How dare you call a spade a spade???

You know what bigots hate? Pointing out that they’re bigots. If bigots flew planes, they would never want to be called pilots. If they played football, they’d never want to be called athletes. If they were the lead singer of Seether, they would never want to be called an absolute no talent hack piece of crap on toast. Bigots want to be bigoted, but they sure as buttfuck don’t want the fact that they’re bigots to be spoken aloud. That would be stating a fact, and, as we all know, the facts are biased.

No bias here! AP equates opposition to gay marriage with homophobia

In other startling news, they equated ursine qualities with bears. GAY bears!

Evidently, somewhere along the way, opposition to gay marriage became the same thing as homophobia — at least according to the Associated Press. Here’s a recent AP headline:

AP "anti-gay" headline

The title, is of course, totally accurate, which is why Twitchy (that’s what they call themselves over there…sounds pretty gay…) can’t stand the idea of it being uttered in public.

This past Saturday night, Sen. Rubio spoke at a fundraising dinner for the Florida Family Policy Council, a group that opposes gay marriage. But apparently that story just wasn’t spicy enough for AP writer Brendan Farrington, who felt compelled to suggest that same-sex marriage opponents are “anti-gay.” Because if you aren’t in favor of same-sex marriage, clearly you’re a vicious homophobe.

Bigots always assume that other people’s minds work just like theirs–that is, making the most childishly simplistic inferences then treating them as Gospel Truth. But of course, that’s not the AP’s reasoning at all. One can easily see that Florida Family Policy Council is anti-gay merely by looking at the numerous statements made by their deranged, bigoted fuckhead of a leader (John Stemberger) and the guy this event was honoring (Matt Staver), over the years:

The Florida Family Policy Council announced today that it will host Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) at its 2013 Annual Dinner. The FFPC is led by John Stemberger, the anti-gay activist who most recently helped launch a Boy Scouts splinter group that will ban openly gay youth, and the fundraiser will honor Liberty Counsel head Mat Staver.

….

Stemberger previously chaired Florida for Marriage, which spearheaded the campaign to pass a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions, and founded the anti-gay Boy Scout alternative Trail Life USA. Earlier in his career as a lawyer, he was widely criticized for misconduct in the Rifqa Barry case.

Stemberger has a long record of incendiary anti-gay rhetoric. He:

  • Said that people are gay because they think it is “hip” and “cool.”
  • Alleged that affirming LGBT youth is “tantamount to abuse” and “an abuse to that child.”

We noted Staver’s radicalism and involvement in a kidnapping case in our profile of him for the 2013 Values Voter Summit:

– See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/marco-rubio-headline-anti-gay-fundraiser#sthash.eIcF06oU.dpuf

Wait. What was that last part??? “INVOLVEMENT IN A KIDNAPPING“???

Yes, that is correct. This guy was implicated in an incident when an “ex-gay” woman kidnapped a child rather than let her live in the custody of her evil lesbian ex-partner. He was even named in the RICO suit that alleged a cover up. How much more would he have to do to qualify as anti-gay? Kidnapping lesbians’ children isn’t enough? Can anything short of outright murder of gay people count as anti-gay to the nitwits at Twitchy?

Of course, Twitchy would never acknowledge any of this. AP called them anti-gay because they were “merely” against gay marriage. Because, as we all know, denying a right to gay marriage is the only bad thing the bigots would ever do to gays.

But even if we accept this chowder-headed non-logic from the Twitchy bigots, it’s still bullshit. Yes, dumbfucks, if you oppose gay marriage, that makes you anti-gay by definition. You’re trying to deny gay people equal rights. That is anti-fucking-gay. Just like if you oppose interracial marriage, that’s all it takes to make you a fucking racist. I need know no other fact about you to be able to state such an obvious fact. Any and all people who oppose gay marriage are anti-gay. If you seek to deny some group equal rights, you are against that group. Period.

Sorry if that fucks up your persecution complex and makes you feel all poopy inside. Truth hurts. Fucking deal with it.

Advertisements

Fucking Magnets, How Do They Work?

There are crackpots, and then there are people who go far beyond crack and shatter the pot so intensely that no two molecules of pot remain connected. That latter type of crazy aptly describes Chibuihem Amalaha, who has disproven gay marriage using…magnets.

So, who is this Chibuihem Amalaha fellow?

I was the first to publish report about the 2006 total solar eclipse in the newspaper in Nigeria when I was writing for the defunct New Age newspaper. I also reported the true situation about the 2010 acid rain in Nigeria. I carried out analysis and found out that there was nothing like cancer of the skin attributed to the acid rain and by 2011, I emerged the best science reporter in Nigeria where I won Nigeria Media Merit Award in the energy category as a science editor with Compass newspapers.” He continued: “Ever since then I have been doing a lot of researches in the country. There are many discoveries and inventions I have made in science and technology. I have also been able to prove that the mathematical symbol pi which people thought of as 22 over 7 is not actually 22 over , but  rather a transcendental number while 22 over 7 is a rational number. I also proved that watching television in the dark impacts negatively on one’s eyes and by God’s grace, I was the first person to use scientific instruments to prove it in the whole world. The Nigerian Television Authority (NTA) featured me on this in one of their programmes on January 12, 2013, where I demonstrated to millions of their viewers that watching television in the dark damages the eyes. Usually when it’s around 10pm, many families in Nigeria will switch off their surrounding lights to use the light from television or the light from computer alone thinking that they will see images brighter. But from experiments I found that it’s not true and experts both at the University of Lagos and elsewhere have found my work to be true. The reason for this is because there is a lot of difference in illuminants (brightness) between the television screen and the dark background in the room known as the periphery,” Amalaha said.

Yup. Sounds trustworthy. I mean, you can always trust a “scientist” who refers to lumens as “illuminants”, right? It’s like going to a dentist who calls your teeth “those bitey things.” I can’t imagine what could go wrong. (And who the fuck ever said pi was 22/7?)

Anyways, on to the scourge of gay marriage!

“A recent publication on May 3, 2013 shows that France is the 14th country in the world that have legalised gay. I asked myself why should a man be marrying a man and a woman marrying a woman, does it mean that there is no more female for a man to marry or there is no more male for a woman to marry?

If men marry men, and women marry women, then there are no more men or women; therefore, no one lives in France. Given that France has a population of something like 64,000,000, I think there might be a flaw in your logic there, Buck-O.

And recently, Britain told Nigeria to legalise gay marriage of forfeit international aid. I thank God for our lawmakers who refused to sign the bill legalising gay marriage. And so God gave me the wisdom to use science as a scientist to prove gay marriage wrong.

Science! As a scientist! She blinded me with science as a scientist! Now you cannot get gay married as a gay!

“In the area of physics, I used physics with experiments, I used chemistry with experiments, I used biology with experiments and I used mathematics to prove gay marriage wrong.

I’m getting these hilarious mental images of busy little worker bee Amalaha puttering around his lab randomly mixing chemicals and flipping switches on and off while visions of Nobel Prizes dance in his head–and everyone else in the lab just shakes their head and turns away from the pathetic spectacle.

“To start with, physics is one of the most fundamentals of all the sciences and  I used two bar magnets in my research.

Gay.

A bar magnet is a horizontal magnet that has the North Pole and the South Pole and when you bring two bar magnets and you bring the North Pole together you find that the two North Poles will not attract. They will repel, that is, they will push away themselves showing that a man should not attract a man.

The right wing, after declaring that blastocysts and corporations are people, are now hopping on the Magnets Are People bandwagon. We’re all fucking doomed.

Even in physics when you study what is called electrostatics, you found that when you rub particles together they don’t attract each other but when you rub particle in another medium they will attract each other.

You’re invited to rub my particles, you ignorant son of a bitch.

That is how I used physics to prove gay marriage wrong.

“Next I’ll use geology to prove that my wife is totally wrong about my impotence.  Devil’s Tower, here I come!”

But in chemistry I used a simple one known as neutralisation reaction which is a reaction where an acid reacts with a base to give you salt and water. For example, when you bring surphuric acid and you reacts it with sodium hydroxide which is a base you are going to have salt and water.  That tells you that the acid is a different body, the base is a different body and they will react. But if you bring an acid and you pour it on top of an acid chemistry there will be no reaction.  If you bring water and pour it on top it shows that there will be no reaction. If you bring a base either sodium hydroxide and you pour it on top of a sodium hydroxide you find out that there will be reaction showing that a man on top of a man will have no reaction. A woman on top of a woman will have no reaction, that is what chemistry is showing.

I’ve seen some very compelling pornographic evidence to the contrary.

I hope this guy’s wife reads this shit. Next time she doesn’t feel like sex, rather than claiming a headache, she can just pour random chemicals together and say it proves his boner doesn’t exist.

“In biology, I used simple experiments and I came down to a lay man.

Gay.

We have seen that the female of a fowl is called hen and the male of a fowl is called a cock.

Dude, seriously, you’re making this too easy for me.

We have never seen where a cock is having sex with a cock

Yes we have, in both senses of the word.

Now if animals that are of even lower creature understand so much, how come  human being made in the higher image of God that is even of higher creature will be thinking of  a man having sex with another and woman having sex with another woman?

More importantly, what does this say about God?

That shows that it’s a misnomer and when you come to real biological standard, when you see a lady you love there is what is called the follicle stimulating hormone. The follicle stimulating hormone in a man triggers what is called spermatogenesis through your brain which is called hypothalamus.

Wait. You think spermatogenesis takes place in THE BRAIN? Someone’s parents never gave him “the talk”.

The sperm in the man alone doesn’t produce a child and ovary in the female alone does not produce a child, they need each other for reproduction to occur.

