More layoffs at Focus on the Family

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
The California Supreme Court can take up the matter of whether Prop. 8 is unconstitutional. In fact, it is the specific duty of the court to rule in cases where two sections of the Constitution are in conflict. One question in this case is whether Prop. 8 violates the equal protection clause of the state Constitution.

That same question, whether Prop. 8 violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, would be one argument in a Federal court challenge.

Originally posted by: tw1164

Op, what's the source of the story?

Linkage

Originally posted by: winnar111

Not at all. The entire point of an amendment is to amend and throw the old garbage out.

That suggests we need an amendment to throw out bigoted garbage like you.

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

This is a company just as all churches are and the fact they get to do all this tax free should be Unconstitutional.

QFT! :thumbsup:
 

DefDC

Golden Member
Aug 28, 2003
1,858
1
81
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
It just goes to show how completely phony some of these self proclaimed "conservatives" really are. As a conservative, one should believe the State should stay out of the business of judging which unrelated adults may and may not make a marriage commitment to each other, When a same-sex couple chooses to marry, conservatives should value their liberty far more than any personal or religious disagreement with homosexuality. Conservatives should welcome the contribution of same-sex marriage to the virtues of commitment and family stability we hold so dear.

The Republican Party is dead wrong on same-sex marriage and should re-examine it deeply and seriously through the lens of individual liberty and freedom (Ya know, REAL conservative values) rather than disagreement with homosexuality.

We citizens should judge each other on how we behave, not who we love.

Nicely put. We can only pray that true conservatives finally bounce those nutcases out of their party. Let them find out just how of a minority they really are.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,803
6,360
126
Now that all the Hungry have been Fed, the Naked Clothed, and the Homeless sheltered, what else are they going to spend their Tax Exempt Money on?

Come on, give them a break....hmmm, better yet, a Bailout!!!
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,902
10,235
136
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
This story is seriously making me reconsider the merits of Proposition 8. After all, what better way to bankrupt the bigoted homophobic religious orgs around this country, than to lure them into various states with the promises of gay marriage bans, have them pump millions upon millions of their tax-free dollars into the effort, only to have the rug pulled out from under them by the courts when they rule the bans are unconstitutional?

It's pure genius.

I see we believe in a single branch of government then, overruling the will of the people.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,057
55,550
136
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
This story is seriously making me reconsider the merits of Proposition 8. After all, what better way to bankrupt the bigoted homophobic religious orgs around this country, than to lure them into various states with the promises of gay marriage bans, have them pump millions upon millions of their tax-free dollars into the effort, only to have the rug pulled out from under them by the courts when they rule the bans are unconstitutional?

It's pure genius.

I see we believe in a single branch of government then, overruling the will of the people.

I certainly hope we do, as that's one of the cornerstones of our government and society.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: Jaskalas

I see we believe in a single branch of government then, overruling the will of the people.

One function of the courts is to define and enforce provisions of the Constitution, even, or especially, if that means overruling legislative tyrrany by the majority.

A majority is not always right. A majority composed of bigots is still a group of fucking bigots. :thumbsdown: :|
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
This story is seriously making me reconsider the merits of Proposition 8. After all, what better way to bankrupt the bigoted homophobic religious orgs around this country, than to lure them into various states with the promises of gay marriage bans, have them pump millions upon millions of their tax-free dollars into the effort, only to have the rug pulled out from under them by the courts when they rule the bans are unconstitutional?

It's pure genius.

I see we believe in a single branch of government then, overruling the will of the people.

A substantial number of people expressed a much different "will" than you expect. And "the will of the people" alone is not supposed to be a method of stripping away the rights of their fellow citizens. That's why we have courts in the first place, and not mob justice.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
This story is seriously making me reconsider the merits of Proposition 8. After all, what better way to bankrupt the bigoted homophobic religious orgs around this country, than to lure them into various states with the promises of gay marriage bans, have them pump millions upon millions of their tax-free dollars into the effort, only to have the rug pulled out from under them by the courts when they rule the bans are unconstitutional?

It's pure genius.

I see we believe in a single branch of government then, overruling the will of the people.

A substantial number of people expressed a much different "will" than you expect. And "the will of the people" alone is not supposed to be a method of stripping away the rights of their fellow citizens. That's why we have courts in the first place, and not mob justice.

Exactly, otherwise we'd probably have a dictatorship and marshal law, if such a measure were put to the ballot immediately after 9/11, it would have passed I'm sure.
 

alien42

Lifer
Nov 28, 2004
12,869
3,299
136
judging by this thread, i would say winnar111 is a 'catcher'.

Focus on the Family should be paying taxes like every other corporation.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
This story is seriously making me reconsider the merits of Proposition 8. After all, what better way to bankrupt the bigoted homophobic religious orgs around this country, than to lure them into various states with the promises of gay marriage bans, have them pump millions upon millions of their tax-free dollars into the effort, only to have the rug pulled out from under them by the courts when they rule the bans are unconstitutional?

It's pure genius.

I see we believe in a single branch of government then, overruling the will of the people.

We do? It's the job of the judicial branch to ensure that laws are constitutional. It hardly matters what the will of the people is.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: alien42
judging by this thread, i would say winnar111 is a 'catcher'.

Focus on the Family should be paying taxes like every other corporation.

He prefers the term "bottom".
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
I see we believe in a single branch of government then, overruling the will of the people.
If California voters banned Mongolians from getting married next year, do you think the judicial branch should overturn it?
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
This story is seriously making me reconsider the merits of Proposition 8. After all, what better way to bankrupt the bigoted homophobic religious orgs around this country, than to lure them into various states with the promises of gay marriage bans, have them pump millions upon millions of their tax-free dollars into the effort, only to have the rug pulled out from under them by the courts when they rule the bans are unconstitutional?

It's pure genius.

I see we believe in a single branch of government then, overruling the will of the people.

You have taken an interesting stance on giving a religious entity power in your courts and the ability to set Sharia type laws into the system...

You now support Religious Law being the law of the the USA?
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Jaskalas

I see we believe in a single branch of government then, overruling the will of the people.

One function of the courts is to define and enforce provisions of the Constitution, even, or espeically, if that means overruling legislative tyrrany by the majority.

A majority is not always right. A majority composed of bigots is still a group of fucking bigots. :thumbsdown: :|

Absofuckinlutely right!!!

 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: winnar111

The constitution itself can't be unconstitutional.

Exactly, which is why an amendment (or revision) to the constitution, can be found to be unconstitutional and struck down on that basis.

Not at all. The entire point of an amendment is to amend and throw the old garbage out.

I'm sorry, but you don't understand how the process works. The CA State Supreme Court will decide this exact issue.

And if they have a shred of honesty about adhering to the precedent that lefties cry about so much, it'll be decided my way.

Your way? Which was is that? The righty way? You mean you tap your shoe on restroom floor first, gotcha. You guys can't come out of the closet but you have no problem coming out of the stall. (or coming in the stall for that matter)
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,803
6,360
126
"Everything written to this point is Null and Void"

That's my Constitutional Amendment. If it gets Majority support, it's in there!!
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
Sometime in the future, historical analysis may show that the gay and abortion issues became the self-constructed doomsday device for the Christian churches and groups in this country.

Already, churches are dividing over these issues, diluting their wealth and influence. More and more we see people coming to the conclusion that many groups like Focus on the Family as well outside of mainstream society; inching them ever closer to being a voice in the wilderness. We have the Westboro Baptist Church to constantly remind everybody that religion CAN make you crazy. Claims that it is a sin to vote for anyone not opposing abortion is making a lot of people scratch their heads and wonder at the wisdom of their church leaders.

The creationism/ID argument is icing on the cake, making some see religion as at least quaint, if not completely bogged down in superstition.
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Sometime in the future, historical analysis may show that the gay and abortion issues became the self-constructed doomsday device for the Christian churches and groups in this country.

Already, churches are dividing over these issues, diluting their wealth and influence. More and more we see people coming to the conclusion that many groups like Focus on the Family as well outside of mainstream society; inching them ever closer to being a voice in the wilderness. We have the Westboro Baptist Church to constantly remind everybody that religion CAN make you crazy. Claims that it is a sin to vote for anyone not opposing abortion is making a lot of people scratch their heads and wonder at the wisdom of their church leaders.

The creationism/ID argument is icing on the cake, making some see religion as at least quaint, if not completely bogged down in superstition.

I wonder if that would have been written about William Wilberforce and the Christian abolitionists.
 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
This story is seriously making me reconsider the merits of Proposition 8. After all, what better way to bankrupt the bigoted homophobic religious orgs around this country, than to lure them into various states with the promises of gay marriage bans, have them pump millions upon millions of their tax-free dollars into the effort, only to have the rug pulled out from under them by the courts when they rule the bans are unconstitutional?

It's pure genius.

More layoffs at Focus on the Family
Ministry spent more than $500,000 to pass California's Prop. 8 gay marriage ban


UPDATE: Focus on the Family announced this afternoon that 202 jobs will be cut companywide ? an estimated 20 percent of its workforce. Initial reports bring the total number of remaining employees to around 950.

Focus on the Family is poised to announce major layoffs to its Colorado Springs-based ministry and media empire today. The cutbacks come just weeks after the group pumped more than half a million dollars into the successful effort to pass a gay-marriage ban in California.

Critics are holding up the layoffs, which come just two months after the organization?s last round of dismissals, as a sad commentary on the true priorities of the ministry.

?If I were their membership I would be appalled,? said Mark Lewis, a longtime Colorado Springs activist who helped organize a Proposition 8 protest in Colorado Springs on Saturday. ?That [Focus on the Family] would spend any money on anything that?s obviously going to get blocked in the courts is just sad. [Prop. 8] is guaranteed to lose, in the long run it doesn?t have a chance ? it?s just a waste of money.?

In all, Focus pumped $539,000 in cash and another $83,000 worth of non-monetary support into the measure to overturn a California Supreme Court ruling that allowed gays and lesbians to marry in that state. The group was the seventh-largest donor to the effort in the country. The cash contributions are equal to the salaries of 19 Coloradans earning the 2008 per capita income of $29,133.

In addition Elsa Prince, the auto parts heiress and longtime funder of conservative social causes who sits on the Focus on the Family board, contributed another $450,000 to Prop. 8.

?They should do more with their half-million dollars than spending it to collect signatures to take the rights away from a class of people,? said Fred Karger, the founder of the anti-Prop 8 group Californians Against Hate. ?I think it?s wrong and it?s hurtful to so many Americans.?

In addition to promoting socially conservative issues such opposition to abortion and gay rights, and supporting abstinence-only education, the evangelical Christian ministry is a purveyor of Christian books, CDs and DVDs. Two months ago, citing Wal-Mart and online retailers as having cut into its product market, Focus announced that 46 employees would be laid off from its distribution department. Late Friday, Focus spokesman Gary Schneeberger confirmed that more layoffs are in store, but said the ministry will not release details until Monday afternoon. Schneeberger hinted that some programs may be eliminated entirely, but declined to elaborate.

?We?re going to need to talk to our own family first,? he said. ?We need to respect the people who are affected.?

Schneeberger also refused to discuss the funding priorities that Focus made this fall, including pumping money and in-kind contributions into Proposition 8.

This is the third year that Focus has laid off employees due to budget cuts. In its heyday, the ministry, which relocated to Colorado Springs from Arcadia, Calif., in 1991, employed more than 1,500 people. Many of those employees worked in mailroom and line assembly jobs, processing so much incoming and outgoing correspondences that the U.S. Postal Service gave Focus its own ZIP code.

In September 2005, nearly 80 employees were reassigned or laid off in an effort to trim millions of dollars from its 2006 budget. In addition, 83 open positions were not filled in the layoff, which included eliminating some of the ministry?s programs. At the time, Focus employed 1,342 full-time employees.

?To the extent that we can place them within the ministry, we will try to do that,? said then-spokesman Paul Hetrick. ?Most of them will not be able to be placed.?

In September 2007, amid a reported $8 million in budget shortfalls, Focus on the Family laid off another 30 employees; 15 more were reassigned within the company. Most of the layoffs were from Focus? constituent response services department (i.e. the mailroom).

At the time, Schneeberger, who had replaced Hetrick, said that giving was actually up by $1 million during the fiscal year. However, a very ?aggressive? budget goal of $150 million did not materialize.

In a statement issued this September, marking the end of the ministry?s fiscal year, Chief Operating Officer Glenn Williams weighed in on the additional layoffs of 46 people.

?It is certainly heartbreaking that in this case fulfilling that duty means having to say goodbye to some members of our Focus family, but industry realities really leave us no alternative,? he note in his statement. ?We are accountable to our donors to spend their money in the most cost-effective and productive manner possible.?

But Lewis, the Colorado Springs activist, wonders whether the families who donate to the nonprofit ministry, realize where their funds really end up.

?Seriously, I would imagine their supporters have got to be asking the question about whether their church is really practicing their theology.?

For Lewis, who is straight, the issue boils down to the significance of targeting a class of citizens for exclusion, at the expense of the families that the ministry could be helping ? in this case their own employees.

Lewis likened Proposition 8 to Colorado?s Amendment 2, the 1992 anti-gay measure that was designed to prohibit gays and lesbians from seeking legal protections. Colorado voters approved the measure, which was marketed by proponents, including Focus on the Family, as an effort to prohibit gays and lesbians from seeking ?special rights.? The U.S. Supreme Court stuck down the measure as unconstitutional four years later.

?You can?t make homosexuals second class citizens ? we?ve learned that already,? Lewis said. ?People will look back on this and see how absurd it is.?

Days before this year?s election, Focus founder James Dobson appeared at a closing rally at Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego to rally the anti-gay troops.

Karger of Californians Against Hate, termed the rally a ?big bust.? Organizers promised that more than 70,000 supporters would show up; the final tally was close to 10,000, he said.

Yet three days later, California voters approved the measure with 52 percent of the vote. While the measure will certainly head back to court, California has become the 31st state in the country to pass measures that define marriage as being between a man and woman only. In all, Proposition 8 has proven to be the most expensive social issue in the country, with more than $73 million pumped into the cause from both sides. One of the larger contributors to the anti-Prop. 8 efforts was Colorado gay philanthropist Tim Gill, who contributed $720,000 to oppose the measure.

?I?m very disturbed by organizations from out of state like Focus on the Family,? Karger said. ?They came in early to make sure the measure got on ballot; they?ve got muscle and they are out to hurt a lot of people and destroy a lot of lives.?

EDIT: Forgot LINK



Cuts and add ons thats the way things like this work. not much of a story really.
Last year my company was adding personel, this year thier cutting. woot!!!
story didn't seem to be reported very balanced from your source in my opinion.
So tried to find out who Independant media is.
Could only get this :
Donors
The Center for Independent Media is funded[11] by grants from 15 foundations, as well as individuals and foundations that wish to remain anonymous

My guess would be a Soros foundation or two so the slant of the story is not suprising.
It was kind of like reading an unbiased story from Harvy its not about the objectivity its about proving your point.
Personally, I like Focus on the Family. I think I may send them a donation?
So thanks for the post, I didn't realize they were struggling.
 

m1ldslide1

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2006
2,321
0
0
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Jaskalas

I see we believe in a single branch of government then, overruling the will of the people.

One function of the courts is to define and enforce provisions of the Constitution, even, or espeically, if that means overruling legislative tyrrany by the majority.

A majority is not always right. A majority composed of bigots is still a group of fucking bigots. :thumbsdown: :|

This. I seem to remember learning this in 8th grade US history - the whole checks and balances thing, right Jaskalas?? Although I don't think my teacher used quite the same explanation as Harvey.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: winnar111
And I'll give you 1 sentence, again: Every historical indication is that a small dozen word change here is not a revision and is a minor change.

You confuse the meaning of the scope of the amendment. It's not about the number of words, but the content.

The amendment could be as short as saying "All non-Catholics will be executed immediately", and while only six words, it's huge in its scope.

I'll type the next part slowly for you: the Supreme Court found (if only by 4-3) that gay marriage is a fundamental constitutional right, creating a conflict for a simple amendment.

You say 'every historical indication', which is nonsense. Are you claiming you have reviewed the history of CA amendments challenged in court? If so, provide a summary.

No, you just like the sound of those words, I think, which give the air of having something to say but are actually nonsensical from you.

I already posted it. The CA courts have specifically said that length is a factor in determining what is a revision, and other courts have stated that gay marraige is specifically an amendment and not a revision.
 

dlx22

Golden Member
Apr 19, 2006
1,285
0
0
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: winnar111
And I'll give you 1 sentence, again: Every historical indication is that a small dozen word change here is not a revision and is a minor change.

You confuse the meaning of the scope of the amendment. It's not about the number of words, but the content.

The amendment could be as short as saying "All non-Catholics will be executed immediately", and while only six words, it's huge in its scope.

I'll type the next part slowly for you: the Supreme Court found (if only by 4-3) that gay marriage is a fundamental constitutional right, creating a conflict for a simple amendment.

You say 'every historical indication', which is nonsense. Are you claiming you have reviewed the history of CA amendments challenged in court? If so, provide a summary.

No, you just like the sound of those words, I think, which give the air of having something to say but are actually nonsensical from you.

I already posted it. The CA courts have specifically said that length is a factor in determining what is a revision, and other courts have stated that gay marraige is specifically an amendment and not a revision.

Even if it is an amendment and not a revision, in the In Re Marriages cases the CA supreme court established that any law discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is constitutionally suspect and the amendment does not address this. Even if the amendment stands the CA supreme court will have to resolve the contradiction the amendment creates.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: daniel49
Cuts and add ons thats the way things like this work. not much of a story really.
Last year my company was adding personel, this year thier cutting. woot!!!
story didn't seem to be reported very balanced from your source in my opinion.
So tried to find out who Independant media is.
Could only get this :
Donors
The Center for Independent Media is funded[11] by grants from 15 foundations, as well as individuals and foundations that wish to remain anonymous

My guess would be a Soros foundation or two so the slant of the story is not suprising.
It was kind of like reading an unbiased story from Harvy its not about the objectivity its about proving your point.
Personally, I like Focus on the Family. I think I may send them a donation?
So thanks for the post, I didn't realize they were struggling.

Waste your money if you want, that's why it's your money.

The way I figure it, we only need 4 more state ballot initiatives to ban gays before Focus on the Family is forced to lay-off 100% of its work-force. We're already 20% there!
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Originally posted by: winnar111
I already posted it. The CA courts have specifically said that length is a factor in determining what is a revision, and other courts have stated that gay marraige is specifically an amendment and not a revision.

Are you reading the same thread I'm reading? The biggest point (that's been made multiple times), far more important than the number of words which you seem to be attached to, is that it removes a fundamental right (as recognized by the Cali SC), from a group of people (also recognized by the Cali SC.) And as such, are going to have to rule again. They're not going to get out Microsoft office & do a word count to base their decision on. Let me give you a simple example to help you understand why while the length is somewhat important, it's not the over-riding factor: according to you, if they added 3 words, "murder is legal", it would be just fine because it's only 3 words long.