All Things LGBTQ+ (3 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.

 

[bdb13]

Just gonna leave this here - it says it all.

That was impressive.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Just gonna leave this here - it says it all.

should have dropped the mic but other than that A+

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

should have dropped the mic but other than that A+

He reminds me of my wife, someone better be sure about what they accuse her of. She will whip out receipts from text messages and email, etc. My wife always has these kind of receipts.. She lost a friend of 25 years because she tried to say my wife did something, and my wife screen shot all the text messages that proved she was full of shirt. My wife and her haven't seen or talked to each other since... She never even tried to talk her way out of it, it was so bad..lol

 

[SaintForLife]

Yes, because that's such a huge problem we have to have a country wide ban against it.



I'm not watching your Libs of TikTok vid and I don't hold Nancy Mace's character in any such regard that I would care what she had to say. I simply quoted from the article that you posted. Which shows that you didn't even read the very article you posted. Not surprised at all. Here are more quotes from the article you posted.

I posted the article to reference the percentage of people who are against trans who were born men competing against women. NBC tries to steer the article back to what they think about the subject using the hypocritical fraud in Caballero.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I posted the article to reference the percentage of people who are against trans who were born men competing against women. NBC tries to steer the article back to what they think about the subject using the hypocritical fraud in Caballero.

So, what is your point exactly?

Do you remember when the majority of people were against black athletes competing with white athletes, because it wasn't fair to white athletes?

Do you remember when the majority of people were against non-white people sharing schools, drinking fountains and restrooms with white folk?

Do you remember when the majority of people were against the gays being school teachers?

Do you remember when the majority of people were against letting women vote, because they were too emotional and irrational?

Do you remember when the majority of people were against letting native Americans continue to live on the land they had lived on for generations?

Do you remember when the majority of people were okay with enslaving African and Asian people?

You know who remembers? Pepperidge Farms remembers! Those were the good ole days when America was great. Let's Make America Great Again!

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

So, what is your point exactly?

Do you remember when the majority of people were against black athletes competing with white athletes, because it wasn't fair to white athletes?

Do you remember when the majority of people were against non-white people sharing schools, drinking fountains and restrooms with white folk?

Do you remember when the majority of people were against the gays being school teachers?

Do you remember when the majority of people were against letting women vote, because they were too emotional and irrational?

Do you remember when the majority of people were against letting native Americans continue to live on the land they had lived on for generations?

Do you remember when the majority of people were okay with enslaving African and Asian people?

You know who remembers? Pepperidge Farms remembers! Those were the good ole days when America was great. Let's Make America Great Again!

And that is EXACTLY what MAGA means...

 

[Optimus Prime]

A school district in southern California will be fined more than $1m after rejecting a curriculum that included Harvey Milk, the pioneering gay rights leader who the the school board’s president has called a “pedophile”.

Gavin Newsom, the California governor, announced on Wednesday that his office will send textbooks to the Temecula school district that include Milk, the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in the state, as well as fine the district $1.5m for failing to “adopt an updated social studies curriculum”.

“California will ensure students in Temecula begin the school year with access to materials reviewed by parents and recommended by teachers across the district,” Newsom said in a statement.

“After we deliver the textbooks into the hands of students and their parents, the state will deliver the bill … to the school board for its decision to willfully violate the law, subvert the will of parents, and force children to use an out-of-print textbook from 17 years ago.”

The Temecula Valley unified school district, which oversees about 28,000 students in Riverside county, has been at the center of a growing controversy over its approach to LGBTQ+, diversity and inclusion issues.

In May, the district school board president, Joseph Komrosky, said while discussing an elementary social science curriculum that included Milk: “My question is, why even mention a pedophile?”…….

California school district fined $1.5m after rejecting curriculum with Harvey Milk

Gavin Newsom, the state governor, said his office will provide new school textbooks and send a bill for violating state laws

www.theguardian.com

 

[MT15]

This shows what will happen here if the right gets their way

 

[SaintForLife]

This is crazy. How could anyone support that?

 

[samiam5211]

So, what is your point exactly?

Do you remember when the majority of people were against black athletes competing with white athletes, because it wasn't fair to white athletes?

Do you remember when the majority of people were against non-white people sharing schools, drinking fountains and restrooms with white folk?

