More layoffs at Focus on the Family

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
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
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
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?

Doesn't work when the ban is in the constitution.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: winnar111
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?

Doesn't work when the ban is in the constitution.

The ban won't get into the constitution when it's unconstitutional.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: winnar111
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?

Doesn't work when the ban is in the constitution.

The ban won't get into the constitution when it's unconstitutional.

The constitution itself can't be unconstitutional.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: winnar111
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?

Doesn't work when the ban is in the constitution.

The ban won't get into the constitution when it's unconstitutional.

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.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
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.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: DealMonkey

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.

First of all the words in bold shows the problem.

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

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,107
45,102
136
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.

In CA there is a legitimate legal argument regarding the scope of change to the constitution and if the correct process was used (amendment vs. revision) so it will probably end up in front of the CA supreme court again.

If this was a federal amendment you'd be correct but thankfully that amendment process is a hell of a lot harder to get done and for good reason. The founders don't want the mob tinkering with the government at their whim.


 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
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.

Sorry, you don't get it; it can be overturned by the courts just like any part of a constitution can, state or federal (with the later being quite a bit more hairy). Read up kiddie.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
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.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,570
6,712
126
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.

No, the amendment must be made in a constitutional manner so that just law is not unjustly changed.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: K1052
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.

In CA there is a legitimate legal argument regarding the scope of change to the constitution and if the correct process was used (amendment vs. revision) so it will probably end up in front of the CA supreme court again.

If this was a federal amendment you'd be correct but thankfully that amendment process is a hell of a lot harder to get done and for good reason. The founders don't want the mob tinkering with the government at their whim.

California courts have previously said a 21000 word change to the 55000 word Consitution was a revision.

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1225923130.shtml

And the two cases that I've found in other states that dealt with the same question have likewise concluded that an opposite-sex-only marriage initiative was an amendment, not a revision: Bess v. Ulmer (Alaska Supreme Court, 1999), and Martinez v. Kulongoski (Oregon Court of Appeals, 2008). Bess, in particular, expressly applied California precedents (though with a minor change that doesn't seem relevant here), and concluded that the opposite-sex-only marriage initiative was an amendment, not a revision: "Few sections of the Constitution are directly affected, and nothing in the proposal will 'necessarily or inevitably alter the basic governmental framework' of the Constitution."
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
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.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
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.

You're not well informed so it can't possibly be decided your way.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Evan
Originally posted by: winnar111
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.

You're not well informed so it can't possibly be decided your way.

Bzzzzt. Wrong.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Evan
Originally posted by: winnar111
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.

You're not well informed so it can't possibly be decided your way.

Bzzzzt. Wrong.

You don't get it, you were already smacked around in this thread. Nut up and take it like a man.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Evan
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Evan
Originally posted by: winnar111
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.

You're not well informed so it can't possibly be decided your way.

Bzzzzt. Wrong.

You don't get it, you were already smacked around in this thread. Nut up and take it like a man.

Rofl, ok!

The only people smacked around were the lefties in Hollywood. Oh, and people like you.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: winnar111
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?

Doesn't work when the ban is in the constitution.

The ban won't get into the constitution when it's unconstitutional.

The constitution itself can't be unconstitutional.

Unsurprsingly, despite it being explained in many posts, you still have no clue how the CA constitution is structuered. Hint: CA amendment is not the same as a federal amendment.

I'll give you one sentence *again*, and you can go learn from there: there are two types of amendments allowed to the CA constitution; the type that only needs a simple majority can provide minor changes but cannot conflict with the 'fundamental rights' in the constitution, which the court held gay marriage to be easrlier this year.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Evan
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Evan
Originally posted by: winnar111
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.

You're not well informed so it can't possibly be decided your way.

Bzzzzt. Wrong.

You don't get it, you were already smacked around in this thread. Nut up and take it like a man.

Rofl, ok!

The only people smacked around were the lefties in Hollywood.

Take a deep breath troll, lefties are in control of this country. Get used to it.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: winnar111
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?

Doesn't work when the ban is in the constitution.

The ban won't get into the constitution when it's unconstitutional.

The constitution itself can't be unconstitutional.

Unsurprsingly, despite it being explained in many posts, you still have no clue how the CA constitution is structuered. Hint: CA amendment is not the same as a federal amendment.

I'll give you one sentence *again*, and you can go learn from there: there are two types of amendments allowed to the CA constitution; the type that only needs a simple majority can provide minor changes but cannot conflict with the 'fundamental rights' in the constitution, which the court held gay marriage to be easrlier this year.

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.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,107
45,102
136
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: K1052
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.

In CA there is a legitimate legal argument regarding the scope of change to the constitution and if the correct process was used (amendment vs. revision) so it will probably end up in front of the CA supreme court again.

If this was a federal amendment you'd be correct but thankfully that amendment process is a hell of a lot harder to get done and for good reason. The founders don't want the mob tinkering with the government at their whim.

California courts have previously said a 21000 word change to the 55000 word Consitution was a revision.

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1225923130.shtml

And the two cases that I've found in other states that dealt with the same question have likewise concluded that an opposite-sex-only marriage initiative was an amendment, not a revision: Bess v. Ulmer (Alaska Supreme Court, 1999), and Martinez v. Kulongoski (Oregon Court of Appeals, 2008). Bess, in particular, expressly applied California precedents (though with a minor change that doesn't seem relevant here), and concluded that the opposite-sex-only marriage initiative was an amendment, not a revision: "Few sections of the Constitution are directly affected, and nothing in the proposal will 'necessarily or inevitably alter the basic governmental framework' of the Constitution."

Quoted from the same pages:

However, the issue presented by Prop 8 is different in important respects from any that the state courts have previously confronted. In a brief filed yesterday several legal groups representing gay couples argue that Prop 8 is a revision. You should read their brief if you want to get into the weeds of the argument further, but I can summarize the heart of it fairly succinctly: Prop 8 stripped (1) a fundamental right (marriage) from (2) a suspect class (gays). Because of the importance of these changes, they argue, it is thus a revision and not an amendment.

The following issues bearing on the revision/amendment distinction are raised: First, can a fundamental right be denied through amendment, requiring only a majority vote of the people? Second, can a bare majority target a suspect class by mere amendment? Either of these alone would present a novel issue for the state courts. (Important rights of criminal defendants were at issue in Raven v. Deukmejian, 52 Cal 3d 336 (Cal. 1990), though the court didn't call them "fundamental rights" and at any rate held that the case involved a revision.) Together, they're a double-whammy of constitutional change.

Now you may disagree that the fundamental right to marry extends to same-sex couples. You may also disagree that sexual orientation classifications are suspect, requiring heightened judicial scrutiny. Both objections are well-grounded, are the majority view in other state court systems, and may well be correct. But the California Supreme Court disagrees with you on both points, as it held in its marriage decision last May. Unless it reverses its decision, the court could take the importance of the right declared and the suspect nature of the discrimination into account when it decides what kind of constitutional change Prop 8 would be.

The California Supreme Court has held that the difference between an amendment and a revision turns on both "quantitative and qualitative" factors, and that "substantial changes in either respect could amount to a revision." Raven, 52 Cal. 3d at 350 (emphasis added). Thus, even if we thought that Prop 8 affected relatively few constitutional provisions (say, the state's equal protection and due-process guarantees), changes to these provisions might be regarded as "substantial qualitative" reforms in the content of basic constitutional principles.

There is an argument to be made and the courts will get to decide.
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
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.



 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: winnar111
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?

Doesn't work when the ban is in the constitution.

The ban won't get into the constitution when it's unconstitutional.

The constitution itself can't be unconstitutional.

Unsurprsingly, despite it being explained in many posts, you still have no clue how the CA constitution is structuered. Hint: CA amendment is not the same as a federal amendment.

I'll give you one sentence *again*, and you can go learn from there: there are two types of amendments allowed to the CA constitution; the type that only needs a simple majority can provide minor changes but cannot conflict with the 'fundamental rights' in the constitution, which the court held gay marriage to be easrlier this year.

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.