All Things LGBTQ+ (6 Viewers)

[Farb]

Didn't really see a place for this so I thought I would start a thread about all things LGBTQ since this is a pretty hot topic in our culture right now

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/sup...y-that-refuses-to-work-with-lgbt-couples.html

• The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a unanimous defeat to LGBT couples in a high-profile case over whether Philadelphia could refuse to contract with a Roman Catholic adoption agency that says its religious beliefs prevent it from working with same-sex foster parents.
• Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an opinion for a majority of the court that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment by refusing to contract with Catholic Social Services once it learned that the organization would not certify same-sex couples for adoption.

I will admit, I was hopeful for this decision by the SCOTUS but I was surprised by the unanimous decision.

While I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with same sex couples adopting and raising children (I actually think it is a good thing as it not an abortion) but I also did not want to see the state force a religious institution to bend to a societal norm.

 

[SamAndreas]

Yeah, you are correct, that attempt at a drive by doesn't deserve a response. You are better at trolling than that.

I don't call that a drive by or trolling either one.

I call that snorting at a post I found to be high over the big top.

Here's a nice discussion with a troll which turned out to mutually beneficial for both the troll and the barbarian he was speaking with. It just goes to show that one can meet the nicest of folks in the high mountains.

 

[Optimus Prime]

HOUSTON — Employees at the Texas Department of Public Safety in June received a sweeping request from Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office: to compile a list of individuals who had changed their gender on their Texas driver’s license and other department records during the past two years.

“Need total number of changes from male to female and female to male for the last 24 months, broken down by month,” the chief of the DPS’s driver license division emailed colleagues in the department on June 30, according to a copy of a message obtained by The Washington Post through a public records request. “We won’t need DL/ID numbers at first but may need to have them later if we are required to manually look up documents.”

After more than 16,000 such instances were identified, DPS officials determined that a manual search would be needed to determine the reason for the changes, DPS spokesman Travis Considine told The Post in response to questions.

“A verbal request was received,” he wrote in an email. “Ultimately, our team advised the AG’s office the data requested neither exists nor could be accurately produced. Thus, no data of any kind was provided.”

Asked who in Paxton’s office had requested the records, he replied: “I cannot say.”

The behind-the-scenes effort by Paxton’s office to obtain data on how many Texans had changed their gender on their license came as the attorney general, Gov. Greg Abbott and other Republican leaders in the state have been publicly marshaling resources against transgender Texans.

Earlier this year, Abbott signed a bill banning transgender youths from participating in sports that align with their gender identity at K-12 public schools and ordered the state to investigate the provision of gender-affirming care as potential child abuse.

State lawmakers have already proposed more than a dozen anti-LGBTQ measures ahead of the next session in January, including criminalizing gender-affirming care and banning minors at drag shows.

Public records obtained by The Post do not indicate why the attorney general’s office sought the driver’s license information. But advocates for transgender Texans say Paxton could use the data to further restrict their right to transition, calling it a chilling effort to secretly harness personal information to persecute already vulnerable people.

“This is another brick building toward targeting these individuals,” said Ian Pittman, an Austin attorney who represents Texas parents of transgender children investigated by the state. “They’ve already targeted children and parents. The next step would be targeting adults. And what better way than seeing what adults had had their sex changed on their driver’s licenses?”...........

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/12/14/texas-transgender-data-paxton/

 

[SamAndreas]

HOUSTON — Employees at the Texas Department of Public Safety in June received a sweeping request from Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office: to compile a list of individuals who had changed their gender on their Texas driver’s license and other department records during the past two years.

“Need total number of changes from male to female and female to male for the last 24 months, broken down by month,” the chief of the DPS’s driver license division emailed colleagues in the department on June 30, according to a copy of a message obtained by The Washington Post through a public records request. “We won’t need DL/ID numbers at first but may need to have them later if we are required to manually look up documents.”

After more than 16,000 such instances were identified, DPS officials determined that a manual search would be needed to determine the reason for the changes, DPS spokesman Travis Considine told The Post in response to questions.

“A verbal request was received,” he wrote in an email. “Ultimately, our team advised the AG’s office the data requested neither exists nor could be accurately produced. Thus, no data of any kind was provided.”

Asked who in Paxton’s office had requested the records, he replied: “I cannot say.”

The behind-the-scenes effort by Paxton’s office to obtain data on how many Texans had changed their gender on their license came as the attorney general, Gov. Greg Abbott and other Republican leaders in the state have been publicly marshaling resources against transgender Texans.

Earlier this year, Abbott signed a bill banning transgender youths from participating in sports that align with their gender identity at K-12 public schools and ordered the state to investigate the provision of gender-affirming care as potential child abuse.

State lawmakers have already proposed more than a dozen anti-LGBTQ measures ahead of the next session in January, including criminalizing gender-affirming care and banning minors at drag shows.

