Cognitive Dissonance

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather boa!" - Allen Ginsberg

Posts tagged discrimination

535 notes

I do feel there is a preoccupation with that. The preoccupation with transition and surgery objectifies trans people. And then we don’t get to really deal with the real lived experiences. The reality of trans peoples’ lives is that so often we are targets of violence. We experience discrimination disproportionately to the rest of the community. Our unemployment rate is twice the national average; if you are a trans person of color, that rate is four times the national average. The homicide rate is highest among trans women. If we focus on transition, we don’t actually get to talk about those things… By focusing on bodies we don’t focus on the lived realities of that oppression and that discrimination.

Laverne Cox, in a recent interview with Katie Couric, about the invasive questioning and objectification of trans* people.

Watch it here: http://www.salon.com/2014/01/07/laverne_cox_artfully_shuts_down_katie_courics_invasive_questions_about_transgender_people/

Filed under transgender trans* laverne cox media orange is the new black LGBTQIA perfect objectification discrimination violence

510 notes

I.R.S. to Recognize All Gay Marriages, Regardless of State

All legally married same-sex couples will be recognized for federal tax purposes, regardless of whether the state where they live recognizes the marriage, the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service said Thursday.

The federal rules change is one of many stemming from the landmark Supreme Court decision in June that struck down the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. That ruling found that same-sex couples were entitled to federal benefits, but left open the question of how the federal government would actually administer those benefits.

Precisely the right decision.

Filed under LGBTQ gay rights politics taxes policy law lawblr discrimination DOMA defense of marriage act news

545 notes

Homelessness is not a crime. I’ve got to have the legal right (to question or take anyone into custody). We can’t just take people to somewhere they don’t want to go. I can’t do that. I won’t do that.

Interim Police Chief Ruben Santiago taking a stand on the city council’s plan to criminalize homelessness in downtown Columbia, S.C. by pushing the homeless to a shelter just barely in the city limits. 

According to The State, Santiago also said his department cannot transport homeless adults to the riverfront shelter to get services nor will police tell them they would be charged with a nuisance offense should they refuse. The law, which is likely unconstitutional, aims to bus the homeless out of the downtown area to a shelter that would have infrequent transportation services and require signing in and out. 

Filed under South Carolina Homelessness economy politics news Ruben Santiago Police law lawblr poverty discrimination injustice

35 notes

Dear Andy,

Just who the fuck would listen to you? If your profile picture is correct, you’re a baby, so you weren’t around 20 years ago. I bet you’re pro-life too. And a master at the false equivalency — the oppressed talking shit about the oppressor is not the same as the oppressor using slurs against the oppressed, you dig?

Plus, she’s being sued for systemic racial discrimination and continual sexual harassment of racial minorities, chiefly Black men and women, at her restaurants and other businesses, not for “just” saying the n-word. 

Dear Larry,

Can’t tell if trolling or stupid. 

Cheers,

Meg

Filed under I really should get the fuck off this page Paula Deen Racism I can't turn away white privilege discrimination

81 notes

This Court doesn’t like to get involved in — in racial questions such as this one. It’s something that can be left — left to Congress. The problem here, however, is suggested by the comment I made earlier, that the initial enactment of [the Voting Rights Act of 1965] in a — in a time when the need for it was so much more abundantly clear was — in the Senate, there — it was double-digits against it. And that was only a 5-year term.

Then, it is reenacted 5 years later, again for a 5-year term. Double-digits against it in the Senate. Then it was reenacted for 7 years. Single digits against it. Then enacted for 25 years, 8 Senate votes against it.

And this last enactment, not a single vote in the Senate against it. And the House is pretty much the same. Now, I don’t think that’s attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this.

I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.

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.

Filed under Antonin Scalia Race racism politics Voting Rights Act of 1965 Alabama Shelby County Section 5 voting voting is a right discrimination Supreme Court SCOTUS

155 notes

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, GingeryGreenePetroff, 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, GingeryPetroff, 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! 

Cheers,
Meg

(Source: cognitivedissonance)

Filed under GLBTQ LGBT Wyoming politics GLBTQ Rights Discrimination gay gay rights marriage equality same-sex marriage non-discrimination Wyoming Legislature pass it on LGBT rights law

351 notes

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.

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.

Filed under The Outlaw discrimination Wyoming Cheyenne GLBTQ gay rights just wrong gay business

44 notes

Focus On The Family Pushing ‘License To Discriminate’ Initiative In Colorado

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.

And since you tighty-righties seem to have the attention span of ferrets in a glitter factory, here’s the Wiki entry and a case brief.

(Source: cognitivedissonance)

Filed under Focus on the Family Colorado Anti-gay bigotry seriously? discrimination politics GLBTQ religious right

21 notes

Islamophobic Conspiracy Theorist Frank Gaffney Advising Michele Bachmann On Foreign Policy

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.

Um…

Filed under Michele Bachmann Frank Gaffney islamophobia politics Prejudice discrimination hatred hatred is never ok Muslim Muslims politics of fear

12 notes

Court bars enforcement of 'don't ask, don't tell'

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. 

Filed under military DADT Don't ask Don't tell politics GLBTQ GLBTQ Rights gay gay rights Obama Ninth Circuit Court discrimination equal equality