All Things LGBTQ+ (6 Viewers)

[Farb]

Didn't really see a place for this so I thought I would start a thread about all things LGBTQ since this is a pretty hot topic in our culture right now

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/sup...y-that-refuses-to-work-with-lgbt-couples.html

• The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a unanimous defeat to LGBT couples in a high-profile case over whether Philadelphia could refuse to contract with a Roman Catholic adoption agency that says its religious beliefs prevent it from working with same-sex foster parents.
• Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an opinion for a majority of the court that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment by refusing to contract with Catholic Social Services once it learned that the organization would not certify same-sex couples for adoption.

I will admit, I was hopeful for this decision by the SCOTUS but I was surprised by the unanimous decision.

While I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with same sex couples adopting and raising children (I actually think it is a good thing as it not an abortion) but I also did not want to see the state force a religious institution to bend to a societal norm.

 

[SaintForLife]

Do you think any teacher who has that book in their classroom is a “groomer”?

Do you think the teacher is lying? Because the book “at one time” appeared on a suggested list for a different school?

look, you can be part of this McCarthy-ism if you want, but you can never be considered a libertarian again. This is exactly like the McCarthy witch hunts, and the childcare Satan panic. How many lives were ruined because of those? This is just a way to demonize people and ruin their lives. Moms For Liberty is an evil organization.

You guys were acting like that book wasn't at the school or that is was made up. I showed it was. Do you think that's an appropriate book to have at a school?

McCarthyism? It's ironic that you would use that term when many here and on the left accuse Russia/Putin of everything imaginable.

 

[MT15]

You guys were acting like that book wasn't at the school or that is was made up. I showed it was. Do you think that's an appropriate book to have at a school?

McCarthyism? It's ironic that you would use that term when many here and on the left accuse Russia/Putin of everything imaginable.

Show me where I acted like the book wasn’t at the school, or anyone else for that matter. I trust the teacher to know what’s appropriate a hell of a lot more than some wild-eyed fanatic who belongs to a turfed organization like Moms for Liberty.

Yes, it’s exactly McCarthyism. Exactly. And it has nothing to do with being leery of a hostile foreign power who wants to destroy this country. Your whataboutism game is weak here, lol.

And you answered zero of my questions to you, as per usual.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Lately, drag has been dragged through the mud.

The art form has been cast in a false light in recent months by right-wing activists and politicians who complain about the “sexualization” or “grooming” of children.

Opponents often coordinate protests at drag events that feature or cater to children, sometimes showing up with guns.

Some politicians have proposed banning children from drag events and even criminally charging parents who take their kids to one.

Performers and organizers of events, such as story hoursin which colorfully clad drag queens read books to children, say the protesters are the ones terrorizing and harming children and making them political pawns — just as they’ve done in other campaigns around bathroom access and educational materials.

The recent headlines about disruptions of drag events and their portrayal as sexual and harmful to children can obscure the art form and its rich history.


WHAT IS DRAG?

Drag is the art of dressing and acting exaggeratedly as another gender, usually for entertainment such as comedy, singing, dancing, lip-syncing or all of the above.

Drag may trace its roots to the age of William Shakespeare, when female roles were performed by men.

The origin of the term is debated, but one possibility is that it was coined after someone noticed the dresses or petticoats that male actors wore onstage would drag along the floor.

Another casts it as an acronym — an unproven notion that notes in scripts would use “DRAG” to indicate the actor should “dress as a girl.”……

EXPLAINER: Drag queens and how they got pulled into politics

Lately, drag has been dragged through the mud. The art form has been cast in a false light in recent months by right-wing activists and politicians who complain about the “sexualization” or “grooming” of children.

apnews.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

Brenda Lawson tried to reconcile her Christian faith with the “rainbow” heart on Kroger’s new uniform by covering it with her employee name tag.

Co-worker Trudy Rickerd offered to buy her own apron, one that didn’t have the logo.
Their managers at the Conway, Ark., store repeatedly told them the logo wasn’t related to LGBTQ rights and disciplined both employees in 2019 for violating the supermarket’s dress code.

