Laura Carleton hung a Pride flag outside her California clothing store, Mag.pi. A man fatally shot her after criticizing the flag, the sheriff’s department said.
When a clothing store opened in Cedar Glen, Calif., in the summer of 2021, the owner hung a Pride flag at the entrance, her friends recalled. Whenever someone would tear down the flag, owner Laura Carleton would raise another one.
But after someone complained about the flag on Friday, the encounter turned deadly.
A man arrived at the store, Mag.pi, around 5 p.m. and criticized Carleton’s Pride flag before he shot her, according to the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department. Carleton, 66, was pronounced dead at the scene.
The shooter, whom authorities have not publicly identified, died following “a lethal force encounter” with deputies after the shooting, the sheriff’s department said in a statement.
Community members have since rallied around Carleton’s store, placing Pride flags, flowers, candles and photos of Carleton in front of it. Matthew Clevenger of Lake Arrowhead LGBTQ+ said Carleton was a strong ally of the LGBTQ+ community.
“She was a fierce protector of everybody being who they wanted to be,” Clevenger told The Washington Post.
Carleton, who went by Lauri, began working in fashion as a teenager at her family’s business, Fred Segal in Los Angeles, according to Mag.pi’s website. After graduating from the ArtCenter College of Design in Pasadena, Calif., Carleton worked at a retail store before joining Kenneth Cole in the 1980s. Carleton worked for the fashion company for more than 15 years as an executive.
In 2013, Carleton founded her clothing store, Mag.pi, on Ventura Boulevard in Studio City, Calif. She added a second store in Cedar Glen in 2021. While she built her career, Carleton married her husband and took pride in their blended family of nine children, her store’s website says.
Carleton was one of the largest donors to Lake Arrowhead LGBTQ+ and attended the organization’s Pride boat parade in June, Clevenger said. A section of Mag.pi was dedicated to rainbow-colored products, and she displayed rainbow candles by the cash register, he said.
Carleton helped create a culture in which the LGBTQ+ community felt accepted, Clevenger said. But some community members were still resistant, he added, and took down Mag.pi’s Pride flag multiple times.
After making “disparaging remarks” about the Pride flag on Friday, a man shot Carleton before fleeing, according to the sheriff’s department. He was holding a handgun when deputies found him on a nearby road, where he later died, officials said.
I believe people have the right to be who they are as long as it isn't hurting others, but Intolerance should be met with intolerance, nothing less will do.
I have been screaming this for a long time now. As a memeber of the LGBTQ Community, we cannot tolerate the intolerant, even if we are called islamophobic, religiousphobic or whatever. We cannot let these assholes take away our rights. It already started in Italy and it will keep spreading if we keep tolerating these assholes.
The military would split if you tried to force red states to stop being shitty.
Most of our top weapons are in those red states.
So what’s the solution that doesn’t lead to half the country dead?
Plus, on the world stage, a “United” United States protects countries like Ukraine, Japan, South Korea, etc. What happens when we’re gone? China becomes dominant and just starts enslaving people in the lands it takes? The Saudis take over parts of the world and bring their shittiness with them? Russia fucks up more of Eastern Europe?
So what’s the answer here to some really complex questions?
The answer is not to lose the 2024 elections and even exceed what we did before. That starts at the local leveling and volunteering with voters rights groups and getting the youth registered to vote. And we must do this the next election. And the next. Until we can close loop holes to prevent further coups by Republicans.
I am as anti-republican as I can possibly be, but even so I realized that the current MO of the democratic party is not to overthrow the Republicans or stop them from doing horrible shit because they're profiting immensely from it.
They get so much grassroots support because they are not the bad guys that they don't even have to try to be the good guys anymore.
With that being said, they have actually done some good and I'm not against the democrats. I'm just not satisfied with their commitment to the cause and I really wish they would step it up, and any Democratic candidate that is closer to my ideal will get my vote over any establishment candidate.
