinton. Benghazi is ripe for another hearing.

      • JohnMyroro

        And it should be held there.

      • SoCalGal20

        Expecting them to hold hearings all through Sept. and Oct. about Clinton’s emails and RBG trashing Drumpf, with a some October surprise related to the emails.

      • TampaDink

        I predict that there will never be an end to hearings & investigations into Hillary, whether she wins or loses, until (perhaps) she has been dead for more than 2 decades.

        • glass

          LOL, Chernobyl will be a metropolis of 2 million people when they stop going after Hillary, and blaming Obama for “stuff”.
          The jesus cult never gives up.

      • lymis

        Remember, there are people in Congress who said last year that they intended to impeach her on the first day she was in office. (Regardless of whether or not she did anything wrong.)

    • Gustav2

      No, yesterday also saw GOP lawmakers grill Attorney General Lynch over Clinton emails, get few answers

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/07/12/loretta-lynch-bill-clinton-meeting-hillary-clinton-emails/86951794/

      • Queequeg

        Yet stupid people still vote for them.

        • Gustav2

          In some of our gerrymandered congressional districts in Ohio there is no viable Democrats running or it is just not worth the bother…

      • lymis

        Gotta love “How dare she insert herself into the investigation in any way! She has to recuse herself and stay completely out of it!” followed by “Why don’t you know every detail of every aspect of the investigation and why didn’t you step in to influence it?”

    • Butch

      It’s now too late for any Zika funding because the GOP inserted provisions barring funding for Planned Parenthood and the ACA into the proposed funding bill and Democrats wouldn’t accept them; health experts are now saying it’s too late to do anything about the outbreak, and the GOP is trying to blame Democrats because they wouldn’t accept the poison pills.

      • Queequeg

        Yeah, then headlines read “Democrats block Zika funding” what bullshit, not to mention lazy reporting.

        • Gustav2

          (wrong place)

          • Ninja0980

            Indeed… that is the sadly the case in many areas which is why I don’t think we’ll take back the house this year or any year until the maps can be redrawn

      • Uncle Mark

        Makes me wonder how many pregnant women in those Red Southern states will be infected and looking for one of those rare abortion clinics their representatives tried to wipe out. Of course the Democrats will get the blame for any Zika infections; if only we didn’t love Planned Parenthood & hate Confederate Battle flags so much. (Seriously, cutting Planned Parenthood would have been enough of a reason for killing the bill, but that Confederate flag addition was just an over-the-top FU to the Democrats.) I sure hope the legislative game-playing is worth all that unnecessary human misery that it causes. (Cost-saving “thoughts & prayers” to all the Zika babies born next year.)

    • Sam_Handwich

      here’s the senate calendar for the remainder of 2016

      • TampaDink

        Nice work if you can get it.

      • William

        Can Obama sign a recess appointment on any of those blacked out days?

        • The_Wretched

          No and the SCT has blessed the idiotic trick that prevents recess appointment. The Senate doesn’t adjourn / recess when they take multiple weeks off anymore. The hold ‘pro-forma’ sessions typically without quorum (how this is ok is still beyond me) and thus the pres. doesn’t get recess opportunities.

          • William

            Bastards.

      • Sk3ptic

        EXHAUSTING!!

      • delk

        And Rubio still complains?

        • TampaDink

          He has suspended his complaints about how much he hates being a U.S. Senator, now that he has decided to run for reelection. I hope that the voters of Florida will not allow him to retain such an awful job.

      • Queequeg

        Yeah, tough schedule.

  • PickyPecker
  • JohnMyroro

    Ah, religion. Still poisoning everything.

  • nocadrummer

    Sen. Mike Lee and Rep. Raul Labrador, are graduates of Bring ’em Young University.

    There. Fixted it.

    • David F.

      Don’t you mean Boink’em Young?

    • Palmer

      Non-Mormons in Utah call it Breed’em Young.

  • Jeffrey Hitchin

    “Natural marriage”? Nothing about marriage is natural; it’s an artificial construct created by us for reasons other than love and companionship originally (or so it seems at least).

    • vorpal

      But Jesus…

      • Ha! HA!! you said “butt squeezers”! I just love you, you pervert!

        …um… Is it too soon to lay off the meds?

        • Ginger Snap

          Hi stranger where have you been lately? Maybe it was me who was missing?

          • Ginger, my love, my life has been utter chaos since the beginning of the year. And just as soon as I managed to beat the beast back into the swamp from whence it came, it sent its little brother, Bronchial Pneumonia, to pick up where it left off. Thankfully the meds – elephant suppositories all! – are working full-tilt now. I feel tons better, and only do my pissed off walrus act a couple of times per day.

          • Ginger Snap

            I’m glad to hear you are doing better and sad to hear it’s been a crappy start to 2016 wich will be gone in a flash. Glad to have you back and stay healthy and strong girl. Sweet Kisses

          • Kruhn

            Hey guys, how do you unblock someone? I blocked someone by mistake. I wanted to block one of those spam messages, but mistakenly blocked the person above it. Fat Finger Syndrome.

          • Ginger Snap

            I have no idea as I don’t block anyone. Go to the main page of Disqus it should be there.

        • vorpal

          Awwww, Mommie Dammit… I love you, too, and both me and my perversion (generous quantities and plenty to go around) thank you!

          =squeezers you until you beg for mercy=

          If you need help laying off the meds, I have the perfect place to hide them so they are safe: inside of me :D.

          • One – you will NEVER hear me beg… well, OK, but not for mercy.
            Two – so you think I won’t go “hunting”?… heh!, silly boy! What did you think elbow length rubber gloves and 5 gal. drums of Crisco were meant for?

    • Wynter Marie Starr

      Actually marriage for the reasons of love and companionship is a relatively new concept. Pair bonding might have been established for those reasons, but marriage was for the purpose of legitimizing children so men would know that offspring were theirs. Then there is marriage for political alliance or monetary gain or to settle feuds. Love had nothing to do with any of those things. Notice the basis is also about control of women.

      • MonochromeMouse

        yup “traditional marriage” is only about 200 years old, marriage used to not be about love and was often among relative strangers and it didn’t even need to be consensual so long as the bride’s father accepted the groom’s dowry payment

        • Incorrect – “traditional marriage” as they would have it known, didn’t exist until the 19th Amendment was ratified giving women full suffrage. Until then, women were still property of either their father or husband. Breeding stock only slightly less valuable than a good heifer.

          … and yet, there’s silly bitches out there who actually support that shit.

          • Mary Burnham

            <<o. ✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤:::::::!gq284p:….,….
            .

        • Wynter Marie Starr

          Unless the culture demanded a bride price. Dowery is where the bride’s parent’s pay for the groom, bride price is where the groom pays for the bride.

          • J Coop-Klamer

            … as in ’50 silver shekels’ to the father of a rape victim. Now that’s a Biblical/scriptural marriage!

          • Wynter Marie Starr

            That’s not really considered a bride price. That’s payment for defilement of property. Bride price is about the status and worth of the woman. There are so many definitions of marriage throughout history and culture that to say our current way is the only way or the best way is arrogant to say the least.

          • J Coop-Klamer

            Totally agree. My point was the woman was nothing but “chattel” (personal property other than real estate) … even after being defiled, just that the rapist had an out and the woman had no choice – it was business as usual between the father and the groom/rapist.

          • Wynter Marie Starr

            Yes, that is the truth of many cultures and is still true today I’m some cultures. If you want to see real equality, look to matriarchal cultures, where men didn’t have to be put down in order to make the women feel better about themselves.

        • leDaver

          In large measure, that is still the case in many countries to-day, especially India and Pakistan, where arranged marriages are the norm rather than the exception.

      • clay

        There were also the common law marriages of the common people, often to form family economic units– marry whomever is available and a decent worker– you’re all in the same community with the same values, anyway.

        • Wynter Marie Starr

          Yup, that too. I didn’t include all the reasons/forms of marriage; they were and remain varied and most have nothing to do with love.

          • BobSF_94117

            In many cultures, marriage was also about love and attraction. We too easily latch unto the marriages of the upper classes as legitimate examples of marriage in historical times. For the majority of people, who lived small lives in small places, with very little to pass down, many people married people they fancied, or at least the man fancied the woman. And, despite the horrible examples of aristocratic and royal marriages, most parents took the wishes of their children in mind before marrying them off for a donkey or two. (At least in Europe.)

          • Wynter Marie Starr

            If one were lucky, that was indeed the case. But often marriages were arranged and the couple (especially the woman) had little say in it. It was still about the legitimacy of children in part, however.

            There are many studies of marriage throughout cultures and classes. It is acknowledged that love was rarely a consideration no matter the class. It’s really a fascinating thing to study, especially since most people think marriage has always existed in the form we are familiar with.

            My favorites are the marriages of Nepal in which one woman married all the brothers of a household and the so called walking marriages.

        • clarknt67

          Even common law had patriarchial motives. The goal was to ensure wives and kids of deadbeat dads could still be held financially accountable for the families, absolving the state of providing for them.

      • Gyeo

        In many ways, same sex marriage is making the concept of marriage better. It’s no longer about patriarchal control over children, but about love and raising a family despite genetics. It’s far more altruistic.

        • Steverino

          Exactly.

        • Wynter Marie Starr

          I agree. Allowing for marriage equality brings us much, much closer to the Western modern concept of the institution.

      • J Coop-Klamer

        Not to mention, if a woman had any “choice” in the matter, it is definitely not the biblical definition of any kind of ‘traditional marriage’.

    • Lane

      It’s the term the anti-equality folks use because it immediately makes our marriages “unnatural” by extension without them having to use that specific language (and all that “unnatural” sex we have!). It’s very clever, actually, but it’s also cruel (telling that nice Windsor lady her marriage was unnatural!) and so it doesn’t always work as well as they’d like.

    • TampaZeke

      Exactly. Less than 3% of mammalian species, and NO ape species, have monogamous males. The purpose of marriage was to impose completely unnatural relationship strictures upon human males. I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing for people who want to commit themselves to such a bond, but we shouldn’t pretend that there’s anything remotely natural about it.

  • Rex

    Looks like Tony was argle-bargled.

    • Ginger Snap

      Covered in applesauce.

    • BillyDee4

      And I thought it was hodgy-bodgy.

  • Frostbite

    I feel so bad for them, I’ll pray that Congress sees the error of their ways and addresses this immediately. That should be effective, right? *Chortle*

    • Johnny Wyeknot

      Well, it might help if you closed your eyes and put your hands together.

      • Frostbite

        Worshiping Dionysus has much more fun rituals.

        • Johnny Wyeknot

          That’s for sure!

      • BillyDee4

        Especially if you are driving a car.

  • Cuberly

    “… it is clear the Left does not want a live and let live policy which the original version of FADA supported.”

    Funny, that’s how I view accommodation laws. You may not agree with each other but services should still be provided. Then the haters can go to their churches on Sunday and hate to their hearts content.

  • Skokieguy [Larry]

    Hysterical! We demand the right to impose our beliefs on you – but oopsies, we allowed you to impose your beliefs on us.

    • clay

      Like that madrasa in Louisiana. I’d thought Perkkkins would have heard about that.

      • Skokieguy [Larry]

        Shhh! How are we going to teach the youngin’s how to sharia?

        • clay

          “Jimmy, sharia your treats with your little brother.”

          • Skokieguy [Larry]

            And to that I reply

          • Robincho

            Unlike my Colombian Sweet Babboo, who is “mount-‘n’-groan” all the way…

  • bkmn

    Couldn’t happen to a bigger, more deserving asshole.

    • nocadrummer

      · Assshole before Family Research Council
      Ȏ Asshole AFTER Family Research Council

      (Note the guish.)

  • Ben in Oakland

    I guess they will have to be more specific.

    This law applies to homos. It does not apply to straight people.

  • RJ Tremor

    There is no such thing as “live and let live” in Tissue Paper’s world, aside from letting us live in general rather than have equal rights.

  • Randy503

    Listen up, dip wad. The likely reason it was amended was because if you target any group for discrimination, it will clearly be ruled unconstitutional. By adding that language to cover for same sex marriage AND opposite sex marriage provides at least a fig leaf for their discrimination. That language was put in their by your haters to HELP you discriminate.

    So it’s back to the drawing board. You need to square the circle by finding a legal way to discriminate against gay people that will not run afoul of the US Constitution and SCOTUS rulings. I bet you can’t, but try you will.

    • Johnny Wyeknot

      I like the term but what is it? “dip wad”

      • TampaDink
        • Johnny Wyeknot

          I like the explanation that it’s the combination of dipshit and dickwad.

          • TampaDink

            That is my favorite of the definitions listed too.

      • RoFaWh

        Those of us who know the answer aren’t saying.

        • TampaDink

          I didn’t know…but can always count on Urban Dictionary to help me out in these situations. ;-p

      • Think of stupidity at a level of incapable of walking and breathing at the same time…. you get the picture.

      • Sk3ptic

        I always took it as a wad of chew, as in, “would you like a dip?”

        • The_Wretched

          Or the person with a huge wad of dip (chew tobacco) bulging out their lower lip. Stereotypically, morons and ugly.

          • Not to mention their ever-present spit cup.

          • The_Wretched

            It’s so fucking disgusting.

      • OdieDenCO

        Dip wad: a group of dips

        • Johnny Wyeknot

          Ah! Very helpful!

    • The_Wretched

      Given the relative rarity of gay folks overall and in a position to discriminate, Tony could best have met his goals by supporting the amended bill. Purity keeps them from getting what they want.

      • clay

        The perfect is the enemy of the good, or something like that.

        • BlueberriesForMe

          Me: “Perfect is the enemy of ‘good enough’ “.

    • You remind me of the incident in the Texas House when the anti-sodomy laws were re-introduced into the state penal code in the 1970s (as told by Molly Ivins, may Karma bless her):

      The sawed-off representative from Pampa TX exclaimed, “Moooooove to reintroduce homosexual sodomy into the penal code!”
      Some constitutional scholar reminded said vertically-challenged rep that such a law would be struck down by the state courts for being discriminatory.
      “Not a problem!” exclaimed the rep, whereupon he raised his hand anew and proclaimed, “Mooooove to reintroduce *heterosexual* sodomy into the penal code!”

    • Charles A. Hake

      Let’s see—from the time of the Pilgrims onward, America was largely settled for, and founded upon, religious freedom [of expression/conscience]; the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees to all the right to the free exercise of religion; religious freedom is accordingly known as our “first freedom”; America has thus had a robust history of making accommodations on the basis of people’s sincerely held religious beliefs, from conscientious objectors not being forced to engage in military combat to present-day Islamic employees not being forced, say, to drive liquor trucks. All of this being true, and given that there are any number of wedding vendor (bakers, photographers, florists, innkeepers, etc.) who are perfectly willing to be involved in a same-sex “marriage” ceremony or reception, why is it that those vendors who DO feel such participation is a violation of their faith, an affront to God and His moral order for which they will be held accountable, must be government-forced—upon penalty of fine, lawsuit, or complete forfeiture of their business—to serve an event like a gay “wedding”?

      And why is politely declining to serve an event like a gay “wedding” considered to be “discriminating” against gay people, any more than forcing a wedding vendors to violate their faith/conscience by participating in such a controversial event is discriminating against people of faith?

      Doesn’t sound very “American” to me.

      BTW, should a gay baker likewise be government-forced to bake a cake for a Westboro Baptist Church rally for traditional marriage? And what if that baker is also asked to inscribe these words on the cake: “A man shall not lie with another man; that is an abomination. —Leviticus 20:13”

      If not, then neither should a Christian baker (or other wedding vendor) be legally coerced to serve any event/activity that, to him, is a sinful violation of his or her faith.

      Agreed?

      • The_Wretched

        “And why is politely declining to serve an event like a gay “wedding””

        Indeed, why is it discrimination to politely serve black people at your lunch counter?

        Also, you might want to brush up on your history prior to the current U.S. Constitution. The early colonies and first Constitution allowed for established religions. What happened as each colony picked one sect and punished and repressed all other sects in its jurisdiction. Worse, they had border issues with neighboring colonies and internal tarrifs based on the religion of the shipper or vendor.

        And lose the quotes on wedding. Gay marriages are a civil event and accorded equal dignity at law (and morally).

        And there’s a difference between making a regular cake and a hate speech labeled one….I give up. You have a lot wrong and harmful there.

      • Steverino

        First of all, any “Christian” baker who would deliberately misquote scripture to cloak, under cover of religion, their animus toward a gay male couple, casts aspersions on said “Christian’s” “sincerely held religious beliefs.” It would take a rather large cake to inscribe it all, but here it is: “If a man lies with a man AS THOSE WHO LIE WITH A WOMAN, both of them have committe an abomination, they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them. – Leviticus 20:13. Or shorter, “You shall not lie with a man AS ONE LIES WITH A WOMAN, it is an abomination. (Emphasis mine)

        Now, I know of no gay man who has ever had sex with a man as he would have sex with a woman, because the very notion is absurd. Applying these passages as somehow being relevant to gay men is as absurd as instructing a straight man not to have sex with a woman as he does with a man. But, if it is the “sincerely held religious belief” of the baker to misquote and misapply the Infallible, Final, Authoritative and Unchanging Word of God to a gay couple, why not take that error to it’s logical conclusion and allow the baker to put that couple to death right then and there at the bakery, of which Ted Shoebat would approve. If that is an element of the baker’s “sincerely held religious belief,” isn’t that where the impetus behind FADA ultimately leads?

        But if said baker were hired to bake a cake for a straight man about to head to prison, with either or both of those passages inscribed, although tacky, at least it would be addressed to the appropriate audience, that is, somebody about to enter an institution where that Levitical practice is common (straight men having sex with other men when no women are available).

        So, if this is all about the Bible and “sincerely held religious beliefs,” and not selective persecution of gay couples (who often have their own sincerely held religious beliefs), nor animus against gay people cloaked in religion (as Anthony Kennedy warned against), how about this inscription on a wedding cake by a baker itching to express their sincerely held religious beliefs: “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery.” – Matthew 19:9

        That would be a great way to stick it to approximately 50% of the straight population in this country, including people like the late Ronald and Nancy Reagan, Newt Gingrich, and Donald Trump, to name a few notorious examples, wouldn’t it?

        But you know, and I know, that’s very unlikely to ever happen, which is why the whole “religious freedom” argument supporting FADA and related RFRA legislation is bullshit. It’s animus against gay people cloaked in religion, pure and simple.

        Agreed?

      • Reginald Thorkinson

        Religion is a choice, sexual orientation is not. People change their religion every day, sometimes they just become unreligious. Nobody is born religious, they can’t reproduce religion in their babies, they have to indoctrinate them.

        • brenbeaz

          You nailed it!!

      • Wyn Paul Williams

        American religious freedom was the freedom to WORSHIP who and how you like not the freedom to DISCRIMINATE against anybody you like 😉 major difference there..

  • Marides48

    What goes around, comes around. Life’s a bitch TP!

  • Mark Neé Fuzz

    If it’s sin for the goose, it’s sin for the gander. If it’s ok for one, it’s ok for the other. Those are the only two valid options.

  • William Tigano

    The words “religious belief” and “moral conviction” should NEVER sully any law in the US EVER…especially in the damn title of the legislation. These people have lost their damn minds.

  • Reginald Thorkinson

    The gander was goosed!

  • Michael Rush

    You can’t have your gay hate cake and eat it too .

  • marshlc

    No, dammit, I meant MY sincerely held religious belief, not YOURS!

    • b

      “Sorry Mr. and Mrs. Christian, I was going to sell you this insurance policy, but my sincerely help Sharia Law beliefs tell me your marriage is invalid. And don’t sue — I am protected by FADA.”

  • John Masters

    Ghee, when discrimination cuts both ways, it’s suddenly not such a good idea to them…raise your hand if you didn’t see that one coming.

  • DaveMiller135

    Score one for eyewash. Thet was unixpected.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm94ygLMtBc

  • William

    Give that man a boomerang!

  • Michael Rush

    These people can’t comprehend how there could be anyone who doesn’t share their exact beliefs , but they don’t agree with each other either .

  • Richard Rush

    The proper title for this bill would be the First Amendment Defilement Act.

  • LovesIrony

    boxcar tony talking live and let live, sure, that’s what your kkk members want.

  • Skeptical_Inquirer

    Why can’t people discriminate against straight married people if they want? Jesus himself booed people who got divorced then remarried. I should be allowed to discriminate as much as I like against people like Kim Davis, Trump, John McCain, Rush Limbaugh, and if I traveled back in time, Ronald Reagan.

    • lymis

      This law would mean that someone who “doesn’t believe” in your divorce can send half your paycheck to your ex-wife and include your ex-wife on your medical coverage while refusing to cover your current wife.

      No way they’re going to let that slip by them.

      • Stev84

        Newt Gingrich was steaming mad at that part

    • clay

      It’s why that Virginia GOP delegate says he “can’t” vote for Trump.

  • Still more proof that those who propose prejudice and discrimination enabling laws always presume they themselves will never once in their lives be on the receiving end of said discrimination.

    • Gustav2

      When you have spent your entire life imagining you are on a pedestal…

      • Reginald Thorkinson

        …the fall is mostly metaphysical.

    • Ninja0980

      Yup, all the stuff they say LGBT should be okay with doing they don’t want done to them.
      Gotta love the hypocrisy there.

  • “It is unfortunate that the bill sponsors decided to affirm the Court’s redefinition when it is clear the Left does not want a live and let live policy which the original version of FADA supported.”

    Wait… what?! I think I just got whiplash from that hypocrisy.

    • ‘Live and let live’ is one of their new buzzword phrases which mostly means nothing at all, but what little it does actually mean is the opposite of what it is. You’re right though, the sheer baldfaced hypocrisy is breathtaking.

      • Skeptical_Inquirer

        Their abuse of the language has made me hate words like “freedom,” “patriot,” and “liberty” because they’ve Orwelled the hell out of those words.

        • Amen!, said the Pagan lady!

          I used to think Orwell’s 1984 was just fiction… and then Ronald Reagan happened. Shit. Meet Fan.

      • lymis

        It means, “Let us do what we want and we’ll let you live. Otherwise….”

        • edrex

          I’m taking more of a “Live and fuck you” approach.

      • fuzzybits

        Yep,like “bless your heart.”

    • Ninja0980

      How are marriage bans and fighting to uphold laws that put us in prison for having sex live and let live?

    • Reginald Thorkinson

      He has crossed from hypocrisy to paradox.

  • KnownDonorDad

    Probably the most honest move they’ve made.

    Also:
    “the Supreme Court’s illegitimate decision in Obergefell v. Hodges”

    So Tony and company decide which SCOTUS decisions are legitimate? Well, alrightly then. I’m betting they approve of Bush v. Gore.

    • Natgade

      Even properly adjudicated cases are illegitimate if you don’t like the outcome.

  • Skeptical_Inquirer

    Here is a list of people that we should be allowed to discriminate against and scream “Unclean, unclean!”

    Edited to add: Not only are/were they married but failed catastrophically at it.

    http://www.democratichub.com/republican-politicians-background

    • TampaDink

      Great list!

    • Don’t know whether I should be sniggering at all the hypocrites, or if I need to take a Silkwood shower after reading that.

    • edrex

      I hate them already.

  • Ginger Snap

    Hate just isn’t the same Tony when it can be used to hate you equally is it?

    • edrex

      Hate doesn’t taste as good if everyone can do it.

  • Sk3ptic

    “Live and let live,” Tony? Really? As in “I get to live in a castle and you have to live in a wretched hovel?”

    • lymis

      Who approved the hovel? Not Tony.

      • Sk3ptic

        You’re right–six feet under is his goal.

  • Sam_Handwich
    • boatboy_srq

      BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    • Gustav2

      Have to finance some ground game?

    • Gotta pay for that wall of his somehow….

    • Johnny Wyeknot

      Haha! Well, if that doesn’t scare off his followers nothing will.

      • m_lp_ql_m

        Nothing will.

        • Johnny Wyeknot

          Probably right. But let’s see what happens when he unzips his Florida tangerine costume to reveal the Florida Chamaeleonidae that he really is.

    • clay

      Was Lewandowski still being on the payroll supposed to be “confidential”?
      Were their FEC filings supposed to be “confidential”?

  • SoCalGal20

    OT: The trailer for the musical “La La Land” starring Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone dropped today. It’s directed by “Whiplash” director, Damien Chazelle, with music and lyrics by Benj Pasek and Justin Paul. Looks good!

    http://www.ew.com/article/2016/07/13/la-la-land-trailer-ryan-gosling-emma-stone

  • The_Wretched

    “Natural marriage” ala Exodus 20:17 or deuteronomy 5:21 where the wife’s an owned good much like a slave or other chattel?

  • 2patricius2

    What Tony really wants is a SCOTUS full of justices who will impose his version of religion on everyone else. In other words – a theocracy that conforms to his prejudices. He’s going to have a hard time doing that unless Trump is elected and actually follows through on appointing justices who will do that. That’s another gamble. A big gamble. Short of that, his fantasies are screwed. Of course, he can continue to raise money either way, and maybe that is ultimately his goal.

    • CB

      Maybe I’m overly skeptical, but I think what he wants is for the “controversy” to rage on. If he got his theocracy, he’d be out of a job.

      • Skeptical_Inquirer

        Also if he has any brains (a small possibility), he’d be aware that there’s a good chance he wouldn’t be leader and would be seen as competitors to eliminate by whoever headed said theocracy.

        • Bomer

          If he actually believes this shit then they really don’t think about what happens if they were to get their theocracy and Christian sharia law. I’ve asked people like that on multiple occasions which flavor of Christianity would be the foundation of the theocracy (Catholic, Mormon, one of the many Baptist version, etc.) because it’s not like they are all compatible with each other. I have yet to get an answer.

      • clay

        or it’s one of those “Please destroy the world, master, and make me its king!”

  • O/T: I really, really LOATHE the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee), who no doubt acquired my email address because I’ve donated to both the Sanders and Clinton campaigns.

    Throughout the primaries, I was receiving upbeat “we can win, but we have to work hard!” messages from both campaigns. I felt motivated, energized and optimistic.

    What does the D-triple-C send me not just today, but yesterday as well? Messages that read like this, titled “DEVASTATING defeat” (caps theirs):

    We’re confused…

    After Bernie Sanders’ inspiring call to unity, we thought at long last Democrats would…well…unify.

    But sadly that’s not what’s happened. Grassroots Democrats just haven’t stepped up.

    The entire world is watching to see if the Democratic Party can unify today. And frankly, we’re questioning whether that will happen.

    We’re sorry to plead, but is there any chance you can help? We will lose out on our chance to win the White House and Congress otherwise.

    Will you answer Bernie’s call and chip in $1?

    For fuck’s sake, talk about a goddamned feckless, hopeless, defeatist WEAK message. They actually ask for as little as one fucking dollar, as if that’ll really make a damned bit of difference?

    (((SMGDH))) This is how the Dems are once again at risk of snatching defeat from the jaws of potential landslide victory. Whoever the hell is running the DCCC needs a lesson on messaging, psychology, and effective persuasion.

    • Treant

      “Hi, we’re not unifying! Pay us!”

      Except we are unified at this point, as much as we ever are.

      • I just wish someone would explain to whomever is responsible for the DCCC’s messaging that defeat, doom, shame and guilt are never effective motivators.

        I mean, I read that letter and all it made me want to do was to go price farmland in rural British Columbia. Like, “Fuck it, it’s over, might as well start packing.”

        • Treant

          I think they were going for “fear” and missed. By a mile.

    • SoCalGal20

      I’ll be honest, I get flooded with emails from Hillary, DCCC, and more and I pretty much just tune them out unless they include a free sticker or some chance to win something. I have donated and I will be donating but I’ve tuned out the Chicken Little messages I get from them every 8 hours or so.

      But, yeah, not exactly the message to motivate the base or get them to give money. Maybe they should look at Bernie’s fundraising emails to get ideas lol.

      • Clinton’s fundraising emails were good, too, and still are. The DCCC could learn from both of them…but I suspect they won’t. They’ve been pulling this crap for years now.

        • SoCalGal20

          You’re right that Hillary’s emails are also good. They’re often informative (“did you see what Hillary said about…”, etc) and generally pretty upbeat, though with a sense of urgency. Plus they often have incentives like free stickers or entries to win opportunities to attend events to meet Hillary and so forth. The DCCC is just depressing. And the DSCC got me on the phone the other day and the guy was not going to let me go. It was annoying.

