One of the best examples of anti-trans being wrong, she was a born woman, and showing the bigotry towards trans people he debunks in this very short video. I love it. J. K. Rowling chimed in as she always does to hate on trans, yet again she was wrong this was an assigned at birth woman. These haters against trans people do not care about facts or science, they want their hate, bigotry, and their feelings to be what is normal in society. I won’t ever watch or read anything by Rowling ever again. She doesn’t care, she is very wealthy and very rich. But she also doesn’t care the harm she does innocent people with her hate. Hugs. Scottie
Correcting the misinformation around an Olympic boxing match between Angela Carini and Imane Khelif.
“Monogamy, one per customer, is a really good basis for a society. However, it goes against the gorilla code, and the gorilla code is written into our DNA. We’re somehow related. I’m not saying we evolved from gorillas, but we’re related to them. We’re not that far away from them. The men want lots of women, so the strongest man wants all the women, and the women want the strongest man. That is the way evolution has designed us.
“So the strong have to take back the women. They want to take back the women from a system that is free. A system that is free is going to be a monogamous system. That’s the way that works because it is the best system for freedom. It means everybody gets something. Right? All the women get a man. All the men get a woman — as close as we can come to that.
“Women hate the idea that they can’t take care of themselves, but women cannot take care of themselves. They’re smaller, weaker. Men are stronger. Men are mean. They’re more aggressive. They will take them over. They’ll do it anytime they can, anywhere they can. They will abuse them. They will hurt them.
“Women have to come up with different strategies for survival than men do. Right? Men buff up, they get tough, they study karate, they learn how to fight. Women can do all those things, and they still there still is going to be a man who can take them down. Women have to find different ways of being safe, and one of those ways is finding a man to protect them.” – Daily Wire host Andrew Klavan.
Klavan first appeared here in 2014 when he declared that gays should “thank the Bible and Jesus Christ for the fact that you even conceive of yourself as creatures with rights.”
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis addresses the crowd before publicly signing “Stop W.O.K.E” bill in Hialeah Gardens, Florida, on April 22, 2022. (Daniel A. Varela/Miami Herald via AP)
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis often says the Sunshine State is the place where “woke goes to die.” But a federal judge on Friday killed part of the Stop W.O.K.E. Act championed as standing up against “indoctrination.”
Judge Mark Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida issued a permanent injunction, saying the law that bans diversity training in private workplaces “violates free speech rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.” The ruling follows a three-judge appeals court panel’s March decision that upheld Walker’s original injunction. The State of Florida did not oppose the motion to make the ruling permanent.
Florida honeymoon registry company Honeyfund.com and Primo Tampa, a subsidiary of a Ben & Jerry’s ice cream franchisee, were among those who filed the lawsuit after the Legislature passed the law in 2022. Shalini Goel Agarwal counsel for Protect Democracy which filed the lawsuit on their behalf said the ruling is “a powerful reminder that the First Amendment cannot be warped to serve the interests of elected officials.”
“Censoring business owners from speaking in favor of ideas that politicians don’t like is a moved ripped straight from the authoritarian playbook,” she said in a statement.
“We have every right as a state to provide protections for employees and businesses to say if they are doing woke training which is basically discriminating against folks on the basis of race, you have a right to opt out,” he said. “It’s not a question of what the company can say. They can say whatever they want. But you have a right to not self flagellate. You have a right to not sit there and listen to that nonsense.”
Sara Margulis, CEO of Honeyfund.com, hailed the appeals court decision from March.
“We moved Honeyfund to Florida in 2017 because it was known as a business-friendly state,” she said in a statement. “Passing laws that seek to squash free speech like HB7 is not only a violation of The First Amendment but is also a losing strategy because businesses serve people of all backgrounds, walks of life, and political views. Therefore the law would have effectively hampered the ability of Florida businesses to grow and serve their market. I don’t think that’s what Florida really wants. It’s clearly not in line with American values. I couldn’t be happier that we stood up for free speech and business in the state of Florida.”
The legislation — HB 7, formally called the “Stop Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees Act” — is also aimed at blocking school teachers and college professors from offering their opinions on what DeSantis described as “pernicious ideologies” that could potentially make students, because of their race, feel personally responsible for past racism, sexism, or other discrimination in the U.S. That part of the law also has an injunction and is awaiting a ruling from a higher court.
Critics have said it’s an attempt to stop meaningful discussion of the ongoing effects of longstanding systemic discrimination and topics including critical race theory and privilege. A slew of lawsuits were filed against the legislation including by professors, students and the ACLU. Courts have repeatedly blocked portions of the law.
