Bruce Springsteen cancels concert in NC over "bathroom law"

[monarch64]

Re: Bruce Springsteen cancels concert in NC over "bathroom l

I think it's pretty obvious that the people of Poise and Depends are behind this.
____________________________________________

As an older woman, yes, some of us were brought up a certain way. And it has nothing to do with prejudice, but modesty.

And to add: Some of you are all about treating everyone the same, but yet feel is is OK to call out a segment of the population. How are you any better then those you mock?

Oh come on. That was merely an attempt at humor. If you're going to take it personally that's on you.

I have typed out several responses to this thread, only to delete them for fear of opening myself up to this kind of crap. And my previous, un-posted replies were all based on the fact that women might not feel comfortable with all-sex bathrooms because the REAL issue here is not trans people, it's the fact that this country still has a horrible problem with sexual assault. That is the conversation we should be having. Women are the ones most often subjected to sexual violence, yet we are being asked to give up yet another space in which we should feel safe.

I actually agree with some of the more conservative members here. But by all means, Ruby, let your past prejudices against me dictate your responses to me in threads. I bet you are really fun at parties.

 

[kenny]

Re: Bruce Springsteen cancels concert in NC over "bathroom l

Requiring every public restroom build three separate rooms, men's, women's and other, is a huge financial burden.

A lower-cost alternative might be modifying stall walls and their doors for better privacy, soundproofing, and security.
Walls and doors should reach the ceiling and the floor ... and no cracks around the door someone can peek into.
Each would be like a tiny private room containing only a toilet.

 

[chrono]

Re: Bruce Springsteen cancels concert in NC over "bathroom l

Are you talking about a lot of single bathrooms. How would that look? Like a line of port a johns. And as someone up thread mentioned about added cost for a third bathroom, this would be cost prohibitive.

Why is it any different than inside a women's bathroom? Inside is a row of individual stalls, each of which has its own lock. If they build it like in other countries where it is gapless (so nobody can peek in) and the stall is from the floor all the way to over 8 foot high for privacy, why would this cost more?

 

[ruby59]

Re: Bruce Springsteen cancels concert in NC over "bathroom l

Ruby, let your past prejudices against me dictate
________________________________________

In the 10 years I have been here, this is probably the first conversation I have ever had with you, one on one. Could you be confusing me with someone else?

 

[ruby59]

Re: Bruce Springsteen cancels concert in NC over "bathroom l

Why is it any different than inside a women's bathroom? Inside is a row of individual stalls, each of which has its own lock. If they build it like in other countries where it is gapless (so nobody can peek in) and the stall is from the floor all the way to over 8 foot high for privacy, why would this cost more?
________________________________________

Are you talking about one big room with individual stalls or stand alone individual rooms, like Starbucks.

I am not familiar with how it is done in other countries. My only point of reference is how it is here in the US.

 

[chrono]

Re: Bruce Springsteen cancels concert in NC over "bathroom l

The bathroom stalls in the US have zero privacy and are built so flimsily. If I wanted to, I could bring the whole thing down with a well placed kick. In other countries (I do not wish to specify where for privacy issues), the fit is tight (you cannot peek inside, not even a hint of a shadow), and the doors go all the way from the floor to over 8 feet high. It is also built so sturdily that the only way to get in is either to unlock it from the inside or unscrew all the hinges. You cannot break it down. I was surprised to see the lack of privacy in the bathrooms here, as someone who is also extremely modest about such things.

 

[ruby59]

Re: Bruce Springsteen cancels concert in NC over "bathroom l

Sounds great for new establishments.

But how would you force existing ones, especially small mom and pop stores to comply.

That would put a big burden on them.

And others would just claim theirs are grandfathered in.

Again a great concept, but how would you make it work and be fair to all.

 

[chrono]

Re: Bruce Springsteen cancels concert in NC over "bathroom l

Sounds great for new establishments.
But how would you force existing ones, especially small mom and pop stores to comply.
That would put a big burden on them.
And others would just claim theirs are grandfathered in.
Again a great concept, but how would you make it work and be fair to all.

I don't have the answer for this and won't even attempt this. It requires more in-depth study by others who are more experienced with such logistics. The issue here, however, is the new NC law that was recently passed. Did anyone in office even think about how they plan to enforce this? There is the logistics, manpower, cost, etc which is astronomical! Can you imagine an armed officer at EVERY bathroom in NC checking the birth certificate of every person that needs to use the restroom, every single day at all hours of the day and night? If no one is going to check the BC, then why even bother passing such a law?

 

[Matata]

Re: Bruce Springsteen cancels concert in NC over "bathroom l

The Great American Bathroom Debate pales in comparison to Mississippi's new law https://www.thenation.com/article/why-mississippis-new-anti-lgbt-law-is-the-most-dangerous-one-to-be-passed-yet/

I stated early in this thread that these laws are motivated by religious belief. There is no denying it. A more pressing discussion in this country needs to be about curtailing the insidious effects of religious belief on basic human rights. This religious mindset has to be curtailed. I find it revolting how much religion negatively impacts basic freedoms -- who you love, who you marry, what you do in the privacy of your bedroom and where you can take a shit in public.

 

[ruby59]

Re: Bruce Springsteen cancels concert in NC over "bathroom l

I see your point, but that is not what brought me to post.

It was the fact that some were piling up and brow beating Mom because she did not feel comfortable sharing a bathroom with a man and had concerns about vulnerable children becoming predators of opportunistic (gay or straight) men.

Some here were calling her and I prejudice or old and dismissing the fact that there are segments of our population (women who have been raped) who would be terrified to use the rest room and those of us who are very protective of our modesty.

 

[chrono]

Re: Bruce Springsteen cancels concert in NC over "bathroom l

The Great American Bathroom Debate pales in comparison to Mississippi's new law https://www.thenation.com/article/why-mississippis-new-anti-lgbt-law-is-the-most-dangerous-one-to-be-passed-yet/

I stated early in this thread that these laws are motivated by religious belief. There is no denying it. A more pressing discussion in this country needs to be about curtailing the insidious effects of religious belief on basic human rights. This religious mindset has to be curtailed. I find it revolting how much religion negatively impacts basic freedoms -- who you love, who you marry, what you do in the privacy of your bedroom and where you can take a shit in public.

All the more reason that there be strong separation of government and religion.

 

[ruby59]

Re: Bruce Springsteen cancels concert in NC over "bathroom l

what you do in the privacy of your bedroom and where you can take a shit in public.
___________________________________________
Simplistic belief if you think religion is why I and many others prefer not to share a bathroom with a man.

For some of us it is common sense and awareness of the world we live in.

What you do in the privacy of the bedroom is none of my business.

And what I do in the privacy of a restroom should not be a man's business, either.

 

[kenny]

Re: Bruce Springsteen cancels concert in NC over "bathroom l

The Great American Bathroom Debate pales in comparison to Mississippi's new law https://www.thenation.com/article/why-mississippis-new-anti-lgbt-law-is-the-most-dangerous-one-to-be-passed-yet/

I'd like to read that article, but I won't give them my email address.

Does anyone else know of another way to read it?

 

[ruby59]

Re: Bruce Springsteen cancels concert in NC over "bathroom l

https://www.thenation.com/article/why-mississippis-new-anti-lgbt-law-is-the-most-dangerous-one-to-be-passed-yet/

________________________________________________

I can access it with no problem. See if my link works.

 

[missy]

Re: Bruce Springsteen cancels concert in NC over "bathroom l

The Great American Bathroom Debate pales in comparison to Mississippi's new law https://www.thenation.com/article/why-mississippis-new-anti-lgbt-law-is-the-most-dangerous-one-to-be-passed-yet/

I stated early in this thread that these laws are motivated by religious belief. There is no denying it. A more pressing discussion in this country needs to be about curtailing the insidious effects of religious belief on basic human rights. This religious mindset has to be curtailed. I find it revolting how much religion negatively impacts basic freedoms -- who you love, who you marry, what you do in the privacy of your bedroom and where you can take a shit in public.

All the more reason that there be strong separation of government and religion.

I agree with both of you completely.

 

[kenny]

Re: Bruce Springsteen cancels concert in NC over "bathroom l

https://www.thenation.com/article/why-mississippis-new-anti-lgbt-law-is-the-most-dangerous-one-to-be-passed-yet/

________________________________________________

I can access it with no problem. See if my link works.

Thanks Ruby, I appreciate it ... but like before the article pops up for a few seconds, but then this window pops up and apparently I will not see the article unless I give them my email address.

 

[missy]

Re: Bruce Springsteen cancels concert in NC over "bathroom l

Copying and pasting the link Matata and Ruby provided for those of you who don't want to click on it.

On Tuesday morning, Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant signed into law HB 1523—the “Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act”—one of the most sweeping of the nation’s “religious liberty” bills that are making the rounds in numerous red-state capitals this year. In the press they are often referred to as “anti-LGBT bills,” because they would give legal cover to those who want to discriminate against LGBT people out of “sincerely held religious belief.” Critics such as Ben Needham, director of Human Rights Campaign’s Project One America, has said the measure is “probably the worst religious freedom bill to date.” But there is an even more radical agenda behind these bills, and the atrocious attempt to deprive LGBT Americans of their rights is only a part of it.



If you are religiously opposed to other people having non-marital sex, Mississippi's "religious freedom" law could be the law for you.

According to State Senator Jennifer Branning, one of the Mississippi law’s original backers, the real victims of the story are not the LGBT couples denied services but people “who cannot in good conscience provide services for a same-sex marriage.” These are the true targets of discrimination, and we are invited to sympathize with the proverbial florist who balks at providing flowers at a gay wedding or the restaurant owner who refuses to serve a same-sex couple celebrating their wedding anniversary. But the text of the law also specifically protects the “sincerely held religious belief” that “sexual relations are properly reserved to” a marriage between a woman and a man. So if you are religiously opposed to other people having non-marital sex, this could be the law for you.

It is also inaccurate to think that this law is just about those who wish to refuse to perform a service. One of the more disconcerting sections of the law is that which discusses people who provide foster-care services. The government, we are told, will no longer be allowed to take action against any foster parent that “guides, instructs, or raises a child…in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief.” If you want to know what that could mean, check out Focus on the Family’s “spare the rod” philosophy of child rearing. On its website, the religious-right advocacy group offers handy tips on “the Biblical Approach to Spanking.”

If the point were only to spare the fine moral sentiments of a few florists, why would the law’s sponsors seek such a wide-ranging exemption from the laws and norms that apply to the rest of society? A helpful clue can be found in a letter that the American Family Association sent out in support of the Mississippi bill before it was passed. (The AFA has been named a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center since 2010.) The bill, said the AFA, is crucial because it protects the AFA, and groups like it, from the “governmental threat of losing their tax exempt status.”




There is a revealing irony in that statement. Tax exemption is a kind of gift from the government, a privilege. It is an indirect way of funneling money from taxpayers to groups that engage in certain kinds of activities (like charity work or nonprofit education)—and not other kinds of activities (like political activism). The AFA is right to worry about the governmental threat to their governmental subsidy. As our society views the kinds of activities they endorse with increasing skepticism, the justification for continued subsidies and privileges from the government will diminish.




The people who drafted the bill on behalf of the Mississippi legislators get it. (Most of the red-state “religious liberty” bills were either drafted or, to some degree, inspired by the Alliance Defending Freedom—the “800-pound gorilla” of religious-right legal advocacy and itself a beneficiary of the great tax exemption game.) This is why the very first “discriminatory action” by the government the law prohibits is “to alter in any way the tax treatment” of any person or organization that abides by the newly sanctioned religious beliefs.

It’s about more than money, of course. The AFA and its allies on the religious right want to carve out a sphere in American public life where religion—their religion—trumps the law. It’s a breathtakingly radical ambition. And it upends the principles on which our constitutional democracy is based.

None other than the late Antonin Scalia put his finger on the problem. To make an individual’s obedience to the law “contingent upon the law’s coincidence with his religious beliefs” amounts to “permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, ‘to become a law unto himself,’” he said. It “contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.” Scalia made these comments in his 1990 majority opinion in Employment Division v. Smith. In that case, the majority ruled that the state of Oregon could deny unemployment benefits to a pair of individuals who violated a state ban on the use of peyote, even though their use of the drug was part of a religious ritual. It was the overreaction to that verdict—on both the left and the right—that produced the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993. Though intended only to ensure that laws did not needlessly burden the religious liberty of individuals, the RFRA sparked a wave of unintended consequences. It effectively planted the demon seeds of the current crop of “religious liberty” bills.


