LGBTQ news and entertainment
 |
| (image by Mimeographs) |
The Indiana State House has just passed the controversial “license to discriminate”/”religious liberty” legislation by a vote of 63 – 31.
The bill allows businesses and private parties to legally deny services to LGBT folks based on “deeply held religious beliefs.”
The bill now heads to Gov. Mike Pence’s desk. Pence has indicated he intends to sign the legislation.
Matt Baume (of the regularly scheduled Marriage News Watch videos) explains:
“Scheming villains thirst to rollback the progress our nation has made toward full LGBT equality. But, could they actually do it? Insidious laws like Arkansas’ innocent-sounding “Intrastate Commerce Improvement Act” (sb202) may provide the roadmap.”
With a healthy helping of humor, Baume serves up how the haters look to still discriminate.
The North Carolina state Senate just passed SB 2 by a vote of 31-16, which would allow state officials the right to refuse to officiate any marriage based on “sincerely held religious beliefs.”
This means a magistrate could refuse to officiate an interracial or same-sex marriage (or any other kind) if they state that their “sincerely held religious beliefs” conflicted with that marriage.
The legislation now heads to the House.
In the same breath that he extols his bona fides as an ally of the LGBT community, entrepreneur and “Shark Tank” co-host Mark Cuban says businesses (like florists) should be able to deny services to same-sex couples.
“Just say ‘no'” is his advice.
I received an email “alert” from the anti-gay American Family Association today extolling the woes of the Washington state florist (and grandmother!) who was found guilty of violating the state’s public accommodation laws.
Note how AFA puts their “spin” on things:
A state judge ruled this week that Washington floral artist and grandmother Barronelle Stutzman must provide full support for wedding ceremonies that are contrary to her faith.
The judge said the 70-year-old grandmother may lose not only her business, but also her home and savings because she lives her life and operates her business according to her beliefs.
Note again how they let you know she’s a grandmother – as if grandmother’s should get to break the law…
The state judge ruled Stutzman’s business could not discriminate against a specific group of people.
Stutzman isn’t in this predicament because she “operates her business according to her beliefs.” She VIOLATED a state law that protects citizens from discrimination. Period.
From the Huffington Post:
Benton County Superior Court Judge Alexander C. Ekstrom found that the florist violated consumer protections when she wouldn’t sell flowers for the same-sex wedding of a longtime customer because of her religious beliefs. The couple was protected by the Washington Law Against Discrimination, which prohibits bias based on sexual orientation, the court ruled.
Plus, the AFA exaggerates the fines Stutzman may be required to pay. According to the state attorney general’s office, she may be required to pay $2,000 per violation. Not exactly her entire “business, home and savings.”
The point of this post is to expose how these groups like to frame and exaggerate their arguments so they can pretend to be rational.
Matt Baume, of Marriage News Watch fame, brings us this fireside chat on the “wedding cake wars” happening in some states.
Baume answers questions like, why do some bakeries have to sell gay wedding cakes, but they don’t have to sell cakes with homophobic slurs? And what’s REALLY at stake here?
Baume is smart, funny and breaks it all down for you in this easy to “digest” little video.
The Arkansas legislature today approved a bill to legalize discrimination against LGBT folks in the state.
The Arkansas House of Representatives voted decisively, 57-20, for SB202, with 7 members voting present. Having already cleared the state senate Monday, the bill now heads to Gov. Asa Hutchinson, who is not expected to veto the legislation.
The bill’s sponsor, Republican state Sen. Bart Hester, told BuzzFeed News this week that he sponsored the measure to create consistent policies across Arkansas that will attract business, and because he was infuriated that cities were attempting to expand civil rights laws for LGBT people.
“This bill creates uniformity for business, and citizens for that matter, so that our employment laws will be the same throughout the state,” Republican Rep. Bob Ballinger, the bill’s house sponsor, said before today’s vote on the house floor. “There are some things on a statewide basis we deal with all the time, such as murder and fraud — a variety of things that need to be uniform,” he said.
But Rep. Clarke Tucker, a Democrat, blasted the bill as a “proactive act of discrimination.”
Tucker also challenged the premise that it was good for business, pointing out the vast majority of Fortune 500 companies protect LGBT employees and may avoid moving their businesses to Arkansas.
I’m assuming the passage of this law will basically overturn the recently passed LGBT protections in popular Eureka Springs this week 🙁
By now, we all know the story of the Oregon bakery, Sweet Cakes by Melissa, which in January 2013 refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple.
The bakery owner, Aaron Klein, refused to make the cake when he realized the cake would be eaten at a same-sex wedding.
The couple filed a discrimination complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries on the basis of sexual orientation. Under Oregon state law, you can’t refuse service to someone because they are gay.
A judge has now weighed in on the matter. And the bakery, not surprisingly, has been found guilty of – yes – discrimination.
The ruling via press release:
The Interim Order finds that the undisputed material facts support charges of unlawful discrimination under the Oregon Equality Act. An administrative hearing scheduled for March will focus on damages for the same-sex couple.
Under Oregon law, Oregonians may not be denied service based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The law provides an exemption for religious organizations and schools, but does not allow private businesses to discriminate based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot legally deny service based on race, sex, age, disability or religion. The bakery is not a religious institution under law.
The Kleins argued against a connection between the same-sex couple’s sexual orientation and respondents’ alleged discriminatory action. The BOLI Interim Order rejects the argument:
As the Agency argues in support of its cross-motion, “[t]here is simply no reason to distinguish between services for a wedding ceremony between two persons of the same sex and the sexual orientation of that couple. The conduct, a marriage ceremony, is inextricably linked to a person’s sexual orientation.”
Bolding is mine.
On March 10th, the court will rule on what damages the bakery may owe the couple.
It should be noted that the bakery’s website pointedly makes this notation:
We here at Sweet Cakes strongly believe that when a man and woman come together to be joined as one, it is truly one of the most special days of their lives, we feel truely honored when we are chosen to do the cake for your special day.
Yesterday was the first day at work for the new state Assembly in North Carolina, and already high level Republican members have filed legislation that would allow state officials from performing same-sex marriages.
Republican state Senator Phil Berger filed a bill that would allow magistrate’s the ability to “opt-out” of performing same-sex marriages (and assistant and deputy registers from issuing marriage licenses) based on “sincerely held religious objections.”
To avoid the appearance of discrimination, however, such recusal would last at least six month AND those individuals would have to opt-out of any marriages, straight or gay.
Via Citizen-Times:
What we’re talking about is trying to protect or at least recognize and provide an accommodation for people who have sincerely held beliefs that are protected by the First Amendment,” Berger said in an interview with The Associated Press. “So what we’re trying to is find a balance.”
Democratic lawmakers and the gay-rights group Equality North Carolina said at a news conference such a recusal measure is discrimination in disguise against gays and lesbians.
“In North Carolina, gay marriage is legal and the magistrates who have sworn to administer these laws must do so equally and for everyone,” said Sen. Jeff Jackson, D-Mecklenburg, a former assistant district attorney. He added that as an appointed prosecutor he couldn’t choose or refuse to prosecute anyone based on personal religious beliefs.
Opponents of the bill say the legislation’s ulterior motive is clear – to discriminate against a group of citizens. Plus, it opens the door for public officials to find other ways to avoid public duties.
A viral video last year seems to have earned one man a recording contract, and China it’s first sexual-orientation discrimination lawsuit.
From Shanghaist:
Last October, a video showing the Nanshan police dealing with a dispute between two gay males in the street went viral on the web (see below).
A speech made by one of the men wearing a “little red hat” in the video turned into an internet meme, and it further inspired multiple music videos and imitation videos online. The man and his “little red hat” gained so much attention, he was even able to sign with a talent company.
However, the other party of this dispute, a man named Mu Yi, said he was “outed involuntarily” because of the viral video, and is now suing his company for firing him because he is gay.
This is believed to be China’s first ever sexual-orientation discrimination lawsuit. “During that time (when the video went viral) I was a total wreck. I couldn’t go out. I couldn’t answer the phone. I even lost my job,” Mu told reporters. “I was the victim to begin with, it doesn’t make any sense for my company [to punish me more],” he said.
Check out the initial video footage followed by the remixed version below. The remix is pretty catchy…