The decision, NAGA says, is one that Native Americans at large were never consulted about and instead made them subjects of “cancel culture.”
NAGA is a non-profit Native American advocacy organization that seeks to “educate not eradicate” Native American heritage and history.
“The logo on the Redskin’s helmet is an actual person, it’s Chief White Calf. Every time they go out on that field, they were honoring Chief White Calf and they were battling on the football field with the same honor and integrity and courage,” LaVeglia said. “They should continue to honor that.”
Like a lot of things these days, a small group of people think they’re speaking for an “oppressed” group and take action to “help” them, when in reality they’re just talking out of their own ass for the self-gratification.
Good legal interview regarding the upcoming free speech case against Biden’s government censorship and illegal influence of social media.
—-
The stakes are extremely high. If this thing goes the wrong way, free speech in the United States is toast and the First Amendment will be a dead letter.
But let’s just suppose there is a good result: the court sides for the plaintiffs, the injunction is immediately upheld, and goes into effect upon the release of the opinion. The social media companies would have lost nothing but their chains. They can still enforce terms of service and community standards but they will no longer be under pressure from any state actor.
Sorry to ask this question but it must be asked: who precisely is going to enforce this?
The pathetic answer is that the people and agencies charged with implementing the injunction are the same people against whom the injunction is targeted.
Do you see the problem here? It is a major flaw in the way the system works. We have to trust the government, whose power is being limited by the courts to limit itself. That’s because the judiciary has no army, no inherent coercive power, no ability directly to punish those who go against its edicts against the enforcers themselves.
The Babylon Bee is a much funnier way to get your news. They also have a “Not the Bee” companion site for things you might have thought they made up given how ridiculous they are, but are actually true.
If you wanted the boring admin PR or how Biden apparently forget and denied having done the whole Trans Awareness Day on Easter, well, that’s a bit more depressing but the regular news has you covered.
Putting aside the fact that authors of this article do not have any legal education making it a dubious “legal interview”, I cannot follow what the article wants as best outcome. If the government prevails, status quo of alleged nudges to censor conservative views but if the executive changes, you could see the pendulum swing the other way towards censoring of liberal views. That’d almost seem to me more beneficial to the authors’ views.
Because if the plaintiffs prevail, government would be prevented from making demands of social media companies which will leave them free to censor whoever the heck they want unilaterally (conservative speech according to authors).
Would POTUS bother to go against the ruling then considering the social media mainstream is allegedly already censoring conservative views on their own? Especially considering that refusing to abide by the ruling of SCOTUS might possibly be impeachable by Congress (as dereliction of duty to enforce the rule of law)? The example of a precedent for Biden doing so with student loan forgiveness was between straight idiotic and purposely misleading (you decide). The quote does not prove in any way that Biden refused to enforce the court’s decision, otherwise we would have had the originally-proposed broad frivolous forgiveness waste already. His administration just concocted something else that did not go against the court’s ruling (yet). Could they attempt something similar and try to influence social media companies in other ways if prevented by SCOTUS in this case? I bet they would but that’d be for another case to decide potentially.
Am I the only one to think this was self-defeating timing by the WH? Easter is a celebration not of inclusion but of forgiveness of sins and salvation. Therefore is the administration implying that transgender people are forgiven for the sin of being transgender and there’s hope for them to be saved too? Thus flagging them as sinners seems to be 180 degrees from the intention of being inclusive towards them.
Besides, as a Catholic, I’m strongly against associating anything paganistic with our most holy day of the year. I’m very annoyed that they picked Easter Day to push their transgender agenda. I vote for moving it to talk like a pirate day instead (or any other symbolic celebration of the same magnitude).
I think that’s the unintended takeaway for a large chunk of the population.
I think the intention was that the religious folks weren’t going to “forgive” the trans people, so they were giving those trans people a reason to celebrate on that day along with everyone else. Like everything else with this agenda, inclusion is about highlighting and celebrating individual differences, not welcoming everyone into one group.
The trees are a minor aspect and Santa Claus could be traced back to 4th-century St-Nicholas who used to offer gifts to the poor. Now the current Santa is closer to pagan midwinter festival figures. The Easter hare traces back to German Lutherans and Easter eggs are symbolic of the empty tomb of resurrected Jesus. So you can choose to celebrate (or at least tolerate) these for their symbolic and more spiritual origin if you’re a Christian.
But, yes, I generally regret the extreme commercialism around both Easter and Christmas (and Halloween). But it’s hard to deny that our world is more materialistic and less spiritual. But at least our government did not name an alternate celebration for Christmas Day, yet.
The company is playing the victim card, but still a lot of negative publicity.
Nearly 30 Planet Fitness locations have received bomb threats since a customer was banned for raising concerns about a transgender gym-goer shaving in the women’s locker room, according to an investigation.
Police have received reports of such bomb hoaxes in at least 28 gyms in 11 states, from Connecticut through Alaska, according to Media Matters.
Although no bombs were ever found, the threats have forced dozens of businesses to evacuate.
So many wrong things in this story. I agree with the policy banning taking pictures of others in locker room. That’s just creepy. Then posting the video online should definitely get you banned. It’d be one thing to forward it privately to the management of the gym to ask them to address the safety concern, it’s entirely another to post it online. If it were me - not that I’d ever shave in public in lady’s locker room -, I’d also probably sue whoever took that video of me without consent.
But response from Planet Fitness is also so tone deaf. I don’t like their locker room gender identity policy to start with anyway. If they wanted to have that policy, they should have moved to 100% private showers and changing rooms.
But pretending that nobody could feel uncomfortable/unsafe about having biological men shaving in women’s locker room is both idiotic and crazy bad foresight for business impact.
And it’s not the first time either that this happened. Yet they keep ignoring the issue. It’s not even an elephant in the room anymore. It’s like an aircraft carrier. Just look at what happened at that career expo for women last fall where allowing men claiming to identify as women to attend resulted in an about 50/50 men/women crowd. I thought the Bud Light boycott was stupid - although I personally boycott bud light for other reasons lol - but PF deserve all the stick and boycotts they’ll get from this until they acknowledge the issue needs another solution than the one they provide.
But honestly, how can they arrest such a person? Isnt that the definition of inequal treatment? Per the prevailing standard, she is a woman since that is how she identified, and the woman’s locker room is where she belongs.
I’d bet money this guy did this to make this exact point, and highlight the fallcy of the policy/standard.
Presumably she hasnt been a woman for long. Who knows what videos she had watched as her only exposure to what happens in the women’s locker room. Some of those movies can be pretty misleading (or so I’m told).
But (kind of) seriously, any other woman does that and the women being asked look startled and just quietly walk away. At most it becomes whispered gossip.
The issues here seem multiple to me. First, the self-reporting is suspect and prone to exploitation for dishonest motives. The article points to this issue by the fact that they couldn’t even figure out whether Miller was actually transgender or not.
To me, the self-reporting should get formalized before you can use restrooms other than your biological ones. Maybe mandate first to have a psychological exam to obtain a certificate of gender identity. Just stating it on the spot should not be the end of it.
And the second part is the fact that gym locker rooms should evolve into 100% private facilities to account for the evolution in gender identity acceptance. Policy for behavior in locker rooms should also evolve to consider any exposure of yourself as indecent (misdemeanor in most states) and subject to instant termination of membership without refund. But as things stand, PF seems to ignore the issue and hope it goes away. So this stuff is gonna keep occuring.
