The federal judge, who cited Dolly Parton in his ruling, found that the state law violated the First Amendment.

  • Ravenheart@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Republicans scream “freedom” louder than anyone, but they prove consistently that it’s just a slogan to them. Texas has outlawed gambling, marijuana, reproductive healthcare, gay marriage, and effectively outlawed porn. And they’re all up in the business of trans and gay folks. And they shove their religion down your throat every chance they get. I don’t think they understand the meaning of freedom.

  • MehBlah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    How can you expect these bigots to stay away? What kind of solution is that? Won’t someone think of hate and intolerance for once.

    /s

  • inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    In his ruling, Hittner mentioned Dolly Parton, whose death was announced Tuesday, and criticized the law’s definition of banning performances that “[appeal] to the prurient interest,” citing people who would chastise Parton “as a voluptuous sex symbol because of her big hair, flamboyant clothes and breast exposure.”

    “There are ‘erotic’ elements in countless popular performances that could be subject to both civil and criminal penalties under S.B. 12,” he wrote.

    One of the plaintiffs in the case, a drag queen who performs under the name Brigitte Bandit, impersonates Parton in her performances. Bandit celebrated the ruling on social media Tuesday, posting a screenshot of the decision and captioning it, “Drag is free speech, bitch.” She announced she would also perform as Parton, who gave her a rhinestone guitar as a gift in 2023, at an Austin bar Saturday in her honor.

    Even from the grave, Dolly is making the world a better place.

    • SlurpingPus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      There are ‘erotic’ elements in countless popular performances

      Both the US and UK armies set up drag shows with their soldiers during WW2.

    • OwOarchist@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      “There are ‘erotic’ elements in countless popular performances that could be subject to both civil and criminal penalties under S.B. 12,” he wrote.

      Yeah, lol. That’s the real heart of the matter. If you’re going to ban such public performances, then you need to ban ALL public performances that have even the slightest hint of it. And good luck with that.

      • Seleni@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Since that is precisely their end goal, I would rather not wish them good luck with it.

      • ZeroCool@piefed.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Right? If you aren’t interested in a gay marriage it’s incredibly easy to avoid entering into one. I’ve managed to go my entire life without being gay-married. Heck, I’m not gay-married right now! Yet despite what Fox News tells conservatives, there’s no gay mafia threatening or intimidating me for it.

        • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Tbh it was kinda a pain in the ass for me to get gay married. There was paperwork and everything! I had to leave work early to go to a government office. Not doing it really is the easier option

        • Null User Object@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          You have no idea how lucky you are. I was just going to the hardware store the other day and very nearly fell head long into a rogue gay marriage.

      • AgentSeven@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        But being absolutely against murder doesn’t end up with other people being murdered, so it’s a terrible analogy that they are just allowed to get away with. If you stop doctors from “murdering” babies, then mothers die as a result, full stop. They don’t even argue that point, they just don’t care, so arguably, they’re no better than the murderer in their own stupid analogy.

        All of this is a religious refusal to admit that biology is a nasty, difficult and ugly business and not the perfect product of their all-loving God, and it’s just plain stupid.

      • Bubbaonthebeach@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Almost every person I know who thinks abortion is morally wrong also supports the death penalty and war for almost any reason and police violence. They only seem to care about unborn fetuses that are not ‘alive’ independently from the body they inhabit. And most think that the mother’s life is fine as a fetus’ collateral damage. Therefore I don’t for a minute believe that many of those who profess to morally care about life/murder, really care about either.

        • RBWells@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          I do know Catholics who are anti-abortion, anti-death penalty and anti-euthanasia; they strongly believe God should decide the beginning and end of anyone’s life.

          Not saying they are right but they are consistent.

          I’m anti-abortion for myself, never had one never thought it was an ok thing. But I don’t think laws should apply at all - the existing woman always matters more than the as yet unborn and I’ve met exactly one person ever who used abortion freely and as her birth control and she was crazy. It’s such an edge case law is not the right answer.

          So in short I agree with if you don’t think it’s right don’t do it. Don’t try to control other people who aren’t harming you. You don’t walk in anyone else’s shoes, you don’t know their pain. If your friend is having an abortion when she wants the baby, but can’t figure out how to manage tell her how you can HELP her, don’t judge her.

          • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            As an ex catholic, those ones are few and far between, and not in the better way. Opposition to capital punishment is something a lot of American Catholics hold as a “yeah the church says we’re supposed to believe it” much like opposition to premarital sex

          • village604@adultswim.fan
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            But the Bible is pro-choice. It says in multiple places that life begins at first breath, and has a ritual to force your wife to miscarry and lose her uterus if she cheated on you.

            • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              Yeah, back when I was catholic that first breath bit is how I defended my support for abortion rights. Well that and the whole “look at the consequences of not allowing it” thing

            • SalmiakDragon@feddit.nu
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              a ritual to force your wife to miscarry and lose her uterus if she cheated on you

              Wild stuff. The Catholic version has the womb “dropping” ( = lose uterus? )

      • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        And the reply to every single one of those people is, “If you think abortion is wrong BECAUSE it is murder, then what are your feelings on the death penalty or war?”

