California Bans Business Travel To 4 Anti-LGBT States

California bans travel to anti-lgbt states

When it comes to LGBT rights, the “Golden State” means business. Just weeks ahead of Donald Trump’s inauguration into the White House, California passed a bill prohibiting state-funded business travel to states that discriminate against the LGBT community. So, if you’re a government employee in California, don’t expect to visit North Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee or Kansas on the state’s dime anytime soon.

The ban, signed into law last September and effective January 1, 2017, comes from Assembly Bill 1887. The California legislature determined that, “California must take action to avoid supporting or financing discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.”

California bans state-funded travel to four states

California bill bans state-funded travel

If you work for any of the following California branches, you won’t be traveling to the banned states on business this year:

  • State agencies
  • Departments
  • Boards
  • Authorities
  • Commissions

The ban includes travel for employees from the University of California, the Board of Regents of the University of California and the California State University. Of course, you can still visit North Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee or Kansas — just don’t expect the state to cover it.

Curious as to what sparked the travel ban? Here’s a brief rundown of the bills that landed these states in hot water:

North Carolina’s ‘bathroom bill’

Controvercial bill prevents transgendered from using public bathrooms

You may remember the media firestorm around the “bathroom bill,” which restricts access to public restrooms based on gender. Last year, North Carolina passed House Bill 2, the Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act. In the controversial legislation, citizens are banned from using public restrooms that don’t correspond to the gender that appears on their birth certificate. The law applies to shops, restaurants and businesses that serve the general public.

What it means: A transgender female must use the male restroom, even if she identifies, lives, dresses, speaks and is culturally accepted as a female.

Kansas’ campus laws

Last year, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback signed legislation allowing groups at colleges and public universities to restrict membership based on faith. Groups can openly practice discrimination, as long as it’s for “sincerely held religious beliefs.”

What it means: A school group can deny participation from a Jew, Muslim or member of the LGBT community if the religious convictions of the group differ from the individual trying to join.

Tennessee’s mental health laws

Controvercial bill prevents mental health services for LGBT

Also last year, Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam signed the “therapist bill” into law. It allows counselors with “sincerely held principles” to withhold mental health services from members of the LGBT community.

What it means: An LGBT youth with depression can be denied treatment if their clinician doesn’t believe that it’s okay to be gay.

Mississippi’s faith-based laws

Meanwhile in Mississippi, citizens and businesses are protesting House Bill 1523, which aims to protect the religious freedom of its citizens. In doing so, it also allows individuals, businesses and government employees to openly discriminate against members of the LGBT community. So far, the bill has been blocked by a federal court, but lawmakers are working hard to appeal that decision.

What it means: A landlord can refuse to rent a home to a qualified lesbian couple due to religious beliefs.

California could ban more states

The four-state travel ban comes in direct response to these controversial bills. “California has said clearly, our taxpayer dollars will not help fund bigotry and hatred. If other states try and pass similar laws, we will work to stop them,” said Assemblymember Evan Low, who authored the bill. “Our zero-tolerance policy says there is no room for discrimination of any kind in California and AB 1887 ensures that discrimination will not be tolerated beyond our borders.”

Sounds like California is fed up. Are you? Let us know — is the state’s bold move a step in the right direction? Should states have the right to hinder travel based on politics? We’re all ears.

— Hilary Lebow

Recommended Articles



  1. J D says

    I am looking more into this, just for my own curiosity.
    But, the Tennessee law seems very dangerous, that’s a good place to start.

  2. David McCool says

    Don’t think the rest of America is too concerned about California’s alt left decisions…

  3. Susan Ross says

    yes….we are all just set back in horror that CA would put their agenda down other people throats. Yes I’m loosing sleep over this attack on conservatives and religion. I mean aren’t the people in CA suppose to be for people to express themselves any way they want to????

  4. David McCool says

    Susan, I agree that political decisions made in California are an affront on conservatives. Not much you can do when they have made policies that mean the best response is to let them mire in their own self indulgence. I’m fifth generation, and will never live there ever again… period!

  5. Susan Ross says

    I was just being sarcastic…. 🙂 It doesn’t matter on way or the other to me. I just got a laugh…… I refuse to spend one dime in or on California products (for many years now). They have the same right as me. The difference is I usually don’t post a campaign and tell the world every move I make.

  6. Luap says

    Ok, I’m not an American. That’s out of the way… so, on the whole I agree with these renegade states. Lesbians, Male Homosexuals, Bisexuals, Transgenders… they all are the same, mentally sick or deranged.

    But Tennessee, a therapist can refuse? Aren’t they supposed to help them? Help them to overcome their sickness? I find Tennessee’s move bizarre in the extreme.

    And, just for the record, I do not hate gays etc. as people. What I do hate is what they do which is abnormal. Big difference.

  7. Maggie says

    They say they won’t tolerate discrimination, but what they really meant is they will only support discrimination against Christians. This is the very reason those states needed to have those laws written in the first place.

  8. wendygoerl says

    Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.So if there’s, say, a environmental conservation symposium in Tennessee, California won’t participate? What kind of a message is that sending? “We care more about a tiny fraction of our citizens than we do about our whole world”?

  9. wendygoerl says

    There are plenty of non-Christians that don’t support LGBT. You may recall that a certain group of Muslims has been throwing people off tall buildings for allegedly being gay.

  10. wendygoerl says

    You do know that in ancient Greece, a man’s greatest love was reserved for another man? Many “primitive” cultures accept people that don’t clearly fall into the classic definition of “male” or “female.” The Navajo have traditionally recognized FIVE sexes. And despite all the factors that go into being “male” or “female” and how evenly-divided those factors can be in an individual, modern man still insists on a black or white distinction between two sexes. Personally, I think homosexuality is Mother Nature’s desperate way of trying to stop us from breeding ourselves to death. Homosexuality only became “mentally sick or deranged” once the monotheistic religions came to power and started twisting the teachings of the prophets to political ends.

  11. Luap says

    Yes Wendy Girl… I know that the ancient Greeks were perverted degenerates. And it is untrue that homosexuality only became mentally sick or deranged because of Monotheistic religions. Many cultures with little or no religious class classify it as sick and deranged. Kind of puts your argument to shame doesn’t it?

  12. wendygoerl says

    All you’ve done is demonstrate that you don’t have any real facts to support your stance, because you’ve given nothing to back up your cry of “untrue,” and resorted to name calling. “Cultures with no religious class” What do you mean by that? My guess is you either mean cultures that are “secular” for lacking what a Christian understands as “religion,” or cultures where the “religious” is so intertwined with the secular that no “religious” leaders are apparent. The Navajo recognize FIVE sexes, compared to the Western/Christian TWO sexes. The “nadleeh” dressed as a woman, acted as a woman, and was still allowed to go to the sweat lodges with the men.

    “[In Ojibwe cultures] Sex usually determined one’s gender, and therefore
    one’s work, but the Ojibwe accepted variation. Men who chose to function
    as women were called ikwekaazo, meaning ‘one who endeavors to be like a woman. Women who functioned as men were called ininiikaazo, meaning, ‘one who endeavors to be like a man.’ The French called these people berdaches. Ikwekaazo and ininiikaazo could take spouses of their own sex. Their mates were not considered ikwekaazo or ininiikaazo, however, because their function in society was still in keeping with their sex. If widowed, the spouse of an ikwekaazo or ininiikaazo could remarry someone of the opposite sex or another ikwekaazo or ininiikaazo. The ikwekaazowag worked and dressed like women. The ininiikaazowag
    worked and dressed like men. Both were considered to be strong
    spiritually, and they were always honoured, especially during

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *