 is Think Tech Hawaii. Community matters here. Aloha and welcome to Eyes on Hawaii on Think Tech Hawaii. I'm your host, Carol Cox. Today, my guest is Mr. Dave Moskowitz, community and rights advocate. We will be talking about President Donald Trump's directive that will allow employers to opt out of non-cost birth control and issues religious freedom, directions to override anti-discrimination protection. And what I have here in my hand is the actual presidential executive order promoting free speech and religious liberty. This was provided on the White House website, and I encourage you to go there and see it and look at it for yourself if you have any doubt or we don't want to talk about fake news, but this was recovered from the White House website. Now, there are a number of things that this is quite disturbing because it concerns women issues, it concerns gay rights and many things and all based on—and it gets its start from the religious rights, beliefs and moral and all of those things. We're going to talk about them at length today, and that's why I brought Mr. Dave or invited Dave Moskowitz with me. So, Dave, thank you for joining me. My pleasure. I appreciate you being here. And now, I'm not an expert at this subject matter, but I do have concerns for civil rights and the violations and people discriminating against others while they don't have a right to, but it seems that this directive or these directives do just that, rob people of their rights and subject them to abuse by others. So, let's get into it, and what do you think about this process and what has been presented by these directives? Do you have any real concerns? Actually, it's a major step backwards and an attack on all the progress that has been made by LGBTQ immunity in their protecting their rights of equality and acts of discrimination based on unfair and unjust legislation and this directive in particular will allow people to do whatever they want, even outside quasi-legal. You know, I am—when I was younger, my first time I stepped into Harvey Milt's camera shop in San Francisco in 1977, I believe, and I was active in the anti-gay teacher initiative, which we won thanks to Harvey. So, I've been pretty active in the process and for a long time of work with Cesar Chavez and Robert Kennedy and I was kind of in this day and age to see this kind of directive being given out to people which actually affects everyone, even a regular person in their hiring of, say, a church group that may own like Hobby Lobby and how you behave outside of work, how you conduct yourself, who you sleep with, what you might be doing, even though have no proof. I mean, it really is quite concerning that there's a—they're going to allow people to do whatever they want to do outside of the law and you have no chance of having to kind of challenge back. So, we were bothered by the Lobby-Hobby ruling Burrville versus, in that case, what about that? Was that the start? Was that the shot across the bow? Was that a strong warning to say that the general public best beware if you get the right people in place, such as we have now this administration? One of the things I find quite curious and interesting, we're talking about morals, we're talking about values and religious rights and what have you. Isn't it funny that the Health and Human Service Office is not led by anyone now, Mr. Tom Price? He had to resign. Morals and values and honesty and decency and respect for the law, right? Well, that's one. Jeff Sessions as well, the Attorney General, was one foot out the door, but he felt that his agenda of such as this, I suspect, was more important than his integrity and what he's presented, how he's presented by the President of these United States. Very interesting. You have any observations on that? Well, you know, I just, I was watching Bill Maher last night. You know, he was discussing, even when these, they have this like suicide pack amongst the adults in the room in the White House. And he, one of the questions is, who, behind, when you pull the curtain at the White House, who's really running the White House? Who's dictating these policies? Where is this coming from? Is it from Bannon? Is it, I mean, is it from Tony Perkins? Really? You know, Tony Perkins has a snitch line to turn people in if they're gay, which he set up. I just, I don't understand who's running the show there. If these say, say, if Mattis and Tillerson, all those normal guys go, Kelly, who are we going to have then running these cabinets? Because all the rest of them are now gone. What kind of chaos is this going to descend into when we started getting these like childish kind of, I actually don't think they're childish. I think they're purposeful directives that are being issued to appease his base, maybe, but also give people a lot of, I mean, the Hobby Lobby thing was a Supreme Court decision as legal bearing, so Hobby Lobby can do what they want now. So I think this is a further extension and an attempt to see just how far they can push it. So what concerns me with this and as an observation? When they decide the vendor or the shop owner or the employer determines that you are gay, I ask the questions, what criteria do you use? Is it a standard? Is it prescribed the same method to be used by all people or a circumstance? How does one gauge the sexual orientation of another in these situations? So it sets a dangerous precedent because it's so liberal that it invites, in my opinion, an observation that it invites a pile on discriminatory practices without even wanting to. It says that you now have the power invested in you by the government of these United States of democracy to look at another human being and assess that party of that person and deny them their basic rights. You