22
submitted 1 year ago by OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml to c/usa@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

The LGBT part of it is merely a potential abuse of power. It could easily be a non-issue.

Potential? Like, they might not do it? Are you serious? They're going to do it. And it isn't an abuse of the bill, it is using the bill as it is intended.

I shall again ask for your expertise over the queer folks ringing the alarm over this.

[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago

Yes, the attorney general might not. There will certainly be lobbyists, such as Heritage Foundation, so it's a bit up in the air.

I'm not saying LGBT folks shouldn't be worried. They should. I'm just trying to say that the issue isn't specifically with LGBT issues, the root of the issue is deeper than that. If we fight from an LGBT perspective, we may or may not get an exclusion, but we'll still get the privacy violation. If we fight from a privacy perspective, we could get both.

By all means, voice LGBT concerns, but also voice privacy concerns.

this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2023
22 points (66.2% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7107 readers
504 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS