gdp's Comments

The New Civil Rights Movement : Church Groups In San Antonio Fail To Put Non-Discrimination Ordinance On The Ballot

Wed, 16 Oct 2013 19:53:50 +0000

Listen, I have no standing to sue and no advantage comes my way should anyone with standing seek to challenge these groups. I understand you are sore that you got maybe 20K signatures and needed over 60K, but I would appreciate it if you didn’t pretend you are enlightened and I am “uninformed.” If you truly believe that Citizens United protects you and that is the advice of your lawyers, then so be it. I only have a decade and a half of civil litigation experience to know that, whether Citizens United is later applied to this scenario or not, a legal battle is possible and it will be extremely costly to all parties involved should it arise. There are obvious Chapter 27 issues and you might withstand the suit, but it doesn’t mean it can’t or won’t happen. You are attempting to walk on water and being unrealistic while accusing me of being partial (even though I don’t deny I’m partial to equal access). Here’s a tip to help you and your lawyers – research when circumstantial evidence becomes relevant in a civil cause of action and what elements of that cause of action must be met. You will quickly see that you are not immune from litigation and may have liability exposure. This isn’t a scare tactic, it’s a fact. Can that exposure be overcome? Maybe, maybe not. I’ve seen a dozen cases claiming these “rights” and some get thrown out and some continue for years – all of them costing those involved substantially – in money, time and energy.

The New Civil Rights Movement : Church Groups In San Antonio Fail To Put Non-Discrimination Ordinance On The Ballot

Wed, 16 Oct 2013 18:45:34 +0000

Of course church members can participate in these matters. However, the repealitsa.com website clearly states "Participating Churches" not "Participating Church Members" with respect to the referendum. It's clear, at least through circumstantial evidence such as interviews with local media, that the same groups are leading the recall efforts, being the same churches who used their buses to get people to City Hall, the same churches who posted on their websites that they will be holding "services" at City Hall chambers. Come on... you may arguably be operating on the line between legal and illegal, but it is a very thin line and you are doing a disservice to your church members in not fully advising them that the legal battle isn't absolute. Citizens United, a relatively new law, may very well be applied to this scenario, but I am not a judge or jury and the facts will speak for themselves. If challenged, all parties will spend countless hours preparing the litigation and incur significant expense that may better serve the community by feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless or otherwise. When/if someone files a lawsuit against these churches or a grand jury indictment for the potentially criminal acts is entered under these provisions, I'm sure we will then see a direct challenge in court to the law and we will see if such significant political contributions are within the requirements of the Tax Code and Citizens United. We can reconvene this conversation at that time.

The New Civil Rights Movement : Church Groups In San Antonio Fail To Put Non-Discrimination Ordinance On The Ballot

Wed, 16 Oct 2013 16:35:44 +0000

It is my understanding that some people have made reports to the IRS, particularly when churches were calling for their weekly services to be moved to City Hall, and then speaking out against the ordinance prior to the vote. At this juncture, there is no information available as to whether the IRS is or has investigated the allegations made. I am not privy to any specific information other than hearsay.

The New Civil Rights Movement : Church Groups In San Antonio Fail To Put Non-Discrimination Ordinance On The Ballot

Wed, 16 Oct 2013 16:32:50 +0000

You are absolutely right that they didn't have a problem before the addition! In fact, these ordinances already existed in San Antonio but excluded sexual orientation, gender identity and veteran status. When Councilman Bernal introduced the ordinance revisions, they were substantially identical to the prior ordinance with the added classes of protection. They were later modified to exclude language that prohibited people from serving on boards and commissions with the city if they were found to have had a prior bias. It's interesting to me that under Federal, State and Local law, I cannot discriminate against a religion (even if it actively attacks me and my family), yet they claim persecution if they are required to "do unto others" as we are required to "do unto them."

The New Civil Rights Movement : Church Groups In San Antonio Fail To Put Non-Discrimination Ordinance On The Ballot

Wed, 16 Oct 2013 16:27:13 +0000

The El Paso case was representative of potential damages that can be claimed and the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the appeal. Until that happens, the US Constitution and Texas Constitution are considered to have been interpreted by the lower court and the law deemed constitutional, therefore no such analysis is required. The briefings in the Supreme Court case are publicly available at http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/fil.... You state: "Read the pertinent clauses of the Texas Election Code, instead doing selective reading." Said code (in its entirety) is available at http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/EL/htm.... You will note that Sec. 253.094 does not require participation in an ELECTION (as you imply), but specifically states that it includes "circulation and submission of a petition to call an election."

The New Civil Rights Movement : Church Groups In San Antonio Fail To Put Non-Discrimination Ordinance On The Ballot

Wed, 16 Oct 2013 15:59:50 +0000

The San Antonio Archdiocese released a statement prior to the vote asking for a delay for consideration and changes to the "religious exemptions." To my knowledge, they have not publicly participated in the referendum petition or the recall petitions. The statement they released prior to the vote can be found at http://www.archsa.org/UserContent/file/0818_Non-D...

The New Civil Rights Movement : Same-Sex Marriage: Does National Strategy Trump Private Citizens' Right To A Trial Decision?

Fri, 8 Mar 2013 23:56:51 +0000

That's the problem with political strategy, Pat. We need a human strategy if we are ever to be equal.

The New Civil Rights Movement : From The Corpus Christi Bayfront To The Capital, Texas Has A Marriage Movement In It

Fri, 8 Mar 2013 22:10:04 +0000

We hope to see you and your wife at the march this weekend -- and see you married, in Texas!

The New Civil Rights Movement : "Obama Isn't Even Black." Don’t Re-Nig Seller Says Sticker Cute Not Racist

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 21:08:10 +0000

"I’ve helped black families…to guide them in the right direction." Thank goodness a kindly white lady is there to guide the black folk toward the white direction... I mean... right direction. #snark

jaysays.com | because simon isn't cool anymore : Will Glee Get Away with Transphobic Remark? Yeah, Probably.

Fri, 29 Oct 2010 18:39:38 +0000

My apologies, Alex. My psychic powers failed me when writing this. Clearly, you guys did cover it, but well after this post was published, so I was unaware (but did "do" due diligence). My "demand for an apology" statement was more rhetorical. We go up in arms about so many things - but this one nearly slipped threw the cracks.

jaysays.com | because simon isn't cool anymore : When is a Hate Crime Not a Hate Crime? - When SAPD Investigates

Tue, 20 Jul 2010 15:41:14 +0000

It's not always a hate crime when a straight person kills a gay person, contrary to your statement. However, Cody (aka "CJ") confessed that he killed Troy because Troy "made a pass at him." It's a common claim of "Gay Panic" and constitutes a hate crime. 2% of sexual orientation based hate crimes in 2008 were committed due to heterosexual bias. None of which were murder. I won't get into the rest of your comment, but if you would like a referral to a psychiatrist, please feel free to email me via the contact page.

jaysays.com | because simon isn't cool anymore : Texas GOP Official Platform Calls for Imprisonment of Homosexuals and Supportive Heterosexuals

Sun, 27 Jun 2010 20:56:33 +0000

I've often said, and firmly believe, that our youth will lead us.

jaysays.com | because simon isn't cool anymore : Texas GOP Official Platform Calls for Imprisonment of Homosexuals and Supportive Heterosexuals

Wed, 23 Jun 2010 00:58:29 +0000

http://texasgop.org/inner.asp?z=2 It seems they moved the link, I think. Use that one and click "2010 RPT Platform." That takes you to the pdf at: https://www.1888932-2946.ws/TexasGOP/E-ContentStr...

jaysays.com | because simon isn't cool anymore : Texas GOP Official Platform Calls for Imprisonment of Homosexuals and Supportive Heterosexuals

Tue, 22 Jun 2010 21:08:16 +0000

I did miss it in the post. Thank you for pointing it out.

jaysays.com | because simon isn't cool anymore : Texas GOP Official Platform Calls for Imprisonment of Homosexuals and Supportive Heterosexuals

Tue, 22 Jun 2010 19:57:32 +0000

Andy: I\\\'m an LGBT blogger - not a prime time media outlet with editors at my disposal. My audience is mostly LGBT and/or fierce allies who are remarkably educated on issues within our community. I did not expect this piece to go as viral as it did. I\\\'m not the first to make the charge and I won\\\'t be the last. My faults as a writer, blogger, activist, advocate, etc do not in any way excuse this \\\"platform.\\\" Your accusation that I\\\'m grasping at straws doesn\\\'t change the fact that Lawrence was arrested along with his partner and the same could happen under a reinstatement of the sodomy laws. It doesn\\\'t change the fact that \\\"felony\\\" means prison time in Texas. It doesn\\\'t change the fact that I\\\'m a gay Texan and I will continue to fight for equality for LGBT people, immigrants, women and any group I see being targeted by our government - thus I\\\'m opposed to this platform.

jaysays.com | because simon isn't cool anymore : Texas GOP Official Platform Calls for Imprisonment of Homosexuals and Supportive Heterosexuals

Tue, 22 Jun 2010 19:50:46 +0000

Here you go, Tony. Scroll to the bottom of the page and you\\\'ll find the link to download the same PDF provided here. http://www.texasgop.org/inner.asp?z=6

jaysays.com | because simon isn't cool anymore : Texas GOP Official Platform Calls for Imprisonment of Homosexuals and Supportive Heterosexuals

Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:45:47 +0000

To clarify, reinstatement of the Texas Sodomy Law could result in others going to prison. The platform clearly calls for that.

jaysays.com | because simon isn't cool anymore : Texas GOP Official Platform Calls for Imprisonment of Homosexuals and Supportive Heterosexuals

Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:44:42 +0000

Lawrence and his partner were put in prison overnight because of the Texas Sodomy Law (which targeted only homosexual sodomy). Felony offenses in Texas are a prison sentence as well. Not hype... fact. The title is accurate.

jaysays.com | because simon isn't cool anymore : Texas GOP Official Platform Calls for Imprisonment of Homosexuals and Supportive Heterosexuals

Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:43:22 +0000

Here's the "official" link. Bottom of the page: http://www.texasgop.org/inner.asp?z=6

jaysays.com | because simon isn't cool anymore : Texas GOP Official Platform Calls for Imprisonment of Homosexuals and Supportive Heterosexuals

Mon, 21 Jun 2010 21:38:02 +0000

Glad to help. Most outside of Texas wouldn't know the history - particularly outside of the United States. It was my error in not including the history in the original piece.