ACLU State Director Quits Job, Blasts Organization for Intolerance

Photo credit: Michael Hanscom via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Maya Dillard Smith, a black woman, quit her job last week. Was bigotry and harassment to blame for her quitting? Sort of. I’ll let her explain what happened:

I have shared my personal experience of having taken my elementary school age daughters into a women’s restroom when shortly after three transgender young adults, over six feet [tall] with deep voices, entered. My children were visibly frightened, concerned about their safety and left asking lots of questions for which I, like many parents, was ill-prepared to answer.

So she began asking questions about President Obama’s transgender mandate forcing schools to allow boys who think they are girls to use the girls’ restrooms. But her employer had no tolerance for her commonsense values.

So, Dillard Smith, who has degrees from Berkeley and Harvard, quit her job. . . as executive director of the Georgia ACLU. She was reportedly one of only three black ACLU state directors.

She blasted the ACLU for being intolerant and refusing to “engage in dialogue.” She said the radical group is “a special interest organization that promotes” only “certain progressive rights . . . based on who is funding the organization’s lobbying activities.”

Dillard Smith’s experience is another reminder that black Americans supported traditional marriage in greater percentages than white Americans.

Conservatives need to be reaching out to the black community on values issues. But, first, the Republican Party has to find the will to actually fight for these issues and make the case for traditional values. Continue Reading

ACLU Targets Six GOP States to Pass Pro-Gay Legislation

Associated Press reports:

The ACLU will be seeking to expand the list of places barring discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. It’s targeting at least a half dozen states — Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania — that have Republican-led legislatures and also may be pivotal in presidential elections.

The Supreme Court’s decision “certainly provides momentum on the issue,” said Pennsylvania Rep. Dan Frankel, a Democrat from the Pittsburgh area who has been unsuccessfully sponsoring gay rights bills for more than a decade.

He said challenges remain and pointed to a November referendum in which Houston voters rejected a city ordinance extending nondiscrimination protections to gay and transgender people.

The Family Research Council, which opposed the Houston ordinance, is supporting state measures that would grant broad protections “from government discrimination” against people “who have a sincere belief — religious or not — in natural marriage,” said Quena Gonzalez, the group’s director of state and local affairs.

Missouri House Majority Leader Mike Cierpiot said many of his Republican colleagues were alarmed by the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage.

“I think there’s a lot of states that are looking at this and seeing what can be done to make sure that religious freedoms are respected,” said Cierpiot, a Republican from suburban Kansas City.

An intense debate over gay rights already is shaping up in Indiana, where a religious-rights law passed last spring thrust the state into the national spotlight over concerns it could sanction discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Continue Reading

ACLU Goes After Jindal For Protecting Believers

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (photo credit: Gage Skidmore)

Just a few days after formally announcing it now opposes religious liberty, the ACLU announced a lawsuit going after Gov. Bobby Jindal for signing an executive order protecting conscience rights for traditional believers on the marriage question:

The ACLU argues that Jindal’s action amounts to executive overreach that privileges those who share his opposition to same-sex marriage.

…The suit echoes accusations that the executive order sanctions discrimination and warns that businesses would be allowed to refuse services to same-sex couples.

It also specifically pans Jindal for allegedly making the issue political, noting his presidential ambitions.

“It has not gone unnoticed that Governor Jindal not only issued his ‘Marriage and Conscience Order’ just hours after the House Civil Law and Procedure Committee voted not to advance an identical bill, but also one day after announcing an exploratory committee to prepare for a presidential run,” the lawsuit says.

Jindal fired back, noting that the ACLU’s advocacy has been inconsistent:

“The ACLU used to defend civil liberties, now it appears they attack them,” he said in a statement to The Times-Picayune.

“The Left likes to pick and choose which liberties they support at any given time, and it seems to me that religious liberty has fallen out of favor with them.”

To date, Senators Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham have cosponsored the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), which seeks to prevent coercion and discrimination by government against supporters of our classic marriage tradition.   Continue Reading

ACLU: Time For RFRA – and Religious Freedom – to Go Away

Photo credit: American Life League via Flickr, CC BY-NC 2.0)

In a remarkably transparent statement in yesterday’s Washington Post (the left usually prefers to camouflage their true intentions), a deputy director of the ACLU announces it is time for the RFRA to be retired.

RFRA was okay so long as it was used to defend vaguely quaint behaviors, such as the right of a Sikh not to doff his turban while participating in ROTC.  But now that RFRA is being used to defend the content of one’s faith, well, that’s a threat to the common good.

The ACLU objects to the Hobby Lobby decision, of course, which held that the owners of a company could not be compelled by the government to violate their religious beliefs by subsidizing contraceptives.  The ACLU objects to the Catholic Church, which is taking care of unaccompanied refugee minors, being unwilling to refer those children for abortions.  The ACLU previously sued to drive the Catholic Church out of a federal program to care for victims of human trafficking on the same grounds.

If the purpose of a federally-funded program is, inter alia, to provide abortions to unaccompanied refugee minors or victims of human trafficking, then the ACLU and their friends on the left should be willing to say so publicly.  But if the purpose is something other than providing abortions to these populations in desperate need, then there is no concern in the Catholic Church and other religiously-motivated organizations – such as the Salvation Army or the Mormon Church – serving them.  Continue Reading