Tennessee GOP quietly overturns marriage equality by giving officials the right to refuse
Tennessee GOP quietly overturns marriage equality by giving officials the right to refuse
Public officials in Tennessee can now refuse to grant a marriage license to anyone at their own discretion, for any reason.
Public officials in Tennessee can now refuse to grant a marriage license to anyone at their own discretion, for any reason.
Republican Gov. Bill Lee signed into law House Bill 878 on Wednesday, which took effect immediately. The bill — just a few sentences in length — only states that "a person shall not be required to solemnize a marriage." Only state notary publics, government officials, and religious figures can "solemnize" a marriage in Tennessee, according to state code.
None of the sponsors behind the bill have been made public statements on its introduction or passage, nor have they given comment to media organizations. The only known remarks regarding the law from state Rep. Monty Fritts (take a guess), who sponsored it in the House, are from February of last year, when he spoke to the state Subcommittee on Children and Family Affairs.
You're viewing a single thread.
GOP continue to be pieces of trash. I really wish the party would just die off, but Trumpism gave them a bolder fascist to believe in.
Now tell me, what do you think about banks refusing service to LibsofTikTok ?
It's bad when private entities discriminate. It's a million times worse when the government does.
Edit: I did forget to mention though, being a bitch isn't a protected class...sexual orientation is.
But she is a woman! How does your woke brain don't go haywire knowing that a woman is a victim of sexism? Would you care if she was gay?
Discriminating against a woman isn't sexism. Neither is discriminating against a man. Discriminating against anyone on the basis of their sex is sexism, and that's not what's happening here (unless the bank has hardly any women customers?)
Source: know how to use brain in ways other than making half-baked ideas of what other people may be thinking.
Again, smooth brain, if she's being discriminated against because she's a woman (gender is protected) that's bad. If she's being discriminated against because she's gay (orientation is protected also), that's bad. If it's because of skin color, disability, religion, or national origin...those are bad too.
What a fucking gremlin.
Removed, rule 6, 24 hour ban.
"No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning"
Removed, rule 6, 24 hour ban.
"No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning"
Agreed! Refusing to service customers based on their Sexual Orientation is EXACTLY like refusing to service customers who use your service to threaten to bomb Elementary Schools and Children's Hospitals!
Anyone who defends Chaya Raichik should be dumped in the same pit with her. I'm just glad you assholes always out yourselves.
If a gay person ran a business whose clientele had a disproportionally high rate of people who actively call in bomb threats to elementary schools, you might have made a really great point right here.
All she does is repost stuff that people posted themselves and you hold her responsible for people calling bomb threats. Why don't you hold the people posting that shit responsible themselves?
To best of my knowledge, not a single person who has ever threatened to bomb children has liked my work enough to give me money.
Somebody who is liked by by literal cowards and terrorists can't bank and that's the civil rights agenda you are backing?
Listened to a lot of Alex Jones eh?
Is it innocent collect and parade around only things that conservatives have been conditioned to hate? To provide no public service but to generate a distorted image and fan the flames? Note: I know nothing about the bank part (but WTF, is she getting paid for her rabble rousing?)
In the notorious Nazi tabloid "The Sturmer" (published in Germany from 1923 to 1945), every issue had a similarly "innocent" page:
This page had a headline at the top: "We the People Want to Know..."
And below it was a list of statements: "- why company owner X.Y. is employing the Jew A.B. in city C," or "- why person Y.X. smiled and shook hands with former communist party member Y.Z. in Saturday in C." or "- why baker B.A. in city W. hung off their Fuhrer portrait from the wall opposite the entrance."
And just so people could view it, the latest issue including these "harmless facts" would be shown in public town squares:
They were just asking questions.
Often she just posts completely innocent things and blows them out of proportion. Like when she reposted a teacher saying she supports her Queer student and she was fired shortly after.
She acts like a lens focusing hate and violence on the people she targets. Those people she targets have a write to speak as they choose without illegal consequences like violence or harassment.
Blatant lie.
Love it. We don't need official institutions enabling hatred. Yes, banks are evil otherwise, but we don't need public culture war nonsense from them as well.
Sounds good to me. Go fash, go die in the trash.
It's a good start? Can we punch them in other places that hurt? More please?
Take your pick. I feel all 3 earnestly.
A government official ought to be bound to perform their duty to all citizens whereas a bank is allowed to pick and choose whom it will do business with. Anything else I can clear up for you chief?
Private businesses can refuse service to those they don't want to do business with as long as they aren't doing it on race, gender, sexuality or something along those lines. A shitty tiktoker doesn't have that protection.
banks are part of the government?
no?
this is a pointless argument then.