Liberal Supreme Court Justices Ruth Ginsburg and Elena Kagan Have Both Officiated Gay Marriages

Newsmax.com:

At least one Supreme Court justice has signaled how she is likely to weigh in on a much-watched case over marriage equality, Yahoo Politics reports.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been talking a bit more freely about the case, noting increasing support for gay marriage in interviews, Yahoo reported as the high court prepares to hear oral arguments on Tuesday.

"I would be very surprised if the Supreme Court retreats from what it has said about same-sex unions," Ginsburg, 82, said in a January interview with The New York Times' Gail Collins, Yahoo reported.
Her remarks were in reference to the court's decision in 2012 "that found the federal government must recognize same-sex marriages," Yahoo said.
Both Ginsburg and her fellow Justice Elena Kagan have officiated at same-sex weddings, prompting some traditional marriage advocacy groups to say they must recuse themselves from ruling on the latest case, Obergefell v. Hodges.

That outcry is likely misplaced, Yahoo said, citing Columbia Law School Professor Jamal Greene. Yahoo said he pointed out that "officiating at a same-sex marriage in a jurisdiction that already allows it does not call into question the justices’ impartiality on that question."
While Ginsburg has not overtly shown her hand, she made note of the shift in public opinion on gay marriage in a February interview with Bloomberg.
"It would not take a large adjustment," the former civil rights attorney said, for Americans to accept a ruling legalizing same-sex marriages.

 RELATED: Justices Kennedy, Scalia Much Alike, But Not on Gay Issues

Kentucky Court Rules Christian Printer Can’t Be Forced to Produce Pro-Gay Messages

Reason.com:

Speech is speech! At least we have the settled for the moment, anyway, for this one case. The circuit court for Fayette County in Kentucky has ruled that the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission erred when it determined that a Christian T-shirt company discriminated when it refused to print shirts for a gay pride event.

In 2012 a Lexington, Kentucky, gay organization filed a complaint against Hands On Originals, a shirt company who wears its Christianity right on its site, if not on its sleeves (sorry, couldn't resist). The organization asked for Hands On Originals to make shirts for their 2012 gay pride festival. The shirt company declined, because they didn't support the message the group wanted printed. The group then accused the company of violating the county's public accommodation laws, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The response from Hands On was that they weren't discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. They were refusing to print a message with which they disagreed. This is a case that sounds familiar. In Colorado, a Christian man tried to show some sort of bakery hypocrisy when he tried to get a Colorado bakery to make a cake for him with an anti-gay message. The bakery refused. He complained, clearly trying to draw a similarity to those bakeries who were being cited and fined for refusing to make wedding cakes for gay customers.

But the mistake he made was demanding the cakes say something particular. Colorado dismissed his complaint. He was not being discriminated against just for being a Christian. Rather, the bakery could not be compelled to say something it found offensive.

And so it goes with Hands On Originals. They were not discriminating against gay customers. They were declining to publish statements with which the company disagreed, something they've done several times in the past, according to court documents.

Originally the county Human Rights Commission actually ruled against the shirt company, stating that forcing Hands On Originals to print the shirts "does not violate the Respondent's (HOO) right to free speech, does not compel it to speak, and does not burden the Respondent's (HOO) right to the free expression of religion."

Judge James Ishmael Jr.'s response is to simply point out that the Human Rights Commission is completely and utterly wrong. He does start by saying "With all due respect," which I assume is the circuit court judicial opinion equivalent of getting kicked directly in the teeth. He says the conclusions are "factually incorrect" with respect to both Supreme Court interpretations of the federal law and the state's own laws. Kentucky does have a religious freedom regulation, and the judge invokes it, along with the precedent recently set by the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Supreme Court ruling.

Ishmael then ordered the decision reversed and all charges against Hands On Originals dismissed. 

RELATED:  GoFundMe shuts down another donations page for a Christian business owner accused of discrimination?

Bruce Jenner Will Never Be A Woman

Townhall.com:

This past Friday night, I tweeted out, “My heart goes out to Bruce Jenner, & when he says, ‘I am a woman,’ I hear him saying, ‘I am deeply confused & hurting.’ Let's pray for him!” The responses to this tweet were as ugly and profane as anything I have ever seen. Why the extreme and even irrational hostility?

Some of the tweets included these gems:

"f--- you you disgusting saliva gerbil" (to be honest, I’ve never been called that before) 

"you cranky scheming mustachio'd clown" (this was also a new one)

“F--- YOU. I don’t have the patience for this nonsense anymore. You are the epitome of everything that’s wrong here.”

Why such vitriol?

Look again at what I posted. 

It was grounded in love, and I simply expressed what I heard in Bruce Jenner’s words, calling for prayer.
Some of the tweets were so profane that to quote them here would be of no use, since almost every word would have to be censored. But there were plenty of others that, while using better language, were just as ugly:

“you are a horrible human being”

“you’re disgusting”

“And all i hear is a bigoted old man who is scared to even think that a person may be different than him.”

Later in the evening, in response to some comments others had made (there were some who were not as nasty in their tweets), I asked why the trans advocates discredited those who regretted sex-change surgery or who now believed that you cannot change your gender, posting some relevant links as well.

Then on Saturday, I made this comment: “Who said that being a man or a woman is determined by how one feels? Since when are biology & genetics meaningless?”

