For his anti-gay speech in a German studies class, a Texas high school student,Â Dakota Ary, a freshman at Fort Worth’s Western Hills High School, got detention, and subsequently a Liberty Counsel lawyer. Ary is claiming his “religious beliefs” allow him to make anti-gay comments in class. “I said, ‘I’m Christian and, to me, being homosexual is wrong,'” Ary said, according to NBC in Dallas/Ft. Worth. “And then he (the teacher) got mad, wrote me an infraction and sent me to the office.”
On the referral form, Ary is quoted as saying “no gays allowed in Christianity.” The form says the comment was unprovoked and out of context. The final sentence of the explanation on the referral reads, “It is wrong to make such a statement in public school.”
But Ary’s mother, Holly Pope, and attorney Matt Krause of the Liberty Counsel disagree. They said the referral, the two-day suspension and the teacher’s statement are wrong.
“Just because you walk through the school house doors doesn’t mean you shed your First Amendment rights,” Krause said. “And he wasn’t disrupting class, he wasn’t hurting or harassing anybody. He was just stating his religious beliefs in a benign, non-hostile way.”
… “I didn’t say it to be rude to anyone,” Ary said. “I said it like how I believe about it.”
Of course, that’s the common line of defense these days. “It’s my religious belief, so I have every right to it.” And of course, you have every right to your bigotry. But if the comments were racist, and not anti-gay, this wouldn’t even have been a story. The religious right is sticking with this idea, that they are being persecuted for their beliefs. If so, America has every right to challenge them, because their views, their so-called “religious beliefs” are wrong, and it’s not bigotry to say it’s bigotry. Bigots likeÂ Rick SantorumÂ andÂ NOM, the National Organization For Marriage, â€œare much more concerned about being perceived as bigots than whether they might actually be bigoted,” says Zinnia Jones:
â€œThey are unable to conceive of any kind of moral progress that could be inconvenient to their positions or contrary to aÂ particular faith. The sheer self-â€‹absorption of this mindset is breathtaking. Imagine if any other prejudice were defended with such an argument. How seriously would we take the protests of white racists that they would be seen as bigots because of integration? How much would we care about the complaints of men that they would be considered bigoted if women are allowed toÂ vote?â€
She alsoÂ says,
And no, your religion does not have the power to legitimize bigotry. Bigoted beliefs do not become excusable just because aÂ church or aÂ book endorses them. You donâ€™t get aÂ pass on bigotry by claiming that aÂ god agrees with you. People came up with the very same justifications for all kinds of prejudice. It changes nothing. Like it or not, your religion will evolve. It might deny this, it might lag behind, but religions are dragged along with the moral climate of society at large. The Catholic Church doesnâ€™t hold trials of alleged witches anymore. Mormon leaders decided that God changed his mind about allowing black people to be ordained. And some day, you will have to face the reality that your 2,000Â years of moral theology are helpless next to aÂ moment of moral reflection.
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
Trump Openly Admits He’s Fast-Tracking SCOTUS Nominee to Rule on ‘Fake Ballots’ During Contested Election
President Donald Trump is openly admitting he’s wasting no time, fast-tracking the replacement for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to help him during a contested election.
Speaking on “Fox & Friends,” Trump on Monday said because of “fake ballots,” he does not want a 4-4 Supreme Court ruling on the election, should there be one. There is zero evidence of fake ballots.
Trump suggests though he wants a confirmation vote before the elections, citing election disputes and his baseless claim of “fake ballots” being filled out. We don’t want a 4-4 tie at the court, he said
— Manu Raju (@mkraju) September 21, 2020
Trump says his SCOTUS appointment is important because of the “fake ballots” that will be sent out in the election. Again, total nonsense.
— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) September 21, 2020
He also admitted he is choosing a nominee based on how he thinks they can help him win votes in the election.
Asked to explain why Judge Barbara Lagoa is one of the top candidates on his list, Trump said, “she’s excellent, she’s Hispanic, she’s a terrific woman from everything I know. I don’t know her. Florida, we love Florida. So she’s got a lot of things. Very smart.”
Trump needs help with Hispanic voters, women, and Florida, so she checks all the boxes for him.
Trump explains that Barbara Lagoa is under consideration for SCOTUS because “she’s excellent, she’s Hispanic, she’s a terrific woman from everything I know. I don’t know her. Florida, we love Florida. So she’s got a lot of things.” pic.twitter.com/p2MkTEja6x
— Bobby Lewis (@revrrlewis) September 21, 2020
Trump, asked “is politics going to be part of” his decision on a nominee, says, “I try not to say so,” but admits, “I think probably automatically it is.”
