One of Africa's Scariest Homophobes Just Lost Reelection

Nigeria has a new president from a new party. There are mixed signals, though, about what that will mean for LGBT Nigerians.

read more

Thom Senzee

www.advocate.com/world/2015/04/01/one-africas-scariest-homophobes-just-lost-reelection

Arkansas Governor Won't Sign Bill — Yet

The “license to discriminate” law is being sent back to the legislature, the governor announced this morning.

read more

Advocate.com Editors

www.advocate.com/politics/2015/04/01/arkansas-governor-wont-sign-bill-yet

Arkansas Governor: My Son Asked Me To Veto 'Religious Freedom' Bill
WASHINGTON — Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) pulled back his support for a “religious freedom” bill Wednesday, citing the controversy and division it has created not only within his state, but also within his own family.

“The issue has become divisive because our nation remains split on how to balance the diversity of our culture with the traditions and firmly held religious convictions,” Hutchison said in a press conference Wednesday morning. “It has divided families, and there is clearly a generational gap on this issue.”

“My son Seth signed the petition asking me, Dad, the governor, to veto this bill,” he added. “And he gave me permission to make that reference, and it shows that families — and there’s a generational difference of opinion on these issues.”

Seth Hutchinson is a labor organizer with the Texas State Employees Union. He was not immediately available for comment.

The governor’s move is a significant shift: Hutchinson had previously said he would sign the bill, which was approved by the Arkansas state legislature earlier this week.

But since then, Walmart, which is the world’s largest retailer and is headquartered in Arkansas, asked Hutchison to veto the legislation. And the governor was no doubt watching what was going on in Indiana, where Gov. Mike Pence (R) has been facing a wave of national backlash — including a slew of companies and groups canceling events in the state — since he signed his state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act last week.

Hutchison said Wednesday he wants state lawmakers to rewrite Arkansas’ bill to make it more consistent with the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which has a narrower scope.

HUFFPOST READERS: If you live in Indiana, we want to hear about how this law is affecting you. Email your story or any tips to [email protected]. Include your name, the city you live in, and a phone number if you’re willing to be contacted by a reporter.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/01/arkansas-religious-freedom-bill_n_6985604.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices&ir=Gay+Voices

Cue The Backlash: Arkansas Passes Its Own “Religious Freedom” Bill, Governor Prepares To Sign It Into Law

Oh, brother. Here we go again.

Evidently, Republican lawmakers in the great state of Arkansas have learned absolutely nothing from the fallout currently taking place in Indiana after lawmakers there passed a bill legalizing discrimination against gay people, because yesterday they voted for their own “religious freedom” bill and–guess what? — it passed!

The bill sailed through the Arkansas Legislature and is currently on its merry way to Gov. Asa Hutchinson’s desk, where it is expected to be signed without delay.

Just like Indiana’s law, Arkansas’ “religious freedom” bill grants business owners the right to discriminate against anyone — gay, Muslim, female, you name it — who they feel “substantially burdens” their religious beliefs, whatever the hell that means.

During Monday’s committee hearing, some lawmakers expressed concerns that the bill may infringe upon people’s civil rights, so they proposed a solution: adding a non-discrimination disclaimer to the legislation.

But Rep. Bob Ballinger (R), the bill’s proud author, said that would be “too confusing,” since people have different definitions of discrimination.

“If that means that you can force somebody who has deeply held religious beliefs to engage in some activity that violates their deeply held religious beliefs, and that the state has the right to force them into doing it, I can’t say that I do agree with that,” he said.

Gov. Hutchinson seems giddy to sign the bill the moment it hits his desk. In a statement last week, he said: “Arkansas is open for business, and we recognize and respect the diversity of our culture and economy” before adding, proudly: “I will sign this bill.”

Related stories:

Six Reasons Why Indiana’s Antigay Law Is Even Worse Than You Imagined

Kid Brother Jeb Bush Jumps Into The Hate Pit With Mike Pence And Indiana Republicans

Mike Pence Blames The Media For Backlash, Says He’s Not A Homophobe But Protecting Gays Isn’t “On His Agenda”

Graham Gremore

feedproxy.google.com/~r/queerty2/~3/gGysGx1Bp84/cue-the-backlash-arkansas-passes-its-own-religious-freedom-bill-governor-prepares-to-sign-it-into-law-20150401

Frankie Grande: Smoking 'Ain't Cute,' Guys

Reality and Broadway star Frankie Grande is the son of a pulmonologist and says smoking and cancer ain’t cute.

read more

Frankie Grande

www.advocate.com/commentary/2015/04/01/frankie-grande-smoking-aint-cute-guys

RFRA 101: A Brief History Of Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act
(RNS) Before this week, few people had heard of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act or could even pronounce its acronym, RFRA (Riff-ra), even though there’s a federal version of the law and 20 states have passed their own versions. Is it a “license to discriminate,” as liberals claim, or a “protection of religious freedom,” as conservatives claim?

In fact, it’s both.

There are three sources for Indiana’s RFRA: the religious exemptions movement, RFRA’s own history and, most recently, the Hobby Lobby case.

First, the idea of religious exemptions to civil rights laws is as old as civil rights laws themselves. In the 1970s, for example, conservative Christian organizations demanded exemptions to the Civil Rights Act and similar laws. The most famous of these was Bob Jones University, which maintained race-based admissions and housing policies all the way into the 1990s. The Supreme Court dealt these organizations a blow, however, when it upheld an IRS decision to strip Bob Jones of tax-exempt status.

Religious exemptions are also widespread in the area of reproductive health. Doctors, nurses and even entire hospitals are routinely exempt from having to perform or assist in abortions. These exemptions are now being extended to pharmacists not wishing to dispense contraceptives — and, most famously, to corporations not wanting to pay for insurance coverage for them.

Such exemptions are always a matter of scope. Nearly everyone would agree, for example, that a priest should be exempt from civil rights laws; he should not have to solemnize a same-sex wedding or an interreligious one, if doing so is against his religious belief.

But what about a public pavilion owned by a church that advertises itself as available for rent? Or how about a privately owned hotel not wanting to rent a room to a gay couple? These are all actual cases, and they point out how religious exemptions are a matter of degree.

The second root of Indiana’s crisis is RFRA itself. In 1993, the federal RFRA was passed in response to a Supreme Court case that found Native Americans guilty of drug laws for having ingested peyote. This seemed like the wrong result to a wide variety of people, and so when RFRA passed, it was nearly unanimous — supported as much by Democrats as Republicans.

What RFRA did — in the federal and later in state versions — was change the way courts interpreted competing rights claims. It replaced the balancing test that the Supreme Court had used in the Native American case with a much more exacting standard, requiring a “compelling state interest” justifying a ban on religious practice, an action “narrowly tailored” to that interest, and the “least restrictive” means of pursuing it.

This is a very high standard, and it’s meant to block all but a few government actions.

Until the last few years, though, RFRA cases were victimless. No one is personally affected if the Native American uses peyote, a military officer wishes to wear a yarmulke or a church seeks a zoning variance. None of these carried what lawyers call “third-party harms.”

That all changed in the 2000s, as conservative activists began using RFRA in a new way: as a sword, rather than a shield. Now, they argued, my religious belief should trump your civil rights. Gays and lesbians may see the florist’s refusal as discrimination, but she sees it as freedom of religion.

These two streams — religious exemptions and RFRA — converged in the Hobby Lobby case, decided last year.

In that case, the Supreme Court decided, for the first time, that RFRA could be sword as well as shield. A corporation could deny someone their legal rights, and then claim religious freedom as a defense.

That was a game-changer. With the court’s imprimatur, a host of lawsuits were filed around the country using RFRA to defend against claims of discrimination. Those lawsuits are still ongoing.

Which brings us to Indiana. Yes, as Gov. Mike Pence has said many times, 19 other states also have RFRAs. But Indiana is only the second state, after Mississippi, to pass one in the new, post-Hobby Lobby reality.

Arizona’s governor vetoed that state’s version, Oklahoma dropped its; and Georgia and Texas appear poised to reject their versions. Late Tuesday afternoon (March 31), though, Arkansas passed its own RFRA measure, which will now go to Gov. Asa Hutchinson for his signature or veto.

Now, is Pence right that this law is just about protecting religious freedom? Or are his opponents right that it’s about legalizing discrimination?

Both are — but the opponents more so.

On the surface, Pence is correct. The law prohibits government restriction of religious exercise without a compelling state interest.

In reality, though, this law and others like it have been advanced by social conservatives who repeatedly give examples about LGBT people: a photographer in New Mexico found guilty of civil rights laws for turning a gay couple away, a baker in Colorado, a florist in Washington, that church-owned pavilion in New Jersey. These are all actual, not hypothetical, cases.

And how you see them depends on whose perspective you want to take. The plaintiffs are generally sincere; that New Mexico photographer really felt that her religion forbade her from “participating in” a same-sex wedding. How can the government force her to violate her conscience?

Then again, from the perspective of the customers she turned away, the sting of discrimination is real. And what kind of message would it send, allowing “No Gays Allowed” signs to be posted around town? And why wouldn’t the same logic apply to Jews, African-Americans, women — anyone, really?

One resolution to this conflict might be to remember that corporations have to play by the rules of the marketplace. This is not what the Supreme Court said in Hobby Lobby, but it might help the photographer who feels sincerely torn. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, the Bible says — anti-discrimination law included.

Moreover, taking pictures does not make one complicit in the marital act. Just as you’re not responsible if your client turns out to be a thief, you’re not responsible if your client turns out to be a “sodomite” or sinner of any other kind.

Really, though, the Indiana case is about politics, not religious philosophy. Pence is an ambitious politician, and he gave his conservative backers what they wanted. Now it all may backfire. Seventy-five percent of Americans oppose discrimination against LGBT people, even though only 55 percent support same-sex marriage. Moreover, while America remains a uniquely religious nation, it also respects the rule of law. And letting people discriminate because of religion is not what the rule of law is about.

(Jay Michaelson is a columnist for The Daily Beast and author of the 2013 report “Redefining Religious Liberty: The Covert Campaign Against Civil Rights.”)

www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/01/rfra-indiana-history_n_6984550.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices&ir=Gay+Voices

Where do Potential 2016 GOP Presidential Hopefuls Stand on Indiana’s RFRA?

Since Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed the so-called “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” into law last Thursday, dozens of major companies and prominent elected officials  on both sides of the aisle, have come out against the discriminatory legislation.
HRC.org

www.hrc.org/blog/entry/where-do-potential-2016-gop-presidential-hopefuls-stand-on-indianas-rfra?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss-feed