|
Tatum Girlparts posted:The letter means nothing. The ruling is what matters and as lovely as it is it has nothing to do with what the letter is talking about. They might as well write a letter saying to put all gays in death camps on the moon because Jesus said so for all the power it has. Any idiot can write a letter. For an easier to understand perspective perhaps: the letter has the same legal status as an internet petition.
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 08:44 |
|
|
Ugh quote:Opponents of Houston's new non-discrimination ordinance turned in well more than the minimum number of signatures needed to trigger a November vote on whether to repeal the measure. A group of conservative political and faith leaders on Thursday claimed to have gathered more than 50,000 signatures within the 30-day window after the ordinance's passage, about 30,000 of which they said have been validated as coming from registered city of Houston voters, as required by law. "It has been shown and demonstrated that the people of the city do not want this ordinance," said pastor Max Miller, of the Baptist Ministers Association of Houston and Vicinity. "We simply say: Allow the people to vote on this ordinance."
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
Yes, allowing the majority to vote on the rights of the minority is a grand idea that couldn't possibly go wrong!
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
Ninjasaurus posted:Yes, allowing the majority to vote on the rights of the minority is a grand idea that couldn't possibly go wrong! and what glorious alternative do you propose?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
Quickscope420dad posted:and what glorious alternative do you propose? gently caress, who knows. I'ts weeks like this where I need to stay out of DnD. All I do is just get mad over poo poo like this. THe worse part is I WANT to do something, anything. I just don't know where to start.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
Quickscope420dad posted:and what glorious alternative do you propose? I'm no societal architect but not putting that sort of ordinance up to a popular vote seems like a good place to start. If people think it violates their religious freedom not to be able to discriminate against gays, let them take it up with the courts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
Quickscope420dad posted:and what glorious alternative do you propose? Court decisions or maybe just legislation? Ballot initiatives are incredibly dumb to being with, and allowing bigots to try to outvote basic rights is a recipe for disaster. Seriously, should white people be allowed to vote blacks (or any other ethnic minority) out of having equality for the hell of it? I will note two things about such plans recently. One is the last statewide attempt (MD) was defeated by about 4.5%, which is good thought doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Second is that the only way it got on the ballot as easily as it did was internet signups making it easy for people to make sure their signature was valid, though it also allows for a lot of slacktivism. In this case, I'd be worried since TX is mostly a regressive hellpit, and actually doing hand signatures for this probably means there is a lot of support to strip rights from people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
Quickscope420dad posted:and what glorious alternative do you propose? Basic civil rights protections at the federal level ala ENDA (without the religious employer opt-out) would be nice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
I highly doubt it'll get repealed. I bet they're the same people who screeched about Annise Parker and before her Kathy Whitmire and didn't change the electoral outcome. Houston is a massive city, turning in 50,000 signatures can't be that hard. For perspective, proponents of an increased minimum wage in Nebraska, a state with a lower population than Houston, got over 130,000 signatures. Ghost of Reagan Past fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Jul 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:I highly doubt it'll get repealed. I bet they're the same people who screeched about Annise Parker and before her Kathy Whitmire and didn't change the electoral outcome. Again, MD which is normally seen as pretty drat blue only passed SSM (a "safer" right to the voting public) by a bit under 5%. Houston is something else altogether, though I'm not sure how much being the primary example of suburban sprawl changes this by putting white conservatives out of the voting area. Also, don't number of signatures usually have to do with how many are required versus popularity? Traditional drives cost a lot of money, so there's no point in running up the score past what you think you need to get it on the ballot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
Would this be a place to talk about the political divide amongst the gay community with regards to PrEP (Truvada)? I'm currently seeing if I can help advertise the drug at my local gay pride with the help of the HIV Alliance, but I'm fully expecting some random backlash from it since a lot of AIDS advocates hate the drug.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
Ubiquitous_ posted:Would this be a place to talk about the political divide amongst the gay community with regards to PrEP (Truvada)? I'm currently seeing if I can help advertise the drug at my local gay pride with the help of the HIV Alliance, but I'm fully expecting some random backlash from it since a lot of AIDS advocates hate the drug. uh whats the general problem? is it cost prohibitive? or is this a weird its gonna encourage more reckless sex line of thought
