The Electronic Occupation and Me: sockpuppets, juhadis and sociopathic injustice warriors, oh my!

As some of you know, I have been the target of a malicious campaign ๐Ÿ‘ฟ๐Ÿ”ช๐Ÿ”ซ๐Ÿ’ฉ๐Ÿ“ข for the past several months, initiated by Stefanie Warrenbrand (Stefanie Lynn Warrenbrand AKA Lynn Warren AKA Mikhail Putin, etc) and several others because of a perceived business connection with a writer she is obsessed with. Stefanie Warrenbrand is a genocidal JDL enthusiast ✡๐Ÿ’ฃ who idolizes the convicted terrorist and disgraced fascist Meir Kahane and mass murderer and terrorist Baruch Goldstein, may their names and memory be obliterated.

Bigotry, ethnic cleansing and genocide, oh my! Psychoterrorist Stefanie Warrenbrand puts the 'psycho' in 'psychotherapist' and is in desperate need of psychotherapy, psychopharmacology, and a padded room.

My beading page was vandalized, mass reported and may be lost to the ether, just as her cell planned publicly March 19-20 2018. The damages continue to accumulate daily ๐Ÿ’ธ๐Ÿ’ธ๐Ÿ’ธ

The cell often conspires publicly to target individuals and businesses they have a political grievances against (e.g., someone dared suggest ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity, someone dared be a Palestinian refugee in one of their countries, someone dared be Muslim trying to pursue a livelihood, etc.) Here, Stefanie Warrenbrand conspires against me and directs her cell to my pages.

Fake Facebook profiles have been set up to impersonate me ๐ŸŽญ๐Ÿ‘น๐Ÿ’ฉ (FUN FACT: this is a crime in the great state of California where their target resides ๐Ÿšจ|||๐Ÿ’ธ).

A small sampling of the profiles set up to impersonate and harass me, friends and family when Stefanie Warrenbrand and her cell began targeting me.

My Paypal was hacked ๐Ÿ’ป๐Ÿ‘น and the identity thief committed financial fraud initiating a wire transfer of $1000 ๐Ÿ’ฐ from my bank ๐Ÿฆ account, to JDL ✡๐Ÿ’ฃ, apparently. I have been slurred, maligned and defamed.

I have been called a d*ke tr*nny and a misogynist (by the same person, at the same time, without any self-awareness, or awareness of anything really). I have been accused of slandering someone as a pedophile to his employers, while being publicly libeled as both a pedophile and a pedophile-shamer (which is ortho-worse apparently). I have been accused of attacking others' livelihoods while mine is under constant assault. Comments, including ones from years ago, have been mass reported to get me banned, yet I am accused of reporting comments that mention my name as bullying -- while banned, while my account was deactivated to avoid the mobbing.

Reports from my most recent bannings due to mass reporting. The first, 2/14/2018, was a comment I posted on the page of someone psychoterrorist Stefanie Warrenbrand and her cell frequents, Rambi Ari Fuld. It refers to terrorists Yishai Schlissel, Yaakov Teitel, Eden Natan-Zada, Baruch Goldstein, Meir Kahane, etc whom they idolize, saint and/or revere as their rebbe. These were specifically named in previous comments. I realized after I was mass reported, that Rambi Ari Fuld had been baiting me. He accused me on at least 10 separate comments of refusing to answer the fallacious question of which 100% of terrorists belong to. The tireless genocidal hatemonger Rambi Ari Fuld had apparently been banned for claiming claiming all terrorists are Muslim, or vice versa. At the time, I thought he was just being a coy bigot. I redressed his fallacious question by observing many counterexamples. Apparently, any reference to religion is sufficient for the Facebook algorithm. I did answer Rambi Ari Fuld's question: Hate. I observed that 100% of terrorists are his correligionist, their religion is hate. In a follow up thread, psychoterrorist Stefanie Warrenbrand and bragged of using multiple accounts to mass report comments from people they have a grudge against. I began getting harassing messages and deactivated my account wary of more reporting.

The second is from a few days after the first banned ended, 3/19/2018, and psychoterrorist Stephanie Warrenbrand and her cell were overtly, publicly inciting against me. The fake profiles Jennifer Hanuka and Revital Zarur had been attempting bizarre anti-lgbtq hatespeach directed at me, and later gloated over the mass reporting of me while harassing acquaintances of mine.

I have been accused of being a Nazi sympathizer for posting a criticism of Indiana's fascist so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Act with a flag of Indiana with the torch of liberty replaced by a rotated โ„ฒR *four years ago* when it had a context on this, my unpublicized blog no one reads, except apparently for my die hard fans -- actual, radical ultranationalist extremists who idolize terrorists and call for the ethnic cleansing of the Lebensraum they claim, looking to cherrypick a figurative well-poisoning to persecute me for. I was promised a personal viewing of a firearm and sword collection, while being accused of harassment.

Projection ๐ŸŽฅ much? Gaslighting ๐ŸŽˆ๐Ÿ’ก hella?

I had planned, when the latest ban ended, to give my contact info to my friends and deactivate my Facebook for awhile, hoping the keyboard juhadis ๐ŸŽฎ✡๐Ÿ’ฃ would eventually obsess over someone more interesting.

I've changed my mind. I'm not going anywhere. If I do not respond to messages, it's because I've been banned again, but will get back to you in a month.

Where there is truth in the malicious rumors and outrageous defamation, it is this:

1) I am queer. I am proud ๐ŸŒˆ The number of fcuks I have to give about what gutter trash think about this or anything else is exactly 
-√-1No gutter trash bigot can insult me for it, nor will I be insulted by the questioning of my masculinity or being characterized as a woman. If I were insecure about any of that, I'd have a sword collection and attack people's masculinity online, duh. Gutter trash can insult only other gutter trash. Speaking of which,

2) I have never in my life felt bullied by Rambi Ari Fuld, or any of his many illicit avatars, whom I am accused of reporting. I have felt repulsed, revolted, and disgusted by the terrorist sympathizing hatemonger, but not bullied. I've also been baited by him I realized after his cabal mass reported me, weeks before his Reichstag fire and announcement of his alt Fascbuch. May it bring some joy to his miserable, pathetic existence. The last thing I would ever do attempt to harm any gainful employment such a person might have. I'm frankly surprised he does, allegedly, and plotzed he's off the streets. G-d knows what he'd do with more free time. For the record, I knew nothing of the multiple child molestation allegations against him. I live on the other side of the globe ๐ŸŒŽ (or however that lot conceives of antipode๐ŸŒ). I'm shocked by Rabidzin Varda Meyers Epstein's revelations on the matter. (I seem to recall mentioning that Jewish child molesters often flee prosecution by immigrating to Israel generally recently, but I never suggested that Rambi Ari Fuld is a child molestor. I had no idea).

3) What I did do was ask the JDL terrorism enthusiasts Liz Kardon (AKA Chaya Shifra int al) and Stefanie Warrenbrand (AKA Stefanie Lynn Warrenbrand, Lynn Warren, int al) to not incite against me and stop directing their friends to mob my profile and page, which they were doing publicly, in writing. When they declined, I tagged the employer of the former who appeared to be on the clock, and messaged  Stefanie Warrenbrand's spouse  *privately* after former addresses of friends and relatives were posted. I did this openly, without concealing my identity as they do to post fraudulent reviews of businesses they have a political grudge against. They already identified their victim, duh. There is no shame in defending myself from an attack on my livelihood -- or being a good cyber citizen and reporting harassment or hate speech as I only wish I had a miserable, idle life of leisure to devote my life to as their cabal with dozens of fake accounts each clearly do. I reached out to someone else, as a kindness they did not deserve, hoping that someone closer to them would be better able to question whether they had gotten too carried away with their soccermom wine and terror ⚽๐Ÿท&✡๐Ÿ’ฃ cell and desperate housewife intrigues ๐ŸŽญ to avoid further escalation and avoid calling the police over Facebook shenanigans. I specifically asked that the former not be fired because I had mistaken her for a human being with a conscience. I informed the grotesque caricature of a human ๐Ÿ‘“๐Ÿ– Stefanie Warrenbrand of the consequences of her continuing her malicious campaign. It is unfortunate Stefanie Warrenbrand has chosen to continue escalating and defaming me even after causing financial damages to me instead of just backing the fcuk off, as I have given her ample opportunities to do.

4)  At least the latter conspired with Rabidzin Varda Meyers Epstein to doxx and swat me, and publish an outrageous defamatory blog accusing me of various preposterous actions, including retroactively creating my brother's Facebook profile and/or my brother (poof! flurp?) to commit the apparently outrageous crime against jumanity of interacting with one of their fake profiles online -- oy gefcukingvalt! In her demented, bizarre exposรฉ of her criminal swatting ๐Ÿš“๐Ÿš”๐Ÿ”ซ๐Ÿก๐Ÿ”ซ๐Ÿš”๐Ÿš“ doxxing ๐Ÿ’ป๐Ÿ“ช and libel ๐Ÿ’ฉ๐Ÿ“ข and her cabal's machinations ๐Ÿ‘น๐Ÿ’ก๐Ÿ˜ธ Rabidzin Varda Meyers Epstein  failed to mention that her coconspirators targeted and mobbed a sibling of mine with a similar name (my mom always wanted twins, but instead I get to constantly check my credit report, and my brother gets half-assed dystopic juhadis. GET A BIGGER SCREEN ๐Ÿ’ซ๐Ÿ‘“๐Ÿ‘ต).

5) Finally, I am magical ❤๐ŸŒˆ✨ But, I'm not magic ๐Ÿ”ฎ I cannot manipulate the spacetime continuum. Yet. I cannot be everywhere at once. I'm awesome, but I'm not Cher for crysakes! I cannot report comments I can't see from people I don't know. I cannot report "bullying" of me from a banned, disabled account. I cannot care about all of you as much as you people care about me. It's just not possible. I can't even. Litrually. Even if there were only one of you. There's only one of me. I am not everyone who has ever looked at you cross-eyed. Surely, we, the facepalmed, repulsed and embarrassed for you, are legion, you copremetic troglodytes. I'm afraid I cannot be your scapegoat. But, I will be your boogeyman man. I volunteer as tribute.

BOO! ๐Ÿ‘ป ๐Ÿ‘ป ๐Ÿ‘ป

But, let's get something str...queerly correct. I'm an American , and I don't give no American fcuk about no foreign-ass Asian countries. I had been somewhat fond of Japan ๐Ÿ‡ฏ๐Ÿ‡ต and Israel ๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ฑ but not enough for the Electronic Occupation apparently. (Also, Lebanese guys are hot ๐Ÿ”ฅAF๐Ÿ‡ฑ๐Ÿ‡ง๐Ÿ™Œ Salaam bonjour!) I'm not an activist. I make jewelry. I just have little tolerance for bigotry and ridiculous lies and made the mistake of not giving genocidal keyboard warrior snowflakes ❄❄❄ with trembling knees so terrified of the big bad world their names are in hiding, the echo chamber they so desperately demand. It's a personality flaw. I cannot contain my contempt. I will make that mistake again, I promise. Block me if you cannot tolerate it. I have no interest in any of the petty sicarii scum --except for those targeting me. You, I do have an interest in.

You are on my blocklist. Unlike you, I am a human being, a real human being, with a name, a real name, a life, a real life, and real people who care about me, not a cell of sockpuppets. If you insist on harassing and maligning me, you may very well call unnecessary attention to your copremetic troglodyte selves, and real people who care about me might report you. I may now that I can no longer pursue beading or social media. Real human beings aren't so keen on sociopathy. By all means, call the FBI and tell them Corey Yoquelet is magic ๐Ÿ˜œ and you do not like what they said on Facebook ๐Ÿ˜ฑ ๐Ÿ˜ฅ๐Ÿ˜ญ I sincerely hope you do ๐Ÿˆ๐Ÿ’ฉ Remember, it's Corey, not Carey, and it's pronounced yoekuhLET, not yogurt (that hurts my feels cuz I'm a feral incel, like you ๐Ÿ‘€). I have nothing to hide O:) Those who support, fund and conspire with terrorist organizations do ๐Ÿ˜ˆ๐Ÿ‘น๐Ÿ’ฉ I'm sure there are already are files on you circus sideshows ๐ŸŽก⛺

Shabbat shalom. Have a blessed day! ๐Ÿ˜๐Ÿ˜™๐Ÿ’œ

#JeSuisCorey #ididnazithatcoming #cacklinghyenas #JSIStrash #sicariiscum #nottodaysatan #flybacktohellverdawhenceyoucame

Update: I had neglected to address the defamation of 4 additional terrorist supporters, 2 juhadis and 2 crusaders who inhabits the grey area between judeophilia and antisemitism.

In Rabidzin Varda Meyers Epstein's ironic exposรฉ of her cell, these confessed to tirelessly violating community standards by maintaining multiple illicit accounts and aggressively promulgating hatespeech have accused me of being responsible for their willful flouting of community standards and transgressions. In less than a month, Ryan Bellerose (AKA Ryan Mervin Bellerose AKA RM Bellerose etc) claims he has received five 30 day bans on different accounts. He also accuses me of getting fired from an job in another country years ago. When his name was mentioned to me a few weeks ago as a potential assailant, it sounded vaguely familiar and, after searching the only timeline I might have encountered such a person in, I discovered we had interacted once several years ago. He offered to shove his foot so far up my ass I taste his toes๐Ÿ’ฉ๐Ÿท๐Ÿท๐Ÿ‘ฃ and called me a r*t*rd. It's fairly clear that such a person needs no help whatsoever getting fired, banned, arrested or committed. I had nothing to do with it, but remember the visceral response I had upon learning of this particular fetish when reminded by seeing the comment again, and concluded immediately that he was not an assailant of mine (no r*t*rd or other prepubescent attempts at insults, not extreme footing, no reverse shrimping, etc).

Rabbigot DaBear Epstein nรฉe Dov Blair Epstein, I have a little more familiarity with. For years, he has been trolling comments I make calling me an abomination, inquiring as to the taste of semen, calling me a c*cks*cker, and getting as giddy as a school girl rambling on and on about same sex "fellation" [sic]. For me, he's like the town flasher everyone knows his name, a fairly harmless dotardly kook. He is a upstanding, chassidic rabbi. Obvi, such a person would never transgress community standards, except for the multiple accounts, graphic sex, homophobic hatespeech and the occasional call for genocide. One of my replies to this lady who doth protests too much methinks was immediately reported a few months ago. I never reported him. I sincerely would rather his embarrassments stand. For all eternity. I'm truly saddened to learn some will be denied to his grandchildren and posterity. I was looking forward to reading them as a eulogy and leaving printouts for his yahrzeit at his grave. Maybe even a bronze plaque or two.

Karen Shlomo accused me too. While I trust she is outrageously heinous given her associates, I cannot say I have ever had the displeasure of meeting or interacting with him/her.

Also mentioned in Rabidzin Epstein's exposรฉ of her cell are Krista Kay and Richard Eliot. I had interacted with them previously. They are aggressive extremist trolls. On March 19th, a friend reached out to me because Richard Eliot had been defaming me on Facebook and gave me the following exchange:

Member of psychoterrorist Stefanie Warrenbrand's cell, Richard Eliot admits he's Krista Kay and maintains many fake accounts to stalk, infiltrate and spread hatespeach. Suggests he is in fact Ryan Bellerose.

When I was given the exchange, I quickly saw that the writing styles of Ryan Bellerose and Niagara Bill Richard Eliot/Krista Kay are consistently distinct, and thought that none of them were primarily involved in the campaign against me. They are crusaders primarily obsessed with the inferiority of Arabs and Muslims (whom they do not seem to be able distinguish) and have a special fascination with communism because they live in Eastern Europe in the last century apparently -- not juhadis primarily obsessed with Jewish supremacy (and having a vague classification system for their untermenschen), waging Electronic Occupation, trying to give the "special treatment" to Jews they identify as political criminals. While Ryan is an amateur juqiyyaist and juhadist, I had reasoned crusaders wouldn't have much interest in me.

Not Today, Satan, Not Today!

Indiana Governor brands opponents of anti-gay religious freedom bill ‘intolerant’
I shared this story on Facebook along with my thoughts:
  • WT literal F. When did it become a thing for conservatives to accuse progressives of being intolerant, bigots, hypocrites, etc? I thought they insisted that it is a person's right to be intolerant. Does intolerance only become a problem if they are the ones not being tolerated? Someone please explain to them that no one is passing laws against bigotry. We tolerate their views. They are free to tell the whole world that the Bible says black people are cursed and mixed race couples are sinful and deserve destruction, for example. In fact, it is very useful to know who these people are. No one is telling them to be in a mixed race couple if they believe it's sinful. Everyone supports their right to bring suit under the Constitution's Free Exercise of Religion clause if their personal practice has been infringed upon. But, that is *not* what RFRAs are, ergo the substitution.

    Do they really expect the rest of us to applaud them for their patriotism and tolerance if they try to compel others to follow their beliefs by laws? Give me a break, and give them a dictionary!
Feeling compelled to respond, an Indiana politician and businessman, whom I grew up with and had a previous exchange with over his illogical belief that marriage equality will bring the Apocalypse or at least the death of morality and his unBiblical beliefs about homosexuality and marriage, asserted:
  • You are intolerant, Corey Yoquelet. Of anyone who's viewpoint is different than yours. You are right, majority mindset or not.
I responded to him, as I have before:

Thank you, [unnamed businessman and elected official in my hometown] for illustrating my point, but I wasn't seeking further illogical examples. We talked about this.

Indeed, I am intolerant, but trivially only of prevailing one person's interpretation of religion on someone else by legislating criminal and civil law against them or denying them legal privileges. That is my position. I am not trying to hide it; I refuse to tolerate anyone prevailing their interpretation of religion on someone else through legislation. You're failing attempt at an ad hominem does not observe any inconsistency on my part; you are merely restating my position, and pretending it is shameful. This is the logical fallacy of trivial truth.

Logical fallacies are not valid arguments against a position. We talked about this. I already gave you a list of them and encouraged you to ask yourself whether something you wanted to say to me was on that list before bothering to bring it up.

The Constitution's First Amendment makes clear that attempts to prevail religious interpretations on others are not be tolerated in America (the Establishment, Separation AND Free Exercise Clauses). I am a conservative patriot, you see; you are a hater of America and the Constitution.

You cannot suggest that I am intolerant of religion or religious people; that would be a lie. In fact, I became interested in logical fallacies because anti-theists are fond of slinging them at religious people. To defend the religious, I observe my favorite logical fallacy: the logical fallacy fallacy (just because someone's rhetoric involves a logical fallacy, their position is not necessarily untenable; to evaluate the position, one must address the position itself. I have always done you the courtesy of assuming that, despite your untoward efforts, you have a position that deserves logical rebuttal). I believe fundamentally that, for example, Christianity is just as meritorious as atheism, if not more so because it can bring comfort and a sense of value into its followers lives. Ultimately, atheism is founded on the argumentum ex silentio fallacy, and various religions are founded on their own idiosyncratic anecdotal fallacies. While there is subtle difference between the two -- the first is a formal fallacy (excluded immediately from logical discussion) and the second is just informal (excluded after consideration) -- neither position is more any more logical. The very purpose of assuming such ideologies is to presuppose assertions that are not obviously or demonstrably true. Personally, I am no longer religious, due originally to people like you. I am ignostic and believe that anti-theists are more misguided than religious people. When it comes to interpreting the Bible, I will always be a fundamentalist, but I respect your right to follow the doctrines of men instead. Sharing my opinions has nothing to do with whether I am willing to tolerate someone. I will not tolerate the bullying of anyone who is minding their own business, whether they are atheist, religious or LGBTQ; I have always responded to such nonsense.

I am not even intolerant of the people who apply questionable interpretations of the Bible to themselves. For example, I trust that your wife is not black and has a vagina, but I cannot fault you for allowing your religious beliefs to determine your own marriage.

But, I will not tolerate you trying to use your religious beliefs to justify slavery or forcing other people from marriages you think are prohibited by the Bible. I will not tolerate religionists imposing their beliefs on others. You see the difference?

You agree with being intolerant of gay people AND imposing your religious beliefs on them with legislation. I tolerate your belief and defend your right to live your life by it, but I will not tolerate you forcing others to comply with it. If there is a legitimate motivation for secular legislation, it can and must be stated without appealing to someone's interpretation of the Bible, or it violates the Establishment and Separation Clauses, and basic logic. It's that simple.

You call me "intolerant", but all you mean is that I disagree with you and think your favored legislation should be repealed and/or submitted to the Court for voiding. Indeed! But, the only reason you know about my opinion to begin with is that I disagree with *your* majority mindset and am trying to have the laws you lot have passed and the discrimination you lot generate undone. You have voted against my marriage, will vote against it again in 2016, and have tried to encourage others to not tolerate people like me too because you are an unAmerican, unChristian, bigoted hypocrite. You are demonstrating the tu quoque fallacy you attempted to accuse me of.

Do you really expect me to be moved by your insincere and false suggestion that my position hurts your feels, when you are actively trying to punish people for doing something you dislike? Give me a break. We talked about this.

I have never voted on anything or encouraged others to not tolerate you or the lot of people like you for exercising your beliefs in how you live your own life. No one has ever tried to force you into a mixed marriage despite your religious abhorrence of Black people.

Bigotry is of course a sin, the one Jesus said will not be forgiven. But, it's not a crime, and no one has tried to make it one. Your RFRA would, however, allow me to do all sorts of things to you though because I have a religious justification for chasing you out of town among other things; that is actually justified in the Bible, unlike your so-called religious beliefs. But, liberals have never sought legal legitimacy to persecute or prosecute people like you. You do realize that it is still legal for people who think that Black people have the Biblical Curse of Ham to refuse service in their private businesses; legislation did not stop that from happening, rather fear of boycotting by consumers made it less common. Legislation did not cause religionist bigots to marry black people; it merely prevents religionist from interfering with other people's lives.

"Bigotry" involves a sense of superiority, moral or otherwise, over a group of people on the sole basis of their membership in that group, such as your sense of moral (and, you would like, legal) superiority over me as a fag. My *response* to your *unsolicited* opinion that I am not as worthy of dignity as you is not that *I* superior to you; just that you are superior to no one on the basis of the Bible, 
[unnamed businessman], and I will not accept your legislating an inferior status to me. That's not bigotry. It's demanding that WE BOTH be treated equally. It's WWJD; it's what he did.
  • You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.”
  • Who say, “Keep to yourself, do not come near me, for I am too holy for you.” These are a smoke in my nostrils, a fire that burns all the day.
  • If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.
  • Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness.
  • For there is no truth in their mouth; their inmost self is destruction; their throat is an open grave; they flatter with their tongue.
You are free to burn, [unnamed elected official]. I wholeheartedly support your right to do so. But, I will not tolerate you throwing stones or legislating laws that required or allow stone throwing. You say Jesus called a sin a sin -- loved the sinner but hated the sin. The Bible says Jesus called a hypocrite a hypocrite -- he hated the hypocrisy and the hypocrite -- he said not to call anyone a sinner unless perhaps if you are not one, which he says no human being is.

(And, don't try to argue with me again about what "love" means in the Bible; Jesus clarified this himself with the Parable of the Good Samaritan. I encouraged you to read the Bible previously instead of just throwing it other people. The Samaritan [a member of a different religious group with a different holy book] was welcoming and helped someone in need who had different religious views. Jesus said the Samaritan satisfied the Bible, unlike the self-appointed religious promoters of the Bible [actually as a Cohan and Levite, they were appointed by the Bible but were free to reject these roles]. Jesus said that the Samaritan would go to Heaven. He did not required him to convert to Christianity, or even Judaism, or to refrain from sin -- only to fulfill the commandment to "love" ones neighbors. The Commandment -- the essence of the Bible -- Jesus explained was not one of the many rules about what people *should not* do in order to avoid breaking The Commandment, but the only thing people *must* do. Jesus prohibited being unwelcoming because that is not what "love" is in the Bible. One cannot love G-d if one does not "love" all people created equally, each dignified in His image, sin and all. That is why The Great Commandment has those two parts that Jesus says are the same. It is not your place to judge the sins that G-d empowered us to commit. To do so is to be Satan, literally; that's what he did in the Bible -- use the Bible against people, not try to entice them not to follow it. Obviously, driving others and oneself from religion is the inevitable result of perverting a guide for self-improvement into a weapon of cruelty against others. Reflect on The First Commandment G-d gave to Adam and Eve, [unnamed facebook friend]. After he granted equality, dignity, life and liberty, he commanded that people not eat from the Tree of Good and Evil. He knew that people were not yet able to understand why G-d created the possibility of sin and hardship and allowed them to occur; the human (and even angelic) understanding of Evil would lead humanity astray. Read the book of Job and also reflect on the biblically motivated trials Satan put Jesus to. What arrogance of you it is to try to interfere with G-d's plan; if G-d deigns allow people to sin, how dare you not? It was the Serpent who enticed Eve to distinguish good from evil, and thus began the Satanic lie that some people are less dignified than others. It is a lie that G-d repeatedly tried to set right, and it is a lie you tell anyway.)

But, I don't hate you, and I wouldn't turn you away, or support turning you away from anything in the here and now for fear of ending up with you for eternity.

Sling your sticks and stones, but do not misrepresent me.

I actively support your right to be a Christian, but you are no Christian. You are an unChristian Christianitist. But, that is not my problem with you. I oppose your religionists efforts. 

I believe in Free Exercise of Religion, encourage you to practice your religion (please!) and only ask that you not interfere with my Free Exercise of Religion or other rights. Should the Government ever interfere with your practice of religion, I support your right to pursue justice by bringing suit under the Constitution's Free Exercise Clause, but let's not pretend that RFRAs that substitutes it has anything to do with that because they would not be substituted if they did.

I am opposed to RFRAs because they, as I have publicly stated, bypass the Constitution. I believe that discriminating *against* people is not the purpose of RFRA, only a bonus; and that that should not enter in discussion of its merits (or rather lack there of).  

I am not opposed to Indiana or its people. The flag in my profile does not suggest that Hoosiers are hateful fascists (I am one; remember, we in school together from K-12), but rather that โ„ฒ(reedom of) R(eligion) under RFRA is a foreign, religionist replacement of liberties of Anti-Establishment, Separation and true Religious Freedom, not unlike the establishment Christianity in Nazi Germany and not unlike the establishment of The Church of England in the Religionist England (and other religionist countries) allowing persecution of the religious minorities who colonized America.

I am opposed to the backlash against Indiana because I think it distracts from the real issue that LGBTQ people do *not* have rights *to begin with* in the majority of states or at the Federal Level. I am not for the boycott of Indiana as I have stated publicly, though I believe your religion not only justifies it, but demands it:
  • If people do not welcome you, leave their town and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them
  • But whatever city you enter and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, Even the dust of your city which clings to our feet we wipe off in protest against you...I say to you, it will be more tolerable in that day for Sodom than for that city
While I will not tolerate your religionist legislation, I *do* tolerate your attempts. In fact, I welcome them. Real progress in securing civil rights in the US has never come from the Legislature passing laws asserting them, but rather from the Court affirming the rights the Constitution guarantees to people that laws would take away. If DOMA and Prop8 had not been passed by people like you, the issue would have never made it to the Court, and I would not be married today. You lot are fond of saying the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Well, the road to improvement has been paved with bad ones. I dare speculate that this is precisely why G-d endowed us all with the propensity for and free will to "sin" to begin with! I not only tolerate your religionist attempts, but my marriage and I are indebted to them. I dare you to give it all you got -- don't be a coward!

May G-d show you more mercy than you are willing to show others; may G-d have mercy on your soul. See, I pray for you, not try to create laws that criminalize you, discriminate against you or punish you. I do not unfriend or avoid you because you're hell-bound according to the Bible. That is Biblical "love"; I hope you are able to find it within yourself one day. I'm only telling you any of this because you persist throwing ad hominem stones at me and demeaning my position and my status. My response is the same as it was before: not today, Satan, not today!

