Category Archives: LGBT Bullshit
From RBA: http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/
No…this has nothing to do with “separate but equal.” Where in the world is this nonsense coming from?
This is a very tough issue though. This law in Arizona was meant to protect small business owners who do not want to offer their services for homosexual weddings because of their conflicting religious reasons. Lawyers for activist organizations and the ACLU have been filing suits against these small businesses (florists, bakeries, photographers, chapels, etc) in multiple states and activist judges have been ordering them to participate in these weddings against their will or pay fines. Now big business is trying to put the pressure on Arizona to veto the bill because they don’t want the bad PR tied to them. This is tyranny of religious freedom and is just another move of the minority to force artificial change on a free market system that would take care of the problem naturally.
Now, the takeaway is that the gay couples didn’t necessarily file these suits, the lawyers did…”on their behalf.” These small businesses aren’t necessarily turning away gay people just because they’re gay, just their services for homosexual weddings, which these business owners religiously disagree with. In a free market, if a business turns away clients, that’s their loss of revenue. The press (and gay activists) has made this out to be that Arizona businesses have been turning away homosexuals left and right just because they’re homosexuals, which isn’t true at all. And if the bill were to pass, no way would a large percentage of these large corporations pull out these states. I’d love to see the crony panderers at the NFL pull the Super Bowl or American Airlines try to pull out of the state…what a bunch of cowards.
This issue is also more widespread than just Arizona and could affect other states’ reactions. A judge should never have the power to make you offer your products or services to anyone…no matter what the reason is. Would it be fair to force a Catholic minister to perform a nudist wedding? Would it be fair to force a black photographer take photos at a skinhead wedding? Would it be right to force a recovering alcoholic to cater a reception at a bar? Unless you’re judgement is cloudy, the answer to all of these is, “no.” If the business truly is bigoted, then it should fail on its own by customers choosing not to patronize them. It is not discriminating to turn down your services if you do not feel comfortable or morally correct in doing so. That is your real civil right.
However, personally, I think Jan Brewer should veto this bill and come up with better legislation that protects these small businesses and their religious rights while keeping these blood-hungry lawyers away from pilfering them by using phony discrimination as a reason.
From RBA: http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/
One of the things we must understand about the Left is the essentially totalitarian nature of their ambitions. There is no logical stopping point on the progressive road to the Utopia of Equality that they insist is always ahead of us, a destination never reached.
Grant all their demands today, and they will return tomorrow with a new list of demands. What do they want? More, always more.
Yesterday, a federal judge struck down Virginia’s state constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage, because obviously (a) the Fourteenth Amendment was intended for such a purpose, and (b) never mind the will of voters expressed in a referendum.
The ruling cites memorable Supreme Court travesties – Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Lawrence v. Texas and Windsor v. U.S. — like so many mileposts on the Highway to Hell, and who can argue with such sophistry when it’s dressed up in costumes of legal precedent, bejeweled with a lot of emotional chatter about “loving, intimate and lasting relationships” and “sacred, personal choices”?
Translation: “Damn the Constitution, we’re not in Utopia yet.”
Meanwhile, in Kansas, the state House of Representatives approved a billintended to impede the March Toward Utopia in the name of “religious liberty,” inspiring an eruption of hyperbole about “vicious discrimination” and “anti-gay segregation.”
“Willkommen, Herr Chamberlain. Welcome to Munich. Today you will cede the Sudetenland. Tomorrow, we’ll demand the world.”
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
Yes, I am aware that those documents from the American Kennel Club — a notorious group of hatemongering breedists — identify me as a so-called “pure bred” golden retriever, but in my heart, ever since I was a little puppy, I always knew I was different.
Finally, after years of struggle against oppression, I found the courage to be the dog I really was, and “came out” as a Russian wolfhound.
My brave struggle has continued and, while I know how much you admire my courageous trans-breed activism, it’s important that you not offend me like Piers Morgan offended Janet Mock:
There were several problems with the language Morgan used. For starters, he repeatedly asserted that Mock had formerly been a boy. He also said that Mock had surgery to become a woman. Mock was a woman long before she had the surgery she felt she needed to reflect that. Part of the fight for transgender rights and justice is a fight for self-determination: to be able to proclaim who you are without anyone else adding caveats.
Sure, I know what you’re thinking: “What’s wrong with stating a simple fact? Janet Mock was, indeed, born as a boy named Charles with XY chromosomes and Charles did, in fact, undergo surgery to remove his testicles and rearrange his genitalia to create a simulacrum of a vagina. Actually, the whole point of Janet Mock’s celebrity activism — the book contract, the TV interviews — is the experience of having undergone this transition process. Why, then, is Piers Morgan a transphobic bigot for making reference to these facts?”
You don’t understand. You’ll never understand our struggle for acceptance, our fight against discrimination and bigotry. While you can’t possibly understand, you are permitted to admire us for our heroic courage — but only in language we approve.
Janet Mock is a woman. And I’m a Russian wolfhound.
Get over it, haters.
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
From RBA: http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/
Posted on | January 22, 2014
My brother Kirby called this afternoon and began the conversation by saying, “You know if that kid in Florida kills himself . . .”
Yeah, they’ll blame me.
Volunteer Official Scapegoat™ of the Hate Olympics.
Someone has to be the conservative who notices things you’re not supposed to notice and says things you’re not supposed to say.
The chief qualifications for this gig are (a) scorn for popularity and (b) disregard for the short-term goals of the Republican Party. If your goal is to become the Popular Person Embraced by the Official GOP, you can never speak the kind of truth that makes people uncomfortable, you can never risk anything in a fight, and you are ultimately doomed to a defensive strategy of retreat.
Glenn Beck said on his Monday show that anti-gay people “have no place in this country.” . . . “Anybody within the sound of my voice that hates a gay person because they’re gay, you have no place calling yourself a fan of mine,” Beck said. “You have no place in this country.” Beck has spoken out in support of gay marriage several times before. Earlier in January, he voiced his opposition against Russia’s anti-gay laws and announced that he would stand by the LGBT advocacy group GLAAD in their fight against “hetero-fascism.” “You are not a fan of mine — you have no friendship here — if you hate people because they’re gay,” Beck also added. “You have no place claiming that you’re a fan of this show. . . . If that’s who you are, I don’t want to have anything to do with you.”
Of course, the problem with Beck’s rhetoric here is that it conflates political opposition to a certain policy agenda (or religious objections to homosexual behavior) with “hate,” which is an assertion so absurd that I hesitate to dignify it with a response.
Look, my religious beliefs condemn premarital sex and re-marriage after divorce. Do I “hate” people who don’t live up to those biblical standards of behavior? No one has ever accused me of such a hate, because there is no recognized Promiscuity Lobby trying to mobilize an identity politics constituency to vote Democrat by labeling Republicans a hate group on such a basis. Once you get past the irrational bullying tactics of the Left and look at the actual data, you recognize that the gay agenda represents an effort to re-order social norms on behalf of an extremely small (but quite vocal and well-funded) minority:
The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, a gay and lesbian think tank, released a study in April 2011 estimating based on its research that just 1.7 percent of Americans between 18 and 44 identify as gay or lesbian, while another 1.8 percent — predominantly women — identify as bisexual. Far from underestimating the ranks of gay people because of homophobia, these figures included a substantial number of people who remained deeply closeted, such as a quarter of the bisexuals. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey of women between 22 and 44 that questioned more than 13,500 respondents between 2006 and 2008 found very similar numbers: Only 1 percent of the women identified themselves as gay, while 4 percent identified as bisexual.
So the LGBT coalition encompasses 3.5 percent of the population, max, to whom the other 96.5 percent are expected to kowtow?
Never has such a large majority dog been so easily wagged by such a small minority tail, led by radicals who habitually impugn all opposition in the most vituperative language imaginable. Dana Pico at First Street Journal notes the implicit insistence “that homosexual relationships are just as good, just as wholesome, just as normal, as heterosexual ones,” i.e., compulsory approval. As I explained more than five years ago (“Gay Rights, Gay Rage,” The American Spectator, Nov. 17, 2008), those who speak of homosexuality in the language of “rights” are not about liberty, but rather about equality in the most radical sense and, as Richard Weaver famously warned, Ideas Have Consequences.
This is how we reach the point at which people believe they have the “right” to make you bake them a lesbian wedding cake. This is how we reach the point where no one is supposed to object to teenage boys getting paid for a six-way “bareback orgy” on video.
Do you think this kind of stuff is worth discussing? “You have no place in this country.” Ace says Glenn Beck is now “all about attempting to get TimeWarner and ComCast to pick up his cable channel.”
Yeah, because MSNBC needs more competition.
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
My buddy, Doug wrote an excellent piece about the gay freaks @ GLAAD. If these ‘gays’ want to be together so bad, they need to call their union something else because marriage is from GOD. Who most of them hate with a passion. These ‘gay’ fascists DEMAND GOD. Who do they think they are??? They are so fascistic, they appoint Commies into the courts as judges, who over-rule the will of the people and they ‘marry’ each-other, regardless of the people. THAT is not ‘gay’, that is cruel, fascist, NAZI and TOTALLY TOTALITARIAN. Its sickening.
Virtually the entire “gay rights” agenda is predicated on lies, but worse, most of the mainstream political establishment swallows them without the least bit of shame. It’s disgusting. As I wrote years ago, homosexual marriage is not a civil right.
From MJ: http://themadjewess.com/
This excerpt from Lewis’s Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass was highly instructive for moonbats:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
As hard as it is to believe now, the word “liberal” once referred to freedom. It even comes from the same root as “liberty.” The Founding Fathers were once regarded as liberals, as were advocates of the free market like Adam Smith. These days “liberal” refers to belief in authoritarian statism. This is because the people who now call themselves liberals commandeered the word and twisted it to their purposes. They used to call themselves “progressives,” a word that once implied progress toward an improved future, but now means a coercive return to social and economic models reminiscent of failed 20th century communism. Presumably to prevent it from being used against them, they are now redefining the word “vile.”
When the bullying homosexual fascists of GLAAD denounced Phil Robertson as “vile” for adhering to traditional values and listing homosexuality among other sins to be avoided, this term was dutifully echoed by liberal apparatchiks like CNN’s loathsome Piers Morgan:
At 9:30 a.m. on December 19th, CNN’s Piers Morgan tweeted that the First Amendment “shouldn’t protect vile bigots” like Phil Robertson.
Morgan also denounced Robertson as “repulsively racist.” If “vile” can be turned into a pejorative version of “decent and moral,” “racist” can mean whatever libs want it to also.
Orienting your identity around a sexual obsession with the smelly filth-excreting anuses of members of the same sex is vile. Sanctifying unclean acts of perversion by demanding reverence and privileged status for those who indulge in them is vile. Acknowledging that sexual depravity is sinful is the opposite of vile. Unless the word’s meaning has now been officially reversed, in which case “vile” will eventually become a compliment, just as “liberal” has become an insult — arguably the worst insult imaginable.
Hat tip: Maggie’s Farm.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
As John Hawkins correctly notes,
It’s incredibly refreshing to have someone under attack by the Left’s political correctness police who’s willing to stand firm instead of whimpering and hiding in a corner because he wants to make it all go away.
Hawkins is referring to Phil Robertson, who instead of licking the hand of the degeneracy-promoting liberal fascists who control television, has stood firm by his conventional values. The same applies to Mark Steyn. After being publicly chastised by his editor for siding with Robertson against the pink Nazis at GLAAD who have been attempting to destroy him for his decency, Steyn doubled down:
Having leaned on A&E to suspend their biggest star, GLAAD has now moved on to Stage Two:
“We believe the next step is to use this as an opportunity for Phil to sit down with gay families in Louisiana and learn about their lives and the values they share,” the spokesman said.
Actually, “the next step” is for you thugs to push off and stop targeting, threatening and making demands of those who happen to disagree with you. Personally, I think this would be a wonderful opportunity for the GLAAD executive board to sit down with half-a-dozen firebreathing imams and learn about their values, but, unlike the Commissars of the Bureau of Conformity Enforcement, I accord even condescending little ticks like the one above the freedom to arrange his own social calendar.