Public records obtained by The Post do not indicate why the attorney general’s office sought the driver’s license information. But advocates for transgender Texans say Paxton could use the data to further restrict their right to transition, calling it a chilling effort to secretly harness personal information to persecute already vulnerable people.

“This is another brick building toward targeting these individuals,” said Ian Pittman, an Austin attorney who represents Texas parents of transgender children investigated by the state. “They’ve already targeted children and parents. The next step would be targeting adults. And what better way than seeing what adults had had their sex changed on their driver’s licenses?”...........

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/12/14/texas-transgender-data-paxton/

I like that you posted that. I don't like what it said.

 

[Optimus Prime]

The state of Texas is taking another swing at eliminating federal rules that forbid discrimination against LGBTQ+ foster parents and married couples seeking to adopt children.

In his own words, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) “just filed yet another Biden Lawsuit,” this time attempting to strike down the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) Discrimination law, which forbids recipients of federal funding from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, including those that provide foster care and adoption services.

The complaint, filed Monday in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, seeks to repeal SOGI altogether, or at a minimum grant a declaratory judgment that Texas and the state’s Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) are not in violation of the law. The suit claims Texas is in full compliance because the state and DFPS “serve all foster children and are willing to work with all potential foster parents.”

Not all adoption and foster care services Texas partners with, however, can say the same.

The lawsuit concedes many of the agencies DFPS works with have “sincerely held religious beliefs” that require them to discriminate against LGBTQ+ families and potential parents. But the complaint argues that foregoing federal funding, or severing relationships with those faith-based groups — which compliance with anti-discrimination rules requires — would negatively impact all children seeking placement.

“There are so many vital religious institutions in Texas and around the country that can aid in making sure foster children are protected and able to find good homes,” AG Paxton said in a statement accompanying the suit. “The SOGI Rule would force them either to adopt a radical woke agenda or surrender their mission of helping children. That’s not right.”.

“It’s a disgrace that the Biden Administration is playing politics with our foster care and adoption services,” Paxton added about the Obama-era law. “This lawsuit aims to put our children first and to protect religious freedom.”..........

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[nolaspe]

HOUSTON — Employees at the Texas Department of Public Safety in June received a sweeping request from Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office: to compile a list of individuals who had changed their gender on their Texas driver’s license and other department records during the past two years.

“Need total number of changes from male to female and female to male for the last 24 months, broken down by month,” the chief of the DPS’s driver license division emailed colleagues in the department on June 30, according to a copy of a message obtained by The Washington Post through a public records request. “We won’t need DL/ID numbers at first but may need to have them later if we are required to manually look up documents.”

After more than 16,000 such instances were identified, DPS officials determined that a manual search would be needed to determine the reason for the changes, DPS spokesman Travis Considine told The Post in response to questions.

“A verbal request was received,” he wrote in an email. “Ultimately, our team advised the AG’s office the data requested neither exists nor could be accurately produced. Thus, no data of any kind was provided.”

Asked who in Paxton’s office had requested the records, he replied: “I cannot say.”

The behind-the-scenes effort by Paxton’s office to obtain data on how many Texans had changed their gender on their license came as the attorney general, Gov. Greg Abbott and other Republican leaders in the state have been publicly marshaling resources against transgender Texans.

Earlier this year, Abbott signed a bill banning transgender youths from participating in sports that align with their gender identity at K-12 public schools and ordered the state to investigate the provision of gender-affirming care as potential child abuse.

State lawmakers have already proposed more than a dozen anti-LGBTQ measures ahead of the next session in January, including criminalizing gender-affirming care and banning minors at drag shows.

Public records obtained by The Post do not indicate why the attorney general’s office sought the driver’s license information. But advocates for transgender Texans say Paxton could use the data to further restrict their right to transition, calling it a chilling effort to secretly harness personal information to persecute already vulnerable people.

“This is another brick building toward targeting these individuals,” said Ian Pittman, an Austin attorney who represents Texas parents of transgender children investigated by the state. “They’ve already targeted children and parents. The next step would be targeting adults. And what better way than seeing what adults had had their sex changed on their driver’s licenses?”...........

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/12/14/texas-transgender-data-paxton/

We need the angry emoji here for crap like this...

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

If you are the kind of person who would prefer a child stay in an orphanage or in state custody instead of being adopted by a same sex couple, you are just a piece of trash. period. the world would be better off without you in it..

 

[Farb]

Much like the housing and feeding of inmates, the government pays for it. If the government makes these programs available but refuses to include secular options, they are forcing religion on people.

I understand we pay for them (government) but the ententy that is preforming the actual service, are they secular or religious?
Something tells me that if a secular company would be rather quick to file a law suite if they felt discriminated against.

 

[Farb]

You keep using the word compel. I don't think you know what that means. The only thing being compelled by the government is that everybody follow non-discrimination law. That's it. You don't get a special exemption from that just because you're religious (or at least you shouldn't, but this right wing SC will probably allow it).

What word would you to describe the state taking action to _____________ the Christian baker to bake a wedding a cake for a gay couple? Force might be more appropriate, you are right.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I understand we pay for them (government) but the ententy that is preforming the actual service, are they secular or religious?
Something tells me that if a secular company would be rather quick to file a law suite if they felt discriminated against.

In the instances in which I am talking about, the entity providing the service is nonsecular, such as AA/NA.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

What word would you to describe the state taking action to _____________ the Christian baker to bake a wedding a cake for a gay couple? Force might be more appropriate, you are right.

Do you even read what you're responding to?

 

[Farb]

You continue to dramatically misunderstand what public accommodation law is. I will say that I do agree that a restaurant should not be denying serving to anyone based on their religion- and that includes Christians.

That said, a restaurant can say that they serve Christians all the time, they’re only refusing these Christians because of their publicly stated position on gays and abortion. And that point it gets more nuanced - but a business flatly refusing gay customers for being gay doesn’t raise that kind of nuance. Nonetheless, yes I think Christians are protected under the public accommodations law.

Beyond that, I’m giving up at this point with your ridiculous slippery slope arguments that continue to raise hypotheticals that aren’t protected under the law. Further discussion is pure futility.

In regards to the baker, there were already cakes available to them in his store that they were free to purchase so he didn't flatly refuse service, he refused to make a specific type of cake that he did not want to be associated with.

What takes legal precedence, the public accommodation law or the freedom of association?

While I agree further discussion is pointless I will state that the creation of 'protected classes' will continue to hamper the courts. As you create more, you infringe more on other classes that were probably not intended and because of that, there will be more push back.

For example: https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/k...raries-story-hour-reading-assert-rights-court

While the government can and will allow public places for one kind of speech but not another based on 'protected classes' proves that the slippery slope you rail against is real and is happening like it or not.

 

[Farb]

Welp, if the RW had their way you would get the answer to your question.

Got it, but I asked you if there was. Yes or no?

 

[superchuck500]

In regards to the baker, there were already cakes available to them in his store that they were free to purchase so he didn't flatly refuse service, he refused to make a specific type of cake that he did not want to be associated with.

What takes legal precedence, the public accommodation law or the freedom of association?

While I agree further discussion is pointless I will state that the creation of 'protected classes' will continue to hamper the courts. As you create more, you infringe more on other classes that were probably not intended and because of that, there will be more push back.

For example: https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/k...raries-story-hour-reading-assert-rights-court

While the government can and will allow public places for one kind of speech but not another based on 'protected classes' proves that the slippery slope you rail against is real and is happening like it or not.

Since the original civil rights laws in the early 1960s, there has been the addition of ONE protected class - and that’s only in some states, not in the federal law.

You’re not advocating for freedom of association - you’re advocating for freedom to discriminate in the service of business to the public.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

In regards to the baker, there were already cakes available to them in his store that they were free to purchase so he didn't flatly refuse service, he refused to make a specific type of cake that he did not want to be associated with.

What takes legal precedence, the public accommodation law or the freedom of association?

While I agree further discussion is pointless I will state that the creation of 'protected classes' will continue to hamper the courts. As you create more, you infringe more on other classes that were probably not intended and because of that, there will be more push back.

For example: https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/k...raries-story-hour-reading-assert-rights-court

While the government can and will allow public places for one kind of speech but not another based on 'protected classes' proves that the slippery slope you rail against is real and is happening like it or not.

Kirk Cameron wasn't denied anything. He was offered accommodations, according to an earlier Fox article:

"When the publisher asked the library official about filling out the proper form to apply for a story-hour slot, the individual replied, 'You can fill out the form to reserve space, to run the program in our space — but we won’t run your program.'"

Which is well within the library's rights, since promoting and running an event takes time and resources. He was offered the same option available to you and me and everyone else.

Kirk Cameron is denied story-hour slot by public libraries for his new faith-based kids book

Kirk Cameron, writer and father of six, has a new book for kids, "As You Grow," full of biblical wisdom. But he and Brave Books have not gotten a single "yes" from any public libraries for a story-hour program.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Farb]

Ok, I'll play, when did you decide to be straight?

So you mean sexually conscience? Because otherwise, you assume that being straight is a choice. It is not. It is how nature intended. Any deviation from that is a choice.

 

[Farb]

This could go in a couple different threads. It works here:

Or make that one person that doesn't want to be a part of my life to bake me a cake. Narcissisms is definitely not a right/left or gay/straight problem.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

So you mean sexually conscience? Because otherwise, you assume that being straight is a choice. It is not. It is how nature intended. Any deviation from that is a choice.

How did you reach this conclusion?

 

[brandon]

So you mean sexually conscience? Because otherwise, you assume that being straight is a choice. It is not. It is how nature intended. Any deviation from that is a choice.

So I can't choose to be straight, but I can choose to be gay?

So your argument is that everyone defaults to straight, but some people decide to be gay instead?

Do you know how absurd that sounds? Why would any straight person decide they wanted to be gay instead? Could you imagine any scenario where you, a straight person, might choose to be gay?