The AFA and its allies on the religious right want to carve out a sphere in American public life where their religion trumps the law.

Employment Division, as it happened, involved a religion—that practiced by the Native American Church—with which Scalia likely did not identify. Which brings up a crucial point about the Mississippi law and its numerous cousins. These “religious liberty” bills are really intended only for a particular variety of religion. Indeed, HB 1523 protects you only if your religion involves a specific set of beliefs—such as the religious belief that “man” and “woman” “refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex,” and that “sexual relations are properly reserved to” marriage. To speak frankly, the law was designed to advance the claims of conservative Christians, and it would never have become law otherwise. If you think that every religion will find as much liberty in the laws of Mississippi, then I have a Satanic temple to sell you.

It reminds me of that famous quote by Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller.

"•When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out. "

or another variation

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

 

[kenny]

Re: Bruce Springsteen cancels concert in NC over "bathroom l

The Great American Bathroom Debate pales in comparison to Mississippi's new law https://www.thenation.com/article/why-mississippis-new-anti-lgbt-law-is-the-most-dangerous-one-to-be-passed-yet/

I stated early in this thread that these laws are motivated by religious belief. There is no denying it. A more pressing discussion in this country needs to be about curtailing the insidious effects of religious belief on basic human rights. This religious mindset has to be curtailed. I find it revolting how much religion negatively impacts basic freedoms -- who you love, who you marry, what you do in the privacy of your bedroom and where you can take a shit in public.

All the more reason that there be strong separation of government and religion.

I agree with both of you completely.

+1

But in reality that's tough because religious people can vote. (I'm not suggesting we deny them that right.)

They vote for politicians and for legislation that shoves their religious views down everyone's throats ... in the name of 'morality'.

Thank God we have the courts.

 

[ruby59]

Re: Bruce Springsteen cancels concert in NC over "bathroom l

Why Mississippi’s New Anti-LGBT Law Is the Most Dangerous One To Be Passed Yet
The law doesn’t protect religious belief. It protects bigots who discriminate against LGBT people—and zealots who place their religion above the law.
By Katherine StewartAPRIL 8, 2016
FacebookTwitterEmailPrint
Rally to protest HB1523
Demonstrators gather outside the Mississippi Governor's Mansion to protest House Bill 1523. (AP Photo / Rogelio V. Solis)

On Tuesday morning, Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant signed into law HB 1523—the “Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act”—one of the most sweeping of the nation’s “religious liberty” bills that are making the rounds in numerous red-state capitals this year. In the press they are often referred to as “anti-LGBT bills,” because they would give legal cover to those who want to discriminate against LGBT people out of “sincerely held religious belief.” Critics such as Ben Needham, director of Human Rights Campaign’s Project One America, has said the measure is “probably the worst religious freedom bill to date.” But there is an even more radical agenda behind these bills, and the atrocious attempt to deprive LGBT Americans of their rights is only a part of it.

ADVERTISING


If you are religiously opposed to other people having non-marital sex, Mississippi's "religious freedom" law could be the law for you.
According to State Senator Jennifer Branning, one of the Mississippi law’s original backers, the real victims of the story are not the LGBT couples denied services but people “who cannot in good conscience provide services for a same-sex marriage.” These are the true targets of discrimination, and we are invited to sympathize with the proverbial florist who balks at providing flowers at a gay wedding or the restaurant owner who refuses to serve a same-sex couple celebrating their wedding anniversary. But the text of the law also specifically protects the “sincerely held religious belief” that “sexual relations are properly reserved to” a marriage between a woman and a man. So if you are religiously opposed to other people having non-marital sex, this could be the law for you.

It is also inaccurate to think that this law is just about those who wish to refuse to perform a service. One of the more disconcerting sections of the law is that which discusses people who provide foster-care services. The government, we are told, will no longer be allowed to take action against any foster parent that “guides, instructs, or raises a child…in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief.” If you want to know what that could mean, check out Focus on the Family’s “spare the rod” philosophy of child rearing. On its website, the religious-right advocacy group offers handy tips on “the Biblical Approach to Spanking.”

If the point were only to spare the fine moral sentiments of a few florists, why would the law’s sponsors seek such a wide-ranging exemption from the laws and norms that apply to the rest of society? A helpful clue can be found in a letter that the American Family Association sent out in support of the Mississippi bill before it was passed. (The AFA has been named a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center since 2010.) The bill, said the AFA, is crucial because it protects the AFA, and groups like it, from the “governmental threat of losing their tax exempt status.”

LIKE THIS? GET MORE OF OUR BEST REPORTING AND ANALYSIS


Enter Email
SIGN UP!
There is a revealing irony in that statement. Tax exemption is a kind of gift from the government, a privilege. It is an indirect way of funneling money from taxpayers to groups that engage in certain kinds of activities (like charity work or nonprofit education)—and not other kinds of activities (like political activism). The AFA is right to worry about the governmental threat to their governmental subsidy. As our society views the kinds of activities they endorse with increasing skepticism, the justification for continued subsidies and privileges from the government will diminish.

MOST POPULAR

1
I USED TO SUPPORT BERNIE, BUT THEN I CHANGED MY MIND
2
BERNIE ROCKS BUFFALO. HE ALSO DID SOMETHING ELSE.
3
SANDERS IS FOR SCHMUCKS
4
WE ASKED 4 PROMINENT BERNIE SUPPORTERS IF THEY’D VOTE FOR HILLARY IN NOVEMBER. HERE’S WHAT THEY TOLD US.
5
CAN NEIGHBORHOODS BE REVITALIZED WITHOUT GENTRIFYING THEM?
The people who drafted the bill on behalf of the Mississippi legislators get it. (Most of the red-state “religious liberty” bills were either drafted or, to some degree, inspired by the Alliance Defending Freedom—the “800-pound gorilla” of religious-right legal advocacy and itself a beneficiary of the great tax exemption game.) This is why the very first “discriminatory action” by the government the law prohibits is “to alter in any way the tax treatment” of any person or organization that abides by the newly sanctioned religious beliefs.

It’s about more than money, of course. The AFA and its allies on the religious right want to carve out a sphere in American public life where religion—their religion—trumps the law. It’s a breathtakingly radical ambition. And it upends the principles on which our constitutional democracy is based.

None other than the late Antonin Scalia put his finger on the problem. To make an individual’s obedience to the law “contingent upon the law’s coincidence with his religious beliefs” amounts to “permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, ‘to become a law unto himself,’” he said. It “contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.” Scalia made these comments in his 1990 majority opinion in Employment Division v. Smith. In that case, the majority ruled that the state of Oregon could deny unemployment benefits to a pair of individuals who violated a state ban on the use of peyote, even though their use of the drug was part of a religious ritual. It was the overreaction to that verdict—on both the left and the right—that produced the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993. Though intended only to ensure that laws did not needlessly burden the religious liberty of individuals, the RFRA sparked a wave of unintended consequences. It effectively planted the demon seeds of the current crop of “religious liberty” bills.

The AFA and its allies on the religious right want to carve out a sphere in American public life where their religion trumps the law.
Employment Division, as it happened, involved a religion—that practiced by the Native American Church—with which Scalia likely did not identify. Which brings up a crucial point about the Mississippi law and its numerous cousins. These “religious liberty” bills are really intended only for a particular variety of religion. Indeed, HB 1523 protects you only if your religion involves a specific set of beliefs—such as the religious belief that “man” and “woman” “refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex,” and that “sexual relations are properly reserved to” marriage. To speak frankly, the law was designed to advance the claims of conservative Christians, and it would never have become law otherwise. If you think that every religion will find as much liberty in the laws of Mississippi, then I have a Satanic temple to sell you.

YOU'RE READING 1 OF 6 FREE ARTICLES AVAILABLE FOR THE NEXT 30 DAYS
CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION.

Get unlimited access to The Nation for as low as 37 cents a week!
Already a subscriber? Log in here.
SUBSCRIBE
Close Meerkat
8 COMMENTS
FacebookTwitterEmailPrint

 

[kenny]

Re: Bruce Springsteen cancels concert in NC over "bathroom l

Thanks Ruby.
You're a peach.

 

[Matata]

Re: Bruce Springsteen cancels concert in NC over "bathroom l

Kenny, that's odd about the popup. I searched for "mississippi's lgbt law" and clicked on "thenation.com" without trouble.

 

[Matata]

Re: Bruce Springsteen cancels concert in NC over "bathroom l

Kenny, here's another article albeit not so pithily written. Essentially it gives permission to deny all services to anyone who is not heterosexual if providing those services violates "sincerely held religious beliefs." Medical care, mental health care, mani-pedis...it is appalling.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/04/05/mississippi-governor-signs-law-allowing-business-to-refuse-service-to-gay-people/

 

[kenny]

Re: Bruce Springsteen cancels concert in NC over "bathroom l

Why Mississippi’s New Anti-LGBT Law Is the Most Dangerous One To Be Passed Yet
The law doesn’t protect religious belief. It protects bigots who discriminate against LGBT people—and zealots who place their religion above the law.
By Katherine StewartAPRIL 8, 2016
FacebookTwitterEmailPrint
Rally to protest HB1523
Demonstrators gather outside the Mississippi Governor's Mansion to protest House Bill 1523. (AP Photo / Rogelio V. Solis)

On Tuesday morning, Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant signed into law HB 1523—the “Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act”—one of the most sweeping of the nation’s “religious liberty” bills that are making the rounds in numerous red-state capitals this year. In the press they are often referred to as “anti-LGBT bills,” because they would give legal cover to those who want to discriminate against LGBT people out of “sincerely held religious belief.” Critics such as Ben Needham, director of Human Rights Campaign’s Project One America, has said the measure is “probably the worst religious freedom bill to date.” But there is an even more radical agenda behind these bills, and the atrocious attempt to deprive LGBT Americans of their rights is only a part of it.

ADVERTISING


If you are religiously opposed to other people having non-marital sex, Mississippi's "religious freedom" law could be the law for you.
According to State Senator Jennifer Branning, one of the Mississippi law’s original backers, the real victims of the story are not the LGBT couples denied services but people “who cannot in good conscience provide services for a same-sex marriage.” These are the true targets of discrimination, and we are invited to sympathize with the proverbial florist who balks at providing flowers at a gay wedding or the restaurant owner who refuses to serve a same-sex couple celebrating their wedding anniversary. But the text of the law also specifically protects the “sincerely held religious belief” that “sexual relations are properly reserved to” a marriage between a woman and a man. So if you are religiously opposed to other people having non-marital sex, this could be the law for you.

It is also inaccurate to think that this law is just about those who wish to refuse to perform a service. One of the more disconcerting sections of the law is that which discusses people who provide foster-care services. The government, we are told, will no longer be allowed to take action against any foster parent that “guides, instructs, or raises a child…in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief.” If you want to know what that could mean, check out Focus on the Family’s “spare the rod” philosophy of child rearing. On its website, the religious-right advocacy group offers handy tips on “the Biblical Approach to Spanking.”

If the point were only to spare the fine moral sentiments of a few florists, why would the law’s sponsors seek such a wide-ranging exemption from the laws and norms that apply to the rest of society? A helpful clue can be found in a letter that the American Family Association sent out in support of the Mississippi bill before it was passed. (The AFA has been named a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center since 2010.) The bill, said the AFA, is crucial because it protects the AFA, and groups like it, from the “governmental threat of losing their tax exempt status.”

LIKE THIS? GET MORE OF OUR BEST REPORTING AND ANALYSIS


Enter Email
SIGN UP!
There is a revealing irony in that statement. Tax exemption is a kind of gift from the government, a privilege. It is an indirect way of funneling money from taxpayers to groups that engage in certain kinds of activities (like charity work or nonprofit education)—and not other kinds of activities (like political activism). The AFA is right to worry about the governmental threat to their governmental subsidy. As our society views the kinds of activities they endorse with increasing skepticism, the justification for continued subsidies and privileges from the government will diminish.

MOST POPULAR

1
I USED TO SUPPORT BERNIE, BUT THEN I CHANGED MY MIND
2
BERNIE ROCKS BUFFALO. HE ALSO DID SOMETHING ELSE.
3
SANDERS IS FOR SCHMUCKS
4
WE ASKED 4 PROMINENT BERNIE SUPPORTERS IF THEY’D VOTE FOR HILLARY IN NOVEMBER. HERE’S WHAT THEY TOLD US.
5
CAN NEIGHBORHOODS BE REVITALIZED WITHOUT GENTRIFYING THEM?
The people who drafted the bill on behalf of the Mississippi legislators get it. (Most of the red-state “religious liberty” bills were either drafted or, to some degree, inspired by the Alliance Defending Freedom—the “800-pound gorilla” of religious-right legal advocacy and itself a beneficiary of the great tax exemption game.) This is why the very first “discriminatory action” by the government the law prohibits is “to alter in any way the tax treatment” of any person or organization that abides by the newly sanctioned religious beliefs.

It’s about more than money, of course. The AFA and its allies on the religious right want to carve out a sphere in American public life where religion—their religion—trumps the law. It’s a breathtakingly radical ambition. And it upends the principles on which our constitutional democracy is based.

None other than the late Antonin Scalia put his finger on the problem. To make an individual’s obedience to the law “contingent upon the law’s coincidence with his religious beliefs” amounts to “permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, ‘to become a law unto himself,’” he said. It “contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.” Scalia made these comments in his 1990 majority opinion in Employment Division v. Smith. In that case, the majority ruled that the state of Oregon could deny unemployment benefits to a pair of individuals who violated a state ban on the use of peyote, even though their use of the drug was part of a religious ritual. It was the overreaction to that verdict—on both the left and the right—that produced the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993. Though intended only to ensure that laws did not needlessly burden the religious liberty of individuals, the RFRA sparked a wave of unintended consequences. It effectively planted the demon seeds of the current crop of “religious liberty” bills.

The AFA and its allies on the religious right want to carve out a sphere in American public life where their religion trumps the law.
Employment Division, as it happened, involved a religion—that practiced by the Native American Church—with which Scalia likely did not identify. Which brings up a crucial point about the Mississippi law and its numerous cousins. These “religious liberty” bills are really intended only for a particular variety of religion. Indeed, HB 1523 protects you only if your religion involves a specific set of beliefs—such as the religious belief that “man” and “woman” “refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex,” and that “sexual relations are properly reserved to” marriage. To speak frankly, the law was designed to advance the claims of conservative Christians, and it would never have become law otherwise. If you think that every religion will find as much liberty in the laws of Mississippi, then I have a Satanic temple to sell you.

YOU'RE READING 1 OF 6 FREE ARTICLES AVAILABLE FOR THE NEXT 30 DAYS
CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION.

Get unlimited access to The Nation for as low as 37 cents a week!
Already a subscriber? Log in here.
SUBSCRIBE
Close Meerkat
8 COMMENTS
FacebookTwitterEmailPrint

Hey, weren't 'sincerely held religious beliefs' used to defend slavery back in the mid 19th century?

Eventually those religious folks had to give up their kicking and screaming (and take it underground and under white sheets) and at least appear to adjust to what we now recognize as the morality of equality.
The latest battle will take some time, but once again they'll eventually adjust to the morality of equality for yet another screwed-over group.

Once again, I'm not anti-religion.
I'm anti-harm.

 

[kenny]

Re: Bruce Springsteen cancels concert in NC over "bathroom l

Kenny, that's odd about the popup. I searched for "mississippi's lgbt law" and clicked on "thenation.com" without trouble.

I agree.
It's odd ... annoying too.

 

[ruby59]

Re: Bruce Springsteen cancels concert in NC over "bathroom l

Glad, I could help.

Missy did the same thing.

 

[Niel]

Re: Bruce Springsteen cancels concert in NC over "bathroom l

Sounds great for new establishments.
But how would you force existing ones, especially small mom and pop stores to comply.
That would put a big burden on them.
And others would just claim theirs are grandfathered in.
Again a great concept, but how would you make it work and be fair to all.

I don't have the answer for this and won't even attempt this. It requires more in-depth study by others who are more experienced with such logistics. The issue here, however, is the new NC law that was recently passed. Did anyone in office even think about how they plan to enforce this? There is the logistics, manpower, cost, etc which is astronomical! Can you imagine an armed officer at EVERY bathroom in NC checking the birth certificate of every person that needs to use the restroom, every single day at all hours of the day and night? If no one is going to check the BC, then why even bother passing such a law?

How will it be enforced? Me fear is likely it will be enforced by the individuals doing the harassing* its not like the police will even roll out from a call " hi, 911? I'm at the park and there's someone who I think is trans in the bathroom! ". No, it'll be vigilantes who harrass people in the bathrooms for the sake of the public good.

