Louisiana Republican Introduces Bill To Ban LGBT Rainbow Flag From Public Buildings

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by SuicideBankers

 

I see that happening here as well. "What about our rights under the First Amendment?" "What about our right to freedom of expression?" They're trying to take away our rights!" and so on. I'm just hoping to discourage people from taking these erroneous positions. I tried to do that by showing it is well within the perogative of the state (or city) to control or ban all sorts of activities and objects in parks. That has not been succesfully challenged, and it has been going on for a long time.

With all due respect Charles I do believe this has been decided by the courts and the gist of the ruling is as follows

Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496 (1939). The United States Supreme Court held that citizens have a "guaranteed access" to streets, parks, and other "traditional public forum." The privilege to use the streets and parks for communication of views may be regulated in the best interests of all, but it must not, under the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied. Mere inconvenience to the government will not outweigh free speech interests.

reply to post by charles1952

Although I would tend to agree with your other points... I find it rather ridiculous that you think it's less moronic to ban a flag from a public event that is representative of that exact event than it is to ban 17 ounces of liquid diabetes.

Originally posted by Privateinquotations
The majority of society is heterosexual, how is that shoving it in your face when we are just being us?

how is that shoving it in your face when we are just being us?

how is that shoving it in your face

when we are just being us?

My point exactly.

Originally posted by mykingdomforthetruth
the thought pólice deducted 1000 points off me

guess i better be ok with the whole issue from now on or i might get banned aswell

You're not expected to just "be okay with it". You can be a bigot all you want.

However, you are expected not to be a rude turd when you voice your opinion.

Originally posted by Privateinquotations
reply to post by Glass

 

By the way, heterosexuality is being shoved in everyone's face. Its in 99% of the culture. We are mostly numb to it. The point of gay pride is not to be "obnoxious" and "in your face", though it seems to turn out that way...

Name one exclusively heterosexual major event.

Marriage.

reply to post by LightOrange


Now thats wrong isn't it

en.wikipedia.org...

Keep up with the times

reply to post by boymonkey74


Yes, well. Unfortunately some people and states are in eternal intellectual retrograde on that apparent "issue".

When public building display anything in support of sexuality...there is something insanely wrong...yep...let's stick with that word...insanely

reply to post by MadMax7


When a person doesn't understand why someone would fly a flag at an event that is directly symbolic of said event, then there is something insanely unintelligent about that person.

Insanely.

reply to post by pennylemon

Dear pennylemon,

I meant to send this earlier, in fact I did send it earlier, just as my machine died. I'll try again because your post is relly worth addressing. I'm not sure we're that far apart, and I'm really grateful you made the effort to find and post the holding of the Court.

But isn't it actually two holdings?

citizens have a "guaranteed access" to streets, parks, and other "traditional public forum." . . . it must not, under the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied.

And I completely agree with you. People must have access to public forums. But there is a buried, second holding.

The privilege to use the streets and parks for communication of views may be regulated in the best interests of all

I believe that's what Chicago does, in my example. I think a court would be very hard pressed to say that allowing only governmental flags to fly in government controlled venues, would be an improper regulation.

How could any group argue that not being allowed to fly a flag, while they are communicating on the ground, prevents them from speaking freely?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Glass

You missed the rest of what i said there. We don't have to have a special day to be hetero proud it is a part of us.
It is the double standard that bothers me. The fact that you have to have a special day to be you is silly. why not just be you everyday and say F- the haters?

Hetrosexual people are not your enemy. We are all part of a society. I for one accept you no matter who you are. Everyone wants equality but don't seem to realize what it means. If we realize the mindset of individual liberties then we are all empowered to be ourselves everyday. Tolerance is just minding your own business and opinions well...you know what they say about opinions. Just because someone disagrees with your lifestyle doesn't make you an outcast(it may make some ignorant), and that's their cross to bear not yours. Let them live in ignorance and fear. Many disagree with my lifestyle as well, but i don't let anyone get to me. That is part of being an adult, accepting who you are and loving yourself.

reply to post by Privateinquotations

We don't have to have a special day to be hetero proud it is a part of us.

It is a part of LGBT as well...

As for the necessity of it... apples to oranges. Totally different circumstances. Just not the same friend. Walk in their shoes, or at least imagine vicariously what it would be like, and you will start to see this. One would hope anyways.

It is the double standard that bothers me.

What double standard? There ARE plenty of events that celebrate, or if you wish 'shove it in ones face', for heterosexuality. You really can't think of any examples? O.o Now when you acknowledge that, care to explain what you mean by double standard? I'm not aware of any prevalent anti-hetero events from the LGBT community...

why not just be you everyday and say F- the haters?

Simple. When those haters are able to impact law and aspects that directly affect their lives 'turning the other cheek' is not the best course of action.

Hetrosexual people are not your enemy.

We do not think this.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

Simple. When those haters are able to impact law and aspects that directly affect their lives 'turning the other cheek' is not the best course of action.

There are all kinds of laws that directly affect everyone's life. Is not being able to hoist a flag on state owned property going to make you less gay? If i can't flag my coat of arms at a family reunion it does not make them less my family.
The only exception to the rule is the Mardi Gras flag which IS Louisiana. Pick your battles this is excluding everyone else as well. a non-issue.

reply to post by Privateinquotations


Your post seemed to be asking general question and making general statements. I was responding in that light.

as far as i got from the article, someone saw a picture of a rainbow flag being hosted and decided he didn't fight for our freedoms to allow rainbow flags flown in a park so now they are thinking about banning any flag besides government flags and Mardi Gras (of course)

does this really seem like a law that should pass?

reply to post by Darth_Prime

does this really seem like a law that should pass?

First, answer this question. Is there anything that legally prevents it from passing? If not, then isn't it up to them to pass whatever they want, if they can find the support for it?

reply to post by Darth_Prime


There are a crapload of laws i don't agree with. In this case though, at least, they included all flags. If the legislation is written that just the rainbow flag is banned i would be pretty upset too. You would definitely have a solid case and raging support. This is as non-discriminatory as it can get. They will also never get another flag complaint about any given flag.

reply to post by Privateinquotations

the start of this was because someone said they didn't fight for freedom to allow a rainbow flag,

but i'm not saying this law would be discriminatory because they would ban all flags, i'm saying it's easier to take away freedoms then to fight for them,

reply to post by Darth_Prime

And about that there is no doubt. Thank you for the discussion by the way. I wish you all the happiness you ever wanted.

reply to post by charles1952


Charles,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Out here in the woods my connection can be spotty at best and I have missed the boat quite a few times as relevant posts pass by at lighting speed.

There is indeed a second holding in this case that I neglected to quote in my original post, thank you for addressing it.

The privilege to use the streets and parks for communication of views may be regulated in the best interests of all

After reading through the cases that touch on similar subjects, it seems to me that the court generally comes down on the side of caution and would rather allow neutral treatment of expression rather than restrict such expressions based on the potential offence to the general public. The second holding you quoted above goes on to state

but it must not, under the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied. Mere inconvenience to the government will not outweigh free speech interests. The government must use the least restrictive means of achieving legitimate, content neutral objectives.

The way I would read this and the way to solve the issue would be, if a group wishes to fly any non-governmental flags, the group must bring to the site their own flag pole and must make sure that the flag or banner in question complies with respectful height restrictions in relation to any American flag that might be in the vicinity.

Penny