Time to Speak Up

Last month, we gave you a heads up on Mississippi's SB 2681. The Legislature passed it. And Governor Phil Bryant (R) quickly signed it into law.

So now, Mississippi has declared "License to Discriminate" to be state law. And believe it or not, two Nevada based companies are now in the thick of it.

How so? MGM & Caesars both operate casinos in Mississippi. And while the two gaming goliaths have put their money where their mouths are here in Nevada, they've yet to make a statement on Mississippi's new "License to Discriminate" statute.

They'll need to speak up soon. The damage is already being done there. And it's still spreading elsewhere. Kentucky now has "License to Discriminate" on its books. And G-O-TEA Culture Warriors are now pushing in Congress for a federal "License to Discriminate".

We know Cresent Hardy has an affinity for "segregation laws", but does Rep. Joe Heck (R-??!!) share that affinity? Will House Speaker John Boehner (R-??!!) actually allow a floor vote on this while continuing to block ENDA?

Clearly, the struggle over "License to Discriminate" continues. Even though it was stopped in Arizona, the G-O-TEA Culture Warriors have simply moved their fight elsewhere. They've succeeded in Mississippi. They may now try to pass a federal bill through Congress. And more state bills may not be out of the question.

The time to speak up is now. Now is a good time for those who claim to be pro-equality to put their money where their mouths are. After all, we know money talks in out system... Often more so than anything else. Just look at Arizona.

Still Not Over

Wasn't this supposed to be over by now? The last two Republican Presidential Nominees spoke against it. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) vetoed it. Several Nevada Republicans ran away from it... Despite championing it a year ago. But nonetheless, it was supposed to be "dead".

Yet now, the "TEA" powered "License to Discriminate" movement has come roaring back to life. And why's that, you ask? Thank the Mississippi Legislature for this. It just passed SB 2681, which is Mississippi's version of "License to Discriminate".

SB 2681 now sits on Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant's (R) desk. Yet unlike his Arizona counterpart, Bryant is expected to sign SB 2681 into law. And should Mississippi's Governor soon sign it into law, he'll probably boost efforts in Missouri, North Carolina, and Oklahoma to pass similar "License to Discriminate" legislation.

If Cresent Hardy is still experiencing difficulties in understanding what constitutes "segregation laws", he need not look further than Mississippi's SB 2681. Hell, he need not look further than SB 192, the "License to Discriminate" bill that he & Barbara Cegavske introduced to the Nevada Legislature last year.

This was supposed to be over by now. After all, "Republican rebranding"... Oh wait, that's gone nowhere. Instead, the G-O-TEA has been doubling down on its "Culture War". And the recent developments in Mississippi have only confirmed what we've already known.

Never mind the minor cosmetic changes and changing around of certain words. Pay closer attention to what they're doing. This was supposed to be over... But it's not. It may not be over until the courts weigh in. And it may not even truly be over until the Republican Party can learn to say no to its radical base.

Sore Losers

Like a thief in the night, it suddenly appeared... And shocked many. Nearly a year after SB 192 made its shocking debut in Carson City, SB 1062 rocked Phoenix. And all of a sudden, the nation endured a crash course lesson on the budding "License to Discriminate" movement and the shadowy forces behind it.

Yet even with Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) vetoing SB 1062, the "License to Discriminate" movement marches on. But how so? Yet another homophobic bill has been introduced in the Arizona Legislature. Meanwhile, SB 192/SB 1062 like "License to Discriminate" bills are still alive & kicking in Mississippi and Missouri. And "License to Discriminate" proponents are now crying "persecution" because they can't discriminate against whomever they want whenever they want.

Oh, yes. That's right. They're going there.

But wait, there's more. G-O-TEA King of Crazy (and still sitting Rep.) Steve King (R-Iowa) had some "words of wisdom" (/snark) on "self-professed behavior".



Perhaps he and Cresent Hardy have been enjoying some heart-to-hearts on "segregation laws"?

This is why we find it ironic that certain "TEA" flavored media pundits are urging LGBTQ Americans not to be "sore winners". Sure, new polls show growing support for LGBTQ civil rights (and more distrust of the G-O-TEA). But even as equality is winning the court of public opinion, and even as equality is increasingly winning in courts of law, we've yet to see full legal equality in practice nationwide. That's why civil rights advocates are decrying the "License to Discriminate" bills. They serve as a reminder that the beautiful struggle for equality may be turning for the better, but it's still far from over.

And if anything, anti-equality G-O-TEA politicians & pundits are the ones behaving like sore losers. They're the ones whining over the expectation that businesses with licenses to serve the public have the right to refuse basic human decency. And they're the ones crying "persecution" because society no longer smiles on their desires to persecute those who they don't like.

Who Else Is Behind the "License to Discriminate" Bills?

What a month this has been for LGBTQ civil rights... And the Republican Party's tortured views on them. Earlier this month, Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto (D) and Governor Brian Sandoval (R) decided to drop their legal fight against marriage equality. Yet even after Sandoval did this, his party didn't go along for the ride. Rather, Attorney General candidate Adam Laxalt (R) and Rep. Joe Heck (R-Henderson) twisted themselves into pretzels to try to spin away their opposition to civil marriage equality.

And then, outgoing Assembly Member and current NV-04 candidate Cresent Hardy (R) spoke of "segregation laws", and it all went downhill from there. Shortly after Hardy made those infamous comments, attention turned to Arizona's SB 1062, a "license to discriminate" bill masquerading as "religious freedom" legislation. It was actually based on the same model legislation that inspired the original SB 192 that Hardy cosponsored. And that model legislation has recently been popping up in even more state legislatures across the nation.

So who wrote this "license to discriminate" model legislation? Where did it all come from? Yesterday, we took a closer look at the origins of SB 192/SB 1062 and uncovered a trail that leads to the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a shadowy front group that masks all the Koch Industries/"TEA Party, Inc." money being poured into this "license to discriminate" campaign.

However, there's even more to this story. It turns out that the Ethics and Public Policy Center has been working hand-in-hand with another shadowy front group hiding another set of familiar players.

The Center for Arizona Policy has been decrying Arizona Governor Jan Brewer's (R) veto of SB 1062. After all, it prodded Arizona G-O-TEA legislators to introduce and pass the Ethics and Public Policy Center's "religious freedom" model legislation. And it's a state affiliate of CitizenLink, a nationwide religious right outfit.

But wait, who's CitizenLink? Where did that comes from? It turns out that CitizenLink is the 501(c)4 arm of Focus on the Family, a notorious anti-equality organization that's been devoted to fighting against LGBTQ civil rights for over a quarter century. And not only has Focus on the Family been fighting against LGBTQ civil rights in America, but it's recently become involved with Russia's state sanctioned homophobia & transphobia campaign. And it's never hesitated to stoop to shocking lows to promote its extreme agenda.

In the wake of all this "religious freedom" hogwash controversy, State Senator and Lt. Governor candidate Mark Hutchison (R) performed some linguistic gymnastics to try to distance himself (and running mate Brian Sandoval) from the bill he cosponsored in Carson City last year. Now, we have a better understanding of why he's done this (along with other Republican politicians who are running away from the now toxic legislation). And why's that? Simple: It's not easy conveying a "moderate" persona when one is carrying water (and legislation!) for the Kochs' "TEA" powered empire and the extreme religious right.

From "Rebranding" to Crash Landing...

Here we go again. Once more, G-O-TEA politicians must pay the consequences of paying too much attention to the bullshit "words of wisdom" that drop from Rush Limbaugh's mouth. Once again, "El Rushbo" threw a temper tantrum over Jason Collins' return to the NBA courts and Michael Sam's possible entry into the NFL. And once again, G-O-TEA "playaz" are trying to turn Limbaugh's temper tantrum into actual legislation (and losing lobbying clients while doing so).

Oh, and speaking of actual legislation, Rush Limbaugh also had something to say about Arizona's SB 1062, aka Arizona's version of the "License to Discriminate" Bill. Surprise, he loves it! Surprise, he hates the "drive-by media" reporting on the real danger this bill presents. And surprise, he makes absolutely no sense when he claims Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) has been "bullied" over this bill.



We guess Rush Limbaugh would know, since he's the biggest bully of them all. And he's now stooping to new lows (even for him!) to promote the Koch-TEA Empire's greatest legislative masterpiece yet.

Unfortunately for him and other fans of "legalized" wrongful discrimination, the rest of America doesn't feel the same way. The NFL threatened to move the Super Bowl out of the state if SB 1062 had become law. And now, we know Governor Jan Brewer (R) just vetoed it. So there we have it...

Except that's not all. While Arizona faced a potentially horrendous anti-LGBTQ statute, Texas faced a potentially paradigm shifting courtroom decision while California faced one fewer ballot initiative this year. In California, proponents of a ballot initiative to overturn a new law guaranteeing civil rights for transgender students failed to gather enough valid signatures to place this initiative on the 2014 ballot. And in Texas, a federal judge just struck down Texas' marriage ban. Just as we've been saying here for some time, H8 is so outdated and marriage discrimination has no legal leg left to stand on... Not even in Texas.

Of course, the 21st Century Know Nothings are seething in rage tonight. That's why they're reveling in frivolous law suits, accidentally endorsing marriage equality on Twitter, and attacking each other for daring to "attack god". Oh, yes. That's right. They're really going there.

Meanwhile closer to home, the Nevada Republican Party continues to struggle with acceptance of the 21st century. After State Senator and Lt. Governor candidate Mark Hutchison (R-Las Vegas) boasted of his cosponsorship of SB 192 and Governor Brian Sandoval's (R) support for his bill, Sandoval himself then rebuked his own favored running mate Senator Hutchison and promised to veto anything resembling SB 1062. And that would have meant a veto for the original version of SB 192 that Hutchison supported.

Once again, we're seeing the result of all that "Republican rebranding". And what's the result? Just take a look at California, Arizona, & Texas. Republican "leaders" are struggling to save face as their own base demands more and more extreme legislation... Along with a divorce from 21st century America. And funny enough, they're the ones claiming to "defend family values & traditional marriage". Yep, those Republicans are enjoying quite the "rebranding" lately...

License to Discriminate, Brought to You by Koch

What on earth is going on? The Nevada Legislature is not even in session this year. So why is it grabbing headlines this week?

We can thank SB 192 for this. Even though SB 192 itself died in Carson City last spring, its legacy has quickly been resurrected. And now, it's striking fear in the hearts of civil rights advocates across the nation.

So far this year, various reincarnations of SB 192 are bubbling up through several state legislatures. The most notorious one yet has emerged in Arizona in the form of SB 1062. Meanwhile in Georgia and Missouri, similar "license to discriminate" bills have been introduced.



Clearly, these bills are making waves across the nation... But where did these waves come from? Where did this all begin? The answer may surprise you.

We suspect few people have previously known about the Ethics and Public Policy Center. However, we're sure you've already heard of the Kochs and their burgeoning political empire. And believe it or not, the Kochs' well heeled tentacles reach into the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Oh, and it's also funded by the same "TEA Party, Inc." aligned billionaires' club who are behind such infamous TEA fueled entities as Donors Trust and ALEC.

It turns out that the Ethics and Public Policy Center has an "American Religious Freedom Program". And it turns out that "American Religious Freedom Program" gave birth to the "religious freedom"/"license to discriminate" bills that are now emerging in state legislatures across the nation. So finally, the mystery of the origin of these "license to discriminate" bills has been solved.

And surprise (/snark), these bills come from the same source as the rest of the G-O-TEA legislative agenda. Once again, "TEA Party, Inc." is hiding behind shadowy front groups to push Orwellian legislation to further it's extreme ideology. And this is why we shouldn't be surprised that other G-O-TEA front groups are rushing to back the "license to discriminate" movement.

Enough Already... Stop the Insani-TEA

We had it yesterday. We had it with whatever talk (that's not tongue-in-cheek) remains of "Republican rebranding". And we had it with G-O-TEA politicians feigning "moderation" while continuing to promote dangerously extreme legislation.

If Cresent Hardy still needs further examples of actual "segregation laws", he need not look farther than next door. Why? Take a look at Arizona. Arizona's SB 1062, which happens to be identical to the original version of Nevada's SB 192 that Hardy cosponsored last year,
would put into place an exceptionally broad license to discriminate if Governor Jan Brewer (R) signs SB 1062 into law. It would open doors to anti-LGBTQ discrimination, as well as further restrictions on women's health care, "legal" religious intolerance, and perhaps even the reintroduction of "legal" racial segregation... And do so all in the name of "religious freedom".

This is why the pressure is mounting for a veto of SB 1062. Oh, and that pressure isn't just coming from civil rights advocates and progressive activists. Corporate lobbyists, Arizona's 2015 Super Bowl Committee, and even both of Arizona's Republican US Senators are begging Governor Brewer to veto SB 1062.

Yet even as SB 1062 has become such an ugly hot potato in Arizona, another look-alike bill is making its way through the Georgia Legislature. And more specifically anti-LGBTQ legislation is being considered in Tennessee & South Dakota. And to top it all off, some G-O-TEA lobbyist/"media personality" is pushing his allies in Congress to push federal legislation to ban out LGBTQ football players!

OK, it's time for us to say this again. No wait, we'll let our other favorite philosopher say it herself this time.



Seriously, G-O-TEA politicians need to take her advice. What's the point of all these license to discriminate bills? Sure, they're popular with the G-O-TEA base... But everyone else is disgusted by such blatant and brazen bigotry.

Already, "Republican rebranding" has become the go-to political punchline of 2014. How much more do G-O-TEA politicians want to ruin their own party? Perhaps it's finally time for them to stop this insani-TEA once & for all.

No "Freedom", Just FAIL

Last year, an unexpected bomb was dropped on Carson City. That bomb nearly blew up the 77th session of the Nevada Legislature and put into question the state’s progress on civil rights. But in the end, it only blew up on State Senator Barbara Cegavske (R-Spring Valley) when Assembly leaders decided to shelve her bill (after an sharply amended version passed the State Senate).

The short yet lurid life of SB 192 in Carson City managed to shock a number of civil rights advocates and political observers. In recent years, the State of Nevada has made progress in recognizing LGBTQ civil rights. Why would this state suddenly undo all that progress to grant "freedom to discriminate"?

When SB 192 died in Carson City last spring, many assumed that would be the end of this debate. But all of a sudden, it's making news again. Why? Assembly Member, SB 192 cosponsor, and NV-04 candidate Cresent Hardy (R-Mesquite) evoked his religious beliefs to explain why he can't agree to "segregation laws" like ENDA (that combat wrongful discrimination). And shortly after Hardy dropped his bomb, Rep. Joe Heck (R-Henderson) followed suit with his bizarre argument against marriage equality.

And now, the story has become national. How so? The same shadowy religious right/G-O-TEA interest groups that wrote SB 192 for Barbara Cegavske pushed SB 192 here in Nevada are now on the verge of passing a look-alike bill into law in Arizona.

Like SB 192, the Arizona "Freedom to Discriminate" bill seemed to come out of nowhere. But unlike SB 192, the Arizona bill was not watered down, and it ultimately sailed through both houses of that state's legislature. That's why civil rights advocates are now trying whatever they can think of to convince Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) to veto this bill and spare the state a costly legal fight & huge PR embarrassment.

Once again, we're seeing a campaign to legalize anti-LGBTQ discrimination masquerade as "concern for religious liberty". Once again, we're seeing the bulk of G-O-TEA politicians go along to get along with their 21st Century Know Nothing base. And once again, we're reminded of why "Republican rebranding" is already shaping up to be the most EPIC FAIL of 2014.

Amended SB 192 Passes Full Senate

Just minutes ago, the full Nevada Senate approved SB 192. And the vote wasn't close. In fact, it was 14-7.

All the Republicans voted for the bill introduced by one of their own, Barbara Cegavske (R-Spring Valley). However, Democrats were split. Senators Mo Denis (D-North Las Vegas), Ruben Kihuen (D-Las Vegas), Tick Segerblom (D-Las Vegas), and Justin Jones (D-Enterprise) voted in favor. Meanwhile, Senators David Parks (D-Paradise), Mark Manendo (D-Paradise), Joyce Woodhouse (D-Henderson), Debbie Smith (D-Sparks), Kelvin Atkinson (D-North Las Vegas), Pat Spearman (D-North Las Vegas), and Aaron Ford (D-Spring Valley) all voted against SB 192.

So what happens next? It's on its way to the Assembly. However, there is a catch.

Remember that SB 192 was amended to address concerns over the bill providing license to discriminate. The Senate Judiciary Committee passed an amended version earlier this month with new language clarifying that this law can not be used as legal justification for any type of civil rights violations.

Yet with this being said, several Senators clearly still had concerns. Will the new language really be enough of a safeguard to prevent future attempts to (mis)use this bill to justify wrongful workplace, housing, health care, and other forms of discrimination? Will gay couples be wrongfully denied of housing? Will a bus driver be allowed to deny a Muslim passenger the ability to stop at the mosque? Will any pharmacists try to deny contraception to their patients?

Will there be law suits flying all over state and federal courts anyway? And why is this bill even necessary in the first place? Many are still scratching their heads over these last two questions.

However, there were more than enough Senators to pass it today. We'll just have to wait and see what the Assembly does with it. Oh, joy. (/snark)

SB 192 Is AMENDED, Passes Committee

Last month, we took a closer look at SB 192. It claims to "preserve religious freedom", but it's actually a pernicious plan to undermine anti-discrimination laws in order to attack others' freedom. Early on, SB 192 gathered plenty of co-sponsors and looked like a sure bet to pass.

But over the past month, that's changed. In particular, the increasing talk of this as a "Trojan Horse Bill" has forced lawmakers to rethink their support for the bill. But is it enough to stop the bill?

Perhaps so. I've been monitoring the Senate Judiciary Committee all morning. And while they've been dealing with a full load of bills (tackling everything from betting on federal elections to repealing "crimes against nature"!), I've yet to hear a peep on SB 192.

And just minutes ago, AP reporter Sandra Chereb tweeted that only one bill remains on Judiciary's docket. And that bill is... Another gaming bill, specifically regarding sports kiosks. So what just happened?

So far, SB 192 has not come up in this committee, its originating committee. And remember, today is the deadline for a bill to pass its originating committee. So if SB 192 does not pass committee today, it's officially dead.

For a bill that suddenly generated plenty of controversy over religion, discrimination, and civil rights, SB 192 looks to be suffering a rather quiet death. But funny enough, this quiet death somewhat resembles its quiet birth. Ah, poetic justice...

UPDATE 10:50 AM: Doh! I should have noticed Steve Sebelius' tweet two hours ago. SB 192 was dropped from Senate Judiciary's agenda. So it's officially dead. I'll express my condolences to Senator Barbara Cegavske (R-Spring Valley) over the loss of her bill. (/snark)

UPDATE 11:00 AM: Whoops! Not so fast. Steve Sebelius just had to retract what he tweeted, as Senator Tick Segerblom (D-Las Vegas) is insisting that SB 192 is still on the agenda and will get a vote today. So we may have to wait a little longer, and we may even have a committee vote on public record soon.

So stay tuned, since this story isn't over yet.

UPDATE 11:10 AM: Senator Cegavske apparently agreed to work with Senators Aaron Ford (D-Spring Valley) and Mark Hutchison (R-Las Vegas) to amend SB 192 to clarify it can NOT be used as an end run around anti-discrimination laws. And apparently, that's good enough for everyone on the committee. It passed unanimously.

This will need closer examination. But so far, it looks like the most egregious aspects of SB 192 are gone. In the coming days, we will be investigating this further to see what's now in SB 192 and what it now means. So stay tuned, as this story is now far from over.

One Step Forward, Three Steps Back?

Well, at least I have some good news to give today. At long last, the Nevada Senate passed what's now SB 139. And not only that, but the bill passed 20-1! Only Senator Joe Hardy (R-Boulder City) voted against it, while all the other Senate Republicans joined all the Senate Democrats to vote to include transgender people in Nevada's hate crimes laws. This was long overdue.

So why am I not too excited today? Well, that's because SB 192 still lurks behind the scenes. If enacted, SB 192 can effectively render null & void SB 139 and all other anti-discrimination laws under the guise of "religious freedom". Ironically enough, Senator Barbara Cegavske (R-Spring Valley) voted for SB 139 today, yet she brought SB 192 from the back rooms of ALEC to the Nevada Legislature.

Remember that SB 192 is exactly the same as the "Preservation of Religious Freedom Act" introduced in Kansas last year and Colorado earlier this year. So pay close attention to the University of Miami School of Law's Caroline Mala Corbin as she explains the true nefarious purpose of this "Preservation of Religious Freedom Act".

A closer inspection, however, reveals that the impetus behind the Kansas act is not protecting religious rights across the board, but protecting the right of certain religious groups to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. In particular, the Kansas act creates a defense to municipal anti-discrimination ordinances. Sparking the Kansas act was the city of Lawrence's expansive anti-discrimination protection: in Lawrence, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in housing, employment and places of public accommodation is illegal. According to its sponsor in the state House of Representatives, the Kansas act would, for example, provide a legal defense to a religious landlord who refused to rent to a same-sex couple. [...]

Because only substantial burdens on religion trigger heightened protection, the first question under the Kansas act is whether an anti-discrimination ordinance requiring a landlord to rent to a same-sex couple imposes a substantial burden on a landlord whose religion condemns homosexuality. The housing ordinance does not require the landlord to engage in homosexual conduct. Nor does the housing ordinance require any landlord to live with someone who does. It does not even demand financial support for the religiously condemned behavior. At most, the landlord may be said to facilitate religiously proscribed conduct by providing same-sex couples with a place to live, and presumably, sin. But does this mean a landlord's religious rights are substantially infringed any time his company rents property to people who act contrary to his church's teachings? If a landlord's religion opposes contraception, does that mean his company can refuse to rent property to women who use it?

In addition, if "facilitating" religiously proscribed conduct amounts to a substantial burden under the law, then a large swath of discriminatory actions could be deemed legal. If providing shelter facilitates homosexual conduct, then arguably so does providing food and health care. Does this mean that restaurants and hospitals can refuse to serve gay and lesbian Kansans? May a storeowner or salesperson refuse to sell beds or bed linen to gay and lesbian customers because, well, wouldn't that be facilitating their sinful conduct? The willingness to describe attenuated impositions as a substantial burden on someone's free exercise of religion ought to raise questions about whether the law is really about protecting religious rights, or about animus towards an unpopular group of people. As numerous Supreme Court cases have held —including Romer v. Evans, which held unconstitutional an attempt to forbid any state action meant to shield people from sexual orientation discrimination — the latter is not a legitimate state interest.

In their legendary 6-3 ruling in Romer v. Evans in 1996, the US Supreme Court invalidated Colorado's law prohibiting LGBTQ inclusive anti-discrimination ordinances because the state has no business subjecting certain people to otherwise wrongful discrimination just due to who they are. This may ultimately compel Kansas to change its version of what we call SB 192. Federal courts have already said no to states green-lighting this kind of discrimination. Why should Nevada play with this fire?

Perhaps because of Colorado's history on this matter, its version of this bill received heightened scrutiny when it was presented to the Colorado Legislature earlier this year. And that's ultimately why the bill died in the Colorado House. Again, why green-light wrongful discrimination and invite otherwise unnecessary expensive litigation?

Funny enough, it's always "tea party" approved conservatives like Barbara Cegavske who complain about "frivolous law suits". Yet they keep introducting legislation that encourages just that. Ah, the irony of the radical right's "CUL'CHUR WARZZZ!!!!!"

Today, the Nevada Legislature took a major step toward providing equal protection under the law for LGBTQ Nevadans. They should keep progressing. We don't need ridiculous and unnecessary regression. Legislators need to do more research and uncover what's actually in SB 192.

Freedom to Discriminate?

In the past month, there's been plenty of buzz surrounding some legislation in Carson City. Perhaps that's allowed other legislation to quietly bubble up. One such bill is SB 192.

So what is SB 192? Otherwise referred to as "The Nevada Preservation of Religious Freedom Act", SB 192 claims to "prohibit governmental entities from substantially burdening the exercise of religion". Senator Barbara Cegavske (R-Spring Valley) introduced this bill. And already, she's attracted a bipartisan crew of co-sponsors.

So what is SB 192? It's basically Nevada's version of this.

"It's legislative abuse, it's legislative bullying, it's legislative dictatorship and it should not be permitted," said civil rights attorney Pedro Irigonegaray.

Senate Bill 142 is called the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act. Supporters say it is needed to prevent government from forcing a person to violate their religious beliefs. It was approved last month by the House on a 91-33 vote and is pending before the Senate.

Opponents of the bill say it will invite discrimination and invalidate a Lawrence anti-discrimination ordinance that includes sexual orientation. [...]

C.J. Brune of Lawrence attended the rally, and said, "I can't imagine living in a worse world where someone's religion would impact my rights."

Taylor Harris of Hutchinson said, "They're trying to make it legal to discriminate."

Holly Weatherford, with the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri, said, "We cannot allow the use of religion to discriminate and call it religious freedom. We must push back."

Jeez, it even has the same title! Just change the state listing at the front. That's all.

Its origins can be traced to ALEC, the "Tea Party, Inc." clearinghouse for radical right legislation. Oh, yes. That's right. ALEC also has model legislation on gutting anti-discrimination laws by claiming "violation of religious freedom". And ALEC member Barbara Cegavske is bringing it to Nevada.



The clear intent of the Kansas version of this bill was to legalize discrimination. A few Kansas legislators have even openly admitted that.

Kansas state Republicans want to make sure residents can discriminate against LGBT people, so much so that they have advanced a bill that would allow individuals to sue the government if they are deprived of the opportunity to do so. Yesterday, the Kansas House overwhelmingly passed HB 2384, the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act, which prevents the government from “burdening a person’s exercise of religion” [...]

This is a step beyond the kind of legislation lawmakers have advanced in states like Tennessee that prevent municipalities from establishing protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity. According to this bill, not only would municipalities be inhibited from protecting against anti-LGBT discrimination, but those who do discriminate would become protected and entitled to do so.

The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Lance Kinzer (R) claimed his bill is merely about the “free exercise of religion,” but confirmed that an apartment owner could use the measure to fight a complaint if he refused to rent to a same-sex couple. It constitutes nothing short of a religious license to discriminate against LGBT people.

The very same bill was attempted in Colorado. Yet there, it died in committee precisely because the Democrats on the committee caught what was hiding behind the title.

Meanwhile Monday, a bill that supporters said was aimed at preserving religious freedom was killed on a party line vote in the House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee.

Rep. Kevin Priola, R-Henderson, said House Bill 1066 would guarantee that Coloradans' free exercise of religion would not be infringed on. The bill would have allowed a person accused of discrimination to assert their religious convictions in any civil action and then recover attorney's fees. [...]

But opponents, who included the ACLU of Colorado, the Mountain States Anti-Defamation League and the Interfaith Alliance of Colorado, argued that the bill would essentially legalize discrimination in the name of religion.

Opponents cited their own examples from other states like a bus driver who refused to drive a passenger to a Planned Parenthood clinic, a boss who fired an unmarried woman who became pregnant and a student counselor who condemned, rather than consoled, gays who came to her.

That's the real aim of SB 192 here in Nevada. If passed, it would provide license to apartment owners who refuse to rent to gay tenants, pharmacists who refuse to provide contraception to women in need of it, bus drivers who refuse to take Muslim passengers to the local mosque, and more. It would open the door to a wide variety of civil rights abuses. And it would unleash a flood of litigation into courtrooms throughout Nevada. So much for "limited government conservatives" whining about "frivolous law suits".

So why even go there? That's what Cegavske's SB 192 co-sponsors need to ask themselves and each other. Should Nevada reallt promote "freedom" to discriminate?