This is your answer. The change we want isn't going to happen at the federal level only. The DNC has had a really terrible leader up until recently, but even so, they don't have a good pulse on the left-electorate. They can't seem to figure out that the country isn't center anymore.
The reason we didn't have a "red tsunami" at the midterms, which going on historical trends should have happened, is because of the extremely hard work of grassroots orgs that mobilized the voters on the left (typically low-turnout voting bloc) in local, state, and federal races. And they did all that on a shoestring budget, with little to no help from the DNC.
The change is going to have to be from the local level up. That's how the GOP got to their "minority rule" status, and it's how we'll win back true democracy.
We need to be the change we want to see. Representatives like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez weren't recruited by the Democratic Party. They ran and won as Democrats often much to the chagrin of the National Party. They won't make it easy. And they will absolutely try to recruit people to run against candidates that don't play ball with them. But they can still lose no matter how hard they try.
Contrary to what people believe, the US military has a fairly good cross sectional representation of the American populace. It is most certainly not right wing. I've known more than a few active duty military members and actually most were moderate to liberal on the political spectrum. And fairly intelligent.
That’s what I’m worried about and why I reject these calls from super-leftists for a new civil war. Do you want NYC, LA, SF, Detroit, Phoenix, Atlanta, Milwaukee, Seattle, and Portland nuked? Because that’s what happens when the hillbillies in Iowa and the Dakotas get their hands on the nukes that are stored there.
We’ve built the most powerful military the world has ever seen, along with the most powerful single weapon, and guys like the one I initially responded to just want to go ahead and shatter that with a civil war where the neo-Confederates WILL use that against Blue cities.
Why are you only rejecting the "super-leftists" and not the right wing who are carrying out evil acts and actually openly calling for civil war, and have been declaring we've been in a civil war for years?
Don't you dare use my words to try to serve some political agenda.
Man, reading comprehension is NOT your strong suit, is it?
I’m this thread, I was responding to another leftist calling for, as he put it, “R E V O L U T I O N”.
Of course I’m also against shitty neo-Confederates ALSO calling for a civil war, but you already knew that, didn’t you, you condescending little sealioning fuckhead? Instead, you need to turn this into yet more whatabiutism.
I don’t want a new civil war. It’s that easy. If one starts, I simply don’t see a way that it doesn’t turn devastating and nuclear. Calling for a revolution is dumb: our military will likely split, and then two sides of the same super powerful weaponry are fighting in my homeland. No thanks!
Judging from your post history, you're just lying. There's no evidence of you ever confronting the right with their behavior, only the left. Therefore the only conclusion is that you are biased. Judging from your responses in other threads, this is because you support the status quo and fear losing it. A status quo degenerating into fascism and genocide, of which you are enabling.
Of course I’m also against shitty neo-Confederates ALSO calling for a civil war,
The left is not calling for civil war. They call for revolution which is fundamentally different. You're purposefully trying to lie to weasel out of admitting you are wrong. And you are very, very much in the wrong.
And you have the nerve to use my words to serve your agenda, which you still haven't apologized for by the way.
What are the steps to a revolution without a civil war?
And wow, you looked at all, what, 25 Lemmy posts I have? Wow. Genius fucking detective here.
I don’t support fascism, you stupid fuck, but because I ALSO don’t support just murdering all the Republicans in the country, somehow that means I’m for the status quo.
I have zero to apologize for. You’re a dumb fucking teenager who thinks that we should have a revolution that somehow doesn’t devolve into a civil war, as if you can just say some magic words and red states, which have been a problem for this country since its foundation with all of the shitty compromises that had to be made to even FORM the United States, are somehow going to say “Oh, shit, this kid on the internet is right! Let’s accept what the left wants now!”
We agree that American conservatives are shitty humans who SHOULDN’T have power, but one of us doesn’t want millions of people to die to take power from them.
If I could wave a magic wand and take all military assets out of Confederate states while also getting every non-fascist out and to the better part of the US, then expel those shithole states, I would. But there’s no magic. There’s no way forward without war until at least until the geriatrics in charge die of old age. Unfortunately, the right has also weaponized new media, so GenX and a lot of my fellow elder Millennials have fallen for their shit, but fortunately it’s far fucking fewer than the Boomers and the self-glossed Greatest Generation.
I’m not willing to start killing Republicans, but it sure as fuck sounds like you are. About as far as I’d recommend is to slap anyone at your middle school who listens to Andrew Tate or Joe Rohan.
I'm kinda new here, so I don't have much of a posting history, but let me set this up immediately.
Calls for a war of any kind in a nuclear-armed country is hella-damn dangerous. I don't care what kind of war it is. Civil War, Revolution, whatever, the bottom line is that even if we don't get mushroom clouds out of it, there are plenty of dirty bombs worth of nuclear material that could be employed by ideologically and hate-blinded assholes with an agenda and the unbending but quite wrong notion that they are not only RIGHT but are backed by their concept of goodness itself, the Almighty. And while I agree with the other poster that the entire US military isn't a seething pool of Neoconfederate fucksticks, that doesn't mean there aren't enough to appropriate and attempt to launch nuclear weapons against 'dins of sin' as they might call large, liberal cities.
I'm not going to go dig through some poster's posting history. You wanted DadWagonDriver to say he's against righties calling for war? You got it in the post you're replying to. Bam. There, he's on record now for saying the Neoconfederates should fuck off already. That should be good enough for you, and that should be enough to set you straight. Enough with the calls for naked warfare. The way to fix our country is in the ballot booth, not on the battlefield. War always has been and always will be the weapon of last resort. Be ready to protect yourself, but don't be looking for a fight. Why? Because wars rarely lead to the outcomes you want. Look at Iran when they overthrew the Shah. The Left then quibbled amongst themselves while the religious fanatics that were the Left's ally during the war stole the reins of power and then outlawed being a leftist, among many, many other things.
Oh yeah, and in closing? The battlefield of today is a thermonuclear battlefield, and the thing about Thermonuclear War is that it is a most strange game to play. The only winning move is not to play!
You wanted DadWagonDriver to say he’s against righties calling for war? You got it in the post you’re replying to. Bam.
That is just a lie he told to disarm anybody reading and it clearly worked on you. He doesn't feel that way, otherwise he would have been doing it in the first place. You need to learn to read context and really think about other people's actions, approaches in debates, and what they're really saying.
Just because you agree with him doesn't make him or you right, and it doesn't change the fact he's manipulating you, is acting with ulterior motives and you're falling for it.
Heh. One of my favourite pasttimes is TTRPGing, and one of the settings I made to explore my disdain for the hard-right was a setting that featured the destruction of San Francisco by nuclear weapons by Conservatives. I could totally see a 'Christian States of America' nuking a liberal city...
Yeah, but I’d generally take our shittiness over Saudi or Russian shittiness. As a note, my family escaped Russia when the Bolsheviks took over, so I’m HIGHLY biased there.
China… I’m not sure about. I studied Chinese history in college, but that was 20 years ago so I kind of stopped paying deep attention around the time of Hu Jintao. Xi seems much more forceful and willing to expand China’s power via dominance and enslavement.
There are no GOOD superpowers, but I think the US is the least bad.
I’d guarantee you and bet that the military is overwhelmingly in favor of supporting the left should it come to it.
Otherwise, they’d have to admit that they stand against the entire purpose and cause of the military.
I just don’t see that happening. Either I have too much faith in the intelligence of our armed forces, or I’m wrong, but this is how I see it going down.
I agree that most of the military would favor the Union again, but there’s a significant enough amount of neo-Confederates that it would cause BIG problems.
Liberals are spineless cowards, we have to fight back. The fascists gave us permission to use deadly force and self-defense the moment they use deadly force against us
Just go to proportional representation, FPTP is crap in otherways. Actually everyone would be chuffed if the electoral collage just went away, the bar is not that high.
I did not think what you had could be called FPTP though? Other countries have more then 2 parties and FPTP but between the collage and borked rules in the US basically make them impossible.