        • 5318008@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Because I would like you to be successful in debating this issue, I need to inform you:

          That’s not a very good response. It will convince literally no one. It won’t be convincing to the person you’re debating. It won’t be convincing to people who are observing the argument. It changes absolutely nothing.

          The only effective replies are the ones that force people to think deeply:

          • What makes this wrong, specifically?

          and then, ask them to explain even more deeply every time they respond. e.g., “killing an innocent person is wrong.”

          • What makes something innocent? What makes something a person?

          If you can get them to at least admit that it’s a gray area, you’ve won.

        • FishFace@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          It’s not the gotcha you think it is. Murder is defined as the intentional killing of an innocent person, and the death penalty and war don’t don’t intentionally involve innocent people.

          It’d be like saying “oh, you oppose murder? What about self defence???”

          • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            Murder is not defined as the intentional killing of an innocent person, by either Merriam Webster, Wikipedia, American Heritage Dictionary, or Dictionary.com

            Not one definition anywhere has the word “innocent” in it.

            It is defined in one place as “The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.” How we define “justification” is important. I would call most war, “recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.”

            Other places has it as “unlawful or unjustified killing of a person.”

          • SlurpingPus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Death penalty is usually opposed because the person might be innocent. Just the ‘Don’t Talk to the Police’ clip cites two different cases where policemen talked mentally ill people into incriminating themselves, which people were later exonerated by DNA evidence.

            • FishFace@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              It’s a good reason to oppose the death penalty, but I don’t think it makes it murder at all.

              • SlurpingPus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                Murder is defined as the intentional killing of an innocent person

                You just said above that it is murder.

            • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              Yeah, but it’s not the reason Catholics and other Christians are supposed to oppose it. It’s unnecessary killing, regardless of guilt. In defensive war it’s one thing to kill, but a person you can stop from killing anyone? You’re supposed to keep them in prison and try to help them change

      • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        It’s almost like there is a difference between an object that has only one purpose and a show that has many purposes, none of which involve killing people. I’m not saying we should ban guns, but your analogy is stupid.

  • danc4498@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Having been to a drag show, it’s really no different than a fashion show. More clothing, actually.

        • WakeUpSmashPots@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Just like drag, burlesque often contains no nudity, if it had to be 18+, the beach is more revealing. Also keep in mind the anti-trans “protect the children” community are the same demographic that supports child pageants.

        • curbstickle@anarchist.nexus
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          It depends.

          Burlesque shows are not automatically 18+. There are all ages shows, 16+ shows, 18+ shows, and even 21+ shows (usually driven by the venue serving alcohol).

          Obviously the content can be a factor, and some will have an age recommendation due to language.

  • jtrek@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Conservatives want small government when it’s stuff they want to do, and big government when they don’t. In-groups to protect, out-groups to bind. Bad people. Cartoon villains.

    Glad this judge seems sensible.

    • Corvidae@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Bad people.

      That’s why they’re all so religious of the Christian persuasion. They forgive themselves, the in group, but not others, the out group, for whom they reserve Old Testament treatment.

    • FishFace@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Conservatism consists of one principle, but not that one. It’s literally just about preserving the status quo as they see it, and that includes the invisibility of minorities.

      • absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        It’s literally just about preserving the status quo as they see it

        Close. But not quite.

        It is about preserving the status quo as they think it should be; and that can change to be the opposite of what it was last week, if their information bubble convinces them it should change.

  • Folstar@lemmus.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    It’s sure is neat how many GOP “issues” boil down to not understanding consent.

  • MyOpinion@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    You mean to tell me all of the republicans don’t have to go to drag shows? They can’t resist.

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I have, but so what. I may not have always liked it, but it’s really no different from sitting down at a bar and about an hour in a band comes in to do live music that you aren’t there for and it’s ruining your ability to have a conversation (also has happened to me). You just decide to roll with it or go somewhere else. It’s some real whiny loser shit to try to ban people from engaging in art just because you dislike it.

      And yeah, drag shows starting at bars I’m already at is not uncommon because I typically stick to gay bars

    • Crackhappy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Fun story. My first wife wanted to dress me in drag, as at the time I was an absolute twink and she thought I would look amazing. So we did that. And I did look good. Although I’m already tall (194 cm) and was wearing 4 inch heels so I then became very tall. Anyway we went to a drag show and the performers dragged me up on stage and tried to get me to sing we are family with them. I did, although I can’t hold a tune for shit. It was a ton of fun, but I’ve never done it again.

  • ironpangolin29@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I’ve come to the conclusion that the people who are pushing for this type of legislation or rules have a deep seated homoerotic side to them.

    • village604@adultswim.fan
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      There’s a reason Grindr crashes around Republican conventions.

      Also, Trump and Giuliani did drag together before.