Florida's War on Drag Targets Theater's Liquor License

Apparently, parents’ rights don’t extend to letting their kids listen to naughty Christmas lyrics.

Conservative government scolds in Florida are making good on a Christmas threat against an Orlando performance venue and are trying to revoke its liquor license because it let minors attend a bawdy drag show with their parents.

Florida's Department of Business and Professional Regulation filed an administrative complaint Friday against the Orlando Philharmonic Plaza Foundation, which operates The Plaza Live theater in Orlando. In December, The Plaza Live hosted A Drag Queen Christmas, a touring stage show of risqué drag performances with holiday themes.

Florida officials responded to the show in a letter to the venue, saying that the show was "sexually explicit" and that "sexually explicit drag show performances constitute public nuisances, lewd activity, and disorderly conduct" under state law if children are allowed to attend. It added that the venue could be punished and have its licenses to operate revoked.

The show went forward with a sign on the door of the venue that read, "While we are not restricting access to anyone under 18, please be advised some may think the context is not appropriate for under 18." Some parents did ultimately decide to bring children to the show. The state agency sent a representative to the show with a camera to take pictures of both the crowd and the event, and several photos are included in the complaint.

The complaint lists what the department sees as violations of state law, including "segments where performers engaged in acts of sexual conduct, simulated sexual activity, and lewd, vulgar, and indecent displays."

While that sounds extremely vivid, the photos included in the complaint show that the show's depictions were on a level of explicitness equivalent to those of an R-rated movie.

The complaint describes the performers exposing prosthetic female breasts and genitalia to the audience, not actual genital nudity. The complaint claims that the performers exposed their buttocks, but the exhibits attached show the drag queens wearing thongs that are not unlike what you might see on a Florida beach. The complaint says the show simulated masturbation, but it was through the use of prosthetics, not actual sexual activity. One of the images shows a drag queen twerking on stage (wearing a thong) while on a screen at the back of the stage, an image is projected of a finger "penetrating" a Christmas wreath. Heck, this image arguably can be classified as PG-13.

(Photo exhibit from complaint from Florida's Department of Business and Professional Regulation )

From here, the allegations veer into what is quite clearly constitutionally protected First Amendment expression and performance. The department complains that the show included graphic depictions of "childbirth and/or abortions" and that the show included "sexually explicit themes and prurient content presented through sexualized adaptations of children's Christmas songs." The complaint includes a transcription of some of the song lyrics of "Screwdolph the Red-Nippled Reindeer," which starts, "You know Dasher and Dancer and Prancer and Vixen, Vomit and Stupid and Dildo and Dicks-in…."

For naughty Christmas lyrics, the state is threatening a business's liquor license. The complaint charges six counts of violating state indecency regulations, all based on allowing children to attend.

The scant photo evidence the state includes in the complaint further substantiates the claim that the war on drag queens is a politically driven moral panic. To the extent that the show is indeed sexual, as with any other form of entertainment with adult content, parents and venues are well-equipped to decide for themselves whether to bring their children. It's not a role the state should be deciding, and in so many other cases, the state does not.

Despite making a big deal about supporting parents' rights in education, Gov. Ron DeSantis does not think parents should have the right to decide what kind of entertainment their children should consume.

The governor's office provided a statement to the press that reads in part: "DeSantis stands to protect the innocence of children, and the governor always follows through when he says he will do something." That the governor's judgment is overriding the judgment of parents in this matter should be concerning to anybody who values individual liberty and the rights of parents to decide what their kids are ready to experience.

Comments

[Cronut]

Okay, groomer.

[Nardz]

It's beyond time the cops visit Shackford's house and investigate his associates. Definitely suspect he's molesting children.

[AngliaMorales]

Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I'm now creating over $35,400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,400 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link--------------------->>> https://homejobs47.blogspot.com

[Bill Falcon]

Scott just can't help himself can he? Seriously dude, stop carrying water for the extreme nut jobs of your tribe. We get your gay..who cares but kids at an X rated drag show? Kids are not allowed in strip clubs and stripper are not obsessed with kids are they Scott? These folks have a problem and you just don't want to admit it..drag queens obsessed with kids? Just admit its time the LBG kick these sickos out of your tribe.

[Agammamon]

Its weird - most LGB don't like the TQ but Reason gets their resident gay columnist to carry water for them.

[JenniferSilva]

I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..

