article_snippet: The question would then become whether anti-discrimination laws advance a compelling interest in the least restrictive means.  
article_snippet: The adoption of such laws have long been viewed as advancing compelling state interests, and the only way to eliminate discrimination is to ban The adoption of such laws, so discrimination are the least restrictive means.
article_snippet: The first would be to adopt state-wide nondiscrimination laws that protect LGBT persons.  
article_snippet: Such an act would confirm that, as a matter of state policy, protecting the LGBT community is viewed as a compelling state interest.  
article_snippet: The result: the bill's sponsors tabled the bill, noting that the exception for local nondiscrimination laws would "gut" the bill.
article_snippet: If these acts aren't about discrimination, then why would ensuring nondiscrimination protections "gut" the bill?
article_snippet: It's because these bills truly are about permitting discrimination against the LGBT community.  