But when Lawson and Rickerd continued refusing to display a symbol they equated with the Pride flag, they were fired.


More than three years later, Kroger agreed last week to pay $180,000 to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of Lawson and Rickerd.

The supermarket chain also agreed to create a religious accommodation policy and to give managers more intense religious discrimination training.


David Hogue, the attorney representing Lawson and Rickerd, told The Washington Post that “this lawsuit is not about casting aspersions or judgments” on those in the LGBTQ community but asserting his clients’ “rights not to be compelled into adopting or approving of any certain lifestyle.”


Neither the EEOC nor Kroger immediately responded to a request for comment from The Post.

The case stems from events that happened in April 2019 when Kroger changed its dress code, requiring employees to wear a newly designed apron with “a rainbow heart embroidered on the top left portion of the bib,” according to the EEOC’s lawsuit.

Both women, who said they believe in literal interpretations of the Bible and that “homosexuality is a sin,” presumed the new logo represented support for and endorsement of the LGBTQ community, the suit states.

“Although Lawson personally holds no animosity toward the individuals who comprise the LGBTQ community, the practices of that community violate her sincerely held religious belief,” the lawsuit states.

“Lawson believed wearing the logo showed her advocacy of the community, which she could not do.”


In court documents, the chain said the multicolored heart represented the supermarket’s new “Kroger’s Promise” marketing campaign.

The four colors of the heart — blue, yellow, red and light blue — represented the chain’s promises to give customers friendly and caring service, to provide them with fresh goods, to uplift in every way and to improve every day, the company said.


Kroger described the heart as a “non-religious Promise branding symbol.”

“Notably, the symbol is not a rainbow and only encompasses four colors,” the company said in its response to the EEOC’s allegations……..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/10/31/kroger-lawsuit-discrimination-lgbtq-rainbow/

 

[MT15]

Okay, I was with those women until I read that it wasn’t really a rainbow and consisted of 4 colors. Now I think that was ridiculous. Maybe they shouldn’t have been fired over it, but they were being very stupidly anti-LBGTQ. I think Kroger was within their rights to have let them go.

 

[RobF]

Okay, I was with those women until I read that it wasn’t really a rainbow and consisted of 4 colors. Now I think that was ridiculous. Maybe they shouldn’t have been fired over it, but they were being very stupidly anti-LBGTQ. I think Kroger was within their rights to have let them go.

Yeah, that's not a rainbow.

Even if it was a rainbow, to Christians that is, I thought, a sign of the "everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth."

So, "I can't wear a rainbow, I'm a Christian," strikes me as a non-starter in general.

Seems it'd have to be an explicitly LGBTQ-supporting rainbow to even get to the whole, "I'm a Christian, so I can't tolerate support being shown on my work uniform to that particular minority of other human beings," argument.

But it's not a rainbow. Nor does it look anything like the pride flag.

I'm guessing this is a "cheaper to settle it than to keep fighting it," type settlement.

 

[bird]

One wonders how the Kroger case squares with at will employment. The religionists want special rights apparently. Seems that I recall RWers bleating gays wanted special rights. The Kroger symbol was not a gay pride symbol as the two do not look alike. Imo, if they were offered aprons that did not have the symbol on them and they refused then Kroger was completely within their rights under the concept of at will employment to fire them. Yes, I can see the concept of settling to avoid the cost. That being said I would love to see a case like this go to trial. Imo, Kroger acted within their rights and also tried to mollify the women.

 

[bird]

That it will never happen -- and I know it won't -- just means this country will eventually crumble. As far as religious judges, there are those who are religious and there are those whose religion is their sole driving force that subsumes anything and everything else... including their takes on the Constitution that are purportedly based on Originalism.

On a tangential note, originalism is utter bullschlitz.

 

[bird]

You guys were acting like that book wasn't at the school or that is was made up. I showed it was. Do you think that's an appropriate book to have at a school?

McCarthyism? It's ironic that you would use that term when many here and on the left accuse Russia/Putin of everything imaginable.

Riiiiggghht. Putin is just a good ole boy. You want to be buddies with Putin, be my guest. You want his style of authoritarianism in this country, well, that ain’t gonna fly.

 

[MT15]

You guys were acting like that book wasn't at the school or that is was made up. I showed it was. Do you think that's an appropriate book to have at a school?

McCarthyism? It's ironic that you would use that term when many here and on the left accuse Russia/Putin of everything imaginable.

Further info about Moms for Liberty. The March Trilogy is a set of graphic novels co-authored by John Lewis about the struggle to obtain civil rights for black people in this country. These books are being banned across the country, an effort led by Moms for Liberty. Why would they not want children to learn about the civil rights movement? A question they should have to answer.

 

[bird]

Re: the woman not holding animosity against the LGBTQ community

That is bullschlitz. much like non-denial denials or non-apology apologies she was attempting to engage in repairing her reputation while acting in the opposite manner.

 

[RobF]

One wonders how the Kroger case squares with at will employment. The religionists want special rights apparently. Seems that I recall RWers bleating gays wanted special rights. The Kroger syMobley was not a gay pride symbol as the two do not look alike. Imo, if they were offered aprons that did not have the symbol on them and they refused then Kroger was completely within their rights under the concept of at will employment to fire them. Yes, I can see the concept of settling to avoid the cost. That being said I would love to see a case like this go to trial. Imo, Kroger acted within the rights and also tried to mollify the women.

I don't think they were offered aprons that didn't have the heart on them. The article says they requested exemptions to the uniform and weren't granted them.

But I'd still think Kroger were completely within their rights. Requiring employees to comply with a reasonable dress code involving an item with a company symbol is a pretty basic requirement, no?

Thinking about this some more, I'd say this (the case, and it being resolved in a settlement) is a pretty insidious situation. Because what we appear to have here is two people refusing to wear an apron, that's part of their job's dress code, not even on the grounds that a heart on the apron actually was associated with the LGBTQ community, but simply on the grounds that they, personally, thought it might be. And then being fired for repeatedly refusing to comply with the dress code. And then successfully (in as much as a settlement is success) suing for it.

The principle that someone can, on a religious basis, refuse to comply with otherwise reasonable aspects of their job, on the grounds that it involves supporting LGBTQ people, even in the most passive, symbolic, way, is, in my opinion, pretty dubious to start off with.

But the impression that could be given here is that supporting LGBTQ people is so very contentious that someone could refuse to comply with otherwise reasonable aspects of their job if they even think it involves something that looks vaguely like it might be associated with supporting LGBTQ people.

Like I said, I don't think that's the reality, I think that it's most likely a financial choice in settling. But that doesn't mean that's the perception that settling creates. And what does that perception say about LGBTQ people and support for them? It's not good, is it?

 

[bird]

I don't think they were offered aprons that didn't have the heart on them. The article says they requested exemptions to the uniform and weren't granted them.

But I'd still think Kroger were completely within their rights. Requiring employees to comply with a reasonable dress code involving an item with a company symbol is a pretty basic requirement, no?

Thinking about this some more, I'd say this (the case, and it being resolved in a settlement) is a pretty insidious situation. Because what we appear to have here is two people refusing to wear an apron, that's part of their job's dress code, not even on the grounds that a heart on the apron actually was associated with the LGBTQ community, but simply on the grounds that they, personally, thought it might be. And then being fired for repeatedly refusing to comply with the dress code. And then successfully (in as much as a settlement is success) suing for it.

The principle that someone can, on a religious basis, refuse to comply with otherwise reasonable aspects of their job, on the grounds that it involves supporting LGBTQ people, even in the most passive, symbolic, way, is, in my opinion, pretty dubious to start off with.

But the impression that could be given here is that supporting LGBTQ people is so very contentious that someone could refuse to comply with otherwise reasonable aspects of their job if they even think it involves something that looks vaguely like it might be associated with supporting LGBTQ people.

Like I said, I don't think that's the reality, I think that it's most likely a financial choice in settling. But that doesn't mean that's the perception that settling creates. And what does that perception say about LGBTQ people and support for them? It's not good, is it?

Ah, I misread about the aprons with no symbol. My mistake.

Beyond that, I agree completely.

I will say one thing though. The religionists claim that they want God “back” in the public square or schools or whatever. They actually do not want God back in the public square. Such an idea is ridiculous based upon the entire concept of “God” as being omnipresent. No, they want their religion enshrined as law but not really in the public square. Being in the public square would open it to discussion of dogma. THAT they most certainly do not want.

 

[Optimus Prime]

On Election Day in 2016, Henry Seaton, a transgender man who was then 18, showed up to his local polling place in a suburb of Nashville, Tennessee, to vote for the first time.

Seaton showed his state ID. But the poll worker gave him a confused look and called over another poll worker to look at Seaton’s identification.

Then, in front of the Nazarene church where he was supposed to vote, the poll workers asked him about what they saw as a discrepancy between his ID and his appearance.

“I had to out myself as transgender,” said Seaton, now 24. He had legally changed his name at the time, but the gender marker on his Tennessee ID still said “female.”

That outing, he said, “can be brutally dangerous, especially where I was living, which is a conservative suburb.”

“It’s not just embarrassing, but it’s terrifying to have to do that — to try to read the room and see, like, are they going to kick me out? It can be really dehumanizing to have your whole identity nitpicked just so that you can cast your ballot and have your voice be heard,” added Seaton, a transgender justice advocate for the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee.

With early voting for next week’s election underway in many states, Seaton is unlikely to be alone in his experience. While trans people may face barriers to voting in dozens of states, Tennessee is one of eight where they could face particularly challenging obstacles at the polls this month because of both strict voter ID laws and a simmering culture war, in which transgender people have been thrust to the forefront. This year alone, more than 160 state bills to restrict trans rights have been proposed across the country, according to the ACLU.

“People who might be inclined to harass marginalized voters at the polls are more aware of trans people’s existence,” said Olivia Hunt, the policy director at the National Center for Transgender Equality. “So I expect that we’re going to hear more stories of trans people being harassed, whether by voters, poll workers, poll monitors or other folks who are present during the election.”...............

Over 200,000 trans people could face voting restrictions because of state ID laws

 

[SaintForLife]

Further info about Moms for Liberty. The March Trilogy is a set of graphic novels co-authored by John Lewis about the struggle to obtain civil rights for black people in this country. These books are being banned across the country, an effort led by Moms for Liberty. Why would they not want children to learn about the civil rights movement? A question they should have to answer.

It's quite obvious why you are focusing on the Moms of Liberty. You would rather talk about them instead of inappropriate book at the school with sexual content.

 

[Farb]

"OKAY, GROOMER" is the new "OKAY, BOOMER" -- mindlessly spammed by the right its lost any significance. I'm pretty sure I understood the concept of gay people when I was in 7th grade. Can't say it persuaded me to be anything other than a heterosexual because I like woman and it is what it is. I'm not sure why people think reading a book is going to rewire a kid's sexuality.

Edited to add: Lol @ the irony of the group name "Moms for Liberty."

Then I am sure you will admit the same about 'racist', fascist and nazi as well, since you are intelligently honest and all.

Can you think of a book that should not be in an elementary library? What about this:

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Then I am sure you will admit the same about 'racist', fascist and nazi as well, since you are intelligently honest and all.

Can you think of a book that should not be in an elementary library? What about this:

Which elementary school library carries that book? It's aimed at high school teens.

 

[Farb]

Which elementary school library carries that book? It's aimed at high school teens.

Not many thank God, parents are waking up and pulling it out of schools. Sorry, it got found out and the backlash is overwhelming for you tribe.