Pink recently reacted to Michael Imperioli’s post about the Supreme Court’s anti-LGBTQ+ ruling, which basically gives permission for businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people.
Colorado-based web design company owner Lorie Smith sought for legal protection, as she did not want to provide services for same-sex couples due to her religious beliefs. After the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of Smith, ‘The White Lotus’ actor took on Instagram to express his sentiments about the matter.
“I’ve decided to forbid bigots and homophobes from watching The Sopranos, The White Lotus, Goodfellas or any movie or tv show I’ve been in. Thank you Supreme Court for allowing me to discriminate and exclude those who I don’t agree with and am opposed to. USA ! USA!,” Imperioli wrote on the caption.
Meanwhile, Pink quote retweeted a post about the actor’s Instagram caption, and the two of them seem to be on the same side.
“Yes Michael! Guess I’m watching everything you’re in tomorrow,” the 43-year-old American singer-songwriter tweeted.
Pink has been an outspoken supporter of LGBTQ+ rights and same-sex marriage. She has also been a symbol of sexual and gender fluidity. Not to mention, the “Just Give Me a Reason” singer previously stated that she never felt the need to define her sexual orientation.
Sources: billboard.com, en.wikipedia.org
I find the whole idea of refusing to service gay couples for weddings, etc, a bad move, tantamount to professional suicide. Gay florists, wedding planner, bakers, they are out there, and slowly taking over the wedding business. Whoever is going to “Refuse” service to a gay couple is really opening themselves up for some financial hurt. I live in Utah, where the gay wedding planners and bakers are making a killing already.
the weird and wrong part is the couple she said was gay and did not want to do the work for is straight and married to a woman, this has been proven yet how can this stand as it was lied false information, that is where you go after both of them her for lying and providing false evidence and purgery in court, judge for not doing his due dillegence for making sure this was accurate which none of this was.