As for the editor who publicly denounced him, namely Jason Lee Steorts, Steyn writes:
It is a matter of some regret to me that my own editor at this publication does not regard this sort of thing as creepy and repellent rather than part of the vibrant tapestry of what he calls an “awakening to a greater civility”. I’m not inclined to euphemize intimidation and bullying as a lively exchange of ideas – “the use of speech to criticize other speech”, as Mr Steorts absurdly dignifies it. So do excuse me if I skip to the men’s room during his patronizing disquisition on the distinction between “state coercion” and “cultural coercion”. I’m well aware of that, thank you. In the early days of my free-speech battles in Canada, my friend Ezra Levant used a particular word to me: “de-normalize”. Our enemies didn’t particularly care whether they won in court. Whatever the verdict, they’d succeed in “de-normalizing” us — that’s to say, putting us beyond the pale of polite society and mainstream culture. “De-normalizing” is the business GLAAD and the other enforcers are in. You’ll recall Paula Deen’s accuser eventually lost in court — but the verdict came too late for Ms Deen’s book deal, and TV show, and endorsement contracts.
National Review has played a role in denormalizing in the past. Ostensibly a conservative publication, it serves the liberal establishment of which it is part by providing a phony opposition (much like the GOP), while restricting what conservatives are allowed to say.
Readers will recall that when John Derbyshire made certain undeniably accurate racial observations in a separate publication, he was promptly fired by National Review’s Thought Cop in Chief Rich Lowry for stepping outside the bounds of political correctness.
I’ve been wondering how long a sincere and gutsy guy like Steyn would last at NR, considering that he stood firm and won against the PC totalitarians who tried to gag him in Canada. Looks like we are about to find out:
I am sorry my editor at NR does not grasp the stakes. Indeed, he seems inclined to “normalize” what GLAAD is doing. But, if he truly finds my “derogatory language” offensive, I’d rather he just indefinitely suspend me than twist himself into a soggy pretzel of ambivalent inertia trying to avoid the central point — that a society where lives are ruined over an aside because some identity-group don decides it must be so is ugly and profoundly illiberal. As to his kind but belated and conditional pledge to join me on the barricades, I had enough of that level of passionate support up in Canada to know that, when the call to arms comes, there will always be some “derogatory” or “puerile” expression that it will be more important to tut over. So thanks for the offer, but I don’t think you’d be much use, would you?
Wow. As Bill Clinton would say, Steors had better put some ice on that.
Given the right conditions, a few sparks of boldness have been known set off major conflagrations. If Robertson and Steyn can stand up to the corrupt establishment, so can the rest of us.
On tips from Varla and Rob Banks.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
For our liberal rulers, those at the top of the caste system of political correctness come first — and at the very top of that pyramid of phony victimhood are those so psychiatrically defective as to construct their personal identities around being sexual deviants. So it is no surprise the freakazoids comprising the “LGBT community” have been prioritized to get treated at other people’s expense under ObamaCare:
As a critical deadline for signing up for insurance under President Obama’s health-care law approaches, the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community has emerged as a major target for the White House and outside groups.
A disproportionate number of LGBT Americans are uninsured and qualify for federal premium subsidies to help buy coverage, and the administration is intensifying its efforts to get them enrolled before the end of the year.
Free healthcare! We’ll make someone else pay for it! Get yer free healthcare!
Millions of people who have been willing to pay for their coverage have had it canceled. ObamaCare has put insurance coverage in decline by a 14 to 1 margin. But then, under our tyranny of the minorities, that might make perfect sense.
Meanwhile, several outside groups are pitching in for the LGBT outreach, including Out2Enroll, a collaboration among the Sellers Dorsey Foundation, the Center for American Progress (CAP) and the Federal Agencies Project. The group is working to educate men and women in major cities about their options for coverage and how to navigate the system. According to CAP, 900,000 members of the LGBT community could get some form of subsidized health care under the law.
Have your wallet handy. Subsidized care for nearly a million people who define themselves by their devotion to an exceedingly unhealthy lifestyle known for spreading extravagantly expensive diseases like AIDS will not come cheap — and that’s not even taking into account the nightmarish surgical and pharmaceutical procedures that run up massive bills while transforming them into grotesque facsimiles of the opposite sex.
Here’s how our liberal overlords are spreading the word:
Wednesday Night Tea, a drag show in Shreveport, La., has started promoting the health-care law as part of its act. And Out2Enroll is launching a social media campaign this week that will have “naughty” elements as well as holiday cheer, according to Kellan Baker, associate director of the LGBT Research and Communications Project at CAP.
I believe “naughty” is LGBTese for explicitly obscene.
Here’s a glimpse at the top tier of the liberal caste system:
Now get back to work so you can generate some tax revenue. Hormone therapy costs money.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
December 19, 2013
Just one day after Phil Robertson’s comments on homosexuality earned him an indefinite suspension from “Duck Dynasty,” the reality show star has received a strong show of support from the governor of his state and others.
. Louisiana Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal called it a “messed-up situation when Miley Cyrus gets a laugh, and Phil Robertson gets suspended.”
“Phil Robertson and his family are great citizens of the state of Louisiana. The politically correct crowd is tolerant of all viewpoints, except those they disagree with.” Jindal said in a statement. “I don’t agree with quite a bit of stuff I read in magazine interviews or see on TV. In fact, come to think of it, I find a good bit of it offensive. But I also acknowledge that this is a free country and everyone is entitled to express their views. In fact, I remember when TV networks believed in the First Amendment. It is a messed up situation when Miley Cyrus gets a laugh, and Phil Robertson gets suspended.”
Robertson told GQ Magazine in an interview that he didn’t understand why someone would choose to have sex with a man instead of a woman.
“It seems like, to me, a vagina – as a man – would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical,” Robertson said.
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin also jumped in to defend the Robertson family patriarch, saying on Twitter that “free speech is (an) endangered species.”
Free speech is endangered species; those “intolerants” hatin’ & taking on Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing personal opinion take on us all
@SarahPalinUSA Sarah Palin
Other Robertson supporters have taken to social media to call for a boycott of network A&E, using the Twitter hashtag #ISupportPhil.
@casadezach Brian H.
@jgoldies3 Jennifer Goldman
@traviscphillips Travis C. Phillips
Phil Robertson isn’t a “gay-hater” …C’mon, people.#thatisall
@AshleyCossin Ashley Nicole Cossin
A new “Stand With Phil” Twitter account had more than 700 followers as of Thursday morning.