So First Past the Post and the electoral college aren't mutually exclusive.
The electoral college is voting logistics, a relic of a time when sending paper ballots in a sealed box from Vermont or Georgia to Washington was a months long horseback ride through dangerous territories. It was a clever solution to solve the logistics of running a democracy on the technology they had at the time.
First Past the Post is a simple voting system where each persong gets one vote with one name on it. Whichever candidate gets the most votes wins. The problem with it is it tends toward 2 parties through the spoiler effect. If there are 2 parties that run similar enough platforms, that splits the voting base, because either party will satisfy those issue needs, but the opposition to those issues would be one big voting bloc. Thus the 2 losing parties will siphon off voters from the other losing party until eventually one party remains.
It's why the Dems in this country range from vaguely progressive corporate neoliberals (think Biden or Pelosi) or to highly progressive further left wing* people (think Bernie or AOC. And Republicans range from conservative corporate neolibs (think Romney or McCain) to reactionaries and outright fascists (think Boebert and Marjorie Green).
*compared to the rest of our representatives in America
Well yes, but way back many years ago in school the two systems where treated as not the same type. My country has FPTP but we don't consider the US to use it (at least years ago in school). This could be because of how like many countries with FPTP ours does have more then 2 parties win seats in every election where in the US it is though legal means almost impossible (I know they exist but I don't think any have won a seat). This also could have been some weird pride thing as well, as learning world political systems in public education always seemed to have a bit of the propaganda to it.
In any case it is interesting and neat to learn you guys use FPTP also.
The Electoral College is just to elect our President. It has no other purpose than that.
As an American, you vote for four people who represent you directly in the government: your Representative in our House of Representatives, two Senators in our Senate, and the President. The Senators are a relatively recent addition as for a long time, Senators were appointed rather than directly elected, and some people are talking about going back to that system. But for now, that's 4 people you vote for.
Representatives are voted for by their voters in their individual districts. This is like a MP. In some districts, such as those in Maine, we use Ranked Choice Voting. In others, we have a sort of runoff election if nobody wins a majority. However, in most, we vote FPTP, and the guy with the largest share of the votes wins.
Senators are state-wide votes. We'll only vote for one at a time, and over 6 years, we'll have one election for one seat, another election for the other seat, and a 'bye-year' where we don't vote for Senators at all. Like the House, this is rarely RCV or Runoff, but is frequently FPTP.
POTUS votes are run nation-wide, but they really are state-wide in all states except Maine and Nebraska, where they are hybrid Congressional District-wide and State-Wide. This is where the Electoral College comes in, and trying to RCV this could well challenge constitutional crises because if no one candidate gets more than half of the EVs, the race is thrown to the House, which is an anti-democratic thing.
I say fuck representative government. We as people, all of us, are flawed. And no matter who we elect, they will at some point, use the power or voice we've entrusted them with to their own ends and for their own means. We need Digital Direct Democracy. It's time to end the notion that society needs elected representation to act as wranglers and moderate our opinion. The technology is here and honestly I think it's a system that the founders would have been behind.
there's at least 5-7 states where you could pass it as a constitutional referendum. The only hang up is that we are baked in as representative governments on a state level due to agreements made to the federal government constitutionally when we joined the union. You'd have to find a way to make a representative system function like a delegate system, but not under the eyes of the law. It seems like a real moonshot, but where I'm at all it would take is the courts to approve the language and around 50,000 signatures to get it on the ballot. 50%+ of the vote and it's enacted.
Technology could largely streamline that and condense things in plain language for people to understand. Research councils and individual polling could help to dictate ballot composition. I've seen it proposed that you could enact whats known as liquid voting, where by you could entrust a like minded friend you consider more knowledgeable to vote for you. Outside of that, so much of that individual policy is performative and redundant. We can change how the system works incrementally and work toward greater levels of involvement and knowledge will become more common the more people have a taste for it. We can incentivize participation by linking it to civil duty and a lessening of your personal taxes.