          • I just received another one from the DCCC, not five minutes ago. Two in one day, and the 2nd one is as bad as the first. Title “losing hope” (no caps…reads like an ee cummings suicide note):

            It’s puzzling…

            After Bernie’s call for unity yesterday, we just figured Democrats would…well…unify.

            But instead, everything is falling apart.

            FIRST: We heard barely a peep from grassroots Democrats.
            THEN: A Quinnipiac poll showed Trump and Clinton tied in Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania.
            NOW: We’re questioning whether the Democratic Party can unify at all.

            We’re sorry to plead, but we’ll lose our chance at the White House and Congress without Democratic unity.

            Is there any chance you can answer Bernie’s call and chip in $1?

            Enough’s enough. I went to their website, unsubscribed, and gave ’em a piece of my mind about how horrifically awful their fundraising emails are. How, basically, their message is the antimatter mirror of ‘inspirational’

          • SoCalGal20

            That is so not the way to get people to send money. Is some intern writing their emails? It’s clearly not somebody in marketing or PR.

          • There’ve been folks on dKos who reported the D-trip-C has been doing it this way for years now. “Oh woe! We’re doomed! Give us money!” And even if you do give them money, the tone of the emails doesn’t change one whit, as if rubbing in one’s face that the gesture was entirely futile anyway.

    • TrollopeReader

      From 2014 (November): “House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has selected Rep. Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.) to serve as the next chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, a plum assignment heading into a 2016 political cycle that is expected to be much more beneficial for Democrats.

      Pelosi plans to make the decision official on Monday afternoon, but previewed her pick in an interview with The Washington Post, saying that Lujan “is really a focused operational person. He understands that getting out the vote is what this is and how we message to our base and how we message across the board to the persuadables and the rest.”

      Not sure I’d like to be referred to as either “persuadable, or the rest” …

  • I’m looking for a religion that says all other religions are bunk, that gays are just the bee’s knees, sex is awesome, marijuana is okay, and whores are people too. Anyone know this religion?

    • Sanity?

    • The_Wretched

      Sounds like a variant on the church of the sub-genius.

    • bayhuntr

      I think the Club Christians call that, atheism…

    • Jean-Marc in Canada

      I believe that is the non-religion of none of the above AKA atheism 🙂

    • Skeptical_Inquirer

      You can always be the First Prophet.

    • Honestly? Zen Buddhism. Failing that, go find a book of poetry by Rumi.

    • The_Wretched
    • Stev84

      Pastafarianism maybe

    • lymis

      Not sure about the “all other religions are bunk” part, but the rest of it can be found in a number of Wiccan traditions.

      • That’s the rub. I need to legally discriminate based upon my religion if this passes. I might have to get inventive. I could swear there was one religion like this, though.

  • bayhuntr

    After 30 years of hearing “Special Rights” thrown at everyone by the Club Christians…

  • John Ruff

    Mormons = domestic terrorists

  • TimJ

    Sorry, but am I the only one here who would hate f*** Tony Perkins smarmy-ass face in an instant?

    • TampaDink

      You go right ahead. In my eyes, he isn’t worth a fuck.

    • Matthew Delemos

      Apology accepted. And yes.

  • John Calendo

    Speaking of “shit shows” …

  • Wynter Marie Starr

    Aww, poor baby. He can dish out the discrimination just fine but doesn’t want to be subjected to it himself. What a fucking hypocrite.

    • billbear1961

      “Religious freedom” for Christer FRAUDS to use to discriminate, but NOT for OTHERS, at least, certainly not for use against THEM, the Lord’s Chosen People!!

      THAT would be different–THAT would be WRONG!!

      As you say, he’s a hypocrite.

      And the Christers have the GALL to say that it is WE who want special rights!!

      • Wynter Marie Starr

        Their favorite thing is projection. Whatever they say I turn it around to get the real meaning. They are afraid they might lost their privileged place and their special rights. They are frightened they might be treated the way they have treated others who don’t belong to their club for centuries.

  • Westcoast88

    Lee, Labrador and Chaffetz are hateful scumbags who should not be in our Congress. Blame the idiots who voted for them.

  • Natty Enquirer

    NO CAKES FOR STRAIGHT ADULTERERS!

  • Thorn Spike

    When is the Mormon church going to lose its tax-exempt status seeing that it’s nothing more than a conservative political organization?

    • Tor

      You can say that for most churches.

      • Thorn Spike

        Most churches didn’t spend millions against Prop 8 in California. At least they lost.

    • Kissmagrits

      Check out the cash value of Mormon owned companies and properties around the world. The religious side is all we usually see, but they’ve also become major movers and shakers in finance.

  • Henri205

    I’m so confused. I can perform Act A because of Reason B to citizen C for whatever reason I can find, but if you perform same Act A because Reason B to citizen C it’s wrong. Okay, FRC. Hypocritical twunts.

  • Mr. M

    Tony Perkins looks like Caitlyn Jenner before she transitioned – I love it.

    • Bruno

      Hmmm, has anyone seen them in the same room together? They’re both Republicans, after all…

      • Mr. M

        Zing!

    • lymis

      Please, if Perkins was ever in an Olympics, it wasn’t the same kind that Jenner was in.

  • clay

    They were opposed to the first RFRA back in the early ’90s once they learned it could be used to argue for minority religious recognition in federal prisons and argue for abortions when the life of the mother is endangered among Jews.

  • Just A Tranny

    It’s astonishing that if I get married a total stranger gets to legally object to said union.

    • MBear

      It’s the American Way, ya know: “Hey you people. You people over there doing something that doesn’t affect me at all that bothers me. Stop it!”

  • DaveMiller135

    “We wanted the freedom to discriminate, but certainly not enough freedom to be discriminated against.”

    • Kissmagrits

      I’ll bet Tony misses the judicial acumen of Justice Scalia in these matters. He often ignored the pesky constitution and went straight to Leviticus.

  • fuzzybits
  • Joe in PA

    Members of Congress should not be asked to implicitly affirm the Supreme Court’s illegitimate decision in Obergefell v. Hodges in order to protect religious liberty or conscience rights…

    WTF? Do they even read their own press releases?

  • Hank

    FADA….

  • Kelly Lape

    How dare you change “OUR” bill to discriminate you and “pervert” it into something that allows equal discrimination??????

  • Pablo Sánchez

    I believe Glinda said it best: “You have no power here, Be gone, before some drops a house on you too.”

  • Just A Tranny

    If your god cares who you bake a cake for then your god is a dick.

  • Matt

    Talk about “special” protections. They don’t want equal treatment in any way whatsoever. PerKKKins should be ashamed of himself, but that would require him to not be the unaware money/power-grubbing bastard he is.

  • oikos
  • WIGuy

    I guess he does not like the thought of straight couples being discriminated against.

  • Sean

    Of course there Jim Crow loving savage Tony PerKKKins is against allowing LGBT & pro-LGBT individuals & businesses to refuse service & employment to anti-LGBT savages while demanding LGBT people tolerate being refused service & employment. Hypochristian.

    • Sean

      P.S.

  • greenmanTN

    I don’t know, if it gets me out of ever attending another fucking wedding….

  • sfbob

    No matter how they “fine tune” it the law would still not pass muster. As the Supreme Court noted in Romer v Evans, creating a class of individuals (or couples) for the sole purpose of legalizing discrimination against that class serves no legitimate government interest.

    • And judge Carlton Reeves, when he declared Mississippi’s “religious freedom” bill unconstitutional made the point that it favors one set of religious beliefs under the law — there’s this little thing called the Establishment Clause.

  • Alyssa

    we have found the strategy to defeat FRC: just include the opposite of whatever they want in the same bills.

  • RLK2

    When will the LGBT community start taking Perkins down already?

    • Reality.Bites

      What do you expect us to do?

      • Truly — he only appears on “safe” TV (read “Fox”) or radio shows (read “Christian Broadcasting Network”) where he knows no one is going to challenge his bullshit, and the corporate press continues to treat him as though he were a legitimate figure.

        (And note that all Joe’s posts on him and his utterances are drawn from Perkins’ press releases — not much chance to respond there.)

  • TheSeer

    Straight supremacists.

  • Steverino

    Hello muddah, goodbye FADA…

    (Apologies to the late Allan Sherman)

    • Gianni

      😀 Good one. I’m sure Allan Sherman would approve. He had a sense of humor, I’m sure.

  • abel

    What makes Miss Tonette an EXPERT on ANYTHING? He’s a cross between a leech and a cockroach, with a good bit of weasel thrown in. I would love to see him denounced on television as the scumbucket he truly is.

  • 1Truth1

    Really? It’s the left that doesn’t believe in “live and let live”?? What an ignorant piece of shit. The wording is changed to be fair to everyone and suddenly it’s not good enough because it allows for straight couple discrimination?? Isn’t that hysterical? Scumbag.

  • JCF
  • Mary Burnham

    <<o. ✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤:::::::!gq284p:….,….

  • It takes a Republican to write a “First Amendment Defense Act” that violates the First Amendment.

    And they should have known that if they included language to allow people with other religious beliefs to discriminate, Perkins would hate it.

  • The_Turtle

    Marriage is a legal construct, a contract between two or more individuals. Whatever your religious belief teaches you, practice that in your own life with the union of individuals but do not impose your beliefs on me through law, especially regarding discrimination against any group or person.

  • Michael Hampton

    Oh. So Perkins literally just proved that he can dish it out, but he just can’t take it.