-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
A Cali lawmaker wants to ban state-funded travel to states that are deemed anti-gay
- Thread starter GK86
- Start date
- Status
thelastcrusader
Banned
I honestly don't even know what to say. What criteria will they use to determine this?
elrechazado
Banned
It's good they've solved all of the other problems in California. Seriously though, this seems completely unemforceable.
How are you going to advocate change for states with LGBT problems without going there? And furthermore how does this deal with the reprocussions of sat needing a good from Mississippi, but not being able to get it cause of this law, or having a governors conference in Alabama or something. How would you define Anti LGBT? I'm sure by some definition, California is anti LGBT. It seems like the wrong way to adress the issue.
A federal law mandating equal LGBT tights seems the common sense solution, but unfortunately that had a 0% chance of passing right now.
As for colleges, yeah if you're not an equal opportunity college you don't get government funding, that simple.
A federal law mandating equal LGBT tights seems the common sense solution, but unfortunately that had a 0% chance of passing right now.
As for colleges, yeah if you're not an equal opportunity college you don't get government funding, that simple.
That's dumb. State funded travel is usually because the state has sent those employees on state business. Are they going to require employees pay their own gas, hotel, and fees for business travel? Do they expect these employees to pay for job related expenses without refunding them?
Just like any other embargo, they don't go at all.
It's a shame they largely mutated in obnoxiously obstructive and poisonously anti-social-rights rather than just being the more reserved, hesitant voice when it comes to change.
Though I sometimes wonder if even that is truly necessary.
The hope is they don't go and the state realizes it is making less money so it changes its laws for either economic reasons or due to public pressure.
I'd be more interested in boycotts of goods and services from states with those sorts of policies, encouraged by the coastal state governments by banning use of those goods and services by the offices of the respective state governments.
If we're going to have a dysfunctional country, we might as well accelerate the split.
Unfortunately I doubt its constitutional. The commerce clause giveth, and the commerce clause taketh away.
If we're going to have a dysfunctional country, we might as well accelerate the split.
Unfortunately I doubt its constitutional. The commerce clause giveth, and the commerce clause taketh away.
I doubt Cali would miss important conventions, meetings, and events that are held in these places. Too many decisions that affect the country are held in many states, including those states that have anti-gay policies. I think it would hurt Cali more than those states.
If let's say the Chiefs of Police, Governors, Mayors, Democratic, Republican, Health, etc... conventions where policy makers, leaders, and contributors meet were held in a State that has anti-gay policies, would California miss out and just not show up?
And can California legally embargo another state?
I'm not sure this is workable, or a good idea, but it does raise an interesting question. Given that:
A) Transgender people work for the state of California,
B) State workers are required to travel to other states,
C) California state managers are tasked with ensuring their employees aren't discriminated against as part of their job and,
D) Other states have laws which are considered discrimination by CA,
it leaves managers in the position of either sending employees into a situation in which they are guaranteed to be discriminated against, or not sending transgender employees to states where the laws would allow the discrimination. Unfortunately, the second option would almost certainly limit your career, making it likely discriminatory, and therefore illegal in CA.
So maybe this is not the answer, but it's a real problem. Anyone have a better answer?
A) Transgender people work for the state of California,
B) State workers are required to travel to other states,
C) California state managers are tasked with ensuring their employees aren't discriminated against as part of their job and,
D) Other states have laws which are considered discrimination by CA,
it leaves managers in the position of either sending employees into a situation in which they are guaranteed to be discriminated against, or not sending transgender employees to states where the laws would allow the discrimination. Unfortunately, the second option would almost certainly limit your career, making it likely discriminatory, and therefore illegal in CA.
So maybe this is not the answer, but it's a real problem. Anyone have a better answer?
Embargoes seem to continually pass muster in the courts so still, no. States can in fact elect not to do business with other states.
What constitutes anti-LGBT, though? If one judge or one state or county administrator proposes or even passes something/makes a ruling against LGBT, is the whole state given that label? Who gives the label? How is it taken away? Can it be challenged?
Doesn't seem like something that would be held up in court.
Doesn't seem like something that would be held up in court.
Deft Beck
Member
I believe that everyone should be considered homosexual by law, until you declare so otherwise.
It will make things much easier.
MetroidPrimeRib
Banned
That's dumb. Why would anyone consider this.
unholyrevenger72
Banned
American Civil War 2: Red State Boogaloo
They could do it on a county by county basis. If more than 50% of all counties are deemed anti-LGBT, then the whole state is
Its still something stupid to introduce.
Princess Carl
Member
I would just like to add that the lawmaker proposed this. What part of it is law already? What part of California makes them immediately pass newly introduced legislation?
This would be an irresponsible law especially for academics and students at state funded universities and colleges.
Would profresors be expected to pay for their own travel to Fermi Lab in Illinois or the VLA New Mexico.
/Both in Most Anti Gay states according to http://www.advocate.com/politics/2016/2/22/12-most-anti-lgbt-states-legislation
Would profresors be expected to pay for their own travel to Fermi Lab in Illinois or the VLA New Mexico.
/Both in Most Anti Gay states according to http://www.advocate.com/politics/2016/2/22/12-most-anti-lgbt-states-legislation
.
Why only promote gay rights with this legislation, when so many other axes of oppression exist in this country?
Would CA have to ban intra-state travel under said law?
After all, CA passed a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and was only forced to honor gay marriage by a Federal court decision which went into effect in 2013.
Would that define CA as anti-gay?
boiled goose
good with gravy
Aganst. Win with ideas, not isolation.
We are going to ban everything.
We are going to ban everything.
Palette Swap
Member
It's not ideal and would boil down to the same thing as what is proposed here, but maybe amend B. so that an employee can opt out of these travels under very specific and documented conditions. Typically being at risk of facing the discriminations mentioned in D. ?
This would mostly be a framework to give everyone leeway to find arrangements organically, so that neither manager nor employee can be found at fault.
This all assumes people would be employed to do something else meanwhile, and people opting out of certain travels wouldn't be seen as slacking or indirectly punished for it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked