Tag: LGBTQ

Ivan Provorov Doesn’t Fear the Backlash

 

As much as it pains me to say something positive about a member of the Broad Street Bullies, I saw this story Tuesday night: “Flyers’ Provorov cites religion for boycott on Pride night.”

Ivan Provorov is a defenseman for the Philadelphia Flyers. The Flyers had their “Pride Night” last night, where the players wore “pride” jerseys during warmup and many players used rainbow-colored tape on their sticks. All NHL teams have such an event each season; I usually just ignore the “woke” stuff and enjoy the game (no matter what teams are playing).

Men Sweep Prize Money In NYC Marathon’s Non-Binary Category

 

In the annals of innovating new ways for male athletes to crowd-out female athletes from earning prize money, one can hardly do better than the New York Road Runners. As organizers of the famed New York City Marathon, the NYRR has demonstrated its own ambivalence about female athletes by creating a cash cow for male athletes competing in the so-called “non-binary” category. 

It will surprise no one that the prize money in the non-binary category was swept by – forgive the term – biological men. An irony-free celebration of the winners is available at RunnersWorld.com, itself an institution taken over by woke ideologues offering such fitness tips as Be A Champion For Black Runners By Becoming A Disruptor.

According to reporting from ESPN.com, NYRR CEO Kerin Hempel issued a press release stating, “We are so proud that the TCS New York City Marathon attracts such a diverse and global community of runners, and we are deeply focused on ensuring all of our athletes feel welcome and included at NYRR.” The same press release announced the marathon had become the first sporting event declared a “Safe Space” by the Stonewall Inn – whatever that is – in recognition of its inclusivity efforts for the LGBTQ+ community.

Member Post

 

Montgomery County, Maryland:  Can anything good proceed from this accursed progressive principality or is it damned forever?  The most populous county in the state, it leans far left, has for decades and routinely makes the news for some kind of outlandishness, if not outright malevolence.  I remember once writing an article about something that occurred there […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

Religious Liberty in the Dock

 

This past weekend, Yeshiva University took a dramatic step that many observers thought would never happen: it decided to suspend the operation of all undergraduate on-campus clubs indefinitely, rather than to accede to a June 2022 order from New York State Judge Lynn R. Kotler “to immediately grant plaintiff Pride Alliance the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges afforded to all other student groups at Yeshiva University.” Judge Kotler issued the order after determining that Yeshiva was not a religious corporation under applicable New York law, and was thus subject to New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), which makes it unlawful for a business in “all places of public accommodation” to discriminate against any person because of his or her “sexual orientation.”

For its part, Yeshiva had claimed the protected status as “a religious corporation incorporated under the education law,” given that it had always organized its undergraduate institution to that end. It did so even though one of its other divisions, namely Cardozo Law School, had, as its irate faculty had noted in a recent letter to Yeshiva President Rabbi Ari Berman, long given full recognition to LGBTQ+ individuals and organizations. But for Judge Kotler the key point was not what Yeshiva does today, but what it wrote about itself in 1967 when it expanded its charter from the study of Talmud to a wide range of Jewish and secular studies. This expansion, Judge Kotler explained, qualified Yeshiva as an “educational corporation under the Education Law of the State of New York.” In effect, Yeshiva was barred by its own fifty-five-year-old declaration from claiming a protected religious status today.

But why? By any functional account, the reasons New York City (like so many other government entities) created this religious exemption was to ease the nasty conflict between forced association under antidiscrimination laws and the exercise of religious liberty, as protected by the First Amendment. That conflict remains in place no matter what the state charter says. The underlying theory is that it is appropriate to impose a nondiscrimination rule when the various suspect attributes of a given person are irrelevant to any rational decision about the performance of the protected parties under statutes like NYCHRL, but that this logic does not cover activities that fall outside the public realm—such as the practice of religious education. That theory was given voice by Justice William Brennan in Roberts v. United States Jaycees (1984), when he ordered the Jaycees, a large men’s civic organization with many branches, to admit women. But, at the same time, Justice Brennan noted that the antidiscrimination laws were displaced by the principle of free association that covered “certain intimate human relations . . . in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious and cultural ends.”

Member Post

 

Is everyone having themselves a fabulous “Pride” Month?  Isn’t it fantastic how the entire country has come together for a month-long celebration of sexual and moral depravity, debauchery, debasement and degradation?  And all in the name of “Pride” and tolerance!  Hey, how about that gay bar in Dallas that hosted a “Drag the Kids to […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

Counterattack from the LGBTQ Community

 

We should have seen this coming; maybe some of us did. We have taken legislative action in Florida and around the country to offset the disturbing inroads that the LGBTQ community has made on the norms and values of our states and the education of our children; they are furious, and they are going to pursue even more aggressively their agendas of dominance of the culture.

What has caused the Progressives and the LGBTQ community to become so angry and fearful? Although our efforts are late in the game, we are trying to restore a mainstream approach and understanding of the meaning of equal rights and equal opportunity. Unfortunately, these communities are not concerned with fairness. They are determined to control the dialogue about, and education of, our children regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer agendas, and the passing of legislation that challenges their goals is considered anti-gay and hateful.

Do We Need to Have Laws to Ban Kids at Drag Shows?

 

The simple answer to the question in the title is “No!” If we are not mindful of the legal actions we are taking against Progressives, we are going to find our own rights even further restricted. Let me explain the background for this argument, and why we would be misguided if we try to pass another law to restrict the Progressive agenda. In response to a proposed ban on allowing kids to attend drag shows in Texas, Florida legislator Anthony Sabatini decided proposing the same kind of legislation in Florida was a good idea. It’s not.

There are several reasons not to codify a response to prevent our children from being exposed to these drag shows. First, trying to determine how to flesh out the law would be an impossible task: deciding what makes a drag show, determining what can be shown and what can’t be shown, enacting penalties on the show performers and sponsors, as well as parents—or making the laws so vague that they are useless—is a waste of time. To enact a law would also impinge on parental rights, which DeSantis has worked hard to protect, and makes no sense. (DeSantis has shown an interest in the proposed law, but I’m going to bet he will not back it.) Also, drag shows can’t be treated the same as regulations for schools, where children are required to attend and which are governed by state requirements for curriculum.

So do we let our kids be exposed to these abhorrent drag shows and do nothing? That’s not helpful, either. Instead, we need to take our citizenship seriously and be proactive about protecting our kids against these demonstrations. The ways to do so are numerous. We make the decision not to attend these activities, or activities that include demonstrations of drag queens. If our kids ask us why, we should tell them: that they are demonstrating behaviors that we consider unacceptable and immoral. We might show up for protests at the venues where these events take place. I think we can do so peacefully. We can pay attention to the programs at events so that our kids don’t attend events where drag shows were not publicized. If a drag show unexpectedly commences, leave. All of these decisions would demonstrate to our children that we have the courage to live our beliefs and convictions.

Member Post

 

It is June 1st, the beginning of Pride Month. We will see rainbows popping up everywhere to symbolize this month-long event, from corporate logos to flags flying over government facilities to bumper stickers and posters. Where did the rainbow come to symbolize Gay Pride, along with iterations that represent other sexual proclivities possessed by individuals? […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

Member Post

 

Patton Oswalt is a comedian. I’ve probably heard some of his stuff but I don’t recall. He recently posted a pic of himself and his long-time friend Dave Chappelle – who is currently radioactive due to mocking trans people in his standup act – and Oswalt posted what began as a defense but had an […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

Activist AGs Join Forces to Fight the Feds

 

For those who fear that no one is fighting to protect our rights, I have great news for you: our Attorneys General are fighting the good fight:

The prominence of coordinated multistate lawsuits to challenge federal policy is a relatively recent phenomenon. While states have a long history of suing the federal government, these were typically single-state efforts claiming specific harm to that state. Now, partisan coalitions of AGs have used multistate lawsuits as a way to both block federal policies and to prompt national action.

The AGs finally figured out there is strength in numbers and there are at least 18 lawsuits pending against the Biden Administration. At least ten of them have multiple states suing the government. Since we are only seven months into Biden’s term, rulings are still pending. But I am hopeful that at least some government bureaucrats are challenging the unlawful, dangerous, and outrageous actions of the feds.

Is It Really Politics?

 

Maybe your friends don’t share your views on Donald Trump. They call him the grossest person in the world. Maybe your friends don’t share your views on BLM. They think whites are due a comeuppance for systemic racism. Maybe your friends don’t share your views on LGBTQ-ism. They think we must tolerate, even celebrate, the whole rainbow of gender and sexuality. 

So then, do you tell them you voted for Trump? That you think racism is not in the DNA of the American character? That traditional family structure is the most moral aspiration? 

