degggendorf

degggendorf t1_iunt4ag wrote

> cherry picking the article, that not what it says.

It's a supreme court ruling not an article, and those are direct quotes. It is literally what it says.

> Page 9, section C.

The part that summarizes survey results? I am not sure what relevance the status quo before the ruling has on anything.

But even in that section, it agrees with what I quoted and how I summarized it:

> local governments that fly third-party flags frequently reject requests to do so

[...]

> For example, in response to the Black Lives Matter movement, one city received a request to display the “Thin Blue Line” flag, but the city declined the request due to the flag’s association with opposition to the Black Lives Matter and racial justice movements.

3

degggendorf t1_iunqosy wrote

> At a minimum, the Court should confirm that a local government does not establish a government-created forum for private speech by deciding to fly the flag of a foreign country, a private organization, or a movement on its initiative without any formal request. It cannot be disputed that a local government may decide by itself to fly the flag of a foreign country to welcome a foreign dignitary or celebrate the heritage of a portion of the community without creating a forum.

[...]

> Thus, for example, local governments may decide to fly only flags of foreign countries, flags of local non-profit and charitable groups, or flags of local non-profit institutions and sports teams without transforming their flagpoles into public fora.

That ruling affirms a town's right to fly something like the Pride Flag, and confirms that flying one flag doesn't require them to then fly all flags. Is that what you intended to support by posting the link?

4

degggendorf t1_iunef39 wrote

> I see an issue of forcing it on others

Forcing what exactly on others? Forcing them to confront the fact that people with immutable characteristics exist in the world? What do you think it says about a person if if ruins their day to think that gay people exist and deserve respect?

> nazis [...] WOUld it then be acceptable, if they wanted to fly their flag on state property...?

Well no, for a couple reasons. Being a nazi isn't an immutable characteristic, so it fails there. It's also a political choice, so it fails there as well.

If it helps, here's where I would draw the line on other flags:

  • Pride flag: yes

  • RI Queer PAC flag: no

  • Autism Awareness flag: yes

  • Flag for the organization "Autism Speaks": no

  • Remember to vote flag (if there were one): yes

  • Vote Democrat flag: no

  • Gold ribbon cancer awareness flag: yes

  • Komen for the Cure trademarked pink ribbon flag: no

5

degggendorf t1_iuncyud wrote

They are extremist if their ideas are much further left than the mainline party, yes. That's what the term means. Someone who wants literal communism would indeed be an extremist.

> immediately name call

I think your victim complex is showing...you're all over this thread but no one is calling you names.

> try silence my opinion

How are they doing that?

11

degggendorf t1_iuncfoc wrote

Is that really the main concern for people like you, that you don't want to have to think that someone might be attracted to someone else?

Do you get grossed out when you see a man and woman holding hands on the street, and wish they would keep their sexual preferences to themselves? Or is it only certain types of orientations you think are bad?

14

degggendorf t1_iunc536 wrote

>what does flying a LGBTQ flag on state property have to do with anything but virtue signalling?

Flags are literally signals. What does flying an American or Rhode Island do aside from virtue signal? Flags are symbols, and I think it's perfectly reasonable to signal our pride in being Americans, pride in being Rhode Islanders, and pride in being a diverse community across all the gender and sexual spectrums of immutable traits we exist on.

4

degggendorf t1_iun28ay wrote

Thanks for the background, I was a bit confused too...I was just assuming it was a show like, idk, Jeopardy where it's one day of filming that then gets edited into a bunch of weekly shows.

Being Survival-style makes more sense.

If you're taking followup questions - who is the suspending authority? The article says it's the guy in charge of Tory MP discipline; is that someone who is also an MP that the party has decided should be the majority leader like US congress does, or are they someone in the party but outside the government who only does intra-party stuff?

5