State Houses Thread

[Cartmann99]

 

[Cartmann99]

Va. delegate seeks restraining order against Barnes & Noble over ‘Gender Queer’

Quote

(WGHP) — A book retailer may be facing a legal fight in Virginia over selling certain YA books.

According to a Facebook post, Attorney and state delegate Tim Anderson and his client Tommy Altman, a congressional candidate in the district around Virginia Beach, said “the Virginia Beach Circuit Court has found probable cause that the books “Gender Queer” and “A Court of Mist and Fury” are obscene to unrestricted viewing by minors.”

The post goes on to say that Altman has directed Anderson’s office to “seek a restraining order against Barnes and Noble and Virginia Beach Schools” in order to stop the sale or loaning of these books to minors without parental consent.

“We are in a major fight. Suits like this can be filed all over Virginia. There are dozens of books. Hundreds of schools,” the Facebook post reads.

Bookriot reports that neither of these books contains pornographic material, nor do they fit the definition of obscene.

According to BookRiot, Barnes & Noble has yet to respond to the legal actions taken.

This saga began when school board member Victoria Manning complained about “Gender Queer” and other titles and it was pulled from school shelves.

This lawsuit marks a step further in fights about what content is considered appropriate for minors. It’s the first time one of these actions has targeted a private business rather than a school.

Anderson also posted screenshots from both books as well as a scan of the restraining order.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Good grief:

[GreyhoundFan]

Yay!

 

[clueliss]

Well, the Missouri GOP is trying to legislate modesty in the state house.

 

apparently, they want women to cover up. Why does this make me want to go down to Jefferson City wearing the lowest cut whatever I have without a bra and just walk all over the capital building flaunting it all. And I am not that kind of woman, but this ticks me off

 

 

[Becky]

11 minutes ago, clueliss said:

Well, the Missouri GOP is trying to legislate modesty in the state house.

 

apparently, they want women to cover up. Why does this make me want to go down to Jefferson City wearing the lowest cut whatever I have without a bra and just walk all over the capital building flaunting it all. And I am not that kind of woman, but this ticks me off

 

 

I'm holding my fire on this for now - apparently, the previous dress code permitted a blazer or a sweater, and now they require a jacket.  The change in wording was proposed by a woman (R) who said it was to clarify the requirements to maintain a formal atmosphere.  Am I reading this right or am I missing something?  

[CTRLZero]

It’s a little unclear.  Can no one take off their jacket on the floor?  I don’t know the difference between a blazer and jacket, so I’d probably be sanctioned or thrown in fashion prison.  🤷‍♀️ 

[GreyhoundFan]

What a prince. /s

 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[Howl]

On 1/13/2023 at 6:43 AM, Becky said:

I'm holding my fire on this for now - apparently, the previous dress code permitted a blazer or a sweater, and now they require a jacket.  The change in wording was proposed by a woman (R) who said it was to clarify the requirements to maintain a formal atmosphere.  Am I reading this right or am I missing something?  

Hold for now and into the future.  Sarah Kendzior, who is a Missouri resident, says it's just simple language clarifying the existing dress code and she's pissed that this is a distraction from what the dysfunctional Missouri legislature needs to be addressing. 

Men's dress code mandates business attire - jacket, dress slacks, ties and dress shoes or boots.  The existing dress code for women requires dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a sweater or blazer and dress shoes or boots. 

That updated code for women has been amended to be parallel to the men's dress code wording:  women's "business attire" has been added and what constitutes a jacket is clarified: "For the purpose of this rule,  "jacket" shall include blazers, cardigans or knit blazers."   

The phrase business attire has been added and  "cardigans and knit blazers" replaces "sweaters", that's it. That's all of it.  

Members and staff are required to wear business drag "on the floor of the House and in the lower gallery."  Sounds like they aren't messing around about it. 

In a sense, it might make it easier for women newly in the legislature.  Snag a few blazers and a cardigan or two, a few pairs of dark neutral skirts or slacks, dress shoes, and you're set to jet. It doesn't sound like a place to make a fashion statement.  

Edited January 16, 2023 by Howl

[GreyhoundFan]

Missouri is at it again:

 

[47of74]

Ugh.  Iowa is going to shit.

