Skip to main content

Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
TagsGame Engines
(+5)

Yeah the wording of the bill is *just* open-ended enough to be potentially helpful, but also the governing party has made clear how they want to make being/acknowledging the existence of people who are queer illegal, so that's a big shadow over all this.

(+1)

It doesn't really matter what secret dark motivations may exist in the writer's head, because the actual words of the law will be interpreted by the courts and not the people who wrote it. The writers of the 14th Amendment of the USA Constitution probably weren't thinking about gay sex at the time, but that didn't prevent the outcome of Lawrence v. Texas.

(+1)

The Republican Party is criminalizing queer people and nonconformists in general. It absolutely does matter who they will and will not consider to be allowed protection under the law, or whose very existence will be made illegal.

(+1)

Not to mention that changes to a bill can happen down the line as it's being voted on. Bills being voted on aren't written in stone and given the people cosponsoring the bill I would say that, if not watched closely, they may just add whatever exceptions they want into it. Just because a bill says something now doesn't mean it will stay that way. It can drastically change during the process of putting them out if it even gets out. 

(+1)

I don't really know what to tell you. At this point you're just ignoring basic facts about how the US government works.

If US anti-discriminatory laws worked all around I would be able to go topless like any other man. Instead I live in a state where I will be arrested while other states, such as Kansas, allows for toplessness. It all really depends and it doesn't always mean you get the protection you deserve. 

Not to mention that gay panic "defense" laws still exist in the US. 

(1 edit)

Not necessarily. There are two approaches courts take to interpretation: following “the letter of the law” and following the intent of the law.

When a law’s meaning is ambiguous, US judges tend to favor their understanding of what it should be. That means either the the judge’s opinion or a statement of legislators’ intent— like that expressed in the GOP’s horrendous Project 2025— is used for the ruling.

We can see examples of this in recent Supreme Court statements.

With what has happened to the judicial and executive branches of the federal governmemt and various parts of state governments, any Republican-led bill should not be accepted at face value.

The party’s motives matter for federal legislation.