So fucking what? Marriage doesn’t always involve reproduction. Duh.

In mathematics which is another core area of science, I used what is called the principle of commutativity and idepotency.

You know what’s sad? There are people out there dumb enough to fall for this shit. He just throws around big, science-y sounding words that anyone with two neurons to rub together knows he doesn’t understand, but somewhere out there is someone who sees words like “spermatogenesis” and “idempotence“–errr, I mean “idepotency”–and “lumens”–errrr, I mean “illuminants”–and immediately thinks, “Ooooo, this here fella’s a smart one!”

Sigh. It makes me sad for humanity.

Commutativity in mathematics is simply the arrangement of numbers or arrangement of letters in which the way you arrange them don’t matter.

Uh…..no. There’s a bit more to it than that.

For example, if you say A + B in mathematics you are going to have B + A. For example, if I say two plus three it will give five. If I start from three, I say three plus two it also give you five showing that two plus three and three plus two are commutative because they gave the same results. That shows that A + B will give you B + A, you see that there is a change. In A + B, A started the journey while in B + A, B started the journey. If we use A as a man and use B as a woman we are going to have B + A that is woman and man showing that there is a reaction. A + B reacted, they interchanged and gave us B + A showing that commutativity obeys that a man should not marry a man and a woman should not marry a woman.

And if you let A be a shaved walrus, and B be that sinking feeling you get when you realize you’ve got diarrhea but the bathroom’s occupied, then you know that marriage can only be between utterly randomly assigned variables and anything can marry anything.

If you use idempotency, it’s a reaction in mathematics where A + A = A. Actually in abstract algebra, A + A =2A but we are less concerned with the numerical value two.

Math doesn’t have reactions. You seem to have confused it with chemistry. And addition is only idempotent for the number 0. You could have just said that. And nothing you are doing is related to abstract algebra, much less fucking gay marriage. You’re a very confused little man, aren’t you?

But in the case of idempotency A + A will give you A showing that it goes unreacted. You started with A and you meet A ,the final result is A. Showing that a man meeting a man A + A will produce a man there is no reaction, it goes unreacted and in chemical engineering you have to send the material back to the reactor for the action to be carried out again showing that it goes unreacted.

Uh, I was just joking about you confusing math and chemistry, but judging by this paragraph…you really can’t tell one from the other, can you?

“If you go on the Internet to check whether there is anybody who has used physics to prove gay marriage wrong, you find out there is none.

Can’t imagine why that might be…

“I want to be able to publish it in international journals. The finance has been a problem in this area because I found out that you you have to pay in dollars for international journals to publish you. You know finance is a factor and I don’t have money to start paying in US dollars and I need sponsors so that I can pay for the journals to be published.”

Pony up, fundies! You know you can’t get that idiotic bogus science you love so much if you don’t fork over a little dough.

“Nigerian sector does not encourage scientific research so much but what God has given me I am using it effectively to touch Nigerian nation. All the scientific researches I have been doing  have not yielded any encouragement to do more.

Speaking about his ambition, Amalaha after taking a deep breath said “My ambition is to go beyond the sky. I want to reach the level God has destined me to reach. I want to be the first African to win Nobel Prize in science because as I am talking to you now African has ever won Nobel Prize in science.

I hate to break it to you, but I don’t see a Nobel in your future. A paid gig on Fox News on the other hand…

Today, I used science to prove that Amalaha is an Amalaha. I dropped a glass. By gravitationalism, it acceleratronimated to the groundination and enbrokenified. It was very stupid. Amalaha is the glass. What an idiot!

IRS + Gay = God-humper Head Explosion

If there’s anything the right wing likes complaining about more than taxes, it’s gays. So when a story comes along involving both, you know they’re gonna lose their fucking shit. Recently, the IRS announced that, following the demise of DOMA, gays and lesbians would be allowed to file joint tax returns if they were legally married, even if they currently live in a state that doesn’t recognize their marriage. This is not exactly unexpected. The Supreme Court’s decision would, of course, mean that several federal agencies would have to change their policies to comply. It shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone.

But it’s gays. And it’s taxes. So the god-humpers just can’t help themselves.

The IRS is trying to force same-sex marriage “on an unwilling public” with its ruling that legally married gay couples may now file joint income tax returns, National Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown said Friday.

Sorry to break this to ya, Sparky, but more Americans support gay marriage than oppose it. It’s you who’s forcing your bigotry on an unwilling public.

 “The Treasury Department is grossly overstepping its authority,” said Brown in a statement posted on the NOM website shortly after the IRS’ announcement.

“This is a nation of laws. Only Congress has the authority to change the law,” he said in the statement.

The dingleberries on the far right really don’t fucking understand how the constitution works. Yes, only Congress can make laws. But that doesn’t mean they’re the only ones who can change a law. The IRS didn’t make any new laws. They’re merely implementing a Supreme Court ruling which changed a law. Let me make this as clear as I can:

The legislative branch creates the laws.

The judicial branch interprets and reviews the laws.

The executive branch implements the laws.

The IRS, which answers to the president, is implementing the Supreme Court’s review (and rejection) of a law passed by Congress. In other words, they are doing exactly what they are supposed to do. Congress made a law. The courts reviewed it and altered it. The executive branch is now putting this new interpretation into effect. This is exactly how our system is supposed to work.

On Thursday, the Obama administration said that married gay couples living in all 50 states can file joint federal tax returns, even if local authorities don’t recognize their marriages.

The decision by the Treasury Department implements the Supreme Court’s decision in June to overturn part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which had forbidden the Internal Revenue Service from allowing married homosexual couples to file jointly.

There. See? Was that so hard? Even the hack author of this piece of shit article from Newsmax understands that the IRS is implementing the law, not creating it.

The government’s decision is considered a victory by same-sex couples who were married in one of the 13 states or the District of Columbia that recognize such relationships, but now live in one of the 37 states that do not recognize them.

Brown and the NOM, however, do not consider the ruling a victory at all. NOM, in its statement, said the IRS ruling “continues a pattern of lawlessness across the nation where administrators and clerks have taken it upon themselves to interpret and rewrite laws as they pertain to marriage.”

Well, the NOM is invited to nom on my ball sack. It’s not lawlessness. It’s standard separation of powers. And god-humpers are usally just fine with separation of powers–until a court decision or executive action doesn’t go their way, when they all the sudden decide that separation of powers is the worst possible thing in the world and a sure sign that America is now a homo-fascist Muslim Marxist communist puppy-murdering dystopia.

Further, NOM said that only federal and state lawmakers have the power to enact or rewrite law.

Uh, yeah, that was said  just a few paragraphs ago. Who the fuck wrote this shit?

“The Obama administration is intent on forcing same-sex ‘marriage’ on an unwilling public,” Brown said. “Congress alone has the responsibility of determining federal tax law.”

What the fuck? Do you think that just simply repeating your ignorant, unconstitutional garbage somehow makes it true? This has been said multiple times in this article. It is false every single time. And it still doesn’t change the fact that the majority of Americans support gay marriage.

Same-sex marriage opponent Bryan Fischer, the director of the issues analysis for the American Family Association, told The Washington Post that the ruling puts “enormous federal pressure now on states to conform to the IRS.”

Like there wasn’t already? Try not conforming to the IRS. See how that works out for you.

Further, he said that the Supreme Court’s decision earlier this summer to strike down parts of the Defense of Marriage Act “placed an [improvised explosive device] under every state marriage amendment in the land.”

Good!

“I predict we will very quickly see legal action in the 37 states that do not give legal recognition to same-sex marriage to force them to conform to federal policy on their tax forms, and you will get activist federal judges that will comply,” said Fischer.

Again, they’re only “activist” judges when they make a decision the right doesn’t like. You didn’t hear this hypocrite complaining about the courts when they struck down provisions of the Voters’ Rights Act.

The IRS ruling also creates some complications for same-sex couples who live in the 37 states that don’t recognize gay marriage, financial experts said Friday.

Which is why gay marriage should be legal in all 50 states, if there were any real justice in this country.

Discrimination: It’s good for business!

There are different types of conservatives out there. There’s just the run of the mill conservative, a person whose beliefs differ from my own liberal beliefs, but who isn’t an asshole or a bigot. Just different. Then there are the assholes and bigots, the ones who pick up on conservatism because it gives them an excuse to attack some racial or sexual minority. There are the True Believers (aka god-humpers), the ones so caught up in a religious ideology that they believe it without question and see implications of it in everything. There are also the plutocrats, heartless elites interested only in augmenting their own wealth and power, and constantly pushing for lower taxes even if it means the environment is raped and poor people die of preventable diseases. (Seriously, fuck those guys.)

But then there are the libertarian types. They’re generally easy to get along with in comparison to the assholes and god-humpers. They tend to be mostly rational and willing to see other people’s viewpoints. The points they have to make are not always irrational, authoritarian or just downright ignorant. They are often intelligent, informed and politically engaged. Honestly, if the libertarian types ran the Republican Party I wouldn’t find it loathsome like I do now. (Unfortunately, the plutocrats hold the real power in the party and the base is overrun with assholes and god-humpers. Hence the loathsomeness.)

But the libertarians do have one really, really, REALLY fucking annoying tendency. They have difficulty seeing the political, social, or legal value of anything apart from its economic value. If they get it into their heads that a law hurts the economy, then they’re against it, and their money-hardened brains don’t really even process the concept that it could be a good law apart from whatever (real or imagine) economic damage it does. Case in point, Joshua Steimle at Forbes.com, who recently spat out this bit of Libertarian Wankery:

Entrepreneurship Threatened By Ruling In New Mexico Gay Marriage Case

It should be noted that this case wasn’t about gay marriage per se. Gay marriage is in fact advancing in New Mexico and is already being carried out in some counties. But the case in question took place at a time when gay marriage was not allowed and the case is not about legalizing gay marriage. Rather, it’s a discrimination case about a photographer who refused to work at a gay wedding ceremony several years ago.

Steimle (I don’t have the foggiest idea how that letter-salad of a name is supposed to be pronounced) begins reasonably enough:

Whenever the law interferes with entrepreneurial activity it creates a barrier to entry and makes the practice of doing business less efficient. Some would say certain inefficiencies in an economy are good and desirable, as when bad people are prevented from doing bad things by laws and regulations that catch them before they do any harm. This realm of “positive law” includes laws against drunk driving and insider trading. These laws create criminals where there is no victim but merely the perhaps likely threat of harm, and reasonable people can debate the merits of such laws.

This is why I like the libertarians (Steimle doesn’t claim to be one, but comes across to me as one, so I presume he is). Even when I  disagree with them, I don’t entirely disagree with them. Part of what they say usually makes good, rational sense.

The recent ruling wherein the high court of New Mexico ruled against Elaine Huguenin, a professional photographer who refused to photograph a gay marriage ceremony due to her religious beliefs, goes far beyond merely attempting to prevent harm. Rather, it aims to criminalize behavior that has no potential to cause physical harm, but at worst can only be considered offensive. If allowed to stand, the consequences will be negative for all entrepreneurs whether straight, gay, black, white, male, or female.

And then he turns around and says something stupid. The worst harm discrimination can do is to be “considered offensive”? Do you know ANYTHING about the history of this country?

Elaine Huguenin is the co-owner of Elane Photography along with her husband. Their small business is based in New Mexico. In 2006 she refused to photograph a gay marriage ceremony for Vanessa Willock and her partner, citing religious beliefs. Elaine and her business came to national attention after the couple sued her, claiming discrimination. According to the New Mexico Human Rights Act, it is illegal for a business to refuse its services to an individual because of that person’s sexual orientation. The same law also prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry and gender.

On August 22nd, 2013, New Mexico’s highest court ruled against Elaine, stating “When Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the NMHRA in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races.”

It cannot be disputed that Elaine broke the law.

And now he’s being sensible again. Yes, she clearly violated the law. Whenever a god-humper talks about issues like this, that part is often lost on them. If Steimle were a god-humper, he would probably “dispute” it by regurgitating Bible verses and whining that he’s being persecuted just like the Jews under Hitler.

What we can dispute is whether the long term consequences of having such a law in place are beneficial for society.

After the ruling, Louise Melling of the American Civil Liberties Union issued a statement saying “When you open a business, you are opening your doors to all people in your community, not just the select few who share your personal beliefs.”

Were this reasoning to be applied equally to all cases, as blind justice demands, then a business owned by a gay individual must provide services to the Westboro Baptist Church, if asked to. A Jewish entrepreneur must provide services to a neo-Nazi.

And now he’s being stupid again.

Dear Mr. Steimle, would you please LOOK AT WHAT YOU YOURSELF WROTE JUST A FEW PARAGRAPHS AGO.

According to the New Mexico Human Rights Act, it is illegal for a business to refuse its services to an individual because of that person’s sexual orientation. The same law also prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry and gender.

Do you see “political affiliation” or “organization membership” on there? No. And that’s the law. What Melling says is not the law. She’s just someone from the ACLU who said something that doesn’t accurately represent the law.

The reasoning behind anti-discrimination laws is to protect groups that have historically been given second class citizenship on a basis of something that is either not under their control (race, sexual orientation, place of birth) or that is specifically protected in the constitution (religion). There is no history of persecution of the KKK–in fact, they’ve historically been the ones doing and promoting discrimination.

That’s why we need these laws. What Melling said is irrelevant, and you know this, because you said so just a little while. Please pay attention.

According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 85% of Americans believe Elaine had the right to refuse service to the gay couple. I suspect the percentage would be even higher if respondents had been asked not if a Christian woman could refuse to photograph a gay marriage ceremony, but if a business owned by an African-American woman must provide services to the KKK.

What do you think the percentage would be if it were a klansman refusing service to a black woman? People don’t exactly think very clearly on issues like this.

And a black woman refusing to serve the KKK is not comparable to a photographer refusing to serve someone just for being gay. The KKK actively hate and attack black people. Gays do not have anything against photographers.

It is important to reiterate that no harm was done to the gay couple other than to offend their sensibilities.

Utter bullshit. It cost them time and resources to find another photographer. If this practice were allowed to proliferate to other businesses, it could seriously impact the lives and well-being of gays by making it more difficult for them to obtain services than straights. Real harm, even ECONOMIC harm (since that’s how Steimle thinks) has been done here.

How do I know this? Because that’s exactly what happened to blacks back when it was allowed to discriminate against them. Ask anyone who played on an integrated football team in the 1950s who had to scramble to find a hotel for 80+ players and coaches when they learn that the one they booked didn’t allow blacks. Or any hungry black many who had to search around town to find a restaurant that would serve him. It hurts people.

If you are a Christian woman who a week ago was thinking of starting a wedding photography business in New Mexico, might you be thinking twice today?

I’d be impressed if you could think once.

If the Court’s ruling is allowed to stand, this sends a chilling message to entrepreneurs—if someone, anyone, doesn’t like you, your business, or what you stand for, then all they need to do is claim discrimination, and they can sue you.

Utter paranoia. Hypothetically, someone might attempt to abuse the law in this fashion, but whether they could actually succeed would require them to prove you actually discriminate.

It does not matter whether the entrepreneur is black or white, gay or straight, liberal or conservative, male or female. Anyone can be targeted. It’s only a matter of time before alleged inferior service, rather than outright refusal of service, is all that is necessary to claim discrimination and bring suit. To those who claim this is unrealistic and will never happen, I would point out this is exactly what I was told about the type of lawsuit Elaine Huguenin just lost.

“I was told this by my imaginary friend Steve the Wonder Chicken. He’s never done me wrong before!”

Entrepreneurs already face enough hurdles. They must deal with the IRS, The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act (otherwise known as Obamacare), and other city, county, state, and federal regulations.

Yeah, I’m sure wedding photographers are really struggling with Obamacare.

Add to this the threat of an expensive lawsuit based on your beliefs, even if you pick no one’s pocket nor break anyone’s leg, and for some it will be the difference between starting a business that brings us an innovative product or service that improves our lives, and getting a safe job working for someone else.

Anti-discrimination laws are bad, because people who want to discriminate won’t do business in your state. Think of the economy!

So should we allow discrimination against blacks or Hispanics or Muslims or Jews so that people that want to discriminate against them will do more business in our state? According to Heimle’s stupid argument, that’s exactly what we should do.

But the argument is utter nonsense. For one thing, there is more at stake here than merely who’s doing business in one’s state. There’s also the interest of protecting the rights of a class of people who have been historically subject to widespread discrimination. Even if that means a few bigots won’t do business in your state, it’s still worth it. But libertarians simply can’t process this. They see something that might hurt business and immediately conclude it’s bad without further consideration.

But even if we limit ourselves to economic arguments, it’s still stupid. Yeah, anti-discrimination laws might drive the bigots away, but so fucking what? Smart, educated people are more likely to favor gay rights and equality, and they also make for great entrepreneurs, and they would find a state that protects gay rights to be more attractive for business. And it’s not just entrepreneurs. Many big businesses today, including big ones like Google and Boeing, are actively pushing for protections for gays and lesbians and would find a state more attractive if it had laws to that effect. One could easily argue that protecting gay rights could improve the economy.

And as for a bigot who’s so petty and hateful that he/she wouldn’t open a business in NM simply because they won’t allow him/her to discriminate? Fuck ’em. Who needs ’em? Let ’em move to fucking Saudi Arabia and live in the repressive theocratic nightmare that they apparently think society should be. Let ’em move to fucking Russia, where discrimination against gays is now enshrined in federal law. I don’t see why we should need or want their business.

They’re probably shitty photographers anyways.

Stating the Fucking Obvious

There are some times when, very briefly, the light of reason shines in a dull fundamentalist mind. These moments are ephemeral, and quickly yield to the tide of insanity, ignorance and authoritarianism that normally engulfs every thought a fundamentalist thinks, but they are real. The title of this piece from the American (non)Thinker is a perfect encapsulation of this phenomenon.

Why We Will Never Win the Argument Against Gay Marriage by Quoting the Bible

Jay Haug

No shit, Sherlock. I’ll even take your epiphany a step further: You can’t win any argument by quoting the Bible, unless the person you’re arguing with is already an indoctrinated fundigelical chowderhead. This fact is bloody fucking obvious to all human beings except those on the far, far right wing. Or those who are genuinely mentally retarded (at least they have an excuse).

But, I do commend the title for stating something rational and evidence-based. It’s all downhill from here, though.

Is marriage God’s idea?

No.

Yes, of course.

No! It’s not God’s idea. God can’t have any ideas, because God IS an idea, and nothing more. Marriage is a human idea, and the only people who want us to think it’s god’s idea are humans who want to control other human’s private lives.

We are 7 words into this article, and already it's pure, babbling nonsense.

We are 7 words into this article, and already it’s pure, babbling nonsense.

Besides, if marriage really is God’s idea, then shut up and let him handle it, and leave the rest of us alone.

Will we win the argument by quoting Scripture or arguing marriage as a religious institution? I doubt it. Why?

