DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus More Companies going woke! Time for more boycotts!

The rule change would ban lessons on sexual orientation and gender identity from grades 4-12, unless required by existing state standards or as part of reproductive health instruction that students can choose not to take. Florida currently bans such lessons in kindergarten through third grade.

The bill makes it an elective. Didn't you yourself say that's the way it should be??

And again. Everyone is acting like all this information is then locked in a box and stowed away so that no one can ever learn of it. Sequestered forever in lieu of being taught in 2nd grade. Is that what is happening?? Children are being prevented from learning about gender identity... forever? Or is your stance that there is no way to trust parents to talk about this so it must be taught right after recess?

Can you show if any such state standards actually even exist? The bill only makes it elective if any such state standards exist in the first place. You see the devil is in the details. I'm not saying such standards don't exist. But if they do I sure as hell haven't been able to find them. One thing I can say for sure is that being gay or transsexual doesn't seem to have much if anything to do with how human beings reproduction process.

If such state standards actually exist and parents are given a choice in the matter I would agree with you. So far I only see where Florida's state education board has banned such teachings all together...

Florida bans teaching of gender identity and sexual orientation through 12th grade

Florida’s state education board voted Wednesday to ban teaching students about sexual orientation and gender identity through high school, expanding the scope of a contentious state law that last year thrust Gov. Ron DeSantis to the forefront of the cultural clash over classrooms.

The law DeSantis signed last year prohibited the instruction of these topics from kindergarten through third grade or in a way that was not age appropriate for all other grades. The decision Wednesday by the State Board of Education clarified that outside of health or reproductive courses, such instruction is not appropriate at any grade level.

Teachers who violate the new state policy could be suspended or have their teaching licenses revoked.

“We’re providing clarity on what the students are expected to learn. Nothing more than that,” said Esther Byrd, a board member appointed by DeSantis. “This really isn’t a complicated thing.”

Public comment on the vote lasted an hour as some supporters lined up to encourage the board to vote in favor of the proposal while others pushed them to reconsider.

“I want to be sure we are preserving spaces that are safe for students who are like me,” said Jennifer Webb, a former state lawmaker who was the first out queer woman to serve in the state House of Representatives.

The law DeSantis signed last year sparked national outrage from Democrats and LGBTQ advocates and prompted Republicans to propose similar legislation in state houses across the country.

At the time, DeSantis argued young children should not be exposed to concepts like gender identity, and he did not push for the ban to apply to upper grade levels. Indeed, in his new book, “The Courage to Be Free,” DeSantis accused the media of dishonestly suggesting he was blocking older students from these topics. In one exchange with a reporter he highlighted in his book, DeSantis asked a reporter whom the ban applied to. The reporter responded, “Grades K to 3.”

DeSantis responded: “So five-year-olds, six-year olds, seven-year-olds, and the idea that you wouldn’t be honest about that, and tell people what it actually says. It’s why people don’t trust people like you because you peddle false narratives.”

The passage of the legislation was the catalyst for an escalating war between DeSantis and Disney that has become central to the Republican’s narrative as he lays the groundwork for a presidential campaign.

After taking a tepid stance toward the legislation last year, Disney employees pressured then-CEO Bob Chapek to speak out against the bill. When he did, DeSantis fired back, accusing Disney of trying to appease “woke” progressives. After DeSantis signed the bill into law, Disney vowed to fight to get it repealed, prompting the governor to target the company’s special taxing district in Central Florida.

That fight has continued for the past year. On Wednesday, as the state education board met to expand the ban, his political allies now overseeing the special district also met to take steps toward punishing Disney.

“Gender ideology has no place in our K through 12 school system,” DeSantis said from South Carolina on Wednesday. “It’s wrong for a teacher to tell a student that they may have been born in the wrong body or that their gender is a choice and so we don’t let that happen in Florida.”

Florida lawmakers were already considering legislation to extend the prohibition to eighth grade, which also prohibited teachers from using students’ preferred pronouns and banned schools from requiring a student be called by a sex that differs from what is on their birth certificate. It’s one of several bills related to LGBTQ topics that is quickly moving through the state legislature this session.

Later Wednesday, lawmakers will consider a bill that allows the state to fine, suspend or revoke the license of an establishment that allows children into an “adult live performance,” widely interpreted by LGTBQ advocates as a crackdown on drag shows. The Republican-controlled legislature is also expected to take up a bill that would ban gender affirming health care for minors.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/19/poli...r-identity-sexual-orientation/index.html

Since Florida's state education board has made it perfectly clear their standards make it wrong to teach on such topics I'm inclined to believe that they simply wrote that into the bill as a distraction that really holds no meaning.

First statement...

What are you trying to say here? I can't agree with "people with to block out anything involving people with differences in beliefs held by others" statement because the exact opposite is the case. That is a xenophobic philosophy, and a bit unexpected, and not a characteristic of our society held by the majority of people. We know or are taught that there are different cultures and religions and approaches to government in the world. This country was founded on the principle that "all men were created equal" in the declaration and that was ultimately amended in the constitution to mean other races and women. Every social studies class teaches about cultural differences. Hopefully we gain an understanding of them, even though we may not fully understand them, or agree with them, we can be respectful of them.

Second statement.

I never suggested that at all. I certainly don't believe that. People have personal belief about politics, religion and child raising. I can respect that.



Regarding the difference in human sexuality, people can be wired differently from birth, by preference or experiences, some by trauma (that is also true).

I have observed a lot of differences in child raising approaches. Even though I may not fully understand them, or agree with them, I can be respectful of them.

The ultimate question is when/if is it appropriate to legislate a belief into law for the greater good of society. I don't agree with the approach to ban the subject, and will simply say that any formal instruction before fourth grade is probably too soon, and K-12 is unrealistic.

Give me evolution any day of the week and twice on Sunday. This is far more complex.

Just so long as nobody tells the children about it.

Nope. Have absolutely no desire to jump off the edge and argue your hand-picked peripheries.

"Can't teach children about: sex, genders, transexuals, queers, gender reassignment and keeping secrets from their parents... until after third grade" is something that anybody capable of critical thought would normally put about two seconds of thought towards; and reach a conclusion of "well that sounds reasonable". But they refuse... because GOPers, because "insurrection!"... because Trump (or his evil little brother: DeSantis). Because it's an attack!

Again. Because all this info is locked in a box, sequestered. Never, ever to be seen if not before third grade recess...

That seems like an odd thing for you to say when I posted the evidence that "Florida’s state education board voted Wednesday to ban teaching students about sexual orientation and gender identity through high school, expanding the scope of a contentious state law that last year thrust Gov. Ron DeSantis to the forefront of the cultural clash over classrooms." This happened back in April.

You refuse to give any evidence that any such state requirements exist yet keep acting as though they do. I've shown you where Florida's state education board has closed the door on any provisions that may have allowed for it before, going all the way through grade 12. Yet with zero evidence to the contrary, you keep repeating the same thing as if it means something clinging onto the outdated third grade contention.


My hand-picked peripheries? You do realize this is the very evidence you provided as to why students could still be taught this subject material with the parents permission, right? Yet now you claim i hand-picked it? All I am asking for is some evidence they ever existed in the first place. And your answer is to blame me for asking for some evidence to back up the claim you made in the first place. Which it seems obvious you can't.

An honest discussion doesn't seem like anything you're willing to engage in here.

FATE...

So is it grade 3 or is it grade 12 that is the topic?

From the article above.

“Gender ideology has no place in our K through 12 school system,” DeSantis said from South Carolina on Wednesday. “It’s wrong for a teacher to tell a student that they may have been born in the wrong body or that their gender is a choice and so we don’t let that happen in Florida.”

That sure looks like grade 12.

And I think that the way DeSantis characterized teaching is hyperbole and not accurate at all.

I honestly don't even know what you're raving about at this point. I guess ignoring what I've posted and going off on some tangent that I haven't shown "blah, blah, blah" is now the part of your "honest discussion".

For the last time:

The rule change would ban lessons on sexual orientation and gender identity from grades 4-12, unless required by existing state standards or as part of reproductive health instruction that students can choose not to take. Florida currently bans such lessons in kindergarten through third grade.


All that stuff is available as an elective...

☐ Yes
☐ No

Now that we've colored by numbers, do you understand? Or would you like to argue about rainbows and unicorns now?

I think ^ this ^ post explains it well enough.