Despite the support, many others also speaking out against Robertson.
MSNBC’s Twitter account referred to his comments as “homophobic.”
Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson is a man of many words. And some of those words are homophobic. http://t.co/CUpAndlEcX
Others called Robertson a “racist,” with one Twitter user writing, “I don’t know why anyone’s even surprised Phil Robertson turned out to be racist. Of course he’s racist. Look at him.”
I don’t know why anyone’s even surprised Phil Robertson turned out to be racist. Of course he’s racist. Look at him.
Gay rights group GLAAD said Robertson’s comments were unacceptable.
“Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe. He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans – and Americans – who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples,” GLAAD spokesman Wilson Cruz said in a statement.
But that didn’t stop Glenn Beck on his radio program from offering to host “Duck Dynasty” on TheBlaze TV if A&E doesn’t keep the show.
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
Posted on | December 18, 2013
Robert Stacy McCain@rsmccainFollow
“It’s certainly a colorful expression of his personal preference.” http://hotair.com/archives/2013/12/18/duck-dynastys-phil-robertson-suspended-by-ae-for-comments-on-homosexuality/ … — @mkhammer, putting it mildly
You’ll excuse my confusion, but amidst the hyperventilating screeches — GLAAD claiming that Phil Robertson was pushing “vile and extreme stereotypes” — maybe I missed what it was the Duck Dynasty patriarch actually said that was wrong.
Is it a “vile and extreme stereotype” to say that gay men engage in anal sex with each other? Or is it in some way objectionable for heterosexuals to say that they prefer the opposite sex? Why is this offensive? To whom is it offensive and why?
“We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty,” A&E said in a statement, which was reported by The Hollywood Reporter. “His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely.”
Again: Why? Not just why has Phil Robertson been placed on hiatus, but why is A&E obliged to proclaim that they are “strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community”? Is someone threatening to sue them for discrimination?
Mary Katharine Ham points out that Duck Dynasty “averages 14 million viewers per episode,” 4 million more than the much-ballyhooed finale of AMC’s Breaking Bad. A major reason for the show’s popularity is the down-to-earth backwoods Bible-thumping wholesomeness of the Robertson family, whose values Phil Robertson rather bluntly expressed in a magazine interview.
It would seem to me that A&E is cutting off its entertaining nose to spite its profitable face, and that once again the tail is wagging the dog: The gay minority (no more than 4% of the population) dictating to the straight majority, as if the 96% had no rights at all.
Robert Stacy McCain@rsmccainFollow
Remember back when “gay” was not a synonym for “constantly in a frothing fit of outraged political anger”? http://twitchy.com/2013/12/18/selective-outrage-glaad-slams-phil-robertson-after-letting-alec-baldwin-slide/ …
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
Posted on | December 19, 2013
Two Alabama men have been charged with imprisoning and filming their sexual abuse of a minor for use in child pornography made with the son of one of the accused. Domestic partners Charles Dunnavant and Carl Herold face a litany of charges ranging from sexual torture and sodomy to exposing a person to an STD and child pornography production. The young boy, only nine-years-old, was held hostage in the Huntsville house of horrors for eight months, during which he was sexually assaulted, abused, sodomized and exposed to an STD by both men while a camera caught all the depraved details, according to a court filing cited by WHNT. . . . ‘They held the child captive for eight months and there are no standards, taboos or lines this defendant and his co-defendant hesitated to cross,’ Huntsville Police Department investigator Chad Smith testified in court Monday, according to WHNT.
Yes, this is strictly a local news story:
Dunnavant lived with Herold in Huntsville. . . . Dunnavant was arrested at a family home in Lincoln County, Tenn., Friday investigators said. During a hearing Monday seeking to raise Dunnavant’s bond from $276,000 cash-only to $1 million cash-only, Huntsville Police Department investigator Chad Smith testified he was contacted by the FBI in early November about the possibility of a child sex victim in Huntsville. Smith said investigators came across numerous photos depicting sexual torture involving a child.
This has no ramifications or significance outside Alabama. However, if somebody says something that offends gay people . . .
Hyping the absurd Duck Dynasty controversy, Chad Griffin of the gay-rights lobby Human Rights Campaign said this: “Phil Robertson’s remarks are not consistent with the values of our faith communities or the scientific findings of leading medical organizations. We know that being gay is not a choice someone makes, and that to suggest otherwise can be incredibly harmful.”
Got that? It is “incredibly harmful” even to “suggest” that individuals are capable of rational action. No, according to “scientific finding,” we are told, sexual behavior is biologically determined, utterly beyond our control, and our sexual preferences are so hard-wired and overpowering that incredible harm will result if we attempt to conform our actions to moral ideals or social norms.
Ideas Have Consequences, as Richard Weaver once famously observed, and this idea — what I’ve called the “Desire Is Destiny” view of sexuality — has consequences far beyond the narrow and selfish purposes of HRC’s Chad Griffin, who is interested only in fundraising, political power and his own $360,000 annual pay.
Chad Griffin is not some idealistic humanitarian, you see. He’s a highly paid professional activist, a full-time anger merchant who oversees an organization whose top dozen officials, himself included, rake off a combined $2.56 million a year. Most people don’t understand that there is a sort of political industry at work — Gay, Inc. — and there are many hundreds of people who earn their livings from various gay advocacy groups, not to mention other similar gigs, e.g., “Queer Theory” professors at universities.
All these people wake up every morning and go to work where they spend the entire day laboring to destroy morality in America. Given the enormous resources and manpower devoted to this project, we certainly ought not be surprised by their successes.
And never mind what they might consider a “success.”
Thanks to Robert Stacy McCain at: http://theothermccain.com/
So DD’s Phil Robertson exercised his first amendment rights..
And has caused all kinds of hysterical, “My feelings is hurt”, ‘Not politically correct’ etc…Has the ‘racist’ card been played yet? Has Buck Ofama chimed in? Because this would be one of those items he would jump into…
Anyhow, tough shit. I may or may not agree totally with Mr Robertson, but is his right to speak his mind..
His right protected by the 1st Amendment, 1st Amendment is there to allow us to speak our minds….
Not protect your feelings. You wimps.
And then you poke around and read some of the adamant protect my 2nd Amendment, leave my guns alone blogs and see those folks pissin’ on the 1st Amendment…Damn that is a bit hypocritical…Like alot of the lefty newsies and what not, the LGBT society screaming about their feelings hurt…Has any shithead in the LGBT society ever paid attention to how they act in public? Especially during one of their ‘parades’? Disgusting displays, offensive..I am offended…..But I ignore your antics, just attention seeking they are…
So all you damn hypocrites, especially those whom write so well about the 2nd Amendment.
Quit being hypocrites..
Is all or nothing with the Constitution and Bill of Rights…
Quit acting like LIEberals and picking and choosing…
Ed.Note: I agree completely with Mad Medic. No one is allowed to have any beliefs or convictions except liberals. If anyone disagrees with them or their agenda in any way, they are smeared and destroyed. So F*#k off liberals and queers. Phil don’t need your money or your approval. And the rest of us don’t either. ZTW
From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
“Comments are [WISELY] disabled for this video,” but the double-entendre lyrics come thick and fast.
“Hope you’re stuffed from your Thanksgiving …. When you finally meet Mr. Right… Never again will you be alone…. Together you’re a happy home…. Pre-existing conditions won’t stop ‘em… can’t top ‘em…. Ahhh….Ooooo… No matter who’s under the mistletoe…. Get Enrolled, Get Enrolled, Get Enrolled!”
That said you might want to think about practicing safe clicking here. Ace warns you best in Oh My: Footie Pajama Guy Wasn’t the “Gay Outreach:
“When Obama’s friends on the left want to advertise to gays, they do not do so with a great deal of subtlety. They just put it right on out there. The video is not entirely safe for work — it’s not pornographic, per se. It is, however, Super Gay, and I do mean “super” with a few extra s’s. If you play this at work, you can expect questions. Even if you work in Lady Gaga’s publicity office, people are still going to say, “Dude, what I just saw on your computer was ridiculously gay.” The Gay Costume Party in JFK just emailed me to say, “Yeah… that’s over the top.” The guy who sang “What, What, In the Butt?” just said, “I’m offended.” If you don’t want to watch it, here’s the best description I can muster: You know that Kate Upton Easter Bunny Ad? Yeah, it’s like that,* except with Christmas, and Dudes.”
Morales’ hoax is a blip in the larger pattern of faked hate crimes. Bigotry is the witch hunt of the modern Salem and progressive witch hunters are just as careless about facts and evidence. Now as then, the goal is to stamp out an attitude and a cultural threat, rather than to enforce the law, and that leads inevitably to the entire tawdry parade of hysterical denunciations and moral panic.
But what is behind this need to manufacture intolerance?
The left built up its replacement for class warfare around identity politics. Though we take most of these identities, including the racial trinity and homosexuality, for granted, they are really modern artificial constructs that define how people should define themselves, rather than accepting them as they are.
Strangely enough, racial and sexual identities were more nuanced centuries ago than they are today where the “one drop rule” now goes completely unchallenged in matters of race and equally so in matters of sexual orientation. Anyone who can be claimed on any grounds by the victim group, must be identified with them or face accusations of false consciousness.
We are less willing to contemplate biracial and bisexual today than we were a century ago. Instead leftist collectivism demands that everyone be either one thing or another. Everyone is divided into categories of victim and oppressor. Just as no one can be both on both sides of the class struggle; so too the left rejects the idea of being on both sides of the victim line in race or sexual orientation.
On Seinfeld, Jerry’s dentist joined Judaism for the jokes. Leftists are joining native tribes for the victimhood. Meanwhile they’re defining those identities solely in terms of victimhood.
The absurdity of people lining up to be victims has led to the proliferation of fake Indians, like Elizabeth Warren and Ward Churchill in the United States, and white aborigines in Australia. The fake indigenous tribal has little in the way of a genetic or cultural connection to any native people; but chooses to trade in his or her white identity, at least temporarily, to enhance their leftist politics.
They are engaging in a fraud much bigger than a forged receipt; but they are doing it for the same reasons.
An identity defined in terms of victimhood needs fresh injections of oppression to sustain its existence. Those African-Americans who define “blackness” not in terms of positive values but in terms of negative values, need white racism, the real thing or the fake one, to remind them of who they are. And the same holds true for other oppressed minorities who define themselves not by their culture or values; but by their resentments.
Intolerance has become identity. If you define your minority identity on the left’s terms, then if you aren’t being oppressed, you aren’t real. And if you constantly read accounts about other black people or other gay people being discriminated against and those experiences don’t match yours; you begin to wonder if something isn’t wrong with you. If maybe you aren’t an authentic member of the group.
There are two ways out of this intellectual trap; either recognizing that an identity need not be based on a sense of persecution or becoming “creative” about finding new forms of persecution.
It’s easy to mock Dayna Morales for forging a receipt snub. If only she had learned about critical race theory, she would have been able to denounce the family in question for their privilege. Instead of faking a receipt, she would have been able to express her internal need for persecution in the political language of the left.
Dayna only forged a single receipt. Obama spent five years in the White House forging phony racism accusations to protect him on every issue from the economy to ObamaCare.
The left’s need for victimization means that increasing levels of tolerance actually lead to escalating confrontations with these manufacturers of intolerance. The assertion that all white people are innately racist because of their privilege is one such response to increasing tolerance. By claiming that whiteness itself is racist, the left gets back to political identity, rather than actual discrimination, as the source of conflict and redefines even the most tolerant university multicultural spaces as racist.
The manufacturers of intolerance, whether they’re tenured academics like Ward Churchill, professional politicians like Barack Obama or angry waitresses like Dayna Morales, respond to tolerance with provocations. Their goal is to elicit evidence of intolerance to sustain their political identity. The more tolerance they encounter, the more they escalate their provocations.
Their goal is not a tolerant society. It’s not a multiracial society or a post-racial society. It is a society perpetually at war over identity politics. That conflict is what gives them power.
Tolerance provokes them by challenging their identity as members in good standing of the officially oppressed. Being accepted insults the entire basis of their identity. Schizophrenics experience the discontinuity between the real world and the distorted world in their heads as threatening. Likewise the left, which insists on racism, reacts with paranoia to any talk that the country has become more tolerant. Their political schizophrenia is unable to accept America as it is. Instead they are bent on seeing the bigoted country that they experience inside their own heads.
Paranoid schizophrenics manufacture things to be paranoid about. Identity politics manufactures its own illusory bigotries. The schizophrenic Two Americas of liberals are really the America that exists and the hateful cartoon of it that they draw in their own heads, depict in movies, scrawl into articles and broadcast on television.
Liberals claim to want a better America, but they reject it at every turn. Their cynicism even poisons what should have been their triumphs.
Obama’s victory was an opportunity for healing and unity. Even many Republicans cheered his inauguration, but liberals rejected the gift that Americans were giving and instead doubled down. Racism became their response to everything. Now every week brings another editorial accusing skeptics of government health care of being the new Confederacy. The New York Times even ran an op-ed describing a new Mason-Dixon line composed of states that rejected Medicaid expansion.
As disappointing at this behavior was to many, it was an inevitable as that forged receipt. The left derives its purpose from defending the oppressed and doling out social justice. If racism were gone, it would have to find a new reason to justify its existence. It had to go through that once when class warfare imploded under the pressure of American prosperity. It isn’t about to go searching for a substitute for the racial tensions it manufactures.
The dominant political identity groups have responded to growing tolerance in the United States by defining intolerance down or provoking intolerant responses through aggressive publicity stunts. If the stunts don’t bring out disgust and anger that they can work with, then they will simply invent intolerance wholesale by claiming that bigotry isn’t an act or a word, but an innate attitude that lurks buried deep within the majority group. And that the only healing can come when the majority rejects its own identity and joins a minority group.
Beyond the community organizers, the academics and the political hacks who feed off that hatred are the millions of Americans who have not only unknowingly swallowed their dogma, but who have built entire identities around that sense of insecurity and oppression. These people are driven to organically manufacture intolerance because it defines who they are.
The left has dumped millions of Americans into this shadowy world where they have no positive reason for existing, only a negative one of defying some phantom establishment of patriarchy and some nebulous idea of white privilege.
Wearing chips on their shoulders they seek to provoke the confrontations that give them meaning and when their anger is met with tolerance, they manufacture intolerance with forged receipts, with accusations of white privilege, with fake hate crimes and phony accusations of racism.
It’s a short distance from Dayna Morales forging a receipt to get some money and attention to Barack Obama faking accusations of racism to win a political fight and score another term.
Societal norms are determined by the culture at large, not by a pointy-headed, ideologically driven ruling class. Yet sometimes the ruling class demonstrates an alarming ability to stampede the masses in any direction it chooses, like drovers directing a herd toward a stockyard. For example, in 1974, the American Psychological Association, yielding to pressure from militant homosexuals, stopped listing homosexuality as a disorder. A generation later, Christian businesses are forced to close their doors for refusing to participate in blasphemous homosexual parodies of weddings. Now on to the next “civil rights” frontier:
In the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM V), the American Psychological Association (APA) drew a very distinct line between pedophilia and pedophilic disorder. Pedophilia refers to a sexual orientation or profession of sexual preference devoid of consummation, whereas pedophilic disorder is defined as a compulsion and is used in reference to individuals who act on their sexuality.
Nothing wrong with thinking about it; just don’t actually do it.
Again we see that moonbattery is imposed by increments. Otherwise the frog would jump out of the pot.
DSM VI will likely drop any reference to the subject. By DSM VII or VIII, we will see a listing for pedophobia, the shameful condition suffered by neurotically narrow-minded people who are judgmental about pedophilia.
APA’s decision has given rise to numerous pedophilia-advocacy groups, the chief of them being B4U-ACT, a non-profit grassroots organization based in Maryland. Created in 2003 primarily as a means for “minor-attracted persons” to be open about their sexual preferences in a supportive atmosphere, B4U-ACT is now widening the scope of their organization.
According to spokesperson and registered sex offender Paul Christiano, the pedophilia-advocacy group is “working towards de-stigmatizing the mental health community.” Christiano explained that negative societal attitudes towards minor-attracted persons “trickle down to policy-making and the mental health community.”
Having been down this road before, we know where the reengineered societal attitudes will take us. You can easily lose your job for failing to revere homosexuality, a practice regarded with near universal revulsion within living memory. The same will soon be true of pedophilia. Our government has already issued a pedophile stamp, so baby-rapers don’t have long to wait for their place on a pedestal.
On a tip from St. Gilbert.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
When decent people gag on learning that the US Post Office is issuing a Harvey Milk stamp, it is not just that Milk’s sole notable accomplishment was to be acknowledged as a pervert. He was a particularly disgusting type of pervert than any healthy society would strive to eradicate rather than deify. Matt Barber has enraged liberals by drawing attention to Milk’s “deviant sexual appetite for underage, drug-addicted, runaway boys”:
Harvey Milk’s only claim to fame is that he was the first openly homosexual candidate to be elected to public office (San Francisco city commissioner). His chief cause was to do away with the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic. In 1978 Milk was murdered over a non-related political dispute by fellow Democrat Dan White.
And a “progressive” martyr was born.
Like many in the sacred (to moonbats) gay caste, Milk was drawn to the young — the illegally young:
One of Milk’s victims was a 16-year-old runaway from Maryland named Jack Galen McKinley. As previously mentioned, Milk had a soft spot in his, um, heart for teenage runaways. Motivated by an apparent quid pro quo of prurience, Milk plucked McKinley from the street.
Randy Shilts was a San Francisco Chronicle reporter and close friend to Harvey Milk. Though Shilts died of AIDS in 1994, he remains, even today, one of the most beloved journalists in the “LGBT” community.
Shilts was also Harvey Milk’s biographer. In his glowing book “The Mayor of Castro Street,” he wrote of Milk’s “relationship” with the McKinley boy: ” … Sixteen-year-old McKinley was looking for some kind of father figure. … At 33, Milk was launching a new life, though he could hardly have imagined the unlikely direction toward which his new lover would pull him.”
McKinley later committed suicide.
Milk didn’t have much use for what he called the “heterosexual model” of sexual relationships. He preferred multiple partners. This is how AIDS spreads so quickly. McKinley was hardly his only prey.
Another teen who crossed paths with Harvey Milk was Christian convert and former homosexual Gerard Dols. In a 2008 radio interview with Concerned Women for America, Dols shared of how – as a physically disabled teen – the “very nice” Harvey Milk had encouraged him in 1977 to run away from his Minnesota home and come to San Francisco.
According to Dols, Milk told him, “Don’t tell your parents,” and later sent him a letter with instructions. Thankfully, the letter was intercepted by Dols’ parents who then filed a complaint with the Minnesota attorney general’s office.
Too bad the authorities dropped the ball on this, no doubt for political reasons. If Milk had been thrown in prison where he belonged, California might have been spared the ignominy of an actual state holiday called Harvey Milk Day, and the nation as a whole might never have to behold Harvey Milk postage stamps.
You can tell a lot about people by the people they admire. Sometimes you can tell even more by the people they demand that others admire. Evidence that normalization of pedophilia will be the next great civil rights crusade continues to accrue.
On tips from R F, Python, and Scott Drummond.
This may be the most disgusting thing I have ever seen in my life.
On Friday I mistakenly urged people to buy Barilla products, after owner Guido Barilla appeared to stand up for decency by refusing to comply with militant deviants who demand that commercials push their propaganda by featuring depraved homosexual “families.” But now it appears that the Gay Mafia has made him an offer he could not refuse. These 43 seconds of horror emblemize the sinking of a civilization into the sewer:
The “evolution of the family” means good-bye to that corny old paradigm of mother, father, and the children they produce. Now it means pairs (and eventually larger groups) of sodomites acquiring other people’s children so as to raise them in their corrupt, unholy, and exceedingly unhealthy lifestyle — and often so as to exploit them as sex slaves (e.g., see here, here, andhere).
No doubt the family will continue to evolve until children are created from clones. At that point our grotesquely depraved ruling class will be able to do away with traditional families altogether.
What do these freaks do to people like Barilla to make them grovel in such abject terror?
Needless to say, the buycott is now a boycott. Get ready to field astonished questions from your kids regarding why the “families” slurping spaghetti in the TV commercials have two daddies and no mommies.
On tips from Jim72, Matt L, Spicy Meatball, and DJ.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/?p=37274
The sexual molestation that inevitably results (see here, here, and here) is hardly the only reason that the liberal push for more homosexual adoption is morally abhorrent. How can it be called decent to put children into situations like this?
The lesbian parents of an 11-year-old boy who is undergoing the process of becoming a girl … defended the decision, claiming it was better for a child to have a sex change when young.
Thomas Lobel, who now calls himself Tammy, is undergoing controversial hormone blocking treatment in Berkeley, California to stop him going through puberty as a boy.
[Adoptive guardians] Pauline Moreno and Debra Lobel warn that children with gender identity disorder forced to postpone transitioning could face a higher risk of suicide.
Whereas if they are freakified through grotesque medical practices best left on the Island of Doctor Moreau, they live happily ever after. Just ask Nancy Verhelst. No wait, you can’t; she had herself put out of her misery like deformed dog.
Thomas’s transition into a make-pretend girl began at age eight. His guardians are inflicting hormone suppressants to prevent him from developing a male voice, broad shoulders, and facial hair. If this doesn’t qualify as child abuse, the statutes need to be rewritten.
Whatever the motivations involved in this particular situation, given the pathological fear and hatred of males that often characterize women who base their identities on being lesbians, situations like this are an inevitable consequence of homosexual adoption and the bizarre moonbat notion that a person’s sex can be altered. The progressive ruling class is dragging the rest of society down a path that cannot lead to anything healthy.
On tips from Dan Feely and Josh F.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
Poisoning the culture isn’t enough. They are also going after the blood supply:
The U.S. gay-rights movement has achieved many victories in recent years – on marriage, military service and other fronts. Yet one vestige of an earlier, more wary era remains firmly in place: the 30-year-old nationwide ban on blood donations by gay and bisexual men.
This is for the obviously excellent reason that homosexuals spread HIV through their tainted blood. Their unnatural proclivities also make them much more likely to carry hepatitis B among other ghastly diseases.
According to the FDA, men who have had sex with other men represent about 2 percent of the U.S. population, yet accounted for at least 61 percent of all new HIV infections in the U.S. in 2010.
Dating from the first years of the AIDS epidemic, the ban is a source of frustration to many gay activists…
As always, they have support from the moonbat establishment.
In June, the American Medical Association voted to oppose the policy. AMA board member William Kobler called it “discriminatory and not based on sound science.” Last month, more than 80 members of Congress wrote to the Department of Health and Human Services, criticizing the lifetime ban as an outdated measure that perpetuates inaccurate stereotypes about gay men.
In this context, “inaccurate” means “highly accurate, but politically incorrect to acknowledge.” Incidentally, the AMA also helped ram through ObamaCare over doctors’ objections. The AARP represents not old people but the leftward edge of the liberal establishment; the AMA is its equivalent for doctors.
Other moonbats have joined in:
On some college campuses, students have urged boycotts of blood drives until the ban is repealed. Over the summer, activists organized a “National Gay Blood Drive” – asking gay men to visit blood centers, take tests to show their blood was safe, and then try to donate in defiance of the ban.
Jason Cianciotto of the Gay Men’s Health Crisis barks that the ban “perpetuates the stigma that gay and bisexual men are dangerous to public health.” It is inconceivable that anyone who is “engaged in AIDS prevention and care” could fail to understand that they very obviously ARE dangerous to public health. But normalizing perversion takes priority over health.
Do we have a shortage of blood? We do not:
Susan Stramer, executive scientific officer with the American Red Cross, agrees that the magnitude of the blood supply isn’t a decisive factor in the debate.
“We have a surplus of blood,” she said. “The question is about what’s equitable.”
To judge by the horrifying willingness of liberals to subject children to homosexual adoption (with easily predictable consequences; see here, here, and here), there will be no moral qualms among the P.C. intelligentsia regarding the innocent life lost if the blood supply becomes infected.
On a tip from Rotohammer.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
San Antonio Passes Ordinance Banning Anyone Who Opposes Homosexuality From Running For Office, Receiving A City Contract…
Diversity apparently trumps religious beliefs.