Member Post

 

At a school where 70% of students belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the President of the Church’s wife, Wendy Watson Nelson, is a controversial speaker to some outspoken faculty. It is the usual story, but in a different setting. “Sister Nelson’s own remarks…invited students to drop their contentions, open space […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

Member Post

 

It’s not about winning. It’s about exposing hypocrisy and partisanship. Those of a certain age will remember the legendary 1976 US Olympic exploits of decathlete Bruce Jenner. I was reminded of them on a recent trip to the new US Olympic and Paralympic Museum in Colorado Springs, a must-visit for anyone visiting that terrific city. […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

The Equality Act Will Guarantee Inequality for Almost Everyone

 

‘Every American deserves to be treated with respect and dignity. With today’s vote, the House has again affirmed that LGBTQ people should enjoy the same rights and responsibilities as all other Americans,’ said Democratic Representative David Cicilline of Rhode Island, who led the push for the bill.

Sounds good, doesn’t it? The truth is that every American does not deserve to be treated with respect and dignity; rapists, murderers, illegal immigrants, and many Leftists have not earned respectful treatment, for starters. And the Equality Act H.R.5, which was passed by the House 224 to 206 votes on February 25, is not only deceptive but opens the door to abuses of the rights of most Americans.

The Equality Act, no matter what it says, is not intended to make sure that everyone has equal rights. Specifically, it would very likely show favoritism toward LBGT groups, and discrimination against religious groups, girls and women, businesses, medical professionals, and others. The Heritage Foundation describes the bill in this way:

Buck Angel is a 58 year-old trans man who is speaking out against the mob mentality that has taken over the trans community. He and Bridget discuss his life before his transition, how he was essentially a human “guinea pig” in the early days of his transition, the long road and struggle for acceptance, and how the trans movement of today has developed something of a “cult-like” ideology where if you don’t speak and think in a specific way, they don’t want you as a member. He and Bridget discuss the “trans trenders,” the rewriting of factual information, why the label “cis” feels derogatory, how there’s no oversight and no system in allowing young people to self-diagnose as “trans,” being attacked by his own community, and why we should follow the money on the sudden push to enable sexual reassignment surgeries. As an elderly trans person whose own transition saved his life, Buck is passionate about the dangers he sees in the community today, and the fact that this push to transition will kill people.

Journalist and former academic Dr. Deborah Soh joined host Ben Domenech to discuss how she takes a scientific and research-based approach to debunking the most common misconceptions about gender identity. Soh compiled her research in her new book, “The End of Gender: Debunking the Myths about Sex and Identity in Our Society.”

Soh said she’s grateful to no longer be in the academic world, where everyone is required to accept so many scientific mistruths as facts. As a liberal herself, Soh said the evolution of gender identity has been used by the radical left to further a narrative that’s harmful to children and not based in science.

The Gorsuch Legal Alchemy

 

The United States Supreme Court has sent shockwaves through much of the nation with its decision in Bostock v. Clayton County. By a six-to-three vote, the Court held in no uncertain terms that the prohibition against sex discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal to fire a person “simply” due to their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The basic statutory text of Title VII provides that it is “unlawful . . . for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch argued that his textualist approach compelled the novel conclusion that the term “sex” includes not only biological sex, but also sexual orientation and gender identity. “In the context of an unambiguous statutory text,” he wrote, “whether or not a specific application was anticipated by Congress is irrelevant.” His argument is misguided. It holds that the meaning of the term “sex” necessarily bears no relation whatsoever to the intentions of the Congress that passed the legislation or the public who endorsed it.

Member Post

 

There’s a story out of Seattle about Dick Clarke, an 85-year-old man who for the last 18 years rang a bell for the Salvation Army during every holiday season, collecting money for the homeless outside of Nordstrom’s downtown store. During those years he raised more than $100,000 for the cause. He also gained a whole […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and guest host Greg Knapp criticize Nike’s decision to yank Betsy Ross themed sneakers over objections from Colin Kaepernick. They discuss the dilemma facing Democrats with multiple candidates polling less than 1%. And they talk about Joe Biden’s most recent gaffe concerning gay waiters.

(Greg is a Speaker, Coach, and Talk Show Host. You can learn more about him and get a free gift at gregorybknapp.com. His podcast, Find Your Purpose-Live Your Passion is available on Apple Podcasts/iTunes.)

Gender Identity and Blood Donation

 

I am a long-time regular blood donor to the American Red Cross. I’ve always found it an easy way to “give back” to my community. Being tall, giving a pint is easy for me to do. I also used to enjoy the post-donation treats, but my revised way of eating has placed those snacks off-limits.

On my most recent visit, I had taken the “RapidPass” online, where one answers 30 or so questions on one’s lifestyle choices and how they may impact what I’m about to donate. I’m thinking with that out of the way, starting my donation should be quick. I sit down with my American Red Cross assistant interview, and he begins;

“How do you wish to identify? He or she?”