This article is also very informative:

VERIFY fact sheet: Florida's so-called 'don't say gay' bill, explained

It was most certainly expanded through grade 12. I mean we have FATE trying to rely on the original legislation which was only through the third grade but that is no longer applicable.

Secondly he is trying to use this....

Which thus far I have seen no evidence to show, nor has any evidence been presented that even suggest such requirements ever existed in the first place.

And he seems to act as though nothing has happened since which it most certainly has.


Which certainly seems to have closed the door on any such requirements that were suggested to exist in the original bill which narrowed it to K through third grade.

See, I'm not a proponent of teaching any type of sex education or about gay people and transgender people in our society to small children. Although I think it's crazy that a teacher can't answer their questions if they arise. But some people wish to keep it focused on that in order to divert the conversation from what this has all turned into.

We see businesses being boycotted, threats being made to their employees, laws against our kids seeing or hearing anything that pertains to gay or transgender and then claim we shouldn't be sending messages about such topics to the children. I think we both understand that the very things they are doing and saying is sending a message. And that's the message they want to send. That there's something so wrong with these people we don't want our children to even hear about or see anything having to do with "these people".

History should have taught us how messages like that have turned out.

There is no need for state regulations. Read the sentence very slooooowly this time. It contains the word:


OR


or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or, or...

First, your source is from March of 2022. Before any of the changes I posted were made. At this point in time it's clearly outdated. It was published long before Florida’s state education board voted to ban teaching students about sexual orientation and gender identity through high school, expanding the scope of the law. Secondly there is still zero evidence that there were or are ANY State standards or requirements that it be taught in schools whatsoever. No matter how many times you bold it or highlight those words.

Hey, but at least schools aren't required to out every gay or transgender student in their school to the entire community. What a relief.

Ok, that was the 2022 bill, is there not a later bill?

I will just say that culture wars are something that I try to stay away from, and DeSantis thinks it is a winner for him. I hope voters think otherwise.

Which means any school board can choose not to make it a part of reproductive health instruction. So that still doesn't mean every student and parent will be given a choice.


And of course you refuse to admit this changed everything. I'm not the one raving here. I'm not the one dismissing that much has changed since that original bill was passed. I'm not the one refusing to accept that your proposed stance isn't what it was then based on the information I have provided while refusing to admit things have changed since that time. Is that your perception of everyone who has an opposing view to yours? That they're raving or ranting?

Another example of what exactly?

Complexity and differences in beliefs.

What one has to do is look at what the bill actually says and who has the power to change the education requirements and options which directly impact what that bill means.


As we have seen, it seems nobody can point to any such state requirement that lessons on sexual orientation and gender identity ever be taught in the first place.

Now let's get to the second part.


Now who makes the decision on what "state standards" are? That would be the Florida Board of Education. They just voted to ban such teaching all the way through high school. So by doing so that also changed what the state standards on reproductive health instruction was state wide. So not only is it no longer any type of standard, it's not allowed.

So the bill remains the same but what that actually means has changed. The power as to what state standards in education is, is in the hands of the state board of education. They held and used their power to to change those standards to no longer exist in the state of Florida.

BTW- check the link you posted. It takes me to an non working page.

I'm just curious. It seems to me the very same thing could be used to stop the teaching of evolution. I mean there are millions and millions of Americans who believe strictly in creation with no room for evolution in their belief system. Actually it would be my guess that it would probably include many of the same people railing on the current issue we are discussing. So where does this all stop? If we're going to use complexity and beliefs to standardize education, whose differences and beliefs are going to rule over the differences of others?

My theory is to prepare children for the real world. That goes for everything from Reading, Writing and Arithmetic to being inclusive towards all people. We live an a very diversified world. I saw the results of not doing that in the 70's. Where anyone who was gay was called names, ostracized and considered an outcast. If I had been taught that they were no different than anyone else and as such deserved to be treated like everyone else, it wouldn't have taken me so long to understand that. My hopes were that as a society we could do better than that. For a while I thought we could. Now I'm far less sure of that.

Pride Month was once an easy win for brands. Now, the stakes are much higher

Companies have long embraced Pride Month in June as an uncomplicated way to market to members of the LGBTQ+ community while telegraphing progressive values. But this year won’t be nearly so straightforward.