know, I think that I was just reading a document I got off of Doc USA that day and they're looking for these guidance, these guidelines for this process to be enabled and there is no guidance currently. I don't know that there ever will be any guidance. I think guidance will be purely subjective each and every time. I think this is actually to stir a level of chaos into the legal mix. And as we talked earlier about this being a state, every state, every court system will have a different response to this depending upon who sits in those positions. The primary face of evidence, the evidence that needs to be brought to the floor to be used in adjudicating a matter, it would be who's burden worse. It's me who being felt that I've been denied or discriminated against because of my race or you, for example, because of your orientation or sexually or anyone else. Where does a burden, who places a burden and where does it lie? The victim I think is the one who gets the first right. Can you imagine what evidence do you bring in the court? It's the victim. What evidence? For me, if someone didn't want to patronize or want my patronage and if I was interationally married or whatever, they would say, I don't like that, especially taken in the deep south. They opposed much of that. So it didn't have to be gay. Just simply say, I don't like that. So I think you're gay. Now the burden is on me to prove that it wasn't my sexual orientation but my race. But thanks to Mr. Trump and Mr. Sessions, it seems to be there now invested in these people. So my big question is, is the religious right right? Oh, no, not at all. I mean, how can I have the dismissive and prove that I'm not gay? To a court, that's just, I don't know how to wrap my head around. Where do you begin with that? I mean, my partner, who's a buddy, where I don't have a physical relationship, we're companions for 20 years. We're both fathers. We've decided that, you know, maybe at some point we're going to get married for the full legal things that can help us tax-wise and things. But I imagine if we were in another state, besides Hawaii, we could be discriminated against because someone would assume that we are having a physical relationship. So I have to go to court to prove that we're not and we're just friends living together. I mean, there's a lot of that going on out there. And I mean, I don't think anyone should have to prove what they're doing at home. That's really no one's business. Even if your name is Stave and Jim on the cake, that doesn't, that's, to take it one step further is an invasion of privacy. And I think based on, I don't know where you go from there. I mean, this is like a whole new, a whole new landscape that we're seeing of litigation. It's a tinderbox of legal litigation that's going to come down the pike. And everyone, and it's going to probably, I don't know how it's going to, I don't know how it's going to play out in the long run when it comes to Supreme Court. We're relying on Justice Kennedy. He's the last one who seems to have any sense. And what happens when he's gone? Now you spoke about the wizard earlier, who's behind this, or who's orchestrating this, this whole effort. So we, we know that the Obama bill, they've tried to kill it, remove it. They fail. But this is still a continued effort to their on a path, war path to undermine and undercut and overturn this in any way they can. So the question is, who is behind it? Well, there was a quote from Paul Ryan, the speaker of the house. Now we know that by now he should realize that there's some problems with this whole setup. And what did he say? This is a landmark day for religious liberty. The speaker of the house. So, is that a sample or indicator that we have decay in the American process now in this democracy? I've always considered the evangelical right to be American Taliban in a lot of ways. They want to make you, they have a whole set of rules and how women's rights and how women are to be treated and pay equality, you know, workplace equality, gender equality. You know, I think they're taking us back in time to the mid ages to a period where of a dream. And I think actually the thing that with Obama was that then the night he, the night he moved into that White House, I was just in heaven and elated that they would be sleeping in the Lincoln bedroom. And I think it drove a lot of people absolutely nuts who are, oh, our right, I think just blatant, hate-filled people. I don't hate to use to just throw the R word around, but you know, it's out there. And I think there's a lot of discrimination against things that are strange and different and new that comes from a generation that hasn't moved on yet. And I think this, to me, I really hope and I'm dreaming that this is a last gasp of a dying group of people with a dying thought process. And I'm hoping that perhaps when people, these issues needed to come to the forefront and now they are, and we're going to have to face them square on and deal with them. And maybe people will step up to the plate and start taking action to fight this kind of legal or quasi-legal action and directives. Yeah. And the question is, can you be exempted from federal law? Can you, you know, in this process, does this exempt businesses from federal law? Or does it exempt because of the Obama Act or the Obamacare? At that time, for about six years and all, it provided coverage for birth controls and things of that nature. But now they're saying, no, but it's a funny thing that this the right wants to say, they can't support preventing pregnancies. Their religion does not, religion does not allow that. And then you can't abort your baby. So it leaves, it metals in the rights of women and others. So they don't want you to take birth