Now Playing Tracks

queanqueer:

nonbinaryeldritchhorror:

please sign this petition  to recognize nonbinary genders please this is about my rights and my friends’ rights and so many other people’s rights

if you dont sign it or have already signed it at least reblog it spread it please even if your blog isn’t like that even if you are cisgender or binary transgender please please

we have one day to get 50K signatures please  i’m actually begging you 

so important! 53k signatures needed by tomorrow!

BREAKING: Religious freedom bills: The latest effort to counter advances in marriage equality [TW: Anti-LGBT Bigotry & Discrimination, Homophobia]

thepoliticalfreakshow:

WASHINGTON – Religious freedom bills in more than a dozen state legislatures this year mark the latest effort by opponents of same-sex marriage to counter the growing public acceptance of marriage equality, and the momentum of federal court rulings striking down state gay marriage bans.

The bills would codify protections for individuals and businesses who assert their religious beliefs in refusing service to gays, same-sex couples, and others whose behaviors or beliefs conflict with their own.

The measures have gained national attention since the highly publicized criticism of Arizona’s SB 1062, the first this year to reach a governor’s desk. Many of the bills have only recently been defeated or withdrawn, as lawmakers scramble to avoid the national spotlight that befell Arizona.

Proponents say the bills are about protecting religious freedom, not sanctioning discrimination, and that criticism by gay rights activists is unfounded. Yet in state after state, bill sponsors cite primarily two cases as examples for the bills’ need: a case in New Mexico where a photographer was sued for refusing to photograph a same-sex couple’s commitment ceremony; and a case where an Oregon bakery was cited for discriminating against a lesbian couple for refusing to bake a cake for their wedding.

In both states, same-sex marriage was not legal at the time (although it now is in New Mexico), but the businesses were found to have violated their state’s human rights acts which, in both states, prohibited discrimination against gays and lesbians in public accommodations (i.e., businesses licensed by the state to serve the general public).

Critics point to these arguments by state lawmakers as proof that the bills “are aimed squarely at disenfranchising the civil rights of same-sex couples and LGBTQ people.”

Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, a group which advocates against marriage equality, and more recently against a number of other laws advancing LGBT rights, makes the case for the “religious freedom” bills in pointed language that the lawmakers have, in most cases, attempted to avoid.

“Wherever marriage is redefined, the story is the same: florists, photographers, bakers, caterers, social hall owners — anyone who runs a business that caters to the celebration of nuptials — these individuals are forced to choose between their deeply held beliefs about marriage and the prospect of being forced out of business by onerous lawsuits claiming ‘discrimination.’”

But in lawmakers’ attempts to avoid the perception that their bills are targeting LGBT people, they have been so broadly written that they could allow bartenders, restaurant owners and practically any business to use their religious beliefs as a shield to refuse service to people whose lifestyle isn’t in accordance with their beliefs.

Opponents say this opens the door to legally sanctioned discrimination against LGBT people.

Notably, only only 21 states currently protect people from discrimination based on their sexual orientation and/or gender identity, a stark contrast to a recent Gallup Poll that found nearly nine out of ten people in the United States think LGBT people are already protected from discrimination.

They are not.

In fact, LGBTQ people can still experience an outright refusal of services in most states when attempting to access a host of public accommodations including restaurants, parks, hotels, libraries, buses, museums, and elsewhere simply because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

And where there are protections, they often vary from state-to-state, and in city by city, as to where discrimination is prohibited, i.e., employment, housing, and public accommodations.

In many states where humans rights charters do not currently include sexual orientation and gender identity, local municipalities have stepped up to do what state lawmakers have not. Take Arizona, for example, where the state’s largest cities (Phoenix and Tucson) have enacted LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination ordinances. Arizona’s SB 1062, had it not been vetoed, would have rendered those local ordinances unenforceable.

According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 organized religions in the world, and in absence of comprehensive federal protections for LGBT people, “religious freedom” bills pending in these states could have the effect of legalizing widespread discrimination:

ARIZONA

SB 1062 and HB 2153. Chief Sponsors: Sen. Steven B. Yarbrough (R-Chandler) and Rep. Eddie Farnsworth (R-Gilbert). The legislation stated the state shall not “burden a person’s exercise of religion,” effectively allowing businesses to refuse service to LGBT individuals. The measure was approved in theHouse and Senate, but vetoed by Gov. Jan Brewer (R) on Feb. 26.

