Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

READ IT HERE: Nebraska officials’ Eighth Circuit brief defending same-sex marriage ban

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

Nebraska has filed its opening brief in Waters v. Ricketts, the challenge to the state’s same-sex marriage ban. The federal district court judge hearing the case struck the ban down as unconstitutional.

Arguments in the case and in challenges from three other states will be heard March 12.

You can read the brief here:

15-1452 – Nebraska's Brief by Equality Case Files

An addendum is here:

15-1452 – Nebraska's Addendum by Equality Case Files

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings


  • 1. brandall  |  April 1, 2015 at 8:40 am

    AR Gov Asa Hutchinson is now 10 minutes late to his 11:30 am EDT press conference to talk about AR's RFRA. Could he possibly be still trying to figure out whether to sign or veto?

    10:41 AM….Now speaking about HB1228:

    "This bill is not really complicated….It's a balancing test….the issue has become divisive…there is clearly a generational gap… son Seth signed a petition asking me not to sign this…I asked for some changes and some were made and on some they said no….the bill that is on my desk at this time does not mirror the federal law…therefore I asked that changes be made…I've asked for the bill to be recalled…directly states he's asked for protections to determine the right balance….Looking at an executive order for a non-discrimination policy….looking for a ballot measure for a non-discrimination law…

    He's backed off! He is avoiding another Indiana. VICTORY!

  • 2. hopalongcassidy  |  April 1, 2015 at 10:27 am

    Given this moonbat's history and record, this is pretty astonishing…

  • 3. weaverbear  |  April 1, 2015 at 10:30 am


    (I think) I need to read all the fine print, but amen, not another Indiana, at least for now. Never thought I would be grateful for Walmart taking a stance.

    Oh, and thank your Seth Hutchinson!

  • 4. Mike_Baltimore  |  April 1, 2015 at 11:04 am

    It looks like Wally-Mart sometimes is good for something!

    (I hear the CEO of Wally-Mart wrote a letter to Hutchinson asking that he veto the bill.)

  • 5. VIRick  |  April 1, 2015 at 4:06 pm

    Yes, he did. But he also went on about how Wal-Mart is all about inclusion.

  • 6. Mike_Baltimore  |  April 1, 2015 at 4:21 pm

    Guess why I call them Wally-Mart. (You get three guesses, but the first two don't count.)

  • 7. brandall  |  April 1, 2015 at 4:38 pm

    "Guess why I call them Wally-Mart"

    1) You can't spell? Nah, you are an eloquent writer.
    2) Something to do with Australia? Nah, you live in Baltimore.
    3) Something to do with the Dilbert character? Maybe?

  • 8. Mike_Baltimore  |  April 1, 2015 at 7:53 pm

    Actually, I asked the question of VIRick, so I won't say yay or nay to your third 'answer'?

    And you tried to slip in a fourth question. However I asked for Rick to provide three answers. To my knowledge, only the syndicated television show 'Jeopardy' will accept questions as the answer.

  • 9. VIRick  |  April 1, 2015 at 8:29 pm

    My thought is that Wally-Mart is a play on Wally-World, another mega-thingie.

  • 10. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  April 1, 2015 at 8:29 pm

    Missed you, fairy godmother 😉 <3

  • 11. montezuma58  |  April 1, 2015 at 11:55 am

    I guess it's nice he didn't sign the law. But it won't mean anything unless the legislature changes its mind.

  • 12. hopalongcassidy  |  April 1, 2015 at 1:21 pm

    Very true, but unless he's a thousand times stupider than one is inclined to think, he will end up either vetoing it or exerting sufficient pressure to get the lege to 'fix' it. I guess we'll see.

  • 13. jm64tx  |  April 1, 2015 at 1:42 pm

    Well he hasnt vetoed it yet … so there are 18 of the 20 days left before it becomes law without his signature.

  • 14. Mike_Baltimore  |  April 1, 2015 at 5:05 pm

    And the 'source' of your 'facts' is?

    For instance, I've heard it is five days the Governor has to sign or veto the bill.

    Others say it is 10 days for the Governor has to sign or veto the bill.

    No one I've heard has said 20 days. So who is your source for '20 days'?

  • 15. brandall  |  April 1, 2015 at 5:18 pm

    I went to the Arkansas state website to find the factual answer. I clicked on "Constitution"…..

    No wonder the state has so many problems and issues.

  • 16. ianbirmingham  |  April 1, 2015 at 6:24 pm

    ROTFL… it says "404 NOT FOUND"!!!

  • 17. jm64tx  |  April 1, 2015 at 7:07 pm

    sorry i misread the pamphlet … it is five days when the legislature is in session or 20 days after adjournment.

    "Th e Governor must sign, veto, or refer
    the bill back to its house of origin with
    his objections within 5 days. Th e bill may
    be passed over the Governor’s veto by a
    simple majority vote of both houses. A
    bill not signed or returned within 5 days
    of session must be signed or vetoed by the
    Governor within 20 days of adjournment
    of the general assembly or it becomes law
    without his signature."