In recent weeks, two major brands, Target (TGT) and Bud Light, were targeted by right-wing media and on social platforms for relatively small LGBTQ+ initiatives: Bud Light’s Instagram partnership with a trans influencer, and a subset of Target (TGT)’s line of goods marketed to trans customers and allies.

Right-wing commentators, politicians and others called for boycotts, and the brands’ employees were threatened with violence. In both cases, the companies seemed cowed: The CEO of Bud Light owner Anheuser-Busch (BUD) released a vague statement calling for unity and Target pulled items from shelves. Both brands say they continue to support the LGBTQ+ community: Bud Light on Tuesday announced a donation to the National LGBT Chamber of Commerce in support of LGBTQ+ owned small businesses, and Target has continued selling much of its Pride merchandise in stores.

But the backtracking shows that backlash and threats could create a chilling effect for companies, and leave them without a clear path forward.

Executives “are becoming much more skittish about taking these stands and making strong statements,” said Daniel Korschun, associate professor of marketing at Drexel University. “The pendulum is swinging a bit back … toward a more conservative approach, where they’ll be less vocal.”

Although support for gay rights has increased over the years, gaining acceptance among most Americans, trans acceptance is a more contentious issue. About 43% of adults said society had “gone too far” when it comes to accepting people who are transgender, according to a March survey conducted by the Wall Street Journal and Norc. About 33% said society “has not gone far enough,” with 23% saying society has reacted “about right.” When it comes to accepting people who are lesbian, gay or bisexual, a smaller percentage -— 29% -— said society had “gone too far.”

Campaigns that may have been considered low-risk are now drawing ire from public figures who oppose trans rights along with their supporters, creating a PR mess that may hurt sales. Backing away — rather than quelling the negative reactions — has dismayed the very demographic the campaigns were supposed to reach and may close avenues for future inclusive marketing efforts.

“Allyship is sometimes uncomfortable,” and businesses are learning that, said Jared Todd, press secretary of the Foundation at the Human Rights Campaign, which maintains the Corporate Equality Index, a measure of companies’ LGBTQ+ practices. “I don’t think people realize that quite enough.”

They might realize it now. Anheuser-Busch lost its spot on the HRC Foundation’s Best Places to Work for LGBTQ+ Equality in 2022 list over its response, and California Gov. Gavin Newsom called out Target’s CEO for “selling out the LGBTQ+ community to extremists.”

The current landscape “is alarming,” Todd said. “It’s alarming to businesses, it’s alarming to executives — and it should be.”

Staying quiet may once have been an antidote to potential boycotts, but “there’s not as much of a neutral space anymore,” Korschun said. “That middle ground is going away.”

So this year, companies that want to participate in Pride have to be prepared to take a real stance.

A new phase

The conventional wisdom about boycotts was once simple, Korschun noted: Angry customers will likely lose interest or get distracted by another perceived corporate transgression.

But it “feels that we are moving into a new phase now, where politicians are getting much more involved,” Korschun said. Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) tweeted that Target “decided to wage war on a large share of its customer base,” adding “I no longer shop at Target.”

That involvement from politicians is “mobilizing consumers in a way that they might not have mobilized otherwise,” Korschun said.

Some of those lashing out have described a campaign against Pride itself, rather than Bud Light or Target (TGT) specifically. “The goal is to make ‘pride’ toxic for brands,” right-wing commentator Matt Walsh said on Twitter. “If they decide to shove this garbage in our face, they should know that they’ll pay a price. It won’t be worth whatever they think they’ll gain.”

It’s no coincidence that the anti-trans assault comes as trans rights are under legal attack across the nation. More than 200 bills have been introduced targeting transgender and non-binary people this year, HumanRights Campaigns reported in late May. Transgender people are more than four times as likely to be victims of violent crime than cisgender people, according to a study from the UCLA School of Law.

“This has been a well-funded and a coordinated effort to silence the LGBTQ community,” said Sarah Kate Ellis, president and CEO of GLAAD, which aims to build acceptance for the queer community through media. “It’s an all-out assault.”

Yet groups like GLAAD have seen this reaction before — and it ended up turning around.
Reviving an old playbook

Though Pride has been mainstream for years, there was a time not long ago when featuring gay and lesbian people in ads could spark negative response, noted Ellis.

“Ten years ago, we used to have war rooms behind when a company would have a new ad that included LGBTQ people,” she said. “There were a couple of years it was a little rough going.”

Eventually, sentiment turned toward mainstream acceptance. Now, “I think we’re at that inflection point again,” she said.

A 2022 poll conducted by Morning Consult for the Trevor Project found that about 29% of US adults personally know someone who is trans. The remaining population, said Ellis, is “being filled with misinformation … and hate and discrimination.”

Demystifying trans lives for more Americans will lead to greater acceptance, she said, noting that this is a “critical” moment for trans rights and acceptance. “We need corporate America and we need these powerful CEOs to help.”

GLAAD has organized a “corporate rapid response team for Pride,” Ellis explained, designed for brands to prepare for and address possible outrage. The goal is to prevent “quick decisions that end up hurting our community, ceding space to bullies and violent folks,” she noted, adding none of the companies that partner with GLAAD have backed away from LGBTQ+ initiatives.

The Human Rights Campaign is taking a similar approach, said Todd: “We are in the business of sitting down with these companies and making sure that they have a clear pathway for inclusion and supporting diversity.”

It’s not just about goodwill, advocates say. Companies that have remained committed to polarizing positions are often rewarded financially. Nike (NKE), for example, didn’t waver from its campaign with football player and civil rights activist Colin Kaepernick. The ad was supported by the coveted young consumers demographic and won Nike (NKE) an Emmy. In the years since the campaign, Nike (NKE)’s share price has increased.

Most Americans “believe that representation matters,” Todd said. “When companies lean into that, and prove that through what they do and say, they come out on top.”

Plus, noted Drexel’s Korschun, customers tend to punish companies when they go back on their word.

The dangers of corporate hypocrisy

Shoppers are willing to overlook certain changes in stores, noted Korschun, like price increases or temporary shortages. But customers bristle at what they see as hypocrisy.

“Consumers react very poorly when companies say one thing and do another,” Korschun said. “Inconsistency is very disconcerting to many consumers.”

That’s partly because when companies walk back decisions, customers wonder whether they’ll do the same in business dealings — like return policies, for example.

As Korschun put it, “If I come to the store with a problem in the future, related to just a regular purchase … are they going to walk back promises there, too?”

These days, companies that want to benefit from marketing to marginalized groups have to be ready to back those decisions, agreed Jared Watson, assistant professor of marketing at New York University.

“When brands are deciding to participate in advocacy in any format, they need to think about what that long-term advocacy looks like,” Watson said. “Whether they’re willing to internalize that support as a value for their brand, or not. And if they aren’t, then it’s maybe not something that they should be championing.”

Ultimately, Watson suspects the higher stakes will have a polarizing impact on brands.

Some might decide to play it safe. But others, he said, will lean in. North Face this year moved forward with a Pride marketing campaign that features Pattie Gonia, a drag queen and environmentalist — and the company isn’t backing away despite calls for a boycott from some Republicans.

Some brands will think, “‘What’s happening to Target is an attack, not just on the LGBTQIA+ community, but all of us,’” Watson said. “’We need to show we’re not afraid.’”

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/01/business/pride-month-companies-reaction/index.html

Sorry, if you want to learn about evolution, a school classroom is the place to be. Creationism can be taught at a christian church. Evolution has withstood scientific scrutiny, creationism has not. Separation of church and state.

Part of the reason that I believe in "the time and place" mantra, is that I recall those days as well. I understand that some children with "a trinket of information" can be really brutal, mean, or whatever term will fit, and that can be harmful to other children. I have seen it. It is difficult. My perspective has changed over time as well. I follow the, "that does not effect me, so its none of my business" position.

Some parents are more restrictive than others, I was perhaps more on the less restrive side, because I felt that exposure and discussion when appropriate would give children the tools to approach a situation when the parents were no longer around. I have seen some questionable (to me) approaches to child raising when my thought would be "that may not turn out well" both sides restrictive and non restrictive perspectives.

Ikr, BACK TO THE CLOSET! Y’all make me uncomfortable… smh. That’s how I feel about religious zealots and right wing fascist white supremacist troglodytes. Maybe we can pass a law driving them back into their holes! Genius!!!

All these third world theocrats on the right would have been a million times better off if they had learned as third graders that people don’t have to fit into their imagined box to be American. You can’t make this up. Hate is like life, it finds a way to thrive.

I’m confused. Are you calling out Woofer or are you just agreeing with Pit? Maybe both?

Born this way means to some as “a choice”.

My dad could string together a more coherent list of profanities any day of the week... LOL, check the space between your ears, it appear to be void of original thought.

A third grader is more capable.

YES

Yet Texas is currently running a bill through it's legislation that would force schools to display the Ten Commandments. I don't think you see what's currently going on in front of your own two eyes.


So you stand up for children going out into our society once they're grown still having to learn that being gay or trans doesn't make them somehow inherently evil or perverted? What is the time and the place? I've shown you how the Florida Department of education is insuring nothing about this can be taught all the way through high school.


So the answer is to just allow a certain portion of parents decide for all parents when the time and place is appropriate?

1. The topic has been Florida. I know about the Texas thing and believe this that is totally inappropriate. See "Prayer in School" culture war in the 1960's.

2. I actually think that this started off as a law that addressed a problem that did not exist to create a culture war issue. From K-3 there should be no formal instruction (lesson plan) on sexual identity with imprecise wording that left it open to interpretation. I can't imagine sexual identity studies showing up in state Department of Education curriculum K-3. Time and place could also mean age appropriate. DeSantis appears to have doubled down and extended that to K-12, which is totally inappropriate.

3. No, this is really on the Florida governor, legislature and/or Florida Department of Education. As you have pointed out there are some weasel words that any outsider to the Florida Department of Education wont know how to interpret. The words being "unless required by existing state standards or as part of reproductive health instruction that students can choose not to take." Imprecise or intentionally vague wording in the law can be a culture war strategy.

Next we’ll see Florida board of educators will be policing and telling home school parents how they can home school their kids and what books they can or can’t read. Pfft.

There should be no discussion or talking about sexual identity until maybe grade 6 at the earliest.

j/c

A good Summary of the situation regarding the calls for boycotts etc.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-65428204

That sounds quite reasonable. Now look at what the state board of education has done and how it was expanded through grade 12.

The thing is, I don't think it is "just" conservatives who feel this way.

The deal is I am not a big boycott person. If I like a product, I will buy it. Transgender stuff is getting close to the trigger but I can't say it is the actual rigger point.

I don't like them and think they are simply freakish people, but to each their own. I have always felt "live and let live". If someone wants to worship satan, good luck to them.

What I don't like is trying to make it seem like things like that are normal and exposing children to such thinking. I grew up in a different time and possibly was sheltered from such things, but I didn't even know what a homo was until maybe the 8th-9th grade.

I don't have a problem with drag shows. I have been to a drag show or two in New Orleans. Have them in a "21" and over place...I guess 18 now, cool, but not public open places where children or people who don't want to see that can be exposed. Some things are meant to be ADULT.

If we go in to a strip club we expect to see naked women...at least the strip clubs I would go to, but if I go in to a Pizza Hut, I expect to see sub-par pizzas and juke box over in the corner, not naked women on a pole.

I don't think people object because it exists, we know that, but more the shoving it in your face. Nobody likes that.

I think you are sort of putting your finger on the problem. You mentioned drag shows and strip clubs as a comparison. Those two things are in no way comparable. A man dressed up as a woman or a woman dressed up as a man is nothing like public nudity. People dressed in drag and drag shows have been going on for decades in public as well as private. So why the sudden backlash? Why has it suddenly a big deal? I'm not quite sure how "sheltered" any of us were from it.



We have seen TV personalities perform in drag on family friendly shows since the 1950's. That's pretty public. And I don't even believe all conservatives feel this way. Some still believe that the freedom of expression, barring nudity, still means something. At least up to this point, even a trump appointed judge. And my guess would be he is a conservative............

Trump-appointed federal judge rejects Tennessee’s anti-drag law as too broad, too vague

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Tennessee’s first-in-the-nation law designed to place strict limits on drag shows is unconstitutional, a federal judge says.

The law is both “unconstitutionally vague and substantially overbroad” and encouraged “discriminatory enforcement,” according to the ruling late Friday by U.S. District Judge Thomas Parker, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump.

“There is no question that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment. But there is a difference between material that is ‘obscene’ in the vernacular, and material that is ‘obscene’ under the law,” Parker said.

“Simply put, no majority of the Supreme Court has held that sexually explicit — but not obscene — speech receives less protection than political, artistic, or scientific speech,” he said.

