youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 9:44 pm
I’ve already stated I’m for the law and believe the intent is to fully discourage poor behavior in front of children. I trust that judges, jurors, and hopefully lawyers without cognitive dissonance don’t bring forth these cases.
That's already on the books. LONG before this law.
And it's pretty obvious you know this.
Or do you think that kids are unprotected from sexually lewd acts where you live, sans this TX law that ONLY calls out cross dressers?
I'm not arguing your opinion, which you're welcome to have. I'm arguing what you are claiming this TX law does and doesn't do. Sorry, you're simply wrong. Factually so. TX already protects the public from lewd behavior, as does every State in America.
The part you're pretending not to understand is: Texas businesses can no longer hold cross dressing book readings, or other harmless activities in their place of business anymore. Because in case you missed it----and you keep telling me that you didn't--------that TX law makes both the business and the "promotors" criminally liable for hosting this harmless stuff.
And civilly liable, too. Nice touch from the folks who wrote the law, don't you think?
Along these lines....imagine being called a groomer by your office, for discussing math and March Madness bracketology. And yet the school has a bracket hanging in the hallway. https://twitter.com/TMathSports/status/ ... 63425?s=20
youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:13 pm
I never once claimed or hinted that people dressed in drag should not read to kids, never.
That's great. That's not what's in the Texas law..and again, it's obvious you didn't read the law.
youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:13 pm
My original argument, that got spun into your vortex, was about all the fussing that many here were making about the Texas law and lewd/sexualized dancing. Which I believed there was common ground about genitalia being exposed.
I've learned over the years that "the vortex" means that the other poster is stuck, can't argue their way out of something, so they pretend that I'm the problem instead of calmly making their case.
Tell you what: have a look at the law. Read it carefully this time. I'll give you $1,000 if the law ONLY applies to dancing.
And you give me $1,000 dollars if that's not all that's illegal. Oh, and you come back and apologize for accusing me of spin and "vortex", when instead, I'm calmly trying to tell you that the law doesn't do what you think it does....and is why you shouldn't support it. Which is the point to this whole conversation.
Deal?
You can EASILY call someone in drag reading to kids "a performance". Hence, illegal in TX. Because guess who gets to make the call as to whether it's "a performance", and whether the reader is "lascivious". That's right: the Texas far right.
The law you THINK was passed? I support that. The problem, as I pointed out.....under 18 year old public cheerleading performances would be banned from public schools. You good with that? I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep if they were banned.
youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:13 pm
Slow day at the office?
Or......you, AFAN...could provide the section of this lame law....that enforces what YOU think the lame law is "banning".
By:AAToth H.B.ANo.A4378
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to a cause of action for drag performances performed in the
presence of a minor.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTIONA1.AATitle 4, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is
amended by adding Chapter 100B to read as follows:
CHAPTER 100B. LIABILITY FOR DRAG PERFORMANCE IN PRESENCE OF MINOR
Sec.A100B.001.AADEFINITIONS.AAIn this chapter:
(1)AA"Drag performance" means a performance in which a
performer exhibits a gender that is different than the performer
’s
gender recorded at birth using clothing, makeup, or other physical
markers and sings, lip syncs, dances, or otherwise performs in a lascivious manner before an audience.
(2)AA"Lascivious" means conduct of a sexual nature that
is offensive to community standards of decency. The term includes
the intentional exposure of genitalia in the presence of a minor.
(3)AA"Minor" means an individual who is younger than 18
years of age
I will take that 1000 bet.......nothing about "reading", in this lame law.
youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:13 pm
I never once claimed or hinted that people dressed in drag should not read to kids, never.
That's great. That's not what's in the Texas law..and again, it's obvious you didn't read the law.
youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:13 pm
My original argument, that got spun into your vortex, was about all the fussing that many here were making about the Texas law and lewd/sexualized dancing. Which I believed there was common ground about genitalia being exposed.
I've learned over the years that "the vortex" means that the other poster is stuck, can't argue their way out of something, so they pretend that I'm the problem instead of calmly making their case.
Tell you what: have a look at the law. Read it carefully this time. I'll give you $1,000 if the law ONLY applies to dancing.
And you give me $1,000 dollars if that's not all that's illegal. Oh, and you come back and apologize for accusing me of spin and "vortex", when instead, I'm calmly trying to tell you that the law doesn't do what you think it does....and is why you shouldn't support it. Which is the point to this whole conversation.
Deal?
You can EASILY call someone in drag reading to kids "a performance". Hence, illegal in TX. Because guess who gets to make the call as to whether it's "a performance", and whether the reader is "lascivious". That's right: the Texas far right.
The law you THINK was passed? I support that. The problem, as I pointed out.....under 18 year old public cheerleading performances would be banned from public schools. You good with that? I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep if they were banned.
youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:13 pm
Slow day at the office?
Or......you, AFAN...could provide the section of this lame law....that enforces what YOU think the lame law is "banning".
By:AAToth H.B.ANo.A4378
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to a cause of action for drag performances performed in the
presence of a minor.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTIONA1.AATitle 4, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is
amended by adding Chapter 100B to read as follows:
CHAPTER 100B. LIABILITY FOR DRAG PERFORMANCE IN PRESENCE OF MINOR
Sec.A100B.001.AADEFINITIONS.AAIn this chapter:
(1)AA"Drag performance" means a performance in which a
performer exhibits a gender that is different than the performer
’s
gender recorded at birth using clothing, makeup, or other physical
markers and sings, lip syncs, dances, or otherwise performs in a lascivious manner before an audience.
(2)AA"Lascivious" means conduct of a sexual nature that
is offensive to community standards of decency. The term includes
the intentional exposure of genitalia in the presence of a minor.
(3)AA"Minor" means an individual who is younger than 18
years of age
I will take that 1000 bet.......nothing about "reading", in this lame law.
net moving ........
Never said the word reading appeared anywhere. You owe me $1000.
All the person has to do is "perform" in public. Know what the word performance means, or do you need help?
youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:13 pm
I never once claimed or hinted that people dressed in drag should not read to kids, never.
That's great. That's not what's in the Texas law..and again, it's obvious you didn't read the law.
youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:13 pm
My original argument, that got spun into your vortex, was about all the fussing that many here were making about the Texas law and lewd/sexualized dancing. Which I believed there was common ground about genitalia being exposed.
I've learned over the years that "the vortex" means that the other poster is stuck, can't argue their way out of something, so they pretend that I'm the problem instead of calmly making their case.
Tell you what: have a look at the law. Read it carefully this time. I'll give you $1,000 if the law ONLY applies to dancing.
And you give me $1,000 dollars if that's not all that's illegal. Oh, and you come back and apologize for accusing me of spin and "vortex", when instead, I'm calmly trying to tell you that the law doesn't do what you think it does....and is why you shouldn't support it. Which is the point to this whole conversation.
Deal?
You can EASILY call someone in drag reading to kids "a performance". Hence, illegal in TX. Because guess who gets to make the call as to whether it's "a performance", and whether the reader is "lascivious". That's right: the Texas far right.
The law you THINK was passed? I support that. The problem, as I pointed out.....under 18 year old public cheerleading performances would be banned from public schools. You good with that? I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep if they were banned.
youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:13 pm
Slow day at the office?
Or......you, AFAN...could provide the section of this lame law....that enforces what YOU think the lame law is "banning".
By:AAToth H.B.ANo.A4378
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to a cause of action for drag performances performed in the
presence of a minor.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTIONA1.AATitle 4, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is
amended by adding Chapter 100B to read as follows:
CHAPTER 100B. LIABILITY FOR DRAG PERFORMANCE IN PRESENCE OF MINOR
Sec.A100B.001.AADEFINITIONS.AAIn this chapter:
(1)AA"Drag performance" means a performance in which a
performer exhibits a gender that is different than the performer
’s
gender recorded at birth using clothing, makeup, or other physical
markers and sings, lip syncs, dances, or otherwise performs in a lascivious manner before an audience.
(2)AA"Lascivious" means conduct of a sexual nature that
is offensive to community standards of decency. The term includes
the intentional exposure of genitalia in the presence of a minor.
(3)AA"Minor" means an individual who is younger than 18
years of age
I will take that 1000 bet.......nothing about "reading", in this lame law.
net moving ........
What I bolded is the crux of the problem. Bumphuck County can take those words to arrest someone who's transgendered and just walking down a public street and claim just dressing unlike the gender on their birth certificate is offensive to "their" community standards.
Which returns me to a question I posed awhile ago, but not in this manner: How come women can wear pants but men can only wear skirts in Scotland? Who makes up these dumbazz clothing rules?
youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:13 pm
I never once claimed or hinted that people dressed in drag should not read to kids, never.
That's great. That's not what's in the Texas law..and again, it's obvious you didn't read the law.
youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:13 pm
My original argument, that got spun into your vortex, was about all the fussing that many here were making about the Texas law and lewd/sexualized dancing. Which I believed there was common ground about genitalia being exposed.
I've learned over the years that "the vortex" means that the other poster is stuck, can't argue their way out of something, so they pretend that I'm the problem instead of calmly making their case.
Tell you what: have a look at the law. Read it carefully this time. I'll give you $1,000 if the law ONLY applies to dancing.
And you give me $1,000 dollars if that's not all that's illegal. Oh, and you come back and apologize for accusing me of spin and "vortex", when instead, I'm calmly trying to tell you that the law doesn't do what you think it does....and is why you shouldn't support it. Which is the point to this whole conversation.
Deal?
You can EASILY call someone in drag reading to kids "a performance". Hence, illegal in TX. Because guess who gets to make the call as to whether it's "a performance", and whether the reader is "lascivious". That's right: the Texas far right.
The law you THINK was passed? I support that. The problem, as I pointed out.....under 18 year old public cheerleading performances would be banned from public schools. You good with that? I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep if they were banned.
youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:13 pm
Slow day at the office?
Or......you, AFAN...could provide the section of this lame law....that enforces what YOU think the lame law is "banning".
By:AAToth H.B.ANo.A4378
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to a cause of action for drag performances performed in the
presence of a minor.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTIONA1.AATitle 4, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is
amended by adding Chapter 100B to read as follows:
CHAPTER 100B. LIABILITY FOR DRAG PERFORMANCE IN PRESENCE OF MINOR
Sec.A100B.001.AADEFINITIONS.AAIn this chapter:
(1)AA"Drag performance" means a performance in which a
performer exhibits a gender that is different than the performer
’s
gender recorded at birth using clothing, makeup, or other physical
markers and sings, lip syncs, dances, or otherwise performs in a lascivious manner before an audience.
(2)AA"Lascivious" means conduct of a sexual nature that
is offensive to community standards of decency. The term includes
the intentional exposure of genitalia in the presence of a minor.
(3)AA"Minor" means an individual who is younger than 18
years of age
I will take that 1000 bet.......nothing about "reading", in this lame law.
net moving ........
What I bolded is the crux of the problem. Bumphuck County can take those words to arrest someone who's transgendered and just walking down a public street and claim just dressing unlike the gender on their birth certificate is offensive to "their" community standards.
Bingo. That's the game here. Like it's difficult to understand this.
Re: The Hate Directed at the LGBTQ+
Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2023 11:59 am
by runrussellrun
yup......why "lame law" was written.
lots of "lame laws" written..............but, in the scheme of things, which has more impact to society
A. doctors losing their license because they question Gavin Newsome and his California law
B. or .....this "performance" law, which, some have interprerupted as "just walking down the street", and rightly so, because it is a lame law.
but still......which law is more impackFULL to society, overall ?
I know PLENTY of LGB.......and they, mostly, think the T's , are, at best....a "lil off".
I wanna cut my arm, well, really just at the wrist........so I can "fist" all comers. (fisting IS taught, yes? )
You think I am crazy, because I want to cut my hand off, to please , sexually.....others? ok
why the hate, spewed towards me...than
Re: The Hate Directed at the LGBTQ+
Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2023 12:25 pm
by a fan
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 11:59 am
A. doctors losing their license because they question Gavin Newsome and his California law
B. or .....this "performance" law, which, some have interprerupted as "just walking down the street", and rightly so, because it is a lame law.
C. none of the above. Global hunger is more important. So why are you wasting your time talking about some California doctor losing his license, RRR?
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 11:59 am
A. doctors losing their license because they question Gavin Newsome and his California law
B. or .....this "performance" law, which, some have interprerupted as "just walking down the street", and rightly so, because it is a lame law.
C. none of the above. Global hunger is more important. So why are you wasting your time talking about some California doctor losing his license, RRR?
now that IS some ole school "net moving"....
...congrats.
Because bringing up Gavin freaking Newsom and some stupid doctor out of left field....... in a discussion about a punitive law targeting Drag Queens makes perfect sense to you, right?
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 11:59 am
A. doctors losing their license because they question Gavin Newsome and his California law
B. or .....this "performance" law, which, some have interprerupted as "just walking down the street", and rightly so, because it is a lame law.
C. none of the above. Global hunger is more important. So why are you wasting your time talking about some California doctor losing his license, RRR?
now that IS some ole school "net moving"....
...congrats.
Because bringing up Gavin freaking Newsom and some stupid doctor out of left field....... in a discussion about a punitive law targeting Drag Queens makes perfect sense to you, right?
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 11:59 am
A. doctors losing their license because they question Gavin Newsome and his California law
B. or .....this "performance" law, which, some have interprerupted as "just walking down the street", and rightly so, because it is a lame law.
C. none of the above. Global hunger is more important. So why are you wasting your time talking about some California doctor losing his license, RRR?
now that IS some ole school "net moving"....
...congrats.
Because bringing up Gavin freaking Newsom and some stupid doctor out of left field....... in a discussion about a punitive law targeting Drag Queens makes perfect sense to you, right?
and BAM...right on cue....the hate directed towards another poster. comical. and AFAN just lets it all ride and slide.
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 11:59 am
A. doctors losing their license because they question Gavin Newsome and his California law
B. or .....this "performance" law, which, some have interprerupted as "just walking down the street", and rightly so, because it is a lame law.
C. none of the above. Global hunger is more important. So why are you wasting your time talking about some California doctor losing his license, RRR?
now that IS some ole school "net moving"....
...congrats.
Because bringing up Gavin freaking Newsom and some stupid doctor out of left field....... in a discussion about a punitive law targeting Drag Queens makes perfect sense to you, right?
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 11:59 am
A. doctors losing their license because they question Gavin Newsome and his California law
B. or .....this "performance" law, which, some have interprerupted as "just walking down the street", and rightly so, because it is a lame law.
C. none of the above. Global hunger is more important. So why are you wasting your time talking about some California doctor losing his license, RRR?
now that IS some ole school "net moving"....
...congrats.
Because bringing up Gavin freaking Newsom and some stupid doctor out of left field....... in a discussion about a punitive law targeting Drag Queens makes perfect sense to you, right?
and BAM...right on cue....the hate directed towards another poster. comical. and AFAN just lets it all ride and slide.
stay classy everyone
It's "hate" for pointing out that Gavin Newsom and doctors have NOTHING to do with the topic at hand? That's your claim?
This is a cool game you're playing. If a poster dares to interact with you, that's wrong, and is "hate". And yet you rip people for ignoring you.
Neat. Anything else your fellow posters are doing wrong? Let's get it all out of your system.
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 11:59 am
A. doctors losing their license because they question Gavin Newsome and his California law
B. or .....this "performance" law, which, some have interprerupted as "just walking down the street", and rightly so, because it is a lame law.
C. none of the above. Global hunger is more important. So why are you wasting your time talking about some California doctor losing his license, RRR?
now that IS some ole school "net moving"....
...congrats.
Because bringing up Gavin freaking Newsom and some stupid doctor out of left field....... in a discussion about a punitive law targeting Drag Queens makes perfect sense to you, right?
and BAM...right on cue....the hate directed towards another poster. comical. and AFAN just lets it all ride and slide.
stay classy everyone
It's "hate" for pointing out that Gavin Newsom and doctors have NOTHING to do with the topic at hand? That's your claim?
This is a cool game you're playing. If a poster dares to interact with you, that's wrong, and is "hate". And yet you rip people for ignoring you.
Neat. Anything else your fellow posters are doing wrong? Let's get it all out of your system.
Click on the username to get to profile; click on words "Add Foe;" have a beer.
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 11:59 am
A. doctors losing their license because they question Gavin Newsome and his California law
B. or .....this "performance" law, which, some have interprerupted as "just walking down the street", and rightly so, because it is a lame law.
C. none of the above. Global hunger is more important. So why are you wasting your time talking about some California doctor losing his license, RRR?
now that IS some ole school "net moving"....
...congrats.
Because bringing up Gavin freaking Newsom and some stupid doctor out of left field....... in a discussion about a punitive law targeting Drag Queens makes perfect sense to you, right?
and BAM...right on cue....the hate directed towards another poster. comical. and AFAN just lets it all ride and slide.
stay classy everyone
It's "hate" for pointing out that Gavin Newsom and doctors have NOTHING to do with the topic at hand? That's your claim?
This is a cool game you're playing. If a poster dares to interact with you, that's wrong, and is "hate". And yet you rip people for ignoring you.
Neat. Anything else your fellow posters are doing wrong? Let's get it all out of your system.
Click on the username to get to profile; click on words "Add Foe;" have a beer.
It's "hate" for pointing out that Gavin Newsom and doctors have NOTHING to do with the topic at hand? That's your claim?