|
Just caught wind of the Kansas and Idaho things...I didn't think I'd see in my lifetime laws in the US passed that are actually WORSE than the russian anti-gay propaganda laws. But that just goes to show that we can't EVER let our guard down, and that the same bigotry that leads to things like the Uganda 'kill the gays' bill is VERY active in this country. For easy catch-up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn8nEMwDhmY Thankfully in our country, these poo poo laws will get shitcanned pretty quickly I hope. I hope.
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 09:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 03:51 |
|
|
Spacedad posted:Just caught wind of the Kansas and Idaho things...I didn't think I'd see in my lifetime laws in the US passed that are actually WORSE than the russian anti-gay propaganda laws. But that just goes to show that we can't EVER let our guard down, and that the same bigotry that leads to things like the Uganda 'kill the gays' bill is VERY active in this country. That seems like the definition of a bill designed to appeal to the base, especially in light of: quote:If Luker’s proposal is passed into law, it would prevent the bureau or boards from revoking the license of any professional who declined “to provide or participate in providing any service that violates the person’s sincerely held religious beliefs.”
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
One of the main problems that homophobes have with advancing their agenda is they always try to overreach, case in point: http://www.kansascity.com/2014/02/13/4822324/senate-balks-at-kansas-religious.html quote:“A strong majority of my members support laws that define traditional marriage, protect religious institutions and protect individuals from being forced to violate their personal moral values,” Wagle said. A more narrowly tailored bill might have passed, it might have even survived the inevitable lawsuit. They just can't resist, they decided to go full-out homophobic and made a bill so bad a whole chamber full of tea party lunatics won't pass it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:The judge in the Texas case yesterday said a ruling is "forthcoming", but didn't specify exactly when. The way Texas gets held up as some conservative Mecca, I feel like it will prompt the most delicious right wing tears if he strikes the ban. I think it will be interesting to watch Texas because it's one of the most populous states. If they end up having the same Benny Hill-style scramble to get married like Utah, that will be a lot of marriages. Also, and I'm talking out my butt here, Texas might have a higher percentage of (out) gay residents than Utah. Both are culturally conservative, but it wouldn't surprise me if Utah having more of a monoculture would tend to drive people to stay closeted or leave. Texas on the other hand, has relatively more religious diversity, and has multiple larger metro areas that might draw gay people from more rural states nearby.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
Austin has a pretty large and active GLBT population at least. There is going to be one hell of a party when the ban gets shot down.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Austin has a pretty large and active GLBT population at least. There is going to be one hell of a party when the ban gets shot down. Don't forget Houston also has an openly lesbian mayor, so I imagine they are pretty LGBT-friendly as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
Also San Antonio. Texas is breathtakingly gay. The cynic in me expects a Texas judge to uphold the ban, but at least on the good side its legal arguments will be so convoluted and nakedly political it'll be laughable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:I think it will be interesting to watch Texas because it's one of the most populous states. If they end up having the same Benny Hill-style scramble to get married like Utah, that will be a lot of marriages.  ) has around 1.5 million, Austin has 840,000, and El Paso, which is considered a smaller city, has 670,000. In addition to those Texas has at least 25 smaller cities that still have more than 100,000 people each. Texas is loving big. katium posted:Don't forget Houston also has an openly lesbian mayor, so I imagine they are pretty LGBT-friendly as well. fade5 fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Feb 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
katium posted:Don't forget Houston also has an openly lesbian mayor, so I imagine they are pretty LGBT-friendly as well. Right. Sorry I meant for that to be more of a statement that I knew of Austin's diverse makeup, not for it it to come off as going "well just Austin has gay people". I need to be more careful about that... there is way too much "Austin is the Only City of Importance" smugness out there already without me accidentally adding more. Will be fun to see photos of marriages on the Capitol steps though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:I think it will be interesting to watch Texas because it's one of the most populous states. If they end up having the same Benny Hill-style scramble to get married like Utah, that will be a lot of marriages. My understanding is that Utah is pretty much a one time thing; they didn't ask for a stay pending appeal at the right time, so there wasn't one in place immediately when the ruling went out. It's not likely that any other states will make that mistake in the future, so there won't be a period where people are scrambling because their marriage rights may be temporary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
Sefer posted:My understanding is that Utah is pretty much a one time thing; they didn't ask for a stay pending appeal at the right time, so there wasn't one in place immediately when the ruling went out. It's not likely that any other states will make that mistake in the future, so there won't be a period where people are scrambling because their marriage rights may be temporary. Also, the Virginia case preemptively stayed its ruling pending any possible appeal, and the judge specifically cited the SCOTUS stay in Kitchener. Any future cases until Kitchener gets sussed out will probably be stayed pending a possible appeal. Whether Virginia DOES appeal, however, is another question, as both the Governor and the AG don't want to defend it. If no appeal is filed, then the stay is lifted and Virginia is once again for lovers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:Also, the Virginia case preemptively stayed its ruling pending any possible appeal, and the judge specifically cited the SCOTUS stay in Kitchener. Any future cases until Kitchener gets sussed out will probably be stayed pending a possible appeal. Someone is defending the law (I think representatives of the clerks sued in their official capacity) so I expect it gets appealed by those people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
katium posted:Don't forget Houston also has an openly lesbian mayor, so I imagine they are pretty LGBT-friendly as well. And Dallas has a lesbian sheriff. Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Also San Antonio. Well, the judge is a Clinton appointee, so I'd think it has pretty good odds of being struck. There would almost certainly be an immediate stay pending appeal, though. He has already said that ultimately the case will be decided by five people, of whom he is not one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
I don't have the time /  to read the whole Kansas bill, but I'm reminded of the conscience bills regarding birth control. Don't they tend to have a "If you don't feel you can follow the rules, find someone else who can so the person has the same outcome anyway" clause?The drat thing is, I understand and respect the notion of the government not being able to tell someone to violate their religious beliefs, no matter what I (or anyone else) thinks about their religious beliefs. But the scope and scale of this is so drastic that it's just hateful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:I don't have the time / Interesting. What sort of bill protecting religious freedom from The Gays and other sexual libertines would you "understand and respect?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
marriage between an 18 year old and a 17 year old still ok?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
TimeShaft posted:marriage between an 18 year old and a 17 year old still ok? I don't remember if Romeo & Juliet laws only cover sex but if they don't then generally you can get married if you're under 18 and have permission of your parent/guardian.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I don't remember if Romeo & Juliet laws only cover sex but if they don't then generally you can get married if you're under 18 and have permission of your parent/guardian. hooray the system works now I don't need a fleshlight
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
Edit: Nevermind, misread previous poster.
Torrannor fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Feb 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Interesting. What sort of bill protecting religious freedom from The Gays and other sexual libertines would you "understand and respect?" One that let someone follow their conscience (hey, if you believe your religion doesn't tolerate The Gays, I'm not going to go Full Goon and demand you stop following your beliefs because I disagree with 'em), but at the same time allowing the customer to go about their business.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 08:54
|
|
|
How is that different from how the law is now? Is there a state somewhere where Christians are forced to take birth control and get gay-married? Are cake decorators somewhere required to suck off the grooms when they deliver a cake with two little tux-clad dolls on top? Because I agree that would be obviously bad and there ought to be a law against that. Or do you support something further that allows religious people to refuse to sell wedding cakes with two girl-names on it or dispense birth control if they suspect the girl is a bit of a slut? Because that would seem to keep the customers from going about their business.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 09:16
|
|
|
Oh for fucks sake. Now Tennessee too is introducing a 'turn away the gays' bill. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSaL7Mu8HUU You know why they're doing it, right? It's because the olympics has a spotlight on Russia's lovely anti-gay laws at the moment. They're trying to one-up the bigotry of Russia, and whip up homophobia for this year's election. gently caress these people. I don't have anything clever to say as I'm seething with genuine rage. gently caress these terrible loving talentless hacks for using LGBT people as a scapegoat for cheap political points. Spacedad fucked around with this message at 09:23 on Feb 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 09:19
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:How is that different from how the law is now? Is there a state somewhere where Christians are forced to take birth control and get gay-married? Are cake decorators somewhere required to suck off the grooms when they deliver a cake with two little tux-clad dolls on top? Because I agree that would be obviously bad and there ought to be a law against that. In some states, (e.g.) pharmacists are not required to dispense birth control but if they refuse they have to tell you a place which is nearby that does.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 14:02
|
|
|
The dumbest thing about these gay discrimination laws is that none of these states they are trying to pass these in could have the problem that these bills are ostensibly trying to correct. The issue they are trying to address is the case where a business tries to deny a service related to a gay wedding and then gets fined by the state under their anti-discrimination law. That can't happen in these red states where these bills have been introduced because they don't have anti-discrimination laws covering sexual orientation, private businesses in these states can already deny service to gays for any reason they would like. That means these laws are either entirely redundant or they make them broader so that they allow new areas of discrimination like that Kansas bill that is now likely dead. If any other state tries to go down this road it's virtually guaranteed that they get smacked down in court. All of this is just blatant political posturing, combined with a pathetic last gasp of bigotry from a movement that knows this is their last shot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 14:09
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:One that let someone follow their conscience (hey, if you believe your religion doesn't tolerate The Gays, I'm not going to go Full Goon and demand you stop following your beliefs because I disagree with 'em) I would argue that you are in fact pretty close to Full Goon here, since you are treating Religion as immutable collections of rules that a person deduces mathematically from ancient teachings. This is in contrast to how religion has always actually been, where people of the exact same religion argue and fight with each other because they disagree.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
computer parts posted:In some states, (e.g.) pharmacists are not required to dispense birth control but if they refuse they have to tell you a place which is nearby that does. Interesting. Do they have to wait until you come in and ask for it, or can they just put up a "Queers and Harlots not welcome" sign in their window with directions to the pharmacy down the street. What if it's a small town and there is no other place nearby? Can they tell you to come back during the 3am shift when that unholy Unitarian pharmacist is on duty?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
Probably not, but people in small towns are used to driving 30 miles to get stuff that's not available locally.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
Okay, so what I'm getting here, is as long as the customer has the same final outcome (getting the pills/gay cake) then an extra 30-mile drive and being treated like a second-class citizen is "letting the customer go about her business", thus it's very important to protect people's religious freedom to humiliate homos and whores who want whore pills. I can get on board with that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Okay, so what I'm getting here, is as long as the customer has the same final outcome (getting the pills/gay cake) then an extra 30-mile drive and being treated like a second-class citizen is "letting the customer go about her business", thus it's very important to protect people's religious freedom to humiliate homos and whores who want whore pills. No, what you're getting here is that I'm not familiar with the specifics of the law and the case you proposed is an extreme edge case because no one lives in small towns anymore.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
Just because most people don't live in small towns without the means to drive 30+ (or in the case of West Texas 100+) miles every month to pick up their birth control doesn't mean that "no one" does. It's fine if you're just trying to explain the law, but let's not dismiss real actual people as edge cases. But MisterBibs seems to be familiar with those laws, maybe we can wait for him to tell us why some of these laws are necessary to protect religious freedom against sodomy and whoring.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Just because most people don't live in small towns without the means to drive 30+ (or in the case of West Texas 100+) miles every month to pick up their birth control doesn't mean that "no one" does. It's not just birth control though it's food, auto care, a dentist, jury duty, etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
I don't see how that's relevant. Perhaps you could spell it out for me?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't see how that's relevant. Perhaps you could spell it out for me? In order to live in a modern small town at all you need transportation and the expectation of traveling several miles for lots of goods. On a relative standpoint (that is, relative to getting anything else not at your local store) it's not that much of a burden.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:I think it will be interesting to watch Texas because it's one of the most populous states. If they end up having the same Benny Hill-style scramble to get married like Utah, that will be a lot of marriages.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
computer parts posted:In order to live in a modern small town at all you need transportation and the expectation of traveling several miles for lots of goods. On a relative standpoint (that is, relative to getting anything else not at your local store) it's not that much of a burden. As someone who grew up in small towns, I can say with some authority that this is an incredibly dumb rear end argument. One reason for this is that transportation costs most definitely are a burden for nearly everyone who lives in rural areas. It is a huge cost both in time and fuel when you need to drive a car (e.g.) an hour or more to reach many basic services. Another is that this is a statistical argument without any numbers whatsoever. The fact that there is no research referenced showing how the cost of getting to a decent pharmacy rises for patients who have to deal with refusals makes your entire point a non-starter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:As someone who grew up in small towns, I can say with some authority that this is an incredibly dumb rear end argument. One reason for this is that transportation costs most definitely are a burden for nearly everyone who lives in rural areas. It is a huge cost both in time and fuel when you need to drive a car (e.g.) an hour or more to reach many basic services. Of course they're a burden, my point is that they're expected. You're not driving for an hour to get just birth control, you're driving to get many services necessary for survival.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
computer parts posted:
Wait, what?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
Oftentimes people in small towns (especially minors) depend on others for transportation, and may not be able to safely tell those people why they suddenly need a ride every month. Some people may not have the money. Some people may just feel distressed or ashamed when businesses turn them away in disgust for daring to think they have the same dignity as other people. But these are insignificant compared to the burdens that writing "Adam and Steve" on a cake or filling a prescription impose on religious belief because...?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Of course they're a burden, my point is that they're expected. You're not driving for an hour to get just birth control, you're driving to get many services necessary for survival. Because of a law written to eliminate your civil rights, you have an additional, unnecessary burden- the answer is to eliminate the law. This is literally pre-freedom riders civil right compliants.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 03:51 |
|
|
Gerund posted:Because of a law written to eliminate your civil rights, you have an additional, unnecessary burden- the answer is to eliminate the law. If a store you regularly visit doesn't have a product, but a store you also regularly visit but is slightly farther out does have that product, is the first store placing an additional burden on you because now you'll have to add that product to your second store list?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 19:12
|
|