Tennessee Marriage Equality - The First to Fall

[invalide]

The anti-LGBTQ political climate you are a part of has contributed to this bill passing. It was never going to stop at trans people.

I'm not some liberal for whom marriage equality is the be-all end-all metric of 'progress' or 'freedom', but it's indisputable we're looking at a backsliding of what limited recent progress has been made.

Like the one you attended yourself. The one where you, someone who was likely seen over enthusiastically participating in the protest, the one with signs like 'decapitate terfs' decided to stroll through the group of women listening to the speakers and record their faces with your camera.

Oh, it's that tedious child again. Still only 97 followers on twitter, I see.

Needs to get back to his studies and learn how to apply critical thinking. *

MNHQ there is no misgendering here. OPs Twitter profile shows a picture of a clearly male individual and does not state any preferred pronouns

Just about the cake - the bakers were happy to provide a cake, they were just not prepared to write words they disagreed with on the cake.

Absolutely!

deadwildroses.com/2019/10/07/handy-venn-diagrams-the-radical-feminist-position-on-gender/

OP you need to understand this diagram if you are posting in good faith.

Gender ideologists have just as much in common with religious conservatives. Both believe in gender stereotypes. Religious conservatives might want to deal with homosexuality by attempting to convert a person to be straight. Gender ideologues might deal with homosexuality (especially in children) by attempting to medically convert a person to a facsimile of the opposite sex.

Feminists want to smash gender stereotypes. Homosexuality is safe and welcome in this scenario.

Total nonsense. Why don't you go and burn some more Harry Potter books with your friends from the US Christian fundamentalists. Or doesn't guilt by association work that way? FFS!

It's not gender critical women who don't know what a lesbian is, op.

Indeed. Although Stonewall 's definition didn't go down very well on International Women's Day yesterday:
twitter.com/MForstater/status/1633754172997656576

No U.S. jurisdiction has ever required religious leaders to perform marriage ceremonies to which they had any objection and Tennessee law already stated this plainly. This law allows county clerks to refuse to certify marriage licenses for gay or lesbian couples. In other words, agents of the state are allowed to discriminate.

First rule of misogyny: women are responsible for what men do.

Trans ideology is absolutely the worst thing that could have happened to LGB rights.

Oh, it's the poster I apologised to previously for calling a mansplaining twit.

Or in other words, they’ve come down on the ‘freedom of conscience’ side of the rights conflict. England and Wales came down on the ‘same-sex equality side’.

If someone is conservative in their religious beliefs, they are currently facing difficulties in working as a registrar, in social services and in leading a political party (all UK examples). Then there’s the bakery…

The County Clerk is an elected post in Tennessee. In addition, they don’t have a residency requirement for marriage. So as far as I can work out from a quick Google, a couple who finds that their local office has issues of conscience can either take it to federal level (they’ll win), make it an election campaign issue (judging by the Kentucky case, they’ll win) or go to the neighbouring county to get the licence.

I often wonder at the motivation for an OP that is clearly going to get significantly and expertly shown to be so different from what the OP who seems keen on shaming women believes.

Is there a particular reason an OP such as this wants their arguments shown to be so lacking in coherence and accuracy?

As ever, the extremists on all sides ruin things for those of us with common sense and a conscience.

It's incredibly depressing to see this but not at all surprising, in the current climate.

Hello OP 👋 I understand your concern but I think you're blaming the wrong people. Read the pp's replies with an open mind. Then take that pointy finger and look in a mirror.

I wish our visitors would realised when they stare into MN FWR, MN FWR stares back and does not blink.

OP, did no one ever tell you that when you point a finger at someone else, there are three fingers pointing back at you

I simply don’t understand why anyone would want to be married by someone who didn’t believe you should be allowed to marry. A resentful official being compelled to act against their religious beliefs would considerably reduce the joy of the occasion.

From a practical perspective, it makes sense not to compel officials to officiate in gay marriages.

This thread is the equivalent of the bigger older brother holding his little sister's hand and slamming it against her face, saying 'Stop hitting yourself '

We all know the real cause behind the harm, and it's not the little sister, and it's not the LGBT community.

Hang on, I thought there was no such thing as sex as it was a social construct so no need to have rights for same sex anything?

I wish I could keep up.

You can believe that if you wish but how do you explain LGBT acceptance going down as the T comes to the forefront? Coincidence?

I live in Tennessee and it's a good law. All it says is that people with deeply held religious beliefs against homosexual marriage don't have to perform such marriages.

The 1st right enumerated in the Constitution is the right to religious freedom. This bill merely confirms that right.

The fact that millions of devout Muslims, Jews and Christians have moral objections to homosexual behavior doesn't sit well with some, but it's a fact, and in the US it is enshrined in law.

Thanks for explaining @LifeExperience. Always good to hear the facts.

For a registrars office? Sorry I don't agree with this. If a couple is forced to shop all over the county or farther to find a public institution willing to perform their wedding that's not on. The views of the registrar don't come into it - they don't like it they can go work at Starbucks. It's as bad as gyno nurses in public hospitals refusing to assist in abortions. Sweden's got the right idea if you ask me in firing anyone who ducks out of an integral part of their job in this fashion.

So you agree with TERFs being forced out of their jobs because they have views some people don't agree with?

The question is not whether, in the UK, a registrar has to marry everyone (they do). The question is whether the decision to exclude people of certain views from certain jobs is really allowing freedom of conscience.

In the case of registrars and gynae nurses, I suspect 'reasonable adjustments' (pass it on to a colleague) is a possible solution.

The problem we're seeing is that some activists don't want reasonable adjustments. They want forced agreement.

Maybe public institutions should be forced to ensure they can accommodate gay couples without forcing individuals to act against their conscious.

I also think it’s imperative that we do not compel medical professionals to carry out procedures that they are morally opposed to. Hospitals should offer the service without compelling individual staff to carry out the procedures. It does only apply to a small number of procedures, which are matters of conscience for some people.

From a purely practical point of view, ensuring that the HCPs carrying out a termination are happy to do so ensure better quality care for the woman. Some HCPs will see providing the service as a matter of conscience just as others may see not providing it that way. It’s reasonable that the HCPs who are anti-abortion pass cases on to others.

Poor old our frequent correspondant @invalide . So much angst, so little sense. Unable to attempt even a partial post in defence of their thesis. A poor show even by his very low standards.