âWould you support passage of a federal law or laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, specifically in the areas of employment, housing, public accommodation and access to credit?â
This should be asked of everyone in any elected office. And if the answer is no, then GTFO.
i havenât watched the segment yet, but my guess is that itâs because while public sentiment can change quickly, the legal process is glacial.
Another aspect is the weird state system we have here. Iâm pretty sure that at least some states have these sorts of protections, so people in those states donât feel as much need for national coverage.
And while weâre at it, why hasnât NOW passed???
As per the video⌠Some states DO have those sorts of protections. But, 31 states still do not.
Iâm in a state, Tennessee, where some cities have passed LGBT anti-discrimination measures only to have those overridden by state-level legislation that specifically say cities canât pass such measures.
The legislation was passed and is defended by the same legislators who resent any kind of federal limits on what states can do. Go figure.
Why? Because Jesus said ânoâ. (Try to convince some knuckleheads otherwise.)
Is it possible to like the same kind of car, want to see Hillary (but if possible not just her) behind bars, and also cheer for (or at least not grumble against which at bad days has to count) equal rights?
John 13: 23-25
23 One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. 24 Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, âAsk him which one he means.â 25 Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, âLord, who is it?â
Because itâs only right to stomp on peopleâs ability to self determine when we do it!
Yes, you are right. That is what I meant. Thanks for correcting that.
You mean the ERA, right?
edited to add: perhaps I should have read just a bit further down, huh? 
Itâs okayârepetition will help remind people that the ERA remains inexplicably unpassed. I remember one of the arguments against it was that it would allow same-sex marriage. At least that ship has sailed.
Because itâs often sold cleverly as ânot discriminationâ.
The people of Cincinnati passed a bill back in the 90s that was publicized as being an âequal rightsâ law. Its proponents declared that laws were on the books to mistakenly give LGBT people âspecialâ rights that other people donât have, and that we just needed to correct that by giving everyone the same rights. Sounds reasonable, right? Sort of? Yeah, not so much.
What they passed was a law that made it 100% legal to deny housing, employment, and the freedom to congregate to people on the suspicion of their sexual orientation. The city lost most of its convention business, a huge amount of its downtown revenue, and I lost my job. The law was changed back a few years later. Uh, oops?
And donât forget: unisex bathrooms and women in the military in front-line positions.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
