HB 1107 Brings “Sharia for Jesus” to South Dakota: Time to Boycott Backers?
By Cory Allen Heidelberger on 2016-02-14
House Bill 1107 would allow business owners to actively discriminate against LGBTQ South Dakotans, unmarried parents, and anyone else whose sexual habits contravene their religious beliefs. Is it time for South Dakotans who believe such sexual matters are nobody else’s business to discriminate against those businesses?
HB 1107 prime sponsor Rep. Rev. Scott Craig, whose faith one would think is strong enough not to need state affirmation, says he’s trying to stop “erotic freedom” from trumping “religious freedom.” Patheos blogger Michael Stone calls HB 1107 “Sharia for Jesus” and says Rep. Rev. Craig is simply giving his Christianity and his state a bad name (and that name is bigotry):
To be blunt, Craig and his fellow Republicans give Christians a bad name. Their endorsement of bigotry and intolerance in the name of supposed religious freedom is an indictment of both their character and their intellect.
The fact that Republicans would pass such shameful legislation does a disservice to the good people of South Dakota who want no part of such hatred and bigotry. The legislation will only harm the tourism industry that is so important to the state’s economy, and leave the state wide open to expensive and unwinnable lawsuits.
Bottom line: HB 1107 is a deeply flawed and mean-spirited attempt to allow conservative Christians to discriminate against those people they do not like. As always, when conservatives talk about religious freedom, they usually mean special rights and protections for Christian bigots. The proposed legislation in South Dakota is no exception [Michael Stone, “South Dakota House Authorizes Discrimination Against LGBT and Unwed Mothers,” Patheos, 2016.02.09].
The 46 members of the House who approved Sharia for Jesus did limit their license for bigotry to the private sector: two amendments have removed “state employees and the employees of any school board, county, municipality, or other entity included under the definition of state, when acting within the scope of employment” from the definition of persons who will be allowed to discriminate against naughty kanoodlers.
If these 46 Representatives and their Senate colleagues can’t be convinced that discrimination has no place in state law, perhaps decent South Dakotans should declare that they have no place in those legislators’ businesses. An eager reader has compiled a list of businesses and organizations either owned and operated by or employing legislators who are backing HB 1107:
Legislators supporting HB 1107 either own, operate, or work for the following businesses and organizations. Legislators’ votes on bills do not necessarily reflect the views of their employers.**
My daughter likes mini-golf, and I hate to deny her some cheap family fun for political reasons. But we save that treat for when we’re traveling, and other travelers considering a swing through South Dakota may look at Thunder Road owner Al Novstrup’s vote for Jesus-Sharia and decide to take their tourism dollars elsewhere. And we all can plan our trips to avoid having to stop in Clark for lunch and bothering Brock and Lana Greenfield with our dirty thoughts and dirty money.
After all, if Novstrup and the Greenfields don’t want sinners’ money, then all of us sinners (and we are all sinners) should happily oblige.
*Update 11:10 CST: The original version of this post included Greenfield’s Short Stop in Clark. An eager reader informs me that the Short Stop no longer exists. I have edited the above list and welcome further input from readers on changes in ownership and establishments missing from this list.
**Update 2016.02.16 18:33 CST: Apparently the legislators’ businesses and/or employers listed above are receiving some negative feedback from readers of this blog. To make clearer the meaning of this list, at the request of one listed entity, I am replacing the header “Businesses Associated with HB 1107 Yea Voters” with the longer heading you see now.
***Update 2016.02.17 09:20 CST: An official Lake Area Tech spokesperson contacts Dakota Free Press and asks to distinguish the institution’s views from the views of any individual employee. “We have always prided ourselves on being a college that treats our students like family,” says the Lake Area spokesperson. “Representative Solum is an employee of Lake Area Tech (but is on an unpaid leave of absence during session). His views are not our views and he does not consult with us on these matters.”
†Update 2016.02.19 11:32 CST: Doss and Associates of Watertown really didn’t like the public learning that they employ HB 1008 supporter Rep. Tim Rounds as an independent adjuster. They dispatched attorney Sharla B. Svennes from Sioux Falls firm Myers Billion to submit this message through the DFP contact form to detail the daylight between Tim Rounds, ill-informed anti-trans legislator, and Tim Rounds, independent adjuster:
Rep. Tim Rounds, adjuster for Doss & Assoc., and, not on company time, supporter of HB 1008
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am contacting you on behalf of Doss & Associates to request that you clarify to your readership the fact that Representative Tim Rounds’s views and endorsements do not necessarily reflect the views of Doss & Associates. Representative Rounds is an independent adjuster employed by Doss & Associates when the South Dakota Legislature is not in session; he does not consult with Doss & Associates regarding his legislative activities, and, in fact, company policy prohibits him from using company time or resources to pledge or reject support of politically affiliated causes.
I spoke with David Doss on the phone this morning to confirm that Svennes represents his organization. I also spoke with the Doss & Associates operator, who said, “Oh, so you’re the one I’ve heard about.”
I’m drawn to Betty Olson’s legislative report because it’s a continuous fiery car wreck followed by dog fights and witch burnings.
My seatmate in the Senate is the very conservative Sen. Jeff Monroe, and I was astonished to hear him tell a lobbyist that he supports the LGBT agenda! Knowing Monroe very well, the lobbyist was also shocked until Jeff went on to explain that his LGBT agenda was Land, Guns, Babies and Taxes. In Pierre, we deal daily with property rights and other land owner issues; gun rights; midwives, abortion, and the sale of fetal tissue; and an abundance of tax issues. Imagine how surprised I was to find out that I also support the same LGBT agenda!
Betty Olson is why South Dakota’s weather is so brutish and unforgiving.
Snaillady
2016-02-14 09:28
Apparently legislative members in Pierre paid no attention to what happened in Indiana when this kind of hateful agenda was pushed in their state legislature. Social media could cause a boycott that would cost South Dakota most of its tourism money. How many businesses that don’t subscribe to this way of thinking are going to be willing to consider residing in our state?
Mrs. Nelson
2016-02-14 10:02
I’m glad to see Betty and Jeff think LGBTQ rights and equality is akin to a joke.
Frightening. I’m more than happy to boycott said businesses.
Tim
2016-02-14 10:19
Only 3 in Rapid City? I find it interesting West River bigots are missing an opportunity to cram their radical religious beliefs down every bodies throats. They must not be paying attention.
Larry, thank you for pointing out that Olson and Monroe think civil rights for all South Dakotans is a joke.
larry kurtz
2016-02-14 11:27
Cory, if only you knew how much i want to let go but i still need West River.
grudznick
2016-02-14 11:44
Campbell street cafe was unusually busy this morning, Lar, and half the place was ranting about young Mr. Gosh.
And it thunder-and-lightening snowed last night. End of the world coming then, you think?
Spencer
2016-02-14 11:59
Wouldn’t it be funny if Pat at the other blog stooped low enough to do this to you and your wife? Or, is that crossing a line because you assume you are always right?
Rorschach
2016-02-14 12:17
What is with so many representatives not showing up to vote? 14 out of 70 (that’s 20% of the House) didn’t show up to vote. Is it that they stepped out in the hall to avoid a tough vote, or are they all sick at the same time? Work ethic. Pass it on.
Ror, I wondered about that 46–10 vote, too. But that day, February 8, the members of the House Appropriations Committee—Anderson, Bordeaux, Cronin, Dryden, Jean Hunhoff, Alex Jensen, Partridge, Ring, and Romkema—were excused because they were holding their afternoon hearing on HB 1182, the Governor’s funding mechanism for the Blue Ribbon teacher pay raises. Rep. Sly was also absent because she, as Blue Ribbon co-chair, was testifying for the bill in commmittee.
The other four who missed that vote were Kaiser, Killer, May, and Russell. Kaiser has been excused every day this session so far, because of his son’s illness.
Rich
2016-02-14 13:38
Thank you Cory for sharing the list and thank you to your eager reader for compiling it. Farmers Insurance – Mark Willadsen is my insurance agent. Wait, make that Mark Willadsen WAS my insurance agent. Signing on to Farmer’s Insurance website now to change agents. :) Bye Mark and Laura. Can’t wait for Spencer to clarify his comment. This should be fun.
Madman
2016-02-14 13:41
So Spencer its ok for the legislature to pass laws to allow folks to be kicked out of establishments or they have to go into hiding and pretend to receive services. Do you think that the folks associated with these businesses are not in support of this bill? This smacks of Jim Crow laws but perhaps your ok with that. I’m not and will not discriminate.
I found this amusing “Conzet, a Fort Pierre native, owns Conzet Consulting, which provides grant and technical writing, along with fund-raising services.” She is perfect for Pierre as she knows how to fudge the numbers and the truth.
Wade Brandis
2016-02-14 15:21
It would have been nice if the names of the legislators were placed next to the businesses they are associated with. It would make it easy to discern whether or not they own the business or just work for the business. Perhaps for the employers who hire the HB1107 supporters, we should convince them to fire said legislator.
While boycotts can, and do, get businesses to back off from harmful legislation or political/social viewpoints, I can’t help to think about the other employees at some of the businesses on the list. There is a possibility that some workers may actually be against HB1107 but are afraid to bring it up to their boss. There are also at least six hotels on the list. From my experience, hotels tend to employ Native Americans or foreign immigrants as room cleaners, even at high-end hotel chains. Conservative legislators like the ones in support of this bill may also support blocking refugees and immigrants from living here, while Native Americans (at least the ones I know) tend to be Democrats.
Employees of these businesses who are against HB1107 should find a job at another area business who is neutral on LGBT rights, or better yet, supports LGBT rights. That isn’t too hard in Sioux Falls. But in Murdo or Doland, not so much. You may have no choice but to work with an employer who has a harmful worldview or is a far-right Christian. There aren’t that many other job opportunities in small towns unless they move to a more friendly city or town, which can be expensive.
I wonder if any Winner-area businesses support HB1107?
John
2016-02-14 15:48
Of course federal law carries non-discrimination clauses – so whether these bigots collect a federal dime directly or indirectly laundered through the state, or a county, or city – they will forego that revenue or contract or line of business. To do otherwise puts the state, county, or city at risk in a federal civil rights lawsuit to collect federal civil damages. What fun.
Having earlier lived in communities with rampant discrimination (in the south, dah) – the local and regional feds put those businesses on of-limits lists and vigorously enforced conformance.
What is striking about the bigotry behind the HB 1107 supporters and other bigoted measures from this laughing stock of a legislature – is how contorted is the supporters’ faux christianity. It’s ‘half-a-loaf christianity’- void of the second great commandment to ‘love your neighbor as yourself’; or restated, ‘to do unto others as one would have them do unto you.’ These supporters are not practicing recognizable christianity – perhaps they are practicing a cafeteria christianity as conceived in the Middle Ages or during the crusades. The supporters wanting love of their neighbors reminds us of Ghadi’s quip, “I like your Christ. I do not like your christians. They are so unlike your Christ.” Sister Joan Chittister expalined half-a-loaf christianity using slightly different, though spot-on terms: https://www.facebook.com/WOMENSRIGHTSNEWS/photos/a.204542062921531.45848.184599864915751/1081218705253858/?type=3&theater
Curtis Price
2016-02-14 16:21
I have heard Esurance has a great record with transgender employees. So what’s up with that?
Rorschach
2016-02-14 16:21
Jerry, Rep. Conzet, whose maiden name was Fischer, was appointed to the legislature by Mike Rounds. If Fischer doesn’t ring a bell – think Fischer/Rounds Real Estate and Insurance. Gov. Rounds appointed his business partner’s daughter. Anybody can claim to be a “consultant.” That’s just kind of a catchall term. I’m guessing that Jason Gant is a consultant these days.
Curtis Price
2016-02-14 16:27
I don’t see Phil Jensen’s car-trunk cookware business on the list.
Curtis Price
2016-02-14 16:30
I looked into Conzet’s business when she was appointed. She did some research for the state dept of education. I’m sure the bid was fair, had nothing to do that she was basically family with the Governor. She got very testy when I pointed this out.
Madman
2016-02-14 16:33
I do laugh at Greeny’s facebook message where all are welcome and can meet there (except you who are unmarried, divorced, who are LGBTQ, or those who are flirting because that may lead to unmarried activities.) Why don’t you folks move along….wait isn’t this a place that serves alcohol. Aren’t they also profiting from poor judgement. Such high morals and they want to cast the first stone. Heck this law could be really misused, you have a couple of college kids holding hands now you can kick them out of your business, or you heard a rumor that someone is sleeping with someone.
Francis Schaffer
2016-02-14 16:48
I did not realize the legislature had so many members of ‘First Stone Ministries’ who seem to have found the current Book of Leviticus version of leprosy. Glad I know how Jesus viewed them. We need less Christian and more Christ like action.
grudznick
2016-02-14 16:49
What is the Q for, Mr. Madman? I think I understand the rest. Well, that’s not right. I think I know what the other letters stand for.
Sorry Grud, I represent the younger version of the Democratic party, who looks at the big picture. I know stop the presses there are young democrats in South Dakota.
grudznick
2016-02-14 17:01
So Mr. Madman, you are saying GLBTQ stands for “Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgenered Younger-Version-of-the-Democrat-Party”? That makes no sense.
I think Q should stand for Quirky. Quick. Quandry perhaps?
Madman
2016-02-14 17:07
Look at the post above that one……
grudznick
2016-02-14 17:08
Thank you, sir.
bearcreekbat
2016-02-14 17:42
I recall many prohibitions and sins from studying the KJ translation of the Bible, including prohibitions against getting tattoos, wearing certain mixed fabric clothes, eating shellfish, eating pork, working on Sunday, etc, etc, etc.
