this warning. The republicans are dismantling freedom, equality and equal opportunity in the US, yet one more example.

We are the country most want to come to to stay and live.

of course, rather hostile to various people/race and all of that.

And I read your links provided and see I was wrong about other areas including Britain.

Talk about an overreaction.

n/t

Since it provides similar guidance on the Cayman islands.

There’s no provision for marriage or civil partnership ceremonies between same sex couples. Same sex partnerships, legally binding or otherwise, aren’t recognised in Cayman law. Hotels and resorts are generally welcoming, regardless of sexual orientation. Local attitudes can be conservative and some people may not approve of public displays of affection between same sex couples.

If they were only able to mind their own damn business.

Keep your lame asses at home and don't down to our Mardi Gras, Jazz Fest, Essence Festival. Here in New Orleans, we know from long experience it's people like you that come to our city and cause trouble..And yes New Orleans is in the South, but you probably weren't taught that

but one can't, from that fact alone, deduce that they're all 'heavily armed".

It's no more less dangerous than it ever was,.

I think they're just grandstanding with a "more liberal than thou" pose.

Nobody in their right mind in Britain wants to be labelled a Liberal. Not after Nick Clegg.


America is a very dangerous place, the place is awash with guns.

I'm sure you get the idea.

It's the Foreign Office's job to point out dangerous places to travel for British citizens. It's not politicking, it would have been a very sober judgement made by a civil servant.

It just seems a tad ironic when they are seeing a rise in LGBT violence in their own country. Maybe they should issue warnings from their 'domestic office'.

We don't have legislation that discriminates against LGBT. That's a big difference.

The fact is "we", as a nation, don't have either..Only two states out of 50 do, and it's so unpopular and impacting those states so negatively, that it will likely be rescinded.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/figures-reveal-a-shocking-rise-in-homophobic-hate-crimes-a6692991.html

and says attitudes vary widely in the USA. You seem to be agreeing with the advice.

The post to which you are responding contains a link illustrating a rise in violence against LGBT people in the UK, not the US.

Given that, it seems no more 'dangerous' to visit those states than it does the UK.

They are the 'T' in 'LGBT'. The states are causing the problem.

No one is arguing that point.

You said that they're no less dangerous than before. You agreed that pointing the states out was an 'overreaction'.

What I said, along with some others here, is that the laws are unlikely to be a 'danger' to tourists. Even if one's definition

of danger is a 'bathroom arrest', the fact that police in these states have called this law near impossible to enforce makes that

danger virtually nil.

http://www.businessinsider.com/nc-police-dont-know-how-to-enforce-hb2-2016-4

I don't know the number of transgender Brits planning a holiday to Mississippi or NC this year, but I'm guessing it's

low.

Furthermore, I'm guessing the fraction of those likely to need a public bathroom with a policeman guarding its door would be infinitesimal....I'm sure you get the drift.

warned those that do?

That's a crappy attitude to minorities you've got there. Screw them, there's not many of them, eh?

Much as I admire your determination in that regard, lol, I've lost patience with your tortured attempts to achieve it.


There's a very nice day awaiting me, Muriel, I'm going out to enjoy it.

Just because it's only a few bits is neither here nor there. And the FO was keen to point out which bits they warned against. I don't think they're advising against trips to San Francisco.

If you read the article you linked you'll see that a lot of it is down to people being more willing to come forward and a wider interpretation of what constitutes a hate crime. None of my friends in the LBGT community is aware of any sudden spike in homophobia.

"The fact that it's only bits is neither here nor there"

Huh?

Um, no..the fact that it IS 'only in bits' is what makes your assertion fallacious.

As a nation, we do not take collective responsibility for pockets of ignorance anymore than your country does.

Which enforces their ignorance on the population. Ours are granted no such power. See the difference?

that your entire country is the size of one of our smaller "pockets".

If your little island were even close to approximating our size, you might understand that you're comparing apples to oranges.

This is all I have to say on the matter. Goodbye and good luck.