The law would have banned adult cabaret performances from public property or anywhere minors might be present. Performers who broke the law risked being charged with a misdemeanor or a felony for a repeat offense.

Parker used the example of a female performer wearing an Elvis Presley costume and mimicking the iconic musician who could be at risk of punishment under the drag law because they would be considered a “male impersonator.”

Friends of George’s, a Memphis-based LGBTQ+ theater company, filed a complaint in March, saying the law would negatively impact them because they produce “drag-centric performances, comedy sketches, and plays” with no age restrictions.

“This win represents a triumph over hate,” the theater company said in a statement Saturday, adding that the ruling affirmed their First Amendment rights as artists.

“Similar to the countless battles the LGBTQ+ community has faced over the last several decades, our collective success relies upon everyone speaking out and taking a stand against bigotry,” the group said.

Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson, a Republican who was one of the law’s main sponsors, said he was disappointed with the ruling.

“Sadly, this ruling is a victory for those who support exposing children to sexual entertainment,” Johnson said, adding that he hoped the state’s attorney general will appeal the “perplexing ruling.”

Initially, the complaint listed Republican Gov. Bill Lee, Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti and Shelby County District Attorney General Steven Mulroy as defendants. But the plaintiffs later agreed to dismiss the governor and top legal chief — although Skrmetti continued to represent Mulroy for this case.

A spokesperson for both Skrmetti and Mulroy did not immediately respond Saturday to requests for comment on Parker’s ruling.

Tennessee’s Republican-dominated Legislature advanced the anti-drag law earlier this year, with several GOP members pointing to drag performances in their hometowns as reasons why it was necessary to restrict such performances from taking place in public or where children could view them.

Yet the actual word “drag” doesn’t appear in the statute. Instead lawmakers changed the state’s definition of adult cabaret to mean “adult-oriented performances that are harmful to minors.” Furthermore, “male or female impersonators” were classified as a form of adult cabaret, akin to strippers or topless dancers.

The governor quickly signed off on the statute and it was set to take effect April 1. However, to date, the law has never been enforced because the federal judge had sided with the group that challenged the statute in March, and he temporarily blocked the law.

Parker also cited how the law’s sponsor, Republican state Rep. Chris Todd, had previously helped lead an effort to block a drag show in his district before introducing the drag ban proposal. Todd later confirmed that he hadn’t seen the performance, but nevertheless pursued legal action to stop the show and the event was held indoors with an age restriction.

This incident was among the several reasons to believe that the anti-drag law was “geared towards placing prospective blocks on drag shows — regardless of their potential harm to minors,” Parker wrote.

The drag law marks the second major proposal targeting LGBTQ+ people passed by Tennessee lawmakers this year. Lee signed into law GOP-backed legislation banning most gender-affirming care, which is being challenged in court.

https://www.nbc15.com/2023/06/03/tr...ssees-anti-drag-law-too-broad-too-vague/

You see, I'm not a fan of drag shows. However, if I still had a small child I would much rather explain walking by a drag show than a Klan rally. And as much as it pains me to say this, I still believe in the rights of the Klan being able to hold rallies as well. For me it's an all or nothing proposition.

There are existing laws against public indecency and public nudity. But when you start to go beyond that based on the personal preference of one's moral beliefs it creates a situation where one group is infringing on the rights of others. And that's the point I think we're at as of now.

Let me ask you a serious question; would you want your rights as a human being challenged because somebody you don’t even know is uncomfortable with your sexual preference or lifestyle? I don’t see how your feelings, or anyone else’s feelings have anything to do with their rights, regardless if they are an adult or not. That said, maybe instead of banning books and terrorizing the trans community, we could simply make those books available to kids with parental permission, and unavailable to those who do not have permission. But heck, kids talk and compare notes, so little Johnny (the conservative’s KID) is going to hear about it elsewhere. You’re not going to scrub it from the internet. You’re not going to take the idea of it out of the minds of the community. The only thing being accomplished now is hate, fear mongering. And senseless attacks on already fragile at-risk kids. Anybody who can’t see that those are wrong shouldn’t have a voice in the debate.

Budweiser pandering to bikers after trans bud light commercials. Lol

You didn't ask a serious question.

Who's challenging there rights as a human being? Be specific.