 |
| Some people who protest Drag Queen Story Hour events are in serious need of adult supervision. |
NYC Council member Erik Bottcher did us all a huge favor.
During a very recent protest against a Drag Queen Story Hour event, he filmed the protesters, leading to the title of this post: Who would you trust with your kids? Drag queens or THESE people. Spoiler alert: you had better pick the drag queens. And quick! These people gravitate between vulgar, pathetic, or too eager to get in the spotlight - particularly the one jumping in front the camera talking about "Trans Against Groomers." Then there is the elderly woman with the mouth so filthy that her language almost burned my ears.
Today I witnessed pure hatred and bigotry outside Drag Queen Story Hour at a public library in Chelsea.
— NYC Council Member Erik Bottcher (@ebottcher) December 17, 2022
Inside, I witnessed a loving and peaceful reading of children’s books to kids.
Warning: this video contains foul language and hate speech. pic.twitter.com/RLMWHDdSnw
 |
| Franklin Graham |
Popular Christian gospel singer Amy Grant, who was recently honored at the Kennedy Centers Honors, is in the news because she is hosting her niece's same-sex wedding at her farm. Grant said she is doing this because she believes that her faith tells her that God loves everyone for who they are.
Naturally some in the conservative evangelical community aren't happy. It's ironic how these folks go on and on about their right to "religious freedom" and "religious freedom" but will refuse to extend the courtesy to others.
Practically elbowing himself to be first in line spewing condemnations is Franklin Graham in a Facebook post and a series of tweets seen below:
It's a delicious irony that Graham's pretentious attack on Grant is coming at the same time in which the House Jan 6th committee recommended that the DOJ prosecute former President Donald Trump for his part in causing the Jan 6th attack on the Capitol. The attack was spurred on in part by Trump's false claim that he was cheated out of victory in the 2020 election.
It was a claim which Franklin supported:
 |
| Matthew Kacsmaryk, a federal judge appointed by Donald Trump, has been making rulings beneficial to conservatives and the religious right in spite of the fact that the decisions are "riddled with legal errors." |
While many people have pointed to a definite religious conservative bias impugning the Supreme Court, the sad fact is that this bias isn't just there. There is a federal judge whose court religious conservatives seem to steer to a lot. That's because he generally gives them the rulings that they want.
Vox recently published an entire article on this judge, Matthew Kacsmaryk, and people need to start paying attention to him and what he is doing seemingly under all of our noses. The article deserves a read and a share.
On Thursday evening, a Trump-appointed judge named Matthew Kacsmaryk effectively ordered the Biden administration to reinstate a harsh, Trump-era border policy known as “Remain in Mexico,” which requires many immigrants seeking asylum in the United States to remain on the Mexican side of the border while their case is being processed. It’s the second time that Kacsmaryk has pulled this stunt — he did the same thing in 2021, and the Supreme Court overturned his decision last June.It’s a significant decision in its own right, and will only prolong uncertainty at America’s southern border. But Kacsmaryk’s order in this case, Texas v. Biden, was merely the capstone of an unusually busy week for this judge. His busy week, and months of earlier actions, show the havoc one rogue federal judge can create, especially in today’s judiciary.The previous Thursday, Kacsmaryk became the first federal judge since the Supreme Court eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion to attack the right to contraception. Kacsmaryk’s decision in Deanda v. Becerra targets Title X, a federal program that provides grants to health providers to fund family planning and contraceptive care. He claimed that the program is unlawful because it doesn’t require grant recipients to get parental permission before treating teenage patients. Lest there be any doubt, his opinion is riddled with obvious legal errors. Kacsmaryk didn’t even have jurisdiction to hear the Deanda case in the first place.Meanwhile, in mid-November, Kacsmaryk handed down another decision in Neese v. Becerra, which held that a federal law prohibiting certain forms of discrimination by health providers does not protect against anti-LGBTQ discrimination. His opinion cannot be squared with the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which established that statutes prohibiting “sex” discrimination also ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, because “it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”
Often, Kacsmaryk’s opinions suggest not only that he knows he is defying the law, but also that he revels in doing so. His opinion in Neese, for example, opens with a quote from Justice Samuel Alito’s dissenting opinion in Bostock. A dissent, by definition, is not the law. Indeed, it is often the opposite of the law, because dissenting opinions state arguments that a majority of the Court rejected.
