they don’t actually believe gays exist.they frequently put quotes around the words ‘gay’ and ‘marriage’ when it pertains to gay people.  i think what you have here is a lazy writer.  i’d postulate that the writer was trying to create some sort of subliminal rift between lgb’s and t’s by scare-quoting you and not me, but honestly i don’t think they’re that smart.  yep, i see here just a messy writer who was told to write about ‘the transgenders’ and so figured ‘well golly, i guess that’s what gets put in the scare-quotes today!’
some day we’re going to read one of their articles in which every “word” is “put” in “quotes”, since they seem to think that very little of the reality around them in fact exists.

Weak SpotI’ve seen other stories that say homosexual instead of gay from FOTF. I wonder if whenever they say something about transgender people they put it in quotes but say gay, lesbian, bisexual not in quotes.
We should be aware of organizations who will try to drive a wedge between us and weaken the whole community. So, no I don’t take any comfort that they called gay people gay without quotes. I see it as a strategic manipulation. They don’t hate gays slightly less than transgender people. But they, like the vultures they are, know a weak spot in our community.

What I don’t understand is this

Family advocates say the bill would put undue burdens on Christian employers by forcing them to hire people whose views are at odds with the company’s values.

Christians love transgender people.  Isaiah 56, Matthew 19:12, Acts 8.  There is NO burden on Christian employers.  God’s own name means He/She (Read YHWH backward in Hebrew, and see what the writers were too circumspect to write forward) – and this underscores Genesis 1:27′s use of “and” instead of “or” and the initial creation of Adam as a fully intersexed person, male and female (and only later separated out).
Those Christianists who use their religion to justify bigotry need to be reminded that their religious rights have limits when it comes to interacting with others in the public square.  The constitutional guarantee of freedom of religious belief does not entitle them to stone to death the first adulterer they see on the street, even if the Bible requires it.
They may have a right, as adults, to refuse a life-saving blood transfusion for themselves – but the state has a right to act in loco parentis when they decide that their religious beliefs will not permit them to allow their minor children to receive a life-saving blood transfusion.  When I worked at a law firm that represented a hospital, we regularly had what we called “Jehovah Witness Baby cases” – and they involved getting a judge to sign an immediately-returnable order to show cause, folowed by a hearing and the signing of an order.  Properly done, the baby would be able to have the transfusion within just about 3 hours from the time we got the call.
When it comes to running a business, beyond the ordinary exceptions for a purely religious institution (a church or a yeshiva), the employment rules in the public square should be enforced fairly.  So-called “Christian” (i.e. Christianist) employers have a choice – they can choose to remain in commerce, keeping their bigotry out of the public square, or they can find some line of work that does not involve having employees. They should not be exempted from the law.
The law guarantees equality of opportunity – an if that equal opportunity in employment is denied, religious belief should not be allowed as an excuse.  All it means is that their religion does not permit them to be an employer.  Teh same should go with renting an apartment – those who cannot because of their religious beliefs lease an apartment to people they believe are “the CHildren of Ham” should not be in the apartment-building ownership business – they shouldn’t own anything bigger than a 2-family owner-occupied dwelling, for which there is usually a legal loophole.
Making freedom of religion trump the other constitutional rights makes no sense – religion is mutable, while sexual orientation and gender identity are not (except for those whose natural orientation or identity are such that they do not experience orientation or identioty as hard-wired).
This discussion does remind me of that thread from last week – if they dehumanize us into one-dimensional false parodies of real human beings, they can more easily whip up their bigotry to a white-hot heat.  It’s much easier to hate the caricature than it is to hate a real person.
We return the favor at our own peril – though giving them a bit of turnabout as fair play by casting them as unidimensional hatemongers makes it easier for us to get energized to oppose them.  We do have to remember that even the worst of them must have some redeeming value, hidden somewhere in the deep recesses of their humanity.

AKA “Drag Queens”They absolutely positively refuse to acknowledge that such a thing as transgendered persons existed in the Garden of Eden, so of course they can’t possibly exist today.
But, beyond that, they will always take every opportunity to conflate transgenderism and drag queens. They will do their damnedest to convince your typical not-very-well-educated voter (AKA, a Republican) that anything that gives rights and protections to the transgendered means, of course, that you’re second-grader’s next teacher will be a drag queen, and that your small business will be required to hire a drag queen as a receptionist, and that … well, fill in the other possibilities yourself.
What would FOTF and the other hatemongers do if they had to stop telling lies? Can you hear the crickets? I can.

I existI am a transgender and I definitely exist and do not hide the fact.
Yay ENDA!  I’m lucky enough to work with a great company and live in an awesome town, but I fully realize my extraordinary luck and that it is not necessarily the norm…so yay ENDA!
wow as im typing a whole tour comes into my department and I’m the face they get to see.  Life is awesome sometimes
“””

Focus on the Penis?  Well for MtF that is.  Somehow they always forget that FtM exist as well.  We know that they have been Focused on the Anus for quite sometime. The problem is there isn’t any clear bible quote they can cherry pick to use against transfolks except one, and that has something to do with self mutilation.  The other they try to use is a man shouldn’t dress like a woman.  but if they cared to be truthful, they would realize that many MtF transfolks are women dressing as women.  And for the Mutilation garbage, since when is corrective surgery mutilation?  
 Yeppers, the Focus on the Anus people are now trying to focus on the penis.  And I will be nice and not add any Peter LeBarbera Jokes, we know what he is focused on.

Quote ConventionFocus on the “Family”
“Family” Research Council
American “Family” Association
You get the idea. I refuse to type Focus on the “Family” without the much deserved quotation marks.

JoannThis was the same lame argument of a couple of the bigots who were testifying against the inclusion of gender identity/expression and sexual orientation among other conditions here in Bowling Green a few weeks ago.
Too bad your religious justification for putting your bigotry in secular law was denied by the US Supreme Court, bigots!
I always love the response when I put their bigotry back in their faces when I tell them that if it weren’t for such a law, they could be facing discrimination, too! “I’m sorry, we don’t allow breeders in this establishment.”; “Sorry, breeders aren’t allowed to live here — you’re evicted!”, etcetera.

and…….Concerned “Women” for America

TranslationWhen christianists say:

the bill would put undue burdens on Christian employers by forcing them to hire people whose views are at odds with the company’s values.

They mean:

the bill would be a hindrance to those who believe there is no place in the world for those who do not adhere to the one true religion, by forcing those who claim to adhere to the one true religion to hire queers, thereby setting back their real goal of re-obtaining the legal right to refuse to hire or do business with anyone who is not a white, christianist male.

What about people whose religious views are racist or sexist?

Family advocates say the bill would put undue burdens on Christian employers by forcing them to hire people whose views are at odds with the company’s values.

Historically, Christianity has shown itself to be sexist and quite often racist. It holds itself out as the one true faith and so is strongly against all other religions and their adherents, and Christian anti-Semitism is an ancient and pervasive doctrine.
And yet, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of gender, race and religion (among other things), has been around for 45 years. Does Focus On (Everyone Else’s) Family mean to imply — or are actually stating? — that federal protections against these bigotries put “undue burdens on Christian employers by forcing them to hire people whose views are at odds with the company’s values”? Is it an undue burden on a Christian to not be allowed to discriminate against women, against Black or Latino people, against Jews and Episcopalians? Will adding sexual orientation and gender idenity to this list actually increase the “undue burdens” of Title VII?
The willful ignorance of these people is beyond astounding.

There is already the “Church of God the Creator”This seems to be the religious wing of the Ku Klux Klan, with a racist theology going hand in hand with their racist ideology.
To the extent that religious bigotry is protcted in civil rights laws, the CGC and its members will get a free pass for their right to be free from the “pollution” of persons of color.
Take it out of the church and allow it in the public square, and it’s the beginning of the end for civil rights.
As it is, there are four members of the current Supreme Court who are already itching to limit the federal Constitution, the bill of rights, and the 14th Amendment, to federal action only.
One more member, perhaps even a stealth candidate who shows her or his true colors only after gaining the appointment, will allow the Court to return us to the constitution as it was interpreted in the 1870′s.
We will see the separation of Church and State being limited to federal application – and each state’s own constitution can address whether that state has an official religion without federal interference.  Similarly, any kind of civil rights issue, whether it be race, gender identity, sexual orientation, alienage, ethnicity, etc. would be limited to state-level constitutional questions.
Ultimately, the rollback of civil liberties and protections will allow things like the return of school prayer, segregation, and anti-miscegenation laws, as well as more severe discrimiantion against LGBT people.

Actually, World Church of the Creator (now Creativity Movement) is atheisticFrom the Wikipedia:

The Creativity Movement (formerly known as World Church Of The Creator) is a white separatist organization that advocates the whites-only religion, Creativity. It was also a descriptive phrase used by Ben Klassen, that included all adherents of the religion. The use of the term creator does not refer to a deity, but rather to themselves (white people). Despite the former use of the word Church in its name, the movement is atheistic. The Creativity Movement is not affiliated with the Creativity Alliance.

They most definitely are not Christians. Christianity is a very central part of KKK doctrine, so there is likely to be little overlap between the two groups.

Are we referring to the same group?Matt Hale’s Church of God the Creator white supremacist religious group, largely located in or near Peoria, IL.
I think it is the same group – I just checked:
http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_u…
and it’s pretty clear that Hale took over from Klassen.  Somehow, they still see themselves as White Christians.  In the meantime, Klassen committed suicide and Hale is in prison for a very long stretch of time.