California will prohibit state-funded and state-sponsored travel due to discriminatory legislation enacted in each state
SAN FRANCISCO – California Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced on Thursday that California will prohibit state-funded and state-sponsored travel to Alabama, Kentucky, South Dakota and Texas based on discriminatory legislation enacted in each state.
“Our country has made great strides in dismantling prejudicial laws that have deprived too many of our fellow Americans of their precious rights. Sadly, that is not the case in all parts of our nation, even in the 21st century. I am announcing today that I am adding four states to the list of states where California-funded or sponsored travel will be restricted on account of the discriminatory nature of laws enacted by those states,” said Attorney General Becerra. “While the California DOJ works to protect the rights of all our people, discriminatory laws in any part of our country send all of us several steps back. That’s why when California said we would not tolerate discrimination against LGBTQ members of our community, we meant it.”
The states added to the list of states subject to AB 1887’s travel restrictions are:
- Alabama: HB 24 was enacted on May 2, 2017. HB 24 could prevent qualified prospective LGBT parents from adopting or serving as foster parents.
- Kentucky: SB 17 was enacted on March 16, 2017. SB 17 could allow student-run organizations in colleges and K-12 schools to discriminate against classmates based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
- South Dakota: SB 149 was enacted March 10, 2017. SB 149 could prevent qualified LGBT couples from adopting or serving as foster parents.
- Texas: HB 3859 was enacted on June 15, 2017. HB 3859, allows foster care agencies to discriminate against children in foster care and potentially disqualify LGBT families from the state’s foster and adoption system.
AB 1887 prohibits state-funded and state-sponsored travel to states with laws that authorize or require discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression or against same-sex couples or their families. The California legislation went into effect on January 1, 2017. This restriction applies to state agencies, departments, boards, authorities, and commissions, including an agency, department, board, authority, or commission of the University of California, the Board of Regents of the University of California, and the California State University.
“These discriminatory laws in Texas, North Carolina, North Dakota, and other states are completely out of step with the values that make California the vibrant economic powerhouse that it is,” said Rick Zbur, Executive Director of Equality California. “As some state legislatures around the country choose to target and harm LGBTQ people and their families, it is imperative that California continue to denounce those actions publicly and financially. We applaud Attorney General Becerra for taking action to ensure that California is supporting the LGBTQ community and opposing discrimination both inside and beyond our borders.”
“Today, the ACLU is proud to stand with our partners and Attorney General Becerra, and do our part to make freedom and justice a reality for every American – regardless of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression,” said Ashley Morris, Organizing Director, ACLU of Northern California.
For additional information on AB 1887 including the list of states and Frequently Asked Questions visit: www.oag.ca.gov/ab1887/faqs
15 comments
You go girl! This will show them!
“Wow democrats are really smart”
-Nobody ever
People can travel wherever they want to. It’s a free country. Restricting travel is asinine.
Key words “state-funded”. This is not referring to the general populous. You strike me as a full time helmet wearer Melanie.
I don’t care if it’s state funded or not. And, yes, I did read the article. Restricting travel is ASININE.
By the way, it’s “state-funded.” Not “state-funded”. If you’d paid attention in school, you’d know proper grammar. The punctuation goes INSIDE the quotes.
What a moron.
Are you a state employee that is directly affected by this? More than likely not. You’re just spewing more nonsense, balancing your laptop on your gunt. Way to gravitate to the placement of the punctuation rather than the facts. Totally missed the point. Lame.
I didn’t miss the point – I’m stating my OPINION. You’re the one who started the argument. If you can’t take it – don’t dish it out.
My employment is MY BUSINESS – NOT YOURS. You should have stayed in school.
So, where does the state gets it’s funds? Why, from the state’s taxpayers …… or am I wrong! The entire idea of prohibiting people to travel to these states whether the trip is “state-funded” or not, is insane. So, a faculty member working for the state-college or university system cannot travel on state funds to present a paper? Are these people totally nuts? Where did this crap come from? Moonbeam? The state legislators? Nancy Pelosi? I agree with Melanie!
I picked one cited reference for the ban, Kentucky SB 17. Simply put: NO ONE can be discriminated against or excluded from voicing their beliefs or opinions based on their religion, color, culture, race, etc. Or be forced to change a written assignment where they have used their beliefs, opinions, or cited them from something within their belief system, culture etc. It is in effect giving everyone the right to NOT be discriminated against. so all you people claiming that it is excluding anyone or biased in any way toward anyone are imagining a violation of a human right. The Attorney General sees higher education indoctrination in Kentucky threatened by religious opinions expressed as arguments against a human lifestyle (Chosen? Programmed at birth?) by LGBT community. A push-back by Kentucky Legislators for confirmed gag order on all arguments on college campuses that portray LGBT in a negative way.
OldPittsburg …….. So, according to your logic, if someone is a NAZI (a belief system and/or a culture), and they are advocating violence against another group which may lead to some serious harm to that group…. and they are basing this on their religion (Norse gods) or color or race, it is illegal to stop them? Or, if a potential criminal tells me he will kill me because of something I have written which he does not agree with, I can’t complain or take steps to stop him? What if someone truly believes that their “human right” is to become a cannibal? Or their religion includes human sacrifice?
You may claim to be a cannibal or death will be empty for those who do not believe as an argument in speech on college campuses. However, we have laws that will punish those who act out cannibalism or cause death out of hate or otherwise. The purpose is to not give one minority group the right to shut down speech of another group no matter how much you disagree or feel threatened by the words.
OldPittsburg — But what right has some minority to dictate to a majority about what that majority considers to be nothing but freakish behavior which is actually harmful? While this minority has the right to free speech, the other group has the right to free speech as well … I am not religious in the least, so my criticism doesn’t come from that point of view. I don’t them pushing their deviant lifestyle on me, my family, my children and others. Remember, society as a whole is pretty tolerant but if someone is way out of line and goes off the limb, society can be extremely intolerant no matter what some law we did NOT vote for says.
I agree with Melanie and Lola. This is ridiculous. Get a life Becerra.
It’s a “chosen” lifestyle. I’ve had two people I work with (a man in the 80s and a woman in the 90s) tell me this. It was very awkward. It’s a disliking of or fear of the opposite sex. They ought to know.
If that’s the case, they’re bringing on the discrimination themselves. Some gays will tell you they’re “born that way” to avoid discrimination. Or they’re in denial.
The woman I worked with was single and childless. The man – he was twice divorced, and had a daughter. He was “through with women.” The woman – she never liked men to begin with, and wouldn’t associate with any of her male colleagues – half the workforce, if not more.
Get some counseling.
Travel ban, oh my that’s unconstitutional you frigid hypocrites. California, ninth circuit court, and sanctuary places. What game on taxpayers. The political posturing is incredible in this state.
Comments are closed.