[RD] LGBTQ news

Its closeted, I'd say. The abuse is the point. You can't torture, abuse or shame people who are dead and gone.
Ah, but fresh victims. Traits negotiable, if the abuse is the point. If you're trying to get into the predatory mindset, you need to forget valuing the target. They're consumable. You want fresh chicken wings tonight, not the same bones you've been gnawing on for a week.
 
Even if you genuinely believed everything she claims to do and really were motivated by nothing more than women's safety, a comment like that is clearly a spiteful (and desperate) attempt to set a narrative that Radcliffe, Grint et al would need to apologise in the first place.

She actually didn't mention Grint specifically. Only Radcliffe and Watson.
 
Ah, but fresh victims. Traits negotiable, if the abuse is the point. If you're trying to get into the predatory mindset, you need to forget valuing the target. They're consumable. You want fresh chicken wings tonight, not the same bones you've been gnawing on for a week.
Nah, the point is to force people into the closet, because then they've been forced into acquiescence, into accepting, and by hostile implication, admitting that there is something wrong with them, into embracing the shame. Also, there's always fresh victims to be had, in that regard, killing off the old LGBTQ folks isn't necessary, or even productive towards the goal of those who are intent on persecuting them. They need the older folks to be examples to keep the new ones in line and keep the community they want to persecute alive.
 
1713232119077.png
 
Restricting relief against a law deemed unconstitutional only to specific plaintiffs seems to defy all logic...
 
Absolutely no one should applaud that "judgement", because nobody is a member of every in-crowd.
 
As a Brit, I am not an expert in US law; but ..

... it would seem to me that if states decided to try to enforce laws that had already been ruled unconstitutional
by the supreme court, those persons doing so would run the risk of being arrested and charged under common or
federal law regarding malicious prosecution and false imprisonment and of being convicted at federal courts.
 

The most backward state in trans rights becomes a decent amount better
 

The most backward state in trans rights becomes a decent amount better
This is a great change but IIRC NSW still has worse laws. NSW still requires people to undergo surgical procedure to change their birth certificates, WA only requires hormone replacement therapy (which is much less invasive).

Still, this is an unambiguously positive step in the right direction. Well done Western Australia!
 
Yeah I do lose track of which states are backwards in which things tbh
 
As a Brit, I am not an expert in US law; but ..

... it would seem to me that if states decided to try to enforce laws that had already been ruled unconstitutional
by the supreme court, those persons doing so would run the risk of being arrested and charged under common or
federal law regarding malicious prosecution and false imprisonment and of being convicted at federal courts.
Generally government officials (especially cops, lawyers and judges) are immune from being prosecuted for improperly applying the law in the US, IIRC.
 
Perhaps that is merely just the historic custom not to prosecute them.

However it would seem to me that if the supreme court has ruled a state law
invalid any arrests made under that law after that ruling, are unlawful arrests.
 
Perhaps that is merely just the historic custom not to prosecute them.
No, its the law.

However it would seem to me that if the supreme court has ruled a state law
invalid any arrests made under that law after that ruling, are unlawful arrests.
Sure. Won't stop them if the only relief for victims is for each individual victim to go through the long, grinding court process.
 
However it would seem to me that if the supreme court has ruled a state law
invalid any arrests made under that law after that ruling, are unlawful arrests.

Kindly stop posting uninformed drivel
 
Perhaps that is merely just the historic custom not to prosecute them.

However it would seem to me that if the supreme court has ruled a state law
invalid any arrests made under that law after that ruling, are unlawful arrests.

you have no idea how envious i am of people who are free to be this naïve about how institutions function
 
Top Bottom