Isn’t the answer, as I said, bloody fucking obvious? If there is a God, and he’s really omnipotent, then he doesn’t need you or anyone else, because he could handle his own problems. If you have to thump your Bibles and shout at people, then obviously your god doesn’t exist and a fortiori can’t do anything. It’s really fucking simple. If there were a god, there would be no need for religion. Only a godless universe could contain religion.

People rarely put much thought into what the word “omnipotent” means. If there were a god, and he were really omnipotent, then everything religion does–all the prayers, all the scripture, all the proselytizing, all the rituals–is utterly pointless.  This world is exactly the way he wants it, if he exists. Or, more likely, he doesn’t exist, and that’s why so many people constantly call out to him in vain.

Because marriage is not a religious institution.

You’ve actually said something reasonable again. Good for you!

In the past I have heard a lot of Christians defending previous behavior in prior marriages by saying that they “were not in a Christian marriage.”

If they put it that way, then they weren’t defending it, per se. Think about it for, like, eight seconds.

But God expects faithfulness from us whether our marriage is Christian or not.

That doesn’t make sense. But why would anyone expect sense from a god-humper?

Marriage is a legal and binding contract that applies to all who enter into it regardless of faith.

Again, no shit. And this is why gay marriage should be legal. Not everyone follows your bullshit belief system. Marriage is about law, and law should be about equality. Equality of genders, equality of races, equality of religions, and equality of sexual orientations. Anything else is injustice.

The truth is that marriage both pre-dates the writings of all major religions and has applied to all people everywhere, religious or not. For centuries many marriages have been performed with no religious undertones at all. Marriage is a universal institution, not a religious one. Secondly, in the west, marriages were performed in secular contexts, often then blessed by the church, until around the 16th century.

Subsequently, secular authorities allowed churches, synagogues and other religious institutions to perform them. These religious institutions still had to conform to secular laws and turn in paperwork to account for these marriages. In a court of law, marriages could be annulled based on never having been consummated.

Holy mothercuntfucking shit, this guy’s actually making sense. He just stated actual facts. Can he now practice rationality–taking evidence based premises and, using logic, deriving true statements from them?

Often property and other matters depended on the fact or lack of consummation, another embarrassing historical fact to advocates of gay marriage, which is an artificial arrangement that can never be consummated.

Nope! He immediately plummets into the shit-strewn depths of mental depravity.

Setting aside the fact that consummation is no longer required by any law in this country, I can’t help but laugh at the fact that he spent two paragraphs basically admitting that marriage is a human construct, and then turned around and condemned gay marriage for being an “artificial arrangement”. Hey, numbskull! Read your own words. Those two previous paragraphs are just one long way of saying “All marriages are artificial.” They are a secular institution created by humans. We make them. We determine how they work. We set the rules for them. They are, by definition, artificial, in that they are the product of human artifice.

There’s nothing embarrassing to gay-marriage advocates about the fact that the rules for marriage used to be different. In fact, that is entirely our point. Yes, it used to be the case that, in some places, marriages were invalid if not consummated. We changed that rule, just like we changed rules about polygamy and treating women as property and child marriages and forced marriages. We can change the rules to marriage if we want. We’ve done it numerous times. Gay marriage is just another instance of changing the rules in order to make marriage more fair and just. It’s that simple.

The radical left pushing gay marriage has two tactics when it comes to ‘religious” arguments about marriage.

Gay marriage is a moderate position. But when you’re as far to the right as this jackass is, everything left of Pat Robertson looks “radical”.

The first is to dismiss any argument that has religious constructs as being out of bounds. In the eyes of many, arguments against gay marriage can be easily dismissed by appealing to “the separation of church and state.”

Obviously. Really. Fucking. Obviously. The church doesn’t control this country. The constitution prohibits that. You can’t make laws based on your religion. Laws must have a secular purpose, or they won’t stand up in court. It’s that fucking simple.

The second is a kind of under-handed appeal to compromise. In this approach, gay marriage proponents argue that “religious marriage” and “secular marriage” are two different matters. One should be governed by the church and the other by the state.

Okay, 1) That’s not a second argument. That is, in fact, exactly the same as the previous argument. And 2) It has nothing to do with “compromise”. Separation of church and state is not a compromise. There’s what the government does, and there’s what the church does. Never the twain shall meet. No compromise.

This is the “half a loaf is better than none” argument.

What’s true of loaves is not always true of brains, unfortunately. This guy might actually be better off as a vegetable. At least he wouldn’t embarrass himself.

Leftists want to govern all “secular marriages” in hopes of returning later to claim the “religious” ones.

No. Liberals don’t want to govern people’s marriages. And honestly I don’t give a fuck about your religious marriages. We want people to be free and equal. We want gays to have the same legal rights as straights. We want the government out of people’s bedrooms and out of women’s wombs.

It’s sanctimonious busybodies like the people at the American (non)Thinker who want to govern marriages by telling consenting adults that they’re not allowed to marry just because they’re the same gender.

Remember that the Obama administration already attempted to compel churches to hire gay clergy, a notion that was shot down by the Supreme Court 9-0 in the Hosanna-Tabor decision in 2012.