Language, logic, laws and the Law are not yours, Satan, to pervert into weapons of abuse.

[This diatribe was brought to you by the letters S, M and H.]

Righting "Arguments" from the Right Side of Reason (and to the far Left of the Constitution)

There is a strange rumor floating around that Religious Freedom Restoration Acts are about whether a cake decorator can refuse service to a gay couple. Proponents ask whether opponents would fine and close down the business just because the owner is sticking to her religious beliefs. But that is not the question answered by RFRAs.

Would you tell a Christian youth group that the Government will pay legal costs and that it can flout zoning or whatever laws it feels are inconvenient, but an organization that provides suicide support and homelessness intervention to the kids who are kicked out of their homes by the people who run the Christian youth group that they have to obey the law and pay legal costs or lobby the government for oversight themselves?

Why is it that people who claim that they are religious get the extra privileges of government support and ignoring laws they don't like? They do not have to show this nor that the exercise of their religion would actually be disrupted if they obeyed the law; they just have to claim they are burdened. (BTW according to the Bible, the law of the land is the law that must be followed by the religious so their free exercise of religion is not impeded, but furthered, by secular law.) RFRA allows Churches to destroy historic landmarks. Look up the lawsuits that have been brought under the Federal RFRA and other RFRAs. None of them involve refusing service. They involve people citing religion as reason to break laws they dislike.

The rumor that RFRAs are about freedom or the Constitution is obviously false. None of cases brought under RFRAs could have been brought under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, because the plaintiffs in these cases cannot possibly prove that keeping the law actually interferes with Free Exercise of Religion. You want proof? Look no further than the fact that these cases were brought under RFRA, not Constitutional Law. Rest assured cases can and have been brought under the Free Exercise Clause. The very purpose of RFRAs, though, is to replace the Constitution and it's protections and to excuse people who claim they are religious from demonstrating their case; Indiana's excuses petitioners from ever funding their own efforts. This is not "restoring" the First Amendment; it is replacing it!

This is called discrimination. It is not necessarily discrimination against gays, but it can be used that way. It is utterly superfluous in allowing discrimination against gays though, as gay people are NOT protected from discrimination and hate crimes in Indiana or at the federal level to begin with. It is discrimination *for* people who claim to be "religious".

This is called prejudice, a blanket preemptive law that awards the religious over the "Church Separation" State, governments and people. Mostly, it will be used like this.

Let's say there is a profitable Christian bookstore. If this business is threatened or even just burned by a new law that is passed, the government will pay legal costs and the business that sells books that happen to be Christian able to ignore the law and stay open. Your generic bookstore, or even non-profit library next door, would have to close down and pay legal costs or lobby the government to make reasonable exceptions before the law is passed or change it after. But, it's not just this. Let's say you are also a Christian and believe sharing or selling knowledge is part of the Christian mission, then, abracadabra, your business the government pays legal costs and you get the privileges, too! This discrimination is what you are supporting if you support RFRA.

You are not supporting the cake decorator's right to refuse to make a cake for faggots. Business have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, as the signs in many windows state (and, PS, gay people are not particularly keen on giving money to homophobes or discovering what might have been put in the cake). Gay people are not a protected minority in Indiana or most states. If they were, the decorator could still say no (but hopefully keep her hate to herself and not bother saying why), but employers could not fire them. Legal cases involving business practices are brought under business code, not RFRAs.

Maybe you think people who claim they are religious should get special government support and the privilege to flout the law, but this is not a freedom guaranteed in the Constitution. Indeed, the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing religious profession as a condition of rights and liberties.

I support the Constitution being restored, but I know that constitutional restoration is not a power given to the Legislature in the Constitution. It is the power of the Judiciary. No doubt, it will restore to the Constitution in this case, just has it has many times before, and just as it did when it voided the federal RFRA. A possible role in Constitutional Amendment is granted to the Legislature in the Constitution; it can recommend Amendments for ratification by 3/4ths of the State Legislatures or State Conventions. Of course though, the people who want the "restoration" are the people who fear the will of the people and wouldn't dare countenance Conventions or putting this willful, wreckless and wasteful (il)legal farce up up for vote from 3/4ths of the States. Instead, they lie, call it restoration and subvert the Constitution, contenting themselves with the bipartisan politics that always favors a majority even by 1 vote.

Since the Republican Congresses that pass such laws have no doubt cut funding for education and social studies, government and history textbooks, here is a graphic representing the Constitution's specification for how Government is to work, as well as a graphic illustrating what Republican Congresses are actually doing when they pass RFRAs.

I hope these diagrams can disabuse the rumors that RFRAs have anything to do with the Constitution, restoration or freedom. There is, however, another conservative NewSpeak rumor that is a little less subtle.

Conservatives accuse liberals of attempting to give special privileges to a favored group of people, all while passing laws again and again that do just that. They claim that civil, employment, housing rights and hate crimes protections give special rights to minorities. This is demonstrably false. Prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex protects men just as much as it protects women. The Department of Justice details, for example, that prohibitions against discrimination based on race enfranchise white people to pursue justice when not given the same employment opportunities as black people. So called reverse discrimination cases make up a significant proportion of the discrimination suits that prevail in court. "Reverse" of course is a misnomer based on the widespread and intentional misperception that anti-discrimination laws give special rights to minorities only.

The irony, of course, is that the opponents of anti-discrimination laws are generally the proponents of RFRAs, which do in fact give special privileges to only a special group. These same people are fond of the false rumor
 RFRAs are about whether a cake decorator can refuse service to a gay couple. With it, they accuse opponents of bigoted persecution of people who claim that their religion demands that they refuse service to queer people. But, that is hardly the issue to begin with. 

Can a last straw be a first?

Outrage against Indiana for discrimination is not enough. ‪#‎BoycottIndiana will not end discrimination. If you want to do something positive to fight discrimination in Indiana and in America, please sign and share the linked petitions.

As a gay Hoosier, the ‪#‎BoycottIndiana‬ phenomenon is reassuring to me on one hand, but, on the other, I hope doesn't distract from the real issues. I do not believe Mike ‪#‎RecallPence‬ is really responsible for the ‪#‎ReligiousFreedomRestorationAct‬. I'm sure he is too busy to be personally invested at all as he directs his energies at destroying the public education system of Indiana (which had been one of the -- forgive me if I boast about my home -- best in the country). I'm sure, if he could, he would replace all of the elected legislators who actually invested precious time and money to propose and passed this law with his goons. He should have been recalled a long time ago, and I hope his not vetoing the bill is the last straw:

But, it is just a straw, and it is a strawman to scapegoat Indiana for discrimination. 31 other governors have signed similar bills that 31 lawful congresses passed. Indeed, President Clinton signed a much more conservative law in 1993 that was declared unconstitutional in it its excess.

Unconstitutional laws can paradoxically be a means of progress. If DOMA and Prop8 had not been passed into law, those states that have marriage equality now would not have it (Thank you, Clinton, I had felt betrayed, and thank you, Mormons, if it weren't for you funneling all that money to promote a hasty law). Indiana's RFRA is bringing attention to inequality.