  • 18. wes228  |  April 1, 2015 at 8:46 am

    The article should say arguments in the 8th Circuit case will be heard May 12.

  • 19. hopalongcassidy  |  April 1, 2015 at 10:26 am

    Ohhhhh..thanks, .I thought it was some weird April Fool thing.


  • 20. VIRick  |  April 1, 2015 at 4:07 pm

    Yes, Scottie. You've stated that arguments are to occur on 12 March, when you meant to say 12 May.

  • 21. Zack12  |  April 1, 2015 at 10:41 am

    I imagine the bigots hearing our case have their ruling against us ready to go.
    Thank goodness their option won't matter in the end.

  • 22. hopalongcassidy  |  April 1, 2015 at 1:22 pm

    Yep. (knocking madly on all nearby wood)

  • 23. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  April 1, 2015 at 8:31 pm

    Ow! Lol.

  • 24. brandall  |  April 1, 2015 at 1:48 pm

    Jerry Cox, president of the Arkansas Family Council ON HB1228 being sent back to the Legislature, "I'm very puzzled. I fail to see why the bill needs to be amended. It's been thoroughly vetted," he said.

    Can you spell I-N-D-I-A-N-A?


  • 25. Zack12  |  April 1, 2015 at 1:58 pm

    Indeed it has been vetted to meet his bigoted viewpoints.
    Once again, we see a hate group affiliated with Focus On The Family pushing for these bills and yet they still say with a straight face that these bills aren't anti-gay.

  • 26. brandall  |  April 1, 2015 at 2:11 pm

    "straight face"

    Was that a pun?

  • 27. sfbob  |  April 1, 2015 at 4:41 pm

    Well it's not as though they'd be saying it with a gay face now, right?

  • 28. StraightDave  |  April 1, 2015 at 5:45 pm

    well actually, they probably would be

  • 29. VIRick  |  April 1, 2015 at 4:10 pm

    "Can you spell I-N-D-I-A-N-A?"

    But Brandall, you KNOW he's not capable of that extremely difficult task.

  • 30. brandall  |  April 1, 2015 at 2:01 pm

    BEST NEW THING OF THE WEEK…over in Indiana, there are pro-ME campaigns via Twitter, Facebook, Web Pages, et el. But, what happens when you tell a newspaper you will not cater a same-sex wedding from your pizza store?

    You get YELPED to death. Hundreds of 1-star reviews (you can't give a no-star) from just today with scathing opinions from everywhere in the country. I read the first 100 and did not see one person standing up for the pizza owner.

    Here's the Yelp site for Memories Pizza:

    Of course, the owners had to really go out there with, "We definitely agree with the bill," saying she doesn't think the bill targets gays or discriminates but instead protects businesses like hers who have a religious belief. The owner's father: "That's a lifestyle that you choose, I choose to be heterosexual, they choose to be homosexual–why should I be beat over the head because they choose that lifestyle?"

  • 31. Steve84  |  April 1, 2015 at 2:30 pm

    Who has pizza at their wedding anyways? They are so full of themselves.

  • 32. DeadHead  |  April 1, 2015 at 2:38 pm

    Pizza weddings do happen:

    "Who has pizza at their wedding anyways?"

  • 33. hopalongcassidy  |  April 1, 2015 at 3:25 pm

    Well, there are probably lutefisk weddings too.


  • 34. sfbob  |  April 1, 2015 at 4:43 pm

    If my partner and I ever do get married we'll probably have the reception at the nearest Subway (because Hubby likes Subway). It'll be ala carte.

  • 35. brandall  |  April 1, 2015 at 4:41 pm

    All the pictures from that link show opposite sex couples in their wedding attire. A 3-tiered pizza cake? How dreadful.

    Thank God I was born gay as I can't imagine having the lack of taste or grandness for a pizza wedding.

  • 36. Tony MinasTirith  |  April 3, 2015 at 1:16 pm


    The same people who get married in the back parking lot of a pawn shop with second hand tin rings…I'd imagine.

  • 37. VIRick  |  April 1, 2015 at 4:17 pm

    Hey Hop, let's do our wedding right at the pizza parlor!!

    That's even more "off" than having the stupid pizza joint cater the wedding.

  • 38. Mike_Baltimore  |  April 1, 2015 at 5:12 pm

    Well, Rick, I heard they would not cater a wedding, but they would serve pizzas to anyone in their store, so I think you are safe. Not sure, though, as the pizza shop is reported to be closed right now.

  • 39. Jaesun100  |  April 1, 2015 at 6:46 pm

    It has made it to TMZ too! they are closed at the moment, queue victim persecuted card. The Yelp and Domain someone bought is a bit much IMO I don't agree with throwing semi porn images at them. Might we just need to call off the lions a lil? a bit overkill IMO her business will fold now without any unnecessary help or gay porn from the net…..

  • 40. brandall  |  April 1, 2015 at 6:56 pm

    And I don't agree with anyone threatening their lives or physically harming them in any way (assuming this is true).

    Fox nonews will have a field day with this one. On the other hand, we just moved forward another small step. Small businesses will now have to really stop and think about taking a public, bigoted stand and ruining their business. I am sure the owners of Memories Pizza did not have a clue what would happen when they expressed their limited intention to serve anyone in their store, but not cater a same-sex wedding.

  • 41. Jaesun100  |  April 1, 2015 at 7:57 pm

    I almost get the vibe it isn't real gay people behind all that Internet stuff…..our beef at the moment is with the state of Indiana and the govorner not this small business owner we don't need this distraction in the headlines.. As I said she will kill her own business in time and will look for someone to blame.

  • 42. JayJonson  |  April 2, 2015 at 6:26 am

    Actually, I think we should thank them for being so upfront with their bigotry. It puts the lie to the frequently mouthed mantra that "Hoosiers don't discriminate" that we've heard this week, as though a nondiscrimination law isn't necessary and Indiana residents just love gay people.

    I also like people who discriminate against gay people to let me know about it so that I don't inadvertently patronize them.

  • 43. hopalongcassidy  |  April 2, 2015 at 6:52 am

    They claim they were 'forced' to close. I call bullshit. These alleged 'threats' probably came from some asshole who loves Brian Brown.

  • 44. RemC_Chicago  |  April 2, 2015 at 11:36 am

    Huh. Now wouldn't that be interesting. A right-wing-fringe representative calls them up and says, "Look, if you close your shop and claim you were bullied into doing so by the intolerant and hateful gays, we'll over what you would normally make AND give you a $________________ bonus for your trouble to boot."

  • 45. F_Young  |  April 1, 2015 at 3:43 pm

    Disciples of Christ cancels Indy convention over 'religious freedom' law

    The Disciples of Christ has held its annual convention in Indianapolis three times since 1989. Church officials expected about 8,000 to attend in 2017. VisitIndy estimated the economic impact of the convention, which was expected to draw up to 8,000 people, at $5.9 million.

  • 46. VIRick  |  April 1, 2015 at 4:35 pm

    I love this cancellation, as this is precisely the kind of "christian" organization which was supposed to be appeased by the passage of the RFRA and toward which the RFRA was supposed to appeal.

    However, The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) is a very piously literal denomination that welcomes LGBT individuals to their fellowship, and also includes numerous LGBT clergy.

    So instead, Pence's "baby" went over like a lead balloon, as the denomination's board unanimously voted to relocate the convention to a different state..

  • 47. Elihu_Bystander  |  April 1, 2015 at 4:58 pm

    "However, The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) is a very piously literal denomination that welcomes LGBT individuals to their fellowship, and also includes numerous LGBT clergy."

    As a denomination the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) is not a literal fundamentalist community. Although they allow individual literal interpretation of scripture, they promote a contextual interpretation of scripture.

    I attended a small Disciples liberal arts college 1955-59 in northeast MO. I was not required to take any religious courses; however, I did have to take two courses in scripture. My professors were fluent in Hebrew for the OT and Koine Greek for the NT. They took that liberalism out of me; it took four years to do that. I thank them for helping me to become an inclusive xian in my own denomination.

  • 48. VIRick  |  April 1, 2015 at 9:51 pm

    Elihu, thanks for the additional perspective.

    Here's the original statement made by the denominational spokesperson, right when the Indiana RFRA was first passed, and prior to the governor's signing it:

    The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) has sent a letter to Gov. Mike Pence threatening to cancel its 2017 convention in Indianapolis if he signs controversial legislation that could allow business owners to refuse services to same-sex couples. "Our perspective is that hate and bigotry wrapped in religious freedom is still hate and bigotry," Todd Adams, the associate general minister and vice president of the Indianapolis-based denomination stated.

    Hate and bigotry wrapped in religious freedom is still hate and bigotry. One can not be more literal than that. Plus the threat to move their convention out-of-state has now been ratified, and has become a done-deal, just as promised.

  • 49. ianbirmingham  |  April 1, 2015 at 4:02 pm

    Leaders of Twitter, eBay, Airbnb, Lyft, Cisco and dozens of other technology companies joined forces on Wednesday to press state legislatures to add nondiscrimination protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals. Amid heated pressure over new religious freedom bills that opponents say would condone discrimination, the nearly 40 executives told lawmakers to make sure their LGBT residents are protected with the full force of law. “Religious freedom, inclusion, and diversity can co-exist and everyone including LGBT people and people of faith should be protected under their states’ civil rights laws,” the executives said in their joint statement. “To ensure no one faces discrimination and ensure everyone preserves their right to live out their faith, we call on all legislatures to add sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes to their civil rights laws and to explicitly forbid discrimination or denial of services to anyone.”

  • 50. brandall  |  April 1, 2015 at 4:32 pm

    I'll add to Ian's post the fact that several major venture capital (VC) companies are on the list he posted. VC's provide the funding for new tech start-ups. Many, if not most states now have agents or lobbyists in Silicon Valley competing to get VC's to invest in new companies in their home states. VC's are looking to invest out-of-state because of the limited housing and high costs of Silicon Valley. Should this anti-RFRA momentum continue, states will find themselves locked out of funding for the next Angie's List or other services or high-tech companies that invest and eventually employ thousands with high paying jobs.

  • 51. ianbirmingham  |  April 1, 2015 at 4:15 pm

    Indiana legislature plans to exclude businesses that discriminate based on sexual orientation from the scope of Indiana's new RFRA law…

  • 52. brandall  |  April 1, 2015 at 4:49 pm

    Ian, I posted this early this morning on yesterday's article. No problem. But, I was hoping you had reviewed the postings from yesterday about the letter written to the Indiana Legislature by a bunch of legal scholars from Columbia and Indiana universities. It talks about the Federal RFRA and Hobby Lobby that I know is an important topic to you. Search "legal analysis sent on 2/27/15"….if you are so inclined. Thanks.

  • 53. ianbirmingham  |  April 1, 2015 at 5:58 pm

    Thanks for posting this article in the prior thread. IMO this is only a baby step which ignores employment discrimination, housing discrimination etc. and they need to go all the way with making sexual orientation and gender identity protected classes (as I, the Indy Star, and now all these tech companies have been advocating).

    On the Columbia/Indiana letter:

    1) They agree with the Ginsberg/Sotomayor dissent in Hobby Lobby and criticize the government for being slow to do what the majority opinion told them to do. They are right to criticize the pokey government, and entitled to their opinion regarding the 7-2 ruling against Ginsberg/Sotomayor.

    2) They complain essentially that change is hard. Price of progress.

    3) They raise a red herring about shifting burdens to third parties. Not happening anywhere, not going to happen here, not a valid complaint.

    4) They raise another red herring about violating the Establishment Clause. This is beyond preposterous & on the same level as Pence claiming to be against discrimination.

    5) They talk about some language in some alternative proposed version (possibly a now-dead version?) and claim it creates a higher burden. As I read that language, it's the same thing in different words. The government still has to show that its plan is minimally intrusive.

    6) They note the strong definition of "person". As I have earlier pointed out, Hobby Lobby got there first and some of this is already current law. I also pointed out that the application to interpreting federal law in cases in which government is not a party is already the law in four circuits comprising about half the country. The definition is siding with those circuits. While it could be described as marginally aggressive in that it chose the broader definition rather than the narrower one, both choices were already available under current law. And IMO the broader choice here is the better one – I would have picked it too.

    7) They see moving toward the emerging national standard as a regrettable thing and would prefer that Indiana remain a backwater pond of unique details. I prefer standardization as a general matter and see no advantage to keeping Indiana's homegrown kudzu alive.

    Final note – I'm very pleased to see the Indy Star, tech companies, etc. converging on the correct course of action, which is to keep RFRA and quickly enact protected class status for sexual orientation and gender identity. That's the ultimate win-win scenario here. Pardon the dust – change is messy in the short term, but it works wonders in the long term.

  • 54. JayJonson  |  April 2, 2015 at 6:33 am

    Still clinging to the notion that the Indiana RFRA is a harmless reiteration of the federal RFRA? Even Pence has abandoned that nonsensical defense.

    It looks like Arkansas will change its RFRA to be identical with the federal RFRA. Had Indiana or Arkansas done this in the first place, there would not have been the outrage that has occurred. And if the original versions really were as benign as you and Pence claim, there would have been no need to be outraged.

    Thank goodness, many people, including the distinguished legal scholars that you so cavalierly dismiss, as well as Garrett Epps and Ari Ezra Wildman, among many others, pointed out the many differences between the federal RFRA and the one crafted by ALEC and other right-wingers designed as a consolation prize for the most extreme homophobes in the country. The entire purpose of the Indiana and Arkansas RFRAs was to facilitate discrimination against gay people.

  • 55. DeadHead  |  April 1, 2015 at 5:51 pm

    Arkansas legislators offered amendments to the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act on Wednesday, revising the controversial legislation to resemble the federal RFRA. The state senate passed an amended version of the bill hours after Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) refused to sign the existing legislation … The amended version now heads to the House.

  • 56. brandall  |  April 1, 2015 at 6:15 pm

    Although we can't see the full list of revisions, we can see an enormous change in the list of co-sponsors in a picture of the front page of the bill revisions (no PDF?). 3 Senators asked to be deleted, 5 Senators added. 5 Representatives deleted, 21 added. It would appear the revision is more palatable to a much larger group of Legislators.

  • 57. jm64tx  |  April 1, 2015 at 7:17 pm

    Wall Street Journal says attacks on Indiana are sign of liberal intolerance:

    New York Times David Brooks says same:

  • 58. A_Jayne  |  April 1, 2015 at 9:16 pm

    Did any of us think there would be no dissent? Did any of us here not expect both of those?

  • 59. davepCA  |  April 1, 2015 at 10:03 pm

    …and your comments here are signs of a whiney troll who needs to get a life, jm64tx. Shoo.

  • 60. VIRick  |  April 1, 2015 at 11:02 pm

    "…. a whiney troll who needs to get a life …."

    Dave, you're being waaaaaay too kind! LOL

    Personally, I feel he's some sort of strange pervert who gets off by being sternly reprimanded by a mixed-bag of gay men.

  • 61. jm64tx  |  April 2, 2015 at 3:42 am

    Oh I have a life … a very good one thank you. Married to my wife and four kids … yep not so bad.

    “The constitutional freedom of religion [is] the most inalienable and sacred of all human
    rights.” – Thomas Jefferson

  • 62. JayJonson  |  April 2, 2015 at 7:03 am

    OMG, you're married to your kids! And you accuse us of redefining marriage?

  • 63. jm64tx  |  April 2, 2015 at 8:33 am

    Yes I sure am … for life!

  • 64. RemC_Chicago  |  April 2, 2015 at 11:40 am

    Please don't malign Jefferson by inserting his statement into a parody of his intention.

  • 65. JayJonson  |  April 2, 2015 at 6:37 am

    David Brooks and the Wall Street Journal have been such great supporters of gay rights. NOT.

  • 66. Zack12  |  April 2, 2015 at 7:28 am

    How nice, a paper and a columnist that have spoken out against us before are lecturing us about tolerence.

  • 67. Jaesun100  |  April 1, 2015 at 8:35 pm

    JeB has already flip flopped on the Indiana law he now says there is the need to "clarify". I have to say the Dems got great Attack Ad sound bites something to the effect of I stand with Pence and would sign it ……it will haunt JeB in any election now…..I think all the potential top republican nominees except Rubio came out in full support of Pence….Rubio seemed to want it both ways, how ironic dontcha' think.

  • 68. JayJonson  |  April 2, 2015 at 6:39 am

    He is also going to be haunted by his shameful behavior during the Terry Schiavo incident about a decade ago. He is not a moderate. He just put his finger in the air and noticed that that the winds have changed on the issue of discrimination against gay people.

  • 69. DeadHead  |  April 2, 2015 at 2:08 am

    Hi tech cloud & data companies take an unprecedented step and Pence flip-flops on the same day about the bill he signed. Rachel Maddow did an excellent segment on her show last night about Arkansas and Indiana. A bit long but well worth watching

  • 70. 1grod  |  April 2, 2015 at 3:08 am

    Amendment to be announced first thing this am includes those seeking goods, services, accommodation as well as employment from businesses or individuals sought by any member of the public based on sexual orientation or gender identity, in addition to race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, or military service.

  • 71. Jaesun100  |  April 2, 2015 at 4:07 am

    I was right GLBT will get protections out of this. Good news!

  • 72. 1grod  |  April 2, 2015 at 6:28 am

    Press conference by legislative leaders:

  • 73. 1grod  |  April 2, 2015 at 7:36 am

    "RFRA destroyed" says lobbyist present at bill's signing into law:

  • 74. alatarus  |  April 2, 2015 at 8:02 am

    The baker, the florist, all say they want to be protected from "participating" in a same sex wedding. The only people I would think would be "participating" would be the wedding parties, the actual bride(s) and groom(s), the person officiating and the attendees. Just because I have a cake created, doesn't mean they are "participating" in the service. I am really getting tired of hearing the spin that makes it sound like the LBGT community is forcing people to come to a ceremony at gun point

  • 75. guitaristbl  |  April 2, 2015 at 8:21 am

    You know what solves the cake problem ?
    The only thing that makes a cake a wedding cake is the figurines put on top.

    Make the cake as asked and give the couple the groom & groom or bride & bride figures to put on the cake. Problem solved.

  • 76. hopalongcassidy  |  April 2, 2015 at 8:31 am

    The thing is, it actually is possible for some bigot at a local utility to try claiming his religion can be an excuse to shut off the electricity or gas, etc. to a venue where a SS wedding is being celebrated…because it would be 'participating'. Damn, I hope I'm not giving them ideas….

  • 77. 1grod  |  April 2, 2015 at 9:51 am

    Angies List rejects change as insufficient –

  • 78. 1grod  |  April 2, 2015 at 8:00 am

    Text of the Amendment:

  • 79. wes228  |  April 2, 2015 at 8:20 am

    The amendment says the RFRA can't be construed to allow for anti-gay discrimination, but at the same time there is still no law that actually prohibits it.

  • 80. guitaristbl  |  April 2, 2015 at 8:38 am

    Yes but as I said below you cannot know deny service citing the RFRA on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

    There are other legal pathways for sure but it's a step forward..

  • 81. wes228  |  April 2, 2015 at 9:44 am

    You can deny service on the basis of sexual orientation simply by citing the fact that there is no law prohibiting it.

  • 82. StraightDave  |  April 2, 2015 at 11:01 am

    All the new amendment does, in a tangible sense, is insure that the laws for LGBT are no worse than they were before RFRA. Not exactly progress in my book, but no longer a big step backward.

    The biggest "wins" are more psychological, and not trivial ones, either – the heightened awareness this has brought regarding the current lack of protections, and a public repudiation of the bigots. Indiana may have not moved forward this week, but they might have placed themselves at the starting line of a different path. Let's hope.

  • 83. 1grod  |  April 2, 2015 at 8:09 am

    Lambda Legal: RFRA [revised] reduces the threat but is far less than this situation requires. It recognizes there are problems, but does not fix it as LGBT Hoosiers and others urgently needed

  • 84. 1grod  |  April 2, 2015 at 9:57 am

    AND in Kansas:

  • 85. DeadHead  |  April 2, 2015 at 4:29 am

    Big drama queen, milking money on GoFundMe. I betcha her business was bad before she opened her bigoted big mouth… “I don’t know if we will reopen, or if we can, if it’s safe to reopen,” co-owner Crystal O’Connor told TheBlaze TV. “We’re in hiding basically, staying in the house.” … “At the same time, people who support the owners’ stance have started a GoFundMe campaign aiming to “relieve the financial loss endured by the proprietors’ stand for faith.” The campaign has raised nearly $50,000 so far.” Indiana’s ‘No Gay Wedding’ Pizzeria Has Closed

    "The GoFundMe page was created by Lawrence Billy Jones III, who works as a contributor for the conservative news platform The Blaze."

  • 86. jm64tx  |  April 3, 2015 at 1:27 pm

    They are currently up to $780k … probably will hit $1 million before its all said and done.

  • 87. hopalongcassidy  |  April 3, 2015 at 1:54 pm

    That much less money will be given to some fucking preacher. Mox nix.

  • 88. JayJonson  |  April 2, 2015 at 7:05 am

    Just more scammers.

  • 89. DeadHead  |  April 2, 2015 at 7:19 am

    I feel for the Yelp administrators they must be overwhelmed keeping up with removing the responses and photos on that pizza biz's review page.

  • 90. Zack12  |  April 2, 2015 at 7:30 am

    Indeed and people are falling for it hook,line and sinker.

  • 91. DeadHead  |  April 2, 2015 at 11:31 am

    "There's a sucker born every minute" over $199,000 raised in less than 20 hours and the $10 donations keep coming because the ring wing media went to town with their own spins casting the business owner as a victim of a libelous reporter, highly intolerant liberal left and supposedly receiving death threats. Each media story links to the GoFundMe page setup by the Blaze. Just within the past 15 minutes the donations increased from $190,000 to almost $200,000

    Oh and the person maintaining the GoFundMe page keeps changing the amount needed to be raised. Originally stated need was 25K yesterday, earlier this morning it was set at $150K now says $200K

    What a scam!

  • 92. Zack12  |  April 2, 2015 at 5:33 pm

    It will likely get to $400,000 before all is said and done.
    Let the bigots have their small victories, we will win the wars.

  • 93. guitaristbl  |  April 2, 2015 at 8:32 am

    I have to say I did not expect to get such a victory out of Indiana. The amendment clearly says that the law does not "authorize a provider to refuse to offer services, facilities, use of public accomodations, goods, employment or housing to any member or members of the general public on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or United States military service".

    Technically LGBT people are not a protected class under Indiana law but we now have the weird situation where the provider cannot cite the RFRA to deny any of the above (including housing and employment !) to an LGBT person and has to find another legal pathway out if it.

    The RFRA as the conservatives wanted it is not only ruined but becomes a strong weapon for LGBT people who bring forward discrimination claims in Indiana.

  • 94. JayJonson  |  April 2, 2015 at 9:51 am

    But, except in Indianapolis and the few other cities that have nondiscrimination ordinances covering public accommodations, the bigots do not need any reason to discriminate against gay people. There is no legal basis on which to bring suit against those who discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. It is perfectly legal in most parts of the state to discriminate against gay people.

    At least, the new language "clarifying" RFRA means that the law cannot be used to challenge the nondiscrimination ordinances in Indianapolis, South Bend, and Bloomington or the nondiscrimination policies of public universities.

    But Indiana is not a gay-friendly state, the rhetoric of welcome spouted by the Republican legislators notwithstanding.

  • 95. guitaristbl  |  April 2, 2015 at 4:14 pm

    Of course it is not a gay friendly state. But the RFRA is destroyed, its the first law in Indiana to mention sexual orientation and gender identity and with more pressure in the times to come the states civil rights code can be updated.

    Right now we are at where we were before RFRA was enacted and probably an inch forward.

    At times when a huge backlash was expected for the legalization of marriage equality, going back to the status quo (plus something) is a victory. If Indiana caves in, probably only Texas can survive the backlash due to the size of the state and it's financial situation.

  • 96. F_Young  |  April 2, 2015 at 5:16 pm

    guitariistbl; "Right now we are at where we were before RFRA was enacted and probably an inch forward."

    I disagree. The new wording only applies to non-religious organizations.

    Schools, hospitals, adoption agencies, homeless shelters, food kitchens and other social services that are run by churches can still use RFRA to defend themselves against any laws that now or in the future prohibit anti-LGBT discrimination in services and employment, even if they are largely government-funded, and RFRA continues to prohibit the government from cutting off those funds despite the discrimination.

    So, LGBTs are forced to pay taxes that are funnelled to organizations that refuse to serve them or employ them.

  • 97. guitaristbl  |  April 2, 2015 at 6:57 pm

    Name one anti-discrimination law in any of the states they were enacted that does not contain religious exemptions really…From Connecticut to California (I am not even talking for whatever Utah has and calls it "anti-discrimination law"), it's the same thing.

    And yes I am aware there is no such law in Indiana.

    Religious entities such as those you mention could use even constitutional resources to deny employment, services etc, they did not need the RFRA (something pointed out early on this debate).

    This was about private non-religious businesses (no matter if they were related to marriage services or not) not having the expansive rights RFRA gave them.

    Yes, getting rid of the RFRA entirely would be better. But until the civil rights code of Indiana is updated this is the only LGBT-inclusive language in any Indiana law and one won after a heated battle. Should the pressure stop ? Of course not.

    But yes we will disagree on whether this is something a tad better than the pre-RFRA situation because I believe it is.

  • 98. BillinNO  |  April 2, 2015 at 1:25 pm

    Pardon me for being off-thread, but are we not expecting the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to rule pretty much any day now?

  • 99. DACiowan  |  April 2, 2015 at 1:34 pm

    Yeah. Today is the 83rd day, which is seven days more than either the Fourth or the Tenth (the Utah case) took but nine less than the Sixth.

    (Friday evening, to give the states the weekend for an emergency appeal to SCOTUS to be decided Monday?)

  • 100. BillinNO  |  April 2, 2015 at 1:40 pm

    May it be so.

  • 101. jm64tx  |  April 2, 2015 at 7:08 pm

    The fifth circuit ruling will not come out for about 180 days or so…

  • 102. Rick55845  |  April 2, 2015 at 7:16 pm

    Why do you believe that the 5th CA will wait until September 29th (or so) before publishing its opinion?

  • 103. jm64tx  |  April 3, 2015 at 1:09 pm

    The Stanford Ponzi Case against Golf Channel was argued in October and the decision was just announced in March – over 180 days. Thats how long it is currently taking for decisions from the 5th Circuit.

    Also, If you look at today's published opinion by Higganbotham, it was briefed on 8/4/2014 and just issued today. Thats over 180 days also.

  • 104. hopalongcassidy  |  April 3, 2015 at 1:55 pm

    He has a magic 8 ball.

    Fourteen inches up his ass.

  • 105. VIRick  |  April 3, 2015 at 2:00 pm

    Oh my goodness! How did it get that far? LOL

  • 106. scream4ever  |  April 3, 2015 at 2:19 pm

    Considering both sides requested for the 5th Circuit to not stay proceedings and they have not announced they will do so, I expect them to issue a ruling very soon.

  • 107. VIRick  |  April 3, 2015 at 2:35 pm

    Indeed, it always takes considerably longer for a ruling to be issued whenever it involves a dissent, which in this instance, I'm certain we're going to have. It's likely that the dissenter is also a foot-dragger.

  • 108. Zack12  |  April 3, 2015 at 3:09 pm

    Judge Smith has made his viewpoints on many different groups known so it's not a shocker he is dragging his feet on this.
    It should also be noted that Tom Cotton, who told us earlier in the week we should be grateful we aren't getting killed and thus should shut up about the discrimination we face, is a former law clerk of his.

  • 109. scream4ever  |  April 3, 2015 at 4:02 pm

    I also suspect the delay is to assure that the states will not have enough time to get approval for an end banc hearing.

  • 110. Zack12  |  April 3, 2015 at 4:17 pm

    That as well.
    Because an en banc ruling will make Judge Smith's dissenting option the majority one.
    As it stands, I fully expect the 8th Circuit to rush out a ruling against us to try and change Kennedy's mind, even though it likely won't succeed.
    We don't need the majority of the 5th to add their pearls of wisdom.

  • 111. VIRick  |  April 3, 2015 at 6:04 pm

    "…. the 8th Circuit to rush out a ruling against us …."

    If the 8th Circuit Court truly does rush out a ruling against us within a month before SCOTUS issues its defining opinion on the same matter, then those 3 judges of the 8th Circuit are eminently stupid. First, they will have wasted their own time, as well as that of everyone else, plus, they'll have to turn right around and immediately reverse themselves in order to comply with the Supreme Court.

