Homophobic Laws

[The Intransigent Faction]

I'm not going to bother copy/pasting an article, but I thought that there should be a thread about this.

There are two major stories of legal homophobia recently in the U.S.:

In one case, some douchebag got a ballot initiative started to try to pass a law in California that would make homosexuality a capital offense, and 'homosexual propaganda' an offense punishable by jail time. This one's especially disconcerting. There will no doubt be the usual misanthropic crowd screaming "See? The people are too ignorant to govern themselves!".

In another case, a law recently passed in Indiana which has led to some groups boycotting business in that state would permit businesses to refuse to serve LGBT customers. Here's a textbook example of the oppressive power of capitalism reminiscent of Ayn Rand arguing that businesses have the "right" to refuse to serve black customers and that they are somehow oppressed if prevented from discriminating in such a way.

If there's anyone more familiar with these cases, I'd appreciate any insight into what we can expect. Will this be a catalyst for similar laws/initiatives in other states? Will they be stopped? How, if at all, will the federal government react?

[1xAntifa]

Brad,
I know of the two bills you mentioned. I'm not conversant with the technicalities of US law but based on the fact that we share similar governance i.e. federalism, and a root in english common law, I'll give you my take.

The gay genocide bill, lets be frank here, whilst it might create some excitement for its supporters, is basically delusional. It cannot get to first base as a legitimate law. Nothing I've seen in your constitution could support this bill. It is hate speech, pure and simple.

The second case is of more import. There appears to be a concerted effort in several jurisdictions, oz, us, uk, for right-wing bigots to cry wolf that their freedoms are being curtailed. The governments in these countries are reliant on these people for many reasons I can see, embracing the extremists and tailoring policies to suit. If the bill passes and is found not to be un-constitutional then, given the way it is these days, each state within the union will play catch up to obtain legal parity with other states within the country. That's the experience from oz. One lot pass a garbage law, then the rest follow suit.

Sorry to depress you.:(

[The Intransigent Faction]

Brad,
I know of the two bills you mentioned. I'm not conversant with the technicalities of US law but based on the fact that we share similar governance i.e. federalism, and a root in english common law, I'll give you my take.

The gay genocide bill, lets be frank here, whilst it might create some excitement for its supporters, is basically delusional. It cannot get to first base as a legitimate law. Nothing I've seen in your constitution could support this bill. It is hate speech, pure and simple.

The second case is of more import. There appears to be a concerted effort in several jurisdictions, oz, us, uk, for right-wing bigots to cry wolf that their freedoms are being curtailed. The governments in these countries are reliant on these people for many reasons I can see, embracing the extremists and tailoring policies to suit. If the bill passes and is found not to be un-constitutional then, given the way it is these days, each state within the union will play catch up to obtain legal parity with other states within the country. That's the experience from oz. One lot pass a garbage law, then the rest follow suit.

Sorry to depress you.:(

Oh, I'm well aware that the first bill won't actually make it into law, but the implications of the initiative mechanism in California is being used in this way are still disturbing. Something like that initiative mechanism has potential as a tool to mobilize workers for things that could at least make their lives more bearable, but it's being used for...that.

As for the Indiana law, I thought that might be the case, but I wanted a second opinion. The Federal government is unlikely to intervene. Of course, this is almost certain to be challenged in the courts. Haven't Jim Crow laws that would have permitted the same or similar discriminatory practices against racial and ethnic minorities already been successfully challenged in court? Allowing this law to pass as constitutional would, as I mentioned, set a precedent for allowing businesses to refuse to serve black customers for example, as well. Actually, refusing to serve LGBT customers would be even more difficult. How exactly would that law be enforced? How would a business go about determining that a customer was not cis-gendered/ heterosexual and then refuse to serve her or him? If it's simply left up to the judgment of the business owner, this could deliver a blank cheque to refuse to serve whomever they pleased. I'm not saying this is likely to happen, or that it would be any less reprehensible if they did ensure a specific group was targetted, but as I said I'm not aware of how the state of Indiana proposes to enforce this.

[1xAntifa]

Brad,
As you say there are valid arguments against both positions. I myself don't comprehend political systems that allow propositions that are fundamentally illegal by their own rules to get airplay so to speak. We have a similar problem here in oz, with some clowns wanting the re-introduction of the death penalty for their preferred crimes, regardless of the fact that ozzies treaty obligations now prohibit it. As for the 'discrimination' bill, the only option I see at the moment is to organise and resist. Best of luck in your struggle.:(

[The Intransigent Faction]

Oh, just to clarify, I'm not American.

[Mr. Piccolo]

The second issue may be trickier to fight. The U.S. Supreme Court case Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. (379 U.S. 241, 1964) made this sort of private discrimination illegal if the discrimination is based on race. But I am not sure if Heart of Atlanta has been expanded to include LGBT people. Also, the Supreme Court has been giving more space to "freedom of religion" as of late (see the Hobby Lobby case), so the supporters of the law will likely argue their side based on religious freedom.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

America: Our healthcare is in the toilet, but that doesn't matter CUZ THE GAYZ ARE A COMIN'!!!

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

In another case, a law recently passed in Indiana which has led to some groups boycotting business in that state would permit businesses to refuse to serve LGBT customers. Here's a textbook example of the oppressive power of capitalism reminiscent of Ayn Rand arguing that businesses have the "right" to refuse to serve black customers and that they are somehow oppressed if prevented from discriminating in such a way.
It's disturbing to see all the bills in the US to allow the persecution of LGBT people under the guise of "religious rights", but it's not surprising. In the face of all the gains LGBT people have made, backlash from reactionaries was inevitable. And despite those gains, it's a reminder of how reactionary many people still are, and they're not going to go away quietly. These bills are them throwing a tantrum.

Since the Indiana law was signed. conservatives have been trying to argue that it's the same as the federal religious freedom law enacted in 1993 or similar laws enacted in other states, but in fact the Indiana law is quite different and with a much broader effect.

The federal law and its later amendments were designed to actually protect religious people (especially those of minority religions) against unreasonable government interference--examples being Native American use of peyote in religious ceremonies, Muslim prisoners growing beards, etc.--not to allow discrimination using a religious justification.

After the Hobby Lobby ruling last year, I think it's quite possible the Supreme Court could uphold the Indiana law on the same grounds. The problem is sexual orientation and gender identity aren't protected classes under federal civil rights laws, only under the civil rights laws of some states.

[BIXX]

Maybe we could pass a bill that allows us yo persecute religious folks under the guise of queer rights.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Maybe we could pass a bill that allows us yo persecute religious folks under the guise of queer rights.
Form a Church of Queers in Indiana and then you can discriminate against religious folks on your own religious grounds. :lol:

[Antiochus]

Dunno, even the most reactionary of the Supreme Justices (Scalia) argued in a previous case that using "freedom of religion" to legislate personal rights unto oneself would be tantamount to becoming a law unto himself (basically accurate). So I don't know if the Indiana shit will get very far.

The real question is why elements of the Republican party and Southern Democrats are still pandering to an ever smaller segment of the electorate. I mean, it made sense 20 years ago, but now?

[Mr. Piccolo]

Dunno, even the most reactionary of the Supreme Justices (Scalia) argued in a previous case that using "freedom of religion" to legislate personal rights unto oneself would be tantamount to becoming a law unto himself (basically accurate). So I don't know if the Indiana shit will get very far.

The real question is why elements of the Republican party and Southern Democrats are still pandering to an ever smaller segment of the electorate. I mean, it made sense 20 years ago, but now?

Religious conservatives are still an important part of the Republican base, even though they are less powerful than they were 20-30 years ago and are probably in terminal decline as the younger generation is less religious and more liberal on social issues.

But for now Republicans still have to pander to the Religious Right, though, which explains why gay bashing, Christian Zionism, and a whole host of other ideas still get play in the GOP. It doesn't help that older, more socially conservative people are more reliable voters than younger, more tolerant people.

Personally, I think Indiana Governor Mike Pence is looking to run for president in 2016 and he probably thinks this anti-gay law will help him with the ultra-conservative GOP primary voters.

[VCrakeV]

Form a Church of Queers in Indiana and then you can discriminate against religious folks on your own religious grounds. :lol:



It's a shame that we're allowed to discriminate other people because of their natural feelings, justified by nothing other than a belief system that is respected simply because it's a religion.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Well, that didn't last long. Indiana passed an amendment that prohibits businesses from using the new law as a defense if they discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, and now they're talking about adding those categories to the state's civil rights code, too. Arkansas also folded, amending their law to conform with the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which means the anti-LGBT intent and language has been stripped out.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Well, that didn't last long. Indiana passed an amendment that prohibits businesses from using the new law as a defense if they discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, and now they're talking about adding those categories to the state's civil rights code, too. Arkansas also folded, amending their law to conform with the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which means the anti-LGBT intent and language has been stripped out.

That sounds good on paper, but I'm not sure the anti-homosexual intent can be stripped out. The intent obviously exists, as one can expect in a bourgeois state. So more likely than not this is a concession that actually doesn't concede anything. (Much like the old tactic of decriminalising homosexuality then arresting gay people en masse for violating obscenity laws.)

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

That sounds good on paper, but I'm not sure the anti-homosexual intent can be stripped out. The intent obviously exists, as one can expect in a bourgeois state. So more likely than not this is a concession that actually doesn't concede anything. (Much like the old tactic of decriminalising homosexuality then arresting gay people en masse for violating obscenity laws.)
I think mildly reformist concessions have been made, even more so in Indiana if sexual orientation and gender identity get added to its civil rights code as protected classes.

It's nothing relevant to queer liberation, mind you, but I don't know that the US bourgeois state as a whole has an interest in anti-LGBT intent right now. That could change if they needed a way to split a popular working class struggle, but the chances of that happening in the US in the foreseeable future is rather slim indeed.