HERE====)> http://WWW.NETPAYFAST.COM

[ThomasD]

Not even a joke anymore. Shackford actually is defending people who sexualize children.

He is a pervert.

[Chumby]

Thank you Reason for publishing a second Florida Man Bad article today.

[Utkonos]

As of this posting, DeSantis currently leads Trump 2:1.

[Paull1]

Unless I wanted my kids to act upon their adolescent urgings, why would I take them to a show celebrating gay sex throughout?

It is not the State's role here, I agree. But, please, pick your battles and showcase something that doesn't sexualize kids, Reason.com.

[Roberta]

If that's what's threatened, why not showcase it?

[Agammamon]

It has been showcased. Reason doesn't showcase it because it goes against their narrative that this is all 'just burlesque'.

[B G]

How is a show depicting and performed entirely by adults in any way sexualizing children? The only children affected in any way were brought there by their parents, who hold the moral and legal authority to decide for their own children (unless it's the role of the State to do so). Therefore, any responsibility for impact on those children lies with the parents and not with the show or the venue.

[Josue Naud]

You should try that argument when an adult arcade or strip club owner gets hauled into court for allowing minors in their establishment, professor.

[fifivos]

I AM Making a Good Salary from Home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing, under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it's my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone. go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart

OPEN>> http://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM

[ThomasD]

A libertarian argument would oppose State licensing period.

That he only chooses to get involved only when State control intersects with his perversion tells you what his actual priority is.

And it’s not liberty.

[Minadin]

Parents are free to do whatever.

Business owners with liquor licenses who want to have drag shows aren't allowed to have them be all-ages shows. They can either card people or not sell booze.

There are lots of places that have very similar restrictions without the drag show element.

[Overt]

Except in this case, it is clear that the state complaint isn't about carding and serving alcohol to minors. Irrespective of whether or not adequately screening minors from alcohol, the state's complaint is that minors are being exposed to egregious sexual content.

[Michael Ejercito]

That is a legitimate purpose.

Co
uld the state go too far in laws and policies in furtherance of this purpose?

Yes.

This is still a legimtimate purpose.

[JesseAz]

From what I've read the sexual content regarding minors is a part of the law. Many things are often attached to business licenses.

[JesseAz]

Here is the law. Note year.

https://law.justia.com/codes/florida/2005/TitleXLVI/ch0800.html

[B G]

Theaters with liquor licenses hosting all-ages performances and serving alcohol to adult attendees is a fairly common practice. Just as with restaurants which serve alcohol and allow all-ages customers, they check IDs of those purchasing alcohol at the point of service, not at the entrance.

Even the deepest of "red" states and the entire bible belt are only now starting to attempt to implement legal age restrictions on drag shows. To say that "lots of places have similar restrictions" is provably false at present (but might not be in 3-4 months).

I know there have been some groups among social conservatives who have taken issue with Hooters (and similar restaurants such as Twin Peaks and Tilted Kilt) serving children in their non-bar areas, but as far as I know there's no state that's ever proposed age-restricting entry to those establishments, which would seem to be exposing those present to at least an equally sexualized environment as a stage show featuring drag performers. Hooters even originated in Florida.

[Minadin]

You can't take underage kids to strip clubs or burlesque performances, casinos or night clubs. They only seem to want this carve out for drag shows. Why?

It's a fairly recent phenomenon. I'm not surprised that the law is taking a bit to catch up, you didn't need laws about this a decade ago, in most places.

What's the legal difference between an erotic dancer who is actually a woman, and a clown dressed as one doing the same thing? Our goal is to treat people equally under the law, remember.

[ThomasD]

That people like Shakford and B G must lie and misrepresent, to the point where they have no response to your point says they know they are full of shit.

[sarcasmic]

Stupid Reason. True libertarians tell parents what kind of entertainment they may or may not allow their children to see. That and sex stuff is icky.

[Minadin]

I wouldn't be allowed to take my kids to the Hustler Club.

Or the casino.

Or many, many bars.

[sarcasmic]

What about a movie theater that serves alcohol and shows R movies?

[Josue Naud]

No movie theater chain in the country allows children into R-rated movies and most theaters do no serve alcohol. Watching Mean Girls with your pants around your ankles and a Colt 45 in each hand is not the typical movie theater experience, sarcasmic.

[StackOfCoins]

Movie ratings are not legally enforceable. It is up to the provider whether or not they allow children to see them. Most will not allow children alone because it can get them in hot water in the court of public opinion. Almost any theater will not say anything about children accompanied by an adult. And most people can be relied upon not to take their very young kids to something with a lot of sex.

Even so, those are movies, not real life. I don't care if the drag queens use prosthetics. It is disgusting to imagine those perverts pantomiming to children. If there is even the possibility that they get messed up by that shit, the state has a strong interest in keeping children out of drag shows. We need to stop carving out special permissions for sexual freaks.

[sarcasmic]

This isn't something I would take my kid to, but different parents make different choices.
As far as alcohol is concerned, I'm sure they do wristbands like any 18+ show that serves booze.
What I see is moral busybodies minding everyone else's business.

[JesseAz]

Cmon sarc. Take a real stance. Advocate parents should be able to fuck and beat kids. Who are you to tell a parent no? Let them shoot kids up with heroin to get them to sleep.

Youre defending a drag show that showed fake nude prosthetic breasts and sex acts.

[Social Justice is neither]

Given his history, he has taken a real stance though it isn't one anyone should be proud of.

[Sometimes a Great Notion]

You can take them to broadway plays, though - with all the dancing girls in scantily clad outfits a young man could want. I remember some of those shows very fondly from when I'd get dragged to them.

I don't know what is right or wrong here; nor do I care that much one way or another.

[rev-arthur-l-kuckland]

If you don't know right from wrong here that's on you, every one else that's not insane knows that sexualizing children is wrong

[mad.casual]

Inebriating and sexualizing.

Everybody here, except apparently Scott and his sycophants, knows that is unequivocal statutory rape.

But, of course, the LGBTQ movement has been all about promoting statutory rape and shouting down it's detractors for quite some time.

[Sometimes a Great Notion]

I just don't know where the line is when it comes to a show. Putting dollars down g string, bad. Just a Tranny dressed up in a "sexy" costume singing Judy Garland, meh.

[ThomasD]

I think it was somewhere near the "simulating penetrative sex acts" part.

[Ersatz]

^THIS^

[Fats of Fury]

Young men going to broadway plays, for the most part, aren't going to see the dancing girls. Young men interested in dancing girls go to tittie bars.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

And those tend to be restricted to people age 21 and up only.

[Sometimes a Great Notion]

I was taken there by parents when i was a kid, too young to get into a titty bar. The dancing girls were just the part I liked from the shows. But it wasn't anything much different than walking down the beach except you didn't see ugly women on the stage.

[Minadin]

I don't believe that the young men going to broadway shows are interested in girls in general.

[mad.casual]

Stupid sarcasmic. He seems to have Scott confused with a true libertarian who's been championing the rights of strip clubs and adult theaters to serve alcohol to and wider audiences for decades instead of being just another Johnny-come-lately groomer who really likes forcing businesses to give up their private restrooms to child molesters under the false flag of liberty.

It's been obvious since NC that Scott gives zero shits about libertarianism, honesty, or factual correctness when he described a law that let private businesses use their bathrooms as they see fit as a moral panic. He has consistently, every step of the way, fought every law meant to empower business owners to control their business and parents to raise their kids as they see fit in the most dishonest, anti-business, anti-parent, and anti-libertarian way possible.

Scott gave up being a libertarian a long time ago and pretty overtly admitted it when he did it. To play like he's still a libertarian is to demonstrate one's own dishonesty and/or stupidity.

[Chumby]

You hurt sarc’s feelingz and will be accused of ad hominem.

[Roberta]

What's NC?

[mad.casual]

When Raleigh, NC tried to pass an ordinance saying private businesses had to allow trannies into the restroom of their choice and Scott described the state passing a bill saying that Raleigh couldn't do that as a the transgender bathroom panic, flatly ignoring that the bill was straight up about private ownership of bathrooms.

Scott gave zero shits about trannie bathroom rights until that point and, again, gave zero shits about private property owners' choice to control their bathrooms as they saw fit and, instead, chose to portray the libertarian position as a/the moral panic. The same stunt he pulled with "Don't Say Gay".

[Roberta]

That is indeed a misrepresentation. However, it's an easy trap to fall into. When Trump was running for president the first time, he was asked about this issue, and answered, "I think they should use whatever bathroom they want to use." But the question wasn't framed as, what if the owner didn't want them to use that one.

[mad.casual]

However, it’s an easy trap to fall into.

