All Things LGBTQ+ (2 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.

 

[superchuck500]

Was that their reasoning?

I did not know that the court ever prioritized one part of the Constitution over another, but I'm no expert, that's for sure.

If they did, I would reluctantly support the idea that the first amendment takes priority over the equal protection, for two reasons:

1) Defending the rights to speak freely, publish news, peacefully assemble, worship as we choose and petition for redress is vital to our ability to live as free human beings while at the same time having a powerful central government.

2) The first is very specific as to the rights that it recognizes and protects, as listed above. "Equal protection" is a very elastic concept, that could be applied or not applied to any claim of being denied equal protection, as justices see fit.

I haven’t read it yet, I’ll have to respond later.

But I’ll just say that there’s a lengthy court history of equal protection in public accommodations laws that holds that when you open for business to the public, you can’t simply refuse to serve protected classes of people based on your personal viewpoint about that class. It’s the heart of what equal protection in public accommodations law is about.

If you don’t have that, you allow hotels to refuse to let rooms to interracial couples “‘cause of the Bible” and then we’re right back to 1964 again.

 

[Snarky Sack]

For those curious about what is meant by "transgenderization" or "the transgenderization movement," I offer this video as an introduction to the topic:



It's thirty minutes, and I can't provide the time stamp to the highlight I want you to see as I often do when posting videos. It's not something that can be reduced to a sound bite. But if you really want to know what people that you disagree with are talking about when they use those terms, this video will help explain their concerns.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I'm sorry I have no idea what you are driving at.

Of course I do not get a say in the decision, did you really think that I thought that i do?

Given that he said you have no say in the decision and you disagreed with his premise, then yes. For someone that has portrayed themselves as a stickler for proper grammar, you seem to have trouble understanding basic grammatical phrases and concepts.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I haven’t read it yet, I’ll have to respond later.

But I’ll just say that there’s a lengthy court history of equal protection in public accommodations laws that holds that when you open for business to the public, you can’t simply refuse to serve protected classes of people based on your personal viewpoint about that class. It’s the heart of what equal protection in public accommodations law is about.

If you don’t have that, you allow hotels to refuse to let rooms to interracial couples “‘cause of the Bible” and then we’re right back to 1964 again.

I haven't read it either, so we will be talking in generalities. I can see a difference between designing a website for a gay couple and admitting a gay couple into a hotel. The first can be reasonably argued to be speech, but not the second.

However . . . accepting your position that discriminating against a gay couple in website design is similar to discriminating against an interracial couple, I am surprised at the ruling. The right to marry a person of the same sex has been established by the court, the same as the right to marry someone of a different race. So they are indeed similar types of discrimination under those rulings.

I have to wonder if this ruling might signal a willingness to overturn Obergefell. I see no other way that this ruling makes sense. I believe that all previous ruling in cases in which businesses did not want to provide service to gay people have been decided against the business.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Given that he said you have no say in the decision and you disagreed with his premise, then yes. For someone that has portrayed themselves as a stickler for proper grammar, you seem to have trouble understanding basic grammatical phrases and concepts.

I don't believe that I have portrayed my self as a stickler for proper grammar. I've asked one particular poster not to twist my words into a different meaning entirely, but that will no longer be an issue.

Let me see if I can clarify. I don't get a say in any individual medical procedure. I do get a say in what regulations are passed by government. So long as we accept the idea that government regulates medicine, which all advocates of socialized medicine must, then voters get a say, unless it is a dictatorship.

 

[Lapaz]

You're absolutely correct. That is a flawed assumption and what I wrote clearly does make that wrong assumption. I screwed up and I appreciate you pointing it out, so that I can clean up my miscommunication.

I agree with you that a person just believing that chromosones determine one's gender is not prejudiced and not everyone who believes that is trying to force their beliefs onto anyone else.

I believe that the prejudice occurs only when people try to force others to conform to their beliefs, which you clearly aren't doing.

In general on all issues, for me prejudice is not in the believing of something. Prejudice only occurs when someone tries to force others to conform to whatever beliefs they have.

I hope that clears up what I think. Let me know if it doesn't.

Legal prejudice requires action to force conformance, but I don’t think prejudice requires action to force others to conform. Taking action on prejudice, to try to force your beliefs on others, requires a willingness to impose your beliefs, but most of us don’t try to force our beliefs on others. Most of us hold prejudices, but many are not willing to deal with the repercussions of attempting to force that on others, or also hold the belief that forcing others to conform to our beliefs is wrong, or believe that our prejudice isn’t fair. The challenge is to separate prejudice from logic and reason.

 

[superchuck500]

I haven't read it either, so we will be talking in generalities. I can see a difference between designing a website for a gay couple and admitting a gay couple into a hotel. The first can be reasonably argued to be speech, but not the second.

However . . . accepting your position that discriminating against a gay couple in website design is similar to discriminating against an interracial couple, I am surprised at the ruling. The right to marry a person of the same sex has been established by the court, the same as the right to marry someone of a different race. So they are indeed similar types of discrimination under those rulings.

I have to wonder if this ruling might signal a willingness to overturn Obergefell. I see no other way that this ruling makes sense. I believe that all previous ruling in cases in which businesses did not want to provide service to gay people have been decided against the business.

I have now had a chance to read the 303 Creative decision (today's opinion).

As a preliminary matter, no, it does not relate to the issues involved with Obergefell - whatsoever, full stop.

The majority in 303 Creative determined that the case was about, as you well discerned, which principle prevails when equal protection in public accommodations laws runs up against public business and activities that are "expressive" in nature, which implicates the First Amendment. The majority held that where the activity is personal and expressive in nature, such as an individual who designs websites for marriages, the state cannot compel that person to render expressive content that contradicts the person's religious beliefs, even if the person is offering those services to the public.

So this does indeed create an exception to equal protection in public accommodations laws for instances where the business involved produces expressive content, or even "expressive association" the court held (which it did so to connect this case with Dale v. Boy Scouts, which held that the Boy Scouts is free to discriminate its membership based on its viewpoint despite being otherwise open for the public to join).

The dissent (Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson) naturally fell on the other side of the ledger - contending that equal protection in public accommodations laws serve a very specific and constitutional purpose: to prohibit class-based discrimination against protected classes in the public marketplace. To begin to allow exceptions based on viewpoints protected by the First Amendment fundamentally challenges the constitutional purpose of public accommodations laws, which fight not only discrimination but the humiliation that goes with it. "Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class," Justice Sotomayor wrote. And she's right and it's a powerful statement.

But the result today is that businesses with "expressive" content are free to discriminate against protected classes when serving them would compel them to make expression contrary to their personal beliefs that are otherwise protected by the First Amendment.

In fairness, I think the majority is correct that it is problematic for a truly expressive business to be compelled to make expressions it does not agree with - as long as this exception to equal protection is held very narrowly. The opinion notes that, for example, a person that is open to the public for hire to write speeches and addresses (there are such people) could be compelled to write a speech that is completely against their beliefs (the example the court uses is a Muslim being hired to write a speech praising Zionism). That is plainly a problematic thing for a state to compel just because the person has turned this ability into a business.

In this very limited context, I think favoring First Amendment prohibitions on compelled speech does make sense. But it's also easy to see how businesses that don't want to serve protected classes will contend that their business is expressive when it isn't. For example, is a company that makes signs and banners actually expressive? While they deal in words but there's nothing "personally expressive" about that work - they take the message given to them by the customer and print it. But I fully expect those kinds of businesses will see this as endorsement to refuse to serve homosexuals (or even other races and religions in some extreme cases). Similarly, is a venue that is open for hire for weddings now expressive because of the expressive nature of the proceedings that happen in their venue? In other words, I worry that the Court's rationale applied to a very small subset of public-facing businesses, where the provider serves as a partner in creating the expressive content that the customer is buying will be almost immediately expanded to a much larger universe of businesses, and the opinion does not seek to sufficiently guard against that.

If 303 Creative is now the starting point, it should be fully expected that members of protected classes who wish nothing other than to participate in the marketplace of goods and services just like everyone else, will endure discrimination and humiliation.

 

[coldseat]

I have now had a chance to read the 303 Creative decision (today's opinion).

As a preliminary matter, no, it does not relate to the issues involved with Obergefell - whatsoever, full stop.

The majority in 303 Creative determined that the case was about, as you well discerned, which principle prevails when equal protection in public accommodations laws runs up against public business and activities that are "expressive" in nature, which implicates the First Amendment. The majority held that where the activity is personal and expressive in nature, such as an individual who designs websites for marriages, the state cannot compel that person to render expressive content that contradicts the person's religious beliefs, even if the person is offering those services to the public.

So this does indeed create an exception to equal protection in public accommodations laws for instances where the business involved produces expressive content, or even "expressive association" the court held (which it did so to connect this case with Dale v. Boy Scouts, which held that the Boy Scouts is free to discriminate its membership based on its viewpoint despite being otherwise open for the public to join).

The dissent (Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson) naturally fell on the other side of the ledger - contending that equal protection in public accommodations laws serve a very specific and constitutional purpose: to prohibit class-based discrimination against protected classes in the public marketplace. To begin to allow exceptions based on viewpoints protected by the First Amendment fundamentally challenges the constitutional purpose of public accommodations laws, which fight not only discrimination but the humiliation that goes with it.

But the result today is that businesses with "expressive" content are free to discriminate against protected classes when serving them would compel them to make expression contrary to their personal beliefs that are otherwise protected by the First Amendment.

In fairness, I think the majority is correct that it is problematic for a truly expressive business to be compelled to make expressions it does not agree with - as long as this exemption to equal protection is held very narrowly. The opinion notes that, for example, a person that is open to the public for hire to write speeches and addresses (there are such people) could be compelled to write a speech that is completely against their beliefs (the example the court uses is a Muslim being hired to write a speech praising Zionism). That is plainly a problematic thing for a state to compel just because the person has turned this ability into a business.

In this very limited context, I think favoring First Amendment prohibitions on compelled speech does make sense. But it's also easy to see how businesses that don't want to serve protected classes will contend that their business is expressive when it isn't. For example, is a company that makes signs and banners actually expressive? While they deal in words but there's nothing "personally expressive" about that work - they take the message given to them by the customer and print it. But I fully expect those kinds of businesses will see this as endorsement to refuse to serve homosexuals (or even other races and religions in some extreme cases). Similarly, is a venue that is open for hire for weddings now expressive because of the expressive nature of the proceedings that happen in their venue? In other words, I worry that the Court's rationale applied to a very small subset of public-facing businesses, where the provider serves as a partner in creating the expressive content that the customer is buying will be almost immediately expanded to a much larger universe of businesses, and the opinion does not seek to sufficiently guard against that.

If 303 Creative is now the starting point, it should be fully expected that members of protected classes who wish nothing other than to participate in the marketplace of goods and services just like everyone else, will endure discrimination and humiliation.

All this ruling will do is make discrimination against gays much more common and visible. Trump has indeed delivered on his plan to make the US into the 1950's with this court.

Sad day for America.

 

[brandon]

In this very limited context, I think favoring First Amendment prohibitions on compelled speech does make sense. But it's also easy to see how businesses that don't want to serve protected classes will contend that their business is expressive when it isn't. For example, is a company that makes signs and banners actually expressive? While they deal in words but there's nothing "personally expressive" about that work - they take the message given to them by the customer and print it. But I fully expect those kinds of businesses will see this as endorsement to refuse to serve homosexuals (or even other races and religions in some extreme cases). Similarly, is a venue that is open for hire for weddings now expressive because of the expressive nature of the proceedings that happen in their venue? In other words, I worry that the Court's rationale applied to a very small subset of public-facing businesses, where the provider serves as a partner in creating the expressive content that the customer is buying will be almost immediately expanded to a much larger universe of businesses, and the opinion does not seek to sufficiently guard against that.

I agree this does make sense. As a liberal, I've actually struggled a bit with the issue of the baker who had to design a cake for a gay wedding, as by the letter of the law vis a vis public accomodations, it made sense that they could not discriminate based on sexual orientation. Yet, this felt "difficult" to reconcile for some reason, and I think the court actually hit the nail on the head here as to why--it's forcing someone to be creative and expressive for something they fundamentally disagree with that is problematic. It's tacitly requiring participation in an act they disagree with through the act of creativity and expression.

So on the surface, the ruling actually is a strikingly effective compromise of the conundrum presented, and while it may not make most liberals happy, I do think it gets to the heart of properly balancing these two competing concepts.

But the problem is as you presented - this is very clearly not the final say on the matter. It's the first step in a series of progressively more restrictive cases that will further reset the balance in favor of individual expression at the expense of public accomodation protections. This is not the end--it is only the beginning.

While you dismissed @Snarky Sack 's attribution of this case to Obergefell, and I agree there's nothing particular in the ruling that deals with the same issues, there is a clear through-line from 303 Creative to Obergefell in the notion that if the First Amendment's right to freedom of expression can override the protections required of public accomodations, then it can override the protections afforded by the equal protections clause. I think the only real difference is the right of the individual (Creative 303) versus the right of individuals working on behalf of the state (Obergefell), and I don't imagine it will be too hard to navigate that jump with a creative enough case.

It must also be recognized that the 5-4 court that decided Obergefell only needed one vote the other way, and very clearly that vote exists on today's 6-3 court. And with this court not particularly interested in precedent, all they need is any particular case in front of them and Obergefell will fall. Not might, will.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I agree this does make sense. As a liberal, I've actually struggled a bit with the issue of the baker who had to design a cake for a gay wedding, as by the letter of the law vis a vis public accomodations, it made sense that they could not discriminate based on sexual orientation. Yet, this felt "difficult" to reconcile for some reason, and I think the court actually hit the nail on the head here as to why--it's forcing someone to be creative and expressive for something they fundamentally disagree with that is problematic. It's tacitly requiring participation in an act they disagree with through the act of creativity and expression.

So on the surface, the ruling actually is a strikingly effective compromise of the conundrum presented, and while it may not make most liberals happy, I do think it gets to the heart of properly balancing these two competing concepts.

But the problem is as you presented - this is very clearly not the final say on the matter. It's the first step in a series of progressively more restrictive cases that will further reset the balance in favor of individual expression at the expense of public accomodation protections. This is not the end--it is only the beginning.

While you dismissed @Snarky Sack 's attribution of this case to Obergefell, and I agree there's nothing particular in the ruling that deals with the same issues, there is a clear through-line from 303 Creative to Obergefell in the notion that if the First Amendment's right to freedom of expression can override the protections required of public accomodations, then it can override the protections afforded by the equal protections clause. I think the only real difference is the right of the individual (Creative 303) versus the right of individuals working on behalf of the state (Obergefell), and I don't imagine it will be too hard to navigate that jump with a creative enough case.

It must also be recognized that the 5-4 court that decided Obergefell only needed one vote the other way, and very clearly that vote exists on today's 6-3 court. And with this court not particularly interested in precedent, all they need is any particular case in front of them and Obergefell will fall. Not might, will.

I certainly hope that that case is not reversed. I know that goes against the grain of many republicans, but I'm a Libertarian at heart.

Recently, my son came out as polyamorous. I eagerly await the day when he too is allowed his human rights to marriage.

 

[brandon]

I certainly hope that that case is not reversed. I know that goes against the grain of many republicans, but I'm a Libertarian at heart.

Recently, my son came out as polyamorous. I eagerly await the day when he too is allowed his human rights to marriage.

Republicans tend to care about rights when it directly affects them.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Republicans tend to care about rights when it directly affects them.

Democrats are certainly guilty of the same. Look at their desire for more gun laws instead of wanting to enforce existing ones.

 

[Huntn]

unsurprising

How the right’s defeats gave us the anti-LGBTQ moment

The American right is returning to its homophobic roots.

www.vox.com

In January, Donald Trump released a campaign video decrying “the left-wing gender insanity being pushed on our children.” He vowed that, in a second term, his administration would work to ban gender-affirming care for minors “in all 50 states,” officially recognize “male” and “female” as “assigned at birth” as the only genders, and reconfigure school curriculums to teach students “positive education about the nuclear family [and] the roles of mothers and fathers.”

Trump’s leading competitor for the 2024 nomination, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, has gone even further, making laws attacking LGBTQ inclusion, especially in schools, into a core plank of his “anti-woke” governing agenda. DeSantis’s campaign is part of a broader trend, with 2023 seeing a fresh wave of anti-trans legislation in Republican-controlled statehouses across the country — with over 530 bills proposed by late May, by one tally. Right-wing activists are leading boycotts against brands that celebrate LGBTQ identity and Pride month, like Target and Bud Light. Just this Tuesday, a school board meeting about teaching gender in Glendale, California, schools devolved into a fistfight.

Theses are mechanisms PRIMARILY designed to pull in voters of the all things anti-LGBTQ. When I look at Trump and DeShit including most of GOP leadership, I don’t even know how they feel about the topic, I just suspect they calculated the appeal in their favor and proceeded from there. Seeing Trump hold a Bible would be a real hoot If I did not know there was 1 million or two slurping his Koolaid and taking him seriously but really just kidding themselves.

 

[zztop]

Seeing Trump hold a Bible would be a real hoot

he did actually. And had an area cleared of protestors just so he could do a photo op at a church, while holding a bible

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/01/867532070/trumps-unannounced-church-visit-angers-church-officials

 

[GrandAdmiral]

The Colorado web designer who wanted to refuse LGBTQ customers and just won her case at the Supreme Court had claimed in court filings that a man inquired about her services for his same-sex wedding.

But the man says he never reached out to Lorie Smith, the web designer who argued at the Supreme Court that she shouldn’t be forced to create same-sex wedding websites because of her religious objections. In fact, the man says he’s straight and married to a woman.

The man was identified as “Stewart” in court filings and as someone who requested graphic designs for invitations and other materials for a same-sex wedding with his fiancé, Mike. CNN contacted Stewart through information in court filings. He asked for his last name, which is not in the filing, not to be used.

In an interview with CNN Friday, Stewart said that he “did not submit a request” to the company, 303 Creative, and is a “happily married man to a woman of 15 years.”

“I don’t know Mike,” Stewart said. “I’ve never asked anybody to design a website for me, so it’s all very strange. I certainly didn’t contact her, and whatever the information in that request is, is fake.”

Stewart, who previously worked for CNN, said that he is a web designer himself, and that “it would make zero sense to hire a web designer when I can do that for myself.”

Stewart said he was unaware of his information being a part of the court record until he was contacted by media outlet The New Republic on Wednesday.

Colorado web designer told Supreme Court a man sought her services for his same-sex wedding. He says he didn’t – and he’s straight | CNN Politics

The Colorado web designer who wanted to refuse LGBTQ customers and just won her case at the Supreme Court had claimed in court filings that a man inquired about her services for his same-sex wedding.

www.cnn.com

 

[Snarky Sack]

Colorado web designer told Supreme Court a man sought her services for his same-sex wedding. He says he didn’t – and he’s straight | CNN Politics

The Colorado web designer who wanted to refuse LGBTQ customers and just won her case at the Supreme Court had claimed in court filings that a man inquired about her services for his same-sex wedding.

www.cnn.com

I saw on another story about the same thing that the plaintiff is not a website designer - just wants to be one. Supposedly, her first request was from the non-existent gay man and she has been afraid to accept other requests fearing the law.

I agree that merchants should not be required to support things that violate their beliefs. Just like an African-American owner of a barbecue joint, shouldn't have to host a KKK fundraiser. But this lady was the wrong hill to make that stand on.

 

[Snarky Sack]

If a male child plays with dolls, and likes to wear his older sisters hand-me-down princess costume at halloween, and says that he wants to grow up and be like his mommy, who cooks pancakes and works as a cosmetologist, and gravitates toward his female cousins rather than his male ones at the family reunion, there is nothing wrong with that.

If society tells him that he needs to outgrow that, and "act like a boy," that indicates that there is something wrong with society. It does not indicate that there is something wrong with his body, and definitely not that he was born in the "wrong body." If the boy says, "I'm a girl," tell him that there is not just one way to be a girl, and his gender is not dictated by his genitals. Give examples of great women who succeeded in what were once thought to be men's fields and of Great men who succeeded in women's fields.

Parents should have the sex talk with him as early as he can understand it. They should explain the reproductive part, and explain that not every person is attracted to the opposite biological sex. Whether he turns out to have feelings for females or males, he will need to be prepared for them.

Don't start "working on him," to get him ready to have his puberty blocked, and his genitals removed. Don't act as if the way he feels at seven is the way he will feel until he is seventy. Tell him that he has plenty of time to decide his own gender. Don't emphasize his differences, talk about how having differences from each other is universal, and therefore being different is in fact being the same as every other person.

Frankly, it is crazy that I would even have to try to convince anyone of any of that.

 

[superchuck500]

Is there any other way to describe this apart from open, unbridled hostility?

(Which is synonymous with hate, by the way).