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:uh whats the general problem? is it cost prohibitive? or is this a weird its gonna encourage more reckless sex line of thought I think it's covered by some health insurance plans and Medicare since it got FDA approval, so I imagine any resistance is the result of fears of decreased condom use and a potential increase in STDs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 08:00
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:uh whats the general problem? is it cost prohibitive? or is this a weird its gonna encourage more reckless sex line of thought A little of both. But a lot of it comes from AIDS activists who don't realize how useful it can actually be -- 99% effective, with few (or none at all) side effects. The famous study of the drug actually shows that people are using it to complement condom use (since condoms are only 70% effective w/r/t anal sex), even though some are using it as a replacement for condoms. In this case, it's a "well a small portion are using it as an excuse to bareback so clearly this isn't working" argument. If the drug was advertised more and more available, we would be seeing much less than 50,000 new cases per year of HIV, I think. The biggest hurdle is that high-risk populations (African American and Latino) typically won't have access to it or will never hear it exists. Syphilis is definitely on a sharp rise along with gonorrhea in the gay population thanks to a huge rise in barebacking, but I don't think Truvada is to blame or even really all that attributed to it. There's only something like 2,000 people actually on the drug or some other supremely low number. Ubiquitous_ fucked around with this message at 08:34 on Jul 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 08:26
|
|
|
For the first year Apple marched at SF Pride Parade https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdjAX5A-6qE
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:For the first year Apple marched at SF Pride Parade One one hand, pride parades are being more corporatised and used as free adverting, which means they're less unique. On the other hand, every corporation who decides to join in has decided that the free publicity and potential new customers are worth more than what they'll lose to homophobes. So every additional corporation means more and more acceptance, and less money thrown against gay rights. Works for me.  Ghost of Reagan Past posted:I highly doubt it'll get repealed. I bet they're the same people who screeched about Annise Parker and before her Kathy Whitmire and didn't change the electoral outcome.  Also agreed, Houston's NDO isn't going anywhere. Annise Parker can literally put a face on the ordinance and make it personal, which is what really helps bring people around to support (or at least no longer oppose) gay rights.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
ACLU, GLAD, Lambda, NCLR, TLC issue joint statement withdrawing support for current version of ENDA. PDFquote:The provision in the current version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that allows religious organizations to discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender identity has long been a source of significant concern to us. Given the types of workplace discrimination we see increasingly against LGBT people, together with the calls for greater permission to discriminate on religious grounds that followed immediately upon the Supreme Court’s decision last week in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, it has become clear that the inclusion of this provision is no longer tenable. It would prevent ENDA from providing protections that LGBT people desperately need and would make very bad law with potential further negative effects. Therefore, we are announcing our withdrawal of support for the current version of ENDA.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:ACLU, GLAD, Lambda, NCLR, TLC issue joint statement withdrawing support for current version of ENDA. PDF This is what I saw as the key take-away from that statement: quote:the provision essentially says that anti-LGBT discrimination is different – more acceptable and legitimate – than discrimination against individuals based on their race or sex. Notably HRC continues to support it, which seems par for the course.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
And again I feel I have to say the supreme court's ruling has gently caress all to do with gay poo poo and was super narrow for this one case. I mean poo poo, yea I dislike the religious employer thing too but I'm kinda more pissed off that the solution is to entirely withdraw support so now I'll probably still be able to be fired for being gay in my state for another decade or so. Why can't they lay the groundwork and then fight about the details, because right now the 'groundwork' means at the very least protecting most of us.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:I mean poo poo, yea I dislike the religious employer thing too but I'm kinda more pissed off that the solution is to entirely withdraw support so now I'll probably still be able to be fired for being gay in my state for another decade or so. Why can't they lay the groundwork and then fight about the details, because right now the 'groundwork' means at the very least protecting most of us. Eh, it's a tough call, absolutely, but my issue is that the "groundwork" the current form of ENDA lays is that discrimination against LGBT people is acceptable for religious businesses in a way that doesn't apply on the basis of race or gender. Plus I think there's merit to the idea that since it's not getting passed in this congress regardless, it's better to hold on and keep fighting for an ENDA that doesn't enshrine the idea that it's more acceptable to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity than it is on the basis of race or sex. Does your state have any movement for state-level legislation?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
It's Texas. It's not literally nothing but no Austin will never pass it until at least a couple elections from now MAYBE and even then there's no way anyone higher approves of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:And again I feel I have to say the supreme court's ruling has gently caress all to do with gay poo poo and was super narrow for this one case. I'm worried about the precedent it creates. How many more companies will 'find religion' and have very specific things they do or don't want to pay for? Does it have to be a common religion? Or can it just be the
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:I'm worried about the precedent it creates. How many more companies will 'find religion' and have very specific things they do or don't want to pay for? Does it have to be a common religion? Or can it just be the They can but then they'll have to take their own case before the Supreme Court and would probably lose. This particular ruling specifically made a point of saying "this doesn't give companies the right to discriminate against their employees based on their religious beliefs, nor does it give them a right to refuse to pay for other medical procedures such as blood transfusions". It was literally about this specific kind of birth control. That's it. All of this hub-bub about companies following suit and denying whoever whatever based on this case is just people on both sides blowing hot air. It won't go anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
Captain Mog posted:They can but then they'll have to take their own case before the Supreme Court and would probably lose. This particular ruling specifically made a point of saying "this doesn't give companies the right to discriminate against their employees based on their religious beliefs, nor does it give them a right to refuse to pay for other medical procedures such as blood transfusions". It was literally about this specific kind of birth control. That's it. SCOTUS has already expanded the ruling to allow companies to refuse up to 20 different kinds of birth control now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 06:49
|
|
|
It wasn't expanded, the scope of the ruling was clearly stated in the original decision.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 08:19
|
|
|
Saying something like "the Catholic Church has to hire gay priests" is obviously never going to pass or be allowed by the courts. Until last week, it was a stupid right-wing strawman along the lines of "they'll force everyone to get gay-married!!!" This was always the case and has nothing to do with Hobby Lobby. Anyone who is holding out for a version of ENDA that applies to religious organizations is living on Mars, and civil liberties organizations abandoning support for it to make some bizarre third-order point about birth control based on a willful misinterpretation of the decision by conservatives are throwing gays under the bus for an unrelated agenda.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 10:51
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Saying something like "the Catholic Church has to hire gay priests" is obviously never going to pass or be allowed by the courts. Until last week, it was a stupid right-wing strawman along the lines of "they'll force everyone to get gay-married!!!" This was always the case and has nothing to do with Hobby Lobby. Anyone who is holding out for a version of ENDA that applies to religious organizations is living on Mars, and civil liberties organizations abandoning support for it to make some bizarre third-order point about birth control based on a willful misinterpretation of the decision by conservatives are throwing gays under the bus for an unrelated agenda. They're not; they're making the point that it'd still permit Hobby Lobby to discriminate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 11:56
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:They're not; they're making the point that it'd still permit Hobby Lobby to discriminate. Exactly. Since the federal ENDA law has a religious exemption to it, it follows that similar arguments would be used to get around this law. Sorry, we as a nation need to beat back this idea immediately, or we'll start seeing more and more sections of the law that "religious corporations" will have a way to avoid. Putting an ENDA with this big a hole in it will be useless for the people who'd actually need it-- i.e. those who work for bigots who hide behind just-so religious stories. At some point, we need to start dragging people into at least the 20th century, regardless of the amount of kicking and screaming involved. I have zero issue with forcing every organization to to not discriminate against minorities, regardless of "religious objections". We have to make a decision as to which right is more paramount in society (religion or basic rights for minorities) and I'm more than willing to choose real people over nebulous ideas. Also note it's not just civil liberties organizations that have pulled support. It's every major LGBT organization except for the HRC, which is pretty telling to me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
Maybe we could get the Supreme Court to declare something along the lines of "This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice." That ought to clear it up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
So I found the letter that was sent to the White House by faith leaders, organizations and collegesquote:Dear Mr. President,
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:So I found the letter that was sent to the White House by faith leaders, organizations and colleges That's a lot of words for "Please don't make us hire gays".
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Maybe we could get the Supreme Court to declare something along the lines of "This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice." That ought to clear it up. a tactic that the conservatives on the Supreme Court have used is to write a seemingly narrow opinion and then cite it later as the basis for a broader holding supposedly grounded in precedent
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Maybe we could get the Supreme Court to declare something along the lines of "This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice." That ought to clear it up. A religious exemption is actually important here though. Like O Espero before it, Hobby Lobby based its strict scrutiny analysis off of the existing exemptions. "If it's so important to ban drugs/make the company pay for birth control/not discriminate regardless of religion why is there exceptions?" The only exception ENDA should have is a 1A savings clause, which would take care of priests and such.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:a tactic that the conservatives on the Supreme Court have used is to write a seemingly narrow opinion and then cite it later as the basis for a broader holding supposedly grounded in precedent After specifically going out of their way to write "this definitely does not apply to the exact thing you are worried about" in the majority opinion? Can you point to an example of this happening?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:After specifically going out of their way to write "this definitely does not apply to the exact thing you are worried about" in the majority opinion? Can you point to an example of this happening? It's not in the majority opinion, it's in the syllabus. Every opinion has this statement added to it: quote:NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. None of the Justices actually wrote what you're relying upon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Maybe I'm wrong, but I am pretty sure Hobby Lobby couldn't object to ENDA in the same way because unlike the health insurance thing, there is no "less restrictive" method for the government to ensure that LGBT people can't be fired. In Hobby Lobby, the Court assumed that the government had a compelling interest in ensuring access to contraception. They lost because the "giving employees of non-profits with religious objections contraception through some other means" exemption already existed and was written into the regulations, and so the Religious Freedom act required that this least restrictive method be used WRT closely held corps as well. This is not the same as ENDA and the logic cannot be extended even by conservative justices with a bone to pick. It's also moot because the House leadership has said they won't bring ENDA up for a vote, and the dems aren't going to attach it to anything in the runup to the midterms.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
Sub Par posted:Maybe I'm wrong, but I am pretty sure Hobby Lobby couldn't object to ENDA in the same way because unlike the health insurance thing, there is no "less restrictive" method for the government to ensure that LGBT people can't be fired. In Hobby Lobby, the Court assumed that the government had a compelling interest in ensuring access to contraception. They lost because the "giving employees of non-profits with religious objections contraception through some other means" exemption already existed and was written into the regulations, and so the Religious Freedom act required that this least restrictive method be used WRT closely held corps as well. Thanks dude who actually read the case. The HL ruling happened because in the stupid rear end minds of court there would sometime maybe be an easier way to get birth control like through the government. There's no middle ground between 'hire qualified people who apply' and 'WHAT I DON'T WANT NO human being'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
Ninjasaurus posted:That's a lot of words for "Please don't make us hire gays". Well, why should they have to? What sort of gay person would want to work at Biblethump Inc. anyway? I'm not talking about a cereal-making company that happens to be owned by Christians, but I am talking about, say, a small-town Evangelical Christian shop that sells Bibles and poo poo. To me this is almost proving their 00's-era concerns right, that the gays would eventually "infiltrate" their churches and private religious groups. No LGBT individual would really want to work or get married at such a place but this is something a LOT of them honestly believe- and I mean really 100% truly believe, no matter how much you tell them it's not going to happen. They believe it in the same way some people believe Obama's coming to take all their guns away and that they'll be forced to pay people's drug habits through welfare. Captain Mog fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Jul 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Captain Mog posted:Well, why should they have to? What sort of gay person would want to work at Biblethump Inc. anyway? I'm not talking about a cereal-making company that happens to be owned by Christians, but I am talking about, say, a small-town Evangelical Christian shop that sells Bibles and poo poo. To me this is almost proving their 00's-era concerns right, that the gays would eventually "infiltrate" their churches and private religious groups. Like any LGBT individual would really want to work or get married at such a place anyway so it's a moot point. Maybe they need a job for a paycheck, and any job will have to do? I'd hate to do it, but if it was that or starving, I'd be working at American Taliban Inc. Plus, these are businesses, and just from a position of principle they need to be brought low by the state and forced to comply with basic rights. Otherwise, we'll run into the same problem the next time we extend basic rights-- people will quickly find self-serving religious reasons to not comply with the law.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 08:44 |
|
|
Captain Mog posted:Well, why should they have to? What sort of gay person would want to work at Biblethump Inc. anyway? I'm not talking about a cereal-making company that happens to be owned by Christians, but I am talking about, say, a small-town Evangelical Christian shop that sells Bibles and poo poo. To me this is almost proving their 00's-era concerns right, that the gays would eventually "infiltrate" their churches and private religious groups. No LGBT individual would really want to work or get married at such a place but this is something a LOT of them honestly believe- and I mean really 100% truly believe, no matter how much you tell them it's not going to happen. They believe it in the same way some people believe Obama's coming to take all their guns away and that they'll be forced to pay people's drug habits through welfare. Man where do you live that all people have the choice to just not work at a place if that place has lovely corporate practices? It doesn't really work that way in North America, you get a job or you drat well starve in the streets.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 21:11
|
|