SAN ANTONIO (AP) — San Antonio’s leaders on Thursday approved anti-bias protections for gay and transgender residents, over the disapproval of top Texas Republicans and religious conservatives who packed a City Council hearing and occasionally shamed supporters for comparing the issue to the civil rights movement.
The 8-3 City Council vote in favor of the ordinance was a victory for gay rights advocates and for Democratic Mayor Julian Castro, a top surrogate of President Barack Obama. Castro has called the ordinance overdue in the nation’s seventh-largest city, where there is a stronger current of traditionalism and conservatism than other major Texas cities that already have similar gay rights protections.
Supporters in red shirts and opponents in blue sat on opposite sides of the ornate council chamber Thursday. Church leaders vowed petitions to recall council members, and the shouts of protesters outside City Hall often carried through the stone walls of the century-old building.
More on the ordinance from an earlier post via OneNewsNow:
The San Antonio City Council is doing some housecleaning to combine all of its anti-discrimination rules and ordinances into one. The consolidated ordinance states a desire to adopt a “comprehensive and expanded non-discrimination policy with revisions to outdated terminology.”
According to Pastor Charles Flowers of Faith Outreach International, the city leaders want to add two categories to the policy: sexual orientation and gender identity.
“The ordinance also says that if you have at any point demonstrated a bias – without defining what a bias is or who will determine whether or not one has been exercised – that you cannot get a city contract,” he tells OneNewsNow. “Neither can any of your subcontractors [who have demonstrated a bias] sign on to the contract.”
Moreover, according to a draft of the revised policy, no one who has spoken out against homosexuality or the transgender lifestyle can run for city council or be appointed to a board. Flowers says the Arizona-based legal firm Alliance Defending Freedom has taken a look at the ordinance.
“They said they’ve never seen this kind of language in any other ordinance in any other city that they’ve dealt with,” the pastor shares. “It is unprecedentedly wrong – and of course the citizens of San Antonio must stop it.”
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
The purpose here is less to come to their defense and more to thumb his nose at Putin. How far our relationship with Russia has fallen. Yes, the “reset” was a reset to complete animosity, and Russia not the only country with whom Obama has harmed relationships.
In a display of utter political incoherence, President Obama plans to meet with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocates in Russia while visiting the Kremlin, even as he attempts to lobby Russian President Vladimir Putin for support on an international military action against Syria. Russian opposition to American intervention in Syria has been a major factor in Obama’s decision to seek approval from Congress for military action in Syria. On Saturday, Obama blasted the UN Security Council, a veiled reference to Russia, by calling it “completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold [Syrian President Bashar] Assad accountable.”
While in Moscow, Obama plans to meet with human rights activists Lev Ponomarev and Lyudmila Alexeyeva, legal aid non-governmental-organization director Pavel Chikov, and Coming Out.
Russia and the United States have been at odds over myriad issues over the past few months, including Russia’s grant of asylum to NSA leaker Edward Snowden, Russia’s law against “gay propaganda,” and Russia’s Middle Eastern policy in support of Iran and Syria.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
At times it seems that America has lost its mind, or at least that the concept of “rights” as our Founders understood and defined them is slipping away. RS McCain reports that the New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled that everyone in New Mexico must do anything that Gay couples looking to get married say because human rights you Homphobe!
Gosh, it seems like just a few years ago that allegedly serious people were warning about how the “christofascist godbags” of the Religious Right were an existential threat to freedom in America, and if you disagreed with these allegedly serious people, you were just a hateful bigot.
Now? Well, you’re still a hateful bigot, but freedom’s just another word for “nothing left to lose”:
New Mexico’s Supreme Court rules that people must set aside their religion in order to avoid creating the slightest inconvenience for gay people. . . .
No, by all means, let’s use the power of the state to reach as deeply as possible into people’s lives instead of just telling the gay couple to “Look online for ten minutes and find someone else.”
Just how they reached such a fundamentally flawed decision is frankly, inexplicable. Can the government now FORCE a business to provides goods or services against their will? Apparently the Leftists on that court think so. It is the price of citizenship apparently!
On Thursday, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that religious wedding photographers could be forced to photograph same-sex weddings. “When Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the [New Mexico Human Rights Act, or NMHRA] in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races,” the court ruled unanimously.
The court said that Elaine Huguenin, the photographer, had discriminated against gay customers for not photographing their weddings, even though she had said she would be happy to take their pictures in different contexts. The court also refused any differentiation whatsoever between homosexual and heterosexual conduct under the law, despite the fact that same-sex marriage is not licensed in the state of New Mexico. Justice Edward Chavez wrote, “The difficulty in distinguishing between status and conduct in the context of sexual orientation discrimination is that people may base their judgment about an individual’s sexual orientation on the individual’s conduct. To allow discrimination based on conduct so closely correlated with sexual orientation would severely undermine the purpose of the NMHRA.” In other words, orientation and conduct are so intertwined that to discriminate against activity would be to discriminate against the person — an odd line of logic, given that it would then follow that discriminating against religious activity would constitute discrimination on the basis of religion, making the court’s logic self-defeating.
Justice Richard Bosson wrote, in concurrence, that the Huguenins are “compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.” He concluded, “The Huguenins are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead. The Constitution protects the Huguenins in that respect and much more. But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.” That “compromise,” he wrote, “is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship.”
Talk about making it up as you go along! And note the word “tolerance”. How odd that the Gay couples must have, as in must have or else, “tolerance” but what of the “tolerance” for the wedding photographer? I guess some tolerance is more equal than others? Since when the Leftist definition of tolerance become part of our Constitution? I suppose, as McCain puts it, our moral superiors are to decide our every action now
Do you see what this is really about? If not, let me tell you that this is really about, “We, who are Your Moral Superiors, have authority to dictate your behavior, your words and, indeed, your thoughts.”
The language of “rights” is not about freedom, but rather power.
As I have said before, Gay marriage is a legitimate issue to debate, and, I think for states to decide. But the Gay activists and other Leftists will not let that happen. They are using this issue, as they have used many others, not to liberate, or to achieve equality of opportunity, but to create their version of what America ought to be. And understand me when I tell you that in their version of America, there will be no rights, only Leftist Totalitarianism! the Left’s thirst for power, TOTAL power, can never be slaked.
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/page/3/