Today in a press release, the Human Rights Campaign, a national LGBT organization, sent out a preview of what it is predicting in state and local legislative battles in the year ahead, noting that the anticipate bills contrary to their agenda will be considered in at least 27 states.
In 2016, HRC expects more than two dozen state legislatures to consider anti-equality measures. These include legislatures in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
The full report can be read at www.hrc.org/2016legislature.
(From a press 1/8/16 press release)
According to the report, the group expects two major areas of legislative measures for South Dakota:
In South Dakota, the group is likely focusing on legislation such as HB 1008, which makes certain school bathrooms and locker rooms gender specific based on biology.
However, no measure has been pre-filed as of yet for 2016 allowing for the ability to refuse service because of religious objections, as championed as a result of lawsuits against bakers, photographers, etc, for declining to provide services for same sex marriages.
During previous sessions, measures underlining our ability to reject business on a religious basis had been introduced and failed. However, they failed before the US Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same-sex marriage in all 50 states this past June. Which takes lawsuits from those objections from the arena of speculative possibility into potential reality in South Dakota.
State Attorney General Marty Jackley has been up front in saying “Under the law, constitutional rights are required to coexist.” The question is what form that coexistence is going to take in South Dakota as a result of this upcoming legislative session.
–In 2016, HRC expects more than two dozen state legislatures to consider anti-equality measures
Throwing others into the closet you once occupied is not equality.
A solution in search of a problem. Grandstanding. Disagree? Then give some South Dakota examples of abuses that need to be addressed by this type of legislation.
Ten years from now, this type of legislation will be met with laughter and ridicule by Republicans. Right now, its mostly the other 60% of Americans that are scoffing. And with young people, its more like 80%.
A solution looking for a problem like gays wanting to marry?
Protecting contitutional rights is no laughing matter.
There are plenty of college campus surveys where students support repealing or curtailing the first amendment.
We don’t put constitutional rights up for a vote or a poll.
–A solution in search of a problem. Grandstanding.
If so, why is the “HRC” fighting like hell against it NATIONWIDE?
I love liberals who fight like hell to enact their “progressive” agenda and then ridicule and mock those opposed to it as old fashioned and fighting non-existent problems associated with that agenda. It’s so typical.
I mean, they won’t even debate the issues–they prefer to dismiss any debate as founded on imaginary concerns. No wonder why the prefer to divide vs. debate.
Move on jimma jimma.
List examples. I asked you to list examples in South Dakota demonstrating a need for the legislation. Can you do that or not?
Not all legislation is intended to ameliorate undesired situations.
Often legislation is meant to prevent or avoid future conflicts.
Do you not understand that?
Now answer my question: If this is about grandstanding or a solution in search of a problem, why is the “HRC” & you fighting like hell against it?
I didn’t think so. No examples.
Maybe, as good Republicans, we should draw up legislation only when it’s really needed and leave the posturing to the liberals.
You are creating “future conflicts”. That’s what you are doing.
–Maybe, as good Republicans, we should draw up legislation only when it’s really needed and leave the posturing to the liberals.
“We”? Speak for yourself.
–You are creating “future conflicts”. That’s what you are doing.
Such as??? Name one future conflict that is created by this legislation.
You say “Name one conflict that is created by this legislation?”
I am gay. Are you kidding?
I didn’t think so. No examples.
So you fear about future conflicts but cannot identify any.
Talk about irrational.
I’m transitioning to black.
This proposal is needed.
I must admit. You are funny.
Racial transitions are no more amusing than gay marriage. Based on your “funny” comment, we can see that you’re an intolerant bigot, likely racist.
What’s really funny is that one gay’s views on gay issues is somehow more valid or insightful than someone else’s.
Like one black person’s views on a black issue is somehow more insightful than someone else’s.
Or one white gal’s views are more worthy than anyone else’s.
Identity or victimhood (real or imagined) confers absolutely no more credibility or insight than anyone else’s. In fact, such views are less likely rational and more emotional than objective, educated views.
‘I’m transitioning to black.’
You’re going to need A LOT of bleach.
The US Sup Ct created lots of future conflicts when it legalized gay marriage in 2015.
Should the Sup Ct not have acted as it did?
That is a good question. Should the Supreme Court have let the individual states continue their debate of gay marriage without it’s intercession? Perhaps, in the long run, it would have been better. I think they always risk a backlash in cases like these.
I also believe that I should be treated the same as a straight person. Tax issues, medical care and marriage being three areas where I was not receiving equal treatment. The Supreme Court decision changed that for me. So, on a personal level, I can’t say that I disagreed with it.
I also believe that I should be treated the same as a secular person. Sensible modesty in public restrooms & locker rooms, and tolerance in the public square being three areas where I am not receiving equal treatment. This legislation is helpful in righting those wrongs. So, on a personal level, I can’t say that I disagreed with it.
My, I like your “rationale”.
Yea. We need a bunch of new laws to keep you from being offended by immodesty.
Are you that guy that drives 30 mph on the Interstate?
Yeah, and gays need marriage like they need a stick in the eye, right?
I note that your support of gay marriage was exclusively economic–nothing about love, commitment, fidelity, or covenant.
Are you the guy who is offended by “merry Christmas”?
USD is offering general neutral housing, and unless the bathrooms in these specific dorms are in the dorm rooms, the bathrooms will be gender neutral also.
I was once in another country and had to use the bathroom. There were no doors on the stalls and a lady was cleaning around me as I did my duty.
It wasn’t that exciting for either of us.
Anyhow. I am guessing that USD is capable of providing adequate privacy for it’s students. Although SDSU would probably do a better job of it.
Jimmy, Why is this being brought up year after year after year? Just a cheap diversion to gain headlines while not really dealing with harder more pressing issues? They are an easy target to go after?
Not heard of any issues here in South Dakota and I’m sure as small a state as it is with many small town the parents and all parties involved would try to make it as low key and as non-threatening and respectful as possible for all parties involved. Why put targets on their backs?
–Not heard of any issues here in South Dakota and I’m sure as small a state as it is with many small town the parents and all parties involved would try to make it as low key and as non-threatening and respectful as possible for all parties involved.
All that sounds treasonable and sensible. Unfortunately, the HRC is neither–they’re confrontational to the point of domestic terrorism.
As we saw in rural Rowan County Kentucky, there was no “problem” until gay couples were imported to create the confrontations. There were no gays in Rowan County seeking a marriage license until professional outside agitators were brought in.
That’s why this legislation is needed.
–Why put targets on their backs?
That’s exactly what this legislation is meant to prevent.
All that sounds REASONABLE and sensible.
I was recently in a well-established and well-attended church, in the front of which sat a mother very discreetly (but obviously) nursing a child.
It wasn’t that comfortable for anyone in attendance …except for the baby who didn’t understand what was occurring nor who had to be there.
What used to be a commonly understood respect for community standards and values and behaviors, has been abolished and sullied by activists’ demands for “equal rights” and intolerance for basic community expectations of what was acceptable.
We’re not better off as a community. It’s sad that this legislation is the result, but it is and it’s needed.
So, everyone was too busy watching the baby bottle to pay attention to the sermon. Is that the problem?
Nice try…but the nursing occurred before the service began. There was no baby bottle.
And of course, you missed the entire point, in favor of being snarky.
You’re not gay–you’re obnoxious.
But we all knew that already, right?
In your ignorant gayitude, you probably don’t understand the difference between “nursing” a baby and “bottle” feeding a baby.
natural v. unnatural…
you’re familiar with that, right?
Gee. Chill out a bit.
You’d think I walked across your lawn or something.
Did the LGBTQA community “chill out” when they lost state after state on gay marriage?
Did the HRC “chill out” on this proposed legislation?
Typical liberal strategy: LGBTQA are fervent activists crusading for good ole American civil rights; when the other side pushes back, they need to “chill out”.
‘USD is offering general neutral housing, and unless the bathrooms in these specific dorms are in the dorm rooms, the bathrooms will be gender neutral also.’
Yes, women and men will share restrooms. Welcome to the 21st century.
Or is USD moving back to the middle ages?
Perhaps there are things we can learn from the ‘middle ages’ when people weren’t so prudish.
By definition, “prude” has little to do with defecating and urinating…
then again, maybe you have some kind of weird fetish associated with human excrement.
I don’t believe that this type of legislation would be necessary if the LGBT community displayed the same tolerance that they demand of others who disagree with them. Whether or not I think gay marriage is right, I say it’s their lives, and I now have a live and let live attitude. But that isn’t enough for some of them, who insist on forcing others to violate their beliefs and accept their alternative lifestyle. (Example, bakers etc who don’t want to participate in a gay wedding, when the gay couple has plenty of alternative bakers etc who will participate; it’s these types of situations which are resulting in these types of legislation.) I believe the majority of LGBT just want to live their lives without making a fuss, but it’s too bad that a few bad actors create so many problems for both communities.
It is odd.
We’re told by the LGBT community that sexual orientation is “innate”, but they cannot point to any genetic proof of this.
Yet, the LGBT community tells us that one’s sex/gender is NOT innate, although there are clear genetic markers for gender!
Talk about anti-science!!!
The LBGT community is full of bad actors on a crusade to .fill closets with those who disagree with them.
You say “The LBGT community is full of bad actors on a crusade to .fill closets with those who disagree with them.”
Not exactly sure what you mean by that but does your view of “science” make you think that all people are straight? Straight saint and straight sinner maybe?
–Not exactly sure what you mean by that but does your view of “science” make you think that all people are straight
The current science is that sexual orientation is not fixed over a person’s lifetime. Just look at the wife of NYC’s mayor, or bisexuals.
If sexual orientation were “innate”, please identify which genes control that, or why some folks freely change their sexual desires throughout their lifetimes.
–Not exactly sure what you mean by that
I mean that LGBTQA activists, and some not so active, will not tolerate opposing views of their behaviors and agenda,. and try to silence their opponents by forcing them into the newly liberated closets.
Just ask Brenden Eich.
Anonymous Jan. 8, 2016 at 2:52 p.m. wrote: ‘We’re told by the LGBT community that sexual orientation is “innate”, but they cannot point to any genetic proof of this.’
Do you live under a rock? Or in a van down by the river? Or a trailer house in the middle of nowhere out in northwest South Dakota?
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-genetic-homosexuality-nature-nurture-20151007-story.html
From the article:
“In individuals, said Ngun, the presence of these distinct molecular marks can predict homosexuality with an accuracy of close to 70%.”
.
But experts said the results — as yet unpublished in a peer-reviewed journal — offer preliminary new evidence that a man’s genetic inheritance is only one influence on his sexual orientation. Through the epigenome, the results suggest, some facet of life experience likely also primes a man for same-sex attraction.”
“Over a person’s lifetime, myriad environmental factors — nutrition, poverty, a mother’s love, education, exposure to toxic chemicals — all help shape the person he will become.”
1. As I claimed, there is no “genetic” proof. Anonymous at 12:09 does not know the difference between “genetics” and “epigenetics”.
2. the article referred to men, not women. Half the story obviously. The wife of NYC’s mayor being the counterexample.
3. The article clearly states that environment has a large influence on these men. That’s hardly an argument for male homosexuality being “innate”–quite the opposite in fact.
In other words, my point remains intact.
I’ll take the bigoted personal attacks as the desperation of the uneducated.
Well if anything it serve as a nice distraction to keep the attention away from more important things as usual.