Except Scott didn't fall into the trap or apologize or clarify*. Instead, he's consistently made the same mistake to the point where it's rather obvious that it's not a mistake and he's intentionally trying to mislead people.

*Actually, at one point he did clarify and his clarification was that his writing isn't strictly aimed at libertarians or even a libertarian-friendly audience.

[Roberta]

Oh, I didn't mean our blogger here fell into that trap, only that it's an easy one for someone like Trump to fall into.

[Cronut]

Scott used to be libertarian. He wrote an article several years ago, shortly after Obergefell, about the excesses of the LGB movement, and not clinging to victimhood now that they've gotten what they wanted. But like pretty much all of the staff here, he came down with the long TDS a d now he's nothing more than a woke shill.

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

Good point, Sarc. Sex stuff is definitely a Tucoque argument against the icky. True Libertarians need to push the agenda that parents need to see and not see the true value of the entertainment that is presented for their bread and circuses.

[Hank Ferrous]

This piece would carry weight if reasonmag editors were regularly calling out left/progressive excesses, rather than publishing pieces that do that written by folks who are not editors. Objectivity, lack of bias, are the foundation of a free press. Pointing to a very small aspect of the culture war, and alleging hypocrisy while not covering the large amount of similar behavior and actions in support one's favored policies is hypocrisy.

[AnnaMills]

Surprising! I’ve been making 100 Dollars an hour since I started freelance on the Internet six months ago. I work long hours a day from home and do the basic work that I get from the business I met online. share this work for you opportunity This is definitely the best job I have ever done.

Go to this link....................>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com

[mad.casual]

The scant photo evidence the state includes in the complaint further substantiates the claim that the war on drag queens is a politically driven moral panic.

Yup. For 200 yrs., no one's had a right to provide alcohol to and sexualize children until just now when you started panicking, Scott.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

2015:
Them: "If you don't allow the 200lb man with a 5 O'Clock shadow who's "presenting as a woman" into the changing room, alone, with your daughter, you're a phobe."

Me: "Umm, pardon me, now?"

Them: "TRANSGENDER PANIC TRANSGENDER PANIC TRANSGENDER PANIC, KULTURR WAR HURR DURRR."

[Overt]

"It's not a role the state should be deciding, and in so many other cases, the state does not."

Yet in so many cases, the state DOES opine. It is telling that Shackford is obsessed with this case, and accuses the state of FL of driving a culture war.

Parents should be given wide latitude to raise their children, I agree. In a libertarian world, Parents should be allowed to dictate all sorts of things for their kids. And yet states all over the country dictate:

- Whether or not parents can allow their kids to drink alcohol.
- Whether or not parents can allow their kids to consume sexual content
- Whether or not parents can allow their kids to engage in dangerous sports.

That same business being threatened about showing simulated felacio to minors has been forever prohibited from serving drinks to minors. Shouldn't we be arguing against all of the above?

And of course, that is where we see that in fact Shackford *is* fighting a culture war. Check that article- it is chock full of rationalizations and excuses, noting that the sexually charged displays weren't *really* that sexual. He isn't arguing a principle on rights, he is arguing that a man twerking in front of minors in the same thong one might see at a beach is not actually THAT sexually charged. Why, that's just PG-13 stuff...Maybe Rated R, right?

And this is a problem that will constantly undermine the libertines here at Reason. I do believe that parents should be given wide latitude here. But they don't actually push for that. They push for very specific Culture War fronts to be ACCEPTED by the population.

[rev-arthur-l-kuckland]

Scott is for the maximum freedom that allows him to sexualize children, this is obvious.

[Roberta]

No, I think he brought up good points. If it's all a matter of degree (Guess what? It always is.), then where the line is drawn matters. Apparently the state thinks so, so the allegation that it's on this side of the line versus that one is material.

And yet states all over the country dictate:

– Whether or not parents can allow their kids to drink alcohol.
– Whether or not parents can allow their kids to consume sexual content
– Whether or not parents can allow their kids to engage in dangerous sports.

I don't think that's true. Pennsylvania is one of the few states (maybe the only one) that (informally on a billboard, not explicitly in statute) asserts parents are not allowed to give liquor to their children, but I don't think that's ever been litigated and probably couldn't be sustained on privacy or religious grounds. I don't know of any state that bars parents from letting their children consume any sexual content, nor letting them play dangerous sports. Indeed, it's always about parental consent in such cases, which would be superfluous if the state overrode such choices.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

I don’t think that’s true. Pennsylvania is one of the few states (maybe the only one) that (informally on a billboard, not explicitly in statute) asserts parents are not allowed to give liquor to their children, but I don’t think that’s ever been litigated and probably couldn’t be sustained on privacy or religious grounds.