In response to this, one young man wrote, “YOU’RE LITERALLY SO IGNORANT? Why is your mentality stuck in the 60’s, move forward with time to now this stuff happens.”

How do we deal with such moral madness? How do we even begin to interact with this social insanity that exalts subjective feelings and denies verifiable reality?

As followers of Jesus, we must be gracious and loving towards those who identity as transgender. And as I’ve said many times before, we need to have great compassion on the children who struggle with gender identity issues, continuing to do our best to get to the root causes of these issues with the goal of providing a way for them and their families to find wholeness without the need for lifelong hormones and sex-change surgery.

But the fact is that Bruce Jenner is not a woman, and it is not hateful to say so.

If he were a woman, he would not have been able to father all of his children, nor would he need female hormones to feminize his body.

That doesn’t mean he doesn’t feel like he’s a woman. It simply means he’s not a woman.

RELATED:  The Bruce Jenner Republican Moment

Bruce Jenner Photographed Wearing a Dress Outside His Malibu Home

A 65-year-old man, Olympic champion and boyhood idol who slept with women to help produce a handful of kids, decides that all this time he was meant to be a "woman"--yet another example of the sick, morally bankrupt world Godless, social liberals are leading us to.

RELATED: Jamie Foxx On Bruce Jenner Joke: Says It Wasn’t Transphobic

The Gay Wedding Gotcha Question That Isn’t

TheFederalist.com:

It started with Marco Rubio, but the “would you attend a gay wedding” question is one that is rapidly being applied to the entirety of the potential 2016 field. Thus far, Rubio has said yes, Ted Cruz has demurred, and Rick Santorum stands alone as a “no”. John Kasich says yes, he’d attend a loved one’s gay wedding (and also that he’s waiting for a signal from God on whether or not to run). And Scott Walker one-ups them all by saying: I already did.

This has all the hallmarks of being a gotcha question that really isn’t, along the lines of last cycle’s “should states have the right to ban contraception?” questions from George Stephanopoulos. It’s not about whether you believe in federalism. It’s not about the philosophical interpretation of the roles of states or the rights of citizens. It’s a question designed to test your allegiances. It’s being asked this cycle by reporters because of the obvious tension within the Republican coalition between the social conservative base and the need to appeal to general election voters who are increasingly fine with gay marriage. As such, just like the 2012 contraception question, it’s not about a pressing policy issue. It’s about trying to find a subject where the natural voter’s response is “what? Don’t be ridiculous”, but Republican candidates’ responses will be a fifteen minute discourse on the finer points of Griswold v. Connecticut.

“Would you attend a gay wedding” is a matter of personal conscience. But that’s why it’s such an obvious opportunity for turning the question back on the actual policy battle at issue, a bit of ju jitsu I haven’t seen from any of the respondents yet. The whole point is that it’s your decision whether to attend or not. 

Conservatives and (most) libertarians believe people ought to be able to decide whether to freely associate with others themselves, not be dragooned by the force of government into mandatory associations as the secular left maintains. The entire point of religious freedom laws in Indiana and elsewhere is that we want to give people who say “I cannot in good conscience participate in this ceremony” the right to defend themselves in court based on their deeply held beliefs. That used to be a bipartisan principle, and now it’s effectively a monopartisan one – but it’s the right principle. A Republican Party unwilling to defend it has been reduced from a party founded on the idea that no man should work and toil and earn bread where another eats it… to one only ready to smash their clay fire pots and raise a sword in the air for the cause of the Keystone Pipeline and the Medical Device Tax.

Hugh Hewitt has probably done us all a favor by teeing it up on a radio show that will feature appearances by every 2016er early on, as opposed to leaving it until the debates. The downside is that just means that the question will have to be updated by the time everyone’s answering questions on stage. I’d suggest something like “Would you send your kids to a school that teaches the Bible says being gay is a sin?”, or “How many Sam Smith albums do you own?”, or “Would you order a pizza from someone who wouldn’t cater a gay wedding?”. Only once the voters know your stance on bigot pizza can they be fully informed as to which side of Culture War 4.0 you are on.

This is a test. It is an early test. It should be easy for Republicans to pass it.

RELATED:  Hugh Hewitt puts Cruz, Santorum on spot on same-sex marriage

Kirsten Powers Rips Obama for Being ‘Largely Silent’ on Christian Slaughter

Mediaite.com:

What do you call it when 12 men are drowned at sea for praying to Jesus?

Answer: Religious persecution. 

Yet, when a throng of Muslims threw a dozen Christians overboard a migrant ship traveling from Libya to Italy, Prime Minister Matteo Renzi missed the opportunity to label it as such. Standing next to President Obama at their joint news conference Friday, Renzi dismissed it as a one-off event and said, "The problem is not a problem of (a) clash of religions."

While the prime minister plunged his head into the sand, Italian authorities arrested and charged the Muslim migrants with "multiple aggravated murder motivated by religious hate," according to the BBC.

As Renzi was questioned about the incident, Obama was mute on the killings. He failed to interject any sense of outrage or even tepid concern for the targeting of Christians for their faith. If a Christian mob on a ship bound for Italy threw 12 Muslims to their death for praying to Allah, does anyone think the president would have been so disinterested? When three North Carolina Muslims were gunned down by a virulent atheist, Obama rightly spoke out against the horrifying killings. But he just can't seem to find any passion for the mass persecution of Middle Eastern Christians or the eradication of Christianity from its birthplace.

