27 Democrats Vote Against Making it a Felony for Adults to Expose Themselves to Kids

https://www.dailyfetched.com/27-dem...lony-for-adults-to-expose-themselves-to-kids/

27 Democrats Vote Against Making it a Felony for Adults to Expose Themselves to Kids

Am I the only one that thinks we have crossed into the Twilight Zone, where crime is good and protecting innocent citizens is bad? Allowing illegals in is good and working for your money is bad?

At what level do we have to protect the freaks to prove that no one is more liberal than us?

 

" These types of laws,"..... Are targeted to address people who would expose themselves to minors.

 

Their priorities are very clear

 

I'm calling fake news until proven otherwise.

 

@straight ahead

video here.......................... let Leslie Herod speak for herself
https://tinyurl.com/4u4dtdwm

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/colorado-27-democrats-vote-against-making-flashing-kids-felony
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/co...nt-exposure-kids-because-could-ban-drag-shows

 

Why do you have to re-word their response?

If its true that the intended purpose of the bill was not to reduce "indecent exposure", but to target the LGBT, then its no wonder some reps killed the bill. Its no secret that GOP has recently come up with all kinds vaguely worded bills to target them.

 

The democratic party has been hijacked by the woke crowd and the perverts.

 

I see the left is very quiet in this thread. I can't wait to see their justifications for THIS one.

 

Isn't indecent exposure already law in the State? If not, why not?

And will this law make it a crime for a parent to have been nude in front of their children?

What is this law trying to address that isn't already law?

 

here comes the grooming defense task force. BRACE FOR IMPACT. Notice what they do folks. They won't even address the issue and instead will try to dissect the law/bill to make it work for THEIR narrative.

 

Mardi gras would be in trouble

 

flashing bewbs and flashing a penis, 2 super different things and now that there are so many "women" with penises, I agree, should be a NO KID ZONE

 

if someone exposes a child to their nudity in a sexual manner, it's already a felony people

 

oh, so nudity is not nudity unless you say so, I though the law said nudity


is a male that is a trans woman, really a male, can he go topless in public?

 

I don't think changing it from a misdemeanor to a felony is a good use of legislative effort.

I'm sure Lauren Bobert's husband is glad it wasn't a felony already.

 

I don't know, you tell me

https://www.foxnews.com/media/faceb...-trans-non-binary-people-not-cis-gender-women

technically, MEN can be topless

another fake point crushed? its ok, you'll be fine

 

Yes, it is. The penalty is Class 1 misdemeanor, or class 6 felony + the offender must register as a sex offender.

 

yes, "technically, MEN can be topless", the trans woman could change that if many started going topless

cause if they are men, they can go topless.... are trans women different?

"its ok, you'll be fine"

no clue what you meant by that, have a nice day

 

Hi, straight ahead.

We're definitely in a 'twilight zone. It's one in which the internecine battle for supremacy between our two political parties has resulted in pushing all manner of boundaries. It can lead to the sort of vote noted in the OP.

Regards, stay safe 'nm well.

 

Exactly. Has the state of Colorado just never thought to make a law against indecent exposure, before now? This is far worse than political correctness, or cancel culture-- as this is a political Party, trying to gain advantage from demonizing a minority group, and criminalizing the drag show culture of many male and trans crossdressers. One would need be extremely gullible, to see it as anything other than a disingenuous evading of addressing the genuine, practical, legitimate concerns of the citizens of that state.

It is elected Republicans, @FatBack , whose priorities are "very clear." This is obviously just one more, of the hundreds of laws (471 laws & proposals, according to the list of bills, at the ACLU site, below), the GOP has just recently passed, aimed at persecuting this community, based on nothing but prejudice against, and irrational fear & hatred of, people who are different from themselves. And they are only waging this war on marginalized Americans, as a way to rally their own base, create scapegoats, and divide the nation. This is an attack on freedom of expression, plain & simple. It is a mark of shame upon those elected officials, and reflects poorly on those who support these tactics.


https://www.aclu.org/legislative-attacks-on-lgbtq-rights


https://www.npr.org/2023/03/06/1161...essee-trans-rights-minor-care-anti-lgbtq-laws

<Snip>
As of a month ago, at least 9 GOP-led state legislatures were pushing similar anti-drag bills...

Critics say the Tennessee bill is so constitutionally vague there is little clarity about what falls under the jurisdiction of the ban, making business owners, performers and others uncertain of what could come next.

