Conservative

These remain the exact points proposed in the article you posted.

The Babylon Bee pulls out the following scenarios, by name:

• Officers not being allowed to comment on opposing "drag queen story hour." An event where men in dresses read to children, and that's bad somehow. All criticism I'm aware of is on a spectrum from tacit anti-LGBT bigotry to outright, libelous, fearmongering anti-LGBT bigotry.

• Officers not being allowed to "abhor transing kids in schools." Which is that libelous anti-LGBT bigotry. Verbing the word "trans" as if it's something being done to children, and not something queer kids have to fight for recognition of, is fucking obviously anti-trans bigotry. It is naked fearmongering. Unambiguous think-of-the-children horseshit, in the tired formula of 'them queers are coming fer yer kids.'

• Officers not being allowed to "support parental rights." Which is, at the very least, relevant to current anti-LGBT laws, where some kids can't even use shortened names without written approval. The explicitly stated goal being: to out trans kids. Any measurable impact will be a headcount of queer children kept in the closet through fear. That is why it is crucial to make people understand - children have rights. It's not the school, the parents, and mouthy pets. We are talking about developing and vulnerable human beings. All demonstrably individual persons. If an organization's opinion of "parental rights" amounts to "systemic prejudice, oppression, or discrimination," you're damn right I don't want to see law enforcement officers endorsing that bloodless violence.

• Officers not being allowed to oppose "illegal immigration." Which this policy doesn't do. The article's just lying. The standard is, again, "systemic prejudice, oppression, or discrimination." There's a lot of racist shit that will be glibly misrepresented as "opposing illegal immigration," but if Officer Joe Bagodonitz has strong opinions about overstayed visas, nobody cares.

• Officers not being allowed to oppose "letting felons vote." Which is only true because the policy specifies "criminal record" as a protected class. (Note how it could have added "immigration status" - but doesn't.) This is the only point the author raises that's even worthy of argument. Which is why I only noted that it's a dog-whistle.

That's ALL ONE SENTENCE. I'm not gathering quotes from across the article. I am addressing the disingenuous bullshit contained in literally one sentence of this blog, which is in my original comment. There is no excuse for pretending it's some off-topic ass-pull. This is the central thrust of the article you posted. These are things the Babylon Bee made up, to ignore how the actual policy says "systematic illegal prejudice, oppression, or discrimination."

But because the policy summarizes agents of "prejudice, oppression, or discrimination" as "criminal or biased organizations," that miserable tabloid latches onto the word bias, and ignores the explicit focus on bigotry. That fnord makes the headline - but the prejudice, oppression, and discrimination do not.

This is a country where the Nazi party is a completely legal association. Actual Nazi paraphernalia would not be covered under "criminal organizations." But it's plainly what this policy is talking about, and if any police officers feel their opinions lean too close to that - the least they can do is keep their mouths shut.