Conservative opposition to LGBTQ inclusion jeopardizes Arkansas hate crime billBut it will never be passed because of the hate that Republicans in Arkansas have for us.
Arkansas, South Carolina and Wyoming are the only states in the country without hate crime laws.
By The Associated Press
January 8, 2021
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — A push to finally enact a hate crimes law in Arkansas, a state with a history of white supremacists, appeared to have all the elements for success: a popular Republican governor who made it a priority, major corporations endorsing the idea and support from communities where hate groups have flourished.
But the chance to end Arkansas' distinction as one of only three states without such a law is in jeopardy even before lawmakers return to the Capitol. Conservatives have moved to defeat the bill in the majority-GOP Legislature, though similar measures have passed in other red states.
The bill's dimming prospects threaten a legislative priority for Gov. Asa Hutchinson, who as a U.S. attorney prosecuted racist militia members but without a hate crimes law's specific penalties.
The proposal in Arkansas would impose up to 20 percent additional jail time or fines for targeting someone because of several factors, including race, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity. Prosecutors would have to prove the victim’s attributes was a substantial factor in the crime being committed.
Hate groups have long claimed Arkansas as a haven. Dozens of members of the New Aryan Empire, a white supremacist group that prosecutors said engaged in drug trafficking and witness intimidation, were indicted on federal charges in the state last year.
Hate groups have a haven in the deep south but Connecticut is no immune according to the Southern Poverty Law Center there are 8 hate groups here.
On Monday I wrote about Education Secretary of Education DeVos parting shot at us well she wasn’t the Secretary of Health and Human Services also stabbed us in the back as he was leaving.
In 'nasty parting shot,' HHS finalizes rule axing LGBTQ nondiscrimination protectionsWhat this does is to give special right to certain religions in violation of the First Amendment, they can disobey laws at their whim.
Under the new Health Department rule, taxpayer-funded adoption agencies can refuse to acknowledge same-sex marriages and turn away qualified LGBTQ parents.
By Dan Avery
January 12, 2021
With little more than a week left to the Trump administration, the Department of Health and Human Services has finalized a rule permitting social-service providers that receive government funds to discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Critics claim the new guidance could have wide-ranging implications for agencies that address adoption and foster-parenting, as well as homelessness, HIV prevention, elder care and other public services.
“Even as Trump administration officials abandon ship, HHS has announced yet another dangerous rule that invites discrimination against the very people federal grant programs are meant to help,” Sasha Buchert, senior attorney for the LGBTQ civil rights group Lambda Legal, said.
Slated to take effect on Feb. 11, the rule change is targeted at child welfare organizations, according to Julie Kruse, director of federal policy for LGBTQ advocacy group Family Equality. Whether private adoption agencies receiving taxpayer money can deny services to same-sex potential parents is at the heart of Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, now before the Supreme Court.
Kruse said both President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence have made allowing discrimination in adoption and foster care a priority over the last four years.
With the Trump and Republican stacked Supreme Court you know that they are going to allow the discrimination.
There is concept called the Neutral Law where a law does not take religion into account, such as Social Security. Back in 1982 the Supreme Court ruled that Social Security did not violate the First Amendment because…
(a) While there is a conflict between the Amish faith and the obligations imposed by the social security system, not all burdens on religion are unconstitutional. The state may justify a limitation on religious liberty by showing that it is essential to accomplish an overriding governmental interest. Pp. 455 U. S. 256-258.But that ruling is being eroded.
Back in 1990 a man was fired to taking peyote as part of his religion, as an indigenous people they used peyote as a religious sacrament. The case made it to the Supreme Court and the court upheld the law.
As a result Congress passed the Religious Freedom law and that law is pushing the envelope by exempting people from the law.