When will we put LGBTQ issues behind us.?

[LogikAndReazon]

Marriage "equality"...... Lol

You have to laugh at that leftist verbal concoction...

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Should a gay baker be forced to serve an event they find offensive?

Depends on the State and the basis of their offense.

Well, no. They no longer have the right to disagree. A gay caterer, by law, must service a straight pride event. They can't discriminate against the event organizers because of their sexual orientation.

It's stupid that the state can force you to engage in trade with someone you don't want to.

It depends on the interaction. If its commerce, the regulation of it within a State is most *definitely* the State government's business. As regulating intrastate commerce is unquestioningly a power of the States.

Commerce is the state government's business? Why?

Intrastate commerce is a power retained by the State. Thus, its their business if they decide it is and it doesn't violate rights. See Article 1, Section 8 Clause 3....along with the 10th amendment. Its perfectly constitutional.

As long as no fraud or violence has occurred, and as long as the state gets it's extortion money, er, I mean taxes, why should LGBTQ issues by any concern of the state?

Because they decide it is.

Let's hope they don't decide it's double-plus good to crucify all redheads. Because I guess if they decided to do so, that law would be just too.

The rights that are protected by a State aren't limited to federally protected rights. Many States can and do have far more extensive protections for people than the federal government recognizes. And that's totally within the power of a People of a State to do.

Federal Protections establish the baseline minimum of rights. Not the maximum. And if the people of State decide that you have a right to be free from discrimination based on sexual orientation when conducting acts of commerce, they have every authority to protect that right.

The only thing that could practically trump them would be federal amendment......or a violation of federal rights. Neither of which are an issue with PA laws.

The government should, you know...govern.

And per the people of some states, protecting rights to freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation (or race, or sex, or religion, or ethnicity) in acts of commerce is governing.

And as long as they don't violate individual rights or the constitution, they have every authority to do so. That you 'don't think they should' is immaterial. What matters is what the relevant majority thinks.....constrained by the constitution and individual rights. Within those limitations, in any contest between you and the relevant majority of the State, the relevant majority wins.

That's our constitutional republic. If you don't like it, convince the relevant majority to change it.

That's what I'm doing.

It's idiotic that a person who has harmed no one's body or property, nor threatened to do so, should be considered a criminal.

Whether or not a person chooses to engage in business with another is a private matter and should not be a criminal act.

. Liberals, minorities, universities, and other groups who rely on victimization are that way because of Obama being in our White House. Once his black ass is out, normalcy will hopefully return with a republican president who doesn't kowtow to these jackasses. Obama has shown that he can use the DOJ to force his dictorship on decent Christian people. Gays et al will find their power to persecute will end on January 20, 2017. They won't have an Attorney General doing their dirty work when a republican president resides in our White House again.

 

[Centinel]

Liberals, minorities, universities, and other groups who rely on victimization are that way because of Obama being in our White House. Once his black ass is out, normalcy will hopefully return with a republican president who doesn't kowtow to these jackasses. Obama has shown that he can use the DOJ to force his dictorship on decent Christian people. Gays et al will find their power to persecute will end on January 20, 2017. They won't have an Attorney General doing their dirty work.

It's a property rights issue, not an issue of decent Christian people. I think any property owner has the right to exclude whomever he wants from his property. That goes for a gay baker excluding a decent Christian. Every property owner ought to have the same prerogative.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Well, I feel that here in America, we are all to be treated equally, and that is an important part of being an American. It shouldn't be of any consequence to a store owner whether or not a person is gay, or black or whatever. They are still human beings and should be treated as such. I don't think a business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve people based on their sexual orientation, the color of their skin and other silly reasons. I have no problem with public accommodation laws. If you want to open up a business, you have to follow the rules and regulations put forth by your respective state.

We have a first amendment that says otherwise. PA laws that violate that are unconstutional. If you claim the 1st says you can't establish a national religion, then you must observe the clause that says the government may not prevent the free exercise of religion. It doesn't exclude Christian businesses. A constitutional observing Court will make sure of that and that's why we cannot allow Obama to pick the next Justice. We pray to God that Hillary doesn't win the election.

 

[WinterBorn]

The fact is that the legal issues are, for the most part the same and these bigoted state laws that seek to limit their rights and restrict their behavior do in lump them all together- except for perhaps these idiotic “bathroom” laws that target transgender people. And, it is the legal issues that I started this thread about.

You may think that it is “bigoted” and idiotic to protect women and girls from creepy, mentally-ill, male sexual perverts who want access to them in dressing and restroom facilities, and that is why your side is ultimately going to lose, in spite of any gains that you think the pervert-rights movement has made or will yet make. Those who think it's OK to subject girls and women to such abuse are always going to comprise a small, degenerate minority. You're free to proudly include yourself in that minority, if you wish, but don't deceive yourself into thinking that your side will ever be otherwise.

And feel free, as you continue to promote this attack on the safety, modesty, and virtue of women, to falsely accuse us on the right of waging a “war on women.” Your sick hypocrisy will continue to provide a source of amusement for sane people, and help to show the general public just how degenerate your side truly is.

People you may know, or should....

Boykin's Defense of 'Religious Freedom' Includes Violent Anti-Trans Rhetoric Submitted by Peter Montgomery on Tuesday, 3/8/2016 10:16 am On Saturday retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, executive vice president of the Family Research Council, addressed the Awakening conference, an annual event sponsored by Liberty Counsel and the Freedom Federation. Boykin, known for his anti-Muslim and anti-gay rhetoric, dedicated his remarks in the plenary session to denouncing Bernie Sanders supporters for wanting free things, and to calling on Christians to do more to stand up for religious freedom and against LGBT equality. Boykin quoted socialist Norman Thomas saying in 1927, “America will never vote for socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.” Boykin asked, “Is that where we are today?” He declared that support for Sanders is “an indication of the sad state of affairs in this country.” - See more at: Boykin's Defense of 'Religious Freedom' Includes Violent Anti-Trans Rhetoric

Michael Savage: Hillary Clinton Will Become A Dictator Who Will Put 'A Transgender In Your Soup' Submitted by Brian Tashman on Friday, 3/11/2016 11:50 am Earlier this week on “The Savage Nation,” conservative radio host Michael Savage asked listeners what they think would happen to the country after three years of a Hillary Clinton presidency. Savage predicted that a President Clinton would “seize guns” in order to stop an “armed rebellion.” “She is an absolute dictator,” he said. “She will seize guns and make them illegal in any way necessary.” (We can’t help but point out that Savage has frequently predicted that President Obama will seize guns, and he now only has less than a year to do it.) Savage also claimed that Clinton would usher in a societal “meltdown” and “a social nightmare”: “There will be a transgender in your soup.” - See more at: Michael Savage: Hillary Clinton Will Become A Dictator Who Will Put 'A Transgender In Your Soup'

Franklin Graham: Christians Must Take Over Every Mayorship In The Country To Stop 'Evil' LGBT Rights Submitted by Miranda Blue on Friday, 2/12/2016 12:37 pm Franklin Graham is visiting every state in the country this year as part of his “Decision America” tour, in which he is offering technically nonpartisan encouragement to his followers to “live out their faith” in the upcoming elections. At a stop in Atlanta this week, Graham spoke about the need for conservative Christians to not only vote, but to run for office, saying that if every city in America had a Christian mayor, we wouldn’t have “evil” and “wicked” policies like LGBT nondiscrimination measures. Better Georgia first brought the remarks to our attention. - See more at: Franklin Graham: Christians Must Take Over Every Mayorship In The Country To Stop 'Evil' LGBT Rights

There is plenty more where this came from but you get the idea. They all reflect the same mentality.....as do you

A lot of "older" people are very frightened of change and of that which they do not understand, and that manifests itself as hatred. They are very ignorant and they don't even realize it (mainly because they are ignorant).

Really? Think they are incapable of seeing how sketchy folks declaring themselves "trans" would have legal access to your bathrooms? Incapable of calculating that polyamory is the NEXT letter in the LBGQPTY banner?

Have you EXAMINED the "change" and limits of it's reasonable and just scope?

Polyamory? lol I hope that was meant as a joke.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The fact is that the legal issues are, for the most part the same and these bigoted state laws that seek to limit their rights and restrict their behavior do in lump them all together- except for perhaps these idiotic “bathroom” laws that target transgender people. And, it is the legal issues that I started this thread about.

You may think that it is “bigoted” and idiotic to protect women and girls from creepy, mentally-ill, male sexual perverts who want access to them in dressing and restroom facilities, and that is why your side is ultimately going to lose, in spite of any gains that you think the pervert-rights movement has made or will yet make. Those who think it's OK to subject girls and women to such abuse are always going to comprise a small, degenerate minority. You're free to proudly include yourself in that minority, if you wish, but don't deceive yourself into thinking that your side will ever be otherwise.

And feel free, as you continue to promote this attack on the safety, modesty, and virtue of women, to falsely accuse us on the right of waging a “war on women.” Your sick hypocrisy will continue to provide a source of amusement for sane people, and help to show the general public just how degenerate your side truly is.

People you may know, or should....

Boykin's Defense of 'Religious Freedom' Includes Violent Anti-Trans Rhetoric Submitted by Peter Montgomery on Tuesday, 3/8/2016 10:16 am On Saturday retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, executive vice president of the Family Research Council, addressed the Awakening conference, an annual event sponsored by Liberty Counsel and the Freedom Federation. Boykin, known for his anti-Muslim and anti-gay rhetoric, dedicated his remarks in the plenary session to denouncing Bernie Sanders supporters for wanting free things, and to calling on Christians to do more to stand up for religious freedom and against LGBT equality. Boykin quoted socialist Norman Thomas saying in 1927, “America will never vote for socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.” Boykin asked, “Is that where we are today?” He declared that support for Sanders is “an indication of the sad state of affairs in this country.” - See more at: Boykin's Defense of 'Religious Freedom' Includes Violent Anti-Trans Rhetoric

Michael Savage: Hillary Clinton Will Become A Dictator Who Will Put 'A Transgender In Your Soup' Submitted by Brian Tashman on Friday, 3/11/2016 11:50 am Earlier this week on “The Savage Nation,” conservative radio host Michael Savage asked listeners what they think would happen to the country after three years of a Hillary Clinton presidency. Savage predicted that a President Clinton would “seize guns” in order to stop an “armed rebellion.” “She is an absolute dictator,” he said. “She will seize guns and make them illegal in any way necessary.” (We can’t help but point out that Savage has frequently predicted that President Obama will seize guns, and he now only has less than a year to do it.) Savage also claimed that Clinton would usher in a societal “meltdown” and “a social nightmare”: “There will be a transgender in your soup.” - See more at: Michael Savage: Hillary Clinton Will Become A Dictator Who Will Put 'A Transgender In Your Soup'

Franklin Graham: Christians Must Take Over Every Mayorship In The Country To Stop 'Evil' LGBT Rights Submitted by Miranda Blue on Friday, 2/12/2016 12:37 pm Franklin Graham is visiting every state in the country this year as part of his “Decision America” tour, in which he is offering technically nonpartisan encouragement to his followers to “live out their faith” in the upcoming elections. At a stop in Atlanta this week, Graham spoke about the need for conservative Christians to not only vote, but to run for office, saying that if every city in America had a Christian mayor, we wouldn’t have “evil” and “wicked” policies like LGBT nondiscrimination measures. Better Georgia first brought the remarks to our attention. - See more at: Franklin Graham: Christians Must Take Over Every Mayorship In The Country To Stop 'Evil' LGBT Rights

There is plenty more where this came from but you get the idea. They all reflect the same mentality.....as do you

A lot of "older" people are very frightened of change and of that which they do not understand, and that manifests itself as hatred. They are very ignorant and they don't even realize it (mainly because they are ignorant).

