Critics sued the state, saying it violated the First Amendment.
And taxpayer dollars, which Republicans claim to be such responsible stewards of, are being wasted to defend lawsuits like this.
this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2023
888 points (98.1% liked)
politics
19223 readers
3085 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Part of the reason I'm trying to move out of this shithole state. Tired of my money funding these hateful fucks.
I assume republicans in Texas blame critics for forcing Texas to use taxpayer money to fight lawsuits
It's like arguing with a drunk.
This is correct. They actually do care about tax dollars being used to defend lawsuits when they could be used for more conservative things like buying bibles for public schools and funding beauty pageants for tots dressed entirely in ammunition
load more comments
(1 replies)
I mean, yeah. Their supporters see sexual and gender differences as degeneracy that will bring down civilization. Of course they support using tax money that way.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
U.S. District Judge David Hittner found Senate Bill 12 “impermissibly infringes on the First Amendment and chills free speech.” The struck-down law prohibited any performers from dancing suggestively or wearing certain prosthetics in front of children.
“It is not unreasonable to read SB 12 and conclude that activities such as cheerleading, dancing, live theater, and other common public occurrences could possibly become a civil or criminal violation.”
While SB 12 was originally billed as legislation that would prevent children from seeing drag shows, the final version did not directly reference people dressing as the opposite gender.
In Tuesday's 56-page ruling, Hittner noted a survey of court decisions "reveals little divergence from the opinion that drag performances are expressive content that is afforded First Amendment protection."
U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk said that West Texas A&M University President Walter Wendler acted within his authority when he canceled a campus drag show.
"Today’s ruling is a celebration for the LGBTQ community and those who support free expression in the Lone Star State," GLAAD President and Chief Executive Officer Sarah Kate Ellis.
The original article contains 796 words, the summary contains 179 words. Saved 78%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
load more comments
(1 replies)
When you think about it, the cons sure are creepy weirdos - obsessed with things like this so very, very much. Wonder why?
Combination of things:
- Some are just assholes who hate anything they're told to hate.
- Some are self-hating because they're in the closet themselves.
- Some have bought into the "groomer" lies.
- And some are child molesters who've figured out that if they can get everyone in the first three groups to focus on drag queens, it takes the heat off.
It's a bit tiring that every single infringement on people's rights to exist has to be combatted via 1A because the only thing that trumps dAsTaRdLy BeHaViOr In FrOnT oF cHiLdReN is free speech.
Is that literally the only framework US law sees? Can't it be illegal for lawmakers to force their views on people because they're hateful bigots?
Can’t it be illegal for lawmakers to force their views on people because they’re hateful bigots?
Of course not, because that would violate their 1A rights to be hateful bigots.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›