Leftists Know so Much that isn’t True Part I.

You’ll frequently hear leftists say that conservatives and Christians are taking America backwards. The facts don’t support them. Here’s a list of how leftists are corrupting the culture and taking America down.

 

LEFTIST CAUSES                                               RESULTS

Abortion Nearly 59 million children dead/women killed in abortion clinics/women injured in abortion clinics/abortion increases likelihood of breast cancer and cervical cancer/women suffer psychological harms
Cohabitation More women and children injured and killed by live-in boyfriends/city governments subsidizing through domestic partner benefits/undermines marriage culture/training for divorce/more women and children end up in poverty/problems associated with fatherlessness
Homosexuality AIDs and HIV/shortened life spans/increased domestic violence/anonymous sex spreads disease through communities/unresolved psychological pain/pedophilia/problems associated with fatherlessness/people with same-sex attraction not encouraged to go to counseling to discover the root of the problem/instead they’re encouraged by activists to seek special rights that don’t bring happiness and well-being
Big Government More government control/less individual freedom/more government corruption/people encouraged not to work, but to depend on confiscation of the wealth created by others
Nondiscrimination laws First Amendment to the Constitution usurped
Hate crime laws Special classes created at the expense of others/all crime is committed with contempt for the victims, regardless of victims’ identity
Expanded welfare Cycles of dependency on government/loss of dignity and human flourishing
Secular humanist government Hostility toward Christians/inadequate worldview to cope with social problems and governance/loss of free speech and religious freedom/judicial activism and judges making up new laws, undermining the legislative process and Constitutional freedom
Secular humanist schools Hostility toward Christians/children taught that life doesn’t matter/leftist political indoctrination/liberal cocoon/plummeting quality of education/America near bottom of developed nations in scholastic achievement/children not taught the basics/children not taught American history or civics/declining quality of American work force/Planned Parenthood’s school sex education resulted in more teen pregnancy, more early sex and more STDs/teaching of evolution is teaching that life doesn’t matter, creating culture of death/humanity dehumanized as mere animals resulting by chance/dumbing America down/unemployed and underemployed graduates paying huge debts for substandard college education/increased number of foreign doctors and engineers in America doing what many Americans unable to do
Crime Soft punishment/more concern for perpetrators than victims/short terms for rapists
War on Poverty Poverty increased/dependency on government
Moral relativism Decadence/increased crime/crisis of ethics and honest/people encouraged to make their own morality
Entertainment culture Decadence, debauchery, violence, harmful messages/garbage in, garbage out/amorality and dishonesty encouraged/drug use glorified
Democratic Party Corrupted by unions and radical special interests/stolen elections/
Immigration Laws ignored/border dissolved/drug smuggling/human smuggling/Americans injured, raped and killed by illegal aliens/children with TB brought into the nation with Americans exposed to them/Democrats looking to increase voter rolls/Mexico dumping its welfare dependents and criminals on American taxpayers/radicalized Muslims abusing the system to gain entry into the nation
Religious freedom Americans punished by government for their beliefs/Constitutional protection of churches from government twisted to government hostility toward churches/churches corrupted by homosexual activists/religious schools and colleges threatened with loss of accreditation over biblical beliefs/criminalization of scripture
National defense Compromised/America viewed as weak by Islamic terrorists and many nations/citizens at risk/border invasion/president’s tepid responses to terrorism, world events
Personal well-being Everyone suffers from left-wing policies and practices: leftists, conservatives, independents/lefties have the government, the schools, the media, corporations and their cups are still empty and they are still angry/be careful of what you lefties wish for
Gun control Criminals breaking numerous gun control laws which failed to protect innocent lives from being destroyed/Americans left defenseless against deranged shooters/guns are demonized instead of criminals/problem of mental illness overlooked/deranged criminals committing atrocities in places where they know there will be no armed resistance/Oregon community college security guard unarmed/political correctness is getting people killed

SIGNS OF OUR TIMES: Politics over Principle/Beware the ‘Light’ in Light Rail

The fix is in on the Scottsdale City Council. Subtitled: Money Talks, Principles Walk. Advocates of the homosexual agenda have apparently flipped the upcoming vote of enough council members to pass the radical and unneeded “bathroom bill.” One council member is approaching what could be her third term — along with the accompanying pension, if elected. A leftist council member pushing for the bathroom bill promised her campaign cash if she goes along. Getting re-elected is more important than doing the right thing. The fix is in.

More on Scottsdale’s bathroom bill … Council members received 98 letters about the bathroom bill. They say six letters, in opposition, from the public were “over the top.” And this proves Scottsdale is NOT a welcoming city to homosexuals. Therefore the bathroom bill is needed, say they! Who knew? That Scottsdale, of all places with its vibrant arts community, is “not” a “welcoming” community? One would think homosexual activists would have descended on the city en masse long before it got to the writing of six letters, and — aided by their left-stream media lemmings — would have stampeded the city into a bathroom bill before all this supposed hate had built up. The fix is in.

Who’s to say homosexual advocates didn’t write those letters? Homosexuals have been exposed for numerous fake hate crime allegations across the country. And who’s to say what is and what isn’t “over the top”? Let’s see these letters, council members. Release them to the public. The fix is in.

***

Speaking of homosexual advocates. They are shopping for victims up and down Arizona. They are calling churches and Christian schools. “We’re lesbians. Can we enroll our kid in your youth class … in your school?” The hoped-for answer is a no. That would set the grounds for legal complaints of sexual discrimination and put a big chill on the right of Christians to actually act on their convictions. This is part of an organized campaign to create a climate of fear, to push Christian organizations to compromise. Under the threat of the legal hammer. Advocacy groups will come out with a claim that 80 percent of churches and Christian schools are bigoted organizations and strict new laws must be passed on local and state levels to stop this. Tax exemptions must be revoked. Accreditations must be removed.

***

Just looking at financials for Valley Metro Rail for the years 2012 and 2013. And talk about UPSIDE DOWN! Hoooly sub-sa-deeeeeeeeees, Batman!

For both years, operating revenues were: $31 million. Operating expenses were … brace yourself: $76 million, for both years. OUCH!!! CRUNCH!!! What a hit!

And out of the $31 million in revenue, just $12.7 million came from fares in 2013 and $11.9 million from fares in 2012.

The bulk of the revenue came from member city contributions and grants. Nothing like burdening the backs of taxpayers with a losing proposition.

But wait a minute. City contributions and grant money comes from somewhere. It comes from you. It is taken out of the hands of taxpayers. To call this “income” is misleading. Member city contributions and grants should actually be posted to the expense side of the ledger.

More accurately, Valley Metro Rail should report revenue of $12.7 million in 2013 and $11.9 million in 2012 … AND … $94 million in expenses for 2013 and $95 million in expenses in 2012. That’s the truth of the matter from YOUR perspective.

In an average week in 2013, light rail moved 101,000 people. At a cost of $1.46 million. With fare revenue of $236,000. That’s an unacceptable “return on investment” of 1:6. $1 taken in for every $6 spent. And that’s on you; you are footing the bill.

This is just what the skeptics warned us about a decade ago: that light rail would not be a wise financial investment. It’s subsidies on steroids. The “light” in light rail stands for precious little to show for a huge price tag strapped around the taxpayers’ necks.

Voters: next time, wise up! Don’t be taken in by promises of blue skies.

DEMOCRATS VS. AMERICA

Democrats

  • Want to control as much of your life as they possibly can
  • Want to take away your freedom
  • Want to regulate your speech
  • Accept blood money from Planned Parenthood to get elected
  • Take your money and give it to Planned Parenthood
  • Say your child belong to the state
  • Want to keep your children in failing schools
  • Want to indoctrinate your children in secular humanism and encourage them to abandon your faith
  • Punish you for your beliefs and thoughts
  • Allow religious liberty for everyone but Christians
  • Raise your taxes
  • View all money as theirs to keep or to allow you to have some
  • Punish successful businesses
  • Tax your church
  • Remove accreditation from Christian colleges
  • Take away your right to defend yourself — leaving you defenseless against criminals
  • Release more prisoners from jail
  • Want Planned Parenthood to avoid punishment for allowing child rapists to go unreported
  • Want to re-write the Constitution so they can make up new “rights”
  • Want to weaken our national defense
  • Want to open the borders for drug smugglers and new Democratic voters
  • Ignore the rule of law
  • Are creating chaos so you will give up your liberty to have order
  • Are destroying America’s culture
  • Are practicing situational ethics to justify unethical behavior
  • Confiscate your money and give it to the poor, then taking credit for “helping the poor”
  • Are making you pay for the abortion slaughter of 1.2 million Americans each year
  • Are making you pay for other people’s health insurance
  • Made you pay for free golf carts for others
  • Want you to pay for other people’s college education
  • Are giving your tax dollars to America’s enemies
  • Control the media
  • Steal elections and disenfranchise you
  • Encourage activist judges to over-rule your vote
  • Are dictating your vocabulary
  • Are demonizing and marginalizing anyone who does not agree with them
  • Despise the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution
  • Are fiscally reckless and irresponsible, weakening the economy
  • Jeopardizing your social security
  • Are controlling the law schools and training godless generations of lawyers to carry out their policies
  • Are championing moral depravity
  • Are poisoning people against law enforcement
  • Are socialists

Center for Arizona Policy: A Good and Balanced Law

By Cathi Herrod, President, Center for Arizona Policy

Many of you likely watched the scene unfold in Indiana last month where supporters of religious freedom sought to pass a fairly simple law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

The scene was eerily similar to what played out here in Arizona with the CAP-supported SB 1062. Ignoring the facts, opponents of religious freedom falsely claimed that the bill would allow individuals to have a license to do pretty much anything, all in the name of their free exercise of religion. Or in other words, they wrongly tried to say religious freedom would become the equivalent of Monopoly’s “Get Out of Jail Free Card.”

Yet what was lost in the debate, both here in Arizona and in Indiana is the reality of how these laws actually operate in a court-setting and in real life. They don’t provide a license to do whatever illegal activity somebody wants to do. Rather, they provide the court with a well-established and longstanding legal balancing test for analyzing competing interests.

To provide some background, Arizona has had a state-version of RFRA since 1999, and a nearly identical federal law has been in place since 1993. More than 20 states also have state RFRAs.

In a nutshell, RFRA ensures the government cannot force someone to violate their religious convictions unless the government meets a strict legal test. For the strict legal test, the government must show it has a really good reason for the law and that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that objective. If the government does that, then the RFRA defense fails and the government law or action stands.

Although Indiana’s original version of RFRA was heavily amended after big business bullied the governor and legislature, the remaining law is still set to take effect on July 1, 2015.

This brings us to a recent story out of Indiana and a perfect example of how RFRA works. Calling his newly formed church the First Church of Cannabis, founder Bill Levin plans to break the law and openly smoke marijuana. If he is cited or arrested, he says he will claim Indiana’s RFRA for protection.

Unfortunately for Mr. Levin, this same ploy was attempted in Arizona already, and Arizona’s RFRA operated just like it’s supposed to.

In 2005, Danny Hardesty was arrested for possession of marijuana, and in court he claimed that the use of marijuana was a sacrament of his church, the Church of Cognizance. This case reached the Arizona Supreme Court in 2009, and in a unanimous ruling the Court ruled against Hardesty.

Even assuming Hardesty had a truly sincere religious belief to smoke marijuana, the Court found that the government has a good reason to prohibit marijuana use (the fact that it poses a real threat to individual health and social welfare, in addition to the public safety concern posed by unlimited use, particularly by those driving motor vehicles), and that “no less restrictive alternative [ ] would serve the State’s compelling public safety interests and still excuse the conduct for which Hardesty was tried and convicted.”

So there you go, RFRA is not a “Get Out of Jail Free Card,” and it does not provide a license to do whatever illegal activity someone wants. Rather, it is a time-tested and just law that allows for courts to acknowledge when the government overreaches and burdens someone’s free exercise of religion, and to balance that against the reasons for the government action.

Please watch for the launch of the 3rd edition of The Policy Pages later this fall, which will include a brief devoted solely to explaining how laws like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act work.

Homosexual Group Wants to Deny Children Their Mother or Their Father

Equality Arizona is beginning a new effort called Project Jigsaw: Connecting Every Child with a Loving Family. The purpose is to “create an environment where all couples, regardless of sexual orientation or gender, have the opportunity to provide a stable, loving home for a child.” Through adoption.

Those are the talking points.

Here is the truth. There is a lot more to it than Equality Arizona is saying. It’s the quality of the home environment that counts the most. It means everything to children in their formative years.

Adopting children into the homes of either two men or two women is not in childrens’ best interests. Sure, we understand some same-sex couples want to raise children, but let’s ask the children who have already been through this experience.

They are telling us it was not a good way to grow up. Far from it. Katy Faust says so. Dawn Stefanowicz says so. Meg says so. Heather Barwick says so.

Read what Dawn said:

My biggest concern is that children are not being discussed in this same-sex marriage debate. Yet, won’t the next step for some gay activists be to ask for legal adoption of children if same-sex marriage is legalized? I have considered some of the potential physical and psychological health risks for children raised in this situation. I was at high risk of exposure to contagious STDs due to sexual molestation, my father’s high-risk sexual behaviors, and multiple partners. Even when my father was in what looked like monogamous relationships, he continued cruising for anonymous sex.