P.S. Your Lord Mayor Boris seems a little 'pocket of ignorance'...I hope he doesn't have too much power.

He's not the Lord Mayor either, that's Jeffrey Evans, 4th Baron Mountevans or Jeffo to his mates. Johnson is the London mayor. Not only that I don't live in London.

Like a lot of ignorant Americans, when your backs are to the wall you start boasting about size as if being from a big country was some sort of achievement. Sounds like you're overcompensating for something.

There's you, for example. Like many another insecure Brit, you've misread my reference to our country's size as a "boast" when it was actually just a point of reference in a discussion of our legal and governmental differences.

Oh well..I might have perceived your um, "limitations" via your previous posts. Now that they're clear, I think I'll just say a final 'adieu'.

when you called Boris the Lord Mayor. Your ignorance is already a matter of record, now it extends to not knowing the meaning of "This is all I have to say on the matter."

It's preferable to spending one's existence in a fantasy world.

Or service in a restaurant.

Really?

And the refusal of service is flat out discrimination.

Not an over reaction.

And then gets assaulted in jail? That is a real possibility. So how is it an overreaction to warn people about that?

On a positive note, fewer British tourists will travel to those states, adding to their growing problems with lost revenue.

out of fifty with the entire nation.

The opening sentence from the writer at The Week, is somewhat misleading and almost caught me off guard too. The article goes on to explain that the British Foreign Office released an advisory warning travelers to be aware of controversial new laws in North Carolina and Mississippi before visiting the United States.

WaPo does a better story under the self explanatory headline; "Britain issues warning for LGBT travelers visiting North Carolina and Mississippi"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/04/20/britain-issues-warning-for-lgbt-travelers-visiting-north-carolina-and-mississippi/

Whatever.

It's being considered in others.

There's just been two states so far that have passed laws.

Some people need to be lead by the nose to the logical conclusion.

...but we should be used to being embarrassed. I mean, look who our two presidential frontrunners are.

I'm embarrassed by the fact that the American public has been hoodwinked by corporate propaganda, and are going to pass up the opportunity to elect a real progressive.

And as a member of the American public, I'd like to thank you for your concern about what "hoodwinks" me.

I hope you're not too embarrassed by the American public to show up at the polls in November to vote for the Democrat.

and I encourage all "busters" to do the same.

if Bernie Sanders is not the nominee? If so, you're not much of a Democrat. Perhaps this board isn't the place for you.

I haven't decided whether I will vote for her or not. I'm not so certain that voting for Hillary is in the best interest of the democratic party in the long run. I will never vote republican; I'll guarantee you that.

No matter how you try to rationalize it.

Especially with how far the GOP is going to steal the election this cycle.

I'm not responsible for how other people vote.

I can totally respect people for choosing to vote for the lesser of two evils, and I may end up doing the same.
However, I'm afraid that the "lesser of two evils strategy" has pulled our party to the right, and I've come to believe that cycle needs to end.

That's some coherent thinking, that is.

I can see things in more than just black and white.

Is it illogical to think that people deserve respect, even if they're misguided in their political choices?

Clarification is, perhaps, in order but I read "I will absolutely vote down ticket democrat", as a statement that whoever is Democratic Presidential candidate, all of his other votes on the ballot will be Democratic nominees.

The ambiguity is in what happens if/when Hillary leads the ticket, no entry?

Seriously I want Bernie as the Democratic candidate, as I just joined the party (first time I've been in a party for over 40 years) last month to be sure I could vote for him in my state's (Oregon) upcoming primary. That being said whoever is the Democratic nominee will have my vote, enthusiastically. Come on Hillary vs. Trump/Cruz/Kasich* ! Not really a choice is there, at least for me.



* Polls show Kasich could challenge Hillary but they also show he doesn't have much of a chance to be the nominee. Not enough of a fire-breather!

Clinton holds some basic principles that many people can not embrace for moral reasons. You can not force them to vote against their own souls. It can't be done. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean that it isn't true.

