Lubbock Pride slams ruling against drag show ban at West Texas A&M<\/h2>\n\n![\"\"\/](\"https:\/\/cdn.christianpost.com\/assets\/img\/icon\/chat-rect.svg\")
<\/a>![\"\"\/](\"https:\/\/cdn.christianpost.com\/assets\/img\/icon\/share-outline.svg\")
<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/header>\n![](\"https:\/\/cdn.christianpost.com\/images\/cache\/image\/6\/85\/68503_w_760_506.jpg\")
<\/source><\/picture>Reuters<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\nAn LGBT activist group says the religious beliefs of a judge involved in a federal court ruling in favor of a Texas university president\u2019s decision to cancel a drag performance on campus make him unfit for the bench.<\/p>\n
U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled<\/a> Sept. 22 that a ban on drag shows at West Texas A&M University put in place by university President Walter Wendler could remain in effect amid an ongoing legal challenge.<\/p>\nIn the ruling, Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee and former attorney with First Liberty Institute, a religious liberty advocacy group, said <\/a>drag performances containing \u201csexualized expressive conduct\u201d are not protected under the First Amendment.<\/p>\nFollowing the ruling, which conflicted with court decisions in Texas<\/a>, Montana, and other states blocking state and local bans on exposing minors to drag performances, an LGBT pride group based in Lubbock, Texas, voiced its \u201cextreme disappointment\u201d with the ruling, and specifically cited the judge\u2019s religious beliefs as cause to suspect the ruling might not be \u201cfair and impartial.\u201d<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/cdn.christianpost.com\/images\/cache\/image\/15\/05\/150532_w_760_380.png\")
<\/source><\/picture>A screenshot of the Lubbock Pride website shows a drag performer on the group’s “About” page.<\/span> | Screenshot\/LubbockPride.org<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\nIn a Sept. 24 statement<\/a>, Lubbock PRIDE spokesman Nick Harpster pointed to LGBT opposition to Kacsmaryk\u2019s nomination \u201cdue to his past comments on both [LGBT] and contraceptive rights,\u201d and \u201cquestioning how someone with his beliefs could possibly be fair and impartial when encountering cases of this nature.\u201d<\/p>\n\u201cJudges are supposed to set any personal beliefs and opinions aside and rule on cases with impartiality and fairness,\u201d Harpster wrote. \u201cFrom this decision, it is fairly clear that this was not the case \u2026\u201d<\/p>\n
The group also took exception to the judge’s ruling that the First Amendment \u201cdoes not prevent school officials from restricting \u2018vulgar and lewd\u2019 conduct that would \u2018undermine the school\u2019s basic educational mission\u2019 \u2014 particularly in settings where children are physically present\u201d and suggested the judge\u2019s ruling could \u201cincite animosity towards the drag community.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWe continue to see this type of language used in order to incite animosity towards the drag community and the [LGBT] community as a whole,\u201d said Harpster. \u201cTo present drag performances as sexual in nature and to make the claim that children are in some way harmed by a drag performance, especially one that is marketed as family friendly, is ludicrous and boldly inaccurate.\u201d<\/p>\n
He also cited Wendler\u2019s use of \u201covert religious references\u201d in his decision to ban the performance at West Texas A&M and shared \u201ca reminder that all people are protected under the law, and your personal beliefs cannot mandate who gets to exercise their freedom of expression.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWe cannot stand idly by and allow the religious beliefs or personal opinions of a judge, a legislator, or any person in the position of power to infringe on the civil liberties or human rights of an entire community of people,\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n
Described <\/a>by The Washington Post as a \u201cdevout Christian,\u201d Kacsmaryk, 45, was involved in another controversial ruling in April when he temporarily suspended<\/a> the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the chemical abortion drug Mifepristone, a ruling which was later partially reversed and could ultimately land in U.S. Supreme Court.<\/p>\nLubbock Pride, which hosts an annual \u201cfamily friendly\u201d pride event for \u201cpeople of all ages,\u201d\u00a0 held a \u201cTeen Drag Race\u201d<\/a> in 2017 and has held \u201cstory hour\u201d events<\/a> featuring men wearing women\u2019s clothing while reading books to children. <\/a><\/p>\nEarlier this year, Lubbock Pride condemned Christians protesting LGBT groups at local high schools and argued for what Harpster called an \u201cexception to free speech protections.\u201d<\/p>\n
“Speech that can lead to violence \u2026 is not protected under the First Amendment right to free speech,\u201d Harpster wrote in a Jan. 24 statement<\/a>. \u201cIt has even been argued that certain hate speech can be regulated due to the nature of the speech causing undue influence on the audience, by perverting their ability to autonomously develop individual beliefs and actions.\u201d<\/p>\nHarpster also cited the authority of the Scriptures \u2014 including Isaiah 1:17<\/a> and Philippians 2:3-4 <\/a>\u2014 to argue that the protesters were \u201cusing religion to profess hate speech, which seems counter to the principles of the Bible.\u201d<\/p>\n\u201cFreedom of religion should not be allowed to eclipse the right to be free from discrimination based on sexual and gender identity, especially when certain narratives and false affirmations are presented as fact,\u201d he wrote.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The ruling on the West Texas A&M ban came just days before U.S. District Judge David Hittner ruled <\/a>that Senate Bill 12<\/a>, signed into law by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott in June, “impermissibly infringes on the First Amendment and chills free speech.”<\/p>\nThe law, which was blocked Tuesday, seeks to prohibit venues from allowing individuals younger than 18 from attending “sexually oriented” events and performances. Businesses that violated the law would face fines of $10,000 per violation. Hittner, a Reagan appointee, argued that the bill’s language was too broad and discriminated against certain viewpoints.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
“The Court sees no way to read the provisions of SB 12 without concluding that a large amount of constitutionally-protected conduct can and will be wrapped up in the enforcement of SB 12,” the 56-page ruling<\/a> stated. “It is not unreasonable to read SB 12 and conclude that activities such as cheerleading, dancing, live theater, and other common public occurrences could possibly become a civil or criminal violation.”<\/p>\n\nIan M. Giatti is a reporter for The Christian Post and the author of\u00a0BACKWARDS DAD: a children’s book for grownups<\/a><\/em>. He can be reached at:\u00a0ian.giatti@christianpost.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/a><\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/header>\n![](\"https:\/\/cdn.christianpost.com\/images\/cache\/image\/6\/85\/68503_w_760_506.webp\")
<\/source><\/picture>An LGBT activist group says the religious beliefs of a judge involved in a federal court ruling in favor of a Texas university president\u2019s decision to cancel a drag performance on campus make him unfit for the bench.<\/p>\n
U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled<\/a> Sept. 22 that a ban on drag shows at West Texas A&M University put in place by university President Walter Wendler could remain in effect amid an ongoing legal challenge.<\/p>\n In the ruling, Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee and former attorney with First Liberty Institute, a religious liberty advocacy group, said <\/a>drag performances containing \u201csexualized expressive conduct\u201d are not protected under the First Amendment.<\/p>\n Following the ruling, which conflicted with court decisions in Texas<\/a>, Montana, and other states blocking state and local bans on exposing minors to drag performances, an LGBT pride group based in Lubbock, Texas, voiced its \u201cextreme disappointment\u201d with the ruling, and specifically cited the judge\u2019s religious beliefs as cause to suspect the ruling might not be \u201cfair and impartial.\u201d<\/p>\n In a Sept. 24 statement<\/a>, Lubbock PRIDE spokesman Nick Harpster pointed to LGBT opposition to Kacsmaryk\u2019s nomination \u201cdue to his past comments on both [LGBT] and contraceptive rights,\u201d and \u201cquestioning how someone with his beliefs could possibly be fair and impartial when encountering cases of this nature.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cJudges are supposed to set any personal beliefs and opinions aside and rule on cases with impartiality and fairness,\u201d Harpster wrote. \u201cFrom this decision, it is fairly clear that this was not the case \u2026\u201d<\/p>\n The group also took exception to the judge’s ruling that the First Amendment \u201cdoes not prevent school officials from restricting \u2018vulgar and lewd\u2019 conduct that would \u2018undermine the school\u2019s basic educational mission\u2019 \u2014 particularly in settings where children are physically present\u201d and suggested the judge\u2019s ruling could \u201cincite animosity towards the drag community.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWe continue to see this type of language used in order to incite animosity towards the drag community and the [LGBT] community as a whole,\u201d said Harpster. \u201cTo present drag performances as sexual in nature and to make the claim that children are in some way harmed by a drag performance, especially one that is marketed as family friendly, is ludicrous and boldly inaccurate.\u201d<\/p>\n He also cited Wendler\u2019s use of \u201covert religious references\u201d in his decision to ban the performance at West Texas A&M and shared \u201ca reminder that all people are protected under the law, and your personal beliefs cannot mandate who gets to exercise their freedom of expression.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWe cannot stand idly by and allow the religious beliefs or personal opinions of a judge, a legislator, or any person in the position of power to infringe on the civil liberties or human rights of an entire community of people,\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n Described <\/a>by The Washington Post as a \u201cdevout Christian,\u201d Kacsmaryk, 45, was involved in another controversial ruling in April when he temporarily suspended<\/a> the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the chemical abortion drug Mifepristone, a ruling which was later partially reversed and could ultimately land in U.S. Supreme Court.<\/p>\n Lubbock Pride, which hosts an annual \u201cfamily friendly\u201d pride event for \u201cpeople of all ages,\u201d\u00a0 held a \u201cTeen Drag Race\u201d<\/a> in 2017 and has held \u201cstory hour\u201d events<\/a> featuring men wearing women\u2019s clothing while reading books to children. <\/a><\/p>\n Earlier this year, Lubbock Pride condemned Christians protesting LGBT groups at local high schools and argued for what Harpster called an \u201cexception to free speech protections.\u201d<\/p>\n “Speech that can lead to violence \u2026 is not protected under the First Amendment right to free speech,\u201d Harpster wrote in a Jan. 24 statement<\/a>. \u201cIt has even been argued that certain hate speech can be regulated due to the nature of the speech causing undue influence on the audience, by perverting their ability to autonomously develop individual beliefs and actions.\u201d<\/p>\n Harpster also cited the authority of the Scriptures \u2014 including Isaiah 1:17<\/a> and Philippians 2:3-4 <\/a>\u2014 to argue that the protesters were \u201cusing religion to profess hate speech, which seems counter to the principles of the Bible.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cFreedom of religion should not be allowed to eclipse the right to be free from discrimination based on sexual and gender identity, especially when certain narratives and false affirmations are presented as fact,\u201d he wrote.\u00a0<\/p>\n The ruling on the West Texas A&M ban came just days before U.S. District Judge David Hittner ruled <\/a>that Senate Bill 12<\/a>, signed into law by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott in June, “impermissibly infringes on the First Amendment and chills free speech.”<\/p>\n The law, which was blocked Tuesday, seeks to prohibit venues from allowing individuals younger than 18 from attending “sexually oriented” events and performances. Businesses that violated the law would face fines of $10,000 per violation. Hittner, a Reagan appointee, argued that the bill’s language was too broad and discriminated against certain viewpoints.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n “The Court sees no way to read the provisions of SB 12 without concluding that a large amount of constitutionally-protected conduct can and will be wrapped up in the enforcement of SB 12,” the 56-page ruling<\/a> stated. “It is not unreasonable to read SB 12 and conclude that activities such as cheerleading, dancing, live theater, and other common public occurrences could possibly become a civil or criminal violation.”<\/p>\n Ian M. Giatti is a reporter for The Christian Post and the author of\u00a0BACKWARDS DAD: a children’s book for grownups<\/a><\/em>. He can be reached at:\u00a0ian.giatti@christianpost.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n![](\"https:\/\/cdn.christianpost.com\/images\/cache\/image\/15\/05\/150532_w_760_380.webp\")
<\/source><\/picture>