Virginia's proposed anti-gay laws: Far reaching laws for discriminating against non-heterosexuals

Just when you think society is moving forward, one comes across reactionary sentiment which seems strange in light of a more general acceptance of what has been seen as 'convention'.

www.takepart.com...

If a Virginia legislator with a history of opposing gay rights has his way, business owners across the state could be permitted to shut the door on gay customers. Bob Marshall, a delegate from the state’s 13th District, in the Washington, D.C., suburbs, introduced a bill last month that would make it legal for business owners to refuse service on the basis of their religious opposition to gay marriage and what the bill describes as “homosexual behavior.”

According to Pinknews;

www.pinknews.co.uk...

The proposed law, HB 1414, asserts that “a person shall not be required to perform, assist, consent to, or participate in any action or refrain from performing, assisting, consenting to, or participating in any action as a condition of obtaining or renewing a government-issued license, registration, or certificate where such condition would violate the religious or moral convictions of such person with respect to same-sex marriage or homosexual behaviour.”

The bill would effectively allow any person acting in any licensed capacity the right to explicitly discriminate against gay people – no matter what the consequences.

Not content with just applying this legislation to so-called 'freedom of business' they also want to move across educational facilities as well.

Now Marshall wants to make it so that if a Virginia barber doesn’t want to cut a gay person’s hair, it would be totally fine. It would also be legal for a doctor to refuse to treat a lesbian patient because she’s in a same-sex relationship. Businesses could put up signs prohibiting gay customers, and college professors would be allowed to refuse to teach gay students, according to Greg Nevins, a lawyer for the LGBT rights organization Lambda Legal, who fought Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban last year.

Where is the line drawn? Is it ok for a doctor (who swears to uphold the Hippocratic Oath) to deny service to someone based on their sexuality? Is it ok to deny education to someone based on the same? Are we living in the 21st century, or the 19th? The way the law is written seems so broad that essentially any protections against discrimination people who are not heterosexual enjoy will be stripped away.

a reply to: cuckooold

Used to live in Marshall's district. He is an absolutely phenomenal legislator when it comes to taking care of his constituents. I had a couple of issues that I contacted his office about and received a personal response from him, followed up by action within 24 hours. He is 100% willing to go to bat for people in his district.

That being said, he's so far to the right it's not even funny. He can't even see "the middle" from where he's at on most issues. It makes me shake my head, and I think it's really sad given my own personal experience dealing with him, and what I've heard from others who have dealt with him.

a reply to: cuckooold

These laws are Unconstitutional. Why do politicians keep pushing these idiotic things? Such a waste of time for everyone involved.

Also, how does a business determine if someone is homosexual or not to deny them service?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Also, how does a business determine if someone is homosexual or not to deny them service?

If the guy in question has a Bedazzled iPhone case.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Not to seemingly be in support of this asinine garbage....I'm not. But isn't it unconstitutional to force any business (especially privately owned business) to do business with anyone in any capacity, if one chooses not to?

How is it that it is ok to force a guy that owns a store to allow into his store those he doesn't want there.

I would think freedom entailed being able to choose who comes into your place of business....

..............
That being said, taking it to the educational level, as this implies, is just absolutely f'n ridiculous.

a reply to: Jakal26

Not after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed into law.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah well. I knew that was the answer coming.
Sorry, but I say that no matter who it "served" it was unconstitutional then and is now...

....that was "the set up" for all this.

Again, I don't support this....I just find it funny that people bring up this "constitutional vs unconstitutional" argument when in fact, the "freedom" ensured has been stripped away, long ago actually.

It is NOT "freedom embracing" to force a private business to do business with ANYONE they choose not to. That's just the jest of it.

This is so frustrating. It's like Virginia took one step forward and now wants to take a HUGE step back. I don't know about Northern VA, but it the southern part there are lots of idiots who would support this stupid stupid idea. There is already so much discrimination in that area for homosexuals, that I can't imagine what it would be like for them if that discrimination were supported legally(?). Hopefully this bill is shot down immediately.

Edit to add: I feel that the government should step back and not be so quick to meddle in these types of situations. John Q. Storeowner should be free to be a discriminatory idiot if he wants, without government involvement.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Some people have gaydar, donchta know. They can just tell.

a reply to: MojaveBurning

I don't know about Northern VA, but it the southern part there are lots of idiots who would support this stupid stupid idea.

Yeah, living most of my life in the southwestern portion of this state, I can say that you are absolutely correct here.
There are A TON of homophobic people that would (and will) support this....and if you question said support, they will........well, lets just say there are some REALLY shady homophobic types and a TON of places that a person can "disappear". I don't like it, but that's the reality of the situation.

