The fact that the people applying your laws are corrupt and are disingenuously framing this as a free speech issue doesn't change the fact that the people objecting to drag queen story hour were OBJECTING TO THE PRESENCE OF CHILDREN THERE. If trannies wanted to book time to read children's books to each other, or to their supporters, no one would have cared. It was the presence of toddlers that was the problem, not the speech itself.
This distinction doesn't matter like you think it does. What matters is the language in the legislation. Just to keep it simple for example, if you were to pass a city ordinance that said something like "No public library shall be used for drag queens to read stories to children," it is still a free speech issue even though the legislation does not purport to prohibit drag queens reading stories while not in the presence of children. I promise you that you are dead wrong on this subject.
The distinction matters. That you think it doesn't shows you're either making bad-faith arguments deliberately, or you're being trained to make bad-faith arguments. Neither is helping your country.
I know it doesn't. Feel free to show me a case or a legal brief that might convince a judge otherwise, but I don't think you can or will because you have no idea what you are talking about.
But all that proves is that our justice system is protecting tranny lunatics by conflating "a right to read to toddlers" with "free speech." You can keep going "there's no case law saying it ISN'T" until the end of days, but you know as well as I do that those are two separate issues, and "let these perverts read to your minor children" should never be protected under free speech.
The fact that the people applying your laws are corrupt and are disingenuously framing this as a free speech issue doesn't change the fact that the people objecting to drag queen story hour were OBJECTING TO THE PRESENCE OF CHILDREN THERE. If trannies wanted to book time to read children's books to each other, or to their supporters, no one would have cared. It was the presence of toddlers that was the problem, not the speech itself.
This distinction doesn't matter like you think it does. What matters is the language in the legislation. Just to keep it simple for example, if you were to pass a city ordinance that said something like "No public library shall be used for drag queens to read stories to children," it is still a free speech issue even though the legislation does not purport to prohibit drag queens reading stories while not in the presence of children. I promise you that you are dead wrong on this subject.
The distinction matters. That you think it doesn't shows you're either making bad-faith arguments deliberately, or you're being trained to make bad-faith arguments. Neither is helping your country.
I know it doesn't. Feel free to show me a case or a legal brief that might convince a judge otherwise, but I don't think you can or will because you have no idea what you are talking about.
But all that proves is that our justice system is protecting tranny lunatics by conflating "a right to read to toddlers" with "free speech." You can keep going "there's no case law saying it ISN'T" until the end of days, but you know as well as I do that those are two separate issues, and "let these perverts read to your minor children" should never be protected under free speech.