It took hateful laws to make progress because our Congresses refuse to protect the civil rights and liberties of LGBTQ citizens. The Civil Rights movement began over 50 years ago for racial minorities and queers; we tried to fight together, but it did not work out that way. LGBTQ people were excluded from the progress of the larger Civil Rights movement. Racial minorities won Constitutional protections. What makes queers different though is something that some people find morally objectionable; those who have a different interpretation of religion have been more quick to defend the intolerantly religious than the religiously intolerated. For fear of persecution of the religious, we allow religious persecution.

Like murder, persecution of the religious will unfortunately happen, but there is an Amendment to the Constitution (the first one, no less) and many other laws that ensure that it will not go unchecked. On the other hand, religious persecution of queers is rampant. The signs and images of discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, origin or ancestry that well meaning people appropriate from the past are only a specter of the messages and realities that gay people are confronted with day in and day out, today.

"Not welcome" is still posted on signs in our communities on crosses that threaten fire and, we fear, what else. "Not welcome" is shouted into our ears by taunting peers. It is beaten into our broken faces. Several times a day in the US, it is cut into wrists of the children who have understood a message so common place that we often miss it and cannot recognize the effect it can have. It is written across the faces displayed on the big screen in your home almost every night. Tears etched it on a bloody body hung as a warning and reminder that hate crimes against involving sexual orientation and identity go unpunished because it sounds just a little too sexual to be dignified with the status of a minority whose civil rights the government must protect.

Look at the writing on the walls! Look at the graffiti on our homes before we are evicted for bringing it upon ourselves. Turn on the news! Ask the friend in your newsfeed why she lost his job and watch how long it takes for her to find another; I guarantee you those things were easier when people considered her male.

There is no need to wax nostalgic about have far we've come because the fact is some of us are still living those horrific black and white photos you want to believe can no longer be taken. Maybe, some part of us thinks that what is happening to queers is okay -- that only the obvious and easily hidden discrimination experienced by racial minorities in the past is legitimate injustice unlike the systematic disenfranchisement of queer people because being publicly gay is a prideful and foolish arrogance and some say being gay at all is a choice.... I'd like to think that it is only the obvious bigots who predetermine another person's dignity and whether they invite persecution or deserve equality. I'd like to think that it's just easier to pretend all of that was left behind, but gay people are still casualties of this convenience; you left us behind.

If you think the problem is the Indiana RFRA, you are grossly mistaken. You are appalled that the Indiana Congress could pass a law undoing half a century of progress? Wake up! Discrimination against gay people was NEVER prohibited. 

It was only about decade ago that being queer was decriminalized. Into the 21st century, queer Americans were arrested and prosecuted just because just the alleged religion of the majority declared them sinners. We look back on prior generations' racial discrimination with horror, but we forget that it too was religiously motivated; the Biblical curse of Ham and his descendants was used to justify subjugation and exploitation of Blacks, and the Biblical prohibitions against miscegenation motivated outlawing mixed-race marriages in the United States until the racial Civil Rights movement. We forget that America was founded by people whose rejection of the horrors of religious persecution by people exposing a certain religious view was so fundamental that they established a State separate from any Church; religion is not the problem, but rather religionists imposing their views on others. We look to marriage equality as proof that religious persecution of queer citizens and discrimination is behind us. But, when we still allow people to be fired for daring to get married, we are only deceiving ourselves.

RFRA is just a distraction that fools you into believing that gays have rights to begin with. We'll be too busy fighting this thing to realize that it could only deny rights only if we had them. Bigots don't need RFRA when it comes to really destroying us.

When Indiana refuses to prohibit employment and housing discrimination based on orientation and refuses to prosecute hate crimes against us, do you really think it matters if a few Indiana businesses are stupid enough to refuse what little money we manage to get?

If we had civil rights, it would be easier to address that issue but it doubt remain one for very long. Like the 1993 Federal RFRA, Indiana's law will be declared an unconstitutional abuse of the Government's enforcing powers and will be almost entirely voided, as well. You got that, America? We did this already. We paid for the US Congress to push through a much more conservative bill. Then we paid for the Judiciary to tell us the same thing it said in 1878: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices." The voiding of RFRA should have come as no surprise to the legislators who said the were restoring the Constitution as the people who wrote it drew the very same distinction, as discussed by Jefferson, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." But, here we are again and again and again. Religious freedom restoration is a lie. The Constitution was not altered; there is nothing to restore; even if it were an amendment itself, an RFRA could not prevent the unlikely one that is feared.

Religious Freedom Restoration Acts are a lie. Perhaps, there is a reason why Pence is so bent on destroying education.

When RFRA is voided by the institution whose Constitutional duty it is to restore the Constitution, namely the Judiciary, we will not magically become equal. Unlike DOMA, RFRA doesn't dare refer to us lest the Court interpret rights for us that legislature refuses to acknowledge. When it is voided, we will not see any positive effect on our lives. Paradoxically, the effect will be negative: the self-righteous will become scared again, and start a new round of legislated discrimination. But. it's utterly superfluous; it's completely legal to discriminate against gays in most states (and if it is illegal, RFRA cannot alter those protections). Still, it makes them feel better, like they are keeping back Satan and the count down to Armageddon because that is what Government is supposed to do, right? Right... Satan and Armageddon are what gay people and equality are for them. Of course, I am not their Satan, and Indiana is not mine.

Believe me when I tell you that, as a gay man and a native Hoosier, I am very grateful for the sentiment of #BoycottIndiana. But, no thank you; I'd prefer it if you didn't bully the good people of Indiana (but, if you absolutely must, by all means have at the bad ones in every state). Every state is responsible for what is happening in Indiana; America is responsible for what is happening in every state. If you really want to do something about it: demand Civil Rights, demand Equality, demand prosecution of Hate Crimes in Every State and at the Federal Level. Defeating an RFRA in Indiana will not accomplish any of that. Call on your representatives to propose and pass comprehensive Civil Rights legislation. Call on your representatives to Amend the Constitution to protect even the religiously persecuted. Call now before you forget that it's still 1960 for us. That is the only thing that will stop this endless farce. If you really want to show the Legislatures what you think, demand Conventions. Of course they won't allow that, but unlike RFRA, Conventions is in fact enshrined in the Constitution. 

Outrage against Indiana's ‪#‎ReligiousFreedomRestorationAct‬ is not enough. Queer Hoosiers are not protected from discrimination and hate crimes to begin with. ‪#‎BoycottIndiana‬ is a wake up call, but it is misplaced and does nothing to end discrimination or hate crimes. Queer Americans in most states are not protected from discrimination and hate crimes, and are not protected at all the Federal level. If you want to do something, demand ‪#‎CivilRightsForAllHoosiers‬ (and your state) and#‎CivilRightsForAllAmericans!……

I'm not saying the Indiana RFRA is not important. It is, and by all means follow and demolish it. But, that is all you do, don't be surprised when it happens again.

It is time for you to share the freedoms and protections of modern America with us. It is time for us all to move on to constructive matters that improve lives, like education and recalling Pence.

If only religion were restored!

It's not a secret that I am opposed to so-called religious freedom restoration measures. I am opposed to them on religious grounds (does that qualify me for an exemption), but, more centrally to me, for personal and social reasons. I am not opposed to Indiana; I am a Hoosier. I am not opposed to religion, or even Christianity; I am an admirer and believe the world would be a better place if religion were restored -- rather than the hateful perversion that is behind allegedly religiously motivated discrimination.

"Reclaimed" is perhaps the better word. Many have maintained it, but they seem inherently less intolerant, loud or militant than the self-appointed defenders of religion. Religion does not need a defender; G-d does not need a champion over Him. The founding fathers of the United States knew this; the one on the $100 bill observed and warned:

  • When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, ’tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.
It is a supreme arrogance to pretend to be religion's champion. Jesus observed and warned:
  • You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.”
Jesus was recounting what G-d revealed to Isiah:
  • Who say, “Keep to yourself, do not come near me, for I am too holy for you.” These are a smoke in my nostrils, a fire that burns all the day.
The Bible the arrogant would defend teaches plainly, again and again:
  • If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.
  • Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness.
Such arrogance is a disservice even to the self-appointed champion as it reveals him for exactly what he is:
  • For there is no truth in their mouth; their inmost self is destruction; their throat is an open grave; they flatter with their tongue.
And, it is a disservice to religion that twists religion into a cruel mockery of destruction that drives people away and has absolutely no place in a religious community or greater society.

Jesus was not a crusader for religion. He did not condemn the Good Samaritan for not converting to Christianity, or even Judaism; instead he said the Samaritan was saved because for loving his neighbor, for welcoming someone who was different. It was the self-righteous in positions of religious authority who refused to do this that were condemned. Jesus did not tell people to be unwelcoming in any circumstance. Instead, he welcomes a felon convicted of capital crime (identified as Mary Magdalene), rebuking not her sin but the people who abuse her for it. Jesus did talk about people being unwelcoming though:
  • If people do not welcome you, leave their town and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them
  • But whatever city you enter and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, Even the dust of your city which clings to our feet we wipe off in protest against you...I say to you, it will be more tolerable in that day for Sodom than for that city
The Bible condemns inhospitable discrimination and sanctions a boycott of even the surrounding town that tolerates it, not as a punishment for the inhospitable Sodomites, but for safety; they bring destruction.

Jesus was the champion of the marginalized people the self-righteous would destroy. Even if he had championed religion instead, you are not Jesus. Those who are inhospitable to others considered sinners are absolutely nothing like Jesus.

Though not as loudly as the hypocrites, plenty of religious people maintain the teachings of the Bible. Two millennia ago, there was a man who realized that maintaining the tradition is not enough and it must be reclaimed with the same fire and brimstone as used by those who abuse it.

Though the Indiana Episcopal Church's response to Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act avoids the fire and brimstone Jesus promised hypocrites, it goes a long way to reclaiming authentic religion, which has and hopefully continues to be constructive force in lives and society rather than a destructive mockery.

You know by now that the Indiana State Assembly has passed a measure called The Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This bill purports to protect persons and businesses from government reprisal if their decisions to treat groups of people differently (in the provision of services and goods, for example) stem from what they claim to be religious beliefs – even if those beliefs are not part of the formally professed teaching of any established religious group.

Proponents of the bill say it is not about discrimination. Discrimination, in its truest sense, is about drawing distinctions. To discriminate is to make considered decisions, and is not in itself either morally or ethically good or bad. But when decisions are being made about who will be entitled to what, and on what basis, the potential for discrimination to become a relational weapon in a culture and society is tremendous. None of us has to think hard to come up with examples in our own history as a nation.

The language of the bill does not identify any specific group of people – either as needing protection for their beliefs, or as possible targets in decisions to withhold services or goods. What this means is that there is no legal boundary placed on who may decide to discriminate, or who may be discriminated against, so long as the 'decider' claims to be acting out of religious conviction. The possibilities for mischief are tremendous!

Though the group most likely to be singled out in our thoughts is the LGBT community, it is clearly possible for many others to be told they are unacceptable to receive whatever services or goods a person or company has on offer. Consider the possibility that only Christians will be served in some places, only Jews in others, while no Muslims, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, or Druids can purchase merchandise in some stores, and only Latinos will be included here, only Blacks excluded see the point. This legislation gives the appearance of tolerating and protecting overt bigotry in any form so long as it is dressed up as personal religious fervor.

That this is terrible for business is already being made exquisitely plain. That it is an embarrassment to 'Hoosier Hospitality' is undeniable. It is also an affront to faithful people across the religious landscape. Provision of a legal way for some among us to choose to treat others with disdain and contempt is the worst possible use of the rule of law.

For Episcopalians, whose lives are ordered in the Gospel of Christ and the promises of our Baptismal Covenant, it is unthinkable. We are enjoined to love God with heart, mind, soul and strength, and to love others as Christ loves us. We promise, every time we reaffirm our baptismal vows, to "seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving our neighbors as ourselves." We promise to "strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being."

The God we worship became Incarnate, and waded into the unfaithful realities of human life. We follow a Master who associated with sinful, unacceptable people, both Jew and Gentile, all the while challenging as hypocritical the religious leaders who held themselves aloof from the general populace.

As I write this letter to you we are approaching Holy Week and Easter – seasons of deep reflection and joyous celebration in which we rehearse the saving acts of God throughout human history and in the death and Resurrection of Jesus. We claim for ourselves the transforming, reconciling love of God in Christ; not as treasures to be hoarded, but as gifts to be shared with the whole world in the name of the Lord we serve and worship.

Please join me in prayer for all those who have experienced demeaning behaviors, and those who have chosen to treat them so badly. Both in our individual and our common lives, may we become faithful advocates for justice, and reconciling examples of the indiscriminate love of God.

+Catherine M. Waynick
Bishop of Indianapolis
March 26, 2015

Red Pen Logic Lesson

From now on, I think my response to "arguments" relating to the so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Act and opposition to it will be something like:

I encourage you to feel free in the future to solicit my estimation if you should come up with an argument, but in the mean time it is perhaps best for you to reflect on your statement yourself:
"I hate [appeal to emotion fallacy] to break it to you [ad hominem fallacy, i.e., I am ignorant and/or delusional, which may be true of me but does not bear on the position which presupposes the following facts], but 31 [ad populum fallacy, anecdotal fallacy] other states [ad auctoritate fallacymasked man fallacy] have similar laws [masked man fallacy], not to mention [lie, you are doing so] Bill Clinton [ad autoritate, anecdotal, factually misleading] put a similar law [masked man] into effect in 1993 [ad antiquitatem fallacy, anecdotal]."
Thus [benefit of doubt, assuming you are attempting to make an argument]: if a law is acceptable it is common/traditional/made by a respected authority [unwarranted assumption fallacy, assuming it is not a vacuous truth fallacy]; similar laws are common/etc [FACT(!) ergo my problem(!)]; therefore, this law is common/etc [masked man fallacy, FALSE]; therefore, it *is* acceptable [converse fallacy]; therefore, you *ought* to accept it [naturalistic fallacy, illicit substitution]. In other words [by LOGICAL implication, presupposition, and pragmatic implicature], it is my unreasoned opinion that you should accept things as they are [granted that that is in fact your opinion, at least as stated obscurely, but it is MOOT ergo the position you are responding to] and I am telling you this because I cannot accept your position as it is and believe you should change it [tu quoque fallacy, a fancy Latin phrase meaning 'you're a hypocrite and a fool'] and I do not realize that everything I just said is precisely why you think there should be change [I can't say that I hate to break it to you: idiotic].

A few months ago, marriage discrimination against gay couples was enshrined as law by more than these 32 states and the Federal government (also by means of a bill put on the desk of Clinton by an antagonist Republican Congress that was attempting to impeach him). A few decades ago, marriage discrimination against mixed race couples was law in the overwhelming majority of states making the repeated attempts at Federal Constitutional amendment superfluous. A few decades ago, racial discrimination was the law of the land. Less than century ago, women were disenfranchised, with only Utah (thank you, Mormons!) having had woman's suffrage.

31 states, the Federal government and my home outdoing them all, you say? I know! That's why I want that to change. It goes without saying that the change I would like to see is contrary to the position of those who do not want change; it's presupposed, logically. And, I have a red pen to break this to you if necessary.

If you can't stand the heat, turn off the Bible

It seems the "Religious" Freidom Fighters cannot contain their self-righteous indignation at the boycotts their discrimination doubtlessly inspire. The potential GenCon boycott was just too much for one gaming granny:
  • You know, after thinking about this for a day, and listening to all the misinformed bumper sticker mentality from one sided people, I have made a decision. I have four grandsons. I love my Zelda games and I have some fond memories of playing Zelda with my son, and my husband playing Mario with him. This has continued with my grandsons. They have ALL the skylanders. One set for each. We just got a 3ds for my one grandson and a Wii U for the other, and my older grandson and I just worked our way through Majora's Mask and were looking forward to Hyrule Warriors next. But guess what? We're going to find something else fun to do, like go out bike riding, because no one pushes their one sided political opinions down our throats doing that, and no one tries to force us to believe what they do bike riding. So enjoy your convention Gen Con. You just lost a lot of money from this household because of your intolerance of ALL people's rights, not just the ones you happen to agree with. You attacked my home and you attacked my people. I will not give your industry another penny.
    ~So Mad I Could Ride a Bicycle in Greenville

    [For those of you who are not from the Midwest, so mad you could ride a bicycle is like the most forserious! If it can't be done by car, it cannot be done. If you want to borrow a cup of sugar from your neighbor, you drive next door. Except maybe if Armageddon happened, like the real one, not the armagayddon we connipt over; no Hoosier is going to lynch a gay with a bicycle. Unless he's is the one on the bicycle... Riding a bicycle in Indiana is, in a word, queer.]
  • You could read the Bible instead; that would show em real good like! Maybe spend some time to reflect on your thoughts too. Like how is it that one person can believe that,


    1) it is perfectly justified for businesses to refuse service from customers who they disagree with, but

    2) it is an outrageous attack on your race and fatherland if customers refuse businesses they disagree with, unless

    3) it is you who is the customer who is refusing business on ideological grounds?

    If you do read the Bible in protest, you will find numerous passages where Jesus says "Hypocrites burn in Hell" and "Burn in Hell, Hypocrites" (more or less). You will also find a couple of passages where Jesus says "If people do not welcome you, leave their town and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them" and "But whatever city you enter and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, Even the dust of your city which clings to our feet we wipe off in protest against you...I say to you, it will be more tolerable in that day for Sodom than for that city"... Scratch that.

    You, your family and your fatherland should start playing The Floor is Lava! It could come in handy real soon. 
    ~If You Can't Take The Heat, Turn off the Bible, Hoosier Abroad
They want to protect their right to discriminate against groups of people without a real religious motivation, but then they feel unjustly targeted as a group when they people they don't want to do business with do business elsewhere for legitimate Biblical reason, not to mention social and personal?


I so confuse. Do they want our business or not? Do they want us to try to give them our money so they can rub it in our nose if we refuse it, and if we don't, then they're just go all sour grapes on acid: "I didn't want to refuse your business anyway because I already refused it because you're queer and now I do because you're a meanie who hurts my feels." Perhaps it does make some sense: they simply want control.

And, that should be obvious as the law, as repugnant as it is, is utterly vacuous. Unlike women and racial minorities, queer people are not guaranteed civil rights at a state level in Indiana. Even if Indiana recognized equality for all, civil rights protections are generally limited to the more public domains, like voting, housing, employment and "public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce" -- private clubs are explicitly exempted, and religious objection exemptions feature into the most sacrosanct areas of civil rights. The Catholic Church for example is free to permit and higher only male priests. If civil rights protections prevented discrimination in the selling of goods and services to a particular group of people, the law would be inapplicable in defending discrimination against that group. As it stands, a suit filed by LGBT people (in most circumstance, by any minority) for discrimination in commerce cannot prevail, and if someone is foolish enough to file a suit with no valid case, they will have to pay restitution to the person they wrongfully sued for any legal fees and any losses that resulted from the suit. That is how it works; this is why most people don't go around suing people just because we disagree with their ideology.

Of course, there are a few who file frivolous civil suits. This law however would excuse only people who claim to be religious from the legal process and provide only them with a defense. That is discrimination (favoritism) based on creed, which most likely is unconstitutional and would most certainly be costly to the state if only there were such suits to begin with. The State of Indiana wants its citizens to assume the legal responsibilities of someone who claims they are religious if they are faced with a frivolous suit from people they chose to (legally) discriminate against, but not assume the legal responsibilities of, for example, an atheist who is taken to court for not carrying the Bible in her bookstore or refusing to allow a Christian ritual take place in her private club. The new law is discriminatory in who it allows to discriminate and protects. If religious people want to be excused from the responsibilities that come with living in a society with civil courts that hear cases regarding business practices, they should recognize that their religious calling is incompatible with having a business and/or participating in greater society. The Amish reject such social responsibilities and have a religious exemption for paying Social Security taxes because they refuse to claim that (particular) benefit of greater society. If religious people instead wish to be a part of society, then, if ever faced with a frivolous law suit, they should have to spend the 10 minutes to fill out and submit a demurer to the court and request for dismissal -- just like everyone else.

The Religious Fascism Restoration law could only be non-trivially relevant at some future point if, by some magic, new laws are passed in the distant future that forbid allegedly religiously motivated discrimination; its relevance would be that it has become unconstitutional (for a different reason than above). The legal non-issue the law explicitly addresses is not its purpose at all.

The law would pervert legal protections into a tool of discrimination for people who pervert their religion into a tool of recrimination. What people do to their religion is their own concern. Laws that protect and promote discrimination have no place in society. If someone is committing a crime, then by all means call the police; if someone is minding their own business, then let them be. I'm pretty sure that is in the Bible, and it is what we all want, whether religious or not.


If you're going to be a bigot, try to be a consistent bigot. And, if you're going to use the Bible, be prepared to burn.