Do you remember when the majority of people were against the gays being school teachers?

Do you remember when the majority of people were against letting women vote, because they were too emotional and irrational?

Do you remember when the majority of people were against letting native Americans continue to live on the land they had lived on for generations?

Do you remember when the majority of people were okay with enslaving African and Asian people?

You know who remembers? Pepperidge Farms remembers! Those were the good ole days when America was great. Let's Make America Great Again!

I don't believe those comparison are relevant to this really.

There are real reasons to oppose trans women competing in sports, and it doesn't have to have anything to do with being anti-trans.

I don't think I will ever support trans women competing in sports, and I'm pro trans on every other issue and more liberal than almost everyone on the planet on every issue.

 

[Optimus Prime]

The destination wedding website looksuncontroversial enough. The thumbnail preview of the site shows the happy couple’s names in teal and purple type, a mostly out-of-focus photo of a wedding dress trailing on a sandy beach and a couple’s bare feet, and a date and a location in Mexico.

In 2015, a web designer named Lorie Smith featured the wedding website in her portfolio of recent work—you can still access an archived copy of Smith’s site on the Wayback Machine.

But you won’t find the wedding website in Smith’s live online portfolio anymore. The page detailing her role in the wedding website’s creation was removed some time before she filed a legal challenge—one that claimed she was unable to enter the wedding website business because Colorado’s anti-discrimination law would compel her to create same-sex wedding websites.

The wedding website Smith made before she filed her case—and highlighted in a portfolio on her own site—is being reported for the first time in The New Republic. ……

Going back through Smith’s portfolio as archived in the Wayback Machine, Redburn said, they were curious about how Smith described her business—which is how they found themselves staring at the wedding website thumbnail on a page advertising “Recent Website Projects” on an archived version of Smith’s website.

“I couldn’t believe it,” Redburn told me. “The idea that she hadn’t made any wedding websites for anyone was so baked into the narrative around this case.” Smith was repeatedly identified in both court opinions and in mainstream news accounts as someone who had not made wedding websites, who could not do so because of the law she sought to challenge…..

“Lorie wanted to expand her portfolio to design for weddings,” the group posted, but added that “at no time did Lorie advertise or offer to create WEDDING WEBSITES for the general public—much less charge for doing so.”

According to ADF, the destination wedding website is inconsequential to the argument its lawyers made to the courts because the website was a gift from Smith to the bride, included in her portfolio “to illustrate her design skills,” not a service she explicitly offered to others for a fee.

Yet the wedding website appeared on a pageadvertising Smith’s web design services, for anyone, and was undifferentiated from what Smith says is her commercial work.

Whether or not Smith charged the bride for her services, the wedding website was, apparently for much of 2015, being used to advertise her services. A reasonable conclusion to draw is that designing wedding websites is one of them…….

A Real Wedding Website in a Fake Gay Wedding Website Case

An archive shows that the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case did once design a wedding website, contrary to what her lawyers presented during her legal challenge.

newrepublic.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

fear this is coming sooner rather than later
==============================

In the 1990s, a landlord turned away my then-partner and me when we sought to rent a one-bedroom apartment. Three decades later, the U.S. Supreme Court has definitively slammed that door shut for members of the LGBTQ community and millions of others — including interracial couples and unmarried couples — all of whom are now left exposed to discrimination.

In the wake of the recent 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis decision, civil rights organizations such as GLAD and the ACLU have emphasized the narrowness of the court’s ruling, which for the first time authorizes discrimination against a protected class in contravention of state public accommodation laws. In that case, the court allowed a website designer to refuse to create same-sex wedding websites because doing so would be inconsistent with her opposition to same-sex marriage.

Through their responses, these civil rights organizations downplay the threat that this Supreme Court decision poses to the LGBTQ community when they — and others — should instead be ringing the alarm bells loudly and clearly.

Arguing in favor of a narrow scope for the decision, these organizations point to the Supreme Court’s focus on the purportedly customized nature of the services provided by the website designer and her intent to express her own personal views regarding marriage through the websites that she creates for couples, however dubious this might sound.

Yet, the expression of personal beliefs is in no way confined to providing customized services. State nondiscrimination laws typically cover not only public accommodations like the website design business in 303 Creative but also employment and housing too.

Housing accommodations are a consequential and ready example of a cookie-cutter service that might implicate not only constitutionally protected freedom of expression, which formed the basis for the decision in 303 Creative, but also freedom of association and freedom of religion that are likewise protected by the First Amendment.

Following 303 Creative, it will take little time before landlords claim the right to discriminate against same-sex couples and their families on the ground that providing them shelter would require the landlord to condone same-sex relationships and facilitate same-sex sexual behavior in violation of their beliefs. Far from the hypothetical and contrived facts on which the Supreme Court based its decision in 303 Creative, this is a real-world scenario. I know because I lived it.

When my then-partner and I were looking for an apartment after I graduated from law school in the 1990s, we were turned away by a landlord who said that she could not conceive of why two men would want or need a one-bedroom apartment. She then flatly stated that she would never rent a one-bedroom apartment to two men living together. At a time when anti-gay attitudes were far more prevalent and socially acceptable, we chose to look for a landlord in a section of town that would not be so openly hostile to us and our relationship. But the harm had already been done.

The Supreme Court now appears to have opened the door to sanctioning this very sort of discrimination, threatening to wipe out a large swath of hard-won state nondiscrimination protections for the LGBTQ community and decades of apparent gains. It would not take much for property owners to walk through this door by creating a sympathetic set of facts like those in 303 Creative...............

MSN

 

[Optimus Prime]

'Genuinely so gobsmacked': House painter refuses to work with gay man, cites 'church guidelines'

A gay man says that a painter refused to work with him because of his sexuality and cited the 'guidelines' at his church.

www.dailydot.com

 

[MT15]

This is ridiculous and SCOTUS owns this mess.

So, now, house painting is a creative endeavor? I read this right after the original ruling: Subway calls their workers sandwich artists. So next a Subway worker could refuse to make a sandwich for someone they think is gay? Not hard to see where this is going.

 

[coldseat]

This is ridiculous and SCOTUS owns this mess.

So, now, house painting is a creative endeavor? I read this right after the original ruling: Subway calls their workers sandwich artists. So next a Subway worker could refuse to make a sandwich for someone they think is gay? Not hard to see where this is going.

From reading the story, that guy lives in England. I assume he'll have some legal recourses there.

Still, this is definetly spreading throughout democratic socities and SCOTUS added fuel to that fire.

 

[MT15]

Whoops, that is what I get. I am sure this will happen here, though, at some point. It irritates me that the woman bringing the case lied about almost everything, and there are no consequences.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Whoops, that is what I get. I am sure this will happen here, though, at some point. It irritates me that the woman bringing the case lied about almost everything, and there are no consequences.

have zero doubt it will happen here

 

[Optimus Prime]

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Vanderbilt University Medical Center is being sued by its transgender clinic patients, who accuse the hospital of violating their privacy by turning their records over to Tennessee's attorney general.

Two patients sued Monday in Nashville Chancery Court, saying they were among more than 100 people whose records were sent by Vanderbilt to Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti. His office has said it is examining medical billing in a “run of the mill” fraud investigation that isn't directed at patients or their families. Vanderbilt has said it was required by law to comply.

The patients say Vanderbilt was aware that Tennessee authorities are hostile toward the rights of transgender people, and should have removed their personally identifying information before turning over the records.

Tennessee has stood out among conservative-led states pushing myriad laws targeting transgender people, enacting some of the nation's most anti-LGBTQ restrictions, even as families and advocates have voiced objections that such policies are harmful. The lawsuit seeks class-action status on behalf of everyone at the clinic whose private medical records were released to Skrmetti.

“Against that backdrop, its failure to safeguard the privacy of its patients is particularly egregious,” the lawsuit says.

The attorney general’s office has said the hospital has been providing records of its gender-related treatment billing since December 2022, and that the records have been kept confidential. Elizabeth Lane Johnson, an attorney general’s office spokesperson, noted Tuesday that the office isn’t a party to the lawsuit, and directed questions to Vanderbilt.

VUMC spokesperson John Howser said Tuesday that it's common for health systems to get such requests in billing probes and audits, and “the decision to release patient records for any purpose is never taken lightly, even in situations such as this where VUMC was legally compelled to produce the patient records.”..............

MSN

www.msn.com