THIS IS AN ARCHIVE OF LAKE TAHOE NEWS, WHICH WAS OPERATIONAL FROM 2009-2018. IT IS FREELY AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH. THE WEBSITE IS NO LONGER UPDATED WITH NEW ARTICLES.

Opinion: Nev. considers anti-LGBT legislation


image_pdfimage_print

By Stephen Peters

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBT civil rights organization, sounded the alarm on anti-LGBT legislation in Nevada — SB272 in the Senate and AB277 in the Assembly — that threatens jobs, the state economy, and undermines the state’s civil rights laws. The legislation would allow people to use their religion to challenge or opt out of various laws, including state and local laws, that protect LGBT people and other minorities from discrimination.

“This legislation undermines the enforcement of state non-discrimination protections and will expose Nevada business owners to a wave of lawsuits,” said HRC National Field Director Marty Rouse. “It has the potential to cause serious harm to the business climate in the state, putting jobs at risk, and making major corporations think twice about investing in the state. To put it simply, this legislation threatens Nevada’s strong pro-business reputation.”

The legislation will bring harmful and unintended consequences to those who call Nevada home, inviting costly legal challenges and making the Silver State unwelcoming to both residents and visitors. Nearly 500,000 jobs and 29 percent of the state’s employment is a direct result of tourism to Nevada. Jeopardizing the state’s standing as one of the greatest places for people to live and visit, the harm this bill may cause doesn’t end with the LGBT community: an evangelical police officer could feel empowered to refuse to patrol a Jewish street festival; a city clerk could shirk the law and refuse a marriage license to an interracial couple, a divorcee seeking to remarry, or a lesbian couple; an EMT could claim the law is on his side after refusing service to a dying transgender person in the street; and the enforcement of other key sections of state civil rights law could be dramatically undermined.

Major corporations have spoken out strongly against similar bills in other states. In response to one such anti-LGBT bill threatening economic growth and business in Arkansas, both Apple and Wal-Mart spoke out in opposition to precisely this kind of legislation. And Wal-Mart and Apple are not alone. Last year, major multinational corporations including American Airlines, Marriott, PetSmart and many other companies came out against a similar bill in Arizona, concerned about how it would hurt their business and risk millions in economic activity if it became law.

The bill puts all state non-discrimination laws at risk of being undermined. It threatens not just the LGBT community, but women, members of minority faiths and other minority classes.

Stephen Peters works for the Human Rights Campaign.

image_pdfimage_print

About author

This article was written by admin

Comments

Comments (26)
  1. LeanForward says - Posted: March 24, 2015

    Pretty sure that is unconstitutional. Also awful. I’m guessing/hoping it will get tossed out in the state legislature.

  2. Lovely Lois says - Posted: March 24, 2015

    I notice that many of these major corporations are concerned with risking millions in economic activity and loss of money; not human rights, or, just letting everyone live their lives in their own way. It sheds more light on the mindset of Arkansas, Arizona and Nevada.

  3. business owner says - Posted: March 24, 2015

    Get rid of affirmative action first.

  4. TeaTotal says - Posted: March 24, 2015

    Get rid of ignorant phony xtian bigots that want to impose their delusional sociopathic worldview on decent human beings

  5. Sam says - Posted: March 24, 2015

    TeaTotal I 100% agree. When the Mormon Church pushed prop 8 into California I realized how powerful and evil organized religion could be.

    Little did they know that it would be their undoing in the supreme court of the USA.

  6. duke of prunes says - Posted: March 24, 2015

    I have some comic books that I would like to have considered during the legislative process. They address important issues such as radioactivity, intergalactic free enterprise and mineral rights, warp drives in the private sector, etc.
    If the Idiots Guide to Morality Part I and II has a place in government my fiction does as well.

  7. Level says - Posted: March 24, 2015

    Right wing Christians and Sharia law. It’s not just for Muslims anymore!

  8. nature bats last says - Posted: March 24, 2015

    BO. still stinks…….

  9. Justice says - Posted: March 24, 2015

    Ignorance on full display by the author of this. The premise is a false one, there is no “anti” anything that I read in the bill. It does attempt to protect religious freedom from state sanction. If that concept, the same one that founded this country, is now a threat, those who feel that way should return home to whatever country they came from. Freedom in this country is on the re-bound after these six long years of darkness and it is making a right turn and a recovery in Nevada. In liberal-land California, the lower Southern half is a lost cause of liberal failure. The North state, as a conservative republic, has nothing in common with the rest of liberal-lying-fornia and more counties are joining the effort to dissolve into a new state called Jefferson and it is gaining momentum.

  10. Biggerpicture says - Posted: March 24, 2015

    Justice,

    “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. … But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding….”

    Thomas Jefferson in a letter to John Adams dated April 11, 1823.

    Jefferson promoted tolerance above all and said earlier that his statute for religious freedom in Virginia was “meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammeden, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.” He specifically wished to avoid the dominance of a single religion.

  11. Justice says - Posted: March 24, 2015

    Yes, anti-discrimination, should mean what the words convey. Having the state mandate what business owners must do and what their ordered to do, as some states try, is repugnant. This Nevada Bill is an attempt, it appears, to allow freedom of religion from state sanction. If a religious exception is made to a demand for service from an owner of a business providing a service, the person requesting should go elsewhere and not be a burden on the business that refused it. Common sense is all this is.

  12. duke of prunes says - Posted: March 24, 2015

    The consequences of your book apply only to people who accept the authority of your book. We the people choose not to be affiliated with the interpretation of one book, so no books are considered. Otherwise we would all be subject to dozens of books (including mine that I too completely made up, possibly on mushrooms), all disagree and nothing would be accomplished or be fair.
    When religious “freedom” (doctrine) leads to something intolerable (discrimination) it ceases to be valid.

    Common sense is all this is.
    Freedom of religion implies freedom from religion.

  13. rock4tahoe says - Posted: March 24, 2015

    This is the worst sort of Legislation that kept African Americans in back of the bus, in separate restaurants and bathrooms during the Jim Crow years. Opt out of serving Black, Jewish or Gay customers because of religion… not buying the argument.

    The First Amendment clearly states:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Tom Jefferson indeed wanted a “wall” between Church, any type, and State.

  14. business owner says - Posted: March 25, 2015

    Why are you quoting the constitution and thomas jefferson? We havent followed the advice of that ratty piece of paper and that slave owning thug for 100 years or more.

  15. Hmmm... says - Posted: March 25, 2015

    Slave owning thug…that’s nice.

    Please Tell us more, BO and Justice…particularly about interpreting the Constitution, regarding which you gentlemen seem to be experts of. It’s a wonder I didn’t hear about your nomination to the United Stated Supreme Court, or your confirmation.

  16. business owner says - Posted: March 25, 2015

    Ask rock duke..i mean hmmm. Hes the expert on all things known to man

  17. nature bats last says - Posted: March 25, 2015

    BO and justanass, wish I had a business so I could deny your ignorant biggoted homophobic types sales and service….just knowing you types are out there sorta makes me throw up in my mouth, gurggg…….

  18. Hmmm... says - Posted: March 25, 2015

    Typical Teabagger strategery…make an insulting claim, then accuse others of the very thing you yourself are doing. You are the one claiming expertise on the Constitution. I just questioned where your exemplary qualifications on Constitutional Law arise from.

  19. Gaspen Aspen says - Posted: March 25, 2015

    Rock: I’m tired of “African American”. If they were born here they are AMERICAN. I am of Irish descent but born here. I don’t demand anyone call me Irish American. I’m sick of them whining and wanting everyone to acknowledge their African decent. We already know this and can clearly see it.
    I know, a bit off topic but…..

  20. Justice says - Posted: March 25, 2015

    If the state, acting as a governing body, has the right to sanction freedom of choice of who people choose to associate with or engage in business with it is simply contrary to the Constitutional rights of freedom. These endless assaults on liberties that people on the left use by using emotion and words and false charges like “discrimination” when those affected have a choice instead of wanting government sanction they have their own freedom of choice of who they do business with. To deny freedom of who a person does business with or associates with is contrary to the founding of the country as written in the founding documents. Regardless if coming from a King George of England or one posing as King from Kenya.

  21. AROD says - Posted: March 25, 2015

    Justnass, your argument is old and tired. We have been down this road before with the need for a Civil Rights Act to protect people from discrimination. You cannot seriously believe that a person should be denied service because of his skin color or the next step sexual preference? You do not have the “freedom” to infringe on others rights. King from Kenya how stupid is that. Maybe you should consider moving back to England or whatever white European country you slithered from.

  22. duke of prunes says - Posted: March 25, 2015

    “To deny freedom of who a person does business with or associates with is contrary to the founding of the country as written in the founding documents.”
    Yes, such as denying homosexuals the right to marry and allowing business to deny service to homosexuals, jews, muslims, whoever your book doesn’t like.
    You should more to Colorado City now, before my Mushroom Cult takes over and force our doctrine on all of you. Unless you really like Kale and chanting.

  23. rock4tahoe says - Posted: March 27, 2015

    BO. Tom Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence and his face is on Mt Rushmore and you are… are… on this blog! LOL! :)

  24. business owner says - Posted: March 27, 2015

    Hows that working for you rock?

  25. rock4tahoe says - Posted: March 28, 2015

    BO. Fine. Don’t you have a chemistry set to tend to or some “laundry”… :)

  26. greengrass says - Posted: March 28, 2015

    “Tom Jefferson indeed wanted a “wall” between Church, any type, and State” That is impossible, unless either religion or the state goes away. Religion will always end up imposing things on the state, and the state will always impose things on religion. IMHO, the only way is to have religions work TOGETHER with the state.

    “A house divided against itself will not stand.”

    “Maybe you should consider moving back to England or whatever white European country you slithered from.” Anyone else think this sounds racist?

    “The legislation would allow people to use their religion to challenge or opt out of various laws” If I can’t do this, then the state is imposing THEIR moral code on me, which is unconstitutional. The Constitution says that the state will not meddle with any man’s religion.

    If gays believe homosexuality is moral and have a right to practice it, don’t I have just as much right to opt out of murdering babies if I believe it is immoral? This tyrannical nation is getting way out of hand.

    greengrass