But try as I might I cannot recall any reading a prohibition against identifying as a transgendered person. If this proposed law purports to protect “religious” viewpoints, can anyone point to a passage in the Christian religion or Bible prohibiting a man from believing that he is actually a female despite having male genitalia or vice versa? Where is the religious justification for discriminating against any transgendered person?
Jay
2016-02-14 18:45
Hey, esurance is not one of those companies. I believe your list is incorrect. I would remove it before you have their lawyers breathing down your neck.
larry kurtz
2016-02-14 19:18
bat, is biblical scripture strict contextual boilerplate or a living document that transcends the ages occasionally interpreted by activist pharisees like scott craig?
I currently lead a team of some of the strongest insurance agents employed by Esurance, the fastest growing Property Casualty Insurance company in the United States [Don Haggar, LinkedIn profile, downloaded 2016.02.14].
Curtis is right: Esurance does appear to actively support its LGBT employees equal dignity. They appear to tolerate Don Haggar’s less-than-welcoming attitude toward people whose sexual identities and activities his church deems objectionable.
If I were an Esurance customer, I wouldn’t pull my business. But if Don Haggar was my Esurance agent, or if he was leading the team that included my Esurance agent and was making any kind of commission or scoring any points on his evaluation from my business, I’d ask for a different agent, just to make sure that, for his benefit, he wasn’t offended by having to process my heathen business, and that, for my benefit, my money went to employees at Esurance who uphold their corporate values.
BCB, good question. I await the answer from the Biblical scholars on our sprawling panel.
I also await Spencer’s clarification of his veiled threat. Pat Powers has already allowed his forum to be used for personal attacks against me and my wife (predictably because, yes, Spencer, I am right and Pat can’t refute me and thus must distract everyone with slime). My wife has nothing to do with this post or this blog in general, Spencer. So what’s your point, Spencer? If Don Haggar wants his pals to be able to turn freaks and whores away from their businesses, what’s wrong with freaks and whores and their friends sparing Don and his friends the trouble and not patronizing their businesses in the first place?
grudznick
2016-02-14 19:37
Indeed, Mr. H, that is what the unions espoused by many of your bloggers are for. Blockading Mr. Hagar’s business, and probably also not buying t-shirts from Mr. PP. Union or not, Mr. PP has few medium sized shirt blanks for you or me so it will be first come first serve, I fear.
leslie
2016-02-14 20:52
“freaks and whores and their friends” and erotic/religious freedom–luv it!
when conzet ran last, wells fargo touted her big time, at least informally (4’x8′ signs).
on the otherwise annoying list:
“younger version of the Democratic party, who looks at the big picture. I know stop the presses”
this one too: “hotels tend to employ Native Americans or foreign immigrants as room cleaners”
spencer, rtl, racist gen-y(x?) educator. I know stop the presses
grudz, troll
Madman
2016-02-14 21:10
My apologies Leslie as I don’t mean to annoy you. What I am referencing is that I don’t belong to South Dakota democrats that were recruited by the George McGovern wave which is the height of popularity of the party in the state. Once again I’m sorry as I am not here to offend, but rather was just trying to give a reference point.
SuperSweet
2016-02-14 21:51
How is MCSD showing support for this?
Fed up
2016-02-14 21:59
My favorite (ha!) part of this legislation is their belief that unwed mothers have always engaged in premarital sex. I am an unwed expectant mother, and my child is not the result of any kind of intercourse. Welcome to the 21st century, idiots. Get the hell out of my uterus.
Roger Cornelius
2016-02-14 22:08
esurance corporate offices should be very concerned about being represented by a blatant bigot.
jerry
2016-02-14 22:18
They only attack because they fear, just like this bulls— bill 1107. Bigots are only tough when they are in a gang.
Jenny
2016-02-15 07:20
These GOP legislators that are so full of hate and discrimination must be members of that infamous Westboro Baptist Church down yonder.
I think I did hear a couple weeks ago that Westboro was making plans to build in South Dakota.
Madison Central isn’t necessarily supporting HB 1107: they have an employee, Mathew Wollmann, who voted for this bill.
Danno
2016-02-15 09:16
My boycotting won’t affect anything.
I have never, nor am I ever likely to need a Fierce Model, I’m in tech, so fast on-site tech work by relatively unskilled labor does not excite me, nor does the church who has views I don’t share so I stay away anyhow. My need for a consultant ranks right up there with a need for a tapeworm, (I will not theorize on any possible relation between the two).
However, to stay in the spirit of things, Go Boycott!!
Julie gienger
2016-02-15 09:50
Republicans flip/flop on division of church and state until they want something done their way!! Vote politics out of our church and our bedrooms! Everyone needs to vote this year!! And maybe it’s time to start taxing the churches!
bearcreekbat
2016-02-15 11:08
larry, “boilerplate” almost works, but for the confusion and subtle language changes caused by so many differing translations over the centuries. As for Scott Craig’s need to impose his personal delusions on everyone else, a psychiatrist would be more capable than a Bible of identifying any insecurities and fears that motivate such harmful and discriminatory legislative efforts.
larry kurtz
2016-02-15 11:18
Exactly, bat; but laud Craig and his nutball sidekicks for running out the clock avoiding accountability for Bendagate, the Westerhuis murders and the culture of corruption in Pierre.
Happy Camper
2016-02-15 12:58
The need to legitimize mass delusion in the year 2016 has got to be some sort of mental illness. I don’t know what happened to that bill to allow teachers to teach Intelligent Design (alternative science possibilities) without reprimand, but at some point we’ve got to accept that religion and the belief in fairy tales is the problem. Some liberal types want to be understanding and inclusive and all that, but they want to use their crutch as a stick, and besides we have separation of church and state: It’s beyond maddening. Atheists need to come out, live honestly, and say enough is enough. Churches weren’t always tax free by the way.
Julie, HB 1107 is keenly concerned about preserving churches’ tax-exempt status. Making them pay taxes is included in the act’s definitions of “discriminatory actions” that the state cannot take against persons who believe in the sacredness of monogamy, heterosexuality, and immutable biological sex.
J Johnson
2016-02-15 15:15
What part of separation of church and state do these people not get? What gives them the right to define morality for others of different beliefs or faiths? Why in the world do they keep getting elected?
Come on South Dakota….I would love to move home again eventually. But at this point, Mormon led Utah is more progressive than SD is. SLC even has an openly gay mayor.
Kevin Johnson
2016-02-15 15:18
Former South Dakotan who sees Alot of vacationers. I have put the word out to avoid my home state. Disgusting that things have gotten so out of hand.
mike from iowa
2016-02-15 15:48
A ban on church intervention in political campaigns became law in 1954 with the passage of then-Senator Lyndon Johnson’s amendment to Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 501(c)(3), which covers tax-exempt charitable organizations in general. [7] [52] The amendment was passed with no recorded input from churches or any other charitable groups. [7] Under the amended IRC, churches and all other 501(c)(3) charities are “absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office” if they are to remain tax-exempt. [IRC 8] Contributions to political campaign funds in support or opposition to candidates are also prohibited, but pastors may campaign as individuals without the imprimatur of the church, and churches may speak out on public issues so long as they don’t “devote a substantial part of their activities to attempting to influence legislation.” [1]
Jenn Richards
2016-02-15 16:47
How did MCSD get on this list? I’m just so bothered by this…
This list includes businesses and organizations where legislators work. In some cases, legislators are the owners and operators. In Madison Central’s case, the legislator in question is Rep. Mathew Wollmann, IT employee. As I say in the post, the fact that a legislator who supports religious bigotry also works for a public school district doesn’t really call for a school boycott. It does raise the question of whether an organization bound by professional ethics and law not to discriminate against students because of their parents’ sexual habits or marital status can employ someone who legislates against such an ethical commitment.
LK Burghardt
2016-02-15 20:11
I travel a lot for work. I normally stay at Hilton properties, but I now will cancel my reservations in Sioux Falls and skip getting the points I love because of this. Any business that thinks it’s ok to JUDGE others and claim it’s because of their religion is nowhere that I will support. Don’t you hypocrites know that it’s a sin to judge??? I just can’t wrap my head around discriminating against others because they don’t think the same way, act the same way or look the same way as someone else. Doing so in the name of religious freedom is more sinful than anything I’ve ever heard of. Attempting to hide racism or any other prejudice behind the shield of religious beliefs is no less a sin. Shame on you! Leave the judging to God please. I’m pretty sure that your Bible says that it’s the way it’s supposed to be!
Curious
2016-02-15 21:34
What is the connection with Doss in Watertown?
Voiceofreason
2016-02-15 21:37
The bill is the Governmental Non-Discrimination Act, which upholds the notion that the courts and gov’t cannot impose their will on private businesses. Any business can deny service to anybody (i.e.–a bar won’t serve terribly drunk ppl.) Private businesses have historically been able to choose, for whatever reason to serve or not serve somebody. Maybe they can’t fulfill an order. Maybe they are too busy with other customers. Maybe they don’t have a cake topper with two grooms and don’t want to buy a case of them to fill one order.
Voiceofreason
2016-02-15 21:52
. The bill is the Governmental Non-Discrimination Act, which upholds the notion that the courts and gov’t cannot impose their will on private businesses. Any business can deny service to anybody (i.e.–a bar won’t serve terribly drunk ppl.) Private businesses have historically been able to choose, for whatever reason to serve or not serve somebody. Maybe they can’t fulfill an order. Maybe they are too busy with other customers. Maybe they don’t have a cake topper with two grooms and don’t want to buy a case of them to fill one order.
…and tell me why, if this bill is about protecting some imagined right to refuse service to any customer, the bill doesn’t say that. Tell me why the bill focuses exclusively on sexual ethics and not on domestic violence, drug abuse, or pissy attitudes.
The very first bullet point says “Person,” any individual, corporation, company sole proprietorship, partnership, society, club, organization, or association, except the term does not include medical providers, hospitals, clinics, hospices, nursing homes, or residential custodial facilities with respect to visitation, recognition of a designated representative for health care decision making, or refusal to provide life-saving and emergency medical treatment necessary to cure an illness or injury, or state employees and the employees of any school board, county, municipality, or other entity included under the
definition of state, when acting within the scope of employment;—- basically saying everyone but hospital they still have to attempt to save your life. And it doesn’t focus on that it more just points it out. There are signs in many establishment saying “we have the right to refuse service to anyone” Which is true if I own a business and I don’t like you, I don’t have to do business with you— that would be incredibly stupid on my part but not illegal. And I must have missed the assault part?
Cynthia Mathis
2016-02-15 23:02
Pretty sure the Bible says judge not lest ye be judged
Dominic
2016-02-16 03:04
Your list is wrong. Esurance in Sioux Falls is Very Pro-LGBTQ. They are VERY supportive and inclusive of diversity. Feel free to contact them at one of their many social media outlets. #Esurance.
Dominic, my list is exactly what I said it was from the start. I offer a list of businesses and organizations where legislators supporting HB 1107 work. Some of those entities are owned and operated by the offending legislators; some simply employ the offending legislators. Rep. Don Haggar works for Esurance. Numerous commenters have pointed out that Esurance has a strong LGBTQ record. That doesn’t change the fact that their employee Don Haggar appears not to share the corporate values on those issues. Perhaps Don’s colleagues should discuss the matter with him. Perhaps Esurance should send a crew to lobby Senate Judiciary when it takes up HB 1107.
Right. As I said, Voice, the bill doesn’t specify businesses. It grants this blanket immunity for religiously driven harassment of gays, single moms, transgender folks, and other fornicators to everybody but hospitals and public employees on the clock. As I said, HB 1107 is not the bill you say it is, and it certainly isn’t a harmless little affirmation of a business’s right to refuse service to whomever it wants (a right about which you are also wrong: a business cannot refuse service based on a customer’s membership in a protected class).
Click the link in my previous response to understand the assault point (here it is again: https://dakotafreepress.com/2016/02/14/hb-1107-license-to-beat-up-gay-guys/). HB 1107 would appear to allow a bully to escape fine or penalty for punching a homosexual by claiming that the punch was thrown in fealty to his deeply held religious belief that practicing homosexuality is a sin requiring punishment.
Amber
2016-02-16 10:15
I have kids in the Hurly school and I would like our school removed. As you said in your article that Hurly is on there because of one paraprofessional but even when you note that, putting Hurly school on the list makes our school district grouped with her.
I, like many people in our community, don’t agree at all with her opinion. If she was the principal or a majority of the school was on that side then I would see why we would be listed but it’s only one of the staff and is not even a main teacher.
Some have said that you want people to contact the school. You want people to complain that this person works for us. But she has to work somewhere… I don’t agree with having her fired or let go because of her believes, that would make us just as bad as the ones passing this awful bill. If she is pushing her beliefs on to our kids or teaching our kids those beliefs then yes she needs to go. But as far as i know she did nothing other then list her opinion, which ended up putting our school on this list.
What i would want from both sides of this is to let everyone have their opinions and beliefs with out being punished or judged. Be respectful of one another and don’t push what you think is right onto others.
Jahova
2016-02-16 10:33
Well I’ll be dipped in s— and rolled in bread crumbs.
Amber, I’d like to see every school and business from this list. I’d like to see know owner, operator, or employee supporting wanton discrimination against people who don’t conform to one group’s particular sexual ethics.
Know what the quickest way is to get Hurley off the list? Get Rep. Rasmussen to disavow her vote for HB 1107. Get her to go to Senate Judiciary, say she was wrong, and ask the committee to kill the bill. Rep. Rasmussen didn’t just “list an opinion”—she voted for a bad bill.
“Some have said”—what “some” say isn’t what I’m saying. I’m not saying the Hurley-Viborg school district should fire Nancy Rasmussen. I am saying that District 17 should fire Representative Rasmussen and elect better leaders who don’t support sexual discrimination (like Mark Winegar!).
Nancy Rasmussen does have to work somewhere. She doesn’t have to work in a Legislature dedicated to justice and equality for all South Dakotans.
Pat McIntyre
2016-02-16 20:07
I work for a large national company in this list that is dedicated to inclusion, equal rights, and pride advocacy for all LGBT people. I’m proud to work for such a company and fully support its ePRIDE initiative. We have many LGBT employees we support, cherish, and are extremely proud of. They are our colleagues and friends. It is unfortunate that a single D-bag state rep happens to work there and supports this measure.
Katie Ann
2016-02-16 20:51
Is this some sick, twisted time warp??? Allowing discrimination to unwed mothers, homosexuals, transgenders, ect??? Talk about a leap back to the old days. Can someone please tell Rev. Hypocrite that the bible says to love everyone??? I’m so tired of the HATE!!!!! I’m ashamed to be a citizen of SD right now!!!!!
Indeed, very unfortunate. Similarly, I can tell you that South Dakota is full of good, decent people who don’t view transgender kids (or homosexuals, or single moms, or others) with misunderstanding, fear, or loathing. Some of those people—Bernie Hunhoff, Angie Buhl O’Donnell, Scott Parsley, Troy Heinert, Deb Peters, Craig Tieszen, and Billie Sutton—spoke up in opposition to HB 1008 in the Senate today. But we all will be branded by the ill intent and action of the supporters of HB 1008 and, if it passes, HB 1107. If people change their vacation plans to spend less time in South Dakota this summer, we all will suffer. It is unfortunate that several dozen legislators can be swayed by out-of-state lawyers to vote for such bad policy that will harm our entire state. The rest of us South Dakotans will have to work extra hard to overcome the damage to our reputation, our economy, and most importantly to our children. Included in that work will be voting the supporters of HB 1008 and HB 1107 out of office.
The freaks and whores are going to probably have a good say in this one. Mr Rounds notwithstanding…
grudznick
2016-02-16 23:19
Mr. Jahova, you would be the tastiest treat these insaner than most legislatures get all session long outside of the ice cream they are fed daily and for free in the secret party rooms. This is not made up by grudznick, these treats actually happen and feed the bellies of many.
An official Lake Area Tech spokesperson contacts Dakota Free Press and asks to distinguish the institution’s views from the views of any individual employee. “We have always prided ourselves on being a college that treats our students like family,” says the Lake Area spokesperson. “Representative Solum is an employee of Lake Area Tech (but is on an unpaid leave of absence during session). His views are not our views and he does not consult with us on these matters.”
J Johnson
2016-02-17 10:14
every one of the legislators who voted on this should be required to watch the series “i am Jazz” and then should be forced to tell Jazz why she should be required to use the boys bathroom. Do they have any idea of the harm they do to children with this type of thinking? Do they ever consider that the astronomical suicide rate might somehow be tied to the judgmental disapproval young people see coming from lawmakers?
I’m drawn to Betty Olson’s legislative report because it’s a continuous fiery car wreck followed by dog fights and witch burnings.
http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/communities/belle_fourche/district-legislative-report/article_d4882b98-1d22-513a-8a27-aef8664446c3.html
Betty Olson is why South Dakota’s weather is so brutish and unforgiving.
Apparently legislative members in Pierre paid no attention to what happened in Indiana when this kind of hateful agenda was pushed in their state legislature. Social media could cause a boycott that would cost South Dakota most of its tourism money. How many businesses that don’t subscribe to this way of thinking are going to be willing to consider residing in our state?
I’m glad to see Betty and Jeff think LGBTQ rights and equality is akin to a joke.
Frightening. I’m more than happy to boycott said businesses.
Only 3 in Rapid City? I find it interesting West River bigots are missing an opportunity to cram their radical religious beliefs down every bodies throats. They must not be paying attention.
I must have missed Sunday School the day they taught Jesus-Sharia law because HB 1107 sounds more like the work of the devil than Jesus to me.
Jesus, save us from the Christians, who show us every day they are the new Romans.
I will be boycotting South Dakota if this becomes law.
Larry, thank you for pointing out that Olson and Monroe think civil rights for all South Dakotans is a joke.
Cory, if only you knew how much i want to let go but i still need West River.
Campbell street cafe was unusually busy this morning, Lar, and half the place was ranting about young Mr. Gosh.
And it thunder-and-lightening snowed last night. End of the world coming then, you think?
Wouldn’t it be funny if Pat at the other blog stooped low enough to do this to you and your wife? Or, is that crossing a line because you assume you are always right?
What is with so many representatives not showing up to vote? 14 out of 70 (that’s 20% of the House) didn’t show up to vote. Is it that they stepped out in the hall to avoid a tough vote, or are they all sick at the same time? Work ethic. Pass it on.
Do what, Spencer? Clarify your comment… and watch your step.
Ror, I wondered about that 46–10 vote, too. But that day, February 8, the members of the House Appropriations Committee—Anderson, Bordeaux, Cronin, Dryden, Jean Hunhoff, Alex Jensen, Partridge, Ring, and Romkema—were excused because they were holding their afternoon hearing on HB 1182, the Governor’s funding mechanism for the Blue Ribbon teacher pay raises. Rep. Sly was also absent because she, as Blue Ribbon co-chair, was testifying for the bill in commmittee.
The other four who missed that vote were Kaiser, Killer, May, and Russell. Kaiser has been excused every day this session so far, because of his son’s illness.
Thank you Cory for sharing the list and thank you to your eager reader for compiling it. Farmers Insurance – Mark Willadsen is my insurance agent. Wait, make that Mark Willadsen WAS my insurance agent. Signing on to Farmer’s Insurance website now to change agents. :) Bye Mark and Laura. Can’t wait for Spencer to clarify his comment. This should be fun.
So Spencer its ok for the legislature to pass laws to allow folks to be kicked out of establishments or they have to go into hiding and pretend to receive services. Do you think that the folks associated with these businesses are not in support of this bill? This smacks of Jim Crow laws but perhaps your ok with that. I’m not and will not discriminate.
All of the sharia for jesus companies depend on the teat of government for their livilyhood. In other words, us. That would include betty boop. Here is Conzet http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/12/conzet-appointed-to-replace-dryer-in-south-dakota-state-house/
I found this amusing “Conzet, a Fort Pierre native, owns Conzet Consulting, which provides grant and technical writing, along with fund-raising services.” She is perfect for Pierre as she knows how to fudge the numbers and the truth.
It would have been nice if the names of the legislators were placed next to the businesses they are associated with. It would make it easy to discern whether or not they own the business or just work for the business. Perhaps for the employers who hire the HB1107 supporters, we should convince them to fire said legislator.
