More Fantastic Pseudo-Journalistic Hackery From Charlie Butts?

You remember Charlie Butts, right?  The person – assuming he actually exists – who penned this work of fiction journalism?

Baltimore residents have lost their battle against an ordinance protecting transgendered people.

Under the controversial “gender identity” law, a man would be allowed to walk into a women’s restroom or shower room claiming he believes himself to be a woman, essentially opening the door for rape or sexual molestation. In July a lower Montgomery County court agreed more than 900,000 petition signers had the right to see it on the ballot to choose whether to overturn it — but it was appealed.

900K?  Not quite.

Well, he’s at it again – this time pecking about Diane Schroer’s (thus far) successful employment discrimination suit against the Library of Congress.

A federal court has ruled against the Library of Congress for refusing to hire a transgendered person.

The American Civil Liberties Union says the ruling sends a message to employers everywhere that if they fire or refuse to hire someone for transitioning to another gender, they can be held liable. Mat Staver, dean of Liberty University’s law school and founder of Liberty Counsel, believes the decision is outrageous.
 
“This is why there needs to be sanity within our legal system with regards to this homosexual agenda, which will literally undermine the whole concept of law and the rule of law,” Staver contends. “And it also underscores why we need judges on the bench who will judge and not legislate their own ideology.”

To be fair to Mr. Butts, here, this One News, Not! piece might not be the hackery that the other one was.  In fact, clearly, the wackiness is from Staver – who actually does exist and, sadly, appears to actually believe the nonsense he spews.

The Liberty Counsel founder believes it is essential to appeal the case. “The question, however, that we have to ask is what will the Supreme Court of the United States do with this?” Staver wonders. “It’s probably going to be a very tightly divided court on this issue because we have some justices on the Supreme Court who [couldn’t] care less about the Constitution, federal or state law, or the rule of law in general.”

Notice that he doesn’t say anything about legislative history?  Or the fact that the judge who issued the opinion in the case relied on the reasoning of that flaming liberal Antonin Scalia?!?!

Of course, here’s the money shot:

Staver hopes voters will keep in mind when they go into the voting booths in November that the next president will likely appoint several new justices.

Yes – frighten voters with the possibility that employment decisions might be based on ability rather than religionist bigotry.

Have at it.