Religious persecution of Christians is rampant worldwide, as Pew has noted, but nowhere is it more prevalent than in the Middle East and Northern Africa, where followers of Jesus are the targets of religious cleansing. Pope Francis has repeatedly decried the persecution and begged the world for help, but it has had little impact. Western leaders — including Obama — will be remembered for their near silence as this human rights tragedy unfolded. The president's mumblings about the atrocities visited upon Christians (usually extracted after public outcry over his silence) are few and far between. And it will be hard to forget his lecturing of Christians at the National Prayer Breakfast about the centuries-old Crusades while Middle Eastern Christians were at that moment being harassed, driven from their homes, tortured and murdered for their faith. 

A week and a half after Obama's National Prayer Breakfast speech, 21 Coptic Christians were beheaded for being "people of the cross." Seven of the victims were former students of my friend and hero "Mama" Maggie Gobran, known as the "Mother Theresa of Cairo" for her work with the poorest of the poor. She told me these dear men grew up in rural Upper Egypt and had gone to Libya seeking work to support their families. They died with dignity as they called out to their God, while the cowardly murderers masked their faces.

Rather than hectoring Christians about their ancestors' misdeeds, Obama should honor these men and the countless Middle Eastern Christians persecuted before them. 

RELATED:  ‘Stunned’ Krauthammer calls Obama’s Prayer Breakfast lecture to Christians ‘banal and offensive’

Poll: Most Americans Say Hillary Clinton Will Be The 45th President

Townhall.com:

Clearly, as many pundits and politicians have already noted, authenticity is not Hillary Clinton's strong suit.

Coordinated and scripted campaign stops, gross pandering, and breathless statements about how she was once “dead broke” after leaving the White House have all contributed to the perception that the former first lady is profoundly unrelatable, and an insincere spokeswoman for the working class. 

Appearing fresh and dynamic, however, is an admittedly difficult task for any presidential contender, especially one who has been on the national stage for decades. But given her universal name recognition and heir apparent status, her path to the nomination seems preordained. Hence, her campaign is likely to continue following a scripted regiment of avoiding the media, shunning debates, and embracing the popular zeitgeist of our time that, after losing the Democratic nomination eight years ago to a truly exceptional campaigner, nothing can now stand in her way. 

Indeed, more than half the country already thinks she’s going to win the 2016 election outright, according to a new poll—even though more than one-third of Democrats think that the party “needs a fresh face" in 2016.

But to whom, I wonder, will they look? If a certain progressive senator continues to brush aside the suggestion that she's entering the ring, who will emerge as a credible and viable Democratic alternative? Joe Biden? Martin O’Malley? 

Please. Hillary Clinton, it seems reasonably safe to conclude, will face little or no opposition during the primary. Barring an amendment to the US Constitution allowing presidents to serve three executive terms, the Democrats are putting all their eggs into the Hillary Clinton basket. 

But can she deliver? Can she overcome the scandals and the controversies? That remains to be seen. But Hillary Clinton’s most acute weakness, I think, is that she does not appear to be genuine, approachable, or even trustworthy. Perhaps, as one writer recently put it, she really is the “Mitt Romney of the Democrats.”

We'll see. 

RELATED:  While Hillary Is Bad For America, She Might Be the GOP’s Savior

Rick Santorum: I Wouldn’t Attend a Loved One’s Gay Wedding

Mediaite.com:

Likely Republican presidential candidate and Rick Santorum would not attend the same-sex marriage of a loved one.

After the pair decried the media’s focus on the same-sex marriage fight — calling it something of a distraction from the Islamic State’s brutality abroad — conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt asked the former senator the same question Fusion’s Jorge Ramos asked newly-announced candidate Marco Rubio on Wednesday: Would you attend the same-sex wedding of a loved one or anyone you are close to?

“I would not,” Santorum said, shocking no one. “As a person of my faith, that would be something that would be a violation of my faith. I would love them and support them, uh, but I would not participate in that ceremony.”

A shame that most of these GOP Presidential candidates are doing such a poor job defending conservative ideals while handling the liberal media. I mean, here's the easy answer to this question: 'No, I wouldn't attend a gay marriage and nor would I attend a polygamist wedding either. Next question.'

RELATED: Limbaugh to GOP Candidates: Stop Doing Interviews with Hillary Media Surrogates

Liberal News Media Buries Story About Homosexual TSA Agent Molesting Male Airline Passengers

NBCNews.com:

Two Transportation Security Administration employees have been fired after they allegedly set up a system to allow a male screener to pat down attractive men going through security at Denver International Airport, authorities said. 

The employees were not identified, and there will be no criminal charges because no victims have come forward, according to a police report. 

Denver Police got involved in March, after a tipster brought it to the attention of the TSA in November, which conducted an investigation and contacted police. 

The male screener would give a signal to a female employee when a male passenger arrived that he thought was attractive, and she would falsely enter the sex of the passenger as female, so the machine would report an anomaly that triggered a pat down of a passenger's groin, police said in a report. 

She told the TSA investigators she did this for the other officer at least 10 times in the past, according to the report. 

A TSA investigator observed the scheme in action at 9:25 a.m. on Feb. 9, when he saw a screener give a signal to another and then pat down the passenger's groin and buttocks using the palms of his hands, which is forbidden by TSA rules, according to the police report. 

"These alleged acts are egregious and intolerable," the TSA said in a statement. "TSA has removed two officers from the agency." 