Kayleigh McEnany Says Trump ‘Very Likely’ Will Nominate New Supreme Court Justice Before Ruth Bader Ginsburg is Buried
White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany says President Donald Trump will announce his nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, mostly likely by Tuesday. The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will lie in repose at the Supreme Court. The date of her funeral, which will be a private ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery, has not even been announced yet.
Asked if the nomination would be announced “before Wednesday,” she replied, “I think that’s very likely.”
MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Monday morning also hinted the announcement would come Tuesday.
President Trump says he will soon nominate a justice to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court.
— CBS This Morning (@CBSThisMorning) September 21, 2020
‘This Is for the People to Decide’: Jaw-Dropping CNN Supercut Lays Bare the GOP’s Stunning Hypocrisy on SCOTUS
As the battle over replacing Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — who died Friday from complications of pancreatic cancer — takes shape in Washington, D.C., Republican senators who previously refused to hold a vote on former President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court pick are now having their words thrown in their faces.
CNN anchor Anderson Cooper on Saturday played a devastating supercut that features Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) explaining why they would not vote on Obama’s nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016.
“I want you to use my words against me,” Graham said in 2016 — laying out what Cooper described as an “eerily similar” situation as the one currently playing out in Congress. “If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say, ‘Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination,’ and you could use my words against me and you would be absolutely right.”
“We’re setting a precedent here today, Republicans are, that in the last year, at least of a lame duck eight-year term, I would say it’s going to be a four-year term, that you’re not going to fill a vacancy of the Supreme Court based on what we’re doing here today,” he added. “That’s going to be the new rule.”
In his own floor speech on the matter in 2016, McConnell likewise urged Congress to give the American people a say in the Supreme Court pick.
“The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country. So, of course, of course the American people should have a say in the court’s direction,” McConnell said.
Cruz — who was shortlisted by Trump as a potential SCOTUS pick earlier this month — also insisted in 2016 that Congress should not move to replace Scalia until after the election.
“I don’t think we should be moving forward on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term, Cruz said. “I would say that if it was a republican president.”
“President Obama is eager to appoint Justice Scalia’s replacement this year,” he continued. “But do you know in the last 80 years we have not once has the Senate confirmed a nomination made in an election year and now is no year to start. This is for the people to decide. I intend to make 2016 a referendum on the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Of course, all three men have now signaled they’re much more likely in 2020 to jam a conservative Supreme Court justice down voters’ throats on the eve of an election. After President Donald Trump on Saturday tweeted that the Senate has an “obligation” select a replacement for Ginsburg, Graham said he “fully” understands where the president is coming from.
In case that statement seems vague, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman added: ”I will support President [Trump] in any effort to move forward regarding the recent vacancy created by the passing of Justice Ginsburg.”
And McConnell has also insisted “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”
And in perhaps the least surprising flip-flop of all, Cruz on Saturday wrote an opinion piece for Fox News that outlined 3 reasons why the Senate must confirm Ginsburg’s replacement before election day. In it, he touted Trump’s “list of extremely qualified, principled constitutionalists who could serve on the Supreme Court” — which, of course, included himself — and argued that going into an election with an 8 person bench could trigger a constitutional crisis in the event of a contested election.
Amazing how now of the senators were concerned with such a problem when Obama appointed his nominee.
Watch the video below to see the blatant hypocrisy for yourself:
- REMEMBER THE PAPER TOWELS?3 days ago
Trump to Announce Billions in Aid To Puerto Rico in Desperate Attempt to Win Florida
- 'SOLD!'3 days ago
‘Hip Hip, Hooray!’: Haley Praised for ‘Endorsing’ Biden After She Warns He Would Move US ‘Pretty Dramatically’ Left
- UNCONSTITUTIONAL3 days ago
Trump Asks Supreme Court to Allow Him to Remove Undocumented Immigrants From Census
- News3 days ago
McConnell Announces Any Trump Nominee Will Get Senate Vote
- OUR FASCIST PRESIDENT3 days ago
White House Preparing Shortlist to Replace FBI Director Wray After He Testified on Russia Attacking Election: Report
- EDUCATION2 days ago
Dept. of Education threatens to withhold $18 million from schools that let transgender athletes compete
- 'SOUNDS ABOUT WHITE'2 days ago
Republican state leaders threaten violence in “coming war” with Black Lives Matter
- RELIGIOUS HYPOCRISY3 days ago
Drunk and Disgraced Jerry Falwell Jr. Lost ‘A Lot of Blood’ After Fall, Wife Becki Told 911: Report