Ali sent me the link to this and I admit I have been holding on to it for a while.  It is important to read and understand, and so I present it here.  As you can see, the question becomes what is sexually explicit.   The world says just dressing up in the clothing different from the gender assigned at birth is OK, it is just a costume. But what republicans want to do is cement gender-specific rules into secular laws.   Only females can wear dresses or skirts, only men can wear pants.   Think of that, think how weird it is to judge people on clothing.    If every actor who wears a costume must be what the costume represents?   Are these people really trying to get to the Handmaids tale, the Taliban enforcement level of female dress.   

Think about what these religious haters are against.   Men dressed up as women, reading stories to kids!   Did any of these people disrupting these events volunteer to read to those same kids?  Really they can not be bothered to read to kids so they have to spend their time attacking people who do?  What is so important to them, the joy of reading being inspired to kids, or creating fear of being attacked for how you dress if it is a bit differently from what others may accept. Talk about narrowing one’s ability of acceptance.  

And then once they get rid of drag queens, which are just men in costumes, what next?   Forcing females to stop wearing pants?  Dear dogs that love gravy, if you think that is where they will stop you are not paying attention, are you!

So understand once they get rid of the drag queens, once they get rid of the others who are a different faith, they will come for you.  

Thank you, Ali.   Hugs.   Scottie

The law makes it a crime to admit minors to shows that the state deems too sexually explicit.

 

Drag queens ride on a float during the Stonewall Pride parade in Wilton Manors, Fla., in June. Joe Raedle / Getty Images

 

Nov. 16, 2023, 4:13 PM EST

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday rejected Florida’s bid to enforce a state law that targets drag show performances that, challengers say, imposes unlawful restrictions on free speech.

The court, divided 6-3, with three conservatives dissenting, turned away an emergency request from Florida officials after lower courts blocked the law statewide. The majority did not explain its reasoning.

 

The measure, widely seen as part of a conservative campaign against LGBTQ rights, was passed this year by the Florida Legislature. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination and has frequently leaned into culture war issues, signed the bill into law. DeSantis this year also signed into law a bill that restricts transgender health care.

Officially dubbed the Protection of Children Act, the law makes it a crime to admit a child to an “adult live performance” that the state deems sexually explicit.

The three justices who would have granted the state’s request were Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch.

A district court judge blocked the law under the First Amendment in part because it was too vaguely written, with key terms such as “lewd conduct” not defined. The Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals left that ruling in place.

The legal challenge was brought by an Orlando bar and restaurant called Hamburger Mary’s, which hosts what it calls family friendly drag shows.

The restaurant’s lawyers said in court papers that the shows “are not harmful to minors but likely still run afoul of the act due to its overbreadth and vagueness.”

 

The district court prevented the state from enforcing the law not just against Hamburger Mary’s but also statewide. The state argued that the judge did not have authority to do so.

In its application to the Supreme Court, the state asked the justices to narrow the injunction so it applied only to the restaurant.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, another conservative, wrote a brief opinion explaining why he voted against the state, saying the narrow issue the state was raising was not one the court would normally hear. Fellow conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined most of Kavanaugh’s opinion.

“This case is therefore an imperfect vehicle for considering the general question of whether a district court may enjoin a government from enforcing a law against non-parties to the litigation,” he wrote.