The Denver District Attorney's Office said that because the passenger who was patted down, who the TSA believes was flying with Southwest Airlines, hasn't come forward it could not file charges in the "unlawful sexual contact" case. The case is still being reviewed for other possible charges, a spokeswoman for the DA's office said Tuesday. 

RELATED:  Obama’s Legacy: Transgender Bathroom Crusade

Orthodox News Site Censors ‘Pornographic Symbol’ Kim Kardashian

Mediaite.com:

In accordance with their religious beliefs, Orthodox Jewish news services frequently censor women from photos, a policy that tends to garner headlines: A New York paper was forced to apologize to the White House for removing Hillary Clinton from the famous Situation Room photo taken during Osama bin Laden’s assassination, and earlier this year, Israeli paper HaMevaser became the subject of international scrutiny after it erased Angela Merkel from a photo of the Charlie Hebdo march.

The industry’s apparent takeaway: They shouldn’t use Photoshop to censor the women, but more clever methods seem a-ok.

In a report about Kimye’s recent visit to Jerusalem, Israeli-based paper Kikar HaShabbat removed Kim Kardashian from an AP photo showing her and her husband, Kanye West, having dinner with Jerusalem’s mayor Nir Barkat. Instead of Photoshop, they just covered her with a receipt, and then chided Barkat for eating with Kimye at a non-kosher restaurant:

According to the AP, another photograph simply blurred her out of a photo, and Kardashian was repeatedly not referred to by name, but as “West’s wife.”

Editor Nissim Ben Haim defended the website’s decision, saying that Kardashian was a “pornographic symbol” who goes against Orthodox values, which, we suppose, is true.

RELATED:  Kim Kardashian And Kanye West Baptize North West In Jerusalem

Chris Christie Says He ‘Will Beat’ Hilary Clinton In 2016, Boasts New Jersey Re-Election Numbers

Inquisitr.com:

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie doesn’t see Hilary Clinton as much of a treat. The 2016 presidential campaign hopeful has boldly professed that his proven track record of getting elected and re-elected is much more impressive than Clinton’s.

“If I run, I will beat her.”

Chris Christie has been thought to be the fourth Republican candidate, according to USA Today, but has failed to announce his candidacy even after Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul have already entered the race. It is believed that Christie has been trying to fully establish a domestic and international image before he jumps in. In 2014, he did so with a trip to the U.K., which reportedly didn’t go as planned. Currently, Governor Christie is on the road visiting places like New Hampshire to talk up Social Security and Medicare, two matters that Christie sees as a huge government spending issue.

The New Jersey Governor recently spoke about the many U.S. states where he knows he will be successful.

On his list are many blue states, a few of which President Barack Obama took in his 2008 and 2012 elections. Even with all of the qualifications the other candidates have, Christie believes that he can win states like Pennsylvania, simply because the people there are familiar with him. He recently stated that such states would vote for him because they are “familiar with the type of leadership” that he could bring to the country.

Chris Christie went on to name other states that would particularly benefit from having him in office because of his New Jersey track record. In the Garden State, Christie lead the south through the Hurricane Sandy crisis, cut government funds on failing cities to start fresh and made moves with education reform in failing cities like Newark, Trenton and Camden. Christie believes that these actions were that reason he has had success in getting votes from a wide demographic pool.

“If was re-elected in that state less than a year and a half ago with 61% of the vote, 51% of the Hispanic vote, 22% of the African-American vote and 56% of the female vote,” he said. “Those are the type of numbers we’re going to have to run up across the country and to be able to have the type of sweeping victory you want to have to maintain a Republican House and Senate, and have a Republican president.”

So far, Christie has made Americans aware of his potential entry to the race. The fifth candidate, Ben Carson is announcing his entry on May 4th. So, what Chris Christie is waiting for?

RELATED: Christie: I'm still relevant to 2016

Fareed Zakaria and Bill Maher Battle Over Islam: You’re Not Pushing Reform, ‘You’re Getting Applause Lines’

Mediaite.com:

Fareed Zakaria confronted Bill Maher on his show tonight over his frequent criticisms of Islam, telling him that he’s just doing it for “applause lines” and that won’t actually help reform the religion.

Maher reiterated the “Islam is the motherlode of bad ideas” critique after talking about the Boston bomber, and Zakaria told him that he’s not going to win hearts and minds if he’s just insulting an entire religion and tell people their faith “sucks.” There needs to be, Zakaria said, “some sense of respect” in how the argument for reform is framed.

Maher bewilderedly asked Zakaria if he honestly doubts that many followers of Islam have rather backwards beliefs. Zakaria said they don’t in some nations, acknowledged his own criticisms of Islam, and told Maher all he’s doing is “getting applause lines.”

Maher responded that it’s a little “insulting,” but Zakaria said people “feel like their religion is being insulted” when people like Maher critique it.

RELATED: Twitter Says It Suspended 10,000 ISIS-Linked Accounts in One Day

Richard Bradley: Ellen Pao Married To "Former" Gay Man Buddy Fletcher Who's Deeply In Debt & Known For Filing Dubious Lawsuits

RichardBradley.net:

I’ve been following the Silicon Valley story of Ellen Pao with interest. Pao is the former partner at venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins who is now suing the firm, alleging sex discrimination. She claims that she was treated differently than male employees were; Kleiner claims, basically, that she wasn’t very good.

The case has attracted enormous interest in Silicon Valley as an avatar for discussion about gender imbalance in the tech world.

