Oh man. This has got to be a nightmare of a case for unprincipled leftists (and they’re all unprincipled). What happens when a gay bar prevents a man in drag from entering? That’s quite a quandary.
From The Denver Post:
Colorado regulators say a well-known Denver gay bar discriminated against a gay man last year by denying him entry while dressed in drag, also finding the bar has a history of discriminating against women and effeminate men.
The ruling from the Civil Rights Division at the state’s Department of Regulatory Agencies adds some weight to the balance scales between anti-discrimination and liquor laws that bar owners must consider for screening patrons.
"It is a really nuanced, interesting case," said Pete Meersman, president and CEO of the Colorado Restaurant Association. "It seems to me that you are between a rock and a hard place."
An investigation by DORA’s division of civil rights found the bar violated Vito Marzano’s right to public accommodations on Aug. 31, 2013, when it turned him away because of his appearance, according to the document.
"The law is new and developing. I think you will see more cases that are consistent with this ruling," said Darold Killmer, a Denver-based civil rights lawyer. "I think this was a courageous decision, but a correct decision by the Civil Rights Division."
DORA is ordering The Wrangler, a high-profile uptown gay bar, to go through mediation with Marzano, according to the document obtained by The Denver Post on Monday.
Marzano, 27, showed up at the bar wearing a dress, a wig, makeup and high heels after attending a drag show. The bouncer refused to let him in, saying he could not verify that Marzano’s identity matched his identification card.
The bar claims its employees have a responsibility to not serve alcohol to people under 21 and must apply a strict identification process to do so.
First, you have a law requiring any establishment that serves alcohol to verify that every person who enters is old enough to drink. Then there’s the law that prevents discrimination (Remember how the left celebrated that in the same city?). So what happens when these laws conflict with one another…especially when the offender is — parish the thought — gay? If you listen closely, you can actually hear the heads of statists popping. After all, this is big government vs. big government.
I have an idea. We could celebrate liberty and just allow people and businesses to do whatever they want. That would also work, right?
The Nanny of school lunch apparently didn’t see the irony in her statement yesterday.
First lady Michelle Obama said something Wednesday that seems preposterously ironic to many American school kids: “No one really cares what you had for lunch.”
"I tease my kids," Michelle Obama said at a White House event on women’s empowerment with Laura Bush. "I tell them I want them to use Instagram to take a picture of something really important rather than their food… I mean, no one really cares what you had for lunch." The audience laughed.
Nobody cares…except for Michelle, the tyrant of school lunches.
We have been following the Obama administration’s punishment of legal businesses that don’t line up with their progressive politics. One such example is Operation Choke Point, a Justice Department program that pressures banks to close the accounts belonging to certain types of businesses including gun stores.
from Daily Caller:
A South Carolina pawn shop owner who sells guns, guitars and an array of other items says that his bank forced him to close his accounts, and he thinks it is because of the weapons.
Morris Williams, who owns Inman Gun and Pawn, says he thought his relationship with SunTrust Bank was fine — “excellent” in fact.
“We have ample funds in the account to do anything we needed to do,” Williams told Fox Carolina, adding that he thought “everything was just wonderful.”
But then the bank sent him a letter.
“Under the Rules and Regulations for Deposit Accounts, and as a result of our recent decision, we must ask you to close the below listed SunTrust accounts,” the letter reads.
Williams, who opened up two checking accounts with SunTrust in 2006, was given little explanation for the bank’s sudden decision.
“The only thing that they will tell us is that we have been deemed a prohibited business type,” he told Fox Carolina, adding that he believes his shop was targeted by the federal government because he sells guns.
Williams wouldn’t be the first to make such a claim. Lawmakers and consumer advocacy groups have blamed a Department of Justice initiative called Operation Choke Point for pressuring banks to cut off relationships with customers like Williams.
The Justice Department does not have this kind of Constitutional authority. They are asserting force over businesses that are fully compliant with the law in order to push a political agenda. This is pure bureaucratic tyranny.
How do you lose $619 billion? That’s exactly the question we should be asking after the Government Accountability Officer revealed that there is $619 billion missing from the Obama administration spending reports.
It’s the federal website intended to provide transparency about how your tax dollars are being spent, but the information for public consumption is inaccurate, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office.
The website, USASpending.gov, is missing at least $619 billion from 302 federal programs, according to the GAO.
The website began under the Obama administration.
The White House did not report any of the programs it was directly responsible for reporting to USASpending.gov.
The White House Office of National Drug Policy told auditors they believed that the Department of Health and Human Services was responsible for reporting the information.
The audit says that only between 2 percent and 7 percent of the information is “fully consistent with agency records,” USA Today reports.
Is it even possible to misplace a billion dollars? What about $619 billion? I submit that you cannot simply lose an amount that large. That money is being spent somewhere, and there needs to be a special investigation to find out where it’s going. It is being funneled to somebody the Obama administration doesn’t want anybody to know about, and we should be gravely concerned about that.
Talk about using somebody else’s bad behavior to justify your own. This cop from New Jersey openly abuses power and blames it on Obama.
Here’s the video:
The cop’s shocking comments came as Wronko repeatedly cited his First Amendment rights, saying the amendment permits him to video record in a public building without being suspected of committing a crime. He brought up various case case law while trying to convince the officer on the issue.
“Obama has decimated the friggin’ Constitution, so I don’t give a damn,” Officer Recine said. “Because if he doesn’t have to follow the Constitution, we don’t have to.”
“Did you get that?!” the stunned man asked the young teen reportedly recording the conversation.
“That’s the law of the land, you have to follow it,” Wronko told the cop.
“Then you tell [Obama] that,” Recine replies.
Later in the video, Police Director Robert Manney shows up and tells Wronko that he will have to leave if he’s being disruptive. He also heard telling Wronko that he is required to tell police what he is doing inside a public building.
Wronko was escorted out of the building a short time later.
“Either get out, or you’re going to get locked up,” Manney is heard saying.
However, upon learning about one of his officer’s comments about the Constitution, Manney said on Wednesday that the comments were “uncalled for and unprofessional.” He also said an investigation should be concluded quickly because “the evidence is right there.”
“I’ve already spoken to that officer in regards to that. In my opinion, it’s an embarrassment,” Manney said, according to the Home News Tribune.
What this incident shows is that this police officer only cares about the Constitution when it applies to other people’s power, not his own. As soon as his authority is challenged, all his principles went out the window with a “He did it first” worthy of a 5 year old. He actually admits he “doesn’t give a damn” about the Constitution, and it’s obviously true. Blaming Obama doesn’t in any way justify his behavior.
CNN’s Mark Lamont Hill is upset that Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense prevents them from being hit by Hamas’s rockets. Yes. You read that correctly. A CNN contributor actually wants Israel to be more susceptible to attack from terrorists.
He puts all kinds of hot pink lipstick on the pig, but it’s still a pig.
Here’s the video:
But what the Iron Dome does is it also takes away all of Hamas’s military leverage which is very different than say, 10 years ago or 15 years ago in other wars like Lebanon, et cetera. As a result, it not only serves a defensive purpose but de facto serves an offensive purpose. It allows Israel to essentially assault and siege Gaza without any retribution or response on the other side. So again, to some extent, they are not just funding defense, they are funding an offensive war and ultimately an occupation. That for me, is the problem.
In short, it appears Hill objects to U.S. taxpayer funding of Iron Dome because it “serves an offensive purpose” by limiting the ability of the Islamist terror network Hamas to slaughter Israeli citizens in “retribution.”
So, civilian casualties are okay with Mark Lamont Hill…as long as it’s Israel’s civilians.
I’m not even going to dignify this stupidity with a link.
For all the talk about “unaccompanied minors” at the US Southern border, very little has been mentioned from the Obama administration as to whether any of these “children” may already have gang affiliations and violent histories. All indications from the ground imply that the largest percentage of minors are aged 15-17 and many of them may already have criminal histories.
from National Review:
Teenage criminals and gang members from Central America have been using “a loophole” to stay in the country, border agent Chris Cabrera revealed. Under current policy, unaccompanied minors are allowed to stay in the country if they have family in the United States and say they have none in their home country, regardless of their background.
“Even if he is a confirmed gang member, a confirmed criminal, even by self-admission, we for some reason don’t send them back to their home country — we release them into our country,” Cabrera said.
Minors usually end up staying in the U.S. “nine times out of ten,” he added.
As a result, Cabrera said “morale is at an all-time low right now” because agents are “not allowed to do the job that they were hired to do.”
Cities and towns along the border in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas already have a massive gang problem, and the Obama administrations open border policy has added gasoline to the fire.
US corporations face the highest corporate tax rate in the world: 39.1%. So it should come as no surprise that when they can no longer afford to be located here, they move overseas. Well, Fauxcahontas isn’t happy about that. She thinks that these companies should be more…er…patriotic. What’s her solution? Have Obama pass an unconstitutional executive order punishing them if they want to leave.
From The Blaze:
Democratic senators are calling for President Barack Obama to take executive action that would essentially increase the tax burden on many American companies. The White House isn’t ruling out a unilateral act, invoking the phrase “economic patriotism” to condemn companies that incorporate overseas.
However, when pressed if there were any other unpatriotic tax deductions, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said, “not that I’m aware of, but If you spot any, let me know.”
The letter was signed by Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Jack Reed of Rhode Island.
The Democratic senators said in the letter Tuesday that they have introduced the Stop Corporate Inversions Act.
“However, our efforts should not preclude executive action to prevent corporate inversions. The coming flood of corporate inversions justifies immediate executive action,” the letter said…
Heaven forbid that a business try to maximize profits. That’s evil, I tell you. Evil.
Again, the United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. But rather than encourage her fellow lawmakers to lower corporate taxes (or eliminate them altogether, as they are already a double-tax), she wants the President, to pass an executive order, punishing businesses who don’t want 40% of their profits stolen from them. Now that’s what I call patriotism.