JayJonson

JayJonson

103p

2,272 comments posted · 6 followers · following 0

1 day ago @ Equality on Trial - Open thread 7/16 UPDAT... · 0 replies · 0 points

For all the reasons and ways to criticize a corrupt, racist, xenophobic U.S. president and a thuggish, murderous, kleptomaniac Russian dictator, the choice of the cartoonist is to depict them as in love with each other. And that is not homophobic? Absurd.

2 days ago @ Equality on Trial - Open thread 7/16 UPDAT... · 2 replies · -1 points

No. The point of the cartoon is that it is shameful for Trump to be a bottom to Putin. Period. The humor comes from the fact that Trump pretends to be such a "manly" p-ssu-grabbing bully but actually is eager to get fucked by Putin. That is bottom-shaming pure and simple. The entire situation would be very different if Trump were actually a bold and proud bottom. He isn't. The whole thing is absurd. But the cartoon finds its humor (and point) in the assumption that homosexuality is shameful, and the bottom is particularly an object of ridicule. I agree with the many activists who have objected to the cartoon.

3 days ago @ Equality on Trial - Open thread 7/16 UPDAT... · 0 replies · -1 points

So bottom-shaming is not homophobic?

3 days ago @ Equality on Trial - Open thread 7/16 UPDAT... · 0 replies · +1 points

The cartoon is deeply homophobic. It is funny only insofar as it ridicules the fake hypermasculinity of both autocrats. And no, the late-night comedians joking about Trump and Melanoma's relationship are not guilty of heterophobia. When they make fun of Trump and his whorish First Lady, they are making fun of them as individuals and a couple not of heterosexuality. The cartoonist, however, is using the stigma attached to homosexuality as a means of attacking Trump and Putin, based on the assumption that nothing they actually do is worse than being homosexual. That is homophobia, and the New York Times should know better.

1 week ago @ Equality on Trial - Open SCOTUS thread BRE... · 1 reply · +9 points

I don't share your doom and gloom. We are facing great challenges, especially considering the number of judges appointed by Trump. But it is ridiculous to say that the only way out of this decade-long nightmare is to pack the bench. The way out is to elect Democrats, not only to Congress and the presidency, but also at the state level.

1 week ago @ Equality on Trial - Open SCOTUS thread BRE... · 1 reply · +4 points

In some more post-Masterpiece good news, the Hawaii Supreme Court denied review of the Hawaii Appeals Court ruling that rejected Aloha Bed & Breakfast's appeal of a district court ruling that they had violated the state's anti-discrimination law when they refused to rent a room to a lesbian couple.

"A Long Beach lesbian couple won another legal victory Monday when the Hawai`i Supreme Court refused to review an appeals court ruling against a bed and breakfast owner who violated the state’s anti-discrimination law.

Phyllis Young, proprietor of The Aloha Bed & Breakfast in Honolulu’s Hawaii Kai area, refused to let the couple have a room on the basis of their sexual orientation. Young had said same-sex relationships “defile our land” and claimed a religious justification for discriminating against the lesbian couple.

In February, the Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court ruling.

“In letting the existing decision stand, Hawai‘i today joined a long line of states across the country that understand how pernicious and damaging a religious license to discriminate would be,” Lambda Legal Senior Attorney Peter Renn said in a statement.

“That is the just and proper understanding of the U.S. Constitution,” Renn said. “Religious freedom is protected, but it cannot to be used as a justification for discrimination. If you operate a business, you are open to all.”
https://qvoicenews.com/2018/07/11/long-beach-lesb...

1 week ago @ Equality on Trial - Open SCOTUS thread BRE... · 3 replies · +4 points

Interesting article by Ari Ezra Waldman on how SCOTUS, with a fifth conservative vote, will proceed to undermine rights. They will not overturn Roe or Obergefell directly, he says, but will chip away at them to such an extent that they will be severely compromised by onerous regulations (in the case of Roe) and religious liberty exceptions (in the case of Obergefell).
http://www.towleroad.com/2018/07/kavanaugh-scotus...

1 week ago @ Equality on Trial - Open SCOTUS thread BRE... · 0 replies · +2 points

See my comment above and this Politico article about Kennedy wanted Kavanuagh so as to preserve his legacy. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/09/brett-k...

1 week ago @ Equality on Trial - Open SCOTUS thread BRE... · 1 reply · +3 points

There are reports today that Kavanaugh has been the choice all along, that the "bachelor-like" reality show about finalists and the suspense that that has engendered was all fake theatrics. Allegedly, Kennedy reached a deal with Trump that he would resign only if Kavanaugh was chosen to succeed him. If this is so, then Kennedy at least thinks that Kavanaugh will preserve his legacy. I hope that that includes his pro-gay rights legacy rather than just his more dubious decisions such as Citizens United.

A more disturbing reason that Trump may have chosen Kavanaugh is that he wrote a 2009, IIRC, law review article arguing that presidents should not be subject to criminal investigations and indictments or even civil suits while in office. Although Kavanaugh was a member of Ken Starr's team that investigated Clinton and called for his impeachment, he apparently wrote the law review article to distance himself from Starr and the impeachment of a president (perhaps figuring that that might cause even a Republican president to fear appointing him to SCOTUS).

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/09/brett-k...

2 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - BREAKING: Justice Kenn... · 0 replies · +2 points

Yes, with Kennedy on the Court, there were not four votes to grant cert to cases appealing conversion therapy bans. But when Kennedy is replaced by a far-right successor, there could very well be four votes to grant cert. Don't know whether they will have 5 to overturn the bans, but I would not be surprised if SCOTUS granted cert to a challenge to them.