It’s certainly interesting, from that perspective. But I’ve been following it closely for another reason: Ellen Pao is married to a man whom I’ve written about in depth. His name is Buddy Fletcher, and and he has a history of filing dubious lawsuits inspired by perceived slights and financial desperation. In my opinion he is, at the very least, a scoundrel; the forces of law may yet prove him a criminal. 

I wrote about Fletcher in Boston magazine; he’s a Harvard graduate, an African-American man, who went to Wall Street and tried to make a lot of money. He left his first job at the brokerage firm Kidder Peabody and promptly filed a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination. Like Ellen Pao, Fletcher charged that he was treated differently from the great majority of employees whose identity did not match his. In my article, I found that the grounds for that lawsuit were thin at best. Fletcher didn’t win it—in fact, he lost the ruling on whether he was discriminated against—but he was awarded back pay of about a million dollars. He claimed that as a victory, and the press played along. So when Fletcher opened a hedge fund that appeared to generate remarkable, almost unbelievable returns, the press proclaimed him a financial genius—an African-American who had taken lily-white Wall Street by storm. 

He is broke now, because he is not a financial genius, and there is ample suggestion that he is broke even though he siphoned money from his hedge fund—including retirement money from Louisiana firefighters—to support a lavish lifestyle that included the ownership of three apartments at the Dakota, John Lennon’s old apartment building in New York. (If you don’t know it—it’s pricey.) That didn’t stop him, after he tried to buy a fourth and was rejected by the board after it scrutinized the state of his finances, from suing the apartment building for racial discrimination. That suit trudges endlessly on, even though Fletcher has gone through teams of lawyers because he consistently declines to pay them. 

One other fact about Fletcher that’s worth knowing: Until he fled New York, married Ellen Pao and had a baby, he had lived his entire adult life as a gay man. Not bisexual—gay. 

The judge in Pao’s case has ruled that none of this is admissible, and I think that’s the right decision; in court, Pao’s allegations should stand or fall on their own merits. The mainstream media seems to have decided that it’s sexist or something to write about her marriage, and so I haven’t seen a single smart article that really explores her relationship with Fletcher and whether it’s had any impact on her decision to sue Kleiner Perkins.

But I can’t help but think that her relationship with Fletcher is relevant, even if you can’t establish that legally. I’ll be honest: First, the fact that Pao married him makes me wonder about her, and not just because of his sexual orientation. It just wouldn’t take much digging to find out that Fletcher’s financial ethics are highly questionable. Either Pao didn’t care—not great—or didn’t know. In which case, you have to wonder what kind of a venture capitalist she is. If can’t do basic due diligence on a marital prospect about whom much has been written, how could you be trusted to give good advice on a company in which to invest millions?

It’s also hard not to wonder if the suit isn’t inspired by Fletcher in some way; until the past couple of years, he had made quite a lot of money off allegations of racism and the use of race as a marketing tool. 

And the other way it could have been inspired by him, of course, is due to the fact that he needs the money. He is more than broke; he’s deeply in debt. I don’t know how many lawsuits he’s now defending himself against, but the latest was filed a day or so ago.

Ellen Pao could conceivably make tens of millions of dollars off her lawsuit—the jury is deliberating even as I write this—which probably wouldn’t resolve all of her husband’s financial issues, but would certainly help. 

Remember, as the Rolling Stone/UVA brouhaha proved: for the Left, it's all about the marrative, screw the facts.

RELATED:  Sex, Lies, and Lawsuits

Pope Francis Reportedly Rejects New, Openly Gay French Ambassador to Vatican

Mediaite.com:

Pope Francis has reportedly rejected the nomination of a French ambassador to the Vatican because he is openly gay. Laurent Stefanini was nominated for the position back in January, but the Vatican has made no public statements on whether they will accept his credentials.

And according to multiple news reports, the Vatican generally takes a month and a half to accept such nominations; any longer and it’s taken as a silent rejection.

And at least one French news outlet reports the decision not to accept Stefanini was made by Pope Francis himself.

The pope, of course, is personally against gay marriage, but has talked of people loving their gay brothers and sisters and said the Catholic Church should stop “obsessing” over gay marriage and abortion.

Wow, the leader of the Catholic church and its doctrine, standing up to the Godless Left and not wanting hypocritical gay priests amongst his leaders?! How dare he???

RELATED: The Left’s love affair with Pope Francis may be cooling off

1st Gay President Barack Obama Comes Out Against Gay Conversion Therapy, Will Seek State Bans

Mediaite.com:

The White House made it clear today that President Obama is officially coming out against gay conversion therapy and will seek state bans against the practice.

Back in December, a transgender teenager named Leelah Alcorn committed suicide by walking in front of a semi-trailer truck. In a suicide note on Tumblr, Alcorn said her mother had a very negative reaction and sent her to a Christian therapist who specializes in gay “conversion.” She wrote, “The only way I will rest in peace is if one day transgender people aren’t treated the way I was, they’re treated like humans, with valid feelings and human rights.”

A month later, someone set up a petition on the White House website to end conversion therapy because of the serious harm it can do to LGBT youth. Well, tonight Valerie Jarrett responded to the petition and made one thing very clear: “As part of our dedication to protecting America’s youth, this Administration supports efforts to ban the use of conversion therapy for minors.”

And as The New York Times reported tonight, the president plans to speak out himself and call for an end to gay conversion therapy because of how moved he was by Alcorn’s tragic case.

But instead of calling for a federal ban, the president is reportedly planning to push for state-level bans.

Homosexuality is a perverse behavioral choice and should be treated as such. While dressing like your opposite gender is also a choice, there's evidence to support it also being related to a mental illness.

RELATED: Obama tackles the hard stuff: Gay conversion therapy, transgender bathrooms

Inevitable Michael Slager Crowdfunding Campaign Gets Pulled from GoFundMe

Mediaite.com:

It’s somewhat inevitable these days that, within hours of a newsworthy controversy, someone’s going to make a crowdfunding page to support whomever they believe to be the true victims of the media/progressives/conservatives/the system/etc. Someone set one up for Michael Slager, the South Carolina cop charged with the murder of an unarmed man, and within hours it was shut down — which is one of the few times we’ve ever seen that happen.

GoFundMe, the site that hosted the initial crowdfunding campaign, told ThinkProgress that it had pulled a campaign contributing to Slager’s defense due to its violation of the site’s Terms and Conditions. Their spokeswoman declined to elaborate, but said that they could only “discuss the details of campaigns with the organizers.”

The campaign has been moved to IndieGoGo, and also has a Facebook page, with numerous comments overwhelmingly accusing the page’s organizers of making “a sad attempt at cashing in at a tragedy.” 

IndieGoGo told ThinkProgress that as long as the page’s founders are following their Terms of use, “we don’t judge the content of campaigns as long as they are in compliance”.

GoFundMe is no stranger to controversial crowdfunding: they hosted a fundraiser for Ferguson cop Darren Wilson, as well as the highly controversial fundraiser for Indiana’s Memories Pizza, which became a conservative bellwether after they reportedly said they would not cater gay weddings. (They did, however, once take down a crowdfunding campaign raising money for an abortion, saying it was “inappropriate” for the site.)

Slager has been charged with the murder of Walter Scott after a video emerged of him firing eight times at the fleeing man, who he had pulled over for a traffic stop. His lawyer, who repeated his client’s claims that Scott had scuffled with him and grabbed his taser, publicly dropped his client shortly after the video emerged. 

RELATED:  Man Who Recorded Walter Scott Video Speaks Out: I Was Scared, Almost Erased It

Carly Fiorina: ‘Liberal Environmentalists’ to Blame for CA Water Crisis

Mediaite.com:

Likely 2016 presidential contender Carly Fiorina has been on the attack lately, this time blaming liberal environmentalists for the water crisis in California.

Fiorina called in to Glenn Beck‘s radio show on Monday and bemoaned the “man-made disaster” in California that she was talking about years ago.

She said, “California is a classic case of liberals being willing to sacrifice other people’s lives and livelihoods at the altar of their ideology. It is a tragedy.” And Fiorina very specifically blames “liberal environmentalists” for bringing this crisis about, saying it’s “all about politics” and dismissed the idea that it has anything to do with global warming.

The more this woman talks, the more I like her.

RELATED: Poll: More Americans Trust Fox News than Obama on Climate Change

Facts Matter: Left Sticks to ‘Narratives,’ Evidence Be Damned

NYPost.com:

The verdict’s in on Rolling Stone. According to no less an authority than the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, the magazine’s story last year on a University of Virginia gang rape was a “journalistic failure [that] encompassed reporting, editing, editorial supervision and fact-checking.”

But as with many other stories that don’t fit into the right narrative, the media will continue to draw the wrong lessons.

As an AP article noted, “Despite its flaws, the article heightened scrutiny of campus sexual assaults amid a campaign by President Barack Obama.”

Despite its flaws? You mean despite the fact that as far as anyone can tell, the story was made up out of whole cloth?

ADVERTISEMENT

Even once the police investigated the claims of the alleged victim, The New York Times reported: “Some saw a more complex picture, saying that the uproar over the story and the steps that the university had taken since in an effort to change its culture had, in the end, raised awareness and probably done the school, and the nation, some good.”

How has the university benefited from the fact that a fraternity has been falsely accused of a horrific crime? And how has the nation benefited from the false but now widespread belief that violent rape, even gang rape, is raging on US campuses?

Wouldn’t it have done more good for people to know that young women are statistically less likely to be attacked on a campus than off one?

But who cares about the facts as long as awareness has been raised? Take the case of Ellen Pao, who filed suit against her former employer, venture capital group Kleiner Perkins, for gender ­discrimination.

She was seeking millions of dollars in damages to make up for what she claimed was a pattern of women being excluded from important meetings. They weren’t invited on a ski trip with other partners. Women were forced to sit in the back of the room during a meeting.

Two weeks ago, a jury decided her claims were completely without merit. And yet from the media coverage, you’d think Ellen Pao successfully exposed a Silicon Valley rife with discrimination.

Here’s Farjad Manjoo in The New York Times: “The trial has nevertheless accomplished something improbable . . . The case has also come to stand for something bigger than itself. It has blown open a conversation about the status of women in an industry that, for all its talk of transparency and progress, has always been buttoned up about its shortcomings.”

In a Bloomberg article called “Ellen Pao Lost, Women Didn’t,” Katie Benner declared: “The case broke wide open the issue of sexism in a powerful, influential industry.”

Or take the Atlantic, which declared, “Ellen Pao’s claim against top venture-capital firm Kleiner Perkins seems to have come up short, but it’s brought heightened attention to gender discrimination in tech.”