According to the bill’s text, “[i]t shall constitute discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex under this section to subject any student or employee to training or instruction that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels such student or employee to believe” the following:
1. Members of one race, color, national origin, or sex are morally superior to members of another race, color, national origin, or sex.
2. A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.
3. A person’s moral character or status as either privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race, color, national origin, or sex.
4. Members of one race, color, national origin, or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race, color, national origin, or sex.
5. A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex bears responsibility for, or should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of, actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, national origin, or sex.
6. A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion.
7. A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears personal responsibility for and must feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress because of actions, in which the person played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, national origin, or sex.
8. Such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness, neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or sexist, or were created by members of a particular race, color, national origin, or sex to oppress members of another race, color, national origin, or sex.
Matt Naham and Marisa Sarnoff contributed to this report.
A priest is suing the gay dating and “hookup” app Grindr after the company reportedly failed to protect his data, leading to his resignation from a top position at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).
In July 2021, Monsignor Jeffrey Burrill resigned from his post as the general secretary of the USCCB ahead of a report by The Pillar alleging that he had engaged in inappropriate behavior and frequent use of Grindr.
The app advertises itself as “the largest social networking app for gay, bi, trans, and queer people.” Its geolocation feature is popularly known to facilitate sex hookups between gay men.
The Pillar said its report on Burrill was based on “commercially available records” correlated to the priest’s mobile device. But a lawsuit filed this week claims that Grindr hadn’t taken steps to protect the data from third-party acquisition.
The suit, filed in the Superior Court of California, claims the group Catholic Laity and Clergy for Renewal (CLCR) purchased the priest’s data from the app and sent it to The Pillar.
The gay hookup app “assures customers” that it “takes steps” to protect data from unauthorized access, use, or disclosure, the suit says. But Grindr allegedly “knew they were failing to protect sensitive personal data of its customers” yet failed to take steps to protect it, the filing says.
Public reports “reveal a stunning pattern of [Grindr’s] intentional and reckless failure to protect private data of its customers,” the priest argues in the suit.
The company allegedly “fraudulently conceals and fails to disclose that it provides and/or sells its users’ personal data to ad networks, data vendors, and/or or other third parties that sell the data or otherwise make it commercially available to others.”
The suit requests damages, lawyer’s fees, and “injunctive relief.” It also asks the court to forbid Grindr “from committing such unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices.”
In 2022 Burrill returned to active ministry as a priest in his home diocese of La Crosse, Wisconsin, with then-Bishop William Callahan stating that the priest had “engaged in a sincere and prayerful effort to strengthen his priestly vows” and had “favorably responded to every request” made by the bishop and the diocese.
The priest was appointed to St. Teresa of Kolkata Parish in West Salem, where he serves as pastor.
In his lawsuit, Burrill said his reputation had been “destroyed” by the data leak.
In addition to losing his position at the USCCB, he was “subjected to significant financial damages and emotional and psychological devastation,” the suit says.
Daniel Payne is a senior editor at Catholic News Agency. He previously worked at the College Fix and Just the News. He lives in Virginia with his family.
Idaho’s recently enacted bill encourages parents and children to bring legal action against schools and libraries that refuse to move certain material into “adult only” sections.
Books are displayed at the Banned Book Library at American Stage in St. Petersburg, Fla., on Feb. 18, 2023. (Jefferee Woo/Tampa Bay Times via AP)
A recently enacted law requiring Idaho schools and libraries to remove materials that are “harmful” to minors infringes on the First Amendment rights of private entities, a group of private schools, privately-funded libraries, parents and schoolchildren say in a Thursday lawsuit.
House Bill 710 — which took effect July 1 after Governor Brad Little signed it into law in April — allows citizens and the government to file a lawsuit against any school or library that doesn’t move certain material into designated “adult only” sections within 60 days of a complaint.
“H.B. 710 is the product of a social climate in Idaho (and elsewhere) in which schools and libraries have been inaccurately and unfairly castigated and villainized for using and making available constitutionally protected materials with content that the state and some Idahoans disapprove of,” the plaintiffs say in the 57-page complaint.
The suit was brought by private schools Sun Valley Community School and Foothills School of Arts and Sciences, along with the Community Library Association, a privately funded public library, and Collister United Methodist Church, which operates a lending library.
The groups are also joined by a set of parents and two high school-age students, who say that they want access to these reportedly “harmful” books and other materials to further their education.
The plaintiffs say the law violates their First Amendment free speech rights and their Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process. They ask the court to block enforcement of the law and to declare HB 710 unconstitutional.
“The act’s vague and overbroad definition of ‘harmful to minors’ conflicts with decades of settled constitutional law and extends well beyond the state’s limited authority to restrict the materials that private parties, like the private entity plaintiffs, may provide to minors,” they write.
Under the act’s definitions, the plaintiffs say, materials like health and sex education textbooks, literary works like Maya Angelou’s “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings” and artworks like Michelangelo’s David would all be subject to removal, possibly based on arbitrary and subjective reasons.
“Even the Bible, if a defendant or citizen complainant subjectively believes members of their community would find them offensive,” could be targeted, the plaintiffs note.
The plaintiffs also take specific aim with a clause of the act that restricts materials that depict or represent “sexual conduct” — a definition that includes “any act of … homosexuality.”
Beyond the “vague and overbroad” definition of what constitutes “harmful for minors,” the plaintiffs also take issue with what they called the “incoherent” enforcement provisions outlined in HB 710. The act “fails to provide constitutionally meaningful guardrails on enforcement,” plaintiffs say.
“If a private entity plaintiff disagrees with the content-based assessment of the parent or minor and declines to segregate the challenged material, the parent or minor is authorized to file a civil suit against the private entity plaintiff and incentivized to do so by a cash reward and the availability of ‘actual damages,’” the plaintiffs write, referring to a provision in HB 710 that allows for a possible recovery of $250 and statutory and actual damages, if the complainant prevails in the case.
The government itself is also permitted under HB 710 to seek an injunction against any of the plaintiffs, who say this could lead to financial and reputational harm.
The plaintiffs name Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador as a defendant, alongside Jan Bennetts, prosecuting attorney for Ada County, and Matt Fredrick, prosecuting attorney for Blaine County.
HB 710 is not the first attempt Idaho legislators have made to restrict library access in the state. A version of the measure made it through the 2023 session but was rejected by Little.
In a letter after he signed HB 710, the governor commended the 2024 bill for having tighter definitions for restricted material and for lowering the recovery from $2,500.
“I share the co-sponsors’ desire to keep truly inappropriate materials out of the hands of minors,” Little wrote in April.
Libraries initially pushed back on the bill, citing free speech concerns and the financial burden it could levy, particularly on smaller libraries, but legislators stood by the measure.
“I can assure you that there is no book banning and there’s no book burning and there’s no book removal anywhere in this legislation. What we have to look at when you look at these libraries is that you have differing viewpoints and different opinions from taxpayers,” Representative Jaron Crane, a Nampa Republican and bill co-sponsor, said in committee, the Idaho Capital Sun reported in March.
Looking at photos, I’m not sure why the Lord’s Supper would occur to people. I’ve seen or seen photos of all the Masters’s artworks of the Last Supper, and this doesn’t look like any of those. I don’t know why someone would choose to pick this fight, but there are plenty of people complaining. I wonder how many of them have seen the artworks, and also, even how many of them actually watched the performance, which was not, as I understand what I read, at all about the Lord’s Supper, but was about French art. Hmm. “Weird” is a fine term. Also I know I love Strangely Blogged!
============
Some conservatives are pushing back on claims that JD Vance and Donald Trump and maybe a lot of other Republicans are “weird”–but I’m sorry, it is what it is. I get that Republicans have put a lot of stock in saying they represent “Real America (TM)” and the cosmopolitan Big City Lefty Liberal Arugula-Eaters with Their Fancy Brown Mustard and Priuses and pronouns are oddball hippie Comsymps or whatever, But right off the bat, deciding lettuce, Grey Poupon and parts of speech are weird–is weird.
Being really mad at the Olympics because you were told Christianity was being insulted when the opening show had nothing to do with Christianity and demanding others agree with you–is weird.
Smashing coffee makers or shooting cases of Bud Lite because a talk show host told you to be mad is weird.
Pretending to be a party of small government but wanting to track women’s menses, stop them from travelling, or wanting to take inventory of people’s pee parts before they can use a public restroom, is weird.
Wanting women to carry dead fetuses is weird, and ghoulish. (snip-More)
“Let’s say Roe vs. Wade is overruled, Ohio bans abortion, you know, in 2022, let’s say 2024, and then every day George Soros sends a 747 to Columbus to load up disproportionately black women to get them to go have abortions in California.
“Of course, the left will celebrate this as a victory for diversity. That’s kind of creepy, right? If that happens, do you need some federal response to prevent it from happening because it’s really creepy?
“And, you know, I’m pretty sympathetic to that, actually.” – J.D. Vance, appearing on the podcast of far-right activist Aimee Terese during his 2022 campaign for the US Senate.
JD Vance said this on a podcast hosted by a Twitter user he follows who calls for putting “misogynists back in the Oval Office” and says “we need to stop normalising consent” https://t.co/ElrkbAf5VJpic.twitter.com/BEwX61QfpB
Msgr. Jeffrey Burrill | U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
Scottie's Playtime 