Governor Doug Ducey also made some noise recently about just putting children in any loving home. He and others are making a big mistake if they don’t take a deep look at the history, the social science and the personal testimonies on this.

The average homosexual relationship lasts 18 months — hardly a “loving home” or conducive to the stability young boys and girls need.

We have more than enough fatherless children in America. Our prisons bear the result of that. No two women can offset the absence of dad. No two men can offset the absence of a nurturing mom. The kids are not all right.

And we just saw another example of domestic violence with two female pro basketball players who beat the snot out of each other and then quickly got married to try to assuage law enforcement.

Homosexuals also engage in far more risky behaviors than married male-female couples. Like drug abuse. And alcohol abuse. AIDS, of course, is much more prevalent among homosexuals.

A majority of male homosexuals were sexually abused as children. Many girls also struggle with same-sex attraction because of the unhealthy home environments they were raised in.

So now you want to take people with deep-seeded personal issues and mollify them with all kinds of rights and complicate their problems by giving them custody of children?

It makes no common sense. Arizona, Governor Ducey, CPS, adoption agencies, do not repeat the mistakes with young, sensitive, impressionable children. It is not like you are operating in the dark with no credible information to base your decisions on. We know the results in advance if you go down this road. Stop. Think about it. Forget political correctness.

One more question for the governor and any other elected official: is it worth scoring political points at the expense of children whose lives will be put at risk.

No.

Every child needs a mom AND a dad. No alternative can substitute for this fact. Children raised in the homes of married mom and dad do better in every physical, emotional, social, and educational level. Every one. This is not debatable.

Lesbian Athletes Punished for Domestic Violence

ESPN.com reports …

WNBA stars Brittney Griner and Glory Johnson were suspended seven games each today for their domestic violence arrest last month — the league’s longest ban in its 19-year history.

WNBA president Laurel Richie said the league “takes all acts of violence extremely seriously” in handing down a suspension that represents more than one-fifth of the 34-game regular season. Richie called the players’ actions “unacceptable.”

“Brittney and Glory’s conduct is detrimental to the best interests of the WNBA and violates applicable law,” Richie said in a statement. “We also understand that people make mistakes, and that education and training are as important as imposing discipline.”

The players were arrested April 22 on suspicion of assault after they fought in a home they recently bought. Griner pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct and entered a diversion program. The assault charge was dismissed. She must attend 26 weeks of domestic violence counseling. All charges will be dismissed if she completes counseling. Johnson’s case was transferred to county court and is still pending.

The league spent the past few weeks investigating. The WNBA said Johnson pushed Griner in the shoulder and she responded by pushing her in the back of the neck. The confrontation escalated to include wrestling, punches and the throwing and swinging of objects. The 6-foot-8 Griner received a bite wound on her finger and scratches on her wrist; the 6-4 Johnson received a scratch above her lip and was diagnosed with a concussion.

The Arizona Conservative found this research on the prevalence of lesbian domestic violence, which could become more common in our state if the judicial activism that forced same-sex marriage on Arizona holds up on appeal …

Dr. Suzana Rose, author of the “Lesbian Partner Violence Fact Sheet,” says:

Partner violence in lesbian (and gay) relationships recently has been identified as an important social problem. Partner or domestic violence among lesbians has been defined as including physical, sexual and psychological abuse, although researchers have most often studied physical violence.

About 17-45% of lesbians report having been the victim of a least one act of physical violence perpetrated by a lesbian partner. Types of physical abuse named by more than 10% of participants in one study included:

Disrupting other�s eating or sleeping habits
Pushing or shoving, driving recklessly to punish, and slapping, kicking, hitting, or biting.
Sexual abuse by a woman partner has been reported by up to 50% of lesbians.
Psychological abuse has been reported as occurring at least one time by 24% to 90% of lesbians.

Lesbians abuse their partners to gain and maintain control. Lesbian batterers are motivated to avoid feelings of loss and abandonment. Therefore, many violent incidents occur during threatened separations. Many lesbian batterers grew up in violent households and were physically, sexually, or verbally abused and/or witnessed their mothers being abused by fathers or stepfathers.

In lesbian relationships, the “butch” (physically stronger, more masculine or wage-earning) member of the couple may be as likely to be the victim as the batterer, whereas in heterosexual relationships, the male partner (usually the stronger, more masculine, and wage-earning member) is most often the batterer. Some lesbians in abusive relationships report fighting back in their relationship.

Mesa’s Push for Radical Policy Based on Tiny Group of Unhappy People

Our experience with so-called human rights boards in Arizona is that they are made up of some genuine citizens, but also some with biases, an axe to grind, and questionable agendas.

The City of Mesa Human Relations Advisory Board (HRAB) is now under scrutiny for pushing the homosexual agenda on a city rated one of the most conservative and family-oriented communities in America. The board is now pushing city councilmen to serve as the directors of “feelings.” And to deliver a damaging blow to religious freedom in the community.

Here’s how it came about. The Mesa Human Relations Advisory Board conducted a study of attitudes of different demographic groups in the community: the “Mesa Speaks, Mesa Listens: Inclusion & Diversity Report.” It was approved last October.

Among the more noteworthy results were that people with disabilities and those with same-sex attraction and gender confusion reported the lowest levels of satisfaction with the city. More findings:

  • Only 29 survey participants identified themselves as “LGBT”
  • 5 percent said they have experienced discrimination based on their sexual orientation
  • the board reported this sample is too small to draw broad conclusions about the community as a whole
  • the board then nevertheless drew a conclusion that the disparity is large enough to warrant further consideration by policymakers.

In conclusion, a large majority of Mesa residents enjoy living in Mesa and feel valued and accepted as residents of the community. However, this is not the case for all segments of the population. While it is true that you can never please everyone, City leaders should be concerned by the disparity between the experiences of the community as a whole and specific subpopulations.

The HRAB envisions Mesa as a community that not only includes and respects its diversity, but is enriched by it. The results suggest that although there is much satisfaction with Mesa, more could be done not only to be more welcoming and inclusive, but to also be enriched by the diversity of the community.

Here are valid conclusions for you to draw:

  1. This solution in search of a problem is driving the city council’s intention to pass a resolution adding same-sex attraction and gender confusion to Mesa’s nondiscrimination policy.
  2. Bureaucrats have too much time on their hands and ought to focus on real problems like drug abuse and crime in Mesa.
  3. The proposed resolution will seriously damage religious freedom for individuals, businesses, and ministries in this community.

Write to the mayor and city councilmen and urge them to defeat this unneeded resolution and to get busy focusing on the concerns that matter most to the city:

ian.linssen@mesaaz.gov; alicia.white@mesaaz.gov; randy.policar@mesaaz.gov; district3@mesaaz.gov; councilmember.glover@mesaaz.gov; marrisa.ramirez-ramos@mesaaz.gov; matthew.clark@mesaaz.gov

RFRAs have NEVER Harmed a Homosexual Person

By Casey Mattox
The Federalist

It has been 22 years since President Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law. For two decades it has applied to every law in the District of Columbia and the federal government. In the intervening decades, 20 other states have followed suit with their own state RFRAs. These RFRAs hold government to a high burden of proof when it burdens religious exercise. Under RFRA, there are no guaranteed outcomes, but the government cannot take burdens on religious exercise lightly.

In two decades of RFRAs, the world has not ended. In fact, not a single person who identifies as homosexual has been harmed by these RFRAs. None. This may come as a surprise to you if you have watched any of the media coverage or been on social media for the last several days. The unhinged claims from the Left have been entirely detached from the reality that these laws have actually existed for decades and have never resulted in any of the things they worry will happen. This is not new. Dire warnings that are unsurprisingly not confirmed by future events have been a common theme in arguments from the Left in recent years.

Prophesying Doom that Never Materializes

The Equal Access Act is the reason your child can have a Fellowship of Christian Athletes group at school. Most Americans would think that permitting students to voluntarily get together before school to pray is a good thing. But when Congress considered the act in 1984, some Democrats, including then-Rep. Barbara Boxer, opposed it because allowing Christian students to gather to pray “could usher in KKK and Nazi” student groups. More than 30 years later, it is clear Boxer was on the wrong side of history. Her worry that letting kids study the Bible would lead to “Mein Kampf” has not been realized.

Boxer’s worry that letting kids study the Bible would lead to ‘Mein Kampf’ has not been realized.

When the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2006, abortionists argued that approximately 2,200 partial-birth abortions per year were necessary for health reasons. This was important because the law lacked any health exception (except to save the mother’s life). When the Supreme Court issued its opinion eight years ago in April 2007, it held that the law was generally constitutional.

However, the Court invited any abortionist or woman filing a new challenge to show why a partial-birth abortion was necessary in one of those 2,200-per-year instances. Planned Parenthood warned of consequences for women’s health from the decision, just as Justice Ginsburg wrote in a dissent: “One may anticipate that such a preenforcement challenge will be mounted swiftly, to ward off serious, sometimes irremediable harm, to women whose health would be endangered by the intact D&E prohibition.”

Eight years later, no such complaint has been filed. I’m not aware of a single example of any woman who was harmed by not being able to have a partial-birth abortion procedure in that time.

There are three possible reasons: (1) by incredible fortune, the threats to women’s health making partial-birth abortion necessary ceased on April 18, 2007; (2) Women are harmed daily, but Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry lack the resources to file the invited lawsuits; (3) the claim that partial-birth abortion was necessary to protect women’s health was a lie.

Finally, when Texas passed HB2, the pro-life law that brought stardom to Wendy Davis, a primary focus of abortion supporters who opposed the bill was its prohibition on abortions after 20 weeks gestation, when the unborn child is capable of feeling pain. This provision was the centerpiece of the controversy, and Davis opposed it at length. But while virtually every part of the Texas law has been challenged in the intervening two years, the prohibition on abortions after 20 weeks has never been challenged. It has been Texas law since October 2013.

Time to Stop Listening

And Texas isn’t alone. Laws like it have been enacted in 13 states. But despite their cries of harm to women’s health, abortionists have only challenged these laws in the Ninth Circuit and in a now-pending Georgia state court case. At least 10 of these laws, including Texas’s, are in effect without legal challenge. As MSNBC reported, there is

a strategic reason to avoid challenging that [20-week] ban…. [A] Texas challenge would go to the conservative Fifth Circuit. Not only would that court potentially uphold the law…, the combination of decisions would create a split in the circuits that would make the Supreme Court likelier to hear it.

This is their choice. But at some point when your warnings of imminent harm are stifled by your own prudential choices, and none of the bad consequences you warn about ever happen, perhaps your claims just aren’t true. That’s critically important to keep in mind with the needless hysteria happening now over completely mischaracterized state religious freedom laws.

But history need not repeat itself. In the children’s story, when Peter repeatedly cries, “Wolf!” the townspeople finally stop listening. It’s time to stop giving credence to the Left’s cries.

Tell Mesa City Council to Vote NO on Unnecessary Gender Identity Resolution

UPDATE: The Mesa City Council did not pass the extreme resolution last night. However, the council appears determined to do so in the near future. WRITE TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL IMMEDIATELY TO EXPRESS YOUR OPPOSITION. THEIR EMAIL ADDRESSES ARE LISTED BELOW.

Dear Mayor and council members:

We are strongly opposed to the proposal known as:

NEW MESA CITY CODE TITLE 6, CHAPTER 14 “PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING ON THE BASIS OF RACE, COLOR, ETHNICITY, NATIONAL ORIGIN, AGE, DISABILITY, RELIGION, SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY AND EXPRESSION, VETERANS’ STATUS, MARITAL STATUS, GENETIC INFORMATION, AND FAMILIAL STATUS” AND ESTABLISHING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF.

The sections that are most objectionable are those pertaining to sexual orientation and gender identity and expression.

This proposal will create more problems than it will solve and is totally unneeded.

Sexual orientation is not an immutable trait, such as race. There is no comparison between the two.

Gender identity and expression is an indication of psychological problems. It is not an immutable trait.

Once you open this Pandora’s box, you will subject well-meaning, law abiding citizens to unreasonable penalties and punishments.

It is no wonder that Scottsdale and Fountain Hills have both recently defeated such measures and that Springfield, Missouri, Charlotte, N.C. and Fayetteville, Arkansas also rightly rejected these unnecessary and problematic resolutions, which are pushed by far-left radicals upon unassuming communities.

A few years ago, we warned members of the Mesa council that radical homosexual activists were urging political activists to move to the East Valley to enact extreme social change which is at odds with the strong family-oriented characteristics of Mesa and Gilbert. Most of the council members responded to that they were not going to allow this to happen.

We are asking you again to not let this happen. We do not have the types of problems in Mesa requiring this sort of radical legislation on the part of our city leaders. We must respect free speech and religious liberty — the First Amendment — before we ever consider any type of “sexual liberty” proposed by leftists.

Please vote NO on Thursday.

Thank you.

The Arizona Conservative

Lend your voice to opposing this radical proposal. Write to all members of the Mesa city council today:

ian.linssen@mesaaz.gov; alicia.white@mesaaz.gov; randy.policar@mesaaz.gov; district3@mesaaz.gov; councilmember.glover@mesaaz.gov; marrisa.ramirez-ramos@mesaaz.gov; matthew.clark@mesaaz.gov

Scottsdale Councilwoman Keeps up Drumbeat for Attacks on Your Religious Freedom

Last week the Scottsdale City Council voted 5-2 to defeat a proposed sexual orientation nondiscrimination policy. Councilwoman Linda Milhaven was one of the two council members who voted for the controversial proposal. Then she wrote the following commentary in the left-wing publication Scottsdale Independent. We took exception with several of her statements and present her commentary for you now along with our objections, FYI:

Milhaven: Why is treating everyone fairly considered controversial in Scottsdale? [THE ASSUMPTION THAT EVERYONE WILL BE TREATED FAIRLY IS INCORRECT.]

By Linda Milhaven Apr 3rd, 2015

Why is it controversial to consider a law to treat everyone fairly?” [WHY DON’T WE RELY ON THE U.S. CONSTITUTION FOR FREE SPEECH AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY?]

That was the question I got from a citizen after a recent city council meeting. We were considering whether to or not to add sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression to the city’s non-discrimination ordinances.

At that meeting, the council affirmed their support of the Unity Pledge, [IS THERE A HUGE PROBLEM WITH HOUSING AND HOSPITALITY FOR LGBT IN SCOTTSDALE??? NOT LIKELY.] adopted late last year, supporting LGBT inclusive non-discrimination policies and directed staff to help promote of the pledge.

The next step is to begin the public process to include these principles in our City ordinances. [AT WHAT COST TO THE CONSTITUTION? TO THE CITIZENS OF SCOTTSDALE? TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOM? ]

We have received many e-mails and have heard from many constituents — many for and some against. While I believe that everyone is acting in good faith, I am still trying to understand the side that argues against including the principles of the pledge in our ordinances. [THEN PLEASE HEAR OUR CONCERNS AGAIN.]

Some argue that less government is better. I agree; however, some laws are good and necessary. This is the basis for our political debate. What is necessary vs. unnecessary regulation? [TAKING SIDES IN THE CULTURE WAR IS ONLY GUARANTEED TO ALIENATE AT LEAST HALF THE CITY’S CITIZENS.]

In my opinion, we currently have non-discrimination ordinances and adding members of the LGBT community to the list of protected citizens is simply the right thing to do. [LGBT ARE NOT IMMUTABLE TRAITS. SO-CALLED “SEXUAL LIBERTY” IS BEING USED TO BLUDGEON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACROSS THE COUNTRY. DON’T LET SCOTTSDALE EXHIBIT PREJUDICE AGAINST CHRISTIANS AND OTHERS OFFENDED BY WHAT THEY CONSIDER BIBLICAL SIN.]

Some argue that there is no evidence of a problem. [IN THIS DAY AND AGE MOST PEOPLE DO NOT DARE SPEAK OUT AGAINST LGBT FOR FEAR OF JOB LOSS, PHYSICAL THREATS, PUBLIC SMEAR CAMPAIGNS AND HYSTERIA INITIATED BY MILITANT LGBT. CORPORATE AND MUNICIPAL AMERICA IS TRIPPING OVER ONE ANOTHER TO SUBMIT TO EVERY LGBT DEMAND. WHAT MORE CAN YOU POSSIBLY GIVE THEM?] Are they suggesting that members of the LGBT community should publicly share their stories and make themselves vulnerable to additional discrimination/harassment without any protections before we are willing to protect them?

Some assert religious freedom would be compromised. However, religious organizations set their own membership rules [NO. THEY DON’T. STATE, LOCAL, AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS ARE CHIPPING AWAY AT THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION’S FIRST LIBERTY – RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. CHRISTIANS ARE BEING TOLD TO “CHECK THEIR FAITH AT THE DOOR” AND TO KEEP THEIR BELIEFS TO THEMSELVES, THAT WHEN THEY GO INTO BUSINESS THEY SUDDENLY BECOME “SECULAR.” PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES ARE TELLING CAMPUS MINISTRIES THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO REQUIRE OFFICERS BE PEOPLE OF FAITH.] and hiring practices. They may include or exclude anyone they please from their organizations. Government does not and cannot regulate that. [YOU COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG. OBAMACARE AND NONDISCRIMINATION POLICIES ARE BEING ELEVATED ABOVE CONSTITUTIONAL RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, AND CHRISTIANS ARE FORCED TO GO TO GREAT LENGTHS IN EXPENSIVE COURT CASES TO LITIGATE FOR THE FREE EXERCISE OF LIBERTY. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONS ALL OVER THE NATION ARE ELEVATING “SEXUAL LIBERTY” ABOVE THE CONSTITUTION.]

Government does, however, make laws that bind all of us, regardless of our religions affiliations. In fact, non-discrimination laws protect citizens from discrimination based on their religion. [YOU HAVE IT BACKWARDS. NONDISCRIMINATION LAWS ARE USED AS BATTERING RAMS AGAINST THE RELIGIOUS.] Why would some religious organizations want to exclude anyone from the same protections their members enjoy? [YOU INCORRECTLY CHARACTERIZE THE PRESENT REALITY. RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS ARE EXCLUDED FROM FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE BECAUSE OF THE OUTBREAK OF NONDISCRIMINATION LAWS.]

Combining the assertion that we do not have a problem with the assertion that a non-discrimination ordinance will infringe on personal religious rights is puzzling to me. What personal religious rights? The right to discriminate against members of the LGBT community in the marketplace and the workplace? How can one say that there is no discrimination but then argue to protect their right to discriminate? [NO, NO, AND NO – WE ARE OPPOSED TO BEING COMPELLED BY GOVERNMENT TO PARTICIPATE IN ACTIVITIES FOR WHICH WE HAVE CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTIONS.]

Some suggest an ordinance will open the business community to frivolous lawsuits. How can one assert that a lawsuit claiming discrimination is frivolous unless one thinks that discrimination is acceptable? [IT IS NOT AS SIMPLE AS YOU MAKE IT OUT TO BE. THERE WILL BE LAWSUITS. HUMAN RELATIONS BOARDS, THE ACLU, AND OTHERS ARE NOT IN THE HABIT OF PROTECTING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. “SEXUAL LIBERTY”AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM CANNOT CO-EXIST. ONE IS ALREADY BEING ELEVATED ABOVE THE OTHER. TOO MANY CITY COUNCILS ARE FAVORING “SEXUAL LIBERTY” AT THE EXPENSE OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. THIS IS AT ODDS WITH AMERICA’S HISTORY AND CONSTITION AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION.]

Members of the business community have been the strongest advocates of a non-discrimination ordinance. They tell us an ordinance is vital to their ability to attract and retain workforce talent and customers. [THIS IS A COMMON TALKING POINT, BUT WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP? THERE IS NONE. BUSINESSES ARE MERELY POSTURING THEMSELVES AS LGBT FRIENDLY, BUT THERE IS NO EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION IN THE BUSINESS AND CORPORATE WORLD. BIG BUSINESS IS EXTREMELY ACCOMMODATING TO LGBT PEOPLE. THERE IS NO HARM BEING DONE. THERE IS NO LAW, NO LACK OF LAW SHACKLING THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY FROM HIRING ANYONE WHO HAS A LEGAL RIGHT TO WORK IN THE UNITED STATES.] They tell us lack of an ordinance will do us harm. How can one argue that they are protecting the  business community when they ignore the business community’s pleas for an ordinance? [IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL TO ASK FOR EVIDENCE THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS ACTUALLY NEEDED. IN THE SCOTTSDALE BUSINESS COMMUNITY. YOU WILL LIKELY FIND LGBT NOT ONLY WORKING FOR THESE COMPANIES, BUT ALSO SOME LGBT ARE IN POSITIONS OF MANAGEMENT AND DOING VERY WELL FOR THEMSELVES. YOUR RESPONSIBILITY IS TO GOVERN ALL THE CITIZENS, AND NOT TO FAVOR ANY GROUP OVER ANOTHER. LET THIS UNFOUNDED DEMAND GO AND CONCENTRATE ON MORE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES.]

I believe the city should study the issue and hear from the public. [MOST DEFINITELY! THANK YOU FOR THE WILLINGNESS TO LISTEN TO THE COMMUNITY.] Let us know where you stand. Do you think the city should begin the public process to expand its non-discrimination ordinances to include LGBT non-discrimination? [NO. THERE IS NO PROBLEM. MOVE ON TO MORE SUBSTANTIVE NEEDS AND TOPICS TO PROMOTE YOUR CITY. THANK YOU FOR READING. BEST REGARDS.]

COUNCILWOMAN MILHAVEN, THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS: THERE NEVER WAS ANY DEMONSTRATION THAT THE ORDINANCE IS NEEDED. THE PEOPLE OF SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI AND FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS JUST REJECTED SUCH MEASURES, AS DID FOUNTAIN HILLS.  BUT THERE IS PLENTY OF EVIDENCE THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WILL INFRINGE UPON THE FREEDOM OF SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS TO OPERATE THEIR BUSINESSES ACCORDING TO THEIR FAITH. EVERYONE’S CONSCIENCE COUNTS. SO WHY UNNECESSARILY DIVIDE THE CITY? WHY RESTRICT THE CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM OF A LARGE CONSTITUENCY OF THE CITY?