(1) It is unlawful for any person to sell, give, or otherwise supply liquor to any person under the age of twenty-one years or permit any person under that age to consume liquor on his or her premises or on any premises under his or her control.

[Roberta]

If you look at the section that provision appears in, it's unlikely to apply to such "premises" as one's home. The state would like to think that, stripped of its context, but it wouldn't stand up in court. But it never gets litigated, so they never find out.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

I would not want to run head-on against a law that didn't make a distinction about blood relations or whether or not the premise is my own home, when it clearly states "on his or her premises or any premises under his or her control".

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

They push for very specific Culture War fronts to be ACCEPTED by the population.

Thou shalt participate. if you don't, you're a phobe.

[Longtobefree]

A new Scott best. Eight paragraphs of detailing multiple complaints, a citation (sort of) of the law stating the violation is in children being there, not serving them alcohol; and he switches to "it's all about some naughty lyrics to one parody song".

And he closes with this gem: "That the governor's judgment is overriding the judgment of parents in this matter should be concerning to anybody who values individual liberty and the rights of parents to decide what their kids are ready to experience."
He is not overriding the parents judgment because this not a judgement call. It is the rules of having a liquor license. The parents aren't involved in that part.
Parent's don't get to decide it's OK for their kids to drive at 12 years old, or at 75 miles an hour in their own neighborhood either. Is that a problem?
Of course, I can picture Scott's head exploding when the parents get charged with endangering the minors and the kids get taken away. Which bring up the venue's wording on their sign. By not clearly stating that children are illegal at the show, they will get their pants sued off (so to speak) if any of the parents actually do get involved in the fallout.

[Roberta]

this not a judgement call. It is the rules of having a liquor license.

I strongly doubt that. The complaint states that they were a public nuisance. That being the case, it's not about their liquor license, it's about whether the Philharmonic Plaza Foundation is to be allowed to operate that theater at all. Ordinarily places legally deemed a public nuisance are shut down, period, not just barred from serving liquor. The fact of their serving liquor is not mentioned in the complaint, which is that the operation was "indecent" irrespective of whether liquor was served.

[Roberta]

If the venue had thought this was a violation of their liquor license, would they have publicized it and specifically said they didn't think it was appropriate for children?

[Social Justice is neither]

You expect woketarian zealots to be rational? The question is not whether they thought it was legal or a risk to their license but whether they thought they could shame people into letting them get away with it

[JesseAz]

Are you saying people sometimes violate laws even without knowing? Some willingly do so?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

If the venue had thought this was a violation of their liquor license, would they have publicized it and specifically said they didn’t think it was appropriate for children?

I'm not sure what you think their legal opinion has to do with anything of any consequence. Also, they never said they didn't think it was appropriate for children. They said "some may think" that it wasn't appropriate. I mean, if we want to apply your same extremely specious reasoning here, why would the open the show to minor if they didn't think it was appropriate for them?

[Brandybuck]

Parents. The parents brought their children. And the venue had a warning sign out front. As distasteful as it may seem, no crime was committed, no "grooming" was committed, just a few parents who brought their kids to a risque show.

Thus it's none of the government's business. If you don't like it, you don't have to take your kids to the show. Problem solved.

p.s. Yes I agree with your that it was inappropriate for kids, but I'm also a libertarian who doesn't believe that the role of government is to police this kind of behavior. Same parents probably let their kids watch South Park at home. So what you gonna do?

[Jefferson's Ghost]

Ditto. None of the government's business.

[JesseAz]

So I will ask you now. Can parents bring kids to watch an orgy? If not, youre admitting there is a line and you dont believe in exclusionary parental freedoms. So now we are arguing where that line is. Yes or no?

[Roberta]

Oh, hell, parents can even have an orgy, and it's not illegal.

[Jefferson's Ghost]

"So I will ask you now. Can parents bring kids to watch an orgy?"

There are limits to what a parent can subject their children to. In the case of a drag show, if the government has a complaint, it should involve charging the parents with some kind of legal infraction.

[JesseAz]

Except the law being utilized is against businesses under a 2005 law. Their complaint is against a business license in violation.

