Civil Rights and Discrimination

Should the Military and Federal Agencies Celebrate LGBTQ Pride?

by on

Reposted from my Substack, why ending (or “pausing”) identity-focused celebrations is not an attack on our “rights”:

Lately, I have been seeing a lot of discussions in LGBTQ online groups decrying the ending of LGBTQ Pride commemorations and Pride Month celebrations in the military and federal government offices, and the State Department’s ordering that only the U.S. flag be flown and U.S. embassies and consulates around the world.

For example, “Going forward, DoD Components and Military Departments will not use official resources, to include man-hours, to host celebrations or events related to cultural awareness months,” the Department of Defense announced on Jan. 31. “Service members and civilians remain permitted to attend these events in an unofficial capacity outside of duty hours. Installations, units, and offices are encouraged to celebrate the valor and success of military heroes of all races, genders, and backgrounds.”

These developments are being described in somber tones as a rollback of LGBTQ “rights.”

In truth, what we as gays and lesbians sought in the pre- and post-Stonewall fight for legal equality was the “right” to be treated the same as our heterosexual peers, not to have the government require that our sexual orientation be celebrated by others.

The Trump administration’s “pausing for review” all identity-focused commemorations and celebrations is a statement that military service, especially, and the federal government, generally, should focus on what unites us as Americans. In our own community spheres, we can choose to celebrate our particular identities, whether based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or other defining factors. But that is not the role and constitutional mandate of the government.

Returning to that principle, while at the same time making clear that government must ensure equal opportunity and merit-based hiring and promotion, is what America is about at its best.

While the previous administration’s obsessive focus on DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) was overly broad to the point of self-parody, the current administration could by over-reacting by cancelling all recognition of our “strength through diversity.” But corrective action was needed, so at least for the immediate future jettisoning Pride Month in the military and federal agencies isn’t a lamentable loss; it’s a return to the proper role of government in a democratic republic.

In short, it is not the role of government to celebrate anyone’s sexual orientation. How did we come to think that it was?

0 Comments

Odds & Ends

by on

We’re seeing more indications that the smug, elitist, soft authoritarianism known colloquially as “woke” finally may be receding, leaving it its wake a legacy ranging from lost rights to freedom of speech and equal treatment under the law, to civil disasters, some deadly. Turns out, for instance, that replacing merit and ability as hiring and promotion metrics with identity group “equity” doesn’t work out so well.
But key constituencies on the left, including the LGBTQ+ progressives who dominant what was once the movement for gay and lesbian legal equality and social acceptance (what a quaint idea!), remain committed to the woke ideology in all its critical race and critical gender glory.

Maybe her primary goal should have been preparing the LAFD to fight fires. Adam Lehrer at The Scroll reports: >>In 2022,…

Posted by IGF CultureWatch on Wednesday, January 8, 2025


And this:


Added: GLAAD comes out full force against ending woke censorship at Facebook. The group has long favored silencing voices it disagrees with.

0 Comments

The Side that’s Authoritarian Is Pretty Clear

by on

It’s well past time for LGBTQ+ activists to stop the lawfare against Jack Phillips, owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Co., and trade their authoritarian (you will do what we say, deplorable) attitude for a more just and libertarian one (you have your beliefs, we have ours, and that’s fine).
From the Wall Street Journal editorial, after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission acted with particular animus toward Phillips’ faith when ordering him to create a custom same-sex wedding cake:

[A]n attorney had called Mr. Phillips to request another custom cake, this one celebrating a gender transition. He also requested a second cake depicting Satan smoking marijuana. Mr. Phillips declined again on religious free-exercise grounds. The attorney then sued. This is the lawsuit the Colorado Supreme Court dismissed this week….

0 Comments

What Contributions to ‘Big LGBTQ+’ Are Paying For

by on

In further evidence of how LGBTQ+ activists and ideologues are undermining the hard-fought victories that gay men and lesbians won, consider this. Charles M. Blow, a social justice columnist for the New York Times, argues that queerness is chosen and we should stop saying people are born with an innate sexuality. Here, he draws heavily on academic queer theory and gender studies academics.

Blow writes:

“Born this way,” as a slogan, was a tremendous cultural and political success. The problem is that it isn’t supported by science. The emerging scientific consensus is that sexual orientation isn’t purely genetic. A person’s genetic makeup and exposure to prenatal hormones may provide a propensity to queerness, but they aren’t determinative. …
But the time may have come to retire the phrase. It is not only unsupportable by science but also does not capture the full reality of queer experience and is unjust to some members of the queer community itself.

Is it any wonder that there is a growing backlash against “LGBTQ+” when queer ideologues are undermining the arguments that won equality for LGB people while, at the same time, they’re pushing gender-nonconforming kids onto the trans train?


Andrew Doyle on what the current version of LGBT+ activism has done to what was once the movement for gay and lesbian equality.


Not only is big LGBT+ activism wrong-headed and counter-productive, but thoroughly corrupt as well.

4 Comments

Supreme Court Balances Anti-Discrimination Laws with Expressive Freedom Protections

by on

The Supreme Court rules in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis that the First Amendment bars Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.
The majority ruling was based on First Amendment free speech grounds.
The progressive media, LGBTQ+ activist fundraising lobbies, and Democratic party politicos claim that the ruling is a frontal attack on LGBTQ+ rights and allows businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ+ clients. But the ruling does not permit businesses to refuse LGBTQ+ customers overall; it’s clearly targeted at allowing providers to refuse requests for services that involve the creation of explicit communications that violate the provider’s beliefs.
It is often necessary to balance conflicting rights. LGBTQ+ activists and Democratic party officials want to use the state to force small business owners to engage in expressive activity that violates their religious or otherwise deeply held beliefs. The court rightly told them to desist.
(Edited to clarify that the decision was based on freedom of speech, not religious freedom, grounds.)

Added:

12 Comments