New War In The South Against Gay Rights

Oops. Here is my post on Facebook today.

I call out the whole entire IGNORANT, REDNECK RUBES IN THE BUYBULL BELT.

SOUTHERN IGNORANCE REDUX

On September 12, 2015 I posted about SOUTHERN IGNORANCE with the Kentucky Clerk of Court Kim Davis not doing her fucking job to issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples as required by the U.S. Constitution (14th Amendment) and validated by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2015.

I mentioned then about the ignorance that pervades the Southern (and Western) states due to Christian fundamentalism that represents a whole mindset in this benighted part of the nation known as the Bible Belt, which I henceforth called the Buybull Belt because that is honestly what I consider it.


Well, in the past few weeks these ignorant rednecks have made a bunch of state laws to target transgender ppl using restrooms that match their actual gender rather than the erroneous misapplied gender on their birth certificate. Also, these laws continue the discrimination against gay ppl as well, obfuscating the bigotry with the title "religious freedom."

True to their Christian Sacrifice mentality, they are now suffering loss of revenue and employment due to boycotting by Disney, PayPal and other large corporations who are not opening facilities or holding events in their backwater ignorant states because their new discriminatory laws violate those company's employment policies of inclusion. Even more enlightened states are preventing official travel to these backwater anachronisms.

Many of these laws appear to go against the U.S. Constitution and various federal laws that supersede state laws (since all these states discriminated against black ppl well into the late 20th Century). So, that has now opened up the probability of all these cash-strapped states now having to defend their new discrimination laws in federal court.

Failing to learn from past bigotry proves my point that the BUYBULL BELT STATES ARE RUN BY A BUNCH OF IGNORANT SOUTHERN RUBES.

I posted this while sharing a link about the EEOC and Justice Dept. taking complaints of discrimination in these states on gov't property, which comes under their jurisdiction.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/feds-ready-for-transgender-discrimination-complaints-in-nort?utm_term=.pe5P4jzJe#.dbKj2De7b

 

The law in Mississippi is the more extreme of the two. It says that any business owner can refuse to serve anyone, if doing so would violate his or her religious beliefs. So, if you are driving across the state to get somewhere else, and stop at a random place for lunch with a gay partner and you both appear to be gay, the owner can legally say to you, "Sorry, we don't serve gays here" if his church teaches that homosexuality is not to be tolerated by anyone. They could also refuse to serve people who are openly Muslim. In theory, the concept could also be extended to white supremacists who consider racial segregation to be mandated by god, but there are federal laws and federal court rulings that appear to conflict with this particular part of it, and they take priority over state law. A right wing religious hotel owner could legally ask straight couples to show evidence that they're married to each other, and a landlord could threaten with eviction tenants who are caught with alcohol in their apartments, if he believes that drinking is a sin.

The NC law is a bit more complicated. It rolls back some existing city ordinances prohibiting discrimination in housing and employment based on sexual preference and transgender status. It also says that everyone must use the public bathroom that matches the gender printed on their birth certificate, regardless of their physical appearance. Obviously, that part of the law is going to be nearly impossible to enforce, but will likely cause a lot of trouble. When I use a public bathroom stall, nobody else in the room has any idea what my genitals look like, or what my birth certificate says. But masculine looking women will likely be challenged and questioned by conservative activists, or they will have the police do so. The NC law says nothing about businesses refusing service to any identifiable group.

Economic impact from boycotts will be much less in Mississippi, which has a much smaller population and economy.

Georgia considered a similar law last year, but it was not signed into law.

 

You're judging people by the content of their character, to use the terminology of Martin Luther King.

 

But... I still can't totally support the concept of group punishment. A Democratic voting majority dropping from 52% to 48% doesn't instantly qualify an entire state as "backwater".

I challenge anybody to find a conservative in Asheville or Chapel Hill. Good luck with that.

 

Unfortunately you are called COLLATERAL DAMAGE, in this war being waged by the Old Southern mentality in your state.

The new law specifically erased the more enlightened ordinances in cities like Charlotte which protected gay and trans rights. In fact it is supposed that this ordinance, which was not widely accepted by ppl in that city is what prompted the state overreaction.

You are living in a Civil War zone. Have you considered moving or just gonna try to remain as part of the Resistance.

I hear about 10 Democrats voted for this new law. Of course being from Floriduh, I know you can't always tell a redneck Dem from a Repugnicant.

 

Shades of the '60s, AMERIKA - LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT mentality, that didn't like us long-haired, bearded, Hippie freeks.

Nor us Atheists.

 

My business is not portable. I would have to sell it and start over from scratch. And the only reliably liberal states are all in cold weather areas. I'm not gonna freeze my ass off to run from a 4% voting block that is swinging elections. And I'm not gonna sell out all the younger liberals here. No, we're far from finished.

 

I used to work with someone was changing from a male to a female. I never noticed what bathroom she used, and my old company went out of their way to be accomodating and culturally sensitive so hopefully she never had a real issue with it - but, just thinking about this poor womam being forced to use the men's restroom just because she still had a dick seems so ridiculous to me.

She wore heels, make up, dresses, and had gorgeous long hair. Kiprat, youre really telling me you would rather a person like this piss in the urinal beside you (i am assuming you are a man) rather than use the ladies restroom?

 

Just remember, according to this new law in North Carolina, Buck Angel will be legally required to use the Women's Restroom.



Did I say IGNORANT SOUTHERN RUBES?

 

I sure as hell don't want to meet him in there. That would be disturbing. Everybody's first thought would be "rapist!"

Would Kiprat want his little girl to encounter this guy coming out of a stall???? How would he explain it to her?

You can't "protect" children from the fact that people are different. They don't need to know all the details, but they need to grasp the basic concept as early as possible.

 

Why would a gay couple or a transgendered individual fight to force a business with discriminatory beliefs to provide them with a service in the first place? It seems to me like that said business will wind up spitting in their food, or provide very shitty services to those people. Here in Oregon, if a bakery refuses to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, they face fines up to 100,000 or more, and risk losing their businesses.

 

What if no restaurant in a small town wants to serve gay people? Do they just not eat that day? Do they go "back in the closet" and try to look straight, like gays did back when their lifestyle was illegal?

This is what black Americans used to be faced with when they tried to travel. They couldn't rent a room either, and then the local police would tell them that they couldn't sleep in the car because it violated vagrancy laws. We can't go back to all that. Not even one step in that direction.

 

Or back to the time when I was in a lesbian bar shooting pool in San Francisco when the cops came in and arrested every woman that had on mens clothing. What they charged them with, I can't recall.

 

I see your point. It just seems so unlikely that every establishment in a whole town would participate in discriminatory practices THIS day in age. Since not many people would knowingly support a business that practices discrimination like that, even if it welcomed their kind but excluded another.

 

http://www.wyff4.com/news/senator-introduces-lgbt-public-bathroom-bill-that-mirrors-north-carolina-law/38897512

and now SC.

 

That's disappointing. SC has made so much progress in the last couple of years.

I wonder what the bill's chances are for passage. And if it does pass, who will dare put the entire SC coast on their boycott list? Myrtle Beach is one of the most popular beach areas in the South. Perfect sand, perfect waves, perfect water temperatures all summer long.

How about a village with only two restaurants? I was in one of those last week, in Georgia.

 

I wouldn't worry about Myrtle Beach. They call it the "Redneck Riviera." I doubt their mainstay patrons will boycott it.

BTW, This Just In


Finally some good news for the day.

On my newsfeed someone also commented that Gov. Halley is still a Southern conservative but SC has a lot of European industry that might just leave in disgust. Seeing what is happening to NC and seeing what the governor of GA just did to protect that state's business interest, it is a no brainer to veto this religious piece of shit.

 

I entertained myself with the comment section of this article today whilst at work. Well, disgusted would be a better word. Someone actually said they wished we still lived in the days when "the homos" had to live in fear and stay in the closet or risk being beaten up.

This news station is from my town - its just embarassing so many people here still think this way, especially since my town has tried so hard to stand out as a progressive new south city in the last decade.

I dont think it will pass though. SC has somehow been getting things right recently.

 

The way I see it is if a transgender person can mask themselves to legitimately look like the opposite gender, they should be able use that restroom without any problems as long as they don't draw attention to their transgenderism and make others uncomfortable. If a man puts zero effort into looking like a woman, yet claims he's transgender, he shouldn't be allowed to use the women's room. Most public restrooms aren't really trivial anyway, since you're always guarded by stalls and sub-walls between urinals. The real issue where it gets ugly is locker rooms where people actually get naked.

Last year a member of Planet Fitness had her membership revoked due to her transphobia because she complained about a pre-op trans-woman in the locker room. It turns out the tranny wasn't even a member of the gym in the first place. Which is why I'd never sign up for a Planet Fitness membership.

That said, it's pathetic how modern social justice warriors are spending so much time and energy trying to turn public restroom access into a human rights controversy, when there are so many legitimate human rights problems around the world that are widely ignored. Get a life.

 

Boycotts have been tried there before, without success.

So far, most of her policies and positions have been moderate, even though she calls herself a conservative.

That's pretty much the way everybody was handling the situation until recently. There was no need to change it.