Religious activist group says ENDA would discriminate against Christians 16DEZ13

A right wing Christian organization using lies and deception to incite fear, hatred, prejudice and discrimination. And during Christmas no less! What a witness, what a testimony!!!! And how refreshing and admirable Rep Tom Cotton R AR, Christian and challenger for Sen Mark Pryor's (D AR) Senate seat in 2014, would have none of it and publicly defended Sen Pryor when the Traditional Values Coalition attacked Pryor's profession of Christian faith because he also voted for ENDA in the Senate. From PolitiFact.....

The Truth-O-Meter Says:

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act "discriminates against Christian daycare, Christian parents, Christian business owners, and the rights of religious freedom."

Traditional Values Coalition on Friday, December 6th, 2013 in a fundraising email

Religious activist group says ENDA would discriminate against Christians

Share this story:

Early in the 2014 campaign season, religion has played an important role in the Arkansas Senate race. Incumbent Mark Pryor, a Democrat, released an ad recently about how the Bible guides him.
Interestingly, when the National Republican Senatorial Committee attacked Pryor on the issue, challenger Rep. Tom Cotton’s office went against fellow Republicans to stand with Pryor.
But that’s not where the debate about Pryor’s faith ends. It circles back to his November vote in favor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a bill that would prevent workplace discrimination based on sexuality and gender identity. It passed in the Senate but hasn’t been taken up by the House.
While the bill’s status is in flux, the debate among lawmakers, advocacy groups and religious leaders continues.
The Traditional Values Coalition, a religious activist group, criticized Pryor for his ENDA vote. Andrea Lafferty, the coalition’s president, highlighted a perceived contradiction of Pryor’s religious beliefs in a Dec. 6 mass fundraising email.
"There's a reason why Pryor is attempting to run as a Christian in Arkansas," she said. "It's because Pryor has voted for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) in Washington, a bill that discriminates against Christian daycare, Christian parents, Christian business owners, and the rights of religious freedom."
PolitiFact wanted to take a closer look at how religious organizations would fare if the bill becomes law.
American Christianity and LGBT rights
Before we take a look at the bill, let’s contextualize the coalition’s claim in the broader context of American Christianity. It’s important to note that within Christianity, gay rights is a divisive and complex issue.
The Traditional Values Coalition’s ENDA disapproval is shared by other Christian groups, like the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. They expressed their view in an Oct. 31 press release:
"The USCCB continues to promote the dignity of both work and marriage and to oppose unjust discrimination on any grounds, including those related to homosexual inclination or sexual identity. But we cannot support a bill, like ENDA, that does not justly advance the dignity of all workers and authentic non-discrimination."
At the same time, groups like ReconcilingWorks, a Lutheran group that welcomes gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) members, support ENDA’s passage.
"ReconcilingWorks: Lutherans for Full Participation believes that all hardworking people — including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people — should have a fair chance to earn a living and provide for their families without fear of being fired for reasons that have nothing to do with their job performance," spokesman Tim Fisher said. "We strongly support the passage of ENDA."
As the gay rights movement gains more traction, some Christians have changed their perspectives.
"Most American Christians do not want a gay pastor overseeing their church, and that is not likely to change soon," said Kate Bowler, an American Christianity professor at Duke University. "However, we are seeing thawing numbers of those who agreed that gay people should be allowed same-sex unions."
The basics
The ENDA bill would prohibit private-sector employers and government employers on the local, state and federal levels from discriminating against employees based on sexual orientation and gender identity. That protects people who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender.
Under the law, employers can’t fire or refuse to hire people based on actual or perceived sexuality and gender identity (which need not align with a person’s biological identity).
Churches and other institutions with religious purposes (like schools and daycares) are exempt from the ENDA rules, just as they are from the religious discrimination portion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964’s Title VII.
Under Title VII, and therefore under ENDA, religious organizations, which need not be church-run, would be exempt. Additionally, all businesses with fewer than 15 employees are exempt, whether they’re religious or not.
Nelson Tebbe, a professor at Brooklyn Law School who specializes in religious liberty, said ENDA’s religious exemption exceeds Title VII’s.
"It’s broader because the religious exemption in Title VII only allows religious organizations to discriminate on the basis of religion," he said. But it doesn’t allow religious groups to discriminate based on factors like an employee’s gender or race.
So by permitting religious organizations to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, ENDA allows them more flexibility than Title VII.
Let’s break down the Traditional Values Coalition claim to see how each mention would be treated if ENDA becomes law:

• Daycare: "If it were a secular daycare that just happened to be owned by a religious individual with a conviction that prohibited them from hiring LGBT folk, then the exemption would not apply," Tebbe said. He added that nonprofit daycares with religious affiliations would be exempt.
  
• Parents: "There is nothing in ENDA that would require parents to alter their beliefs or what they teach their children about religion, homosexuality, marriage equality, et cetera," said Ian Thompson, an American Civil Liberties Union representative for LGBT issues.
  
• Business owners: For-profit companies with 15 employees or more would need to abide by ENDA, said Dena Sher, an ACLU religious liberty counsel. But Christian nonprofits and Christian (or any other) businesses with fewer than 15 employees would be exempt. Tebbe also noted that religious organizations who don’t hire LGBT people are protected under ENDA.
  
• Rights of religious freedom: "Not only does the Constitution protect religious freedom broadly, but existing federal discrimination law already prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion," Thompson said.
  

The Traditional Values Coalition doesn’t believe that these religious exemptions are broad enough.
"ENDA would not cover any secular companies and organizations that are run by committed Christians," said Harry Mihet, a Liberty Counsel lawyer the coalition referred us to.
Mihet is correct. But as far as discrimination goes, in the bill’s full text, there’s no reference to Christianity, or to any other individual religion, for that matter. All religions are treated the same and can legally invoke the same exemption. And Christianity isn’t the only religion that has historically grappled with acceptance of sexuality and gender identity issues.
Merriam-Webster defines discrimination as "the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people." To say that the law discriminates against Christians doesn’t fit based on our experts’ interpretation of the bill and the inclusion of an overall religious exemption that applies to any religion, not just Christians.
"If you had some exemption that wasn’t available to Christians, that would be discrimination," said Doug Laycock, a law and religious studies professor at the University of Virginia. "The only way they’re treated differently is they get an exemption."
Our ruling
The Traditional Values Coalition said ENDA discriminates "against Christian daycare, Christian parents, Christian business owners, and the rights of religious freedom."
The bill’s religious exemption indicates that churches, church-run initiatives and other religious businesses need not comply by employing people of all sexualities and gender identities. And there’s no special negative treatment for Christians. Businesses of any religion could qualify for the exemption. Individuals of any faith who oppose sexuality would have to abide by the law, so no religion is singled out.
We can understand why religious conservatives may take issue with this bill. However, the rhetoric in the email is too broad and overstated, and claims to speak for all Christians.
We rate this claim False.

About this statement:

Published: Monday, December 16th, 2013 at 3:02 p.m.
Subjects: Gays and Lesbians, Religion, Workers
Sources:
Email interview with Kate Bowler, Duke Divinity School history of American Christianity professor, Dec. 12, 2013
Email interview with Ross Murray, GLAAD spokesman, Dec. 10, 2013
Email interview with Tim Fisher, ReconcilingWorks spokesman, Dec. 12, 2013
Freedom to Work, "ENDA’s religious exemption," accessed Dec. 10, 2013
Human Rights Campaign, "Employment Non-Discrimination Act," Nov. 7, 2013
Mark Pryor, "North Star," Dec. 4, 2013
Merriam-Webster, "discrimination," accessed Dec. 16, 2013
National Republican Senatorial Committee, "Mark Pryor vs. Mark Pryor on the Bible," Dec. 4, 2013
New York Times, "Senate vote 232 -- approves ban on antigay bias in the workplace," Nov. 7, 2013
Phone interview with Andrea Lafferty, Traditional Values Coalition president, Dec. 10, 2013
Phone interview with David Codell, University of California Los Angeles School of Law, Williams Institute visiting legal director, Dec. 11, 2013
Phone interview with Dena Sher, ACLU legal counsel, Dec. 11, 2013
Phone and email interviews with Doug Laycock, University of Virginia professor of law and religious studies, Dec. 11, 2013
Phone interview with Erik Dorey, Mark Pryor campaign spokesman, Dec. 11, 2013
Phone interview with Harry Mihet, Liberty Counsel senior litigation counsel, Dec. 10, 2013
Phone interview with Ian Thompson, ACLU legislative representative, Dec. 11, 2013
Phone interview with Nelson Tebbe, Brooklyn Law School professor, Dec. 13, 2013
Politico, "Tom Cotton blasts NRSC attack on Mark Pryor," Dec. 5, 2013
Public Religion Research Institute, "Majorities of all religious groups support ENDA," Nov. 6, 2013
Traditional Values Coalition Education and Legal Institute, "The ENDA common sense," July 10, 2013
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, letter regarding ENDA, Oct. 31, 2013
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "Questions and answers: religious discrimination in the workplace," Jan. 31, 2011
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964," accessed Dec. 10, 2013
U.S. Government Printing Office, "S. 815," Nov. 12, 2013
Wall Street Journal, "Religious exemptions at center of ENDA debate," Nov. 1, 2013
Washington Post, "Most Republicans, evangelicals support ENDA," Nov. 5, 2013
Washington Post, "The last remaining obstacle for ENDA: religious liberty?" Oct. 31, 2013
Written by: Julie Kliegman
Researched by: Julie Kliegman
Edited by: Angie Drobnic Holanhttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/dec/16/traditional-values-coalition/religious-activist-group-says-enda-would-discrimin/

No one should be fired for who they are WE NEED TO MAKE ENDA THE LAW OF THE LAND 9NOV13

IF a person can do their job and get along with their coworkers there is no reason their sexual orientation should be a issue. Only ignorance, prejudice and hate, none of which a Christian nation should be known for, will keep ENDA from becoming law.
This week, the U.S. Senate voted to consider the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA. This legislation has a very clear purpose: to make sure that no one can be fired for who they are or who they love.
Right now, only 17 states prohibit employment discrimination against LGBT workers. That leaves millions of Americans who go to work every day fearing that they could lose their job because of who they are.
As the President said earlier this week, that's not acceptable.
A majority of Americans assume there is a prohibition against discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace. There's not, and that's exactly why this is so important -- and why we need your help to get the word out. Yesterday, Press Secretary Jay Carney explained what ENDA does, and why it's so important in the fight for equality.
Watch the video -- and pass it on so that other people know what a big deal this is.
At a time when Washington is spending so much of its time bickering over partisan issues, Congress has an opportunity to make a real difference in the lives of millions of Americans by passing this commonsense -- and overdue -- law.
It's not just civil rights advocates who support ENDA. Business leaders know that prohibiting employment discrimination is good for business. Inclusive workplaces attract the best and brightest employees, and improve their bottom line.
ENDA is set for a final vote in the Senate, and then the House needs to pass it. Americans need to know where members of Congress stand, and what is at stake.
We need your help -- please watch this video, and forward it on so that all Americans learn how important this is, too.
Thanks,
Valerie
Valerie Jarrett
Senior Advisor
The White House
@VJ44

7 Winning Issues for Democrats (If They Only Had the Guts to Fight) 15JUL11

IT isn't too late for the Democratic Party to reclaim these issues as their own, to return to the core principles of the party that made it a voice for the people. Is anyone at the DCCC and DSCC and OFA listening? From AlterNet....

It's not enough for progressives to count on Republicans to lose in 2012. Democrats need to find some issues to fight for. Here's a few suggestions.  

 The 2012 election is still a while away, but the horse race stories have already begun and new Republican candidates seem to be jumping into the fray every week.

Meanwhile, the debt ceiling debate is the political fight of the summer, and since President Obama floated the idea of Social Security cuts as part of the “grand bargain” he's seeking, the progressive base has been expressing its anger. Seventy-six percent of MoveOn's membership said they would not donate to or volunteer for Obama's reelection effort if he allowed cuts to Social Security benefits. And Jim Dean, of Howard Dean's Democracy for America, said “Cutting Social Security to reduce the national debt is like attacking Iraq to get Osama Bin Laden -- the two things are not related."
Friday's jobless numbers also prompted several writers to note that Obama could well lose a reelection bid if unemployment remains at the same level into election season. John Nichols rightly pointed out that “Americans are not that into the debt-ceiling debate. Polling has suggested that less than a quarter of Americans are 'closely following' the fight.”
As the election comes closer, it won't be enough for Democrats to count on unpopular right-wing politicians to lose fights for them—they will need to find some winning issues to campaign on. And it's not actually that hard to do.
There are a few issues, after all, that are consistently popular in public-opinion polls, not to mention with that same Democratic base that was depressed in 2010 and is angry now at the idea of cuts to the social safety net. For Democrats to make gains in 2012, not just hold the White House and the seats they've already got, here are seven winning issues to fire up the base and convert swing voters. It won't be easy, but it would be real progress.
7. Get out of Afghanistan and Libya and oh yeah, all the way out of Iraq.
Obama positioned himself to the left of his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton on the wars back in 2007 and 2008, proclaiming his opposition to the war in Iraq from the beginning and touting diplomacy, not violence, as the solution in the Middle East. His rhetoric at the time won him a Nobel Peace Prize.
But it's 2011, and not only are troops still in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan ongoing, but we've got a “kinetic military action” in Libya and drone strikes most recently in Somalia as well as Yemen and Pakistan.
And Americans aren't feeling it. A New York Times/CBS News poll released in June found that 58 percent of the public thinks we shouldn't be in Afghanistan and 59 percent think we shouldn't be in Libya. (It's worth noting that the poll didn't even ask about Iraq, lending fuel to the belief many have that the war there is “over.” It's not.)
Some Democrats have pushed for a real end to the war in Afghanistan. Most recently, a group of Democratic senators introduced a bill, coordinated with a push from Democracy for America, calling for “Safe and Responsible Redeployment of United States Combat Forces from Afghanistan.”
With the economy still the biggest issue on most Americans' minds, the wars are an unwanted expense and a huge force contributing to the deficit. Smart Democratic politicians will link these issues together on the campaign trail and call for an end to wars that are costing us too dearly in lives as well as dollars.

6. Push for a comprehensive employment non-discrimination act (ENDA).
Nearly three-fourths of voters believe that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people should be protected from discrimination in the workplace.
What's the problem, then?
This:

”The survey also found that 9 of out 10 voters erroneously think that a federal law is already in place protecting gay and transgender people from workplace discrimination. A similar number of voters also did not know whether their state had a gay and transgender workplace discrimination law. These numbers show the huge disconnect between voter perceptions about workplace protections and the realities that gay and transgender people face on the job.”

How do we pass a law when the vast majority of the public thinks a law is already in existence? The Center for American Progress pointed out that anywhere from 15 to 43 percent of gay people have faced some form of discrimination or harassment on the job—and that figure is a staggering 90 percent for transgender workers. In a good economy, the fact that 44 percent of transgender people report being passed over for a job because of their gender identity or expression, and 26 percent report being fired, would be cause for alarm.
In the current economy, where every job opening yields far more qualified applicants than can possibly be hired, it's a tragedy.
Andrew Cuomo, the Democratic governor of New York, is basking in the glow of having passed a marriage equality bill that was extremely popular with his constituents. Progressive Democrats should be making the point that no, there is no federal workplace protection for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender workers—and then fighting like hell to pass one.
5. Pass comprehensive immigration reform.
Wait, immigration reform is a horribly contentious issue, isn't it?
Not, actually, as much as you'd think.
The numbers of immigrants from Mexico are down and states like Georgia that have passed draconian anti-immigrant laws are actually suffering from a lack of willing farm workers.
But while Jan Brewer and other right-wing governors have passed horrific immigration bills on the state level, a Daily Kos poll a few months ago showed 69 percent support for comprehensive immigration reform that included increased border security and a crackdown on employers who hire undocumented workers, as well as a path to citizenship for undocumented workers who apply for legal status, learn English and pay back taxes.
Jed Lewison at Kos noted:

”Those numbers are pretty emphatic, but what's even more remarkable is that every single demographic and ideological group in the survey would support immigration reform based on the principles outlined in the question. In fact, the right is more supportive of the approach than the left, presumably because it would require immigrants to pay back taxes and learn English before becoming eligible for citizenship.”

If that's still too messy a fight (or concedes too much to the right), the DREAM Act also polls with majority support—54 percent are in favor of a law that would give legal status to those who attend college or join the military.
4. Increase environmental protections.
The right wing loves to trash environmental laws as job-killers and claim that progressives and environmentalists are attacking private industry when they push for regulations. But despite years of that sort of rhetoric and a miserable economy, Americans still want their air, water and land clean. Seventy-one percent still want the Environmental Protection Agency funded, and as of last year, 56 percent chose protecting the environment over keeping energy prices low. Fifty-six percent also want the government to regulate private companies' energy output to control global warming.
Erik Loomis, environmental historian and blogger at Lawyers, Guns and Money, argues that environmental policies that put people first are winning issues. He says:

“Go to Louisiana and talk about the BP oil spill, talk about how we need an oil industry that provides jobs and doesn't destroy our coastline. Go to Arkansas and talk about how we need energy, but we also need to make sure that the natural gas industry doesn't cause earthquakes underneath us. Go to rural New York now and argue the same thing since that's a big issue there. Go to West Virginia and talk about how we can create a coal industry that doesn't remove mountains and provides more jobs to people. Not to mention pushing green jobs and alternative energy projects that put people back to work.”

Once again, with the economy the main concern for so many voters this election cycle, it's time for politicians to think smart about linking jobs to new and alternative energy technologies. Deeply unpopular conservative governors may be rejecting money for high-speed rail transit, and progressives running in their states (Florida and Ohio, for a start) can turn that anti-environmentalist job-killing argument right around on them.
3. Fight for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
It's depressing that with a Democrat in the White House and Democrats in charge of at least one house of Congress, this should even be an issue.
However, these programs are consistently immensely popular—even when the public thinks they could be administered better, 88 percent think Medicare has been good for the country, followed by 87 percent for Social Security and even 77 percent for Medicaid, the program that provides health services for the poor. (And a new study confirms with research what public opinion already believes—that Medicaid provides concrete benefits for its recipients.)
So why is Barack Obama floating the idea of cuts—or of raising the eligibility age for Medicare?
As Joshua Holland wrote for AlterNet last week:

This administration has certainly shown itself to be enthralled by the idea of scoring big, “bipartisan” legislative victories on what the chattering class considers the most pressing issues facing the country, and a Beltway consensus has (unfortunately) gelled around the idea that reducing the deficit in the near term, rather than getting people back to work, is a top priority.

This simply doesn't gel with public opinion. Sixty percent at least want benefits to remain unchanged from these programs, and according to one poll, 22 percent would cut the defense budget first, and 42 percent would rather raise taxes on the rich than see cuts to Social Security.
Which brings us to the next point...
2. Tax, tax, tax, tax, tax the rich.
It should be a no-brainer by now, right? One of Barack Obama's biggest applause lines on the campaign trail was the one about letting the Bush tax cuts expire for those who made over $250,000 a year—and he even won a majority of votes from that same income bracket. The grand compromise late last year to keep those cuts angered many and drove Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders to a fiery eight-and-a-half-hour speech on the Senate floor, where he concluded:

"If the American people stand up and say, we can do better than this, that we don’t need to drive up the national debt by giving tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, (if) the American people are prepared to stand – and we’re prepared to follow them – I think we can defeat this proposal.”

The proposal passed, and even though Obama promised it would be for the last time, the GOP is determined not to raise taxes on its own base in any sort of debt deal.
But it shouldn't matter. Democrats should take note instead of a poll that hit swing states Ohio, Missouri, Montana and Minnesota and asked voters about raising taxes on large incomes to reduce the deficit. The higher the income proposed for taxes, the more willing voters were to increase the tax burden.  Sixty-six percent of Ohioans were willing to raise taxes on those who make over $150,000 a year, while 78 percent of them would tax millionaires more.
More importantly for Democrats looking for an issue for the campaign trail, 48 percent of Ohioans would be more likely to vote for Senator Sherrod Brown (who, it should be noted, joined Bernie Sanders in his Senate floor speech) if he led the fight in Congress for a millionaire's tax. Forty-seven percent of Minnesotans would be more likely to support their senator, Amy Klobuchar, and 42 percent of Montanans would be more likely to support Jon Tester.
Overall, some 72 percent of voters support higher taxes on those who make over $250,000 a year, including some 54 percent of Republicans. The rich are getting richer and the unemployed aren't getting any closer to employment. We've had years and years of tax cuts under the false claim that they create jobs. It's time for Democrats to point out that those wealthy job creators simply aren't creating jobs—and then raise their taxes and...
1. Create some jobs.
Right-wing columnist Michael Medved's worst nightmare goes something like this:

”In the president’s rousing vision, the new jobs program, designated 'America Works,' would hire people immediately for desperately needed federal projects while simultaneously providing money from Washington for positions at the state and local level, as well as partially subsidizing new jobs in the private sector.

Warming to his message, Obama declared: 'Cynics will respond to this plan the way they always react to new ideas and fresh starts. They will say, “You can’t do that” or claim that “we can’t afford it.” But Americans know better. They know that we can’t afford not to act, or to protect a stale, shabby status quo at a time of national crisis.'

'How can we say we can’t afford to start hiring again, to do all the jobs that desperately need doing, when all around us we see accumulations of wealth unprecedented in human history?'”

It's funny how Republicans' worst nightmare looks like a progressive dream. Putting millions of Americans back to work? Subsidizing jobs by taxing the corporations that have so far failed to hire? Where do we sign up?
Medved wrote this in a plea to his fellow conservatives to wake up and do something about jobs. When even one of the nation's far-right voices sees the need for a jobs program—even if only to forestall the impact a real jobs program might have on the progressive vote—and the Democratic president is doing nothing, what's wrong?
Democrats need to get out in front of terrible jobs numbers and right-wing critique. They need to articulate a jobs program now. Thirty-nine percent of the population thinks that this recession isn't a recession—it's a permanent decline for the country and the state of all of our lives. Forty-seven percent think that unemployment benefits should be extended even if it means increasing the deficit (44 percent think they should not be) and 60 percent are either “somewhat” or “very” worried that someone in their household will soon be out of work.
Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton, called for a renewal of the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps on Friday when jobs numbers came out. Michael Medved desperately fears a bold move by the administration on job creation.
The conventional wisdom says that the president and the Democrats spent their political capital on the first stimulus bill, but now even former members of the administration's economic team are calling for more. It's time to put the conventional wisdom to rest. Jared Bernstein summed up the argument on Friday:

”Washington needs to quickly and aggressively shift from its long-term debt obsession to the much more immediate jobs problem. To do otherwise at this point would be deeply irresponsible.”

The problem, of course, with these seven issues is that almost all of them pit everyday Americans against corporate interests. With the Citizens United decision allowing open season for corporate cash in the upcoming campaign, politicians can kiss that money goodbye if they strike out too far against the will of big business.
Progressives will have to organize and bring pressure like never before on Democratic politicians who count on votes, dollars and volunteer hours from them—but that's how we got the New Deal, isn't it?

Sarah Jaffe is an associate editor at AlterNet, a rabblerouser and frequent Twitterer. You can follow her at @seasonothebitch.

Another Wiretap Expansion Proposal, Facebook Privacy Breach and More from the ACLU 23OKT10

UPDATES on DADT, FBI surveillance, voting rights, illegal deportation, the Pledge of Allegiance, former A.G. john ashcroft and illegal detentionand the Supreme Court case, and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. 

What's Next for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell?" Planning to Vote on November 2? Know Your Rights! Supreme Court Will Hear ACLU Case Against Former Attorney General Ashcroft Expanded Wiretapping Capabilities = Potential For Abuse The Best Person for the Job...Fired for Being Gay. Jailtime for Refusing the Pledge: A "Civil Liberties Minute" Podcast Mentally Disabled American Citizen Deported to Mexico Facebook Application Privacy Breach Exposed Jailtime for Refusing the Pledge: A "Civil Liberties Minute" Podcast A lawyer in Mississippi has been thrown in jail for refusing to recite the pledge of allegiance. >> Listen to the podcast. Mentally Disabled American Citizen Deported to Mexico The ACLU filed lawsuits in federal courts in Georgia and North Carolina last week on behalf of Mark Lyttle, a U.S. citizen of Puerto Rican descent with mental disabilities. He was wrongfully deported to Mexico and forced to endure over four months of living in the streets, shelters and prisons of Mexico, Honduras, Nicaragua and Guatemala. Lyttle's brush with immigration officials began when he was about to be released from a North Carolina jail where he was serving a short sentence for touching a worker's backside in a halfway house that serves individuals with mental disabilities. Even though they had plenty of evidence that he was a U.S. citizen—including his Social Security number and the names of his parents—corrections officials turned him over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as an undocumented immigrant. Although ICE knew of Lyttle's long and documented history of mental illness and noted he did not comprehend the investigation of his status, he was not offered legal assistance and was deported to Mexico. "What happened to Mark Lyttle is unconscionable," said Judy Rabinovitz, Deputy Director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "Our Constitution and our laws demand fair treatment for people with mental disabilities in any court, including immigration courts. Pushing Mr. Lyttle through proceedings that he clearly couldn't understand and then deporting him was not only inhumane but a gross violation of his due process rights." So, how could this have happened? The answer, as reported by the ACLU and Human Rights Watch in a report issued this July, is that both ICE and the Department of Justice have failed to implement meaningful safeguards for people with mental disabilities facing possible deportation from the United States. >> Learn more about this case. back to top Facebook Application Privacy Breach Exposed This week, the Wall Street Journal reported that the most popular Facebook apps consistently share information about you and your friends with advertisers and other third parties, no matter what your privacy settings are. This isn't the first time a significant and ongoing privacy invasion and violation of Facebook's own rules has been uncovered. Facebook needs to stop addressing this problem with secret "policy enforcement" and start putting choices and control back where it belongs: in your hands. To its credit, Facebook has taken some steps to address this but has yet to offer a complete solution. That is why we have continued to push Facebook to improve its privacy controls and address the "app gap." Unfortunately, Facebook's response to the ACLU's Open Letter was to claim that it "heard these concerns" but had already done what needed to be done. As the recent breach clearly shows, there is definitely still more to be done. In order to make sure that personal information about you is only accessed by people and developers you trust, Facebook must give you complete and meaningful control over which apps can access your information and what information these apps access. >> Take action: Sign the petition to Facebook demanding better control over your personal information. back to top Do you know somebody who would be interested in getting news about the ACLU and what we're doing to protect civil liberties? Help us spread the word about ACLU Online — forward this newsletter to a friend.

October 23, 2010 What's Next for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell?" >> Tell President Obama to End "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" once and for all. The military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy is in the news a lot these days. And it seems as if this discriminatory and unconstitutional policy is teetering—ready to fall. As you know, the courts keep striking serious blows against DADT. Recently, the ACLU won a major victory when a judge ordered the reinstatement of an Air Force Major wrongfully discharged under DADT. And a federal court in California, in a case brought by the Log Cabin Republicans, ordered an end to enforcement of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." But, our elected leaders—starting with the President—have to stop avoiding efforts to end DADT and, instead, start seizing them. It is time for President Obama to lead by putting a decisive end to DADT >> Take action: Tell President Obama to End "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." back to top Planning to Vote on November 2? Know Your Rights! >> Learn more about your right to vote. With Election Day right around the corner, we have some important tools to help people exercise their fundamental right to vote. You never know what might happen at the polls—that's why voters must be as informed as possible. We're working hard to ensure that all voters' rights are protected and that every vote is counted on November 2. Here are some things to keep in mind: Check your voter registration status. Locate your polling place and note the hours of operation. Plan ahead, particularly if you require some form of assistance. Vote early or absentee if possible. If you plan to vote at the polls, go early in the day to avoid the last-minute rush. Bring a valid form of identification, even if it's not required. Wear comfortable and adequate clothing in case of long lines or inclement weather. Do not wear candidate-specific clothing. Take your time and read all instructions carefully. Ask for help if you need it. Be wary of rumors and false information that may be designed to discourage you from voting. Report any voting problems or irregularities to state officials and/or call the ACLU's voter protection hotline at 877-523-2792. Don't forget to vote! Remind your friends and family, too. >> ACLU affiliates are also distributing voter education materials around the country that inform voters of their rights on Election Day and how to avoid problems when casting a ballot. Learn more. back to top Supreme Court Will Hear ACLU Case Against Former Attorney General Ashcroft The Supreme Court has agreed to hear al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, the ACLU's case against former Attorney General John Ashcroft on behalf of Abdullah al-Kidd. >> Learn more about al-Kidd v. Ashcroft. >> Learn more about other Supreme Court cases the ACLU is involved with this term. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, the ACLU's case against former Attorney General John Ashcroft on behalf of Abdullah al-Kidd, a Kansas-born U.S. citizen who was wrongly arrested and detained as a material witness in 2003. The federal material witness statute allows law enforcement to detain a witness whose testimony prosecutors believe is material at a criminal trial if it believes that witness won't testify voluntarily. Al-Kidd was arrested and detained ostensibly so he'd testify as a material witness in the trial of Sami Omar al-Hussayen, who attended the same university as al-Kidd and was charged with visa fraud. During his 16-day detention, al-Kidd was moved to three separate federal detention facilities in three different states—and was sometimes held naked and shackled hand-and-foot. After he was released, al-Kidd's travel was restricted to only four states, and he had to surrender his passport and report to probation officers. But al-Kidd was never asked to testify against al-Hussayen. And al-Kidd himself was never charged with a crime. So, why was he being treated like a criminal? Prior to 9/11, the material witness law was used sparingly to ensure witnesses would be available to testify in criminal cases. After 9/11, Attorney General Ashcroft retooled the law into an investigative detention statute, allowing the government to arrest and detain individuals for whom they lacked probable cause to charge with a crime. Our lawsuit charges that this Ashcroft policy violates fundamental constitutional principles and that al-Kidd was a victim of that policy. The district and appellate courts agreed. >> Learn more about al-Kidd v. Ashcroft. >> Learn more about other Supreme Court cases the ACLU is involved with this term. back to top Expanded Wiretapping Capabilities = Potential For Abuse >> Sign the ACLU's petition to Attorney General Holder: Rein in FBI surveillance power. According to a report in The New York Times this week, the Obama administration will be submitting proposals to Congress next year seeking to expand its wiretapping capacity by overhauling the law requiring telecommunications companies to ensure their networks can be wiretapped. The administration claims that Congress must rework the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act (CALEA)—which compels telecommunications and broadband companies to ensure their services are wiretap-ready—in order to keep up with technological changes in the companies' services. The administration is also asking that the government's power to enforce compliance by companies with the law be strengthened. However, the government's authority under CALEA to lawfully collect information from telecommunications and broadband companies is currently sufficient, as is its ability to enforce penalties for noncompliance. Does this sound familiar? In 2007 and 2008, in an analogous situation, the Bush administration pushed to "modernize" the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by claiming technological changes had made it more difficult for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to monitor foreign communications. The former administration successfully used the opportunity, under the guise of a technical fix, to radically expand the government's power to monitor Americans' international communications through passage of the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) in July 2008. The ACLU is challenging the constitutionality of the FAA in federal court. >> Take action: Sign the ACLU's petition to Attorney General Holder: Rein in FBI surveillance power. back to top The Best Person for the Job...Fired for Being Gay. The ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of Andre Cooley, a corrections officer for the Forrest County Sherriff’s Department who was fired when his supervisors discovered that he was gay. >> Watch the video to learn more. Andre Cooley, a corrections officer with an exemplary record for the Forrest County Sherriff's Department in Mississippi, was fired when his supervisors discovered that he was gay. The ACLU filed a lawsuit this week on his behalf. This past June, while at home and off-duty, Cooley called 911 after his boyfriend became physically violent. When police officers arrived at the house in response to the emergency call, Andre's boyfriend "outed" him to one of his superiors. The next day, the Staff Sergeant of Jail Operations informed Andre that he was being permanently terminated. Andre asked the staff sergeant if he was being fired because he was gay, and the staff sergeant responded, "Yes." "Andre's sexual orientation has no bearing on his ability to perform the job of a corrections officer," said Joshua Block, staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Project. "It is well established that a public employer cannot fire an employee based on irrational fears and prejudices against gay people. But Andre's case is also a reminder that people in Mississippi who work for private companies are left almost entirely unprotected from anti-gay discrimination. There is currently no state or federal law protecting against employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation." The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) would make it illegal to discriminate against an employee for being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. President Obama has said he will sign ENDA if it passes Congress, but even though ENDA was first introduced over 16 years ago and has broad support in both the Senate and the House, it still has not passed Congress. >> Take action: Urge Congress to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. back to top Join us on...

American Civil Liberties Union 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, New York 10004-2400 Lisa Sock and Joe McLaughlin, Editors

Privacy Statement This mail is never sent unsolicited. You, or someone on your behalf, has subscribed to receive this information from the American Civil Liberties Union. At the ACLU Web site, the ACLU gathers anonymous summary statistics on the responses to our email newsletters in order to better serve list subscribes and ACLU members. To review our Privacy Statement, click here. Click here to forward this message.