All Things LGBTQ+ (9 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.

 

[coldseat]

If you read the articles posted, you can figure it.

I did read it. I don't think you have. They aren't the same bill.

 

[Optimus Prime]

When the trans sex worker Paola Buenrostro was killed by a client in Mexico City, her friend Kenya Cuevas grabbed the man to stop him fleeing and recorded the scene as police arrived amid sirens, screams and red and blue lights.

Despite the footage and witness testimonies, a judge considered there was insufficient evidence to hold the man and released him after 48 hours, since which time he has been on the run.

That night in 2016 turned Cuevas into an activist. And last week, after years of campaigning, Mexico City passed a law making transfemicide a crime with a prison sentence of up to 70 years – a “watershed” moment in one of Latin America’s deadliest countries for trans people.


“For the first time, we can feel represented before the law, and that violence against us really carries a severe punishment,” said Cuevas at a gathering on Sunday to recognise the victory. “For the first time, I can feel some satisfaction, some peace, after all these long years of work.”

The law, named in honour of Buenrostro, was passed almost unanimously in the state congress.

Mexico City is the second of the country’s 32 states to criminalise transfemicide. Earlier this year, Nayarit, a small state on the Pacific coast, introduced sentences of up to 60 years for the crime.

The law also makes it possible for a victim’s friends, not just relatives, to be involved in the bureaucracy of death and justice: identifying and claiming bodies, and driving the investigations.

This matters in a country where some families disown transgender relatives, meaning there is no one to force the state into action.…….

Transfemicide becomes a crime in a ‘watershed’ moment for Mexico City

Galvanized by the 2016 murder of trans sex worker Paola Buenrostro, activists applaud law as critical for feeling safe

www.theguardian.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

Michigan has outlawed the so-called gay and trans panic defense, which allows criminal defense attorneys to use a victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity as a defense argument.

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, signed House Bill 4718 into law Tuesday. The legislation states that an individual’s “actual or perceived sex, gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation” is not admissible in a criminal trial to “demonstrate reasonable provocation,” “show that an act was committed in a heat of passion” or “support a defense of reduced mental capacity.”

In a statement shared on Tuesday, the governor’s office said the bill “significantly expands” protections for the LGBTQ community “by protecting them from violent acts of discrimination, prejudice, and hate crimes.”

Michigan is now the 20th state to prohibit this type of defense, according to Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ think tank. Last year, Rep. Chris Pappas, D-N.H., and Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., reintroduced the LGBTQ+ Panic Defense Prohibition Act, which would ban such defenses in federal court.

The highest-profile example of the “gay panic defense” was perhaps the attempt to use it in the murder trial of Aaron McKinney, one of the two men accused of fatally beating 21-year-old gay student Matthew Shepard in Wyoming in 1998. The defense was unsuccessful, and both men were sentenced to life in prison.

There have been cases, however, where the panic defense has been used with some success. In 2018, gay advocates were outraged after a Texas man, James Miller, received a light sentence after fatally stabbing his neighbor, Daniel Spencer, who had allegedly tried to kiss Miller.

And in 2009, Joseph Biedermann was acquitted of murder in the killing of Terrance Hauser, whom he admitted to stabbing more than 60 times; Biedermann alleged that Hauser had threatened to rape him…….

Michigan outlaws the 'gay and trans panic defense' in criminal trials

The law prohibits using a victim’s sexuality or gender identity as justification for criminal action.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[The Other Liberal]

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.

I've been back and forth in my own mind the relationship between government and religious based service agencies that discriminate because things like LGBTQ Rights are so essential. But so is religious liberty. I think the decision was right because allowing non profits greater latitude to not cater to certain people or engage in some practices is necessary for religious liberty.

 

[bird]

I've been back and forth in my own mind the relationship between government and religious based service agencies that discriminate because things like LGBTQ Rights are so essential. But so is religious liberty. I think the decision was right because allowing non profits greater latitude to not cater to certain people or engage in some practices is necessary for religious liberty.

Actually, it isn’t. Especially if such organizations receive government dollars at any level.

The real issue with such claims lies in the problem that religionists want “religion and God back in the public square” without actual discussion of dogma.

Such people can believe whatever they want. They are not entitled to government money.

 

[The Other Liberal]

Actually, it isn’t. Especially if such organizations receive government dollars at any level.

The real issue with such claims lies in the problem that religionists want “religion and God back in the public square” without actual discussion of dogma.

Such people can believe whatever they want. They are not entitled to government money.

I agree with you about government funding if we're talking about subsidies and grants. But it's not just money there are issues about licensing and legal recognition. There are also regulatory matters. Should government agencies reimburse religious non-profits for services if they discriminate ? At some point it's about balancing conflicting interests. Individual liberty can be messy. But it's all we have.

 

[bird]

I agree with you about government funding if we're talking about subsidies and grants. But it's not just money there are issues about licensing and legal recognition. There are also regulatory matters. Should government agencies reimburse religious non-profits for services if they discriminate ? At some point it's about balancing conflicting interests. Individual liberty can be messy. But it's all we have.

No government monies, period. It isn’t simply about discrimination which can be construed as being in opposition to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as well as, iirc, the 14th amendment. It is about choosing sides as to which belief structure supersedes other belief structure. Over on Democratic Underground there is a thread where a “Christian” (yes, I deliberately put it in quotes) adoption agency refused to allow a Jewish couple to foster a child which, the couple claims, they would have eventually adopted. The reason? Religious belief. So much for JUDEO-Christian values.

People are permitted to believe as they will.

The actual problem lies in Christian religionists wanting a superior position over other religions.

Under the SCOTUS decisions like Hobby Lobby I must be permitted to discriminate against whoever I wish due to “deeply held beliefs”. That includes discriminating against Jews because I believe they were “Christ killers” or against Blacks because God made different races and whites are superior to Blacks, that inter-racial marriage is against God’s Will (whatever the flock that means) for the same racial argument.

Religious belief is used as a cudgel under the cover of “freedom of religion” and SCOTUS decisions to continue and exacerbate the “other”. In other words, to treat some as sub-human.

I don’t care about their religious freedom when it comes treating people as sub-human.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I've been back and forth in my own mind the relationship between government and religious based service agencies that discriminate because things like LGBTQ Rights are so essential. But so is religious liberty. I think the decision was right because allowing non profits greater latitude to not cater to certain people or engage in some practices is necessary for religious liberty.

They shouldn't get any public funding while doing it, because then it infringes on everyone else's religious freedoms. They have to religious freedom right to discriminate all they want, but they don't have a right to do on the general public's dime.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I agree with you about government funding if we're talking about subsidies and grants. But it's not just money there are issues about licensing and legal recognition. There are also regulatory matters. Should government agencies reimburse religious non-profits for services if they discriminate ? At some point it's about balancing conflicting interests. Individual liberty can be messy. But it's all we have.

If there was a religious group that followed their religious beliefs by stoning adulterers or homosexuals, who entered the religious groups property seeking services the religious group offers to the general public, is that allowed in the name of preserving that religious groups' religious freedoms?

 

[Taurus]

Cool.

Fact is, the burning of a particular symbol is a hate act because you want it to be a hate act. In your view, there is no room for sentiments like disapproval or dislike, and probably you equate disapproval or dislike to hate. And you view everyone who doesn't agree with your ideology as a monolith of hate.

But who burns a Pride flag to say they're deeply disappointed in the queer community's failure to live up to their ideals?

 

[The Other Liberal]

If there was a religious group that followed their religious beliefs by stoning adulterers or homosexuals, who entered the religious groups property seeking services the religious group offers to the general public, is that allowed in the name of preserving that religious groups' religious freedoms?

Of course not. Remember you're free to do whatever you like until you pose bodily harm to another individual or keep them from doing what they want. It's not supposed to be a zero sum.

Think about it like this -sodomy laws were used criminalize sex usually between gay men until the Supreme Court struck them down. The same thing was true for marriage until the court said same sex couples couldn't be denied legal marriage. All this happened despite opposition and outrage especially from the Religious Right. However we don't require churches to recognize or perform ceremonies for same sex couples. We don't require Catholic or Evangelical schools to hire LGBTQ teachers or staff.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Of course not. Remember you're free to do whatever you like until you pose bodily harm...

You're free to do what you want unless you pose any harm to someone else be it physical, psychological, or constitutionally and state granted rights.

However we don't require churches to recognize or perform ceremonies for same sex couples.

That's correct, but we do require those who work for the government to give marriage licenses and marry same sex couples. Why? Because government institutions are funded by everyone's taxes, so it would be a violation of people's religious freedoms to allow any publicly funded function to discriminate on the bases of just one of the many religions that people in America follow.

We don't require Catholic or Evangelical schools to hire LGBTQ teachers or staff.

That's fine if they don't receive public funds, if they do, then they are violating my religious freedom by discriminating against people based solely on their religious beliefs. They do not have a right to impose their religious beliefs on how any tax dollars are spent.

 

[SystemShock]

But who burns a Pride flag to say they're deeply disappointed in the queer community's failure to live up to their ideals?

??

Just to clarify, I said disapproval, not disappointment.

 

[SaintForLife]

What in the world is going on at the Olympics? The drag queens is one thing, but openly mocking Christiananity? Why? I'm guessing parents were in shock if their kids were watching with them.

 

[bird]

What in the world is going on at the Olympics? The drag queens is one thing, but openly mocking Christiananity? Why? I'm guessing parents were in shock if their kids were watching with them.

Not possible for me to care less.

Conservative Americans and, imo, conservatives around the world are hyper-fixated on sex.

Control or attempted control of sex via defining what is “normal” or “natural” is a useful tool to control people.

As for blasphemous? Please. Conservatives blaspheme every time they ignore the teachings of The Christ they claim to worship.

 

[SaintForLife]

I remember when we were told this would never happen and to stop exaggerating. This is a frightening trend in Democrat controlled states.

 

[Semper]

Completely inappropriate

 

[SystemShock]

What in the world is going on at the Olympics? The drag queens is one thing, but openly mocking Christiananity? Why? I'm guessing parents were in shock if their kids were watching with them.

It's funny to me, that Christians think the world revolves around them and don't realize that certain things and symbols have different meanings to different people.

That's not the image of a calf, that's the image of a bull, more specifically the type of bull used in bullfights, and bulls have certain meanings in France (see Hall of Bulls in Lascaux, Camargue, bull fighting).

The "Last Supper", that is, shall we call it a choice interpretation. Believe it or not, people have gathered around tables to eat and drink in every culture that made tables since times unknown.