[Gay] Gay News from Around the Gay World That is Gay

[Admiral Yi]

So I was right for calling it bullshit?

I wouldn't call it bullshit.  It's a signalling strategy, in the same way that a Polish resort might sell itself as gay-friendly.

[Tonitrus]

Sounds like a harmless attempt to be a bit more socially responsible than normal (teh horror!).

Perhaps akin to having employees somewhat better trained to, say, if Starbucks wanted to promote some of their locations as a "safe space" for battered/abused spouses to take refuge.

Even if "bullshit"...seems pretty much completely harmless at worst.

[Jaron]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/11/12/utah-judge-removes-foster-child-from-lesbian-couple-saying-shell-be-better-off-with-heterosexuals/

There was quite a backlash here about it. The judge reversed the decision, at least temporarily.

[garbon]

Sounds like a harmless attempt to be a bit more socially responsible than normal (teh horror!).

Perhaps akin to having employees somewhat better trained to, say, if Starbucks wanted to promote some of their locations as a "safe space" for battered/abused spouses to take refuge.

Even if "bullshit"...seems pretty much completely harmless at worst.

[Josquius]

So ..... christiano ronaldo.
Gay?
Or is it normal to buy a private plane so you can fly over to morocco several times a week to hang with a buff kick boxer?

Now that this story is out there.... yes. I can really see an argument for him being gay. Just look at him.
Would be wonderful if he did come out. Really positive move for football and respect for gay people globally in general. 

[Syt]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35147257

Slovenia rejects gay marriage in referendum

Slovenians have rejected same-sex marriage by a large margin in a referendum.

Almost two-thirds of voters said no to a bill that defined marriage as a union between two consenting adults.

Parliament passed a law giving marriage equality in March, but opponents challenged it before any gay couples could marry.

Conservatives were especially opposed to allowing same-sex couples to adopt children.

"This result presents a victory for our children," said Ales Primc from the group Children Are At Stake.

The result demonstrates a cultural split in the EU, where western member states are granting greater rights to gay people but newer central and eastern member states are resisting such moves.

Slovenia's conservatives were backed by Pope Francis, who called on the mainly Catholic country to "back the family as the structural reference point for the life of society".

But MPs from the United Left party, which initially proposed the change in the law, said the result was a temporary setback.

"It's not over yet. Sooner or later the law will be accepted," said United Left MP Violeta Tomic.

Slovenia is considered to be among the more liberal former communist countries but gay rights remain a contentious issue there.

In 2012, voters rejected granting more rights to gay couples in a referendum.

[Eddie Teach]

A great victory for plural marriage!

[celedhring]

Disney speaks out against Georgia's "religious tolerance" bill.

http://www.glaad.org/blog/disney-speaks-out-against-georgias-license-discriminate-bill

Am I correct in assuming all those "religious beliefs" laws that are popping up in some states are dog whistle politics for antigay crap?

Good on Disney if they indeed pull out of the state, by the way. Georgia pours a lot of money in tax breaks for the studios to go there.

[Monoriu]

If Governor Deal signs this bill, it means that any taxpayer-funded faith-based organizations can deny services or employment to anyone who does not share its religious beliefs. An organization could take taxpayer money to perform public services and then deny those services - as well as employment - to a taxpayer if that person doesn't share the organization's religious beliefs.

I don't understand.  So the state provides public subsidies to an organisation to perform a service, say a school.  The school will then be able to say it doesn't admit gay students on religious grounds?  This doesn't seem right to me, and I have no idea how this can pass judicial review or whatever it is called in the US.  If a school receives public funding, the state should compel it to avoid disciminating on sexual orientation grounds.

[celedhring]

IIRC the way the US lawmaking system works, a law can't be found to be unconstitutional before it is passed (in Spain it can be challenged beforehand, for example, and the parliamentary process includes a report analyzing whether the law might be unconstitutional). So they can pass all the ridiculous stuff they want until the SCOTUS makes a pass at it. (American lawyers correct me if I'm wrong here).

[Martinus]

The reports on this bill are extremely unclear - every news source I read reports it slightly differently. In particular it is unclear to me if the right is limited to "religious organisations" only or to anyone acting on their religious beliefs. If the former, then the question is how you define a religious organisation.

[Martinus]

If Governor Deal signs this bill, it means that any taxpayer-funded faith-based organizations can deny services or employment to anyone who does not share its religious beliefs. An organization could take taxpayer money to perform public services and then deny those services - as well as employment - to a taxpayer if that person doesn't share the organization's religious beliefs.

I don't understand.  So the state provides public subsidies to an organisation to perform a service, say a school.  The school will then be able to say it doesn't admit gay students on religious grounds?  This doesn't seem right to me, and I have no idea how this can pass judicial review or whatever it is called in the US.  If a school receives public funding, the state should compel it to avoid disciminating on sexual orientation grounds.

Well, it's a bit of a tricky area. Let's say you have a church - does it mean you cannot fire a priest who comes out as gay?

Or let's say you run a religious school where you preach abstinence - can you say you will kick out any student who is caught having pre-marital sex?

I guess the test should be the availability of an alternative service. I, for one, would not want to attend a school that hated gays even if they could not legally act on their hatred, as long as there was a non-idiotic alternative available.

[Martinus]

And if the likes of Disney or Google wanted to help and be real allies, they would better serve the L(G?)BT community by funding or sponsoring tolerant, open-minded schools or businesses in Georgia rather than threaten a boycott.

[Martinus]

Incidentally, I wonder if under Georgia law I could start a Discordian/Erisian business and threaten to fire anyone who refuses to partake of the celebratory pork hot dog sausage on the Holy Day of Friday.

[garbon]

The reports on this bill are extremely unclear - every news source I read reports it slightly differently. In particular it is unclear to me if the right is limited to "religious organisations" only or to anyone acting on their religious beliefs. If the former, then the question is how you define a religious organisation.

That's because there wasn't just one version. At one point, it was more open in general and the revised version kept it to religious orgs.