  • 112. Zack12  |  April 3, 2015 at 6:31 pm

    Bigots aren't known for their intelligence sometimes.

  • 113. VIRick  |  April 3, 2015 at 6:42 pm

    Indeed. However, judicially speaking, and following the example of the 11th Circuit, it would be far wiser of them to place the 4 appeals on hold, pending the anticipated ruling of the Supreme Court, after which, they can then rule accordingly, citing Supreme Court precedent.

  • 114. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  April 5, 2015 at 6:12 pm


  • 115. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  April 5, 2015 at 5:59 pm

    Someone should shake him until we get a better answer LOL

  • 116. guitaristbl  |  April 3, 2015 at 2:31 pm

    Honestly right now I would like a positive ruling from the 5th. Ok the win in Indiana was big but the whole pizzeria nonsense could really use some balancing.
    I still can't believe that openly declaring that you refuse to service a whole class of people can bring you almost a million dollars in donations for that in 2015 in the US.
    The last breaths of a slowly dying movement but it's still scary and disgusting…All the effort I put to try to focus on the (objectively) much bigger victory on a legislative level in Indiana and seeing similar bills in Georgia and Nevada dying, it still bugs me a bit. Scary that these 20 thousand+ donators (some people have made multiple donations though) walk between us..I hope all this thing has a positive impact on future elections on every level honestly. Things are very critical right now to let conservatives take over everything.

  • 117. DeadHead  |  April 3, 2015 at 4:49 pm

    “The Blaze admits that the page was set up by Lawrence Jones, a contributor to their TV program anchored by Dana Loesch. Seems transparent enough, right? Not really. It’s already obvious that the campaign was started by an employee of The Blaze, but that’s not all there is to the story. Lawrence Jones isn’t just a contributor to The Blaze, Lawrence Jones is also a political operative who has worked with James O’Keefe from Project Veritas as an “investigator.” Yes, that James O’Keefe. So before anyone gets the idea that this is some sort of “grassroots” endeavor by an average citizen, it should be pointed out that this is a carefully-orchestrated campaign by an experienced rabble-rouser who is not above using the “average citizens” for political grandstanding, or associating with those who do the same.” The Indiana Memories Pizza Fundraiser Is A Conservative Media Scam Read more at:

  • 118. Zack12  |  April 3, 2015 at 5:09 pm

    Too bad some on our side played right into it by making death threats etc.

  • 119. 1grod  |  April 3, 2015 at 3:46 pm

    News: Congressional Republicans' brief filed with US Supremes: Uphold bans

  • 120. guitaristbl  |  April 3, 2015 at 4:26 pm

    Only 57 against 211 democrats (and as the article notes democrats hold their smallest minority in congress in decades) ?
    Only 6 senators and no Rubio, Paul or any Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska etc senators ?
    McConell got elected while being totally silent on such issues so bad move.
    Cruz is Cruz, being the usual scumbag.
    Daines may have problems given the climate in Montana on LGBT issues changes rapidly.
    Oklahoma has the dubious honor of being the only state with both senators having their names on that brief. Congrats I guess…
    As for Tim Scott, some people seem to easily forget their own struggles some decades ago in the South…pitty. "First black man elected in the senate from the south" my **s really.

    As for the house we are talking about the most fringe of the fringe elements such as Huelskamp, Gohmert, King, Foxx, Grothman, LaMalfa etc. Seeing representatives from Maryland and New Jersey there may provide some good ammo for democrats challenging them. And no Michelle Bachmann really ?! She has really given up, hasn't she ?

  • 121. Zack12  |  April 3, 2015 at 5:03 pm

    Tim Scott enjoys the rights he does in South Carolina because of SCOTUS and only because of SCOTUS.
    For him to sign a bigoted brief like that disguists me.

  • 122. ebohlman  |  April 3, 2015 at 5:10 pm

    Reason for Bachmann's absence is that she didn't run for re-election last year, much to the relief of most but not all of her constituents.

  • 123. 1grod  |  April 3, 2015 at 7:39 pm

    Looking at endorsers by States: of the 31 states represented, 19 has one amicus, 8 had two, and 4 had between three and nine amici supporters of the brief. Texas had 9, and North Carolina had 5, Oklahoma had 4 and Pennsylvania had 3 amici. Eight-seven percent of endorsing states had one or two amici. It could be said that Texas has a disproportionate investmwnt in the brief .

  • 124. 1grod  |  April 6, 2015 at 2:55 pm

    The 48 pg brief itself: Seven principles of federalism and judicial restraint, repeatedly emphasized in this Court’s cases, all counsel this Court to exercise caution and to avoid imposing a judicially mandated redefinition of marriage on the States. …..
    States possess the traditional authority to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages celebrated and recognized in other States. ….

  • 125. VIRick  |  April 3, 2015 at 6:32 pm

    Still, I see that most the usual suspects are listed.

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!