Others say the laws will be used to target queer Tennesseans everywhere: "It's ... this subtle and sinister way to further criminalize just being trans," ACLU of Tennessee's Henry Seaton told NPR earlier this month...


Jules Gill-Peterson, a historian and professor at Johns Hopkins University, studies transgender history and the history of sexuality. She spoke with NPR's Ari Shapiro to highlight the history behind these types of laws.

On the precedent set before these laws:

Unlike a lot of other anti-LGBT legislation that doesn't really have any precedent, we actually have almost 150 years worth of laws in this kind of zone.

In 1863, San Francisco was actually the very first place to enact a ban, what it called a cross-dressing or masquerade ordinance, which prohibited someone from being out in public if they were wearing clothing that was different from their sort of legal sex or assigned sex. And those kinds of laws really took off in the late 19th century.

They were really used for many decades, well into the 20th century to imperil and harass, but also silence LGBT people. Because if you were arrested, which was so easy under the way these laws were written, your name might be published in the newspaper, you'd have a criminal record. It could really ruin your employment chances and out you to everyone.


On whether first amendment rights were brought up with these previous laws:

As far as I know, that question was never really settled under the law. In some ways, the question with these sorts of status offenses, or these laws that target how people appear or what they wear, is that they're so vaguely worded, that so much comes down to how they're implemented. It's much more a matter of policing than it is the letter of the law.


On what enforcement could look like, particularly at pride events in Tennessee this summer:

The notion that police might arrive at pride and start arresting drag queens, or frankly, anyone who could be dressed in a costume, and because there could be children in the crowd, is really, kind of an incredible thing to imagine happening.

But I think this is the sort of uncertainty of how these laws are written. I'm not totally sure Tennessee's law would necessarily allow the police to take that action, but certainly some of the other laws being considered in other states definitely would.

And so the question is, what is going to be the newfound danger that folks are going to face at a popular family friendly event like Pride? I think that just goes to show how far the reach and the scope of some of these laws really can be that they're reaching into, and allowing the government to exercise a really powerful degree of authority in determining what you're allowed to wear, where you're allowed to be in public, and frankly, how you're allowed to exist when you're walking down the street.
<End Snip>


Note the irony that the first place to enact a crossdressing (or masquerading) ordinance, was San Francisco! So watch out, GOP, for that boomerang effect!


https://time.com/6260421/tennessee-limiting-drag-shows-status-of-anti-drag-bills-u-s/

<Snip>
The bill signing also comes after Gov. Lee was criticized earlier this week for what many called him dressing in drag, after a photo of what appears to be the governor wearing a dress from a 1977 Franklin High Yearbook surfaced on Reddit.
<End Snip>

Making hypocrisy, the Republican brand.






https://www.google.com/amp/s/variet...l-anti-drag-bills-legislation-1235544678/amp/

<Snip>
RuPaul, the face of the “Drag Race” franchise, has responded to the recent wave of anti-drag and anti-trans legislation introduced by Republican lawmakers in the U.S.

In an Instagram video on Wednesday, the Emmy winner called the bills “a classic distraction technique” and urged Americans to register to vote.

“Hey, look over there! A classic distraction technique, distracting us away from the real issues that they were voted into office to focus on: jobs, healthcare, keeping our children safe from harm at their own school,” RuPaul said. “But we know that bullies are incompetent at solving real issues. They look for easy targets so they can give the impression of being effective. They think our love, our light, our laughter and our joy are signs of weakness. But they’re wrong because that is our strength.”

 

Hey folks, looks like we found the left's angle on this issue.....TIME!

They have a problem with the TIME PERIOD in which its being introduced. Once again they prove themselves wrong with their own non-related rebuttals. NOW is the TIME we need this legislation the most. NOW is when lefties are supporting half nekkid drag queens twerking for your 4 year olds

The left proves our point again and even admit that TIMING IS EVERYTHING

They got so entitled they don't even try to prove stuff wrong anymore

You can't make this stuff up folks!

 

On the contrary, you clearly can make that stuff up, as you just demonstrated.

I guess it helps, though, if you only read the first sentence of a reply.

 

The acceptance of the LGBTQFHC community is a societal error that needs to corrected.

 

However, in this particular instance, a democrat that voted against it named the reason for not voting for this legislation. It was clearly because they chose to protect transgenders over children.

 

Dude, or is it dudette? WTF kind of post was that? You are way out of line. Don’t you have a Trump deflection handy for situations like this? All the other libs do.