Cahn’s writing argues, in summary: the Stonewall riots of 1969 which launched the modern gay-rights movement opened the floodgates to another realm, from which ancient pagan deities returned to Earth, including the Mesopotamian goddess Ishtar, who is resentful at being marginalized for thousands of years and hungry to return the favour against Christianity.
Reminder: These people are not trying to say anything true. They trumpet deliberate falsehood as a demonstration of power: “Because I can get away with slandering you, I therefore have power over you.”
The more absurdly false the lies they tell, the more power they are laying claim to. The right response is laughter and mockery, not rebuttal. They are standing up in front of the public in a clown outfit, proclaiming that foolishness and idiocy must be treated seriously.
Also reminder: a claim is not evidence. Claiming a god exists and said things, even to the point of writing it down, is not evidence of that god existing.
What you believe matters. Try to believe as many evidently true things as you can.
As if Ishtar could pull that off anyway. It’s well known that she is a useless goddess who can’t even find Gugalanna when Mommy is trying to drown humanity
That’s literally mental hospital territory.
“oh no, gay people exist, let’s ban everything”
Fucking idiots
I’m not sure who concluded that banning art with lgbtq+ themes would create constitutional problems, but a complete ban wouldn’t create problems.
It’s similar to religious displays during holidays. You have to let everyone who wants to be included. If you leave one out then you are discriminating with taxpayer money. So you save the tax payers money by not allowing anything at all. Now you don’t need to worry that some lawyer with dollar signs in their eyes deciding to sue you. Because once that starts others will come. And no matter how flimsy their lawsuit it will still cost the town money.
And I’ll add that towns/cities often lack the budget of states and private companies; they often have to be more judicious with their expenses. Plus, banning specifically art flies in the face of the constitutional right to freedom of expression. A universal ban on art to prevent LGBTQ art is no less unconstitutional.
Needless to say, this would turn ugly and costly if they decided to pursue it.
The wording in the article is public spaces, which generally includes private property. The exterior wall of a private business is treated as public space. Banning all murals on private buildings is an uphill battle too.
Seems unconstitutional as fuck…
The NH state motto is “Live Free or Die”. The motto is even on vehicle license plates. They’re going to have to substantially reduce the font size to get “Live Christofascism or Die” or “Live Far-Right Totalitarianism or Die” to fit on there.
I grew up in a similar small, northern-NE “arts/tourist town” (not in NH), where, generally speaking, part of the learned ethos was that “minding your own business” was a virtue. If this kind of shit ever took hold there the town would be finished - no more tourists = no economy at all. That would of course be great for the down-country wealthy who could then swoop in and buy up land and historic old houses, close to skiing, for pennies on the dollar.
I saw this movie once about a town that completely banned dancing, but that was probably completely different.
Horrible people
Deplorable, even.
Oh look! More crazy Republicans. Whodda thunk it.
The 1A completely protects displaying art in public. The limit of the town govt’s power here is taking down art it owns (e.g. statues in parks) and refusing to put anything up.
This is why we can’t have nice things.
