[The Final Dakar]

Since gay marriage was legalized I wanted to retire that thread as that its overarching focus. Further, in its wake we've seen new issues and framing pop up which can reframe the issue. I also feel like women have gotten shorted and I've avoided Trans issues because my knowledge and opinions on the subject are lacking.

The past few weeks have been newsworthy, so here we go:
Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal to veto 'religious liberty' bill - CNN.com

Under increasing pressure from major corporations that do business in Georgia, Gov. Nathan Deal announced Monday he will veto a bill that critics say would have curtailed the rights of Georgia's LGBT community.

House Bill 757 would have given faith-based organizations in Georgia the option to deny services and jobs to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. Supporters said the measure was meant to protect religious freedom, while opponents have described it as "anti-LGBT" and "appalling."
Speaking to reporters Monday morning, Deal, a Republican, said he didn't think the bill was necessary.
"I do not think we have to discriminate against anyone to protect the faith-based community in Georgia, of which I and my family have been a part of for all of our lives," he said.

Who knows why he vetoed. I suspect he prioritized commercial interests over respect for equal rights, but thats conjecture.

More meat and potatoes. This didn't get any attention in my State's Rights thread:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/24/us...nder.html?_r=0

North Carolina legislators, in a whirlwind special session on Wednesday, passed a wide-ranging bill barring transgender people from bathrooms and locker rooms that do not match the gender on their birth certificates.

Republicans unanimously supported the bill, while in the Senate, Democrats walked out in protest. “This is a direct affront to equality, civil rights and local autonomy,” the Senate Democratic leader, Dan Blue, said in a statement.

North Carolina’s governor, Pat McCrory, a Republican, signed the bill late Wednesday night.

The session, which was abruptly convened by Republican lawmakers on Tuesday, came in response to an antidiscrimination ordinance approved by the state’s largest city, Charlotte, last month. That ordinance provided protections based on sexual orientation, gender expression and gender identity, including letting transgender people use the public bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity, not gender at birth.

The state bill, put together so quickly that many lawmakers had not seen it before it was introduced Wednesday morning, specifically bars people in North Carolina from using bathrooms that do not match their birth gender, and goes further to prohibit municipalities from creating their own antidiscrimination policies. Instead, it creates a statewide antidiscrimination policy — one that does not mention gay and transgender people. The bill also prohibits local governments from raising minimum wage levels above the state level — something a number of cities in other states have done.

...and finally, MS 'religious freedom' bill which cements it as the dumbest state in that nation for a while longer.
Mississippi OKs religious freedom bill decried as anti-LGBT - CNN.com

Under the law, religious organizations will be able to deny LGBT people marriage, adoption and foster care services; fire or refuse to employ them; and decline to rent or sell them property. Medical professionals will be permitted to refuse to participate in treatments, counseling and surgery related to "sex reassignment or gender identity transitioning."

The sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions protected by this act are the belief or conviction that:
(a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman;
(b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and
(c) Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth.

[OreoCookie]

To declare these laws as a measure to ensure “bathroom safety” is cynical to say the least. And how would you even enforce it? What is much more troubling is the possibility for medical professionals to refuse treatment, here the law no longer becomes symbolic (as I highly doubt people will get carded at bathrooms …).

[subego]

In theory, if it's written well, the refusing treatment thing is fine with me.

The law doesn't seem to say "you can refuse to treat TG people". It appears to be saying "you can refuse to be the person to assist in the transition".

I don't have a problem with that (again, at least in theory). If you don't want to do that you shouldn't be obligated to.

[OAW]

I thought this one pretty much summed up the Pandora's box these silly politician's have just opened.

On Wednesday, North Carolina passed one of the harshest anti-LGBTQ state laws in the country. It overturns and bans cities' and counties' anti-discrimination laws for LGBTQ people. And it forces transgender people in schools and government buildings to use the bathroom that matches the gender on their birth certificate, not solely their gender identity.

On Twitter, J.P. Sheffield, a trans man, demonstrated the absurdity of the bathroom law in one tweet:

One tweet that shows a huge problem with North Carolina's anti-transgender bathroom law - Vox

OAW

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

The law doesn't seem to say "you can refuse to treat TG people". It appears to be saying "you can refuse to be the person to assist in the transition".

I admit I haven't read the text, but even that either strikes me as completely unnecessary and symbolic (in case you don't have to assist anyone, transgender or otherwise, by law) or extremely dangerous (because you could refuse help when you are required by law to do so).

You see, all of this legislation is for the most part symbolic and political grandstanding: some state legislators are unhappy with the Supreme Court decision to not just allow gay marriage but (from their perspective) force it upon them. Bills which are manufactured for this purpose are often very shoddy. For instance, thanks to Stand Your Ground laws gang members could not be charged with murder even though someone was killed during a shootout of two rivaling gangs — I reckon that most proponents of stand your ground legislation would admit that this is an unintended consequence.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

you don't have to assist anyone, transgender or otherwise, by law

If this were the case, discrimination lawsuits wouldn't happen.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

If this were the case, discrimination lawsuits wouldn't happen.

I was specifically referring to the provision which covers medical aid. Are there a lot of lawsuits brought forth by members of the LGBTQ community because they were being discriminated against?

[subego]

I wouldn't say there are a lot, but the number is non-zero.

There are at least three I can think of which made headlines in the last few years. All gay marriage related refusals.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Gay marriage refusals... but only 1 couple actually ended up getting married. Shows the priorities, I guess.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

I wouldn't say there are a lot, but the number is non-zero.

There are at least three I can think of which made headlines in the last few years. All gay marriage related refusals.

???
I thought we were specifically talking about the provisions on medical treatment.

[subego]

The question didn't specify, so I gave the general answer.

As to the specific question. The number of sexual orientation discrimination lawsuits brought against health-care providers by their LGBTQ patients is non-zero.

In numerous states, discriminating against a patient because of their sexual orientation is illegal.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

As to the specific question. The number of sexual orientation discrimination lawsuits brought against health-care providers by their LGBTQ patients is non-zero.

So what are they alleging? (I'm curious.)

Originally Posted by subego 

In numerous states, discriminating against a patient because of their sexual orientation is illegal.

Sure, and there are lots of federal regulations that forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation, too.

Personally, I think one principle that helps is the question on government involvement. So for instance, if you are a clinic, and you want to be able to receive money from Medicaid or Medicare, for example, you need to agree to certain standards (e. g. non-discrimination when it comes to staff and patients). Or if you are a government employee working in city hall, I don't think you should be able to refuse to marry a gay couple — and if you do, you'll lose your job. These proverbial bakery cases are a bit of a red herring for both sides of the argument, proponents will see it as “a big injustice that will leave permanent scars on the soul of the shop keeper” while opponents will claim “they have to serve customers no matter what”.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

So what are they alleging? (I'm curious.)

The first I found (I only needed one ) was an old enough case (17 years) people still felt safe directly stating "I don't want to be your doctor because of your sexuality".

https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-annou...inated-against

Getting examples is a little difficult because the intersection of discrimination and health care is overwhelmingly in the employment realm, and Google strongly reflects it.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

For critical services, I can definitely see making care for all people mandatory. You don't like skinheads but you work in an ER? Too bad. For non-critical, however, the business owner should always have the right to refuse service. If they don't want your $ there's lots of others who will.

[subego]

That's what I'm thinking. At least in theory. There are lots of factors which cut down on options. Income, location, and age are three which come to mind.

It also opens up the potential for what's considered critical to become a political football.

Still... philosophically, I'm totally on board.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

If not having this service or product places the person's life or health in immediate danger, then that person must be served (pharmacy, doctor, EMT). Otherwise it should be up to the business owner. My garage has refused white supremacists on a few occasions (there's an "enclave" of Aryan bikers in the area, I hesitate calling them a gang because that seems too organized); one of the skinheads threatened to sue, so I gave him my (orthodox) Jewish lawyer's card and wished him luck with that.

[subego]

I'm not worried about who you'll refuse business to.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

The first I found (I only needed one ) was an old enough case (17 years) people still felt safe directly stating "I don't want to be your doctor because of your sexuality".

While I'm sure if you (or I) spent a lot more time looking, but it re-inforces my impression that this isn't a huge problems that many Christians are facing. Definitely not enough to mandate such high profile legislation.

Originally Posted by subego 

Getting examples is a little difficult because the intersection of discrimination and health care is overwhelmingly in the employment realm, and Google strongly reflects it.

Agreed. A lot of discrimination happens just by not inviting people for interviews. (My sister used to work for a head hunter, and certain clients were quite open about such unkosher preferences — if they submitted someone anyway, the competitor got the commission.) This is extremely hard (read: practically impossible) to prove, though.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

That's what I'm thinking. At least in theory. There are lots of factors which cut down on options. Income, location, and age are three which come to mind.

What do you think of cases where necessarily the government is involved, let's say you get access to federal money, in your opinion, do you think it's proper for the federal government to attach strings such as non-discrimination? What about state government-run facilities such as schools, should it be possible there to exclude gays and lesbians from becoming teachers?

[subego]

I feel like there's a nuance to your question I'm missing.

In general, I think the government should be able to enter contracts, and in general, contracts are comprised of terms.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

I have huge issues with the contract viability of the feds, since they have so many outs WRT general welfare and clauses surrounding the "public good".

[The Final Dakar]

Oversimplification, I admit, but it occurs that the party of small government now wants to police how you pee.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

That's what I'm thinking. At least in theory. There are lots of factors which cut down on options. Income, location, and age are three which come to mind.

It also opens up the potential for what's considered critical to become a political football.

Still... philosophically, I'm totally on board.

I don't want to relitigate current law, but my one take away from this post is that you want to replace a simple, straight forward system that as far as I can tell causes no harm, and replace it with a complex system of allowances and exceptions based on criteria that would fluctuate constantly and require close study to properly determine.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

I personally wouldn't want my young girl to see a trans-woman's weiner in a public restroom, it was bad enough that I've already had to explain Caitlyn Jenner and how Kim Kardashian got famous. There are some things that can wait until she's a teen and has (mostly) unfettered internet access. IMO, in some settings a 3rd restroom isn't a terrible option.

[andi*pandi]

A third bathroom might be difficult for small places, but then they usually only have one bathroom that's uni anyhow.

Uni bathrooms with stalls for everyone.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I don't want to relitigate current law, but my one take away from this post is that you want to replace a simple, straight forward system that as far as I can tell causes no harm, and replace it with a complex system of allowances and exceptions based on criteria that would fluctuate constantly and require close study to properly determine.

That's one of the reasons I took pains to describe the position as "philosophical".

Causes no harm? Forcing someone to participate in a procedure they have moral qualms about is harm.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I personally wouldn't want my young girl to see a trans-woman's weiner in a public restroom, it was bad enough that I've already had to explain Caitlyn Jenner and how Kim Kardashian got famous. There are some things that can wait until she's a teen and has (mostly) unfettered internet access. IMO, in some settings a 3rd restroom isn't a terrible option.

How would you see weiner in the, ahem... ladies' room?

At the urinal?

[subego]

You would have thought this wouldn't be an issue in a post-Ally McBeal society.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by subego 

How would you see weiner in the, ahem... ladies' room?

At the urinal?

People change clothes in public restrooms, it's a common thing, especially near pools.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

A third bathroom might be difficult for small places, but then they usually only have one bathroom that's uni anyhow.

Uni bathrooms with stalls for everyone.

I agree, but it seems like the best measure. We're talking 2-4% of society, if that, with the majority of those being attention-seekers and not actually gender-dysphoric.

[subego]

In a public bathroom, if one needs to change the clothes actually covering their genitals, the means to do so discreetly are going to be universally available.

I posit any given jurisdiction will have plenty of public indecency laws which could (and should) apply to someone who uses changing clothes as an excuse to whip it out.

[subego]

At the least, a more narrowly crafted law would take care of the problem.

"TG people can't expose their genitals to other people in public restrooms."

My gut tells me this isn't necessary though. I really think it's already illegal pretty much everywhere.

[andi*pandi]

In most ladies changing rooms/locker rooms/pool restrooms I've seen, the changing booths are few and crowded. I don't like changing in a toilet stall, too cramped, plus you're holding up the stall for someone who needs to go.

People either make do in the general locker area with wrapping a towel around and trying to change while still wrapped (a challenge) or just drop the invisible cone of privacy (I can't see you, you can't see me, lalala) turn to the wall and change quickly.

It's the assumption that people of the same sex will respect the invisible cone of privacy. Even if someone was a lesbian I'd expect them to respect that, and have never noticed otherwise.

Then there's this clever thing... https://www.theundress.com/ I can see using something like this in places where there may not be a room at all (outdoor events).

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I agree, but it seems like the best measure. We're talking 2-4% of society, if that, with the majority of those being attention-seekers and not actually gender-dysphoric.

The sad part is that you believe what you're saying. You know, I woke up this morning, and thought I'd play a transgender person, so I could get some attention! <sigh>

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

I feel like there's a nuance to your question I'm missing.

In general, I think the government should be able to enter contracts, and in general, contracts are comprised of terms.

There are certain aspects where government involvement is de facto mandatory, e. g. if you run a hospital, I think it's quite hard to do that without being part of the Medicare/Medicaid system. Hence, if certain stipulations are part and parcel of access to the Medicare/Medicaid system, you could see that as a “forcing” certain stipulations onto other institutions because you make the part of the contract, and without the contract they can't really be in the business they are in.

Conversely, does a company have a right to alter terms of a nation-wide contract because it doesn't like or agree with certain parts? Can a company opt out of certain basic services because “it” (you're are ascribing beliefs to an abstract entity) doesn't “believe” in/agree with them?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

The sad part is that you believe what you're saying. You know, I woke up this morning, and thought I'd play a transgender person, so I could get some attention! <sigh>

To protect your worldview you should avoid Tumblr at all costs, that's all I'll say.

[besson3c]

What I want to know is how somebody can justify the desired freedoms in the MS bill as being an actual Christian thing to do?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

To protect your worldview you should avoid Tumblr at all costs, that's all I'll say.

Why do you always think that your experiences or findings/observations account for some sort of majority or norm?

There are some people on Tumblr doing this, so therefore this must be pretty normal and worth worrying about. There are people lobbying for weird things, and now they are this massive movement you call neo-progressive that warrants its own thread and hand wringing.

There is always somebody out there doing or thinking something unimaginable, but this can't ever be controlled. Even if there was the political will to cater towards what I'll call "edge cases" (in the case of the neo-progressive political stuff, for example), as soon as you do something there there will be some other group that wants to ban eating baby carrots because they think eating them makes them gay.

There are so many *prevalent* cases of all sorts of misconduct in the world (police abuse, gender inequality, Native American issues, abuse of all forms, religious intolerance, etc. Just plug into the Southern Poverty Law Center https://www.splcenter.org). Some really upset you, such as radical Islam treatment of women, and I appreciate your concern there, but others here at home you seem eager to blow off, yet you get riled up with these weird edge cases like transgender people deciding they are going to wilfully show off their genitals in a change room, esp. around kids.

I just don't get it.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why do you always think that your experiences or findings/observations account for some sort of majority or norm?

FULL STOP. I don't.

[Chongo]

If regressives are so concerned about this and other issues, they need to lobby the states to call for a constitutional convention. They can then rescind the Bill off Rights and the other parts of the constitution they don't like and enshrine in their new "Bill of Rights" what they want. Then again what would leave the ACLU to do?

Court Dismisses ACLU Lawsuit Attempting to Force Catholic Hospital to Do Abortions

[subego]

There isn't legitimate tension between "no abortions, period" and "abortions allowed when the pregnancy poses significant risk to the mother and has a low likelihood of viability"?

Is the latter stance so radical it deserves a crack about rewriting the Constitution?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

There isn't legitimate tension between "no abortions, period" and "abortions allowed when the pregnancy poses significant risk to the mother and has a low likelihood of viability"?

Is the latter stance so radical it deserves a crack about rewriting the Constitution?

Its not a crack. It's more than just "bathrooms and "marriage"" If the left has a problem with the 1st and 2nd amendments(or other parts of the Constitution), call for a convention and rescind them. I added the link to the ACLU article because it seems like that is the ACLU's primary function these days, attacking the Catholic Church in employment and medical practices.
It's also about cases like this:
Here's what actually happens when you fight for conscience rights :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

Stormans and his family, who have been operating the small grocery store and pharmacy for the past four generations, had no idea they would be at the center of a firestorm in 2007, when the Washington Pharmacy Commission began to require pharmacies to dispense the abortion-inducing drugs Plan B and ella and make conscience-based referrals illegal.

Previously, Stormans would have been allowed to refer customers elsewhere if they requested Plan B or ella, both of which are widely available in Washington state, including at some 30 pharmacies within a five mile radius of Ralph’s Thriftway.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

That's one of the reasons I took pains to describe the position as "philosophical".

Well, sure but its a pretty useless philosophical given all the hoops involved. I'm philosophically pro-life, but since we don't have artificial wombs, it doesn't matter.

Originally Posted by subego 

Causes no harm? Forcing someone to participate in a procedure they have moral qualms about is harm.

Yes, it causes harm in theory but contextually gay people have been interacting with the business public openly since, let's say, the mid-90s? So why did it take this long to legislate protecting the religious from moral injury? I would posit because its exceedingly rare and this is more of a general '**** you' for the gay marriage ruling.

[subego]

Are we talking about the same thing?

The question here is whether a doctor should be allowed to refuse to assist someone in transitioning their gender. Where does gay come into it?

[The Final Dakar]

If that was the context of the post you were replying to, I completely missed it.

[subego]

Yeah... I misunderstood my own posts. Stand by.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Yeah... I misunderstood my own posts. Stand by.

It's ok, we share something in common.

[The Final Dakar]

LAWL
Porn Site Bans North Carolina Users Due To State's Anti-LGBT Laws

XHamster.com has been refusing to serve anyone from North Carolina since 12:30 p.m. EDT, Monday.

Instead, users with a North Carolina IP address are just seeing a black screen on their computer — no porn.

The extreme measures will stay in place until North Carolina repeals House Bill 2, a law passed on March 23 that effectively prevents cities and counties in the state from passing rules that protect LGBT rights.

XHamster.com spokesman, Mike Kulich, said the website believes in equality for everyone.

[subego]

By my reckoning, that's a little over 2 gay per minute.

[The Final Dakar]

NC gov doing some vapor ware executive orders for damage control today