They Want the Feds to Make a List

More. I realize the data is meant to be reported in the aggregate with safeguards to ensure the anonymity of respondents. But of course the census forms are reported with respondents’ names/addresses, and you might think people would now be aware how unsecure protected government data actually is.

There’s a reason the census doesn’t ask about religion, and why religious minorities are quite content that it doesn’t.

Also, it’s not my contention that the information would be misused, but then I’m not among the hoard accusing the Trump administration of being a neo-Nazi regime supplicant to Vlad Putin and deserving an “F” on LGBT issues. No, that would be the left making those accusations—the same folks upset that the administration won’t be collecting information on the sexual orientation and gender identity of all U.S. residents.

A final thought: given the extreme likelihood that a lot of people would not want to share their minority-status sexual orientation with the government, the numbers reported in aggregate for LGB Americans would likely be less than the 2-3% that many surveys show (with the T number far lower). And that would be helpful to us because….

Constitutionally, the census is meant to count the population in order to apportion electoral districts. Arguably, the civil rights statutes pushed the census to include race, so as to ensure that districts aren’t racial biased. All else is extraneous.

Yesterday: Queer Leading Edge: Today: Transphobic

IGF CultureWatch friend David Link comments on protesters claiming that Lou Reed’s classic “Walk on the Wild Side,” once hailed by nonconformists for celebrating sexual and gender transgression, is now condemned as transphobic.

A Small Victory for Freedom

I agree with Walter—the ruling should have been broader. Laws violate the First Amendment when they force people to print or utter words in which they disbelieve.

That’s Not Funny!

LGBTQ hypersensitivities have played a major role, after race and gender, in the intersectional hysteria that has gripped college campuses and, indeed, much of the left. Does growing mockery signal that sanity may be returning? If so, is there a path toward equality and supportive community that doesn’t invoke authoritarian-like thought control and the demonizing of white, heterosexual, cisgender males?

Really not so funny:

Assaults on Free Speech Continue

This says so much:

Kirchick [was] expected to address the ways in which oppressive regimes endanger gay rights. The event has generated controversy on campus, with DePaul officials censoring a poster promoting the talk due to its statement: “Gay Lives Matter.”

More. It’s not just Jamie Kirchick. Leftist Protesters Shout Down Gay Journalist at Portland State University, referencing Chadwick Moore’s attempt to share his views. Writes Tom Knighton:

College campuses aren’t welcoming places for any speaker who isn’t a Leftist—the Left’s dirty little secret is that identity doesn’t really matter to them at all. …

The student group that put on the event, Freethinkers of PSU, is reportedly a non-partisan student group. They reported that they attempted to place flyers for the event with PSU’s Queer Resource Center, but were denied.

From the comments:

Kosh III: The true danger to the First Amendment is from Trump and his cult followers such as Miller and other quislings. But maybe Miller hopes for a sinecure in the Fourth Reich?

Jason replies: Only in the Alice-in Wonderland delusions of the left would opposing mob tactics to keep invited speakers from expressing views that the mob dislikes be seen as the Nazi side.

The Colbert Contretemp

CBS’s Stephen Colbert said of President Trump during a “Late Show” monologue: “You’re a real prick-tator. The only thing your mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin’s cockholster.”

Flashback: Alec Baldwin Apparently Calls Paparazzi A ‘C**ksucking Fag’

Pride Month Approaches

June is Pride Month, and various cities and locales are facing a new wave of politically correct deplatforming and exclusion protests.

In Washington, D.C., organizers of D.C.’s annual Capital Pride Parade and Festival were pressed by a group called No Justice No Pride to ban police officers and corporate sponsors from the annual pride parade and events. The organizers stood their ground.

In Toronto, organizers went the other way and banned LGBT police from participating in their pride events, capitulating to Black Lives Matter activists.

D.C.’s Capital Pride did remove a volunteer event producer for expressing views they deemed offensive. Bryan Pruitt had posted an article last year at the conservative blog RedState that said government decrees and legislation regarding transgender bathroom use sought “to implement a solution in search of a problem. The City of Charlotte passes an unnecessary law and the State Legislature provides an equally overreaching response.”

On that point, if not on others, I would agree, so I guess my volunteer services would also be unwelcome.

And the demands keep coming….

‘Religious Freedom’ Is a Core Value, Not a Scare Phrase

The executive order is significantly reduced in scope from earlier drafts promoted by the Heritage Foundation and other social conservatives. In its final form, it:
1. Declares that it is the policy of the administration to protect and vigorously promote religious liberty;
2. Directs the IRS to exercise maximum enforcement discretion to alleviate the burden of the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits religious leaders from speaking about politics and candidates from the pulpit (and which mostly goes unenforced, especially against black churches supporting Democratic candidates);
3. Provides regulatory relief for religious objectors to Obamacare’s preventive services mandate, a position supported by the Supreme Court decision in Hobby Lobby.

The ACLU is threatening to sue. Update: No, now they’re not.

Social conservatives, rightly, see a defeat—Trump (and Ivanka/Jared) are not, and have never been, on the anti-gay bandwagon.

But the Human Rights campaign isn’t changing its narrative:

Furthermore. From the comments: To the charge “Isn’t it more accurate to say that [the Johnson Amendment] mostly goes unenforced against ‘any’ churches? There has been exactly one (1) prosecution of a church under the Johnson Amendment in the 63 years it’s been around. Why single out black churches in particular?,” reader Jason replies:

Short of actual prosecution is the threat of prosecution. White evangelical churches have been warned, from time to time, about supporting socially conservative politicians and “crossing the line” from the pulpit, and liberal groups have threatened to make this an issue. But Stephen is correct; African-American churches sermonizing to vote for Democrats are under much less pressure, owing to the history of the civil rights movement. To raise the issue (and some on the right do) is to invite the charge of racism. So black churches feel much less constrained than do white churches.

The Trump Divide

Log Cabin makes its case:

Countered with:

Trump can be criticized on many grounds but all those “F”s from LGBT activist “leaders” is pure partisan progressive hackery.

Plus this charming cover.

And widespread disdain for both parties—by those who identify as party supporters:

Finally, Andrew Sullivan detests Trump but makes some pertinent observations.