Quote

A new bill in the Iowa Senate would ban those under the age of 18 from undergoing gender transition procedures. Another bill would make medical professionals legally and civilly liable for providing the treatment.

State Senator Sandy Salmon, R-Janesville, is helming both bills. Senate File 129 would make it illegal for medical professionals to provide treatments like puberty-blocking drugs, cross-sex hormones, or gender-affirming surgery on a minor.

It would allow their use on minors for things other than gender transitioning, such as a "medical verifiable genetic disorder of sexual development.

"We believe that a minor is too young to make such a life-changing decision. It's difficult for a minor to comprehend and fully appreciate the risk and long-term life implications of this kind of treatment," Salmon said. "If someone becomes one, when they become an adult, and they want to get this kind of treatment, that's one thing, but a child, that's another thing."

I'm so glad I moved out.

[PsyD2013]

1 hour ago, 47of74 said:

Ugh.  Iowa is going to shit.

I'm so glad I moved out.

It's not going to shit.  It's already there. I feel like I'm living in some dystopian hellscape.   Kimmy's voucher bill was pushed to into law.  Anti-GBLTQ bills.  Pat Grassley's reform to limit what people dependent on SNAP can buy-"no cheese, meat, white bread or flour", a bill to allow religious scripture to be taught as a high school elective (Bible only-no Torrah or Koran), a bill restricting the enforcement of federal pandemic precautions, there are others but I can only handle so much at one time.  

[47of74]

And there's legitimate reasons for people on public assistance to buy candy or soda products.

Quote

Originally, the bill would have limited Iowans on the program from buying certain foods like fresh meat or white bread. Lawmakers took out that piece of the bill on Thursday, but some Iowans tell KCCI that they still have concerns about the bill.

"I have a complex, chronic health condition, and doctors recommend I keep Snickers bars, pretzels and Powerade on me," Tara, who opposes the bill, said. "Why aren't you trusting me to use my own discernment? You're not my physician. You're not my nutritionist."

The bill would make Snickers bars, and any other candy or soda products, off-limits for people like Tara, who rely on food assistance.

Under the bill, low-income, older and disabled Iowans who rely on public assistance would have to meet new requirements to stay in the government programs.

Course the roman church in Iowa has fucking nothing to say about this. 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Good news!

 

[GreyhoundFan]

This is fucking disgusting;

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Another GQP state racing to reach a new level of disgusting.

[GreyhoundFan]

Good gravy 

 

[47of74]

Sigh

Quote

Lawmakers at the Iowa Statehouse are considering bringing an end to Zoom meetings after an incident last week in which someone joined a meeting displaying a swastika.

Statehouse officials said other incidents have involved users who were naked or yelling racial slurs.

Lawmakers say they will first look at an option to filter disruptive users out of the meetings.

However, if the interruptions continue, they could put an end to using Zoom in the future.

It would be a shame if that had to happen because of how it would affect others who want to reach their legislator - especially people who don't have the time or money to travel to connect with their legislator.

Edited February 13, 2023 by 47of74

[GreyhoundFan]

The Rethuglikans are insane:

 

[Xan]

Outlaw the teaching of gravity?  Honestly, I never saw this coming.  It just didn't occur to me that the dumbest Republicans would decide that the only way they could re-make the country and take it back would be to make everyone more stupid.  I know that they hated educators but -- outlawing learning about gravity?  Whoa.

[Becky]

8 hours ago, Xan said:

Outlaw the teaching of gravity?  Honestly, I never saw this coming.  It just didn't occur to me that the dumbest Republicans would decide that the only way they could re-make the country and take it back would be to make everyone more stupid.  I know that they hated educators but -- outlawing learning about gravity?  Whoa.

Well, not "gravity" in specific - just the teaching of anything based on scientific theory, which of course shows a complete lack of understanding regarding the nature of "scientific theory." 

https://www.mtpr.org/montana-news/2023-02-07/bill-would-ban-the-teaching-of-scientific-theories-in-montana-schools

Goes to show you just how much the sponsoring lawmaker paid attention in science class. 

[GreyhoundFan]

This state rep from Alaska is absolutely disgusting.