this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2023
679 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19102 readers
4078 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Sen. Ted Cruz has introduced a bill that would limit the use of preferred names by trans people.
The irony, critics point out? The senator, whose legal name is Rafael Edward Cruz, uses a preferred name himself: Ted.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] QHC@lemmy.world 62 points 11 months ago (3 children)

How could this possibly be ruled as Constitutional? Let alone any remaining shadow of 'party of small government' irony, that shipped sailed into the West a long, long time ago.

[–] Pizzasgood@kbin.social 41 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The article's title presents this in a misleading way. The bill in question wouldn't prevent people from using their preferred names and pronouns. What it would do is prohibit the government from spending federal funds to implement or enforce any rules or recommendations encouraging its employees and contractors to respect those names and pronouns.

So in other words this is an attempt at protecting hate-speech, not at restricting free-speech. Shitty, but probably not unconstitutional.

[–] CouncilOfFriends@slrpnk.net 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

No word from Rafael yet on whether he thinks enforcing preferred names if how the Pentagon lost 6 trillion dollars

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 23 points 11 months ago

They never meant that "small government" thing; they were just chapped that the feds interfered with their racist bullshit at the state level.

[–] Endorkend@kbin.social 21 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Having a stacked hyper partisan supreme court makes anything constitutional.