There is still a LOT of ignorance, "in these here hills".....

ETA:

John Q. Storeowner should be free to be a discriminatory idiot if he wants, without government involvement.

I've had this conversation in the past and I agree. The government has no business telling a private business owner who he "must" allow into his establishment nor who he "must" serve.
If John Q. Public wants to vote with their wallets, or protest his shop or whatever, then so be it...but the government needs to keep their dirty fingers out of it!

a reply to: Jakal26

Government is all about give and take. Everything government does is going to restrict someone's freedoms.

Will they also be forcing gay business owners to paint pink triangles in their windows, and pin them to their jackets?

We can't possibly put Jim Crow back into use in this age. One hopes this will never pass.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah, well....
This one is a bit more "freedom restricting" than others.

Telling someone they MUST do business with another is simply as freedom restricting as it gets in that regard.

.....and I see a lot more "take" than "give" from government, for the most part.

ETA: In this case, I would say that just staying out of it would be the least "freedom restricting" thing government could do. As I mentioned previously, it is up to the store owner who he does business with and if he doesn't want to do business with a certain demographic, that is his right (imo).....if the public doesn't like that he doesn't do business with a certain demographic, they can show him the wrong of his ways by not buying his stuff....effectively leaving him little choice (then we'll see how far his "convictions" go)...

I don't think that scenario restricts anyone's freedom. Freedom of choice for all involved at that point. No?

a reply to: FireflyStars

You didn't read the article, did you?
How utterly typical.

This is just one guy proposing a law, I'd be surprised if it gets a second from someone, let alone pass. And even if the seas parted for this fellow and it passed, the Governor would veto it before it while the ink was still hot on the printed document.

a reply to: Jakal26

In today's climate you may have a point. Many people these days have grown past their intolerances for yesteryear. So laws like the Civil Rights Act may not be as necessary. But would you argue that such legislation wasn't necessary back in 1964? Do you think if desegregation was just stricken off the books and that is it, that black people would be where they are now? Say what you want about the black community today; but without the Civil Rights Act of 1964, there would be ZERO social mobility in the black community.

a reply to: Aleister

I'd like to think so.
But do NOT underestimate the influence of the homophobic far right in this part of the country.

(I know, I live here....there are MANY of them in "high places" 'round here)

ETA: Southern part of the state. The northern parts, I am not as familiar with the "culture" there as it is a bit different than the more rural areas....so.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do you think if desegregation was just stricken off the books and that is it, that black people would be where they are now?

Where is that? From out of the frying pan and right into another form of slavery? (yeah, I ripped that quote off)

My position coming into the thread was not about "right and wrong" it was about constitutionality.
I say, even then, it was unconstitutional, but like you...I believe it might have been necessary at the time...given the climate.

Idk...it's a touchy subject and I don't want to debate it too much here because there are a lot of members, unlike yourself, who cannot rationally debate it without hyperbole and I would be deemed "racist" just for saying I believe it was as unconstitutional then as this is now.

......however, it is meant to be a "living document", so....that must be taken into account.
My personal opinions are not always "what is best" for society....I can see, and readily admit that.

Say what you want about the black community today; but without the Civil Rights Act of 1964, there would be ZERO social mobility in the black community.

I agree. And that is where my own contradictions come into play, I suppose.

originally posted by: Jakal26
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Not to seemingly be in support of this asinine garbage....I'm not. But isn't it unconstitutional to force any business (especially privately owned business) to do business with anyone in any capacity, if one chooses not to?

How is it that it is ok to force a guy that owns a store to allow into his store those he doesn't want there.

I would think freedom entailed being able to choose who comes into your place of business....

..............
That being said, taking it to the educational level, as this implies, is just absolutely f'n ridiculous.

Do you believe a business is a person? Companies should not have the same right as a human being so they should not have the right to freedom of religion. Besides a person opens a business to make money and to deny a customer just because they live a different lifestyle is nothing but pure ignorance. The only way a company can deny service to a person is if that person is a threat to the other customers.

a reply to: buster2010

Besides a person opens a business to make money and to deny a customer just because they live a different lifestyle is nothing but pure ignorance.

I didn't say it wasn't. Quite the contrary, actually.

The only way a company can deny service to a person is if that person is a threat to the other customers.

You know, they say "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"?
I would say that the interpretation of "a threat" could be used, twisted, and spun in many ways there to suit the agenda of the store owner anyways.

......I was also discussing private business, not a public company.