3 ms·
It still means the government is sending a signal that LGBTQ people are less worthy, attack our values etc., putting that community at risk. They may be in name
by ngcazz 7y ago
It still means the government is sending a signal that LGBTQ people are less worthy, attack our values etc., putting that community at risk. They may be in name only so the government may enjoy a degree of plausible deniability when inevitably violence happens against the targeted community.
You're accusing them of bigotry without weighing the clear higher value here, which is: solidarity for the conference goer who might be vulnerable to persecution because of these policies.
- s9w 7y agoA stance against these people does not put the community 'at risk'
- ngcazz 7y agoWell... no. It actually does, but what's your point then? That LGBTQ people attending the conference ought to shut up and put up? That these policies are harmless, and therefore justifiable? (I think we can be certain the only justification for a policy like this is the intent to cause harm, because why make them a thing otherwise.)
- s9w 7y agoYou think these policies were intended to cause harm? I think that's quite a stretch. It's obvious that eastern European countries in particular see grave danger in these things and try to keep them out. That's their right to do so.
- rsynnott 7y agoIt’s possibly their right to do so (depending on if these ‘declarations’ survive the Polish and European courts). It’s also the right of conference organisers to go somewhere with a less unpleasant government, though.
- s9w 7y agoAbsolutely! I think both sides got what they want and I'm pretty happy with this, as are both of them I imagine.