 

[monarch64]

Re: Bruce Springsteen cancels concert in NC over "bathroom l

Sounds great for new establishments.
But how would you force existing ones, especially small mom and pop stores to comply.
That would put a big burden on them.
And others would just claim theirs are grandfathered in.
Again a great concept, but how would you make it work and be fair to all.

I don't have the answer for this and won't even attempt this. It requires more in-depth study by others who are more experienced with such logistics. The issue here, however, is the new NC law that was recently passed. Did anyone in office even think about how they plan to enforce this? There is the logistics, manpower, cost, etc which is astronomical! Can you imagine an armed officer at EVERY bathroom in NC checking the birth certificate of every person that needs to use the restroom, every single day at all hours of the day and night? If no one is going to check the BC, then why even bother passing such a law?

How will it be enforced? Me fear is likely it will be informed by the individual being harassed, its not like the police will even roll out from a call " hi, 911? I'm at the park and there's someone who I think is trans in the bathroom! ". No, it'll be vigilantes who harrass people in the bathrooms for the sake of the public good.

NC has no idea how it is going to enforce the law. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/04/north-carolina-lgbt-bathrooms-hb2-enforcement

So yeah, basically we'll have hall monitors on a witch hunt. Won't that be fun and cost-effective for everyone?

 

[Matata]

Re: Bruce Springsteen cancels concert in NC over "bathroom l

Some good stuff happens in spite of ourselves.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/04/13/all-gender-bathroom-canada-schools_n_9670546.html

 

[monarch64]

Re: Bruce Springsteen cancels concert in NC over "bathroom l

Some good stuff happens in spite of ourselves.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/04/13/all-gender-bathroom-canada-schools_n_9670546.html

Quelle horreur! Shocking!

 

[missy]

Re: Bruce Springsteen cancels concert in NC over "bathroom l

Matata, thanks for sharing... that is good news.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/18/gender-neutral-bathrooms-colleges_n_5597362.html
This was written in July of 2014.

Gender-Neutral Bathrooms Are Quietly Becoming The New Thing At Colleges

A popular student center at Northwestern University is the latest college campus facility to embrace gender-neutral bathrooms.


New to campus this fall will be a pair of such restrooms — sometimes called “all-gender” restrooms — at the school’s Norris University Center.


“These are two gender-open bathrooms where students of any gender can go in, and use the restroom, and feel safe, regardless of gender expression or gender identity,” Michelle Margulis, president of NU’s Rainbow Alliance LGBT student group told CBS Chicago.


The number of gender-neutral bathrooms has grown in just the past few years, in city-run facilities, workplaces and, most commonly, college campuses. There are more than 150 schools across the U.S. that have gender-neutral bathrooms, according to the University of Massachusetts Amherst’s LGBTQ organization The Stonewall Center.


Just this month, Illinois State University re-labeled their “all family” restrooms to “all-gender,” a move Michael Shane McCreery of the school’s Office of Equal Opportunity, Ethics and Access said “evidences the university’s efforts to have an inclusive environment.”


In Northwestern’s case, installing a non-gendered bathroom was out of consideration for the comfort of non-gender conforming students rather than safety concerns, Margulis said.


Still, safety and access concerns are what commonly prompt schools to adopt gender-neutral bathrooms. According to the Transgender Law Center, non-binary or trans students have been barred from using the restrooms at their schools while others have been attacked or harassed in restrooms of malls and grocery stores.


Forcing trans or non-binary students to use a traditionally gendered restroom “repeatedly ‘outs’ them to other students or employees and stigmatizes them daily by singling them out and prevents them from having critical peer experiences,” Sasha Buchert, staff attorney for the Transgender Law Center, told HuffPost via email. “Trans and gender nonconforming students should be focusing on their education or getting their job done well, and not about which bathroom they can use.”


Activists maintain the goal is not to make bathrooms “just” for trans and non-binary people, but to make spaces that are safe and accommodating for everyone. Disability rights activists have also come out in support of gender-neutral bathrooms, which typically feature a lockable single-stall unit that has better accessibility for people with disabilities — especially those who may also require help from an assistant or family member who is not of the same gender.