Again, sorry for any errors since I'm bad at proofreading
So North Carolina and Mississippi are back in the news
The American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi is sueing their state because the new law there would allow citizens to deny service to same-sex couples for religious reasons. If nothing comes of this lawsuit, the law will go into effect July 1st as originally planned. It's yet another case of trying to figure out just where LGBT+ rights end, and religious freedom begins and vice versa. To quote the article directly: "Supporters say the law will protect people's religious beliefs that marriage should only be between one man and one woman. Opponents say it violates the equal-protection guarantee of the Constitution."
The ACLU is filing the lawsuit on behalf of a MS same-sex couple who have been engaged for 2 years and said: "When House Bill 1523 passed, it was heartbreaking because it takes away our chance to finally be treated equally. At a time when we're supposed to be excited as a couple engaged to be married, this law permits discrimination against us simply because of who we are. This is not the Mississippi we're proud to call home. We're hopeful others will come to realize this and not allow this harmful measure to become law."
Should be interesting to see how this case ends because it could set the tone for any similar cases that could pop up. Being the MS is in the south, it'll be also be interesting to see what sort of reaction the end result sparks from both sides.
As for North Carolina, ooh boy... This sure has spiralled into something much larger. Seemingly everyone's got a stance on this, and is very passionate about making their stance known. I'm admittedly having a bit of a hard time summarizing everything, but hopefully this'll suffice:
So, iirc, last Monday The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against North Carolina because of the bathroom bill, and threatened to stop federal funding for NC's schools, including the University of North Carolina. NC's govenor, Pat McCrory responded by filing a lawsuit against the govenment by saying "Transgender status is not a protected class" and if the DOJ thinks it should be, they should go through Congress to get the law changed instead of attempting to bypass Congress and rewrite the law. Then later that week, the Obama admin. sent a letter out to all public school districts saying they need to allow transgender students to use whatever facilities match their gender identity, or risk losing federal funding. As you can imagine, this move hasn't gone over well everywhere, particularly in the south, but especially in Texas, where three politicans there (the governor, lt. governor, and a senator) have condemned this action, and understandably so. Assuming I didn't forget or miss anything, that's about where we are right now.
(sources: 1 2)
Regardless of you opinion, I think we can agree pulling federal funding is an extreme, even if the intent is to promote acceptance and safety. Money can speak louder than words though, especially when it's millions, if not billions of dollars at stake, so it's understandable why they went that route, but still.... It's only really angered people more too. It's a waiting game at this point, because considering just how many school districts there are, and just how many of those are unhappy about this, there's bound to be at least one that won't comply. And how their defiance is handled, and received, will really set the tone for this entire thing, which is potentially somewhat scary.
Though I'm pretty much just preaching to the choir here, I think it's still important to at least try to start a healthy, informative discussion, and also share accurate information, since misinformation regarding certain LGBT+ issues, like those bathroom bills for instance, is still really prevalant. Not everyone is lucky enough to be in a supportive envirnoment, so being able to provide resources is really important too, especially since those resources can be educational for even people not in those sort of situations themselves.
The Huffington Post article was actually really nice. It was published in November though, and I can't seem to remember anything that was going on then that would cause them to post that, but hopefully in light of recent events, the article is being passed around and shared again.
With the second one, the overall gist of the blog post is fine, and does add another aspect to the conversation that's not really talked about, but I agree with you. Though LGBT+ issues can often intersect with other social issues, such a feminism, and while it is important to acknowledge those intersections, it's not always the best idea to tie everything together. LGBT+ stuff on its own can be very complex, and you already lose some people when the word "transgender" is even brought up, so having an accusatory tone when trying to spread correct information, and bring up valid points, can only really anger people, and/or make people tune you out, and potentially tune out anyone else that tries to talk about similar topics. It also adds to any negative reputation the LGBT+ community might have with some people since they might assume some LGBT+ supporters are representative of the entire group. It's just not the best approach when talking about such things. Her anger, and many others' anger is understandable, and that's her personal blog right? So she can post whatever she wants, but that's still probably not the article you'll want to show your friend who might be pro-LGB, but might not completely understand why the recent bathroom bills are harmful, or understand why the T is even included in LGBT. The first article, and some wikipedia pages, would be better suited for that. If you reworded the blog post though, it'd probably be received much better, and have a bigger impact since, even though she has many valid points, they're not executed in the way that most people would hear them. Maybe her intention wasn't to try to point out how ridiculous bathroom bills and boycotting Target are to a large audience, but was actually just to put her perspective on the whole thing out there though. If that is the case, her tone would be more excusabe since it was never intended to address a large number of people, but rather just people who probably already agree with her, and want to read more about the flaws with bathroom bills
You can chime in if you want! It's quite the mess at the moment though, so it's fine if you'd rather not
I heard about the recent election over there, but I didn't hear about the last part. The Philippines is quite religious, right? So it's certainly a positive sign that people who are pro-LGBT and/or LGBT themselves got voted in. If he does ever push for same sex marriage, it'll be interesting to see how the public there will react. If/When that happens, hopefully the Philippines will be join the slowly growing list of countries where same sex marriage is legalized.
Could you elaborate what you mean by "they're already pretty much accepted here, but there's still a lot of discrimination against them"? Is there a lack of legal protections for LGBT+ people, or that while the general public is alright with them existing, they believe being LGBT+ is a good enough reason for someone to not be served at a resturant, be denied service at a store, to lose their job, or etc.