#in fact the left criminalized homosexuality and made anti transgender laws while the RIGHT legalized it!

[someoneintheshadow456]

You joke, but the left wing party in India deadass actually says this but uses AIT (which was made by German eugenicists and evangelicals to convert poor people and scheduled tribes to Christianity) to argue that any Indian lighter than black coffee is "not a real Indian and a white/foreign invader". And this is how you get people arguing that diaspora who have never set foot anywhere outside their gated community in Edison are more "Indian" than people who have lived in the country all their lives JUST because of their skin colour/caste.

They even try to say that Hindus aren't the "real Indians" because "Hinduism is the byproduct of white invasion and lead to the rise of Hitler" while also re-translating the works of Hindu scholars/poets to sound more Christian in order to displace people from their culture. Convent schooling was the norm for most Indians until the 1990s and were used to make Indians behave more in line with Victorian English norms.

Our textbooks for the longest time have also glorified our colonizers - especially the Mughals. We have whole chapters dedicated to Tipu Sultan and Akbar but at most a paragraph on indigenous rulers and empires. Entire genocides get either glossed over or reframed as "rebellions by the poor against the evil rich landlords." And even when we learn about the British, we learn that Gandhi and Nehru were responsible for independence when in reality they were simps for the Brits and the Soviet Union, while the real work was done by other lesser known fighters.

Pretty much every Indian born before 1991 hates their own country and culture and either simps for the British (greatest gen) the Soviets (boomers), or the Americans (Gen Xers and older Millennials)... and you can blame our "leftist" government for that.

It's legit, but everything English language I can find is either defending her or a banned subreddit a few of whom appear to have been keeping an archive of this kind of thing.

Oh and there's also the exceedingly racist people too, which should fit right in with her since she's one of them too.

Cept they hate each other because of their race

[newyorkprelawland-blog]

It’s Pride Month! A Brief History Of The Advancement And Setbacks Of LGBTQ Rights In The United States

By Jordan Wappler, Fordham University Class of 2022

June 18, 2020

A Supreme Court ruling this June barring workplace discrimination marked another milestone in the progress of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) people in the United States. From Executive Orders to local ordinances, laws related to the legal protections and equitable treatment of LGBTQ Americans have seen many changes since the 1950s. Progress, although ultimately significant in many aspects, has been gradual and complicated, with both advances and reversals. With this month marking Pride Month, here is a look at the milestones in this movement.

1953- Executive Order 10450

On April 27, 1953 President Dwight Eisenhower signed Executive Order 10450. This order prohibited homosexual people from working in the federal government or any private contractors of the federal government. The rationale behind this order was that homosexual people would be security risks (PBS). Homosexuality at the time was considered to be a sexual perversion, and therefore homosexuals were included as a “sexual perversion” mentioned in section 8aiii of the order.

1958- US Supreme Court Case SuOne, Inc. v. Olesen

January 13, 1958 was the first time the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of homosexuals, protecting their First Amendment constitutional right (PBS). The Supreme Court reversed the lower court decision that the gay magazine One: The Homosexual Magazine by Mattachine Society was obscene (NY Times).

1961- First State Decriminalization of Homosexuality

On July 28 of 1961, Illinois became the first state to end its anti-sodomy law, essentially decriminalizing homosexuality.

1971 & 1972- Minnesota Supreme Court and US Supreme Court, Baker v. Nelson

Two men, Jack Baker and Michael McConnell, requested the United States Supreme Court pronounce that Minnesota’s failure to allow them to marry was a violation of the Constitution (NY Times). The court dismissed the appeal for “want of a substantial federal question” and no oral arguments were held (Constitutional Law Reporter). This was impactful because opponents of same-sex marriage used this ruling to support their future arguments.

1973- Kentucky Court of Appeals, Jones v. Hallahan

Marjorie Jones and Tracy Knight, both women, sued for a marriage license when they were denied by a county clerk. The court ruled against them, concluding that the term marriage was already defined as a union between a man and a woman, and therefore two women were not eligible to enter into a marriage (LexisNexis). 

1977- NY County Supreme Court, Richards v. US Tennis Association

A transgender woman,Renee Richards,was a tennis player who wanted to play in the United States Open but was denied entrance in 1976 based on her gender identity. She won an injunction under New York law and subsequently participated in the 1977 US Open (NY Times).

1982- First State to Outlaw Discrimination based on Sexual Orientation

In 1982, Wisconsin outlawed discrimination based on sexual orientation.

1986- US Supreme Court, Bowers v. Hardwick

As the AIDS crisis surged, anti-gay rhetoric and hysteria grew. When a police officer exercising a warrant on an unrelated matter caught Michael Hardwick having sex with another man, he arrested him for not complying with the anti-sodomy statute at the time. On June 30, 1986, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Georgia State’s criminal sodomy law was constitutional (Encyclopedia Brittanica).

1993- “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

On December 21, 1993, the Department of Defense issued a directive that forbid the US Military from excluding applicants from service based on their sexual orientation (PBS). Although homosexual acts or declaration that one was homosexual were still forbidden, applicants were no longer required to reveal their sexuality.

1996- Defense of Marriage Act

September 21, 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage as a legal union only between a man and woman, and hence not requiring any state to recognize same-sex marriage from out of state (PBS).

1998- Executive Order 13087

President Clinton signed Executive Order 13087on May 28,1998, amending Executive Order 13087 to “provide for a uniform policy for the Federal Government to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation” (GovInfo).

2000- First State to Legalize Civil Unions/Registered Partnerships

On April 26, Vermont legalized civil unions and registered partnerships for same sex couples.

2004- First State to Legalize Gay Marriage

May 18, 2004, Massachusetts court found denying same-sex couples’ marriage to be unconstitutional.

2008- Proposition 8 in California

In November of 2008, California voters approved proposition 8, which made same-sex marriages in the state of California illegal (PBS).

2009- Matthew Shepard Act

On October 28, President Obama signed into law the Matthew Shepard Act, which expanded 1969 US Federal Hate Crime Law to incorporatecrimes driven by a victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability (PBS).

2010- Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

On December 18, 2010, Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is repealed by the US Senate, meaning homosexuals can serve openly in the military.

2015- US Supreme Court, Obergefell v. Hodges

On June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court declared same-sex marriage legal in all states.

2018- US Supreme Court, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

The Supreme Court ruled that “showing hostility to religious people in applying nondiscrimination laws violated the First Amendment’s free exercise clause” (NY Times). However, specifics and guidelines around if and when religious people can refuse service to same-sex couples was left ambiguous.

2019- US Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia Circuit, US Supreme Court, Doe v. Trump

In July of 2017, President Trump posted a Tweet proposing to ban transgender people from US military service (FreedomForAllAmericans). The military ban began officially on April 12, 2019 and court ligation against it continues.

2020- Elimination of nondiscrimination healthcare for LGBTQ people

On July 12, 2020 President Trump finalized his new rule that eradicates nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people’s healthcare and health insurance (NPR). This rule pertains to the nondiscrimination protections that were laid out in Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, a federal law that made it illegal to discriminate based on race, color, nationality, sex, age or disability. Under Obama in 2016, “sex” included all gender identities (NPR). Lindsey Dawson, associate director of HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation explains that “under the new rule, a transgender person could, for example, be refused care for a checkup at a doctor’s office” (NPR, Lindsey Dawson).

2020- US Supreme Court, Bostock v. Clayton County, Ga. and Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda

By a 6 to 3 vote, the court held that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects gay and transgender employees from workplace discrimination. The 1964 legislation’s “because of sex” clause was found to apply to LGBTQ workers, expanding the act’s impact to a new class of employee. The court ruling was prompted by two cases. One was brought by two gay men who were fired because of sexual orientation, the other by a transgender woman for embracing her gender identity at work. The ruling sided with plaintiff’s argument that the 1964 legislation, while not specifically mentioning LGBTQ people, afforded protections from termination of employment that were not based on job performance (NY Times).

In addition to the milestones noted above, laws related to the rights of LGBTQ people continue to be shaped at the local and state level. It is likely, in a divided political climate, that further progress and controversy will continue to be a legal focus with both advocates and opponents seeking further changes across a wide spectrum including family law, workplace discrimination and other key civil rights arenas.

 _______________________________________________________________

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/stonewall-milestones-american-gay-rights-movement/

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP87B01034R000100030071-4.pdf

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/19/us/legal-history-lgbtq-rights-timeline.html

https://constitutionallawreporter.com/2012/12/20/baker-v-nelson-the-often-forgotten-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-case/

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-jones-v-hallahan#:~:text=Facts%3A,license%20to%20marry%20each%20other.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Bowers-v-Hardwick

https://www.freedomforallamericans.org/doe-v-trump/

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1998-06-02/pdf/98-14689.pdf

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/06/12/868073068/transgender-health-protections-reversed-by-trump-administration

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/us/gay-transgender-workers-supreme-court.html

Photo Credit: Ludovic Bertron

[mam-te-moc]

Are people in Poland tolerant of LGBT people? Have LGBT rights in Poland gotten better since the end of communism?

Hm. There is not a simple answer.So this is my opinion:

Statistically Poles are less tolerant than their neighbours Germans or Czech but more tolerant than their neighbours Lithuanians or Ukrainians. Not to mention Russians. Acceptance of homosexuality in society is around 50% (polls are only about homosexuality, no other LGBT+ representations). Not bad if you remember that here Catholic Church is very influential and anti-gay. But it didn’t stop Poles from choosing openly transgender woman in previous Parliament elections or openly gay man for a mayor in direct elections. On the other hand I would suggest to restrain from public displays of affection if you are gay, just to be on a safe side, evil stares can’t kill, but are unpleasant.

The second question is not easier than the first. The more I think about it, the more answer is: no.

You see, there is a fact rather not known outside of Poland that homosexuality​ was never criminalized in Poland, ever. Not in Middle Ages, not during Golden Freedom, not when getting freedom back after 123 years of occupation and not during communistic times. So there was never an open hatred against gay people. They were probably more invisible than on the West, but it also meant that they were left alone and nobody tried to “cure” them or stigmatize them during AIDS outbreak. Transgender people got possibility of legal change of their gender pretty early (in early 80’s, without a need of any physical changes to their body), singles no matter sexual orientation could (and can) adopt children.

So with this start you would think that with the end of communism things would progress more or less with the same pace as on the West. But they don’t. LGBT+ have no rights and are not protected by any law, gay marriage or civil unions are not recognized, no protection from hate speech, no protection from discrimination other than at workplace, no recognition of anti-gay crimes. And with our current populist government it definitely won’t get better any time soon. For last two years anti-gay organizations got a green light from government and they spread their hate as never before without any legal consequences. Our President didn’t sign a law approved already by previous Parliament that made gender change procedure less stressfull​. So while general awareness of LGBT+ in society increases (in a positive way), no positive legal changes follow that progress so far.

But I am also far from saying that things will get worse. You see, for years there are rumors that a leader of a ruling party is gay and Catholic Church estimated amount of gay priests for between 20% to 40% of all priests population. So, we have our people everywhere ;).