995
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2023
995 points (98.4% liked)
politics
19097 readers
4949 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I don't understand how having a rainbow nearby isn't protected by 1st amendment rights.
Whataboutism at it's finest folks
Edit: Also for the record, it's not "whataboutism" because a religious book was part of the display with the symbol for neuro divergence. Just fyi.
"The display also included the books Emma & Mommy Talk to God, The Color Purple, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Separate is Never Equal, Wonder, and To Kill a Mockingbird."
No, it's not. It's an example for you to understand. Religion, particular Christianity, is everywhere in some parts of the US. Most people probably don't even notice. To others, a rainbow is the same way. It's a pretty decoration just like a cross or the signs up in my kid's school, In God We Trust. No one would say a cross is political, but it is absolutely in support of, and in certain locations, normalizing that religion should exist here. And there are absolutely people who advocate unless you are one particular religion or subset of that religion you are not a "real" American.
It makes sense to equate showing Christian paraphernalia with showing support for LGBTQ, or in this case neuro divergent people, because of how two sides see them. I'm not Christian. I don't want my children raised Christian or in any particular religion for that matter. But they are being exposed to multiple aspects of religion every day in school. Is that not indoctrination, however subtle? Those who argue against the pride flag being shown in public insist that the publicity of the flag indoctrinates children.
Now which is actually correct? Does a flag celebrating differences make it more likely that children will be non-heteronormative or neuro divergent? Or does it make it more likely that the children will feel accepted and not hide who they are? Does exposing children to multiple parts of religious practices make it more likely that those children will believe that said religion is true and more likely to hide if they don't believe it because everyone around them seems to?
In your view are pride flags political? If so, why? Who made them about politics?
I don't think you speak English...
Why?
Because….edgy.
Or because if you argue one thing is indoctrination and shouldn't be allowed, then the other thing that is indoctrination shouldn't be allowed either.
Are you saying being LGBTQ+ is a result of indoctrination? Because you certainly have been indoctrinated on hate and lies if that's the case.
Because pick a different political symbol that you dont agree with and reevaluate the situation
Thing that stand for inclusion is a bit different than a symbol of a regime that was famous for genocide...
Just because the 'symbol' he picked is a bad example doesn't change the fact that he's right.
It does though.
Lets say they had idk, a trump flag, it would be way more fine. Even though a trump flag is still a thing that stands for division and a pride flag stands for something nice and non political. Yeah I think letting people love who they want as a non political issue, sue me.
Someone didn't read the article. I'm just gonna go full bore at the get go. Be very careful how you use your frozen peaches son, cuz you're actually posting in a .de instance with rules against promoting nazism.
Which you aren't doing yet, of course. And you won't. Will you.
Probably because that's not how the first amendment works.
IANAL but, if it’s a publicly owned and operated library, and someone acting on behalf of the government fired these people for some sort of protected speech (which isn’t always just talking/writing) then I’m pretty sure that’s a 1a violation.
Though I could use some clarity on any distinction between a persons own speech, and speech that could be seen as that of the library.
Only kind of related, but I just learned from another Lemmy thread that while public nudity is illegal in major cities in Oregon, if you are riding a bicycle while nude, it is considered "speech protected under the first amendment" because it can reasonably be assumed you are protesting against cars.
https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2008/11/judge_throws_out_charges_again.html
IIRC there was also some feminist protest where the ladies went protesting topless onto the street. It was also deemed "protected speech" because of the protest.
Strange how certain types incorrectly construe constitutional right violations with businesses but completely overlook state enforcement as literal infringement by government. Big gubmint isn't just federal.
Would you like to explain it?
I'm guessing https://xkcd.com/1357/
Freedom of speech is the right to not be punished by the government, not private people.
I could be fired from a job for saying I like the Ninja Turtles and the newest remake wasn't that bad. But the govt can't do shit about my awesome movie choices.
Now this is a library, so I think it would come down to who runs it and their policies. For example, I was in the USMC and while I uniform I couldn't openly support any political stances or party.
Are you aware that Libraries are government institutions?
Yeah, that's why I mentioned being in the USMC, a government institution.
Yet, rightly so, you cannot be fired for saying that you're gay as that is considered sexual discrimination. See Bostock v. Clayton County:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bostock_v._Clayton_County