Posts tagged discrimination
Posts tagged discrimination
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, discussing Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in oral arguments for Shelby County v. Holder, Feb. 27, 2013.
Why does this matter?
As Suevon Lee explains Aug. 30, 2012 for ProPublica: “A single provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been playing a key role on the election front this year. Section 5 has blocked photo voter-ID laws, prohibited reduced early-voting periods in parts of Florida and just Tuesday barred new redistricting maps in Texas. It’s the reason South Carolina is in federal court this week to try to convince a three-judge panel its photo voter-ID law will not disenfranchise minorities. It’s the reason that Texas went to trial on the same issue last month — and on Thursday, lost.
Not surprisingly, then, Section 5 is increasingly the target of attack by those who say it is outdated, discriminatory against Southern states and unconstitutional.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor smacked down the idea that Section 5 was a racial entitlement, and reminded us all that the right to vote is just that — a right, not a racial entitlement, no matter how desperately some jurisdictions and justices may want to reverse that fact.
Check out this video directed by my friend Will Welch, and edited/produced by me! It’s called “Out in Wyoming: LGBT Advocacy in the Cowboy State” and gives a summary of what’s coming up in this legislative session, advice from Wyoming state legislators on advocacy, plus instructions on lobbying and communicating with your state legislators — even if you don’t live in Wyoming. (Yes, it’s a little long, but we worked really hard, it’s entertaining, and YouTube has a pause button.)
However, if you know people who live in Wyoming, live in Wyoming yourself, or live near Wyoming, definitely share this video. We have a domestic partnership bill, a marriage equality bill, and a non-discrimination bill going to their respective committees on Monday beginning at noon. We’ll also be demonstrating in front of the state house starting at 9 AM in favor of equality on Monday, January 28. If you live close enough to Cheyenne to get to the state house, DO IT!
This action alert from Wyoming Equality’s Jeran Artery gives point-by-point instructions on what you can do to help. We have an excellent chance of passing non-discrimination and domestic partnership bills in Wyoming this year! If you live in Laramie, we’re phone banking tomorrow in the UW Union RRC from 4pm-7pm. It’s mobilizing constituents around the pro-LGBT bills in the legislature. All the bills have bipartisan support. Here’s the bills, with Republican sponsors in bold:
HOUSE BILL NO. HB 168 Domestic partnerships-rights and responsibilities
Sponsored by: Representative(s) Connolly, Byrd, Gingery, Greene, Petroff, Throne, Wallis and Zwonitzer, Dn. and Senator(s) Burns, Craft, Rothfuss and Von Flatern (5 Democrats; 7 Republicans)
HOUSE BILL NO. HB 169 Marriage-definition
Sponsored by: Representative(s) Connolly, Byrd, Gingery, Petroff, Throne, Wallis and Zwonitzer, Dn. and Senator(s) Craft and Rothfuss (5 Democrats; 4 Republicans)
SENATE FILE NO. SF 131 Discrimination
Sponsored by: Senator(s) Rothfuss,Burns, Case, Craft, Esquibel, F., Hastert and Von Flatern and Representative(s) Blake, Brown, Connolly, Gingery, Greene, Petroff, Wallis and Zwonitzer, Dn. (6 Democrats; 9 Republicans)
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE — pass it on! And thank you!
Hey folks! Do you live in or near Cheyenne, Wyo.? The Outlaw Saloon doesn’t want same-sex couples or GLBTQ people participating in their Wednesday night promotions. What’s that, you ask? Well, according to folks who’ve called over there it’s a singles night/speed dating type thing, where single people can wear name tags and meet up with someone. Afterwards, one of the members of the pair gets to drink for free.
My pal Will wrote, “Get this — they don’t allow same-sex couples because then two straight girls could take advantage of the system and a pair could be drinking for half price but not trying to date!”
Yep. Straight girls always pretend to be lesbians to drink for half-price. Duh. It’s not like actual lesbians could be hitting up the bar. </sarcasm>
Or perhaps it’s just plain wrong to put up a sign outside your establishment prohibiting an entire class of people from patronizing it on a certain day. Cue the free market denizens howling about the right to prohibit people from your place of business, but this:
They’ve disabled their Facebook page, but here’s their page on Yelp if you’d like to let them know what you think about this blanket prohibition. After all, the free market picks winners and losers right?
I’d say The Outlaw Saloon is a loser, my friends.
GetEqual’s “We Can’t Wait” campaign in Laramie, Wyo. Members are taking pens to OFA offices to push President Obama to sign non-discrimination. We hope his not-signing is just a simple matter of needing a pen. So we decorated some for delivery. (Taken with Instagram at University of Wyoming, Rainbow Resource Center)
Oh hi there, Focus on the Family! Remember Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996)? You know, that one case where Amendment 2 was struck down in Colorado as unconstitutional for discriminating against GLBTQ people?
Well, this is awfully similar. I’ll refresh your memories. Here’s the case.
It’s safe to assume that Bachmann is getting a regular dose of Gaffney’s crazy anti-Muslim conspiracy theories. Gaffney’s Islamophobia is well-documented. Last year he released a report purporting to document the threat posed by Islamic law in the U.S. (no Muslims actually contributed to the report). Among the report’s wild accusations, one was that members of the Obama administration are part of the “Iran lobby.” Gaffney thinks the Muslim Brotherhood is trying to infiltrate the American conservative movement. Before her confirmation to the Supreme Court, Gaffney claimed Elana Kagan would impose Sharia law on America. He even accused Gen. David Petraeus of “submission” to Sharia and thinks the president is secretly Muslim.
A federal appeals court ordered a halt today to the armed forces’ discharge of openly gay service members, citing the Obama administration’s disavowal of laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco had intervened in November to allow the government to continue enforcing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law, despite a federal judge’s decision that the law was unconstitutional. Today, however, a three-judge panel of the court lifted the stay, saying, “The circumstances and balance of hardships have changed.”
The court noted that Congress has voted to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” as soon as President Obama and the Pentagon certify that the change will not interfere with military readiness or recruiting. The administration has said most troops should be trained for the new policy change by mid-summer, although it had told the court the law should probably stay in effect for the rest of the year.
The panel also cited Obama’s decision in February to withdraw support from another federal law denying benefits to married same-sex couples, and his newly announced view that laws discriminating against gays and lesbians should be declared unconstitutional unless they serve some compelling government need.
So effective today, the military must stop discharging service members under this policy - which was still happening. Unfortunately, the Obama administration is appealing, arguing the decision should be made by Congress. Not thrilled about that, but happy the courts intervened to at least stop people from being discharged under a policy that’s being phased out.