Like I said, this needs to go to the supreme court, for a final say once and for all. There are so many northern transplants to NC, one would think they would be a bit more progressive.
I just saw this article about a pending bill in Kansas, I have no words.
“Kansas Bill Would Pay Students A $2,500 Bounty To Hunt For Trans People In Bathrooms”
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2016/03/22/3762490/kansas-transgender-ransom-bathrooms/
Another State I will have to avoid.
I think these issues are difficult to understand (or to discuss) if you assume that people don’t actually have the religious views that they say they do. In fact, there are religious traditions–with millions of adherents–that teach that homosexual sex is a sin. Unsurprisingly, people who are adherents of those religions don’t support gay marriage. (Note: some of them may not object to it being legal; that doesn’t mean that they support it morally.) Such people might object to other kinds of marriages as well–such as interfaith marriages, for example. If you invite them to such a wedding, they won’t come, because they would feel that they were condoning something they can’t support. Obviously, it is their right to choose not to attend, even if you disagree with their reasons.
The legal question here is to what extent performing services relating to such a wedding could constitute “condoning” it. I don’t find that to be an easy question to answer. At one end of the spectrum, it’s pretty easy. If you have a store that sells white shoes, you have to sell them to anybody who comes in, even if they plan to wear them to a same-sex wedding. At the other end of the spectrum, it would be a pretty obvious infringement on religious freedom to require a Catholic priest to perform a same-sex wedding. Where’s the line between these? I don’t find it obvious. I can imagine a court drawing it at the minister (or other religious participant in the wedding), or at the line of a person who must actually be present at the wedding. Or perhaps it might be some fuzzy line, such as whether the service could be viewed as expressing approval for the wedding by a reasonable person.
Note: the specific facts can matter a lot in what courts decide. I think the line might be drawn in one place if, say, a cake baker objects to baking a cake for an interracial couple, and in another if a vocalist doesn’t want to sing at a same-sex wedding.
How can Kansas even afford that - they have massive budget deficits.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a41976/sam-brownback-kansas-budget/
The bill will allow the person to sue the school/university. In addition to law being totally ridiculous, how in the heck is a school responsible for who enters a specific restroom?
The Colorado bakers were very specific on what cakes they wouldn’t make for people. Besides wedding cakes for a same sex couple, they wouldn’t make Harry Potter cakes(witches). He would give recommendations for other bakers who make those cakes.
^ yet he still lost in court.
Here is what is interesting… these new state laws may be the VERY UNDOING that in the end gets sexual orientation and gender identity protected federally once and for all under strict scrutiny/ Suspect class like race is. Right now sexual orientation is not protected federally … (it is protected in many states) :
You can discriminate on a “rational basis” concept of law (prob what @Pizzagirl is talking about) as long as it doesn’t involve a suspect class of people - (a group of people who have a history of discrimination against them)- for a “suspect class” of people, the government has to apply a “stricter scrutiny” to the laws bc the government has a compelling interest under the equal protection clause to make sure there is not a group of people who have less civil rights than others-
***Sexual orientation has so far been found to be a “quasi-suspect class”, not a full “suspect class” because it hasn’t been clear that as a group LGB has been powerless to protect themselves through the political process (one of the criteria )
Here are the criteria for suspect class /strict scrutiny:
Strict scrutiny is applied to government action that affect groups that fall under a “suspect classification.” The US Supreme Court has mentioned a variety of criteria that, in some combination, may qualify a group as a suspect classification
The group has historically been discriminated against, and/or have been subject to prejudice, hostility, and/or stigma, perhaps due, at least in part, to stereotypes.[1]
They possess an immutable[2] and/or highly visible trait.
They are powerless[2] to protect themselves via the political process. (The group is a “discrete” and “insular” minority.[3])
The group’s distinguishing characteristic does not inhibit it from contributing meaningfully to society.[4]
***These new laws are rendering LGBT powerless through laws … As these laws are showing pure animus for a group of people to have less rights similar to Romer vs Evens…
THESE LAWS ARE PROB GOING in the long run TO SPEED UP FULL FEDERAL PROTECTION
Another company holding off on expanding their operation already in NC. 250 new jobs lost.
Then there is the NBA cancelling 2017 all star game.
“Since Governor Pat McCrory signed HB2 into law last month, well over 1,000 jobs have been moved out of state, and over 100 companies, including Facebook, Apple, Paypal, Pyramid Country and StopPack, have expressed concern or anger, warning they may move or cancel plans to expand, costing the state millions of dollars. In addition to that, by not hosting the 2017 NBA All-Star game, the state stands to lose even more. It is uncertain the exact figure, but in 2014, the All-Star game in New Orleans generated $106.1 Million and in 2015, New York generated approximately $195 million in economic activity.”
http://abcnews.com.co/nba-cancels-all-star-game-in-north-carolina-lgbt-
The announcement about the NBA cancellation was proven to be a hoax. http://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/nba/charlotte-hornets/article71055542.html
Love this:
http://www.advocate.com/politics/2016/4/09/activists-■■■■■-nc-governor-transphobic-law-peeingforpat
Gosh. Sorry for posting bad info. Here is the correct information and only statement NBA has given:
“The NBA is dedicated to creating an inclusive environment for all who attend our games and events,” the league said in its only official statement on the matter. “We are deeply concerned that this discriminatory law runs counter to our guiding principles of equality and mutual respect, and do not yet know what impact it will have on our ability to successfully host the 2017 All-Star Game in Charlotte.”
Broken link, @craspedia .
Eb, even though it’s not official, the NBA’s shot across the bow is significant. Hopefully they’ll follow through.
I’m trying to understand the difference between what’s going on now, with these states firmly standing behind their discriminatory laws despite the corporate threats, and Indiana back a year or two ago. In that case, Gov. Pence backed off his so-called religious freedom law REAL fast, once Coke and Apple and the NCAA started chiming in. When push came to shove, he wasn’t willing to penalize his state. But these governors are, apparently. Why?
This post was far back in the thread, but I really feel strongly about this issue, and had to reply. Showing NC who’s boss would feel good for the rest of the country (myself included), but that would last about 5 minutes. Then we’d be punishing the 48% of the state (or even 51%, given the prevalence of gerrymandering) that thinks these laws are asinine along with the people who support them. We’d also make the problem worse, not better; I’d like to think the legislators who passed this law simply have the dreaded “Bigoted pond scum” gene, but the more likely explanation is that their own schools needed more K-12 funding - not less.
Two other points:
- I'm glad NC has passed a law prohibiting perverts and child molesters from entering opposite-sex bathrooms. I'm sure these people who were willing to break laws will behave now that entering the wrong bathroom is a crime.
- As one transgender activist pointed out, he now has to use the same restroom as Gov. McCrory's wife.
@LasMa GOOD Question!
Esp, when there are now 5 federal agencies reviewing these laws in these states for violation of Title IX TitleVII/a host of other HUD Federal violation stuff where they( realistically! ) stand to lose billions of Federal Dollars …and pretty much all expert Constitutional lawyers agree they are unconstitutional at least in some parts…
Re #213
Probably depends on whether the politicians think that social conservative voters or big business donations are more needed for their election campaigns.
My D is a Ph.D student in NC. No way she can just pick up and leave! UNC-CH has a large LGBTQ population. I think the best thing to do when stuff like happens is to stay and work for change. I cannot imagine these laws not being challenged, and hopefully overturned.
I think colleges and other entities should post the following sign on bathroom doors: “Per state law, this bathroom is designated for use only by persons who are listed as female on their birth certificates. However, for purposes of information, please note that the law does not include any punishment of any kind for individuals who ignore this designation and use the bathroom of their choice.”
That’s true, right?