800.02 Unnatural and lascivious act. . 800.03 Exposure of sexual organs. . 800.04 Lewd or lascivious offenses committed upon or in the presence of persons less than 16 years of age.

Liquor licenses are often tied to criminal adherence to the law.

Do businesses have no culpability for what happens on their premises? If not then they could never lose a license for serving to a minor.

[JesseAz]

I will add i would also be fine with a strip club losing a license for allowing kids into their establishment.

[Jefferson's Ghost]

"I will add i would also be fine with a strip club losing a license for allowing kids into their establishment."

And I wouldn't have a problem with that. I would also REALLY want to talk to their parents.

[Jefferson's Ghost]

Hmm... "lewd and lascivious." Oh yeah, that is absolutely PRECISE legal language. LOL. For God's sake, CLOSE THE BEACHES!!!

If they thought they had an actual legal complaint of some kind, don't you think they would arrest the parents for some kind of "child endangerment?" Geesh.

[StackOfCoins]

Well I mean, you're not wrong. The bikinis girls wear are, imo, too lewd for public consumption. Not that I mind, being a male with red blood in my veins. But still, it gives me whiplash. Maybe the moral scolds had it right about too much skin at the beach.

I just don't know. I know our society is all kinds of fucked up about sex.

[Nardz]

Charge everybody involved.
It's about fucking time we stop tolerating rampant abuse and perversion.
Start trying to be a decent person.

[Jefferson's Ghost]

"It’s about fucking time we stop tolerating rampant abuse and perversion."

How very libertarian of you.

[ThomasD]

Lol.

Behold everyone: The One True Scot

[Fats of Fury]

Parents? What kind of parents? Are they like the William Zulock and Zachary Zulock type of parents?

[Dillinger]

parents bringing their children to a risque show is grooming.

[Roberta]

What about barbers bringing their parents?

[Dillinger]

definitely grooming.

[Jefferson's Ghost]

I groom my dogs regularly. In my home. In private. uh oh!

[Nardz]

Eat a bullet, pederast

[JesseAz]

Where is your line? Or do you not have one. From your purist inference parents should be allowed to take their kids to an orgy to watch. If not, you have a line and you do think government should be involved.

Society has deemed sexual content to be that line.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Can someone hip to the whole 'drag' thing please explain to me WHY the schools/liquor stores whatever have "drag" shows? Why don't any of them bring in female strippers?

And I'm not being snarky, I'm serious. Why "drag" shows... what is the overwhelming desire to bring in a dude in a thong and shake his ass in your face. Deadly serious question. Why not bring in female strippers to do the exact same thing?

[mad.casual]

Just one of life's great mysteries. Like "Why would anyone want a pizzeria to cater they're gay wedding?" It's a question without an answer.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

I *think* I know why, but I don't want to poison the well with my theory. I want to know WHY the Drag show specifically is the method à la mode.

[I, Woodchipper]

You know whyu

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

No, I'm actually not 100% sure because I haven't surveyed a number of friends and associates, or ever read an article exploring the matter. All of this is just based on playing the logical game of chess in my head.

[Jefferson's Ghost]

"Why not bring in female strippers to do the exact same thing?"

An interesting question. Not directly related, but here is a real-life scenario:

A bar in a small town was looking for way to increase their patronage. Someone suggested female strippers.

Someone else suggested Chippendale dancers. When asked "WHY?", he replied: "Men go to bars to meet women. Women will go to bars to see the Chippendales. Men go to meet the women.

[JesseAz]

In either case would you allow children?

[Jefferson's Ghost]

"In either case would you allow children?"

The last I heard, one had to be 21 years old to enter a "bar."

[JesseAz]

This drag show was at a bar.

In Arizona kids can go as long as food is > 50% of sales. Or before 10 pm.

So if this was a Chippendale or strippers, why would you care? This show had fake prosthetic breasts exposed and sexual acts. How is it different other than it was in drag?

Trying to figure out your line.

[Jefferson's Ghost]

“Trying to figure out your line.”

My “line” is that, in lieu of actual laws, like serving alcohol to minors, knowingly admitting children under eighteen years of age to view x-rated movies, etc, is that it’s the parents who “endanger” their kids and who are the ones who are responsible. And it’s up to the legal system, not the “regulators.”

Fake boobies are not real boobies. Fake sex is not real sex. Fake nudity is not real nudity.

[Josue Naud]

So an adult arcade operator should be able to let a 12 year old kid into the booth to watch some hentai, just as long as he stays away from the 3d stuff, that about right, kiddie fucker?

[Roberta]

Because within the past few years, the GLBTs decided they needed this to stamp out "-phobia" in succeeding generations. Jus' reg'lar strippers would only cement the "-archy" in place.

[StackOfCoins]

The primary audience of drag shows is women. I can’t claim to know what the appeal is. I work with liberal women who are obsessed with Ru Paul and drag in general. They are pleased as pie when some dude with a beard in a dress shows up at my workplace.

[Azathoth!!]

Scott, just take two minutes to listen to what you're excusing----what am I saying--you bitched because monkeypox impacted your 'sex with strange men' schedule.

Never mind.

Groomer.

[Dillinger]

>>parents’ rights don’t extend to letting their kids listen to naughty Christmas lyrics.

parents can subject their six-year-olds to all the ladydick they want at home.

[I, Woodchipper]

I'll take hysterical overreaction to children attending drag shows over communist authoritarians any day. Any day.

[I, Woodchipper]

and I'm pretty sure most of the reason staff would prefer the opposite.

[Jefferson's Ghost]

"I’ll take hysterical overreaction to children attending drag shows over communist authoritarians any day. Any day."

Isn't trying to use the law to close a private business which the government finds distasteful just a tiny bit "authoritarian?"

[JesseAz]

The law already set standards for establishments serving alcohol. The business broke that violation. As mentioned above there are also laws for bars regarding giving children alcohol even if parents are the ones doing it.

They are being punished for the terms of their license. Like they would for serving alcohol to a minor.

[Roberta]

No, look at the complaint. Got nothing to do with liquor standards.

[ThomasD]

Distasteful is a curious way to euphemize the graphic depiction of sexual acts.

[Roberta]

The problem is, you'll never get that choice. Because communist authoritarians will also overreact hysterically to children attending drag shows, and much less, once those communist authoritarians have achieved their initial aims and are ensconced.

[I, Woodchipper]

fair enought. lett me putt it more clearly

I'll take DeSantis republicans over AOC democrats any day

[Wizard4169]

That's kind of like choosing whether I want to be punched in the right nut or the left.

[Bender B. Rodriguez]

I'm just trying to square this story with any of the dozens of Lenore Skenazy articles. Parents are arrested or separated from their children for allowing them to walk to a park or play outside unaccompanied. I get the sense that the parents who took their kids to this show live in no fear of a visit from CPS.

[Jefferson's Ghost]

" I get the sense that the parents who took their kids to this show live in no fear of a visit from CPS."

Well, they weren't "unaccompanied."

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

I sense Reason has added a new core Libertarian issue. In addition to free weed, ass sex, and open borders they now will go to war for drag queens.

[JeremyR]

No one cares about Drag Queens (other than them basically being minstrel shows only women instead of black, so tacky as hell).

It's Drag Queens doing sexually explicit shows for children that people are objecting and Reason defends.

[ThomasD]

No, remember all the panic over kids going to see Tootsie or Mrs. Doubtfire?

You don't?

Well, actually I don't either.

Maybe, just maybe it was the graphic depiction of sexual acts?

[AnnaMills]

Surprising! I’ve been making 100 Dollars an hour since I started freelance on the Internet six months ago. I work long hours a day from home and do the basic work that I get from the business I met online. share this work for you opportunity This is definitely the best job I have ever done.

Go to this link....................>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com

[Bill Falcon]

too many NYC emasculated men write for Reason.

[Mickey Rat]

I find that Shackford thinks that it’s only “a level of explcitness equivalent to an R rated movie” is a good argument baffling. “R” means that the audience is restricted to those 17 and over unless accompanied by an adult. However, an adult regularly taking a 10 year old to R rated movies would be considered irresponsible. That a policy allows that something can be done, is not an argument that it should be done.

Between Boehm and Shackford, Reason’s writers are making poorly thought out arguments in their articles today.

[B G]

It's hard not to wonder if the performative rage over drag queens is putting the "anti-woke" forces into the same kinds of territory as "anti-fascist" and "anti-racist" activists on the left where they're possibly engaging more in the kind of behaviors/practices they claim to oppose than whoever they're targeting.

So many deep "anti-fascists" are willing (maybe even eager) to violently silence their ideological opponents, it's hard to not see them as more counter-fascist than anti-fascist.

Same with "anti-racist" or "intersectional" identitarians who get so deep into categorizing and defining people by race/gender/sexuality/etc. that it's hard to imagine the actual bigots in the world could keep up with them in that regard.

Now the "anti-woke" seem to be starting to claim some kind of "victim" status arising from things that they're expending effort to have any involvement with; it's rivaling the gay/trans activists who continually target religious bakeries with "requests" for no reason other than to get refused that particular service as a pretense to file repetitive legal harrassment on an issue that's been ruled on repeatedly by the same courts they're invoking again.

I get that DeSantis has to establish his bona fides with the social conservatives if he's going to beat trump in the GOP primaries, but the whole focus on drag shows/story reading is really spinning up an "issue" which shouldn't be consuming nearly this much time. In terms of challenging vs affirming "traditional" gender roles, there's an argument to be made that "drag queen story hour" is actually a reinforcement of that structure (men dressing/performing as feminine while engaging in a "nurturing" activity with kids who aren't their own). "Lumberjack story hour" would seem to be a more subversive even to host with regard to "traditional" conceptions of masculine/feminine social roles.

[Hank Ferrous]

You don't 'get' anything, you assume, it's what people who believe that their criticism supplants facts do. There are examples of anti-fascists, ant-racists being that which they fight. You provide no such thing for the anti-woke.

[xiveta]

●US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours.Everybody can get this job now and start earning online by just open this link and then go through instructions to get started..........
See this article for more information————————>>>http://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM

[JeremyR]

When I went to college in Florida, we couldn't go to strip clubs until after they stopped serving alcohol.

I don't see how this is different, except we were adults, just not 21 and not actual children, like in this case.

There shouldn't be exceptions for pedophiles and gay sex. If you have liquor laws, apply them evenly.

[Liberty Lover]

No one is trying to stop drag shows. People are trying to stop "kiddie" drag shows. Just like people are trying to stop pedophiles and kiddie porn. Reason tries to conflate and confuse the issues.
Makes you wonder if Reason writers are a bunch of woke liberal pedophiles themselves?

[windycityattorney]

Now do toddlers and tiaras!!

If the parents are breaking the law by bringing their children to this adult themed drag show...charge the parents with neglect or child abuse or something. Punishing the bar for a trivial administrative matter over a liquor license (were the kids being served any fucking alcohol?) to punish the perceived violations of the moral panic police? W e a k sauce.

[Josue Naud]

Toddlers and tiaras doesn't involve drunk gay men showing their fake prosthetic tits to a 5 year old, shreek. And if you've got a problem with states going after business licenses for perceived violations of the moral panic police you probably shouldn't have spent the last 15 years wanking your faggot microchode to cake bakers and florists and photographers and web designers having their businesses closed down for not serving faggots, not to mention the last 3 years you spent wanking your faggot microchode to gyms and bars and restaurants having their businesses closed down and their licenses revoked for daring to serve their customers while their state's governor was engaging in illegal home detention.

You know what else is weaksauce btw, shreek? Welching on your bets and your mortgage and posting dark web links to hardcore child pornography.

[windycityattorney]

Holy shit batman! Let us look at your sentence above. "People are trying to stop “kiddie” drag shows." Most normal people reading that sentence would think that the kids are the one's in drag performing in the shows. But of course that isn't what is happening.

You are mad that parents are bringing their kids to stuff that you don't think they should take them to and that the places the parents bring them to are rightly punished for letting the parents do so. So I assume you will be fine with shutting down movie theaters where parents bring children to R rated movies that show sex scenes and titties? Right? And shutting down music venues when parents bring children to shows that have scantily clad dancers gyrating and humping each other? Shut down the beach where *gasp* women are wearing thong bikinis and a full 85% or more of each buttock is exposed to the CHILDREN!!!!

Fucking prude. The name started out liberty lover and I have a feeling you have no idea what liberty even means. Tsk Tsk no freedom fries for you.

[marysmith]

Great blog. Please take some time to visit our online pharmacy - here we sell medicines online: cheap generic medicines

Thanks in advance!

[Wizard4169]

DeSantis is all about defending parental choice, but only as long as parents make the "right" choices.

[StackOfCoins]

Jesus fucking Christ Shackford. It's no wonder you get called a groomer.

[JoyceMorales]

I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK. 🙂

Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.SALARYBEZ.COM