This California Bike Shop Just Made A Far-Left Turn Into PC Paradise With No-Men ‘WTF Night’

First of all, let’s make clear that “WTF” in this post is a reference not to a commonly understood abbreviation for a three-word vulgarity, but to a different concept that may, in fact, seem vulgar to some: “Women Trans Femme” — those people who self-identify as women, no matter their physiological makeup.

We live in an age when disruptive claims and political narratives about homosexual rights and gender-identity protections mean that stories such as this take on a far more serious import than one might normally assign to them.

So when a small bike shop in what many describe as an ultra-liberal la-la-land promotes “WTF Night” every other Tuesday, it’s an avowed effort to welcome virtually anyone other than men into a “safe space” where they can learn the skills necessary to break up what the shop sees as the “male dominance” in cycling. As The Daily Caller notes about the bi-weekly WTF events at the Davis Bike Collective — a small outfit with close ties to the University of California-Davis where the use of bikes for basic transportation is widespread — the organization’s proudly proclaimed mission is all about “empowerment” of non-male riders.

“Our goal is to empower the female, gender queer folk of Davis and surrounding areas to learn more about bike mechanics and gender relations. WTF is a safe space for women, genderqueer, femmes –  those who are typically marginalized in the bike world,” the collective’s website says.

So, it would seem, the goal of the WTF nights at the collective named Bike Forth is to teach a select group of people how to choose, ride, and maintain two-wheeled equipment, as long as these folks are not, dare we say, endowed with certain distinguishing equipment of their own.

Image Credit: The California Aggie

Image Credit: The California Aggie

A publication called The California Aggie quotes a volunteer at Bike Forth who justifies the WTF events at which men — or those who identify as men — are not welcome. If you don’t identify with the WTF community, well, then you could attend a WTF Night–but you’d be made to feel like an ostracized outsider. You’d presumably be made to experience the very kind of feelings these special events are apparently meant to discourage.

“’At the shop it’s a very supportive community, but some people still feel intimidated about coming to work on their bikes, specifically women and people who identify as women. We want to empower them to work on their bikes, and if that means having a special night where they can come and not feel intimidated then that’s what we want to offer.’”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Breaking: Her Campaign Only Days Old, Hillary Clinton Flip-Flops On This Constitutional ‘Right’

In what is very likely a well-researched and thoroughly opinion-polled move to appeal to younger voters, Hillary Clinton has just let it be known that she has changed her mind on whether the legality of same-sex marriage should be left up to the individual states.

NBC News is reporting that Mrs. Clinton’s campaign has confirmed the candidate is taking a page out of the playbook of another failed presidential contender, John Kerry the noted flip-flopper. In this case, Mrs. Clinton is strategically flip-flopping on a major social issue in America.

“In an apparent shift from comments last summer, Hillary Clinton is urging the Supreme Court to rule to allow same-sex couples nationwide to marry, calling it a ‘constitutional right.’”

The NBC News story references a statement from a Clinton campaign spokesperson:

“Hillary Clinton supports marriage equality and hopes the Supreme Court will come down on the side of same-sex couples being guaranteed that constitutional right.”

In less than two weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to begin hearings on whether gay marriage is, in fact, a right guaranteed under the Constitution.

And in a public opinion poll conducted by NBC News and The Wall Street Journal in early March of this year, 59% of the respondents indicated they strongly or somewhat favor “allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into same-sex marriages.”

In a similar poll sponsored by CNN/ORC and reported in mid-February, the vast majority of younger Americans indicated they’re in favor of gays and lesbians having a constitutional right to get married and have the union recognized by law. Of 18-34-year-old respondents, 72% said they favored what Hillary Clinton just said she’s now supporting.

As an article on the far-left website The Daily Beast just noted of Clinton’s need to greatly enhance her political attractiveness to younger voters:

She stumbled in her 2008 campaign when she failed to convince these voters to come out for her in a big way, and could easily be challenged by a younger, more liberal, more human-seeming candidate.

Clinton was a terrible, sluggish candidate in 2008, and young voters famously compared her to their nagging mothers.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Obama Admin Says Catholic School Discriminated By Firing Gay Band Director

Obama IRS

The Obama administration’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) found that a Georgia Catholic prep school discriminated against a homosexual band director by firing him.

Mount de Sales Academy terminated the contract of its band director, Flint Dollar, in May 2014, after he posted on Facebook that he would be marrying his partner in July of that year. In making its decision, the school indicated allowing the director to continue in his role would run contrary to its mission of providing “high quality education based in teachings of the Catholic Church.” Catholic doctrine supports the traditional view of marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Dollar stated that the school has known for months about his plans, and his firing came as a complete surprise. The EEOC ruled in a determination letter, dated January 30, 2015, that the school had discriminated against Dollar in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The act specifically states that people cannot be discriminated against based on their “race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” It contains no language regarding “sexual orientation” or “gender identity,” though supporters have tried unsuccessfully to add those categories to the Civil Rights Act in the past.

Dollar’s attorney told the GA Voice, “Typically, Title VII doesn’t protect against sexual orientation discrimination, but what it does protect against is gender discrimination, which is when you don’t adhere to traditional gender stereotypes.”

LifeSite reports that the EEOC has stretched the law’s plain language to find discrimination when someone fails “to act and appear according to expectations defined by gender.” Therefore, by this reasoning, Dollar was being discriminated against based on his sex, which is a protected class.

The EEOC will attempt to settle the case between Dollar and Mount de Sales; but if no agreement can be reached, Dollar’s attorney has indicated he will file a lawsuit against the school.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Ben Carson Schools CNN’s Chris Cuomo About The Legal Protection Of Christians Vs. LGBT Community

Ben Carson

Republican presidential hopeful Dr. Ben Carson again joined Chris Cuomo on CNN’s New Day on Thursday to discuss the homosexual community. After appearing on his show last month, Carson said he would try to avoid speaking about gays because he received immediate backlash after declaring that being gay was “absolutely” a choice.

Cuomo began by arguing that if Carson was elected President, he wouldn’t be able to duck questions simply because he didn’t like them.

“You understand that?” Cuomo asked.

Cuomo asked him again about gay issues because he believed they are “a very important issue to the development of the American culture.”

Carson took the questioning in stride this time, noting that sexuality was a personal issue and one that he didn’t find all that interesting, differing from Cuomo in that regard.

“I would like to see as much emphasis on the rights of Christians as there is to some of the other groups,” Carson replied. “I would like to see a much greater conversation about Christians and their rights.”

Cuomo responded by arguing that the LGBT community gets “far less legal protection” than Christians do – while insinuating Carson knew that.

Carson rebutted and schooled Cuomo.

“The important thing is for us as a nation to recognize that all citizens of the United States are protected by our Constitution,” the doctor said. “We need to stop deciding that one group versus another group is the flavor of the day.”

h/t: Biz Pac Review

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Lawyers Warn First Amendment Rights At Stake In Gay Marriage Case

Flickr/cool revolution (cropped)

With media coverage slanted in favor of gay marriage by a five-to-one ratio, it’s unlikely that the legal documents being filed before the Supreme Court in favor of a traditional one man and one woman marriage will ever be covered in an objective fashion.

Yet, some of the legal briefs carry ominous warnings about what could happen to the American system of democratic self-government and its Christian heritage if the Supreme Court unilaterally decides to impose same-sex marriage on the states. They also warn about freedom of the press and religion being threatened by a powerful pro-homosexual movement that requires obedience to its desires and demands.

The court will hear arguments on April 28 and rule in June.

A powerful brief filed by the firm of William J. Olson, P.C., Attorneys at Law, and the U.S. Justice Foundation cites the late conservative journalist M. Stanton Evans in his book, The Theme of Freedom, as saying that homosexuality constitutes “a reversion to pagan ways of thinking,” and that putting the United States on the road to paganism could lead to a government “with totalitarian powers.”

Examining the nature of the homosexual movement and where it is driving the nation, the legal brief notes that sexual categories once limited to heterosexual and homosexual have now been expanded to include more than 50 gender options, as defined by Facebook, and that “some consider pedophilia to be a legitimate sexual orientation, returning us to the pagan pederasty of ancient Greece.”

With the court affirming same-sex marriage as a constitutional right, the lawyers see the culture sliding further into debauchery. “Television no doubt will become even more pro-homosexual,” the attorneys argue, “making it more difficult for persons adhering to traditional values to live their lives and raise their children in an increasingly debased culture.”

“In this brave, new, homosexual-friendly world,” they go on, “every licensed professional would be required to embrace the new orthodoxy, to bow down to the idol of ‘non-discrimination,’ or be cast out of his profession. People who first claimed only to want tolerance of their behavior will allow no toleration for other views.”

The Olson brief says a Court decision in violation of America’s founding principles could directly affect the free press rights of those offering information about withdrawing from homosexual behavior. Websites offering such counseling could be outlawed as “hate speech,” the legal document says.

“In California,” the document notes, “it is already a crime” to counsel minors that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation. It says New Jersey passed a similar statute, which was recently upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. This statute was signed into law by New Jersey’s Republican Governor Chris Christie.

“Newspapers likely will be forced to publish homosexual wedding announcements, in violation of their existing editorial control over what they publish,” the attorneys assert.

A decision in favor of same-sex marriage could also result in Christians being “driven from public office” for objecting to participation in gay marriage ceremonies, the brief says.

The Olson firm and the U.S. Justice Foundation filed the brief on behalf of Public Advocate of the U.S., Joyce Meyer Ministries, U.S. Justice Foundation, The Lincoln Institute, Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Pastor Chuck Baldwin.

The brief says that a constitutional right to homosexual marriage could supersede the religious freedom of churches, ministries, Christian schools and colleges, and that these entities “would be placed in jeopardy of losing their federal tax-exempt status.” The loss of federal income tax-exempt status “could lead to loss of contribution income, and forfeiting of church properties to pro-homosexual charities,” the brief says. In addition, it goes on, “criminal penalties might be imposed on church leaders. In Idaho, two pastors recently were threatened with fines and jail time unless they performed homosexual marriages at their wedding chapel.”

In addition to the threat posed to the First Amendment rights of a free press and religious expression, the conservative public interest law firm Judicial Watch has filed a brief noting that the will of the American people through the voting process has already been subverted by liberal judges.

The group points out that “most of the States where the traditional definition of marriage has been changed has been done through judicial actions and not the will of the people. And in fact, several States including California and Virginia where the voters clearly desired to maintain the traditional definition of marriage, state administrators and federal courts denied their collective voices.”

“The right to vote is clearly defined in the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution,” Judicial Watch points out. Yet, courts have declared through “judicial fiat” that “the millions of voters who democratically adopted the marriage amendments were wrong,” thereby abridging “the right to vote of each and every one of those citizens.”

The brief goes on to say that “The message sent to these citizens is that, despite engaging in the democratic process and debate regarding issues predominately within the state sphere and casting their constitutionally protected votes, when a federal court decides it knows better, their votes will mean nothing. The inevitable consequence of this type of federal interference will be voter disenfranchisement. How can we beat the patriotic drum of voter involvement when the ultimate end can be erased by a few federal judges?”

The Olson brief also takes up the theme of the American people being denied their say in these matters, noting cases of judges who “have treated challenges to traditional marriage as an opportunity to exercise raw political power…”

Inevitably, the lawyers warn, the nation could witness the legalization of multiple-partner and incestuous marriages.

This article originally appeared at and is reprinted here with permission.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom