Any fool in Lansing who thinks ANY form of LGBT protections added to Elliot Larsen is a good idea, needs to seek help.
Dumb Dumb Dumb.
A former Michigan Democrat candidate for State Representative 104th district demonstrates typical short sighted immaturity, and a propensity for government in charge. In her post that seems to decry religious protections, she advocates ‘labeling’ as a solution to disagreement.
In her Facebook posting of a Raw Story article (complete with a couple of local ‘likes’), Betsy Coffia says:
“seems reasonable. if this type of ;aw is passed by our current GOP legislative majority, I hope to see a similar amendment.”
Can I get an “Oy Vey?”
Coffia, as with many others of the progressive left, appears to have a weak understanding of the dangers of government and the evil within it that is always waiting for such an opportunity as this. Yet the left and the LGBT movement in this country apparently wants US to label THEM so they can be ‘proud’ of their poor decision making and self destructive behavior, or at least not feel like their choices have consequence.
A change to Elliot Larsen would be terrifying enough to those who believe in the first amendment. The addition of religious exemptions that some believe would protect our ability to practice our faith would be challenged like they are now in Oklahoma. Of course most of us would rather ignore this radical new ideology of in-your-face activism, but we must also recognize an ultimate endgame when we see it.
And call it what it is.
(21)Nuh Uh.
(4)
Gotta ask, why be surprised by the ongoing mentality of a Femocrat?
Heck, if there's room for this lifelong quisling, then certainly Heavenly Mother li'l Ronna can make room in her land of the 'big tent' for TC's other misfit toys.
Yee-Hah! Bring'em young and polygamy for everyone.
Poor Betsy, being led astray from her founding faith in The Unchangeable God and His Standard (homosexuality is always negatively referenced in Scripture) to a faith in man-made inclusiveness with the new Hosanna of, (drum roll) DIVERSITY. She now qualifies for the big tent theory of politics. Hello Republicans.
Hmmmmm, requiring government permission so that an individual (ironically for whom government actually works for) to exercise a clearly enumerated Constitutional Right?
Now, why does that sound so vaguely familiar???