controls to prevent the birth. And they don't want you to abort. So what does that mean? How does that sit with most people? It creates one of the most harshes. And the way the records show in some of the reports now that I've been reading, it will present a bigger problem later. Oh, they're on the wrong side of history, first of all. But you know, I also am reading here that they haven't, they have transferred directly to the internal, not to enforce the Johnson Amendment, which barred churches and taxes and groups from endorsing political candidates. He has now advised them to not to enforce the Johnson Amendment. So they're donating to these political candidates who become people who make the decisions that will determine the outcome of any legal cases in various states, counties and jurisdictions. I think that that based on basically if you accept federal funds, I don't think in the, I don't know how the Supreme Court is going to rule. It seems like the Supreme Court has become a political tool or is moving in that direction for the next, this last election was so important. And for the next 20, 30 years, if we could lose, this could be very bad. So the way this thing is written and the directives are written and how they were proposed, it's an attack on Obamacare number one. So and they're hell bent on getting rid of it. So now you as a civil rights and all that, who do you appeal to? Do you go to Jeff Sessions, the attorney general and hope that he would represent a right on behalf of the put the public or the people that's being discriminated or denied? No, he's the one that's trying to implement this. So we are really in a position right now that it's here's failure. It's going to be an ongoing legal battle. And we seem to have slowed down their machine. His legislative agenda is dead in the water. And hopefully that because of legal action taken by ACLU and other individuals across the country, that they'll be able to have a long period of time before they can actually, I mean, they're going to affect people right off the bat, left this, but I think it'll be a while. Okay, well, hold that thought and we will take a break. This is eyes on Hawaii think tech Hawaii. I'm your host Carol Cox. We will be right back. This is think tech Hawaii raising public awareness. We have this crazy thing going on today. I was just walking by and all these DJs and producers are set up all around the city. I just walked by and I said, what's happening guys? They told me they're making music. So I did. I'm your host Carol Cox. And my guess is Mr. Dave Moskowitz and Dave is from Waikiki area here and he's an activist and a rights advocate. So we're talking about the new directives that were sent out by President Donald Trump. And Mr. Jeff Sessions, his attorney general, and a couple observations that I made that this it gets a start. It's something's wrong with the whole process. Anyway, Jeff, this is about morals and values and honesty and the fear of God and you know, righteousness. And he had to resign the chief, the director or the head of HHS human health services quit because of a scandal of his abuse. Jeff Sessions was also basically the president wanted to fire him or ask him to resign. But his agenda, he's so driven about this and his morals and values that he stays. And that worries me. What do you think the direction will be in the future is they say people start objecting to people's behavior on the job, say they start refusing women's rights of contraception and turning on people to have a wedding in a church and people take legal action. I mean, to what degree should people respond and how should they respond? Well, the first of all, the danger that this presents is in anything, it can be abused. Then if you have an attorney general who's willingness to get this and implement it and he wrote the status of the Obama care, that presents a problems. So you don't have a police policing the situation that they created. So in other words, we as the general public, not the religious right or not the Christian right or whatever it is that's pushing this and that they're playing to. We're left on our demise. They're on a court to deal with these. And unfortunately, who have the money well, you mentioned earlier, ACLU and it's few other legal women voters might intervene. But why should they have to intervene? When we have this process, we're in a democracy and we should be guided by the Constitution. You have a right to believe in what you believe practice what religion you practice is practice. But you do not have a right to allow it to breathe, bleed over into the lives of others. You just don't have that right, in my opinion. You know, I was watching another show and people are sort of looking at on what it is he's doing, what Trump is doing, Trump is sowing chaos. And he's like a guy who's the producer of a reality show. And every day, it's a new show for him. And I just wonder, what's he showing and doing over here versus what's really going on over there? And you try to find out what the sub subtext what what really their motive is in the long run? Is it to shore up the base? Is it to cause dissension within people who are in opposition? And so what to do? I remember that in the left, back in the 70s, they did a lot of things to split people, divide and conquer tactics. But this this particular case, I think we'll probably end up having a lot of legal challenges. It'll end up having a lot of people on the streets in various towns and this starts to affect them. There'll be a lot of boycotts, you'll see a lot of but there's so much going on right now across the board in the country because of Trump. I don't think people are trying to focus on one particular issue. Do we want to wait until the chaos triggers this? Or do we hope to have a common courtesy to say in respecting the needs of women in the workplace, the need to afford them the right? So because some of them can't afford a pay for birth controls or long term types of birth controls or implants and what have you? What about those? How do we get so far? This debate has been going back and forth. But this is as close as I've ever seen where people are just completely, in my opinion, violated. Women are violated, their rights are violated. The employers can be as conniving as they wish. And that poor innocent woman or those women, some 62 million, they say will be impacted. Or as HHS says 120 million. So something's something People in rural America that are really going to be impacted who don't have the community that we have like we have here in Hawaii in support and action in a progressive attorney general. I'm really concerned about their welfare and people who live out in rural and suburban America. In different states, I find they're going to be at a loss. I really I don't know what's going to occur with this, but a lot of people are going to have to go, you know, I think all good politics or local politics, and that I find that a lot of things are going to be cut, even here on Hawaii, Oahu with the budget, and people are going to have to start funding services more and more from other companies. And I don't know, maybe people just need to leave. If it's leave where Hawaii, no, leave wherever it is that it's being offensive to them. But that that's not the way life is going to the reality. That would be the dream to say, I'm going to I'm sick of this. I'm getting out of here. I move into Hawaii. I was going to say, I'm going to just wiggle my coffin and wake up. But a lot of people don't have that luxury. Yeah. So and that's that's the real danger of this, because it's going to broadly affect everybody. And some can afford it. But this then gives the employer the right to deny you certain medical care, because of the religious stance. There's a legal process you can go through to what degree that's actually effective. I've been lucky with the EOC and courts, but to get the money to get a turn to a higher and attorney to take action. Well, I legal justice groups, Lambo and Lambo legal or whatever. That's another show. The EOC and its youthfulness, it really is not effective. Because if you're creating this massive problem, you're going to have a number of victims who seek to file complaints. But look at how the EOC is staffed. It's not it's inadequately staffed. So all of those things that checks and balances are the safe thing that's that exists that would afford someone the right to go and file a complaint. Either you're going to be fortunate to find someone to follow on a class action. But as an individual, you go to EOC, you might as well be scratching on the door for 20 days and you'll get nothing. Yes. On occasion, some do get results. You got what you describe as a good result. But I think probably in the long run wasn't really a good results based on their history. But they do they hold your case and they write your letter you have a right to sue and they do an investigation. But they are short staff. So why are we basically throwing innocent people to the wolves? We're leaving them out there naked, stripping them of those rights when all that what causes us to people or a few people behind the scene that wants to erode away the Obamacare Act and in doing so they don't care who they hurt. You know, besides the fact that this is an abuse, I think this is also an incitement of sorts and excitement because what I see in the future, especially with the upcoming 2018 primaries, having been an auto activist and active in the anti-war movement, I was an STS stopped the draft week. I think there are going to be large scale demonstrations in cities. There's going to return rapidly. I think they want to encounter have people encounter each other on the streets. And they use this as an attempt to rather themselves to win one more term of the presidency if it were to go that far. Here's my concern. I think it's a political purpose. Here's my concern. We spent the half hour last half hour basically talking about what the religious right and part of the Republican Party. Now, we had an emergency session to hear the rail and its impact and the funding for it by our state legislatures who is democratically in control. So the question is why are they they know this law? Our legislators and our Attorney General know that this law is when why are they waiting to see its negative impacts and not hearing up? Maybe they are, but I've not heard anything public. So why don't our Doug, Doug Chen need a case? Well, we don't know, but we need to know that there are people going to be impacted here. And so therefore, our legislators should be convening some kind of session because there's going to be substantial number of people impacted negative. It's a good question opposed to Attorney General Doug Chen, you know, we're running out of time matter of time. You have anything closed. We got about one less than one minute. There will be a Gay Pride Parade in Waikiki on the 21st. Gay Pride Parade in Waikiki ending in Capulani Park. Come down and see the nice people that are there in Iraq with your community. Well, thank you, Dave. Dave Moskowitz. By sharing our thoughts. Okay, this is about the close of this show and we'll be back. If you are interested in getting on our mailing list, go to thinktecawaii.com. Thank you for joining me on today's show, Eyes on Hawaii on Think Tecawaii. Thanks to Jay Fadale, our executive director and our technical support team, Robert McLean, Ray Sangolon and Nick Sexton. I'll see you again in two weeks. I'm Carol Cox. Aloha.