May 11, 2009

For the Record: Harvey Milk

Our good friend Dani'El over at The Judgment of San Francisco : Luke 17 posted this and I found it so interesting and informative I thought I would duplicate the post. Side note, Jim Jones was a hard core atheist.



Most of the FOR THE RECORD campaigns can be found at illuminatitv's Channel and is worth taking a look at. I like this guy. Thanks Dani'El.

Update: Hollywood may not care, but we are taking notes and calling them out on the evil they promote. That is the point of all this. Another fantastic example is the clip I have on the side about abortion. For more about the evil that is promoted in Hollywood, go to Hollywood and God.

Update: Some Republican Legislators in the State Assembly may do the unthinkable! They may be inclined to vote for Senate Bill 572, the bill that would require the governor to declare each May 22 as Harvey Milk Day and "encourage" schools to "commemorate" the life and career of this homosexual San Francisco politician as part of the school day.

Some GOP Assembly members are even rumored to either abstain or “lay off” the bill when it comes up for a vote. This vote by the full Assembly can happen any day now!

Democrats want to ram SB 572 through the Legislature and rush it to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s desk in the hopes of him signing it into law. Schwarzenegger vetoed last year’s Harvey Milk bill, AB 2567. Conservative pro-family leaders needed their fellow allies in the Legislature to come to their defense. I wonder if they will show up.

Assembly Republicans must hold the line. They must not abstain! They must not “lay off”! They must not vote yes.

74 comments:

  1. My pleasure Dan tres cruses.

    You may have noted, Calif is trying to create a Harvey Milk day for the schools, of course, that is the homogenized milk sans KoolAid. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  2. So Harvey Milk was hypnotized by Jim Jones as were 900 other people. So what? That means the gay rights movement he helped initiate is all wrong?

    "Irrelevant conclusion is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question."

    They left it out of the movie, oh I don't know, perhaps because movies always have narrative distortion to make heroes more heroic, villains more villainous, and plots more streamlined. Digging up a hero's every closeted skeleton would add hours onto the screen time.

    And speaking of villains, I thought they did a fine job making Dan White out to be a three dimensional guy. We all agreed afterwards that, at least according to the movie, Dan White wasn't really a homophobe and only murdered Milk because he was an unstable guy. No one I know took away from it that he killed him due to homophobia.

    I thought this was pretty apparent in the movie, but I guess if the colored glasses you have on are tinted a bit TOO much...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Also, this is a perfect example of ad hominem. That word is thrown around a lot and has lost some of it's meaning, but if anyone is ever looking for an actual example of it, this video is perfect.

    Ad hominem does not mean insulting someone, or even insulting someone after responding to their arguments.

    Ad hominem means attacking the person instead of responding to an argument.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The point was that the movie was pure Hollywood propaganda.

    Even though very few people saw it, it got rave reviews by ecstatic reviewers who were besides themselves with praise, and then a best picture academy award like it was gone with the wind.
    Just like with brokeback mountain etc, they are shoving their twisted morality down OUR throats, at the same time they condemn us for seeking to preserve what is righteous in God's eyes.

    I can only compare the "gay rights" movement with what I am familiar with, and that is drug addiction. I am an ex-addict.
    As a human made in the image of God, I have certain rights that we all have, but I do NOT have the right to push for "Junkies rights" so that I can shoot heroin in the streets, or teach kids about the great Junkies in history in school, or how to properly slam heroin in a 5th grade classroom.

    Just because we love our sin does not give us the right to boast in it, and demand others accept, or worse promote it over what is good, good for society, or good in God's eyes.

    God is going to judge San Francisco and LA and soon, and sexual perversion is only one of the abominations being done before Him, but it is true that the Homosexual community is in the forefront of the attack on what is decent in Calif.

    You can judge me for being judgmental, or call me hateful, evil and bigoted.
    But as we have witnessed from the recent Miss California nonsense, the world is witnessing who the real hateful bigots are, and who are the ones forcing their morality on others.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Martin,

    So Harvey Milk was hypnotized by Jim Jones as were 900 other people. So what? That means the gay rights movement he helped initiate is all wrong? 

    No, but the iconic nature the man was disproportionate to realty.

    I may have thrown off the point by placing the "Jim Jones was an Atheist? " but that was merely a side note, I had not considered, that I found interesting. The truth needed to be corrected "for the record" and that was the intention of the clip. It is not an ad Hom to point out that Hollywood hides things. It is truth. Another fantastic example is the clip I have on the side about abortion.

    You see, Hollywood may not care but we are taking notes and calling them out on the evil they promote. That is the point.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well said and brilliant analogy Dani'El.

    Blessings

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yeah also true and very interesting that Jim Jones was an atheist communist, "community organizer", like Milk, and Obama.

    When they searched the compound at Guyana, not one bible was found.

    bTW, I lived in the Western Addition for a few years, just a couple of blocks from the former peoples temple, it is since been demolished.
    Jones preyed on the poor black community there.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "The point was that the movie was pure Hollywood propaganda."

    It may very well be Hollywood propaganda, but then show that this is the case. Don't go off on a tangent about how oh, well... well.. well... Milk was a POO POO HEAD!! So there! You failed to address my criticism of the ad hominem stance of the video. It makes your argument look weak.

    "Just like with brokeback mountain etc, they are shoving their twisted morality down OUR throats, at the same time they condemn us for seeking to preserve what is righteous in God's eyes."

    No one is forcing you to watch Milk. You know, opinions you don't agree with do exist and will continue to exist, and they will find outlets for their expression. You can choose to accept their existence in our free society or choose from any of the world's fine, fine totalitarian nations.

    "As a human made in the image of God, I have certain rights that we all have, but I do NOT have the right to push for 'Junkies rights' so that I can shoot heroin in the streets, or teach kids about the great Junkies in history in school, or how to properly slam heroin in a 5th grade classroom."

    You should push for junkie's rights. Everyone should have the right to choose what chemicals they do or do not put in their bodies, and the State has no business interfering in people's private lives. The State should stop telling me what I can and can't do in the privacy of my own home. How do you reconcile 'Christian Conservative' with 'small government, personal responsibility?' Seems oxymoronic, to me.

    At any rate, there is evidence that addicts are addicts due to emotional issues, not due to the drugs themselves. Take away the crack and they'll move to alcohol. Take away the alcohol and they'll move to dandelions. Crack alone does not an addict make.

    "Just because we love our sin does not give us the right to boast in it, and demand others accept, or worse promote it over what is good, good for society, or good in God's eyes."

    Nobody is demanding that you accept it. You can and should be allowed to continue to criticize it, call it immoral, not engage in it, and attempt to persuade others not to engage in it.

    What people are demanding is that the State get out of the private lives of its citizens.

    "God is going to judge San Francisco and LA and soon, and sexual perversion is only one of the abominations being done before Him, but it is true that the Homosexual community is in the forefront of the attack on what is decent in Calif."

    Fine. Then let Him be the judge. Stop trying to get the State to legislate morality.

    "But as we have witnessed from the recent Miss California nonsense, the world is witnessing who the real hateful bigots are, and who are the ones forcing their morality on others."

    So in the 1960s, when there were riots and demonstrations against Jim Crow laws, the REAL bigots were the black people misbehaving. Got it.

    STOP TRYING TO GET THE STATE TO LEGISLATE YOUR RELIGION FOR YOU!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  9. "It is not an ad Hom to point out
    that Hollywood hides things."

    The implication is that Milk stands for gay rights, and you disagree with gay rights. You need to argue against Milk somehow.

    You could do this by saying why it is wrong for gay's to have rights, and offering evidence to back this up.

    Instead, you dig up a skeleton in Milk's closet that has nothing to do with gay rights, and proclaim it as the reason why Milk, and by extension the gay rights movement, is wrong.

    And even beyond the ad hominem, it's clearly the case that Jim Jones was able to control people through his charisma. To the point of convincing hundreds of them to commit suicide.

    So Milk fell for it too. He was the 910th victim of Jones.

    So Hollywood leaves this uncomfortable fact out. So what if they had left it in?

    Before: Milk begins the gay rights movement.

    After: Milk begins the gay rights movement and was also a victim of Jim Jones.

    It doesn't alter a damn thing. He still began the gay rights movement and the point is still that the State should butt out of people's beeswax.

    Conservative indeed...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Martin,

    You should push for junkie's rights. Everyone should have the right to choose what chemicals they do or do not put in their bodies, and the State has no business interfering in people's private lives. The State should stop telling me what I can and can't do in the privacy of my own home. 

    Touché. You're bringing up good points about the state but, red herring aside, I took away from the clip that Hollywood is orchestrating the demise of God in our society. Legislation from Entertainment™

    If something is orchestrated, like in a movie, to evoke sympathy towards a group then it is not an Ad Hom to reveal truth "FOR THE RECORD"

    Side bar: So should we stop the state and Fed from pushing the religion of Atheism?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Side bar: So should we stop the state and Fed from pushing the religion of Atheism? The (your) government should be secular not pushing any religion.

    I'm sorry that your government is now pushing the religion of Atheism. It was a real give-away when the Dawkins' picture was placed on all your money and the Congressional prayer was replaced by saluting a picture of Darwin while chanting "There are no gods!". The second give-away that the government was pushing the religion of Atheism was when they started taxing churches and took away the money for "faith-based initiatives"


    (Note: My family come from a country with DARWIN on the money, oh no!)

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Touché. You're bringing up good points about the state but, red herring aside, I took away from the clip that Hollywood is orchestrating the demise of God in our society. Legislation from Entertainment™"

    I believe the demise of God is a cultural thing and Hollywood reflects the culture. Hollywood's goal is to make money, and they appeal to what people are interested in to sell movies. If everyone was a devout Christian then they would make the most money making Kirk Cameron movies.

    Hollywood is a reflection of the culture. Nothing more.

    "If something is orchestrated, like in a movie, to evoke sympathy towards a group then it is not an Ad Hom to reveal truth 'FOR THE RECORD'"

    Still doesn't change anything. Again, Milk was as much a victim of Jones as the 909 kool-aid drinkers. So the truth that was hidden was... he was a flawed human being.

    "Side bar: So should we stop the state and Fed from pushing the religion of Atheism?"

    Yes, they definitely should be stopped from promoting the 'religion' of atheism. The problem is that some Christians often define 'staying neutral' as 'promoting atheism.' Are you one of them?

    Pop quiz: in which of the following is the State promoting atheism? There is only one correct answer.

    a) Replacing "In God We Trust" on money with nothing
    b) Replacing "In God We Trust" with "In No God Do We Trust"
    c) None of the above

    The State should not say there is a God, the State should not say there is not a God, the State should not say there is a Shiva, or a Rama, or there is no Shiva, or no Rama. The State should not have a National Day of Prayer, the State should not have a National Day of Witchcraft, the State should not have a National Day of E-Meter Readings, the State should not have a Year of the Bible, the State should not have a Year of the Quran, the State should not have a Year of the Book of Mormon.

    The State should provide police, fire, courts, and basic infrastructure. We can have a lively debate on what's included in that infrastructure (healthcare? public schools? or just highways?), but the State should not have an opinion on anything of a personal and private matter, and should stay out of the way of the Pursuit of Happiness of its citizens, providing said pursuit doesn't involve trampling on the rights of others.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Martin,

    The problem is that some Christians often define 'staying neutral' as 'promoting atheism.' Are you one of them? 

    You must be in denial if you believe that the US is taking a "neutral" stance on various subjects. By taking a very sacred Biblical  institution like marriage and turning it into a perverse system of whatever feels good, is indeed impeeding my religion and life.

    They,re promoting secular humanism these days.

    The Lemon test (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971) is gauged with:

    1. A law must have a secular purpose.
    2. It must have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion.
    3. It must avoid excessive entanglement of church and state.

