|
Kylra posted:Texas has filed a North Carolina style bathroom bill for 2017. The Women's Privacy Act. I don't think this had been mentioned yet. The lieutenant governor of Texas would like a member of the legislature to write, sponsor and introduce an anti-trans person bill for next year's legislative session. The LtGov would like to be called the Women's Privacy Act. This may well happen, but it hasn't yet, and happily is getting lots of pushback.
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:29 |
|
|
joat mon posted:Closeish: Yet again, trans men do not exist and the real reason for the bill is the male conservative fear of penises.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Closeish: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/85R/billtext/pdf/SB00092I.pdf#navpanes=0
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Upon closer inspection I suppose that particular one doesn't stipulate that trans people must use the bathroom in concordance with their birth certificate, but it does strip any local non-discrimination ordinances or protections for lgbt people. In theory, if the courts uphold it.
Kylra fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Nov 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Oh good, they underlined the section of the bill that's complete horseshit
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Krysmphoenix posted:Oh good, they underlined the section of the bill that's complete horseshit
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Reading the underlined part it just looks like a way for them to not make any useful laws and then void any local laws that try to address a problem the state isn't interested in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
The bill's main effects would be to strip protections for LGBT people in Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, El Paso and a few others. There might be a few disability things caught in the crossfire too, but the main effect will be to tear down metro area LGBT anti-discrimination ordinances. If the state isn't interested in it, this bill will not come up for a vote. If it is voted affirmative, then it's obvious the state is interested in tearing down those protections and sees the protections as some kind of problem themselves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Kylra posted:The bill's main effects would be to strip protections for LGBT people in Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, El Paso and a few others. There might be a few disability things caught in the crossfire too, but the main effect will be to tear down metro area LGBT anti-discrimination ordinances. So States' Rights > Cities' Rights > Federal Rights? That seems a bit off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
Aleph Null posted:So States' Rights > Cities' Rights > Federal Rights?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Aleph Null posted:So States' Rights > Cities' Rights > Federal Rights?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
Kylra posted:The bill's main effects would be to strip protections for LGBT people in Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, El Paso and a few others. There might be a few disability things caught in the crossfire too, but the main effect will be to tear down metro area LGBT anti-discrimination ordinances. Its largely just a big eviction notice for trans texans like myself; the effect is largely to communicate a strong "We don't want you here". Not that it wasn't abundantly clear before, it's a completely transparent line of attack.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Aleph Null posted:So States' Rights > Cities' Rights > Federal Rights? No, Federal constitutional rights > state constitutional rights (unless the state grants greater rights) > city ordinances. In the Texas example, the state of Texas is basically saying, "Cities, we got this, we'll handle these regulations at the state level." Texas still has to honor federal constitutional rights (and applicable federal statutes) and state constitutional rights and state statutes. Instant Sunrise posted:yeah that's how it's meant to work, but let's be real, what the right wants is for States Rights We Like > Everything Else joat mon fucked around with this message at 22:41 on Nov 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
joat mon posted:No, Federal constitutional rights > state constitutional rights (unless the state grants greater rights) > city ordinances. yeah that's how it's meant to work, but let's be real, what the right wants is for States Rights We Like > Everything Else
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:People aren't going to suddenly start hating gays because Trump won, especially since Trump never even says anything bad about gays. Things are going to suck in the short term but there's no way the long trend towards LGBT acceptance is going to suddenly reverse itself. People don't have to start. There's already a vocal minority who just had that hate validated by the highest offices in the country, and a literal monster of a man is one 70 year old Cheeto having a heart attack away from the Presidency.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Playing favorites with state's rights transcends the political spectrum. Dems don't hold state's rights or local control as sacrosanct though, they're happy to send in the feds if they don't like something going on in a state. Republicans claim that they're staunch defenders of state's rights because local control is the best but what they really mean is state control is the best because Republicans control a lot of states, actual local control is bad because cities are controlled by dirty liberals.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Minnesota woman sues her daughter, state and non-profit agencies, for transitioning without her consent. Has this been brought up because it is loving insane.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
Filthy Haiku posted:Its largely just a big eviction notice for trans texans like myself; the effect is largely to communicate a strong "We don't want you here". Not that it wasn't abundantly clear before, it's a completely transparent line of attack.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
It's not a very funny joke though. I'm sorry everyone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Minnesota woman sues her daughter, state and non-profit agencies, for transitioning without her consent. This woman is scum.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
The Dark One posted:This woman is scum. 100% Luckily it looks like the law is absolutely not on her side.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:100% Usually I can follow whatever stupid and twisted logic these idiots use to build these suits, but that link said she was claiming her 14th amendment rights were being violated. What?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
The 14th makes the Bill of Rights and other federal constitutional protections applicable to the states.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:Usually I can follow whatever stupid and twisted logic these idiots use to build these suits, but that link said she was claiming her 14th amendment rights were being violated. Parental rights fall under the due-process clause of the 14th. Shittiest mom of the year is claiming that the court never informed her when her child applied for emancipation, so she had no opportunity to challenge the loss of her parental rights, and therefor the lack of due process means they should still be intact. So daughter, using the current law in Minnesota that grants emancipated minors control over their own medical decisions, is violating her mother's parental rights by getting medical care her mom hasn't signed off on. And this is all being backed by an anti-abortion group, because the law gives cover to minors seeking abortions without parental consent. Looking forward to so Minnesota judge smacking this poo poo sandwich down with the fury of an angry god.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
Not US but I'm hearing something about FADA being likely to be passed with republican control of all your governing bodies?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Geokinesis posted:Not US but I'm hearing something about FADA being likely to be passed with republican control of all your governing bodies? Yeah probably.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
there wolf posted:Parental rights fall under the due-process clause of the 14th. Shittiest mom of the year is claiming that the court never informed her when her child applied for emancipation, so she had no opportunity to challenge the loss of her parental rights, and therefor the lack of due process means they should still be intact. So daughter, using the current law in Minnesota that grants emancipated minors control over their own medical decisions, is violating her mother's parental rights by getting medical care her mom hasn't signed off on. If I'm reading the article right, the child never -had- to apply, Minnesota law isn't very definite, but seems to agree that living on their own with no parental attempts to get them to return home after running away or being kicked out is sufficient. http://www.lawhelpmn.org/files/1765CC5E-1EC9-4FC4-65EC-957272D8A04E/attachments/142FAC1B-D276-4E40-97D4-9662A7B0DE56/y-12-emancipation.pdf It is, of course, going to be woefully expensive to prove, and all because a 17 year old is transistioning and the parent who abandoned them wants to put the brakes on. Case is, more than likely from what I can tell as a layperson, going to be dismissed anyway because by the time it comes to court the daughter will be of age and the mother's requests will be without merit. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Nov 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
The hell is with these goddamn freaks who can't be bothered to look after their kids but sure as gently caress want a legal say over their ability to look after themselves. Like pick one or the other you massive weirdo. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Nov 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The hell is with their goddamn freaks who can't be bothered to look after their kids but sure as gently caress want a legal say over their ability to look after themselves. She probably wanted money tbqh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
How the hell is it not a crime to report that your minor child is missing? For six months. e: seriously, at some point somebody has to ask, "did you murder your child?" Bethamphetamine fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Nov 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
That's what it sounds like to me. That she wants money. Also, legal system is weird when parents sue their underage children.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The hell is with these goddamn freaks who can't be bothered to look after their kids but sure as gently caress want a legal say over their ability to look after themselves. It's a power and control thing. Clearly throwing her daughter out of the house didn't get the results she wanted, so she's trying to gently caress with her another way. And hey, look, it's fundie organizations who have no qualms about supporting a clearly abusive parent, yet again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
there wolf posted:And this is all being backed by an anti-abortion group, because the law gives cover to minors seeking abortions without parental consent. Looking forward to so Minnesota judge smacking this poo poo sandwich down with the fury of an angry god. Ah, now I see their angle. I was trying to figure out how getting automatic emancipation struck down (best case scenario for the plaintiff) gets them what they want, since it still wouldn't affect the legality of transitioning.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Vindicator posted:It's a power and control thing. Clearly throwing her daughter out of the house didn't get the results she wanted, so she's trying to gently caress with her another way. And hey, look, it's fundie organizations who have no qualms about supporting a clearly abusive parent, yet again. they circled the wagons around bill gothard and josh duggar when the allegations started coming out about them
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Geokinesis posted:Not US but I'm hearing something about FADA being likely to be passed with republican control of all your governing bodies? In the states? It's been tried a couple of times I can recall. Last year a Georgia bill got vetoed and a Mississippi bill was enacted but enjoined before it came into effect. (Barber v. Bryant). Any bills that get passed would meet a similar fate to the MS bill. On the federal side? Probably not, there isn't enough momentum or critical mass to push something this unnecessarily divisive through. I could be wrong. A federal version would also have very limited applicability, a'la the federal RFRA. Even in the unlikely event it passes, it's unlikely to pass constitutional muster. (See below) Here's the opinion in Barber v. Bryant. It's a good read, and maybe assuage some concerns about the viability of other FADAs. quote:(This is just the intro)
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:If I'm reading the article right, the child never -had- to apply, Minnesota law isn't very definite, but seems to agree that living on their own with no parental attempts to get them to return home after running away or being kicked out is sufficient. You don't need a judge to declare it or something like that? Learn something new everyday.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
there wolf posted:You don't need a judge to declare it or something like that? Learn something new everyday. Varies heavily by state, naturally.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
NRO is now pondering the finer points about how jailing gays is actually Cool and Good. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/442333/what-judge-pryor-said#comments
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
quote:“Petitioners’ protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, a constitutional right that protects ‘the choice of one’s partner’ and ‘whether and how to connect sexually’ must logically extend to activities like prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia (if the child should credibly claim to be ‘willing’).” That sentence doesn’t equate these activities. In fact, it implies that the other activities are worse, or seem to be worse, than same-sex relations. He’s saying: If you accept a constitutional right to engage in same-sex sexual activities on the ground that there’s a right to choose “whether and how to connect sexually,” you are logically committing yourself to accepting these other things too. I love how this guy thinks he's saying something new. No one ever argued anything to the contrary and this is basically legitimizing the ridiculous slippery slope argument of "if you legalize homosexuality where does it stop?!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:29 |
|
|
Can we all just lose our minds now? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...viser-has-said/ quote:
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 02:47
|
|