SF is now boycotting most of the United States (2022)
missionlocal.org
missionlocal.org
Sexuality is not "part of the equation" when saying you are married. Except when it comes to saying you are gay and married. IANAL, but it is almost like the law was written to disproportionately harm one group and not the other. But that would mean it is a "don't say gay" law after all.
You can read the law as equally affects everyone, but that is simply false. Even if you really wanted to "well actually" the situation, I'd love for you to find a Florida da/judge/jury/whatever that would prosecute a straight, young, newly-married kindergarten teacher for have a picture of their family on their desk.
In short, it is de jure anti-gay with a thin veneer of deniability. And even if you were willing to play along with that veneer it is still de facto anti-gay.
Unless you say you are straight married.
Odds are incredibly high the kid lives in a straight household. If you just say you are married, the child will understand that your family unit is like their family unit. Without some kind of prompting, how many kids have ever asked a teacher if they are straight? It is assumed.
Assuming a gay Florida teacher was even willing to risk their job by placing a picture of their partner on their desk. Saying they are married in that situation would likely invite questions. And that is okay, kids should be able to ask questions!
The default is transparent and socially accepted. All other configurations are visible, divergent, and sexualized.
Obviously not, since married encompasses more than that. If you are married to someone of the same gender or agender, then you are still married.
8 y/o is the age of a 3rd grader. Some of the very kids we are talking about are older than the precedent. While I wish it wasn't the case, that "obviously" is doing a lot of lifting.
In the UK the media often states like "Politician makes anti-X comment". The comment itself isn't published. So you end up just having to take on faith what actually occurred; you're not given the ability to judge whether the comment was hateful and dangerous, whether it was an off-colour joke that went a bit far, or whether it was totally innocuous but the journalists felt that they could spin a story out of it.
Anti-LGBT could mean literally anything in this context. If they're boycotting states with the death penalty for being gay, that's a lot more justifiable than boycotting states that don't allow trans activism in schools.
It's unfathomable to me that 17(?) states are doing anything even remotely close to the former, so what gives?
Why? I personally take persecuting kids very seriously. I also take violationg the constitution seriously.
[1] https://sfgsa.org/sites/default/files/Document/12X_Covered_S...
an ordinance making San Francisco the first city to ban travel to states with repressive anti-LGBT laws OR contract with businesses headquartered there.
I don't know, I always see people on HN complaining about poorly written articles and stuff so I figured I could do it as well.
At any rate it would require unfamiliarity with the U.S to think that a city could ban travel for citizens to other parts, but it is not clear exactly how travel is banned thus one has to read between the lines and assume - must be travel for government agencies - going off of this particular line "the travel element makes some intuitive sense; you do not want to send city employees, who may be LGBT, to places where their rights or their significant others’ rights can be impinged upon. "
Not hard to do for someone that knows anything about the country or has a high degree of proficiency in English, but on the other hand this being the internet there might be people who don't know or have that proficiency and would thereby draw the wrong conclusion.
To round off, in the vernacular, sheesh.
> A March 4 memorandum from City Administrator Carmen Chu reveals that San Francisco will not enter into contracts with businesses headquartered in most of the United States — 28 states in all
Calling a headline misinformation because you didn't read the article is not a good look, I'm afraid.