Really? Think they are incapable of seeing how sketchy folks declaring themselves "trans" would have legal access to your bathrooms? Incapable of calculating that polyamory is the NEXT letter in the LBGQPTY banner?

Have you EXAMINED the "change" and limits of it's reasonable and just scope?

Polyamory? lol I hope that was meant as a joke.

Just throwing dung at the wall to see what sticks.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Marriage "equality"...... Lol

You have to laugh at that leftist verbal concoction...

What are you talking about and who are you responding to? Do you know about the reply feature?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Liberals, minorities, universities, and other groups who rely on victimization are that way because of Obama being in our White House. Once his black ass is out, normalcy will hopefully return with a republican president who doesn't kowtow to these jackasses. Obama has shown that he can use the DOJ to force his dictorship on decent Christian people. Gays et al will find their power to persecute will end on January 20, 2017. They won't have an Attorney General doing their dirty work.

It's a property rights issue, not an issue of decent Christian people. I think any property owner has the right to exclude whomever he wants from his property. That goes for a gay baker excluding a decent Christian. Every property owner ought to have the same prerogative.

You are just making that property rights crap up. Property rights has to do with who you allow in your home, not your public accommodation business . Go ahead and try that horseshit in a NJ court where we have one of the best anti discrimination laws in the coutry.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The fact is that the legal issues are, for the most part the same and these bigoted state laws that seek to limit their rights and restrict their behavior do in lump them all together- except for perhaps these idiotic “bathroom” laws that target transgender people. And, it is the legal issues that I started this thread about.

You may think that it is “bigoted” and idiotic to protect women and girls from creepy, mentally-ill, male sexual perverts who want access to them in dressing and restroom facilities, and that is why your side is ultimately going to lose, in spite of any gains that you think the pervert-rights movement has made or will yet make. Those who think it's OK to subject girls and women to such abuse are always going to comprise a small, degenerate minority. You're free to proudly include yourself in that minority, if you wish, but don't deceive yourself into thinking that your side will ever be otherwise.

And feel free, as you continue to promote this attack on the safety, modesty, and virtue of women, to falsely accuse us on the right of waging a “war on women.” Your sick hypocrisy will continue to provide a source of amusement for sane people, and help to show the general public just how degenerate your side truly is.

Thank you for that hysterical ( I don't mean funny) over the top rant. I did enjoy it so much. Now maybe you can come up with an example of a child who was molested by a transperson in a bathroom- or anywhere else for that matter..

Don't think you're getting the sincere concerns from your "opposition". So you will NEVER understand where your opposition comes from.. I MAY HAVE some interest in protecting the rights of gays or trannies, but pushing laws about bathrooms is REALLY counterproductive to those aims.

And before you tell me that NOBODY is doing that. Read the damn news or the threads on this forum. They are FRONT PAGE with keeping the weenies out of the little girls room..

The concerns that you are MISSING is that "orientation" is not as testable or obvious as religion or race. And there is ALL manner of malarkey and mayhem that yahoos and crazies will bring to a "choice" in which facilities they declare THEMSELVES eligible to use. If I was in High School, I'd might have declared "trans" for a month just because I could.. And because of the heavenly access that might have given me. These battles and concerns are real.. And you really need to realize that there some places the law probably CAN'T be effective. I would think EACH of those orientations has it's OWN legal priorities and issues. And YOU shouldn't be loading the train with ALL of them as the same deal..

Sincere concerns? Just because you or they think that they are sincere, it does not mean that they are rational. Furthermore, I doubt that anybody really believes that they are sincere, but rather, are using the issue as an excuse to attack people who they have little understanding of and no compassion for. The whole argument is predicated on the notion that trans people are dangerous predators and that is just stupid. I have asked for documentation…. specific cases where trans people have posed a threat to children and I have gotten nothing! You are buying into the bizarre and idiotic notion that you are going to have straight, cisgender men invading girls bathrooms to molest them and that is stupid. If you were in high schools?? That tells me a lot about where your head is at. ’Furthermore, if a perverted male was going to do that , they would do regardless of what the rules are concerning transgender people. The argument just does not wash. You are really not making a whole lot of sense. Lastly, your reference to sexual orientation not being” testable” tells me that you little understanding of the complex relationship between transgenderism and homosexuality. Please educate yourself: Is there a connection between sexual identity and sexual orientation?

 

[Centinel]

You are just making that property rights crap up. Property rights has to do with who you allow in your home, not your public accommodation business . Go ahead and try that horseshit in a NJ court where we have one of the best anti discrimination laws in the coutry.

I agree that many states have laws that violate the property rights of people operating businesses. Property rights don't only apply to one's home. They apply to one's home, one's shop, one's body, and anything else owned by the person. A person ought to have the right to do or not do anything he chooses as long as he doesn't violate the property or body of another person.

To criminalize failure to bake a cake for someone would involve using force or violence against a person who hasn't injured anyone. To me, there are very few legitimate reasons to use force against someone (self-defense, defense of others, etc) and not baking a cake for someone isn't a legitimate reason.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

There should be govt bakeries, with price caps, a 30 dollar min wage, that doesnt discriminate against any degenerates.....

And leave the private sector to the PRIVATE sector...

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You are just making that property rights crap up. Property rights has to do with who you allow in your home, not your public accommodation business . Go ahead and try that horseshit in a NJ court where we have one of the best anti discrimination laws in the coutry.

I agree that many states have laws that violate the property rights of people operating businesses. Property rights don't only apply to one's home. They apply to one's home, one's shop, one's body, and anything else owned by the person. A person ought to have the right to do or not do anything he chooses as long as he doesn't violate the property or body of another person.

To criminalize failure to bake a cake for someone would involve using force or violence against a person who hasn't injured anyone. To me, there are very few legitimate reasons to use force against someone (self-defense, defense of others, etc) and not baking a cake for someone isn't a legitimate reason.

It would appear that you are stating an opinion and presenting it as factual which constitutes a logical fallacy in the form of an appeal to ignorance. If you want to be taken seriously, you might want to lay out a legal theory and provide some documentation such as actual case law that supports what you are saying.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

There should be govt bakeries, with price caps, a 30 dollar min wage, that doesnt discriminate against any degenerates.....

And leave the private sector to the PRIVATE sector...

Brilliant! Just fucking brilliant!!

 

[Centinel]

It would appear that you are stating an opinion and presenting it as factual which constitutes a logical fallacy in the form of an appeal to ignorance. If you want to be taken seriously, you might want to lay out a legal theory and provide some documentation such as actual case law that supports what you are saying.

Of course I'm stating my opinion. I said that a person OUGHT TO have the right to do or not do anything he chooses as long as he doesn't violate the property or body of someone else. This is because to mandate otherwise would result in initiating force against a person, and I consider the initiation of force unjustified. Hence my stance on the NJ (and other state's) law. I consider it unjust.

If you oppose my opinion, then I must assume that you consider it ethically justified to initiate force against your neighbor. That's an opinion with which I simply can't agree.

 

[dblack]

It would appear that you are stating an opinion and presenting it as factual which constitutes a logical fallacy in the form of an appeal to ignorance. If you want to be taken seriously, you might want to lay out a legal theory and provide some documentation such as actual case law that supports what you are saying.

Of course I'm stating my opinion. I said that a person OUGHT TO have the right to do or not do anything he chooses as long as he doesn't violate the property or body of someone else. This is because to mandate otherwise would result in initiating force against a person, and I consider the initiation of force unjustified. Hence my stance on the NJ (and other state's) law. I consider it unjust.

If you oppose my opinion, then I must assume that you consider it ethically justified to initiate force against your neighbor. That's an opinion with which I simply can't agree.

And THAT is what is so insidious about PA (and other, similar laws). In the name of suppressing unpopular biases, they are introducing, and popularizing, the idea that government is a valid means of getting what you want out of other people.

 

[flacaltenn]

The fact is that the legal issues are, for the most part the same and these bigoted state laws that seek to limit their rights and restrict their behavior do in lump them all together- except for perhaps these idiotic “bathroom” laws that target transgender people. And, it is the legal issues that I started this thread about.

You may think that it is “bigoted” and idiotic to protect women and girls from creepy, mentally-ill, male sexual perverts who want access to them in dressing and restroom facilities, and that is why your side is ultimately going to lose, in spite of any gains that you think the pervert-rights movement has made or will yet make. Those who think it's OK to subject girls and women to such abuse are always going to comprise a small, degenerate minority. You're free to proudly include yourself in that minority, if you wish, but don't deceive yourself into thinking that your side will ever be otherwise.

And feel free, as you continue to promote this attack on the safety, modesty, and virtue of women, to falsely accuse us on the right of waging a “war on women.” Your sick hypocrisy will continue to provide a source of amusement for sane people, and help to show the general public just how degenerate your side truly is.

Thank you for that hysterical ( I don't mean funny) over the top rant. I did enjoy it so much. Now maybe you can come up with an example of a child who was molested by a transperson in a bathroom- or anywhere else for that matter..

Don't think you're getting the sincere concerns from your "opposition". So you will NEVER understand where your opposition comes from.. I MAY HAVE some interest in protecting the rights of gays or trannies, but pushing laws about bathrooms is REALLY counterproductive to those aims.

And before you tell me that NOBODY is doing that. Read the damn news or the threads on this forum. They are FRONT PAGE with keeping the weenies out of the little girls room..

The concerns that you are MISSING is that "orientation" is not as testable or obvious as religion or race. And there is ALL manner of malarkey and mayhem that yahoos and crazies will bring to a "choice" in which facilities they declare THEMSELVES eligible to use. If I was in High School, I'd might have declared "trans" for a month just because I could.. And because of the heavenly access that might have given me. These battles and concerns are real.. And you really need to realize that there some places the law probably CAN'T be effective. I would think EACH of those orientations has it's OWN legal priorities and issues. And YOU shouldn't be loading the train with ALL of them as the same deal..

Sincere concerns? Just because you or they think that they are sincere, it does not mean that they are rational. Furthermore, I doubt that anybody really believes that they are sincere, but rather, are using the issue as an excuse to attack people who they have little understanding of and no compassion for. The whole argument is predicated on the notion that trans people are dangerous predators and that is just stupid. I have asked for documentation…. specific cases where trans people have posed a threat to children and I have gotten nothing! You are buying into the bizarre and idiotic notion that you are going to have straight, cisgender men invading girls bathrooms to molest them and that is stupid. If you were in high schools?? That tells me a lot about where your head is at. ’Furthermore, if a perverted male was going to do that , they would do regardless of what the rules are concerning transgender people. The argument just does not wash. You are really not making a whole lot of sense. Lastly, your reference to sexual orientation not being” testable” tells me that you little understanding of the complex relationship between transgenderism and homosexuality. Please educate yourself: Is there a connection between sexual identity and sexual orientation?

You are in denial of how you enforce class discrimination laws when the class is determined by simple "self-declaration"... That what "orientation" is.. It's the ONLY REASON Bruce Jenner is still relevant to the world. It's a self affirmation.. Simple as "Today I feel feminine" so BINGO -- I'm going to be a "legally protected class today" So all those weirdo males and High School kids will be spoofing the system with claims that can't be verified by records, evidence, or ever legal declarations.

You want this to work? Then membership in that "orientation" has to be LEGALLY DECLARED and VALIDATED .

 

[flacaltenn]

And no.. A perverted or even prank-prone male would NOT just waltz into female locker rooms, gyms, bathrooms, or university applications, or government mandated female ownership contracts without the protection of laws that ALLOW a protected class simply by self-declaration. Because they'd either get their asses kicked or arrested for public indecency or public harassment.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

We are fresh off of a victory in Georgia where the governor vetoed a homophobic and quite frankly stupid bill that targeted LGBT people in the name of ”religious liberty” He caved to pressure from local businesses while never acknowledging the true intent of the bill.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/religious-liberty-bill-could-get-surprise-vote-wed/nqmkF/


However, the anti-equality forces are still hard at work in the south and elsewhere. They are spending countless hours and millions of dollars that could be spent on addressing the real- instead of imagined problems facing the nation. Cases in point:

North Carolina:

http://www.hrc.org/blog/voices-of-north-carolina-the-transgender-community-speaks-out

This week, HRC is lifting up the voices of North Carolinians whose lives are affected by the dangerous and discriminatory bill (HB 2) that North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory signed into law last week.

The first of those stories is from Madeline Goss, an openly transgender woman from Raleigh and former HRC Board of Governors member. Last week, she testified about the harmful impact HB 2 would have on her life and the transgender community.

“I can't use the men's room. I won't go back to the men's room. It is unsafe for me there. People like me die in there," Goss said.

On March 23, Governor McCrory signed into law an outrageous and unprecedented anti-LGBT bill that eliminates existing municipal non-discrimination protections for LGBT people; prevents such provisions from being passed by cities in the future; and forces transgender students in public schools to use restrooms and other facilities inconsistent with their gender identity, putting 4.5 billion dollars in federal funding under Title IX at risk. Read more about how this bill puts federal funding at risk here.

And South Carolina:

http://www.hrc.org/blog/south-carolina-senate-committee-advances-anti-marriage-equality-bill

Last week, a handful of conservative state Senators in South Carolina voted to advance S.31, a bill calling on the US Congress to amend the United States Constitution to allow states to roll back marriage equality on a state by state basis, but ultimately the bill has little chance of passing this session.

S.31 was introduced last year by conservative Senator Larry Grooms, but the bill has been stuck in limbo in the Senate Judiciary Committee since last April. Finally, after months of skipping over the bill - a clear sign that committee members have no appetite for it - S.31 was amended and advanced with a vote of 17 to 3. HRC thanks the three Democrats on the committee, Senators Sabb, Bright-Matthews, and Hutto, for voting against this bill.

Seeking to undermine the historic marriage equality ruling last year by the Supreme Court of the United States ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, S.31 calls on Congress to host a constitutional convention to amend the Constitution of the United States to allow all states to determine their own definitions of marriage. If the Constitution were to be amended in this way, it would give states the ability to roll back marriage equality if they oppose it,, effectively stripping away years of progress and placing millions of same-sex marriages in jeopardy.

Where will it end? When can we get over it and move on to other things? To come together as a nation and, yes, make America Great by being a nation that is all inclusive and accepting of all people? When can we get past this religious and fear based bigotry and start treating our neighbors with the dignity that they deserve? When!!??

Not any time soon, unfortunately.

The fear, ignorance, and bigotry common to most on the social right will remain a powerful motivating factor to those hostile to gay Americans and transgender Americans.

What we witnessed in North Carolina and Georgia are just two of the more recent sad, troubling examples.

Where the hell do you get off saying this is bigotry? Glass houses asshole, glass houses.

 

[Stephanie]

when will we the MAJORITY stop being browbeaten over such a SMALL minority of people in this country? it's gotten ridiculous when we have to vote on gawddam bathrooms and they are suing for someone not baking them a freaking cake. the majority better WAKE UP and speak up

 

[Stephanie]

trolls are out

Funny x 1
Carla_Danger