Jump to content
Jordan Washington chats with Bobby for Burnt Ends ×

LBGTQ

Mo Horn

By Mo Horn
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

troph
troph

Colorado making a hard sell for us. Not sure the NIL package they’ll offer but the official visit was off the charts.        

troph
troph

36 years ago I was 11. One fall afternoon walking home from school, I took a slight detour and found myself standing under a bridge smoking a cigarette I stole from my neighbors parents. It was a Bens

Pancho
Pancho

Welp, if you see a viral video going around of a Black guy in a "Hook 'Em Horns" Nike t-shirt yelling at the radical conservative protestors at the Art Institute of Chicago today who were "protesting"

Posted Images

Willfully Horn

Willfully Horn 7820

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Is that directed to me? I wasn't quoted in that post, and fwiw I think that I have addressed the substantive points in that post previously. The exchange with tropheus has become largely recursive, and just keeps devolving into her telling me that my motivation is to have her exterminated or other such nonsense.

He just wants the trains to run on time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
troph

troph 23963

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, MissingInAction said:

 

 

I dunno man these probably belong in the pastors want to diddle kids thread not the gay queer and trans thread. Honestly they fucking piss me off and I don’t go in that thread for a reason. Anyone with half a brain knows we aren’t the problem. 
 

edit: I get why you put it here - every accusation is a confession, etc.

Edited by troph
  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
troph

troph 23963

Posted
Posted
On 9/20/2023 at 9:45 AM, Brisketexan said:

Trust me.  In this life, when pondering all of the truly great questions, it all comes back to gravy.

Been a long time since is surprised googled something. I dunno why I thought this was funny, but “gays and gravy” did pull up some interesting ones but this one … who the fuck asks a question like this? 
 

 

IMG_3263.jpeg

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
safe sex

safe sex 11545

Posted
Posted

Dickhead Declares War on Drag

Quote

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk is a proud Christian nationalist who flatly refuses to apply binding Supreme Court precedent when it conflicts with his extremist far-right beliefs. It is therefore no surprise that Kacsmaryk, a Donald Trump appointee, handed down a decision on Thursday refusing to protect Texas college students’ right to host a drag show. In a break with other (conservative) courts, Kacsmaryk found that drag is likely not protected expression under the First Amendment, but rather “vulgar and lewd” “sexualized conduct” that may be outlawed to protect “the sexual exploitation and abuse of children.” In short, he concluded that drag fails to convey a message, while explaining all the reasons why he’s offended by the message it conveys.


From almost any other judge, the ruling in Spectrum WT v. Wendler would be a shocking rejection of basic free speech principles; from Kacsmaryk, it’s par for the course. This is, after all, the judge who sought to ban medication abortion nationwide, restricted minors’ access to birth control, seize control over border policy to exclude asylum-seekers, and flouted recent precedent protecting LGBTQ+ equality. He is also poised to bankrupt Planned Parenthood by compelling them to pay a $1.8 billion penalty on truly ludicrous grounds. And he is not the only Trump-appointed judge substituting his reactionary beliefs for legal analysis. We have reached a point where these lawless decisions are not only predictable but inevitable, and they show no sign of stopping: Their authors are still just settling into a decadeslong service in the federal judiciary.

The controversy in Spectrum WT v. Wendler began last spring when Spectrum, an LGBTQ+ student group, planned a drag show on campus at West Texas A&M University. They arranged the event to raise money for the Trevor Project, which combats LGBTQ+ youth suicide. The school’s president, Walter Wendler, promptly banned the show, decrying drag as “derisive, divisive and demoralizing misogyny.” He compared it to “blackface” and said it constitutes discrimination and harassment against “womanhood.” In light of Wendler’s ban, Spectrum held the show off campus but filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction protecting their right to hold a future drag show at the school. It should have been a slam-dunk case: Judges in Florida, Montana, Tennessee, and Utah—who range from moderate to very conservative—have recently blocked drag bans on First Amendment grounds. The Supreme Court has long prohibited restrictions on “expressive conduct,” including not only live performances but also actions like flag burning; it applies especially stringent scrutiny to any regulation that targets expression because of its content and viewpoint.

As Judge Thomas Parker, a Trump appointee, noted when enjoining Tennessee’s drag ban, these laws expressly discriminate against performers “who wish to impersonate a gender that is different from the one with which they are born.” A drag queen or king conveys the message that gender identity is artificial or fluid—an arbitrary bundle of stereotypical traits that calls out for subversion. These performers reject strict adherence to sex assigned at birth, mocking the very existence of a gender binary. Laws that forbid such performances target expression because of its content (subversive mockery of gender expression) and viewpoint (a critique of gender stereotypes). So they cannot possibly survive First Amendment scrutiny.

But the case landed in Kacsmaryk’s court, and he saw things differently. Before joining the bench, the judge worked as an anti-abortion activist and served at the hard-right First Liberty Institute, which opposes abortion, In vitro fertilization, contraception, LGBTQ+ equality, and other supposed products of the “sexual revolution.” Kacsmaryk has brought that same energy to the bench, and this decision is no exception. He began by dismissing the legitimacy of the Supreme Court’s modern free speech jurisprudence, writing that courts should instead deploy a “historical analysis. “Specifically, Kacsmaryk invoked the Comstock Act of 1873, a notorious law that enabled mass censorship of publications that questioned Puritanical views of sex and gender relations, including early feminist literature. (The law also banned the mailing of contraception and abortion-related medications, which Kacsmaryk cited as justification to prohibit abortion pills.) He then criticized SCOTUS for departing from the Comstock Act’s censorious approach to free speech, citing a book by arch-conservative the Rev. Carl Trueman that blamed today’s free speech doctrine for the mass “sexualization” of culture.

With this prelude, Kacsmaryk effectively announced that he would not apply binding precedent, which explains why the remainder of the opinion bears little resemblance to a judicial ruling. It is, rather, a broadside against drag, which the judge pilloried as inherently “vulgar,” “offensive,” and “harmful to minors.” He endorsed Wendler’s claim that a drag show could somehow constitute unlawful discrimination and harassment against female students, in the same way that blackface could constitute discrimination against Black people.

Kacsmaryk also gestured toward precedents allowing censorship of “indecent” speech at high schools. But he failed to acknowledge that legal adults on a college campus have far greater First Amendment rights than minors. (The right to host objectionable speech on campus actually flows from a victory won by the conservative legal movement.) Nor did he accept the fact that Spectrum’s planned “PG-13” performance falls far short of indecency. Instead, he complained repeatedly about “biological men ‘performing’ while dressed in attire stereotypically associated with women,” which he denounced as inherently offensive and arguably obscene.

To support this last proposition, Kacsmaryk favorably cited Gays Against Groomers, quoting its claim that drag shows involve “the sexualization and indoctrination of children.” A hate group that stokes violence and fury, Gays Against Groomers endorses the malicious falsehood that transgender people and drag queens seek to “groom,” “sexualize,” and “recruit” children. It also supports gag laws that force LGBTQ+ teachers to remain closeted at school. In addition, Kacsmaryk cited an article by right-wing agitator Christopher Rufo alleging that drag promotes “perversions” that were “born in the sex dungeons of San Francisco” and now seek to corrupt children.

Finally, Kacsmaryk questioned whether drag even qualifies as “expressive conduct” deserving of First Amendment protection. Drag shows, he wrote, do not “obviously convey or communicate a discernable, protectable message.” Even if they did, a ban on drag would not discriminate on the basis of content or viewpoint, because it does not target “the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker.” It only targets “offensive” and “lewd” conduct with no expressive value. So Spectrum is not entitled to an injunction and cannot even sue Wendler, because they likely have no First Amendment claim at all.

Here lies the ultimate irony of the opinion: The judge all but admits that he finds the ideas behind drag to be insulting, and endorses efforts to stamp out those ideas through censorship. He is aggrieved by the meaning of the performance and the views that it communicates about gender and sexuality. Put simply, Kacsmaryk is disgusted by drag shows. But the Supreme Court has declared that “disgust is not a valid basis for restricting expression.”

What now? Spectrum will probably appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the ultra-far-right court where law goes to die, whose conservative ideologues will presumably affirm Kacsmaryk. With a sharp split between courts in different states, SCOTUS will have to step in. And it is hard to see a majority of justices siding with the censors here. Despite the court’s swift shift to the right, most justices still profess a belief that arguably offensive speech remains constitutionally protected, even in an education setting. Justice Brett Kavanaugh may not want his daughters attending a drag show, but he is smart enough to understand that Kacsmaryk’s reasoning would grant the government sweeping power to suppress ideas it doesn’t like—a power that blue states could wield against conservatives.

This term is shaping up to be one in which SCOTUS must clean up the mess made by extremist judges like Kacsmaryk. What may be dispiriting is the reality that, no matter how many times these judges get reversed, they will hold their jobs for decades to come. We may spend the rest of our lives watching the Constitution get trashed by robed fundamentalists out to settle scores.

 

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
YGIFS

YGIFS 19444

Posted
Posted

so what you say whilst wearing a wig, tights, and rouge on your cheeks is no longer politically protected?  This makes the Constitutional Convention even more rebellious in hindsight.  

 

(and for safe sex, I finally figured out to add an avatar)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29472

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, safe sex said:

Kacsmaryk found that drag is likely not protected expression under the First Amendment, but rather “vulgar and lewd” “sexualized conduct” that may be outlawed to protect “the sexual exploitation and abuse of children.” In short, he concluded that drag fails to convey a message, while explaining all the reasons why he’s offended by the message it conveys.

So what if they change it to a fashion show? Or can a fashion show with models wearing revealing clothes be deemed vulgar, lewd, and sexualized conduct?

Why would this even be a free speech issue? It's about clothing preference and having fun with it. 

Lastly, where the fuck does he get sex exploitation and abuse of children? (I know the answer is the hate engine.)

If I, a layperson, can disect this on a first reading, just how utterly and malignly stupid is this judge? Who got him Trump's appointment knowing this man was as he has displayed?

I knew they were installing "conservative" judges who were ideologues, but I really wouldn't have guessed this kind of degeneracy would make the cut. Again, the right has surprised me with just how low they can go. 

If a judge can declare a drag show a horrific threat to, gasp, our children thus making drag queens a criminal class, wtf is next?

Maybe this is just a display of my own naivete. Or maybe this just makes this part of the shit pie less abstract. State legislatures and degenerate governors pass crazy laws to crack down on harmless people or activities. Okay, the courts will bring this under control. Then you have this fellow green-lighting it from the bench.

Sorry this is so long. I just see such dire implications from this story. Best wishes to gays and trans in the gunsight. Let me know what I can do to aid the resistance.

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
aggie08

aggie08 20213

Posted
Posted

What in the absolute fuck? I was just watching random YouTube videos, and a 3 minute ad from the Epoch fucking Times popped up blaming corporations and social media for making kids trans, overriding their parents' well-meaning guidance.

Disappointing that anyone except for Elon is taking Epoch Times' money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 88751

Posted
Posted

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/16/politics/supreme-court-rules-against-florida-anti-drag-law/index.html
 

Quote

The Florida law that limits drag shows in the state will remain blocked, the Supreme Court said Thursday, dealing a blow to a key initiative championed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis.

Florida had asked the high court to narrow a lower court’s injunction that stopped the law from being enforced statewide. The justices declined to do so.

Quote

Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said they would have allowed the law to take effect.

In a brief statement agreeing with the court’s decision, Justices Brett Kavanaugh, joined in part by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, addressed the First Amendment complexities of the case and said the case was an “imperfect vehicle” for deciding some of the questions at the center of the dispute.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satchel

Satchel 6889

Posted
Posted

Maybe this should go here:

I’m confused. Regarding homosexuality, is Murfreesboro banning the noun or the verb? What if one’s hair or dress looks homosexual?

https://newrepublic.com/post/176915/tennessee-town-ban-public-homosexuality

A city in Tennessee is using a recently passed ordinance essentially prohibiting homosexuality in public to try to ban library books that might violate the new rules.

Murfreesboro passed an ordinance in June banning “indecent behavior,” including “indecent exposure, public indecency, lewd behavior, nudity or sexual conduct.” As journalist Erin Reed first reported, this ordinance specifically mentions Section 21-72 of the city code. The city code states that sexual conduct includes homosexuality

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pods

Pods 7426

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said they would have allowed the law to take effect.

Rampantly banning behavior and speech they don't like to go with the Speaker of the House saying the separation of church and state is a misnomer. 

We all know that they are full of shit when they claim to be the party of small government and the Constitution, but still, I appreciate them constantly reminding us. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 88751

Posted
Posted

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231117-russia-moves-to-ban-international-lgbt-movement-for-extremism

Quote

Russia's justice ministry said it had "lodged an administrative legal claim with the Supreme Court to recognise the International LGBT public movement as extremist and ban its activity in Russia."

The ministry did not specify whether it was seeking the closure of any specific groups or organisations, or if the designation would apply more broadly to the LGBTQ community, causes and individuals. The proposed ban is the latest in a long-standing crackdown against LGBTQ people in Russia, which has escalated since Russia launched its offensive on Ukraine last February.

Quote

Russia has used the extremist label against swathes of rights organisations and opposition groups, opening up their members to criminal prosecution.

The justice ministry accused the "LGBT movement operating on the territory of the Russian Federation" of "various signs and manifestations of extremism, including incitement to social and religious hatred".

Sounds familiar.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
YGIFS

YGIFS 19444

Posted
Posted

That delivery is incredibly powerful.  The stats are obviously disturbing as fuck, but the delivery is what brings it home.

90% of the child molesters in this country have used the same hand to touch your children's genitals as they did to shake your hand upon being welcomed into your home.  That's how it happens, they come as your friend because you would never open your door to anyone but.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pacman

pacman 7213

Posted
Posted

Agree, which makes the obvious misdirection by the far right all the more dangerous. A little slight of hand parlor trick, by the true pedophiles, to place all the attention on a non-issue. Meanwhile, they spread their destruction right under everyone's noses as they continually violate their positions of trust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
'stache

'stache 21491

Posted
Posted (edited)

Read the article. It's not really a "blessing" just words that sound like a blessing with numerous limitations. Basically a "bless your sinful little hearts" from a priest. A fancier way of saying "love the sinner hate the sin." The church still considers people who are attracting to consenting adults of their own gender as "disordered," sinful, and hell bound.  Fuck all of it.

Edited by 'stache
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
troph

troph 23963

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, 'stache said:

Read the article. It's not really a "blessing" just words that sound like a blessing with numerous limitations. Basically a "bless your sinful little hearts" from a priest. A fancier way of saying "love the sinner hate the sin." The church still considers people who are attracting to consenting adults of their own gender as "disordered," sinful, and hell bound.  Fuck all of it.

Yeah, those remaining loyal to their faith will be upset but appreciate the incrementalism, for me it’s totally offensive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28574

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, 'stache said:

Read the article. It's not really a "blessing" just words that sound like a blessing with numerous limitations. Basically a "bless your sinful little hearts" from a priest. A fancier way of saying "love the sinner hate the sin." The church still considers people who are attracting to consenting adults of their own gender as "disordered," sinful, and hell bound.  Fuck all of it.

If it’s okay for a priest to bless them then it should be okay for a baker to bake them a cake, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...