Pride celebrations dampened by rising anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment

Basically, the LGBTQ+ crowd is saying if you don’t “celebrate our lifestyle choice and let us influence your children”, well then you hate. What a bunch of horse hockey.

I like the poster.
Many other corporations have folded to the "woke" mentality and run the risk of pushback and boycotts.
Elements of the LGBTQ+ have vowed to attack Christianity and eliminate it.
Parents need to protect their children from the BS coming out of this.

I've seen the "500 anti-LGBTQ+" statistic thrown around a few times and wanted to know where that came from. Found it at the ACLU (https://www.aclu.org/legislative-attacks-on-lgbtq-rights). It shows 491 bills that it classified as "anti-LGBTQ+", but you have to actually look at the bill's text to see what they are counting in that 491 number.

I didn't look at all 491 bills, but did take a look at some (I looked at a random bill in four of the 'categories' the ACLU had them classified in) that are working the way through the system or were laws (of the 491 total, 4 are 'introduced', 271 are 'advancing', 63 have been passed as laws, and 153 have been 'defeated').

Schools & Education category - Texas HB 5235 (https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=88R&Bill=HB5235) - a parent's rights in education bill. Nowhere in the bill does it state anything that is against the LGBTQ+ community. However, it does say that parents have the right to direct moral and religious training of their child and to make decisions concerning the child’s education and medical treatment, and prohibits educators from interfering with that. So, it's not an anti-LGBTQ+, but because it doesn't allow someone in the school to interfere with that, and possibly deny them from advocating for the 'right' ideology, it's anti-LGBTQ+

Civil Rights category - Arkansas HB1615 (https://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Bills/Detail?id=HB1615&ddBienniumSession=2023/2023R) - a religious freedom act. The only thing in the bill that might be found objectionable is that it defines a "person" for the purposes of the bill as an individual, a religious organization, or a sole proprietorship or other closely held entity operating with a sincerely held religious belief, including a belief about biological sex or marriage. The bill prohibits the government from taking any action that directly or indirectly constrains, inhibits, curtails, or denies the exercise of religion by any person or compels any action contrary to a person’s exercise of religious conduct protected by the First Amendment or the Arkansas Constitution unless the can demonstrate that the action is essential to further a compelling governmental interest and that the action is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. Again, not an anti-LGBTQ+ bill, but because it prohibits forcing someone to act against their religious views which might put them in conflict with LGBTQ views, it's considered anti-LGBTQ+

Public Accommodations - Idaho SB 1016 (https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2023/legislation/S1016.pdf) - states that unless specifically required pursuant to applicable federal law or regulation, that the government or public entity can't require a contractor engaged in public works construction to provide a multiple-occupancy restroom, shower facility, or changing room on any basis other than biological sex. I thought it might be associated with some "bathroom law", but the only one Idaho has is for public schools (https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2023/legislation/S1100E1.pdf). So, by itself it's not anti-LGBTQ+, but I assume it's considered anti-LGBTQ+ because if a contractor is doing public works construction they cannot be forced to provide multi-occupancy facilities without taking in other considerations than biological sex.

Free Speech & Expression - Alabama HB 401 (https://www.legislature.state.al.us/pdf/SearchableInstruments/2023RS/HB401-int.pdf) - A "protect our minors" type of bill. I assume the objection has nothing to do with the standard parts of the bill that prevent the exposure of kids to nudity, sex acts, adult films, obscene materials etc. and is probably against the definition of "sexual conduct" where it says "Any sexual or gender oriented material that exposes minors to persons who are dressed in sexually revealing, exaggerated, or provocative clothing or costumes, or are stripping, or engaged in lewd or lascivious dancing, presentations, or activities" and specifically mentions "topless, go-go, exotic dancers, or male or female impersonators". Additionally, the bill uses the "reasonable person" standard for the definition of "obscene" (a reasonable person applying contemporary community standards, would find that the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; material depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct, actual or simulated, normal or perverted; material, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value). However, the "reasonable person" standard is use throughout the legal system when evaluating "what's reasonable in this situation". So, the view is that all LGBTQ+ performances (drag shows, drag queen story hour, etc.) are considered adult-only or obscene by the reasonable person standard, it's not anti-LGBTQ+ If it is one of those "bump & grind" type of shows or other sexually explicit portrayal, they would would be considered adult-only and restricted.

Now, of the other 487 entries, I'm sure there are ones that are truly "anti-LGBTQ+" and if they are discriminatory based only on one's sexual identity, then I'm 100% in agreement with you. However, they are not "Anti-LGBTQ+" because they don't give special treatment to LGBTQ+ (i.e., the biological male that identifies as female is entitled to more rights than the biological females), does not violate the Constitutional rights of others in order to accommodate their desired actions, or because the law 'could' affect the actions of an LGBTQ+ individual or group.

It's sad that ideological zealots believe that others need to support their ideology.