GEORGIA

HB 1023 and SB 377. Chief Sponsors: Rep. Sam Teasley (R-Marietta) and Sen. Joshua McKoon (R-Columbus). The state’s “Preservation of Religious Freedom Act” would affirm the “right to act or refuse to act in a manner substantially motivated by a sincerely held religious tenet or belief whether or not the exercise is compulsory or a central part or requirement of the person’s religious tenets or beliefs.” The House version was withdrawn on Feb. 27. The Senate version has not been placed on that chamber’s calendar.

HAWAII

HB 1624. Chief Sponsor: Rep. Robert McDermott (R-Ewa-Iroquois Point). The “Hawaii Religious Freedom Restoration Act” would allow “that government should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification.” The bill was sent to the House floor on Feb. 14, 2014, after the House Judiciary Committee declined to hold a hearing. A majority, however, voted to send the bill back to the House Judiciary Committee, which effectively killed it for current session.

IDAHO

HB 427. Chief Sponsor: Rep. Lynn Luker (R-Boise). The Idaho bill would expand protections to individuals on “religious freedom” grounds, effectively allowing protections for discrimination against gays and lesbians. A companion measure, HB 426, would have specified that professionals who invoked these religious beliefs would not lose their occupational licenses. Luker withdrew the the bill on Feb. 19, 2014, after critics labeled it a “sword for discrimination.”

KANSAS

HB 2453. Chief Sponsor: Rep. Charles Macheers (R-Shawnee). The measure states that “no individual, religious entity or government official had to provide any service if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender.” The bill was approved in the House on Feb. 12, 2014, but killed in the Senate on Feb. 19, 2014, after GOP leaders declined to consider it in committee.

MAINE

LD 1428. Chief Sponsor: Sen. David Burns (R-Whiting). The measure states “the government could not infringe upon a person’s religious freedom except in cases of ‘compelling state interest.’” The Senaterejected the bill on Feb. 18, 2014. The House followed suit two days later.

MISSISSIPPI

SB 2681. Chief Sponsor: Sen. Phillip A. Gandy (R-Waynesboro). The measure states: “The state could not burden a person’s right to the exercise of religion.” The bill was approved in the Senate on Jan. 31. On Feb. 26, a House subcommittee proposed removing the parts of the bill that would allow people to refuse service to others based on religious beliefs, leaving in tact language that state government cannot infringe on religious practices.

MISSOURI

SB 916. Chief Sponsor: Sen. Wayne Wallingford (R-Cape Girardeau). The Missouri bill, introduced Feb. 24, is patterned after Arizona and Kansas bills, and would allow Missouri business owners to cite religious beliefs as a legal justification for refusing to provide service. There has been no action on the bill.

NORTH CAROLINA

HB 751. Chief Sponsor: Rep. Jacqueline Michelle Schaffer (R-Mecklenburg). The N.C. bill would prohibit the state or any of its agencies and local governments from “substantially burdening a person’s free exercise of religion.” North Carolina’s version didn’t make the legislature’s self-imposed “crossover deadline.” It isn’t technically eligible for consideration this year, but could be amended into any bill on the legislature’s calendar when they return to Raleigh in May.

OKLAHOMA

SB 1846 and HB 2873. Chief Sponsors: Sen. Greg Treat (R-Oklahoma City) and Rep. Tom Newell (R-Seminole). The measure was introduced in the Senate in January, but it currently does not have any action scheduled in the state legislature. On Feb. 26, the House sponsor said the bill would be rewritten and likely won’t be considered in its current form this legislative session.

OHIO

HB 376. Chief Sponsor: Rep. Bill Patmon (D-Cleveland). This proposed law mirrored Arizona bill, and is the only measure sponsored by a Democrat. On Feb. 25, Patmon withdrew the bill until it could be rewritten to erase concerns it might open the door to discrimination against LGBT people and others.

OREGON

In Oregon, where Democrats control both the House and Senate, religious freedom proponents are hoping to put the measure before voters. In November 2013, the group “Friends of Religious Freedom” launched a ballot initiative “intended to exempt a person from supporting same-sex ceremonies in violation of deeply held religious beliefs.” The measure, “IP52″, is not officially on Oregon’s ballot yet; sponsors are still going through the Secretary of State’s office to qualify language before they can begin gathering petition signatures.

SOUTH DAKOTA

SB 128. Chief Sponsor: Sen. Phil Jensen (R-Rapid City). The measure state [to] “protect the citizens and businesses of South Dakota regarding speech pertaining to views on sexual orientation and to provide for the defense of such citizens and businesses.” On Feb. 18, the Senate Judiciary Committeevoted to kill the bill after opponents said it would have no practical effect but would be seen as mean and hateful.

TENNESSEE

SB 2566. Chief Sponsor: Sen. Mike Bell (R-Riceville). The measure employed similar language to the Arizona bill. After backlash from the business community similar to what was occurring in Arizona, Bellwithdrew the bill from the Senate Judiciary Committee on Feb. 18, ending its chances for consideration this session.

This report will be updated as status of bills change.

Source: Brody Levesque for LGBTQ Nation

Shirtless Gay Kiss on British Soap Opera Sparks Controversy

thepoliticalfreakshow:

The long-running British soap opera Coronation Street received a slew of complaints and homophobic messages after airing a scene in which two of its male characters shared a kiss while shirtless, reports the Mirror.

Though the scene was tame in comparison to similar scenes shared between heterosexual characters on the show, complaints that surfaced after the televised kiss between Todd Grimshaw (Bruno Langley) and Marcus Dent (Charlie Condou) claimed the scene was “sexually suggestive” and inappropriate to air before 8 p.m., as many children were likely to be watching TV at that time.

Shortly after the complaints were received by the creators of the series, the U.K. Office of Communications revealed it had received several complaints over the same-sex content in the series as well. While the broadcast watchdog originally stated it would investigate whether Coronation Streethad violated any guidelines with the controversial episode, it later retracted the statement and confirming officials were satisfied and no investigation would take place.

“The vast majority of the audience have no trouble with this,” an insider told the Mirror. “It’s real.”

Coronation Street, which debuted on British television in 1960, isn’t the only long-running soap opera to currently be courting controversy with LGBT-inclusive storylines. The American series Days of Our Lives made history earlier this month when fan-favorite gay couple Will (Guy Wilson) and Sonny (Freddie Smith) became the first same-sex couple to be engaged on the series, in a special Valentine’s Day episode.

The Awful LGBT Crisis in Uganda, Vividly Detailed in One Comic [TW: Anti-LGBT Bigotry & Discrimination, Homophobia, Homophobic Violence]

thepoliticalfreakshow:

On Monday, Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni signed into law a controversial anti-gay legislation that would sentence those found guilty of ”aggravated homosexuality” with life imprisonment. While the law is widely regarded as a huge backwards step for the country, what many people don’t realize is the responsibility that American evangelists bear in its inception, as well as in the spread of rampant homophobia in the region.

As PolicyMic's Marguerite Ward wrote earlier this week, anti-gay evangelists such as Scott Lively are guilty of fanning the flames of homophobia in Uganda. Though Lively has since stated that the Ugandan law goes too far, his involvement in creating a toxic environment that led to this law cannot be understated.

Earlier this month, artist Andy Warner illustrated a comic for the Center for Constitutional Rights, highlighting Lively’s exploits in Uganda. His comic, originally posted on the Huffington Post, is reproduced in full below. With the passage of the anti-gay law, the comic is more relevant than ever: according to Warner, now several of the people featured below “are fearing an imminent witch hunt.”

"A lot of the blame for this falls squarely on the shoulders of one man, Scott Lively, and his global campaign of homophobia," Warner wrote on his Tumblr.

Check out the comic below:

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

Comic credit: Andy Warner and the Center for Constitutional Rights

Source: Eileen Shim for Policy Mic

I'm Trans* and I Have a Right to Date However I Want (Even If It's Not Heteronormative)

cisgirltransboy:

To Tumblr, Love Pixel Union