Come up short? She lost.

RELATED:  Media find sexism in the Ellen Pao case where the jury couldn't

Social Liberal POTUS Barack Obama Denounces ‘Less-than-Loving’ Christians at Easter Prayer Breakfast

Mediaite.com:

Towards the end of his speech at Tuesday morning’s Easter Prayer Breakfast, President Barack Obama appeared to veer off script to make some comments that implicitly referenced the fierce debate that has been raging over the last week about “religious freedom” laws in Indiana, Arkansas and elsewhere. 

“On Easter, I do reflect on the fact that as a Christian, I am supposed to love,” Obama said. “And I have to say that sometimes when I listen to less-than-loving expressions by Christians, I get concerned.” As the crowd began to murmur, the president backed off, saying, “But that’s a topic for another day.”

“I was about to veer off,” he explained. “I’m pulling it back.” 

“Where there is injustice we defend the oppressed,” Obama said, returning to his prepared remarks. “Where there is disagreement, we treat each other with compassion and respect. Where there are differences, we find strength in our common humanity, knowing that we are all children of God.”

The moment drew the attention of Fox News, which played this section of the speech on air. “The divisiveness over some issues coming up, but not Christians under attack around the world,” Martha MacCallum noted, referring to the recent attack on a Kenya university that explicitly targeted Christians.

RELATED: Jindal: Christians need legal protection for their religious expression

Carly Fiorina: Apple CEO Tim Cook ‘Hypocritical’ for Opposing Religious Freedom Law

Mediaite.com:

Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, who last week said there is a “higher than 90 percent chance” she will run for president, is going after Apple CEO Tim Cook for his vocal opposition to Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, calling him a hypocrite for not also ceasing operations in countries where gay people and women are not treated fairly.

Speaking to The Wall Street Journal, the likely 2016 Republican presidential contender said Cook is demonstrating “a level of hypocrisy here that really is unfortunate.” Cook wrote in a Washington Post op-ed that the Indiana law and similar ones are “bad for business” and discriminatory.

“When Tim Cook is upset about all the places that he does business because of the way they treat gays and women, he needs to withdraw from 90 percent of the markets that he’s in, including China and Saudi Arabia,” she told The Wall Street Journal. “But I don’t hear him being upset about that.”

While critics have said the law opens the door to anti-LGBT discrimination, Fiorina told the WSJ that there was “nothing objectionable” about Indiana’s law. The criticism was so overwhelming to Indiana lawmakers that Gov. Mike Pence (R) was forced to call for a “clarification” and “fix” to the law.

“I think this is a ginned-up controversy by people who play identity politics that has divided the nation in a way that is really unhelpful,” Fiorina added. Interesting, in that same interview, Fiorina said, “I am running for this job because…” — immediately prompting an interjection of “if” from one of her aides.

Meanwhile, her fellow Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger wrote on Friday that the Indiana law is “distracting, divisive,” bad for the country and for the Republican Party.

RELATED:  The overblown hypocrisy of Tim Cook's business boycott of Indiana

UVA Four Months Later: 'Rolling Stone Didn't Do Its Job'

CNN.com:

That's the feeling at the University of Virginia, four months after Rolling Stone magazine published and then all but retracted a story detailing an alleged gang rape at the campus. 

Now the magazine is preparing to publish an independent review by Columbia University of what went wrong in the making of the story. For UVA, that means yet another round of news coverage. 

Journalism students at UVA have seen up close how a news organization can hurt a community. Professors have thought about incorporating the lessons into classes. 

Perhaps most importantly, student activists are working overtime to correct persistent misperceptions about college sexual assault and support victims. 

"Rolling Stone didn't do its job," said UVA student body president Abraham Axler. "And in some ways our community was responsible for the cleanup of that mistake, and that's what people are angry about." 

The 9,000-word story, titled "A Rape on Campus," focused on the alleged gang rape of a freshman named "Jackie" in 2012. It also asserted that the university failed to meaningfully respond to the crime and connected this to systemic problems across the country. 

When the article came out in late November, "everyone was affected deeply," said Siva Vaidhyanathan, a UVA media studies professor. "The vividness of the story was gut-wrenching." 

But Vaidhyanathan had doubts right away because, he said, the story "demonized" administrators who were sincerely trying to improve UVA's handling of rape cases. 

The writer, Sabrina Rudin Erdely, soon came under scrutiny. 

"It was as if she came into the story with the plot already lined up, and she was just looking for that killer anecdote to fill in the gaps," Vaidhyanathan said. 

By early December, the gang rape story had unraveled. Amid mounting doubts about some of the details in Jackie's story -- seven attackers over a period of hours -- and widespread criticism of Rolling Stone's decision not to contact the alleged rapists, the magazine apologized and said it would investigate further.

The magazine asked Columbia's graduate school of journalism to lead a review. 

In March, the local police said they could find no evidence the rape had occurred, but also said it remains possible something very traumatic happened. Jackie has not spoken publicly. 

RELATED:  Rolling Stone U-Va. story: What happens when you mix tight FOIA laws with bad reporting?

‘Cowardice’: Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly Slam Christian Silence Against Liberal ‘Attacks’

Mediaite.com:

Bill O’Reilly spent the entire first segment of his show tonight going off on “the war on Christianity.” He pivoted from literal attacks on Christians in Kenya and by ISIS to “verbal attacks against Christians” in the United States.

O’Reilly called out Bill Maher‘s “vicious behavior towards Christianity” in particular before focusing on Indiana and the pizza place that was forced to close down over threats after comments about not catering gay weddings.

And what bothered both O’Reilly and guest Ann Coulter is how all this is happening without any religious leaders speaking out or pushing back. Coulter told O’Reilly “it’s Christianity that the left hates most of all” before complaining about Christian silence on these issues:

“The fact that these Christians would rather get praise from The New York Times and Nicholas Kristof by changing bedpans of Ebola patients in Nigeria, rather than stand up to The New York Times and fight against abortion, fight against these bullies… where are the Christians? And where are the Republicans?”

She told O’Reilly the owners of Memories Pizza “have more Christian courage than more Christian leaders and certainly the Republican Party.” O’Reilly, too, was troubled how there are “no clerics in America, zero, who put themselves out to defend the Christian faith.” Coulter called it “cowardice.”

RELATED: Let’s just say it… declining to participate in a gay marriage ceremony isn’t “discrimination”

How Do 'Religious Freedom' Acts Encourage Discrimination?

Townhall.com:

"I could have handled that better." 

I don't know if the captain of the Titanic ever said that. But Mike Pence did on Tuesday. 

The Indiana governor has managed to step on an impressive number of parts of his own anatomy recently and in the process gravely injured what was already a long-shot ambition to run for president in 2016.
Earlier this month he signed the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act in a private ceremony. In attendance were prominent opponents of gay marriage. 

In response, great algae plumes of righteous outrage erupted across the Internet. Gay rights groups, the Democratic Party and the mainstream media, in unison, lost their collective marbles and raised unshirted hell. Know-nothings of every stripe cried out that Jim Crow had returned to the land. Shouts of "boycott!" went forth, including perhaps of the NCAA's Final Four, which for Hoosiers is like threatening a boycott of Easter Mass at the Vatican. The Indiana Chamber of Commerce hied to its corporate fainting couch and begged to be rescued. 

Pence, desperate to put out the political fire, raced to a TV studio last Sunday to quench the flames on ABC's "This Week." The only problem is that he arrived at the scene with a rhetorical water pistol hoping to put out a five-alarm blaze. 

"Do you think it should be legal in the state of Indiana to discriminate against gays or lesbians?" George Stephanopoulos asked. 

"George, you're -- you're following the mantra of the last week online [media coverage]," Pence said. "And you're trying to make this issue about something else." 

Well, as they say in formal debate classes, Duh. 

Two days later, Pence held a press conference to ask the state legislature to rewrite the law to placate the mob. 

Pence still had the better part of the legal argument. Indeed, he and supporters of RFRA have nearly the entire legal argument on their side. 

The federal RFRA was passed in 1993, in response to a Supreme Court decision holding that Native Americans weren't exempt from anti-drug laws barring the use of peyote, even for religious ceremonies.

In response, Congress passed a law barring the government from putting a burden on religious practice without a compelling state interest. If someone feels their religious rights have been violated, they can go to court and make their case. That's it. Jim Crow laws forced people to discriminate. RFRA doesn't force anybody to do anything. 

The original RFRA was a good and just law championed by then-Rep. Chuck Schumer and opposed by right-wing bogeyman Jesse Helms. It passed the Senate 97-3 and was signed by President Bill Clinton. 

In 1997, the Supreme Court held that RFRA was too broad and could not be applied to states. So, various state governments passed their own versions. Twenty states have close to the same version as the federal government's, and a dozen more have similar rules in their constitutions. These states include such anti-gay bastions as Connecticut, Massachusetts and Illinois, where, as a state senator, Barack Obama voted in favor of the law. 

The law says nothing about gays and was most famously used to keep the Obama administration from forcing Hobby Lobby and nuns from paying for certain kinds of abortion-inducing birth control. 

"This big gay freak-out is purely notional," according to legal writer Gabriel Malor (who is gay). "No RFRA has ever been used successfully to defend anti-gay discrimination, not in 20 years of RFRAs nationwide." 

Still, the freak-out was predictable. A year earlier in Arizona, Gov. Jan Brewer had attempted to sign a similar law before caving to the pressure. Why would the same crowd spare Indiana? 

Yes, Pence hoped to throw a crumb to opponents of gay marriage. But what a miniscule crumb this is.

RELATED: Forget Indiana… let’s move the fight to Arkansas

Glenn Beck: Indiana Gov. Doing ‘Horrible Job’ Defending Religious Freedom Law

Mediaite.com:

Glenn Beck thinks that Indiana Governor Mike Pence is doing a “horrible job” defending the controversial religious freedom law. Pence was grilled yesterday by George Stephanopoulos over whether businesses would be legally allowed to refuse service to gay people.

Pence kept insisting that’s not what it’s about, and Beck called his response “one of the worst answers I’ve ever heard.”

Beck said the argument should be “I’m not for discrimination on gays, but I’m also not for discrimination on religious people.”

“Does my church have to marry gay people? No,” he said. “Do you have to get married in my church? No. Do you have the right to find a church that’ll marry you? Yes.”

While the Godless Left uses outright lies and hyperbole to attack and discredit social conservatives, prominent conservatives do nothing and refuse to fight for religious rights. Any wonder they've won the culture war?

RELATED: Crisis in Indiana: Random small-town pizzeria says it won’t cater gay weddings; Update: Might not re-open?