Something You’re Not Hearing About the Virginia ‘Anti-LGBT’ Bill

Namely – not to mention robustly – its not explicitly anti-T:

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. § 1. A person seeking to obtain or renew a license, registration, or certificate from the Commonwealth, its political subdivisions, or any agency, authority, board, department, or other entity thereof, shall not be required to perform, assist, consent to, or participate in any action or refrain from performing, assisting, consenting to, or participating in any action as a condition of obtaining or renewing the license, registration, or certificate where such condition would violate the religious or moral convictions of such person with respect to same-sex “marriage” or homosexual behavior.

If that becomes law, then hopefully the state’s Democratic governor and/or attorney general will find a way to require people “seeking to obtain or renew a license, registration, or certificate from the Commonwealth, its political subdivisions, or any agency, authority, board, department, or other entity thereof” to “assist, consent to, or participate in [some] action” acknowledging the reality of gender transition or “refrain from performing, assisting, consenting to, or participating in [some] action that negates recognition of gender transition.  (Yes, hopefully the state’s Democratic governor and/or attorney general will also file a pleading that says simply: “Romer v. Evans scoreboard.”)

From Addicting Info:

The Virginia Bill states that anyone seeking or holding a business license from the state of Virginia in the state can refuse service or entry to gay people, on the grounds it “would violate the religious or moral convictions of such person with respect to same-sex “marriage” or homosexual behavior.

This would make it lawful for LGBT people to be barred from hotels, restaurants, schools, hospitals, and any other premise where a good or service is exchanged by someone who dislikes their sexual orientation

It wouldn’t apply to hetero trans people (after all, as the incremental progress dogmatists always say whenever push comes to shove on T-inclusion in positive legislation, Ts aren’t worthy of inclusion because Ts are all hetero, yadda, yadda, yadda…) in hetero marriages.

And it wouldn’t apply to any individual T person who either (1) is hetero; (2) is asexual, or (3) stands mute as to what his or her sexual orientation might be.

And it wouldn’t apply to hetero crossdressers per se.

So, no – it would not apply to any other premise.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

No comments yet.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a reply, but don't be a troll. Have a nice day!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s