    Abortions, gay and polygamist marries, and nationalized education, banning prayers in school all inhibit my religion and is causing excessive entanglement and favoring one religion over another, the religion of no God.

    Do I even have to mention the recent passing of the treasonous H.R. 1955, Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007?

    The end of the constitution as we knew it.

    "There is little doubt that this bill is specifically targeting the growing patriot community that is demanding the restoration of the Constitution." (Rogue Government)

    We are a nation of Constitution and God hating people. By writing that I will be more likely be thrown in jail with that law. We are doomed as a nation but don't take my word for it. Just give it a little more time to see for yourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Sorry for all the spelling and grammatical errors during my rant. Hopefully its still legible.

    ReplyDelete
  15. HR 1955 is now S.1959.

    HR 1955 Passed With 404 Votes! Even if it didn't get past that my point is that is what is being pushed by the people we voted into office. We have long ago lost our moral compass and we will all pay for it soon if we all don't wake up.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "You must be in denial if you believe that the US is taking a 'neutral' stance on various subjects. By taking a very sacred Biblical institution like marriage and turning it into a perverse system of whatever feels good, is indeed impeeding my religion and life."

    You didn't answer my quiz.

    And marriage may be a sacred Biblical institution, however, all the more reason for the State to stay out of it altogether.

    If the gays choosing to live a sinful life makes you uncomfortable, then this may be coming from a place in your heart where you wish to control others rather than any Christ-like place. You may witness to others, and attempt to lead them from their sinful lifestyle, but you cannot use the State to FORCE them to live as you wish.

    This is power corrupting absolutely, in progress. Nip it in the bud. Please.

    "Abortions, gay and polygamist marries, and nationalized education, banning prayers in school all inhibit my religion and is causing excessive entanglement and favoring one religion over another, the religion of no God."

    You see?! You see?! Because the State was forced to stop performing Christian prayers at public schools, somehow this equates to you not being able to practice your religion!

    Wrong!

    Anybody can pray at school and it is quite legal to do so! The State just can't offer prayers ITSELF.

    And don't forget: 'But whenever you pray, go into your room, close the door, and pray to your Father who is hidden. And your Father who sees from the hidden place will reward you.' Matthew 6:6

    "Do I even have to mention the recent passing of the treasonous H.R. 1955, Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007?"

    What are you talking about? This bill did not pass and is effectively dead in the water. Regardless, I agree with you. However, more and more government is the result of congressmen trying to please their constituents so they get the votes and get to keep their jobs. Nothing to do with any particular party affiliation or agenda. It's a fundamental flaw that I wish would be addressed.

    "By writing that I will be more likely be thrown in jail with that law. We are doomed as a nation but don't take my word for it. Just give it a little more time to see for yourselves."

    Since the bill never became law, no, you won't. Stop letting fear control your thought patterns, Mr. Little.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dan:

         "By taking a very sacred Biblical institution like marriage and turning it into a perverse system of whatever feels good, is indeed impeeding my religion and life." [Emphasis in original]
         I am of the mind the State should not be involved in marriage at all, as it is (as you pointed out) a religious institution. There should be no tax breaks for married couples. The various priviledges enjoyed by married couples should not be there. Is this what you advocate? Or do you want State sponsorship of marriage as your religion defines it?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Martin,

    You didn't answer my quiz. 

    Fine choice "d" Not replacing "In God We Trust" on money but do everything else that solidifies that claim.

    In fact the "In God We Trust" on money is the only thing left and will soon probably be removed by the likes of the ACLU and the like.

    but you cannot use the State to FORCE them to live as you wish. 

    Great we agree then. Now tell the gays to get out of our families Biblical pocket and force us to accept that behavior as a country.

    Marriage is a BIBLICAL institution and should not be tampered with, doing so is a violation of our religion and a slap to God which is also against my religion.

    I agree with you about Matthew 6:6 and I am fine with that but banning prayers? What about nationalized education or murdering babies? Homeschooling my own children will be against the law. Murdering babies compulsively effect me in more ways then just for religious reasons.

    Stop letting fear control your thought patterns, Mr. Little.  

    Please don't be confused I am not afraid of anything on this planet. My motives are for preaching purposes. I am a fighter so I cannot stand by idly as these things happen.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "murder" is unlawful killing so if the killing is lawful it is by definition not murder.

    ReplyDelete
  20. (I cut and paste that quote from a Christian defending the death penalty)

    ReplyDelete
  21. Pvb,

    There should be no tax breaks for married couples. The various privileges enjoyed by married couples should not be there. Is this what you advocate? 

    Well I never thought of that before. You are absolutely correct though. We should not get tax breaks because of marriage. In fact our income should not be taxed at all, ever. We should abolish the Fed and stick to sales tax or tariffs as it used to be, but NEVER income tax. You made a good point though.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dan, correct me if I'm wrong but is your argument - the state should not be enforcing religion beliefs upon the population therefore it should enforce my religious beliefs on everyone?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Chris,

    First, I agree, murder is unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being and wrong. Therefore, Capital punishment is not murder.

    Second, I am for neutrality but that is not what is going on here. By banning prayers or removing the Ten Commandments from some Judges court room is indeed favoring one region over another. Every judge, police station, or any other public official has the right to display verses or ten commandments or whatever. To not allow it is favoritism. I also believe that a satanist public official should be allowed to quote the satanic bible also.

    What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;  or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" don't these jokers understand?

    ReplyDelete
  24. First, I agree, murder is unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being and wrong.Then why say "murdering babies" in your previous comment about abortion being legal?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dan:
    By taking a very sacred Biblical institution like marriage and turning it into a perverse system of whatever feels good, is indeed impeeding my religion and life. 
    What a load of paranoid bilge. What? Do you think that your religion is the only one that has marriage ceremonies? There have been such ceremonies for many religions, all through the ages.

    Plus, you can still get married in whatever way you choose. Just because the "state" allows people who you don't like to get married does NOT "impede" your religion whatsoever.

    Unless you count the ability to force your views and religious views on other people as part of the "rights" of your religion...

    ReplyDelete
  26. What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" don't these jokers understand? (emphasis Dan's, as opposed to Jefferson's, et al)

    You should get a road show with this comedy act, Dan. You placed your emphasis on the portion of the First Amendment you favor -- or, really, the portion which you presume favors you -- but you ignored entirely the portion which precedes it, which deals specifically with exactly the speech you unconstitutionally promote.

    Although placing the ten commandments in a courtroom is not a "law," as the amendment describes, it does imply the advancement of a particular religion (or set of religions, as it were) over any other(s) -- this is precisely the spirit (pun intended) of the First Amendment: to prevent and/or prohibit even the implication of the promotion of a particular religion [over any other] by any government entity.

    If you can't get that through your thick skull, you're in the wrong country. I hear Iran has a nice theocracy...

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  27. @ Martin-
    Drug addiction is cruel slavery.

    If you support the legalization of drugs, you support slavery, a very cruel form of slavery that reaches out and destroys families and communities.

    We are already crawling with crazed tweakers and sick junkies who will do anything for a fix.
    Unless you want to have tax funded supplies of morphine (like the Netherlands) junkies will continue to lie, cheat and steal to get their fix. And no, a junkie or tweaker cannot be a productive member of society. (I speak as an ex junkie)

    I could go on, but there is no point.
    The exact same things are true for all sin, including homosexuality.

    Here in Sodom, they are fornicating in the streets, and it will bring God's wrath down on us all. I don't want my home state destroyed so I fight those who are seeking to do just that.

    Following close on the heels of legalized sodomite marriages, will come the lawsuits against churches who refuse to rent halls to gay marriages, or suits against christian photogs who refuse to photograph the same.
    The whole gay marriage push is really a thinly disguised attack on the church.
    God won't let it get that far in Calif.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Unless you want to have tax funded supplies of morphine (like the Netherlands) junkies will continue to lie, cheat and steal to get their fix. 

    Although you've caricatured him quite intentionally, I'd guess that Martin does want to have something like the system in the Netherlands... which, as I understand it, isn't quite as bad a place to live as any of the many theocracies currently found on the map...

    I could go on, but there is no point.
    The exact same things are true for all sin, including homosexuality.
     

    What "same things"? Are you suggesting that homosexuals, when they aren't fornicating in public, defecating on one another, and otherwise planning the destruction of civilization in their secret bi-monthly meetings, are incapable of being productive members of society?

    If you are, you are wrong.

    Even persons who commit crimes about which we agree can be, and are (in the majority of cases) productive members of society -- clearly, the problem isn't the "sin" so much as it is the individual. Likewise, many professing Christians (unless Dan's magic True Christian™ Identifier is working, we'll have to assume they qualify) are completely unproductive members of society. Some are denizens of nursing homes, some are terminally ill, some are paralyzed or infirm, etc. There are many unproductive Christians, and unless you're prepared to commit hubris publicly, I doubt you can claim with any authority that they are all willful sinners...

    Nice red herring, though, or was that just a phantom argument?

    Following close on the heels of legalized sodomite marriages, will come the lawsuits against churches who refuse to rent halls to gay marriages, or suits against christian photogs who refuse to photograph the same. [sic]

    This, unfortunately, is probably true. I can even provide an anecdotal account from my own experience -- the other day, I was refused service by an establishment which clearly posted a sign saying, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." I immediately sought out a lawsuit, and it was child's play to find a willing attorney to take my case...

    ...provided I pay his attorney's fees in advance, for an entire month of work.

    I suppose I'm just mistaken, El Dani, but I thought you lived in San Francisco, or at least in the Bay Area. I'm pretty sure the laws there are comparable to the laws where I live, and where I live, one cannot be compelled to contradict one's [religious] convictions -- no matter how bigoted, backward, or ignorant those convictions might be.

    ...or haven't you heard of heterosexual couples suing churches for refusing to allow alcohol on the premises?

    ...have you not heard of couples suing premarital counselors (usually pastors) for refusing to officiate for a couple living together out of wedlock?

    Get real, man. I didn't sue the LDS for refusing to let me get married at the Mormon Tabernacle...

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  29. We are already crawling with crazed tweakers and sick junkies who will do anything for a fix.
    Unless you want to have tax funded supplies of morphine (like the Netherlands) junkies will continue to lie, cheat and steal to get their fix.
    That sounds like a good idea!

    And no, a junkie or tweaker cannot be a productive member of society. (I speak as an ex junkie)Many drug addicts are productive members of society.

    I could go on, but there is no point.
    The exact same things are true for all sin, including homosexuality.
    Homosexual people can't be productive members of society? You say that as an ex-homosexual?

    Here in Sodom, they are fornicating in the streets, and it will bring God's wrath down on us all. I don't want my home state destroyed so I fight those who are seeking to do just that. I thought it was going to be destroyed in a month of two from fire raining from heaven. Are you backing down from your prophecy?

    ReplyDelete
  30. El Dani, I applaud your persistence.

    Before I cast my own judgment on the situation you just linked, however, I'd like to know far more about it. If, as you'd allege, the photographers were indeed being compelled to photograph an event with which they disagreed on religious/philosophical grounds, with no consideration for those beliefs, then I would agree completely with you that this is both wrong and disconcerting. While some professions entail an implied consent to suspend one's beliefs (e.g. medical professions), photography is hardly one of them. If your implied allegation proves true, then, I would support the ADF's endeavor to defend their right to abstain from photographing the marriage in question.

    I hesitate to cast judgment, however, because I expect there to be mitigating circumstances. I cannot fathom -- or, perhaps I'd rather not fathom -- a scenario in which a private photographer would be compelled to photograph a particular event, with the possible exception of the photographer explicitly stating that the patronage was refused because of the religious/philosophical considerations...

    I'm not sure about that. I don't like it, but at the least if the photographers had merely refused to cite their reasons, or offered a sufficiently ambiguous reason in its stead, this should not have been something the plaintiff could have pursued. If an employer, for instance, cites a specific reason for terminating an employee, the employee has a possible avenue for pursuing a lawsuit. For this reason, most employers refuse to officially cite a specific reason for termination, at least when employment is a mutual at-will arrangement.

    So then, if the photographer had agreed to the shoot, then backed out after learning more about it, then the photographer is wrong -- the newlyweds would have arranged for, and expected, the photographer in question, and would have proceeded in good faith that the photographer would uphold his commitment. If money changed hands, then this is even more true.

    If anything resembling an agreed-upon contract between the parties existed, then the photographer isn't being fined as a punishment for refusing the job, but as a punishment for reneging on the contract. That is an entirely fair judgment if there was a contract of sorts, or if the photographer had agreed, then later refused, and had not the sense to include an escape clause.

    For most photographer jobs, if money is not required up front, a contract is generally signed, and the customer is obligated to pay if the job is canceled beyond a certain point. If the photographer likewise cancels beyond such a point, then yes, the photographer should be obliged to pay replacement fees and/or damages.

    Whatever. If you have a more concrete example, find one and show it to me. You know my position, I suspect, so we shouldn't have much about which we can argue on this point, but I hope you're unable to find an example of compelled endorsement despite religious/philosophical beliefs, where the "guilty" party is unprotected legally. I'd guess that if any party is so compelled, then it's because they're naïve with respect to the law, and they've implicitly waived their right of protest, or of refusal to perform.

    Ignorance is not a valid defense, they say, but informed ignorance should be easily defensible.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  31. "murder" is unlawful killing so if the killing is lawful it is by definition not murder."
    Just had to comment on this nonsense. I guess the enslavement and MURDER of black slaves wasn't murder because it wasn't against the law back then?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Dani'El,

    I guess its no secret about liking Ron Paul but the only part that gets me squeamish is his view on drugs and prostitution to be made legal.

    I cannot even imagine a society where all drugs and prostitution are legal. I agree with you that drugs are slave masters. So I had to do some mental gymnastics to come to terms of what a free society means. I cannot stand the government in my pocket and life but I will honor and bow to God for eradicating evil from this wicked world, something this flawed evil government could never do.

    Arnold sure will be pushing to legalizing pot for more income like a drug dealer which makes me chuckle because my drug dealing neighbors may be picked up for tax evasion some day. I don't want that, but it still makes me chuckle.

    We are screwed as a race anyway, evil will prevail until Christ comes. Only an act of God will change our minds and I pray for that to happen soon. I am all for a free society but certainly not an evil one. I am sure a pedophile has an entirely different view of a free society then I do. So free is subjective and it will not work until evil is gone. Once there is no evil then a society will work flawlessly, called Heaven.

    That was a scary article you linked to. I do agree with Stan though.

    If anything resembling an agreed-upon contract between the parties existed, then the photographer isn't being fined as a punishment for refusing the job, but as a punishment for reneging on the contract. 

    I couldn't imagine because of my refusal to do an advertisement in a gay publication that I would be sued.

    For the record, we did do an ad in a gay magazine. I was a slut for cash back then. We did an ad for a custom closet company. We went with the ad that referenced a play on words that the company will help people "stay in their closet" and is very "Anal" in their diligent work. (The owner is not gay) Knowing our audience though we thought it would be an attention grabber. Well it was. Some liked it and he did get business from it. We had one transvestite that wanted to sue the mag and wrote a nasty letter to the owner chastising our insensitivity towards gay people.

    He must have had his panties in a wad. (too insensitive?)

    ReplyDelete
  33. "By taking a very sacred Biblical institution like marriage and turning it into a perverse system of whatever feels good, is indeed impeeding my religion and life."

    How?????????????
    Tell me how same sex marriage is impeding your life?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Dan,

    You said, "So should we stop the state and Fed from pushing the religion of Atheism?"

    Please define religion.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Froggie,

    Tell me how same sex marriage is impeding your life? 

    Trampling on my religion is one way, forcing my kids to be taught homosexual history is another. Forcing me to interact in the spirit of "tolerance" is yet another.

    Please define religion. 

    Look, neutrality is one thing but that is not what is happening in the US. What is being pushed is the religion of secular humanism or the non-pc name of Atheism, (Kind of like the difference between gay person and Fag) of course they will not outright say that, so a mere denial (like you) will allow them to pass laws like S.1959 without too much resistance.

    BTW, a slip up: Even if dicta have no legal force in the 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins decision, Justice Hugo Black commented in a footnote, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others."

    ReplyDelete
  36. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=75547

    From the link-
    "Elaine Huguenin and her husband Jon, who co-own Elane Photography in Albuquerque, New Mexico, are both Christians. So when a lesbian couple asked them to photograph their "commitment ceremony" in Taos, the Huguenins politely refused. In response, Vanessa Willock filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission claiming the Huguenins discriminated against her because of her "sexual orientation." On Wednesday, the Commission found the Christian couple guilty of discrimination under state anti-discrimination laws and ordered them to pay more than $6,000 in costs."

    ReplyDelete
  37. Of course these type of suits will never target mosques or muslim businesses, that would be intolerant.

    This is a thinly veiled attack on the church, that would use a flood of suits to basically make biblical Christianity illegal, or so taxed and fined, it could no longer function.

    The gay activists know that these types of lawsuits will cause a backlash before they can get their laws entrenched, so a call went out to stop all plans for lawsuits until the day the laws were well established.

    The do not sue plan.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Dan,
    I said,
    "Tell me how same sex marriage is impeding your life?"

    You said,
    "Trampling on my religion is one way,.."
    And how would that be? Is everyone that disagrees with you trampling on you? You continuously fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that you are persecuted whenever you are contradicted.
    ".... forcing my kids to be taught homosexual history is another."
    I've read about this but I don't see it in any public schools that me, my kids and their kids are associated with, and, as long as the history is valid, it's still history. You can't shelter them forever.

    "Forcing me to interact in the spirit of "tolerance" is yet another."

    WHOA!!!! Yeah! BabY! You surely don't want to get caught practicing tolerance now do you!

    You are disguising your dislike of the new anti discrimination laws that include the gays from not being discriminated against along with Christians, etc. because you think it is your right to preach hate and bigotry where your ancient cultural artifact claims you should.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Dan,

    I said,
    "Please define religion"

    You said,
    "Look, neutrality is one thing but that is not what is happening in the US. What is being pushed is the religion of secular humanism or the non-pc name of Atheism, (Kind of like the difference between gay person and Fag) of course they will not outright say that, so a mere denial (like you) will allow them to pass laws like S.1959 without too much resistance."

    No Dan, you didn't answer the question. You refer to atheist religion.

    Please define religion.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Scott:

    "murder" is unlawful killing so if the killing is lawful it is by definition not murder."
    Just had to comment on this nonsense. I guess the enslavement and MURDER of black slaves wasn't murder because it wasn't against the law back then?
    I've seen plenty of Christians say that God can't murder because murder is unlawful killing. (*cough* Sye) or that killing sprees in the Bible weren't murder because it was "lawful". Chris was quoting someone.


    Dan:
    I also believe that a satanist public official should be allowed to quote the satanic bible also.Quoting from the Satanic Bible is different than enforcing Satanic laws. Would you really be happy with Muslim, Hindu or Satanists enforcing you to obverse their religion? Why do you want to enforce your religion?

    "Forcing me to interact in the spirit of "tolerance" is yet another." My religion is tolerance! Why do you trample my religion? "Trampling on my religion is one way,.." Trampling on religion IS my religion! Stay out of my way to practice my religion!

    You and Dani have really gone off the deep end lately. I'm really looking forward to San Francisco not being destroyed this year so Dani can finally see how deranged he is.

    Yes, I'm going on record to say Dani's prophecy is bunk. If San Francisco is destroyed by fire raining from the sky in the next few months I'll eat my hat!

    ReplyDelete
  41. Dani'El,

    My jaw sits open. They were targeted! Believable and expected. Great job showing us that. Expose, expose, expose that is all we can do at this point. That isn't to say that people will actually listen but expose we must. I sure hope your predictions are right and the cleansing starts to happen soon. Baruch HaShem.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Froggie,

    WHOA!!!! Yeah! BabY! You surely don't want to get caught practicing tolerance now do you! 

    I don't know or care about "getting caught" but no, I do not want to tolerate raping of babies, adultery or fornication i.e. sin.

    You are disguising your dislike of the new anti discrimination laws that include the gays from not being discriminated against along with Christians, etc. because you think it is your right to preach hate and bigotry where your ancient cultural artifact claims you should.  

    Exactly, I want us all to be free to choose but I certainly do not want to be forced to have to accept what someone is doing. I just don't want the government to decide what is right or wrong. We the people should make those decisions.

    If some guy wants to bang a dude fine great go do that in your private home. Forcing down my throat (no pun) is unacceptable. Blaspheming against God by calling it a marriage is unacceptable and I will fight it. If they are doing to see loved ones in hospitals then change the hospitals rules. Why do they care so much to be called married? Benefits? Great give tax benefits to civil unions. To be called married because that is what the Bible calls it, unacceptable. Meet the requirement of the Bible to be called married, not change the Bible rules. Its preposterous!

    ReplyDelete
  43. "raping of babies" Say what?!

    And by the way, you do know that other cultures have had marriage before the Bible, right?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Dan:

         "My jaw sits open. They were targeted! Believable and expected."
         I'm going to have to do a "consider the source" on this one. That particular source (on their about page) looks like one eager to say christians are persecuted. (Strangely, I could get to the home page and the about page; but I couldn't pull up the article. I got a "pure virtual function call" error message.)
         "Why do they care so much to be called married? Benefits?"
         Probably. I understand that married couples are given quite a few legal benefits that are not extended to other pairings.
         As to your general argument, you seem to be using the playbook from the opposition to interracial marriage -- right down to calling it government endorsement of sin. I have little doubt that you would have sided with them. But it is said that hindsight is crystal clear.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Dan,
    You can run, but you cannot hide.
    Please define the word "religion."

    ReplyDelete
  46. Dan,
    You said,
    "Exactly, I want us all to be free to choose but I certainly do not want to be forced to have to accept what someone is doing. I just don't want the government to decide what is right or wrong. We the people should make those decisions."

    Hey, Dan, since you must have been living in a cave all these years, we, the people, are the government, and we have chosen our representatives.

    Fundamentalist christianity is on the way out, lil buddy.

    The,
    "I sure hope your predictions are right and the cleansing starts to happen soon."

    And that is precisely why Christian fundamentalism is on the way out. It is good that you and your ilk don't have your finger on the button.

    Your getting nuttier by the day.

    ReplyDelete
  47. What a loon!

    "Marriage" is hardly exclusive to Christianity, or even Judaism before it, and if you care so damned much about the term, use either the Hebrew word (which speaks to conjugation, including polygamy, rather than your precious ritual), or the Greek word, but don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining. Civil unions are exactly what marriage is. Only the religious, or traditionalists (never mind the fact that the latter group is misguided) consider marriage anything more. The whole thing is about rights -- the right to be at a spouse's hospital bedside, to enact a spouse's will, to make medical decisions on a spouse's behalf, to experience tax relief as a couple, to engage in joint ownership without jumping through hoops, etc.

    As for Dani's sensationalized anti-Christian gay agenda, I've said my piece regarding the allegations, but beyond that, I do find it rich that the Christian community has the balls to cry foul that they are being persecuted by the gays.

    Really?

    Considering that right now any number of Christian groups are planning anti-gay rallies, actively promoting hate speech, gay-bashing, etc., and the fact that such groups have been on the literal war path for several centuries now, I think the fags deserve some room to flex their pansy little muscles.

    Sure, I know. The members of those groups aren't True Christians™, but as Chris Rock once said (about women dressing provocatively), "They may not be [Christians], but they're wearing a [Christian's] uniform." (paraphrased)

    Give me a fucking break.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  48. A biblical marriage? Does that mean I have to marry the widow of my childless deceased brother? (Deuteronomy 25:5-10) And I can't get out of it unless she loosens my shoe and spits in my face?

    Jesus (Matthew 19) and Paul provide the only New Testament discouragement of getting married. Both Jesus and Paul seem to provide these "exceptions" because of extraordinary circumstances ("Because of the impending crisis"—1 Cor. 7:26).

    Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. —Paul (1 Corinthians 7:8-9).
    From Wiki

    ReplyDelete
  49. Calif Dr's sued for refusing to perform in vitro fert on lesbians-

    http://abcnews.go.com/thelaw/Story?id=5604598&page=1

    Mew Jersey Church sued for refusing to rent pavillion to lesbian ceremony. This one is interesting as some lines are blurred about the township.

    http://lgbtqnews.com/gaynews/new-jersey-church-owned-town-violated-rights-when-it-refused-to-rent-public-pavilion-to-lesbian-couple.aspx

    Decades old Catholic adoption agencies closing rather than be forced to set up adoptions to gays.

    http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/08/03/calif_charity_ends_full_adoptions/



    http://www.whatisprop8.com/ministers-who-preach-against-same-sex-marriages-may-be-sued-for-hate-speech-and-risk-government-fines.html

    From the link-
    "Ministers in Canada have been sued and subjected to monetary penalties and governmental infringement of their religious liberties for preaching against same-sex marriage:
    - A Catholic bishop in Calgary was the target of complaints filed with the Alberta Human Rights Commission because he issued a pastoral letter urging Catholics to oppose same-sex marriage.
    - An Alberta pastor, also the target of a complaint filed with the Alberta Human Rights Commission, was ordered to never again publicly express his religious belief that homosexuality is immoral and was required to pay $5,000 to the complainant as “damages for pain and suffering."
    - A Human Rights Commission complaint was also filed against a Catholic priest for quoting from the Bible, the Catholic Catechism, and papal encyclicals.
    - In Sweden, a Christian pastor was charged with committing a “hate crime” by preaching a sermon citing biblical proscriptions of homosexual behavior. He was convicted and sentenced to serve a month in prison. His conviction was overturned on appeal, but prosecutors appealed to the Swedish supreme court seeking to have it reinstated. The supreme court ultimately ruled in his favor.


    Froggie wrote- Fundamentalist christianity is on the way out, lil buddy..

    Yeah, we will be pulling up stakes soon enough, and I'll be in touch to see how you like it.
    Remember on that day, this was what you wished for, what your heart desired.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Side note, Jim Jones was a hard core atheist. 
    And I call bullshit on that claim...he was a religiously-effed in the head cult leader who obviously believed in what he was dishing out way too much.

    But, if Dan wants to go along with ad-hominem attacks, I can point out that he has a quotation from Martin Luther on the side of this blog. Martin Luther was the christian who wrote "On the Jews and Their Lies".

    ReplyDelete
  51. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_Temple

    San Francisco Temple
    Main article: Peoples Temple in San Francisco
    The move to San Francisco permitted Jones to return to urban recruitment and made better political sense because it permitted the Temple to show its true political stripes.[53] By the Spring of 1976, Jones openly admitted even to outsiders that he was an atheist.[54] Despite the Temple's fear that the IRS was investigating its religious tax exemption, by 1977, Jones' wife, Marcy, openly admitted to the New York Times that Jones had not been lured to religion because of faith, but because it served his goal of social change through Marxism.[20] She stated that, as early as age 18 when he watched his idol Mao Zedong overthrow the Chinese government, Jones realized that the way to achieve social change in the United States was to mobilize people through religion.[20] She admitted that "Jim used religion to try to get some people out of the opiate of religion," and had slammed the bible on the table yelling "I've got to destroy this paper idol!"[20]

    -----------------------
    Rev Wright is the exactly same type of deceiver with his Marxist black liberation theology with its thin christian disguise.
    Obama sat in that "church" for over a decade.

    2Co 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.
    2Co 11:14 And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.
    2Co 11:15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Maybe Marxism is a religion. Dan still hasn't defined what he thinks a religion is yet.

    Remember on that day, this was what you wished for, what your heart desired.Not long until we see if your prophecy is fulfilled or not.

    In Sweden, a Christian pastor was charged with committing a “hate crime” by preaching a sermon citing biblical proscriptions of homosexual behavior. He was convicted and sentenced to serve a month in prison. His conviction was overturned on appeal,He was preaching death to homosexual people. He wasn't even convicted.

    ReplyDelete
  53. That is, he wasn't convicted it was overturned.

    ReplyDelete
  54. More from the ever-reliable wikipedia:

    After traveling in Brazil, Jones returned to Indiana in 1963.[2] While Jones had always spoken of the social gospel's virtues, before the late 1960s, Jones did not reveal that his gospel was actually communism.[2] By the late 1960s, Jones began openly revealing in Temple sermons his "Apostolic Socialism" concept.[2][19] The concept often loosely mixed tenets of atheism and socialism.[note 1] During this period, Jones preached to new members that the Holy Spirit was within them, but that Jones' healing power demonstrated that he was a special manifestation of "Christ the Revolution."[2] He also preached that the United States was the Antichrist and capitalism was "the Antichrist system."[2] 
    Yeah, that's a real atheist; someone who preaches that he's some sort of incarnation of christ??

    The man was a wackjob, pure and simple. Kind of like the deranged theologian, Martin Luther.

    Well, in a month or two we'll have the opportunity to see Dani'El's prediction about san francisco fall apart.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Not a true Atheist/Scotsman?

    Jones was just like his atheist heros, Mao, Pot, Stalin, who made a religion out of the state, and idols of themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Jones disguised himself as a christian for a while, just as Rev Wright, Obama, AND Bush do.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Jones disguised himself as a christian for a while, just as Rev Wright, Obama, AND Bush do. .

    And you too Daniel, how long can you pretend to be a Christian?All will be revealed soon.Too soon for you I feaar.But don't worry, JESUS will save us all in the end.Just don't mess up this planet while we wait.

    ReplyDelete
  58.      "Calif Dr's sued for refusing to perform in vitro fert on lesbians"
         Makes sense. The procedure is elective; but the doctor has no reason even to ask about the orientation of the patient. It shouldn't be a factor. (I am, of course, assuming doctors that are willing to perform in vitro fertilization in general.) The same goes for the adoption agency. They should not be seeking or acting on such information.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I've seen plenty of Christians say that God can't murder because murder is unlawful killing. (*cough* Sye) or that killing sprees in the Bible weren't murder because it was "lawful". Chris was quoting someone.
    "Killing sprees" in the bible were the Hebrews killing in self defense, God did not 'murder people,'They were judgments after long periods of patience.

    ReplyDelete
  60.      "When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:"
         That doesn't look like self-defense. It looks like the very thing we condemn about Nazi Germany. Let's face it. You're just pulling "it's not murder if he does it." Well, that's baloney.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Those nations, or peoples were judged for their sins, like child sacrifice, idolatry, sodomy and bestiality, and yes in the case of the Amalekites, for their attacks on Israel during the exodus. They were judged by God thru the armies of Israel.

    And when the Israelites fell into those same sins themselves?
    They were judged by God thru the armies of the Assyrians, or Babylonians, etc.

    Lev 18:21 And you shall not let any of your descendants pass through the fire to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.
    Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
    Lev 18:23 Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion.
    Lev 18:24 'Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you.
    Lev 18:25 For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants.

    Lev 18:26 You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations, either any of your own nation or any stranger who dwells among you
    Lev 18:27 (for all these abominations the men of the land have done, who were before you, and thus the land is defiled),
    Lev 18:28 lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Speaking of people or the US not being neutral...remember this older post?

    ReplyDelete
  63. "Killing sprees" in the bible were the Hebrews killing in self defense, God did not 'murder people,'They were judgments after long periods of patience. 
    Yeah, because those babies that god had killed really had it coming... ;)

    One thing: when isreal was "judged", it wasn't wiped out like all those other nations was it?

    ReplyDelete
  64. YHWH is racist. The holocaust was Hitler's judgment after a long period of patience. How does that sound?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Dan said,"By taking a very sacred Biblical institution like marriage"Sorry to be late in the game and I still haven't finished reading but I needed to respond to you comment.

    Marriage is not a biblical institution at all. According to the bible, marriage was not viewed as anything more than a contract between families and two people and the christian church did not want to have anything to do with it. The Christian churches thought it was a pointless personal business matter that was not important. The bible also views the woman as being like property in the transaction. Sort of like, you get my daughter and I get the sheep.

    The Catholic church didn't accepted it as a holy institution in 1545 and it wasn't until a few years after that the the protestant church did too.

    So Christian churches have not had any concern about marriage, though it was not a religious matter and did not have anything to do with it until about 450 years ago. Since the old biblical view of marriage is still practiced in some places in the world, I would say that the traditional view you should be fighting for is women are property of men and good for business transactions through marriage.

    Word is Bond!
    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete
  66. My apologies for my poor typing an grammar, but I'm sure you get the point.

    ~Michael

    ReplyDelete
  67. Atomic Chimp,

    I have no clue where you are getting your information from but I get my info from the Bible. Since the very beginning of time Adam had Eve.

    (Genesis 2:24,1 Corinthians 7:2-4)

    ReplyDelete
  68. I guess I should have just linked to Matthew 19:4-5

    ReplyDelete
  69. Dan, that is speaking about marriage which was a practice long before Christianity but it does not claim marriage to be a holy sacrament.

    The bible talks more intimately and more often about proper practices of slavery, polygamy, killing people if they do not obey the laws of god and how women are property of men, etc....

    Here are but a few excellent examples. I can provide many, many more if you wish.

    (Exodus 21:7)
    (Exodus 21:8)
    (Exodus 21:20)
    (Genesis 25:6)

    How about these on marriage.

    Rules for disposing of hated wives. (Deuteronomy 22:13)

    Best not to marry but if you must have sex... (1 Corinthians 7:1-2 1, Corinthians 7:7-9)

    Avoid getting married. (Corinthians 7:27, 1 Corinthians 7:29)

    Anyway, the bible never owns marriage, it just give tips on dealing with it. Some are good others are pretty poor by our standards. Sometimes god says marriage is good other times he talks like its the plague. The Apostle Paul promoted the idea of not getting married or touching a woman.

    You seemed to miss the part of the christian church agreeing with my point for 1600 yrs. It wasn't until they saw how important it was to the people they decided to bring it on board the Christian religion as a holy sacrament.

    Word is Bond!
    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete
  70. I noticed we both chose one of the same portions of the bible. I think you should read the entire thing and get the full meaning of the passage, You quote mine the bible as well as you do science.

    My link chopped off a bit. Here it is again.

    (1 Corinthians 7:7-9)

    Word is Bond!
    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete
  71. oops, that should have been...

    (1 Corinthians 7:1-9)

    ReplyDelete
  72. Update: Some Republican Legislators in the State Assembly may do the unthinkable! They may be inclined to vote for Senate Bill 572, the bill that would require the governor to declare each May 22 as Harvey Milk Day and "encourage" schools to "commemorate" the life and career of this homosexual San Francisco politician as part of the school day.

    Some GOP Assembly members are even rumored to either abstain or “lay off” the bill when it comes up for a vote. This vote by the full Assembly can happen any day now!

    Democrats want to ram SB 572 through the Legislature and rush it to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s desk in the hopes of him signing it into law. Schwarzenegger vetoed last year’s Harvey Milk bill, AB 2567. Conservative pro-family leaders needed their fellow allies in the Legislature to come to their defense. I wonder if they will show up.

    Assembly Republicans must hold the line. They must not abstain! They must not “lay off”! They must not vote yes.

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>