Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19
Thanks Tree13Thanks

Thread: Editorial: Marriage equality, yes. Citizenship equality? Well ...

  1. #1
    Flibbertigibbet Wonderer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2014
    Posts
    22,598
    Thanks
    14235

    From
    Missouri

    Editorial: Marriage equality, yes. Citizenship equality? Well ...

    No matter that the Supreme Court has declared marriage equality for all. It is still not safe to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender in Missouri.

    Sadly, discrimination is alive and well in the Show-Me State, where the battle for equality on the job, in the home and in public accommodations must still be waged. In fact, on Tuesday, PROMO, a gay rights advocacy organization in Missouri, reported that officials in some 20 of Missouri’s 114 counties were still refusing for a variety of reasons to issue marriage licenses to gay, lesbian and transgender couples.

    But even if after you and your partner leave the wedding ceremony in a courthouse or city hall or church, you can find yourself fired from your job, evicted from your home and denied service or entry to a public space based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Marriage equality, yes. Citizenship equality, not so much.

    Some cities around the state prohibit such discrimination. Among them locally are St. Louis city and county, Clayton, Kirkwood, Olivette and University City. But that may not offer protection from state-sponsored discrimination.

    In what passes for progress in the Missouri Legislature, a bill to add “sexual orientation” to the state’s non-discrimination law had its first committee hearing in 2010, the tenth time it was proposed. Two years ago, the Missouri Non-discrimination Act legislation passed the Senate but the House adjourned without even considering it.

    This year it went nowhere, held hostage by the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s demand that the Legislature make it easier to fire employees regardless of sexual orientation. Rep. Mike Colona, D-St. Louis, currently the only out gay legislator in Missouri, said Tuesday that he plans to bring the legislation back next year. He hopes last week’s Supreme Court marriage decision and support from the state’s largest employers will give it a boost with lawmakers.

    Missouri is not alone. At least 28 states refuse to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, and most of them also fail to offer protections to transgender people.

    Editorial: Marriage equality, yes. Citizenship equality? Well ... : News


    Posting this to highlight something I've been trying (and failing) to convey in some of the other threads regarding gay rights. Repeatedly, I see comments here to the effect of: "You can't refuse to serve someone because they're gay." This is true. It is also false.

    You see, it depends on where you are. If you're in one of the 20 some-odd states (or a local municipality) who have laws on the books banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, then yes, it's true. If you aren't, then no, it isn't.

    So, currently, in, say, Chesterfield, Missouri, a retailer can legally refuse to serve someone simply because they're gay. Please don't misunderstand - I'm not advocating that they do this; nor would I frequent an establishment I learned had done so. I'm pointing out a still rather gaping hole in the framework of gay equality.
    Thanks from Friday13 and Coyote

  2. #2
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    30,852
    Thanks
    28828

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Wonderer View Post
    I'm pointing out a still rather gaping hole in the framework of gay equality.

    Would you suggest that we, as a society, continue to do the slow, tedious work of expanding equality for all of our citizens, or would you suggest instead that we simply throw our hands into the air and declare that the situation is hopelessly beyond repair?
    Thanks from Snikitz and Friday13

  3. #3
    Flibbertigibbet Wonderer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2014
    Posts
    22,598
    Thanks
    14235

    From
    Missouri
    Quote Originally Posted by NightSwimmer View Post
    Would you suggest that we, as a society, continue to do the slow, tedious work of expanding equality for all of our citizens, or would you suggest instead that we simply throw our hands into the air and declare that the situation is hopelessly beyond repair?
    I'd suggest that we, as a society, push for sexual orientation to be included as a protected class in discrimination legislation in those jurisdictions where it currently is not.

    ETA: And at the federal level -- i.e., Title II of the CRA.
    Last edited by Wonderer; 10th July 2015 at 12:49 PM.
    Thanks from Havelock and Coyote

  4. #4
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    29,220
    Thanks
    3599

    It is truly amazing what happens when the courts overrule 38 state's Constitutions inside of a year.

    What is wrong with these people?

    You would think they might understand that their opinions do not matter.

    (give em time and try to not be self righteous)

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    317
    Thanks
    255

    From
    000
    We need to pass a new ERA (that actually ratifies this time), and have it include sexual orientation and gender identity, alongside sex.

  6. #6
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    29,220
    Thanks
    3599

    Quote Originally Posted by Ambicatus View Post
    We need to pass a new ERA (that actually ratifies this time), and have it include sexual orientation and gender identity, alongside sex.
    Why?

  7. #7
    Veteran Member DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    30,110
    Thanks
    25631

    From
    SWUSA
    Quote Originally Posted by kmiller1610 View Post
    Why?
    So that people have the same protections as you. You may be unaware of your protections. LGBT Americans are aware that they are not protected...as you are.
    Thanks from Friday13

  8. #8
    Veteran Member Dr.Knuckles's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    97,856
    Thanks
    4423

    From
    Vancouver
    Quote Originally Posted by kmiller1610 View Post
    It is truly amazing what happens when the courts overrule 38 state's Constitutions inside of a year.

    What is wrong with these people?

    You would think they might understand that their opinions do not matter.

    (give em time and try to not be self righteous)
    That's really the essence of the problem.

    For equal rights, civil liberties and constitutional rights - people's opinion does NOT MATTER.

    It doesn't.

    It just doesn't.
    Thanks from Cicero, OldGaffer and NightSwimmer

  9. #9
    Veteran Member TNVolunteer73's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    29,131
    Thanks
    7546

    From
    TN
    Quote Originally Posted by Wonderer View Post
    No matter that the Supreme Court has declared marriage equality for all. It is still not safe to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender in Missouri.

    Sadly, discrimination is alive and well in the Show-Me State, where the battle for equality on the job, in the home and in public accommodations must still be waged. In fact, on Tuesday, PROMO, a gay rights advocacy organization in Missouri, reported that officials in some 20 of Missouri’s 114 counties were still refusing for a variety of reasons to issue marriage licenses to gay, lesbian and transgender couples.

    But even if after you and your partner leave the wedding ceremony in a courthouse or city hall or church, you can find yourself fired from your job, evicted from your home and denied service or entry to a public space based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Marriage equality, yes. Citizenship equality, not so much.

    Some cities around the state prohibit such discrimination. Among them locally are St. Louis city and county, Clayton, Kirkwood, Olivette and University City. But that may not offer protection from state-sponsored discrimination.

    In what passes for progress in the Missouri Legislature, a bill to add “sexual orientation” to the state’s non-discrimination law had its first committee hearing in 2010, the tenth time it was proposed. Two years ago, the Missouri Non-discrimination Act legislation passed the Senate but the House adjourned without even considering it.

    This year it went nowhere, held hostage by the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s demand that the Legislature make it easier to fire employees regardless of sexual orientation. Rep. Mike Colona, D-St. Louis, currently the only out gay legislator in Missouri, said Tuesday that he plans to bring the legislation back next year. He hopes last week’s Supreme Court marriage decision and support from the state’s largest employers will give it a boost with lawmakers.

    Missouri is not alone. At least 28 states refuse to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, and most of them also fail to offer protections to transgender people.

    Editorial: Marriage equality, yes. Citizenship equality? Well ... : News


    Posting this to highlight something I've been trying (and failing) to convey in some of the other threads regarding gay rights. Repeatedly, I see comments here to the effect of: "You can't refuse to serve someone because they're gay." This is true. It is also false.

    You see, it depends on where you are. If you're in one of the 20 some-odd states (or a local municipality) who have laws on the books banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, then yes, it's true. If you aren't, then no, it isn't.

    So, currently, in, say, Chesterfield, Missouri, a retailer can legally refuse to serve someone simply because they're gay. Please don't misunderstand - I'm not advocating that they do this; nor would I frequent an establishment I learned had done so. I'm pointing out a still rather gaping hole in the framework of gay equality.
    no but he can legally say I don't want to take part in your wedding.

  10. #10
    Proud deplorable Bigot Outdraw Poker Champion, Colinks :Swap Champion
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    14,225
    Thanks
    3072

    From
    MI
    We should eliminate protected classes and just say we can't discriminate against anyone. That way we don't continuously have to go through this.

    Equal protection for all.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Case FOR Marriage Equality
    By Friday13 in forum Current Events
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 4th May 2015, 11:31 AM
  2. Post Marriage Equality
    By sky writer in forum Civil Rights
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 7th April 2015, 05:34 AM
  3. New victims of so-called ‘marriage equality’
    By TrueMan in forum Current Events
    Replies: 805
    Last Post: 15th November 2014, 06:41 PM
  4. Marriage Equality Comes to Wisconsin
    By ProgressivePatriot in forum Sexuality
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 7th October 2014, 09:21 AM
  5. Marriage Equality Wins!
    By Kropotkin in forum Current Events
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 6th November 2012, 09:26 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed