@zoosermom Thanks for your kind words regarding my son’s experience.
My concern here with these laws is for LGBT students. LGBT Students are like 12times more likely to be bullied and 4 times more likely to commit suicide… the statistics are even higher for transgender students.LGBT students are already marginalized in schools due to perceptions of “hetero-normativity”. Laws like this further heteronormativity perceptions and further marginalize LGBT students.
We carefully chose a college that was LGBT accepting, this school coincidentally has a satellite campus in North Carolina. They released a statement condemning the discriminatory bill.
It’s pretty rough, that even with diligent homework on college choice laws change that can create a hostile environment.
HB2 is already being partially repealed. Stop the fear mongering.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/north-carolina-gov-pat-mccory-vows-to-revise-transgender-law-1460491573
@NerdyChica, while it appears at first read he has done that - a second and more thorough read reveals it his executive order does very little and it is not going to fool anybody.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/pat-mccrory-north-carolina-hb2/477936/
Also, no one is fearmongering. We are discussing the real life implications this bill will have on the LBGTQ community in North Carolina.
The law is not being repealed. The governor issued an ineffective executive order. http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2016/04/12/north_carolina_governor_gov_pat_mccrory_issues_executive_order_on_hb_2.html I am not aware of any state in which a governor can “repeal” a law passed by the legislature that s/he signed.
@NerdyChica, are you saying that the original law deserved to be repealed? That the original law would strike fear into some reasonable people?
A bit off topic, but I would love to be there the first time that some ********* [no specific word intended] tries to stop a Lejeune marine from going into a certain restroom. Ooh-rah!
I’d like to point out a couple of things about the Mississippi law. I’m just going to share these facts, which I think everyone needs to be aware of.
I would assume that most people change their names after they make the transition from one gender to another. If one truly is transgender there should be no problem in having one’s birth certificate amended at the same time to reflect that fact, in accordance with Mississippi Code §41-57-1, thus allowing one to use the restroom associated with one’s newly adopted gender. This is not an undue burden.
@EarlVanDorn There are so many holes in your argument …I can’t even… The law is unconstitutional, a similar law in Colorado was already decided by SCOTUS in Romer vs Evens (albeit it didn’t include trans… recently gender identity has been ruled covered by Title VII under sex discrimination and also protected under Title IX)
While, in the past MS didn’t include sexual orientation and gender identity in state non discrimination laws (effectively to an extent discrimination was already legal) they now outlawed cities or anyone writing their own non discrimination ordinances that include sexual orientation an gender identity and they prohibit anyone in the state from ever protecting an entire class of people (LGBT) from ever having equal civil rights … for the sake of anyones religious view (and they defined anyone very broadly… it can even be a facility) The stated reason for this is PURE animus. (pure animus targeting a group of people is illegal as Justice Kennedy so eloquently discussed in Romer…
The Mississippi law, like the Colorado amendment in Romer, explicitly singles out LGBT people “for disfavored legal status.” The law begins with a declaration that “the sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions protected by this act are the belief or conviction that . . . marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman” and that “male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth” (additionally, the law also purports to give special rights to people who object to extramarital sex of all kinds). Though dressed up somewhat in the rhetoric of religious liberty, this declaration is about as explicit a statement as Mississippi could have mustered expressing animus towards LGBT individuals. It specifically identifies same-sex couples and trans people as the “solitary class” disabled by the law.
The bulk of the rest of the law is a laundry list of the specific disabilities LGBT people will face if HB 1523 remains in effect. Though Mississippi isn’t exactly a haven for LGBT rights to begin with, the new law prevents the state or its subdivisions from extending a wide range of protections on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
Thus, employers gain a special right to force trans-women to wear traditionally male clothing, or vice-versa. Photographers, wedding planners, cake bakers, venues and other, similar services gain a special right to deny services to same-sex couples. Foster parents gain a special right to raise children to support marriage discrimination and to be anti-trans. Employers deemed “religious organizations” gain the special right to fire any employee — from the chief executive to the janitor — for supporting marriage equality or for being trans.
Some of these acts, of course, may remain illegal under federal law, but the law extends as much of an umbrella as Mississippi can extend over a wide range of discrimination.
These “laws” are just costing the states that enact them a TON of money to defend them and a TON of money from business blowback in their states. They aren’t needed.
Awesome. Why are some people so obsessed with other peoples’ private sexual business?
Reminds me of the question that anti-marriage-equality lawyers were asked in courtrooms all over the country, prior to Obergefell – Can you give me an example of anyone who’s been hurt by someone else’s gay marriage? The answer, obviously, was always no. Same thing here. SCOTUS will eventually prohibit discrimination in all areas, not just marriage, because despite the ill-informed hysteria, no one is being hurt by LGBT.
I could quote and comment on many other things in your post, @runswimyoga . Excellent.
@runswimyoga You say that people can now be fired for doing X, but they could be fired before the law was passed. An employer could decide to fire any of his employees who posted on College Confidential. He can decide to fire anyone who is overweight, or if he wishes he can fire anyone who is not overweight.
The federal government has been stretching Title IX to cover things that were never intended to be covered. Some litigation is this area would do the entire nation a favor.
You seem all upset that the law allows for discrimination against those who participate extramarital affairs. I know someone who was fired for having a heterosexual, extramarital affair. They had no legal recourse. Engaging in an extramarital affair is tortuous conduct in Mississippi; the does not look kindly on adultery. A high school classmate and college roommate got almost a million dollars in an alienation suit. Another roommate lost well over a million when he failed to keep his pants zipped. Such is life.
The Mississippi law codifies discrimination based on religious faith and codifies that marriage is “between a man and women,” that sex is "properly reserved for to such a marriage, and that gender is “objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth.” One cannot change their genetics with hormones or surgery. Amending their birth certificates does not change their genetic make-up nor can it change their anatomy at birth.
Like the other states which have gone down this path - Mississippi will feel the ecomonic consequences of their action - and Mississippi is the state least able of the 50 states to afford that. Not to mention the amount of money Mississippi can ill afford to spend defending this bill in court.
So premarital heterosexual sex is now against the law in Mississippi? Am I reading that right?
@emilybee The Mississippi bill that was enacted absolutely does not codify marriage as being “between a man and a woman.” In fact, it makes clear that same-sex marriages are recognized by the government. From the law: “In a pluralistic society, in which people of good faith hold more than one view of marriage, it is possible for the government to recognize same-sex marriage without forcing persons with sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions to conform.” The law says that it recognizes and protects those who believe marriage is only between a man and a woman.
I agree with you that the wording stating that people have the right to believe that gender is determined by genetics at birth is problematic. In my opinion if there were a legal case the amended birth certificate would carry the day. I think it’s important to note that any portion of this bill that is not lawful under the U.S. Constitution is not law, so there’s really nothing to get excited about.
Mississippi initiated the lawsuit that resulted in a $250 billion national settlement with the tobacco companies, so as a state we aren’t too poor to go to court. Our state has attorneys already on the payroll who can represent the state if needed.
No, those “three beliefs or moral convictions” are protected under the act and thus can be used to discriminate against persons.
See Section 3 of the law.
@EarlVanDorn, when typing I changed my wording of that sentence and inadvertently deleted “three beliefs/moral convictions” after codifies.
Tell that to the people who are being discriminated against today and tomorrow, and all the years until SCOTUS gets around to fixing Mississippi’s hatefulness.
“Mississippi initiated the lawsuit that resulted in a $250 billion national settlement with the tobacco companies, so as a state we aren’t too poor to go to court. Our state has attorneys already on the payroll who can represent the state if needed.”
“Under federal law, plaintiffs who sue the government to vindicate their civil rights and win in court are entitled to attorneys’ fee.”
These cases cost every state - doesn’t matter how many lawyers on the state’s payroll.
Mississippi is the poorest state in the US and has been for as long as I can remember and I’m almost 60.
Mississippi, when sued in court over this bill, will lose their case, too.
When a southern state legislature passed a resolution to condemn H.L. Mencken and “return him to his native country,” the policy impact may have been null (the legislature forgot Baltimore was in the US), but that didn’t make the resolution any more defensible. The argument that anti-LGBT laws are acceptable because a state’s laws are already anti-LGBT is recursive, though I’m happy to hear some other justification.
Supporters of these types of laws can try to justify them all they want, but they are not fooling anyone but themselves.