Ex: Would you have voted for John Edwards if you knew he was actively having an affair while campaigning? I don't care if he was a Dem or not, I would not vote for him. His judgment is obviously impaired and he would not be someone that I would trust to make decisions.Why would I want a President ensnared in legal trouble from the get go.

This is an example of the hard choice in voting do or die Dem. Sometimes one has to make a stand. The people who are willing to overlook such faults in a candidate are the ones who need to ask themselves, 'What is the price?'.

Hillary (the presidency is mine because I'm entitled) Clinton and Sociopath Donald Trump. I'll go with the War Hawk .. yeah her.

Will they issue 'travel warnings' for France & other European countries that do not?


How about one for Russia which openly persecutes homosexuals?

That's one way to look at it.

Unless the person is going there to marry, it is irrelevant. Russia also doesn't have marriage EQUALITY. Are you claiming it is safer for LGBT in Russia than Germany or Italy?

I have yet to see a single poster claim or assert the UK is without "sin." This is about the problems in the US, not everywhere else in the world. Like the other poster who changed the subject, you did the same. The "warning" is mild and sadly justified and the homophobia of other countries, while troubling, isn't the topic. Also, both of those places also have warnings from the UK travel guide. Why are people more "concerned" about a minor warning, than the actual reason the fucking warning was issued?!

Do they arrest you for kissing in North Carolina? No. They DO in the UK territory of Cayman.

http://www.towleroad.com/2008/05/cayman-islands/

Aaron Chandler, 23, from Amherst, Massachusetts, was arrested in the Cayman Islands last week after kissing his partner on a dance floor.

Do they turn up to protest cruise ship landings in North Carolina, if it is a gay cruise? No. They do in the UK territory of Cayman:

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/2-US-men-arrested-on-gay-cruise-in-Caribbean


In 2010, the Cayman Islands rejected the arrival of an Atlantis gay cruise amid protests from religious groups even though homosexuality is legal on the archipelago.

Having a port of call scratched off of your cruise itinerary because a UK territory won't allow ships with gay people on them to land, is a serious financial risk to consider if traveling on a cruise which includes the UK territory of Cayman. Needless to say, getting arrested for kissing your partner is a serious risk.

I understand the point of this UK travel advisory.

I also understand the deep, deep hypocrisy involved in issuing it.

You see? I understand two things at the same time.

yes, ALL of them

Thanks A LOT, you stupid fuckin republican assholes!

GAH!

The UK has its own right wing problems -- Maybe they should tend to them instead of getting sanctimonious about us.

Meanwhile, the UK has had a number of anti-LGBT crimes (both from the home-grown
right-wingers and from those wonderful migrants of a certain religious/cultural persuasion).
There have also been more prosecutions of such attackers than you will find in the regions
of the US that this warning concerns.

We have yet to put any laws on the books that are on the same playing-field as
the ones that you are so keenly defending with your broad-brush "Team America FY"
replies throughout this thread.

Perhaps you believe that the Foreign Office should just let people wander into the
bigoted parts of the world without a hint of caution?



Fortunately the FO are better than that.

and you'll need to check your reading comprehension skills, as I never defended, "keenly" or otherwise,

the discriminatory laws recently passed in the two states concerned.

Snide references to "team America" aside, clarifying broad brush warnings about a 50 state nation

on the basis of two, reflects nothing more than sanity and common sense.

... the "broad brush" conclusion all by yourself.

Nothing needed to be "clarified", merely read in the first place.


>> "warning members of the lesbian gay, bisexual, and transgender communities about
>> anti-LGBT laws passed recently in North Carolina and Mississippi."

>> "LGBT travelers may be affected by legislation passed recently in the states of
>> North Carolina and Mississippi."

Note the repeated references to the two states affected and note the complete lack of
references to the other 48 (or, indeed, any other "broad brush" interpretation).

And you query my "reading comprehension skills"?




FYI, there are travel advisories published by the FO for 225 countries (as of today)
including such dangerous locations as Iceland, Liechtenstein and France (although,
as pointed out upthread, there is no particular risk for LGBT travellers in any of
their departments, unlike in the two named states out of the 50 in the USA ...).

It's early here. I specified 'signature' line, instead of 'headline', but you should have gotten the idea.

I hate to inform you, but MANY here do only have time to read the headline, and that, obviously, IS

'broad brush' and misleading..duh.

Maybe the real reason you've got your panties in a bunch is my reference to the UK's Right Wing problems...Perhaps

you, like some other Euros, thought Americans too 'insular' and 'ignorant' to know of such things.

If so, I can only express sincere apologies for the disappointment.

... posts a load of replies - "early" or not - and still justifies their behaviour
of knee-jerking from a headline rather than reading the OP extract from
the article.


> Maybe the real reason you've got your panties in a bunch is my reference
> to the UK's Right Wing problems

You obviously missed my statement that we do have such folk here too.
Maybe I should have put it in the title of my post rather than the body of it?

To each his own.

It demonstrates the problems our country has in regards to its LGBT citizens, but apparently there are some who don't give a fuck, and I ain't talking about Republicans!

yup

and don the hairshirts and ashes...

they can f*** themselves

One wants one's burn cream.

should stop finger wagging. If all of the US is "dangerous" to the LGBT community because of 2 states, the UK is dangerous to children because of Rotherham.

Those aren't relevant?

The warning didn't say "all of the US is "dangerous" to the LGBT community", so your comment is nothing more than a strawman argument.

Instead of being concerned about the "finger-wagging" of the UK, perhaps it might be more prudent to be concerned with the reason such a warning was issued.

but will be ignored. I would say the US is more dangerous to POC than the LGBT community.

It isn't a matter of "shaming", it was issued because it is a warning to possible issues for LGBT persons. Why is it when someone points out homophobia, people feel the need to change the subject? Are GLBT lives not important?

That doesn't make any sense.

Should there be travel warnings from the US to the UK to LGBT people, why not? Would that be "over the top" too? I find it "interesting" you find warning LGBT people about possible issues is "performance art."

had they included, "our country isn't the safest for gay people either.".

That makes NO sense. Not a lick.

Again, your strawman argument, "the UK is safer than the US" wasn't even the topic.

Over the top would have been, "GLBT? Don't even think about going to the US; they hate your kind!" Of course, not all people hate GLBT, some just dismiss us, our rights, our safety, and our freedoms as "frivolous" or even mentioning danger to us as "what about...." and "over the top."

But I don't view the US as any more worthy of a travel warning for people who are LGBT than many other western countries. Including my own. Up here, hate crimes against LGBT are second only to hate crimes against Jews. And yes I would view a travel warning against us as over the top.

LBGT people aren't stupid. We know anywhere we go, there is the possibility of being targeted by hatemongers. The difference here, that you and a few others don't seem to understand, is the warning is about LEGAL issues. If I were to travel to London, there aren't places that will refuse me service because I am gay, at least not legally; that isn't so now in the US. This "warning" is sadly justified and it seems you and a few others are more "offended" by the warning than for the very reason the warning was issued.

I think there's some confusion about the purpose of travel advisories. They aren't there to keep the citizens of the destination country happy with all glowing references. They're there to advise a country's citizens (in this case the UK) of things like customs and laws that may be very different to what they face at home. In this case, LGBT travellers may be subject to legal discrimination in two US states. Why shouldn't they be warned of that? It'd be a pretty massive and nasty shock to turn up at a hotel in one of those states and be refused service and then find out there's nothing they can do about it because discriminating against people who are LGBT is officially condoned in those states.

I've just checked my own countries travel advisory for the US. Along with the generic warning that while in the US we're subject to US laws, it goes on to warn about lots of gun violence and also warns that the US has much harsher laws against things than here like some traffic offenses, the legal drinking age being 21 and not 18 like here, possession of some drugs, etc. I'm not seeing how those sort of warnings are any different than the UK one about discrimination in those two US states...

Pots and kettles and all that.

Just sayin..

Read post # 60.

by proving to the world that we are in the same company as much of the middle east and africa.