They're At It Again

Remember Nadia Eweida vs British Airways in the case of "you're making me obey the same rules as everyone else but I'm a Christian so it's discrimination"?

Well, here they go again.

16 year-old Lydia Playfoot was told that she has to obey her school's uniform code just like everyone else, and that means no rings.

But because Playfoot is a Christian, she feels that she should be exempt but refuses to admit it and, instead, describes a uniform code that applies equally to everyone as - you guessed it - "discrimination."

In typical "persecuted" Christian style, she compares her pointless "purity ring" that she chooses to wear but her faith does not require with headscarves and turbans which are exactly the opposite.

Sheesh. They rule the bloody country. You'd think persecution would be hard to fake, but they're right there doing it.

Eleven Down, One To Go

Okay, this is it. This is it. Last day tomorrow, so no doubt it'll drag like a bugger.

Now, onto something strange:

Auntie reports that Delcambre, LA (that's in the state of Louisiana, for those outside the US) is on the verge of banning low-riding trousers that show off the wearer's underwear. $500 fine or even jail time. Apparently, in Delcambre, underwear* is being added to the list of "indecent exposures."

Y'know. This garbage is bad. But what's worse is that the same people who tend to support this kind of law also tend to condemn Islamic countries for requiring women to wear the burqa.

Guess what? It's the same thing.

The only difference is scale. Religious nutbars banning visible underwear is the same impetus, the same egocentricism, the same prudishness as religious nutbars banning women in public with their faces showing.

Look at this. Tell me those aren't just scaled-down burqas.

*It seems that, as well as being prudes, they also missed the loophole. Stop wearing boxers or briefs and start wearing swimming trunks or some form of sports shorts instead. They're not underwear so the law doesn't apply and you can wear your trews just as low as you like. Duh.

Haw-Haw!

The so-called "Creation Museum" (yes, it is, no, it's not) has been hit by a sex scandal already. Apparently, the guy who plays "Adam" in the museum's propaganda fiction is - er - not exactly the kind of person that die-hard, right-wing, uber-bigots like to hang out with.

The World Accoring To Fundy

thecdn over at AP brought a series of blog posts to our attention recently.

The first is Morality Clauses, EC, and broken condoms over at Den Of The Biting Beaver. It is a very disturbing portrait of one woman's attempt to find a place that would dispense emergency contraception (EC) in George W. Bush's America.

Folks, the condom broke Friday night and I searched all weekend for someone who could prescribe me EC. It is now Monday and I have to report that I have been unable to find anyone who will write me a fucking prescription for EC. None of the hospitals in the surrounding counties would write it for me. I stopped my search at about 100 miles from my home because my telephone book wouldn't take me out any further than that.

I have been asked about my sexual practices. Whether I'm 'monogamous' or 'in a relationship' if I'm married, if I have kids, how many kids I have, if I was raped or 'traumatized' but there wasn’t' ONE question about my health. Not one. The few places that said that they had a doctor who would occasionally write prescriptions for EC told me that I had to ask for that doctor specifically and then they proceeded to tell me that I would be 'interviewed' to see if I meet that doctors 'criteria' and then they proceeded to ask me all the above questions before telling me that I should 'try anyway' and I 'might be able to talk him into it'.

The second post is a follow-up to the original, called The hiatus will start after this post *smile* and is an accounting of what happened with her search and, more importantly, how she has been treated.

Some of the emails she's received are truly horrific.

But hey, God is love and all that jazz.

China acts on funeral strippers

Okay, interesting news from China. Apparently it's quite common in some areas to have strippers at a funeral.

Nope, This is not a joke. Apparently, local belief is that the more people attend your funeral, the more you are honoured. Get some hot young things taking off their clothes, and people will attend. Seems logical, right?

Well, that's not the news. Lately, the Chinese authorities have been cracking down on what they call "obscene performances" (yeah, now why does that sound familiar?) and have banned them.

In a sadly usual non-twist, authorities are also encouraging people to snitch on their neighbours and have set up a hotline to allow them to do so with ease.

Because, as we all know, consenting adults watching consenting adults taking their clothes off is the single worst thing that can happen to a person.

Dildos don't thrill people, people thrill people

Hot on the trail of news that Grand Rapids (Michigan) is going to ban strip clubs (in similar legislation as that about to pass in Kentucky) comes the news that South Carolina is looking at banning sex toys:

Anderson Independent Mail:

"COLUMBIA - Lucy's Love Shop employee Wanda Gillespie said she was flabbergasted that South Carolina'’s Legislature is considering outlawing sex toys.

But banning the sale of sex toys is actually quite common in some Southern states.

The South Carolina bill, proposed by Republican Rep. Ralph Davenport, would make it a felony to sell devices used primarily for sexual stimulation and allow law enforcement to seize sex toys from raided businesses."

Seven other states already ban sex toys: Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Indiana, Texas, Louisiana and Virginia.

I sometimes find myself wondering if this is really the "land of the free" that I read about as a child.

Don't worry, I'm not about to start on some anti-southern states rant. I believe that the American people must govern themselves as they see fit, but it seems strange wasting legistalure's time on such an obviously religiously-motivated law when there are real problems out there.

I can see the rallying cry now:

You can have our dildos when you pry them from our cold, dead...

06RS SB250

06RS SB250 is the unglamourous name for a bill that's just been passed by the Kentucky Senate, which defines a person as being guilty of "sexual misconduct" when:

He or she knowingly or intentionally appears in a state of nudity in a sexually oriented business

And defines "a state of nudity" as:

the showing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area, vulva, anus, anal cleft or cleavage with less than a fully opaque covering, or the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any part of the nipple

And also, a person is guilty of "sexual misconduct" when:

He or she knowingly or intentionally appears in a state of semi-nudity in a sexually oriented business unless, while acting as an employee of a sexually oriented business

And defines "a state of semi-nudity" as:

the showing of the female breast below a horizontal line across the top of the areola and extending across the width of the breast at that point, or the showing of the male or female buttocks. This definition shall include the lower portion of the cleavage of the female breast but shall not include any portion of the cleavage of the female breast exhibited by a dress, blouse, shirt, leotard, bikini, or similar wearing apparel provided the areola is not exposed in whole or part.

Nicely done.

Y'know what pisses me off?

Well, aside from the whole "government legislating morality" bit - that's a given.

There's a massive campaign to relax Kentucky's archaic gambling laws (and, with wearying inevitability, the concerned citizens forming a counter-group) on the grounds that Kentucky loses somewhere in the region of $6 million every year because residents are going to other states to gamble.

So we're now going to lose even more money because people will have to go to other states to see strip clubs and titty bars?

Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies

Students at the Georgia Institute of Technology are going to court to fight for their right to be intolerant.

Well, that's how most news sources are putting it. But it's rubbish. People have the right to be as intolerant as they want, nobody denies that right. What Georgia Institute of Technology prohibits is people actively campaigning against minorities on campus.

The plaintiff here wants exceptions made for Christians who want to spread their hatred against homosexuals.

However, as distasteful as this may seem, it hides a different agenda.

This isn't about the right to be intolerant. It's about getting the Christian version of homosexuality - that it's a choice and not something one is born with - established in US law by getting courts to rule in favour of cases which have this misconception as their basis.

The agenda is revealed in the way that the people concerned phrase it:

Christian activist Gregory S. Baylor responds to such criticism angrily. He says he supports policies that protect people from discrimination based on race and gender. But he draws a distinction that infuriates gay rights activists when he argues that sexual orientation is different — a lifestyle choice, not an inborn trait.

Even the correction that they later issued has the same principle in it:

"Religious expression: An article in Monday's Section A said Gregory S. Baylor of the Christian Legal Society viewed homosexuality as a lifestyle choice. In fact, he does not have a stance on that issue. As the article noted, he supports policies that protect people from discrimination based on race, gender and other inborn traits. He asserts that antidiscrimination policies regarding homosexuality are different because they protect people based on conduct. Baylor's organization seeks to exempt religious groups from those policies."

This isn't about the right to be intolerant. It's about establishing in US law that homosexuality is a choice.

And once you've established that it's a choice, laws protecting it are easier to destroy, and laws preventing it are easier to introduce.

And, of course, with the newly redesigned US Supreme Court the time is ripe for this kind of change.

Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies - Los Angeles Times:

This is nice

The government in Britain is expected to relax Sunday trading laws, allowing businesses to open longer. I know, I know, I'm an atheist, so I'm bound to like this. But maybe not for the reasons you might think. I have no problem with those that want to treat Sunday as something special. If you want to go to church, go. If you want to spend the day praying, pray. If you want to strip naked and smear yourself in bacon grease, go right ahead.

Just don't force me to participate.

Here's a quote from the article:

Ministers want to relax the curbs after pressure from supermarket chains, which want the Government to bring England and Wales into line with Scotland, where there are no restrictions. But the move faces opposition from small traders and religious groups who want to "keep Sunday special".

The "small traders", I get. At the moment, when the big shops close, the small shops get big business, and relaxing Sunday trading laws would impact that. But this "keep Sunday special" crap annoys me. It's as if people think that they can't have a special day of the week without the muscle of the government enforcing it. Here's a thought - be an independent adult human being and take control of your own life. If you want Sunday to be special - or, indeed, any day of the week, or, if it comes to that, any day of the year, or, in extremis, every day of the year - make it so. Don't force your superstitions on me, and don't force me to pay to police our forced observance of your superstitions.

Wow...

Well, this may be the most incredibly stupid thing I've ever read:

The Homosexual Movement And Pedophilia

The homosexual activist movement and organized pedophiles are linked together by a common goal:
To gain access to children
for seduction into homosexuality.

Homosexual activists deny that they target children for seduction into the homosexual lifestyle, but the evidence is overwhelming that this is a lie.

There is an ever-increasing effort among homosexual organizations to target public school children, to abolish age of consent laws, and to publish “studies” that purportedly show that adult/child sex is not harmful.

The following reports provide clear and convincing proof that homosexual pedophiles (called pederasts) want children. Homosexuals should not be given special federal protections under “hate crime” laws; they should not be free to promote homosexuality in public schools; nor should they be allowed to marry or adopt children. Many homosexuals are sexual predators who prey on children.

It then goes on to link to many spurious articles "proving" that homosexuality and peadophilia are one and the same thing.

And this isn't one lone whack-job's webpinion page - such as the imcomparable godhatesfags.com - this is the site of The Traditional Values Coalition, a right-wing voice box.

Nice. Yes, my British chums, you thought Screaming Lord Such was a nutjob...