While boycotts can, and do, get businesses to back off from harmful legislation or political/social viewpoints, I can’t help to think about the other employees at some of the businesses on the list. There is a possibility that some workers may actually be against HB1107 but are afraid to bring it up to their boss. There are also at least six hotels on the list. From my experience, hotels tend to employ Native Americans or foreign immigrants as room cleaners, even at high-end hotel chains. Conservative legislators like the ones in support of this bill may also support blocking refugees and immigrants from living here, while Native Americans (at least the ones I know) tend to be Democrats.
Employees of these businesses who are against HB1107 should find a job at another area business who is neutral on LGBT rights, or better yet, supports LGBT rights. That isn’t too hard in Sioux Falls. But in Murdo or Doland, not so much. You may have no choice but to work with an employer who has a harmful worldview or is a far-right Christian. There aren’t that many other job opportunities in small towns unless they move to a more friendly city or town, which can be expensive.
I wonder if any Winner-area businesses support HB1107?
Of course federal law carries non-discrimination clauses – so whether these bigots collect a federal dime directly or indirectly laundered through the state, or a county, or city – they will forego that revenue or contract or line of business. To do otherwise puts the state, county, or city at risk in a federal civil rights lawsuit to collect federal civil damages. What fun.
Having earlier lived in communities with rampant discrimination (in the south, dah) – the local and regional feds put those businesses on of-limits lists and vigorously enforced conformance.
What is striking about the bigotry behind the HB 1107 supporters and other bigoted measures from this laughing stock of a legislature – is how contorted is the supporters’ faux christianity. It’s ‘half-a-loaf christianity’- void of the second great commandment to ‘love your neighbor as yourself’; or restated, ‘to do unto others as one would have them do unto you.’ These supporters are not practicing recognizable christianity – perhaps they are practicing a cafeteria christianity as conceived in the Middle Ages or during the crusades. The supporters wanting love of their neighbors reminds us of Ghadi’s quip, “I like your Christ. I do not like your christians. They are so unlike your Christ.” Sister Joan Chittister expalined half-a-loaf christianity using slightly different, though spot-on terms: https://www.facebook.com/WOMENSRIGHTSNEWS/photos/a.204542062921531.45848.184599864915751/1081218705253858/?type=3&theater
I have heard Esurance has a great record with transgender employees. So what’s up with that?
Jerry, Rep. Conzet, whose maiden name was Fischer, was appointed to the legislature by Mike Rounds. If Fischer doesn’t ring a bell – think Fischer/Rounds Real Estate and Insurance. Gov. Rounds appointed his business partner’s daughter. Anybody can claim to be a “consultant.” That’s just kind of a catchall term. I’m guessing that Jason Gant is a consultant these days.
I don’t see Phil Jensen’s car-trunk cookware business on the list.
I looked into Conzet’s business when she was appointed. She did some research for the state dept of education. I’m sure the bid was fair, had nothing to do that she was basically family with the Governor. She got very testy when I pointed this out.
I do laugh at Greeny’s facebook message where all are welcome and can meet there (except you who are unmarried, divorced, who are LGBTQ, or those who are flirting because that may lead to unmarried activities.) Why don’t you folks move along….wait isn’t this a place that serves alcohol. Aren’t they also profiting from poor judgement. Such high morals and they want to cast the first stone. Heck this law could be really misused, you have a couple of college kids holding hands now you can kick them out of your business, or you heard a rumor that someone is sleeping with someone.
I did not realize the legislature had so many members of ‘First Stone Ministries’ who seem to have found the current Book of Leviticus version of leprosy. Glad I know how Jesus viewed them. We need less Christian and more Christ like action.
What is the Q for, Mr. Madman? I think I understand the rest. Well, that’s not right. I think I know what the other letters stand for.
@grud
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/06/01/lgbtq-questioning-queer-meaning/26925563/#
Go and take a look at the article.
Sorry Grud, I represent the younger version of the Democratic party, who looks at the big picture. I know stop the presses there are young democrats in South Dakota.
So Mr. Madman, you are saying GLBTQ stands for “Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgenered Younger-Version-of-the-Democrat-Party”? That makes no sense.
I think Q should stand for Quirky. Quick. Quandry perhaps?
Look at the post above that one……
Thank you, sir.
I recall many prohibitions and sins from studying the KJ translation of the Bible, including prohibitions against getting tattoos, wearing certain mixed fabric clothes, eating shellfish, eating pork, working on Sunday, etc, etc, etc.
But try as I might I cannot recall any reading a prohibition against identifying as a transgendered person. If this proposed law purports to protect “religious” viewpoints, can anyone point to a passage in the Christian religion or Bible prohibiting a man from believing that he is actually a female despite having male genitalia or vice versa? Where is the religious justification for discriminating against any transgendered person?
Hey, esurance is not one of those companies. I believe your list is incorrect. I would remove it before you have their lawyers breathing down your neck.
bat, is biblical scripture strict contextual boilerplate or a living document that transcends the ages occasionally interpreted by activist pharisees like scott craig?
Jay, no lawyers will be calling me. Check out Rep. Don Haggar’s LinkedIn profile:
Curtis is right: Esurance does appear to actively support its LGBT employees equal dignity. They appear to tolerate Don Haggar’s less-than-welcoming attitude toward people whose sexual identities and activities his church deems objectionable.
If I were an Esurance customer, I wouldn’t pull my business. But if Don Haggar was my Esurance agent, or if he was leading the team that included my Esurance agent and was making any kind of commission or scoring any points on his evaluation from my business, I’d ask for a different agent, just to make sure that, for his benefit, he wasn’t offended by having to process my heathen business, and that, for my benefit, my money went to employees at Esurance who uphold their corporate values.
BCB, good question. I await the answer from the Biblical scholars on our sprawling panel.
I also await Spencer’s clarification of his veiled threat. Pat Powers has already allowed his forum to be used for personal attacks against me and my wife (predictably because, yes, Spencer, I am right and Pat can’t refute me and thus must distract everyone with slime). My wife has nothing to do with this post or this blog in general, Spencer. So what’s your point, Spencer? If Don Haggar wants his pals to be able to turn freaks and whores away from their businesses, what’s wrong with freaks and whores and their friends sparing Don and his friends the trouble and not patronizing their businesses in the first place?
Indeed, Mr. H, that is what the unions espoused by many of your bloggers are for. Blockading Mr. Hagar’s business, and probably also not buying t-shirts from Mr. PP. Union or not, Mr. PP has few medium sized shirt blanks for you or me so it will be first come first serve, I fear.
“freaks and whores and their friends” and erotic/religious freedom–luv it!
when conzet ran last, wells fargo touted her big time, at least informally (4’x8′ signs).
on the otherwise annoying list:
“younger version of the Democratic party, who looks at the big picture. I know stop the presses”
this one too: “hotels tend to employ Native Americans or foreign immigrants as room cleaners”
spencer, rtl, racist gen-y(x?) educator. I know stop the presses
grudz, troll
My apologies Leslie as I don’t mean to annoy you. What I am referencing is that I don’t belong to South Dakota democrats that were recruited by the George McGovern wave which is the height of popularity of the party in the state. Once again I’m sorry as I am not here to offend, but rather was just trying to give a reference point.
How is MCSD showing support for this?
My favorite (ha!) part of this legislation is their belief that unwed mothers have always engaged in premarital sex. I am an unwed expectant mother, and my child is not the result of any kind of intercourse. Welcome to the 21st century, idiots. Get the hell out of my uterus.
esurance corporate offices should be very concerned about being represented by a blatant bigot.
They only attack because they fear, just like this bulls— bill 1107. Bigots are only tough when they are in a gang.
These GOP legislators that are so full of hate and discrimination must be members of that infamous Westboro Baptist Church down yonder.
I think I did hear a couple weeks ago that Westboro was making plans to build in South Dakota.
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/08/21/why-not-war-radical-islamist-terrorists-361360.html?google_editors_picks=true
Radical hristians are as bad/worse than ISIS. Prove kristianity is not religion of love or peace.
Madison Central isn’t necessarily supporting HB 1107: they have an employee, Mathew Wollmann, who voted for this bill.
My boycotting won’t affect anything.
I have never, nor am I ever likely to need a Fierce Model, I’m in tech, so fast on-site tech work by relatively unskilled labor does not excite me, nor does the church who has views I don’t share so I stay away anyhow. My need for a consultant ranks right up there with a need for a tapeworm, (I will not theorize on any possible relation between the two).
However, to stay in the spirit of things, Go Boycott!!
Republicans flip/flop on division of church and state until they want something done their way!! Vote politics out of our church and our bedrooms! Everyone needs to vote this year!! And maybe it’s time to start taxing the churches!
larry, “boilerplate” almost works, but for the confusion and subtle language changes caused by so many differing translations over the centuries. As for Scott Craig’s need to impose his personal delusions on everyone else, a psychiatrist would be more capable than a Bible of identifying any insecurities and fears that motivate such harmful and discriminatory legislative efforts.
Exactly, bat; but laud Craig and his nutball sidekicks for running out the clock avoiding accountability for Bendagate, the Westerhuis murders and the culture of corruption in Pierre.
The need to legitimize mass delusion in the year 2016 has got to be some sort of mental illness. I don’t know what happened to that bill to allow teachers to teach Intelligent Design (alternative science possibilities) without reprimand, but at some point we’ve got to accept that religion and the belief in fairy tales is the problem. Some liberal types want to be understanding and inclusive and all that, but they want to use their crutch as a stick, and besides we have separation of church and state: It’s beyond maddening. Atheists need to come out, live honestly, and say enough is enough. Churches weren’t always tax free by the way.
Danno, your self-reliance suits you well.
Julie, HB 1107 is keenly concerned about preserving churches’ tax-exempt status. Making them pay taxes is included in the act’s definitions of “discriminatory actions” that the state cannot take against persons who believe in the sacredness of monogamy, heterosexuality, and immutable biological sex.
What part of separation of church and state do these people not get? What gives them the right to define morality for others of different beliefs or faiths? Why in the world do they keep getting elected?
Come on South Dakota….I would love to move home again eventually. But at this point, Mormon led Utah is more progressive than SD is. SLC even has an openly gay mayor.
Former South Dakotan who sees Alot of vacationers. I have put the word out to avoid my home state. Disgusting that things have gotten so out of hand.
A ban on church intervention in political campaigns became law in 1954 with the passage of then-Senator Lyndon Johnson’s amendment to Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 501(c)(3), which covers tax-exempt charitable organizations in general. [7] [52] The amendment was passed with no recorded input from churches or any other charitable groups. [7] Under the amended IRC, churches and all other 501(c)(3) charities are “absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office” if they are to remain tax-exempt. [IRC 8] Contributions to political campaign funds in support or opposition to candidates are also prohibited, but pastors may campaign as individuals without the imprimatur of the church, and churches may speak out on public issues so long as they don’t “devote a substantial part of their activities to attempting to influence legislation.” [1]
How did MCSD get on this list? I’m just so bothered by this…
This list includes businesses and organizations where legislators work. In some cases, legislators are the owners and operators. In Madison Central’s case, the legislator in question is Rep. Mathew Wollmann, IT employee. As I say in the post, the fact that a legislator who supports religious bigotry also works for a public school district doesn’t really call for a school boycott. It does raise the question of whether an organization bound by professional ethics and law not to discriminate against students because of their parents’ sexual habits or marital status can employ someone who legislates against such an ethical commitment.
I travel a lot for work. I normally stay at Hilton properties, but I now will cancel my reservations in Sioux Falls and skip getting the points I love because of this. Any business that thinks it’s ok to JUDGE others and claim it’s because of their religion is nowhere that I will support. Don’t you hypocrites know that it’s a sin to judge??? I just can’t wrap my head around discriminating against others because they don’t think the same way, act the same way or look the same way as someone else. Doing so in the name of religious freedom is more sinful than anything I’ve ever heard of. Attempting to hide racism or any other prejudice behind the shield of religious beliefs is no less a sin. Shame on you! Leave the judging to God please. I’m pretty sure that your Bible says that it’s the way it’s supposed to be!
What is the connection with Doss in Watertown?
The bill is the Governmental Non-Discrimination Act, which upholds the notion that the courts and gov’t cannot impose their will on private businesses. Any business can deny service to anybody (i.e.–a bar won’t serve terribly drunk ppl.) Private businesses have historically been able to choose, for whatever reason to serve or not serve somebody. Maybe they can’t fulfill an order. Maybe they are too busy with other customers. Maybe they don’t have a cake topper with two grooms and don’t want to buy a case of them to fill one order.
. The bill is the Governmental Non-Discrimination Act, which upholds the notion that the courts and gov’t cannot impose their will on private businesses. Any business can deny service to anybody (i.e.–a bar won’t serve terribly drunk ppl.) Private businesses have historically been able to choose, for whatever reason to serve or not serve somebody. Maybe they can’t fulfill an order. Maybe they are too busy with other customers. Maybe they don’t have a cake topper with two grooms and don’t want to buy a case of them to fill one order.
Business? HB 1182 doesn’t use the word business once. I think you’ve mistaken HB 1182 for someone else’s bill. Read the bill:
http://legis.sd.gov/Legislative_Session/Bills/Bill.aspx?File=HB1107H.htm&Session=2016
…and tell me why, if this bill is about protecting some imagined right to refuse service to any customer, the bill doesn’t say that. Tell me why the bill focuses exclusively on sexual ethics and not on domestic violence, drug abuse, or pissy attitudes.
And while you’re at it, tell me why this bill appears to prevent the state from charging devout Christians with assault for slapping lesbians and single mothers.
The very first bullet point says “Person,” any individual, corporation, company sole proprietorship, partnership, society, club, organization, or association, except the term does not include medical providers, hospitals, clinics, hospices, nursing homes, or residential custodial facilities with respect to visitation, recognition of a designated representative for health care decision making, or refusal to provide life-saving and emergency medical treatment necessary to cure an illness or injury, or state employees and the employees of any school board, county, municipality, or other entity included under the
definition of state, when acting within the scope of employment;—- basically saying everyone but hospital they still have to attempt to save your life. And it doesn’t focus on that it more just points it out. There are signs in many establishment saying “we have the right to refuse service to anyone” Which is true if I own a business and I don’t like you, I don’t have to do business with you— that would be incredibly stupid on my part but not illegal. And I must have missed the assault part?
Pretty sure the Bible says judge not lest ye be judged
Your list is wrong. Esurance in Sioux Falls is Very Pro-LGBTQ. They are VERY supportive and inclusive of diversity. Feel free to contact them at one of their many social media outlets. #Esurance.
Dominic, my list is exactly what I said it was from the start. I offer a list of businesses and organizations where legislators supporting HB 1107 work. Some of those entities are owned and operated by the offending legislators; some simply employ the offending legislators. Rep. Don Haggar works for Esurance. Numerous commenters have pointed out that Esurance has a strong LGBTQ record. That doesn’t change the fact that their employee Don Haggar appears not to share the corporate values on those issues. Perhaps Don’s colleagues should discuss the matter with him. Perhaps Esurance should send a crew to lobby Senate Judiciary when it takes up HB 1107.
But don’t be afraid to judge laws as bad for South Dakota and lawmakers as exercising bad judgment and promoting discrimination.
Right. As I said, Voice, the bill doesn’t specify businesses. It grants this blanket immunity for religiously driven harassment of gays, single moms, transgender folks, and other fornicators to everybody but hospitals and public employees on the clock. As I said, HB 1107 is not the bill you say it is, and it certainly isn’t a harmless little affirmation of a business’s right to refuse service to whomever it wants (a right about which you are also wrong: a business cannot refuse service based on a customer’s membership in a protected class).
Click the link in my previous response to understand the assault point (here it is again: https://dakotafreepress.com/2016/02/14/hb-1107-license-to-beat-up-gay-guys/). HB 1107 would appear to allow a bully to escape fine or penalty for punching a homosexual by claiming that the punch was thrown in fealty to his deeply held religious belief that practicing homosexuality is a sin requiring punishment.
I have kids in the Hurly school and I would like our school removed. As you said in your article that Hurly is on there because of one paraprofessional but even when you note that, putting Hurly school on the list makes our school district grouped with her.
I, like many people in our community, don’t agree at all with her opinion. If she was the principal or a majority of the school was on that side then I would see why we would be listed but it’s only one of the staff and is not even a main teacher.
Some have said that you want people to contact the school. You want people to complain that this person works for us. But she has to work somewhere… I don’t agree with having her fired or let go because of her believes, that would make us just as bad as the ones passing this awful bill. If she is pushing her beliefs on to our kids or teaching our kids those beliefs then yes she needs to go. But as far as i know she did nothing other then list her opinion, which ended up putting our school on this list.
What i would want from both sides of this is to let everyone have their opinions and beliefs with out being punished or judged. Be respectful of one another and don’t push what you think is right onto others.
Well I’ll be dipped in s— and rolled in bread crumbs.
Amber, I’d like to see every school and business from this list. I’d like to see know owner, operator, or employee supporting wanton discrimination against people who don’t conform to one group’s particular sexual ethics.
Know what the quickest way is to get Hurley off the list? Get Rep. Rasmussen to disavow her vote for HB 1107. Get her to go to Senate Judiciary, say she was wrong, and ask the committee to kill the bill. Rep. Rasmussen didn’t just “list an opinion”—she voted for a bad bill.
“Some have said”—what “some” say isn’t what I’m saying. I’m not saying the Hurley-Viborg school district should fire Nancy Rasmussen. I am saying that District 17 should fire Representative Rasmussen and elect better leaders who don’t support sexual discrimination (like Mark Winegar!).
Nancy Rasmussen does have to work somewhere. She doesn’t have to work in a Legislature dedicated to justice and equality for all South Dakotans.
I work for a large national company in this list that is dedicated to inclusion, equal rights, and pride advocacy for all LGBT people. I’m proud to work for such a company and fully support its ePRIDE initiative. We have many LGBT employees we support, cherish, and are extremely proud of. They are our colleagues and friends. It is unfortunate that a single D-bag state rep happens to work there and supports this measure.
Is this some sick, twisted time warp??? Allowing discrimination to unwed mothers, homosexuals, transgenders, ect??? Talk about a leap back to the old days. Can someone please tell Rev. Hypocrite that the bible says to love everyone??? I’m so tired of the HATE!!!!! I’m ashamed to be a citizen of SD right now!!!!!
Indeed, very unfortunate. Similarly, I can tell you that South Dakota is full of good, decent people who don’t view transgender kids (or homosexuals, or single moms, or others) with misunderstanding, fear, or loathing. Some of those people—Bernie Hunhoff, Angie Buhl O’Donnell, Scott Parsley, Troy Heinert, Deb Peters, Craig Tieszen, and Billie Sutton—spoke up in opposition to HB 1008 in the Senate today. But we all will be branded by the ill intent and action of the supporters of HB 1008 and, if it passes, HB 1107. If people change their vacation plans to spend less time in South Dakota this summer, we all will suffer. It is unfortunate that several dozen legislators can be swayed by out-of-state lawyers to vote for such bad policy that will harm our entire state. The rest of us South Dakotans will have to work extra hard to overcome the damage to our reputation, our economy, and most importantly to our children. Included in that work will be voting the supporters of HB 1008 and HB 1107 out of office.
Curious, sorry about the delay in responding! Doss and Associates lists Rep. Tim Rounds as an adjuster:
http://dossassoc.com/adjusters/tim-rounds/
The freaks and whores are going to probably have a good say in this one. Mr Rounds notwithstanding…
Mr. Jahova, you would be the tastiest treat these insaner than most legislatures get all session long outside of the ice cream they are fed daily and for free in the secret party rooms. This is not made up by grudznick, these treats actually happen and feed the bellies of many.
An official Lake Area Tech spokesperson contacts Dakota Free Press and asks to distinguish the institution’s views from the views of any individual employee. “We have always prided ourselves on being a college that treats our students like family,” says the Lake Area spokesperson. “Representative Solum is an employee of Lake Area Tech (but is on an unpaid leave of absence during session). His views are not our views and he does not consult with us on these matters.”
every one of the legislators who voted on this should be required to watch the series “i am Jazz” and then should be forced to tell Jazz why she should be required to use the boys bathroom. Do they have any idea of the harm they do to children with this type of thinking? Do they ever consider that the astronomical suicide rate might somehow be tied to the judgmental disapproval young people see coming from lawmakers?
I Am Jazz—I remember that video:
http://madvilletimes.com/2015/02/girl-brain-boy-body-and-transgender-politics-at-the-south-dakota-legislature/