Tag Archives: Civil rights

“A brave stand”

Posted on by |

While all agree that some traditions should be honored, others must be put to rest as our national values and notions of tolerance and diversity evolve. At any rate, no amount of history and tradition can cure a constitutional infraction.

Does this sound familiar? It’s from the January 11 ruling on Ahlquist v. City of Cranston, in which an explicitly sectarian prayer banner was ordered removed from the wall of a public high school. The Rhode Island school district argued that “the prayer, which dates back to the early 1960s, is an historical memento of the school’s founding days, with a predominantly secular purpose.” The plaintiff who took her school district to court is a 16 year old student, Jessica Ahlquist. Here is the full paragraph from the ruling (PDF): Continue reading →

Road spam and special rights: Two great tastes that taste great together?

Posted on by |

Now this is really getting interesting. The new Board of Supervisors is apparently considering a motion to kill the volunteer illegal sign removal program, and it is not going over well with LI. I happen to agree; the program seems like a perfectly sensible way of dealing with the vexing problem of road spam.

“So in keeping with the overriding theme of this Board, paybacks, one of their first acts will be to kill this program as payback to those who helped fund their campaigns – the builders and developers and David Ramadan, and Godfather Dick Black as well. Here is the link to the staff report for this item, pay special attention to the motions at the end. They’re not doing this to keep things the way they are. This program costs Loudoun very little in minimal staff oversight, and provides its citizens with a great service – keeping our roadways safe and free of trash. But does that matter to this Board? Apparently not – this program ticks off their masters, so it must be done away with.”

Continue reading →

The first priority of the new School Board: sneer at human rights

Posted on by |

Crossposted at Equality Loudoun

The very first action taken by the newly elected Loudoun County School Board was this:

Regarding the Virginia Human Rights Act:

“I move to amend the Board’s previously adopted Legislative Program by removing the recommendation to expand the protected classifications contained in the Virginia Human Rights Act, Code of Virginia §2.2-3900 and §2.2-3901, to include gender orientation and gender identity and to further amend the Code of Virginia §22.1-78 to allow local school boards to similarly expand the protected classifications contained in local school board policies and regulations and that Staff be directed to make such other changes to the Legislative Program as to conform to the Program language of this motion.”

[from page 5 of the adopted Legislative Program]

Motion: Mr. Kuesters
Second: Mr. Fox

Vote: 6-3-0 (Mr. Reed, Mrs. Bergel, and Mrs. Sheridan opposed)

The only reason for initiating such an action is ideological, and the idea in play is that gay, lesbian, bisexual and/or transgender and gender variant youth are not deserving of having their human rights protected. The Wisconsin School District that was the subject of the film Bullied found out the hard and expensive way that this is not a good position for school boards to take. I hate to being up money when this is a fundamental moral issue, but unfortunately that’s the only language some people seem to understand.

Continue reading →

How to ruin a ‘positive statement of belief’

Posted on by |

You know, I pretty much agree with a sentiment expressed by the many people who wish the perennial courthouse unpleasantness would just go away. That sentiment is commonly expressed something like this: I uphold the right of anyone to express any belief, no matter how offensive, because that’s what the Constitution guarantees – but it would be more effective and neighborly if the way people chose to express their beliefs was limited to inoffensive ‘positive statements’.

Consider the campaign, spearheaded every year by the American Family Association*, to get store clerks and others dealing with the public to say “Merry Christmas” instead of “Happy Holidays.” I personally don’t care what people say to me; if someone says “Happy Holidays” I don’t have any trouble understanding what they mean, and if they say “Merry Christmas” I don’t jump to the conclusion that they’ve intentionally dissed some other holiday. However, this detail is important to the supporters of this group, and they have every right to advocate via legal means for the changes they want. Their campaign involves (in part) distributing buttons and stickers that say “It’s okay to say Merry Christmas.” So far, so good; that sounds like a positive message expressing their belief.

Continue reading →

It’s not personal

Posted on by |

Students riot Nov. 9, 2011 in State College, PA. (Patrick Smith/Getty Images)

I think that must be what the rioting Penn State students and anyone else making excuses would say to the victims of child rapist Jerry Sandusky, if they felt the need to say anything to them at all. Sorry you were raped, but our team is winning national championships and that makes us feel good and we don’t want any interruptions. It’s not personal.

Continue reading →

This is what hate speech encourages.

Posted on by |

Photo credit: John Wright at The Dallas Voice

This is what hate speech gives people with violent inclinations license to do. When they are erroneously told, by someone like hate group leader Eugene Delgaudio, that gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender people are threatening to something they value, such as their children or their right to worship freely, such people feel justified in resorting to violence. They are fearful, and feel that they are acting to protect something of great value.

Engaging in hate speech is not illegal. Lying is (usually) not illegal. But when hate speech is used to motivate people to make donations or to vote in a particular way, there are unintended (or perhaps intended) consequences. Anyone who engages in such behavior is unfit for public office, by definition. Such a person does not serve the public, by definition.

Continue reading →

Randy Minchew Opposes Birth Control

Posted on by |

You might have heard about Mitt Romney’s kerfuffle with a voter in Iowa over the banning of hormonal birth control (the Pill and its successors). Essentially, policies that declare “life begins at conception” would have the practical upshot of banning the Pill, and hormonal birth control in general. It should be noted that this kind of birth control is a choice made by individuals – and couples – by the millions every day. It is safe, legal, effective and has improved the lives of innumerable people for fifty years.

So, of course, Republicans oppose it.

Here in Loudoun, the LCRC and its candidates want their radical anti-choice (and anti-women) polices declared “off limits” for public debate, or even mention. Indeed, I have no doubt this very post will result in a series of comments accusing me of being sensationalist or stirring up controversy. It is in the nature of these things. But when you ask the right questions, or read the right letters, (and I do mean right letters) you discover that the LCRC’s candidate’s positions on the fifty years of gender equality progress are, in fact, directly in line with the most radically paleolithic candidate they support. Which is why candidates that purport to be “moderate” like Randy Minchew, are in fact no better than Dick Black. They want to take away our daughters’ rights and supplant them with their own paternalistic hooey. In fact, Randy (and candidates like him) are actively campaigning on it.

RandyLetter1

Leaving aside for the moment the fact that a blastocyst is not a baby, and calling it a baby is disingenuous at best, the stridency of the language and appeal in this letter is worthy of note and consideration by Loudoun’s voters. Mr. Minchew has positioned himself as a calm, moderate voice, but it is clear from this letter that he is, in truth, anything but. He is as fringey as his Senatorial ticketmate Dick Black when it comes to advocacy on this issue.

Continue reading →

Catoctin getting slappy

Posted on by |

A couple of weeks ago, Without Supervision alerted us to two remarkably bad letters to the editor attacking Malcolm Baldwin, evidently cobbled together from the results of a FOIA request for constituent emails.

As it turns out, the readers to whom Mr. LaRock and Ms. Mann addressed their concerns are unimpressed by their efforts. Here is a short response:

Dear Editor: I couldn’t believe the letter from David LaRock attacking Malcolm Baldwin, a respected community leader, just because he voiced support for an ordinary non-discrimination rule.

Here’s what I want to know: Why is LaRock so hostile toward people who may be different from himself? Moreover, why is he thinking about other people’s sexual orientation and bodies in public restrooms? I (for one) wish he would stop.

If this is the kind of thing Higgins supporters are interested in, I’ll be voting for Malcolm Baldwin.

Indeed. I don’t think this is the sort of thing Catoctin residents want their supervisor doing, or thinking about, or encouraging others to think about. Yuck.

Another: Continue reading →

Doing the wrong thing

Posted on by |

Carl Jung coined the phrase synchronicity to explain the odd coincidences that feel like answered prayers, messages from God, or prophesies.  I had such an experience today.  Chuck Colson invited me to a “Doing the Right Thing” showing at the Christian Fellowship Church of Ashburn.

Here’s the invite, front

and back

Thirty minutes after reading the invitation, I received a note from my friend Stephen Johnson alerting me to Laura Peters’ article in the Loudoun Times Mirror; Potomac Falls woman removed from son’s Boy Scout troop.

Coincidentally, Christian Fellowship was responsible for the removal of dedicated Boy Scout troop leader Denise Steele because her life partner is female.  Here’s the response from the church:

Phil Holliday, the executive pastor at Christian Fellowship Church and Esther Schaeffer, the charter organization representative, say they are simply following the rules.
When a chartered partner agrees to sponsor a scouting unit, an annual charter agreement is signed, they explained.

The controversy started when assistant scout master Skip Inabinett decided to “help” Steele by trying to break up her family.

In an email that Inabinett sent to a close personal friend of Steele’s and whose son was also in the troop, he stated, “If what you said about Denise Steele being an active sexual is true, do you feel comfortable talking with her about stepping down/resigning as an ASM … as her friend, this may be an opportunity for you to share with her about Christ’s love and the need to believe that as sinners we cannot get to heaven on our own and that we need a savior.”

Apparently, “God’s” work doesn’t involve rules of protocol or common courtesy.

To bring up an issue, there are certain steps of going about it starting with the scout master, then up to the committee and committee chair then to the charter organization. But, according to Steele and Funk, Inabinett went straight to the Boy Scouts of America with his complaint to get her removed as an assistant scout master – and it worked.
“He didn’t go through those steps. He skipped over the scout master, he skipped over the committee, he skipped over the district. He went straight to the highest level because that’s where he would get his answer. He went to the highest point to get me removed,” Steele said.

So this is the legalistic bullying behavior Chuck Colson teaches as “Doing the Right Thing“.  Good to know.  When do we pull his tax exemption?  He doesn’t need our tax dollars to pay for this behavior.

Update 20110831:

There has been some question as to who is responsible for the decision to remove Denise Steele. At 7:31PM on Aug 31, 2011, Denise posted a comment on the Loudoun Times Mirror article where she confirmed that Phil Holliday coached Skip Inabinett and served as his proxy.

Skip has not said one word because he believes in what he did (no one can change that and I know he will not apologize). He has been “coached” and supported by the Executive Pastor, who also believes Skip has done nothing wrong…to the point Phil spoke on Skip’s behalf about Skip’s “intentions” when he met with us.

Yes, I do realize this is a snarky post.

Posted on by |

Dedicated to the defense of civil liberties and human rights

In light of recent comments here and here about the threat of “sharia law,” here’s a corrective from Barton Hinkle. Those who prey on the perpetually outraged are like “the woman in Kansas who recited a special chant to keep the Bengal tigers away. Informed that there were no Bengal tigers, she replied that the chant must be working.”

In fact, this is who is embarrassing Virginia and threatening everyone’s individual liberties. The story, as reported earlier this month: Laura George, formerly a Leesburg attorney, planned to build an interfaith retreat center near her home in the southwest Virginia town of Independence. The Grayson County Planning Commission unanimously approved her project, which included a public library, interfaith education center, and ten cabins. There was a public hearing.

Continue reading →