This is an outright lie. Here’s what happened in the Hosanna-Tabor decision:

The ruling came in the case of Cheryl Perich, a teacher who complained that Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Redford, Mich., violated the Americans With Disabilities Act in 2005 when it fired her after she received a narcolepsy diagnosis.

Got that? Disability, not homosexuality. Haug is lying through his fucking teeth when he says the Obama administration tried to force a church to hire gay ministers. No such thing ever happened.

Our response should not be to argue what the Bible says, though we believe it with all our hearts, but to appeal to the universality of marriage. In other words, we argue on our opponent’s ground, not our own.

On our ground you have nowhere to stand. There is no secular, evidence-based reason to deny gays the right to marry.  The “universality” of marriage is irrelevant. Yes, all societies have some marriage concept. But the concept changes from one society to the next and from one time period to the next. We can change it if we want to. Society does this all the time. It’s only universal in the sense that, in general, there is always SOME concept of marriage at work, regardless of which concept it is.

The key to winning is to keep our arguments to the universality of marriage and not play the religious “half-a-loaf” game with the radical left. Anatomy, history, culture, child development and family health are all on our side.

That shit is so fucking stupid, I think I just had an embolism reading it. Let’s address these items one by one.

Anatomy: What the fuck does anatomy have to do with marriage? Seriously, since when has anyone made anatomy a determining criterion for marriage? Oh, wait, I can think of an instance. They used to ban interracial marriage. So that’s a marriage law based on anatomy (skin). But we changed that and told the racists to fuck off. We can do the same here. There’s no obligation to define marriage in a genital-based manner. In fact, when you think about it (which I know the god-humpers won’t do) defining it that way is actually kinda creepy.

History: History affords numerous examples of the definition of marriage changing to fit contemporary norms. Haug said so himself just a few paragraphs before. Changing marriage won’t cause human civilization to crumble. In fact, we just keep right on going regardless of how marriage is defined. History fucks you in the ass, gay marriage opponents.

Culture: What the fuck does that have to do with anything? That’s such a broad term as to be meaningless in this context. He might as well have said “Things that involve stuff.”

Child development: Numerous psychological studies have found that children raised by gays do just fine. Moreover, even if gays were somehow worse at raising kids, since when have we told people that they can’t be married because their kids turn out bad? Has any marriage EVER been annulled in this country due to child development? I’m not aware of this ever happening. Even if someone goes to jail for how they raise their kids, they still remain married. Child development is just simply irrelevant to the legal question of whether such marriages should be recognized.

Family Health: Once again, there is no evidence that gay families are any worse off than straight families. But evidence isn’t exactly something that god-humpers care much about, which is why they keep regurgitating this tired, falsified argument.

If we stay consistent, informed, humble and resolute, this is an argument we can win.

If you stayed consistent, informed, humble and resolute, you wouldn’t be a fucking fundamentalist.

But remember, our opponents want to fight this on religious grounds. We cannot let them.

No. Abso-fucking-lutely not. I do not want to have this or any legal argument on religious ground. My position is that you can take your Bible, shove it up your tightly puckered asshole and fuck off. Religion should have no bearing in law. None whatsoever. I grow infinitely frustrated with the fact that religion keeps putting its bumpy dick in the law’s pudding. Religion is a waste of time and utterly irrelevant to legal matters. The last thing I want is to have this or any argument on religious grounds.

Ugh. At least I’m done with this guy. Let’s take a look at a few comments on that article, shall we?

commonsensealready

If we can’t use the Bible to defend marriage then by what authority are we going to be able to use to defend children from pedophiles?

The Bible says nothing about pedophiles. But keep using that “common sense” of yours. You might blindly stumble onto something true someday.

bullit56

I’ve run into the “marriage pre-dates religion” argument.

This reminds me that same sex marriage is nothing more than a fad that will never stand the test of time.  If it had any value or usefulness to society it would have been put in place by humans a long time ago, as opposite sex marriage was.

You do realize that that same argument could have been made against ELECTRICITY a hundred years ago or so, right? But keep typing away on that computer of yours…

Manuel Manjarrez

all marriages even in hedonistic societies like the Roman Empire and Greece and pre tokugawa Japan would call gay marriage blasphemy against the gods like Christians say that is also against god’s law in every culture even the promisive ones this would be against societal rules and norms it has always been understood that marriage is between a man and a woman

LOL.

Whiny Whitey just won’t give up

The American (non)Thinker just won’t stop pimping this idea that white people are the real victims of a case in which an unarmed black teenager was stalked and shot to death. Here’s one of the more recent anal spewings they’ve produced:

July 20, 2013

Birth of a Racist

By Sally Zelikovsky

I assume that the title is a deliberate reference to Birth of a Nation, which is still used by the KKK as a promotional tool to this day, 98 years after it came out. At least D. W. Griffith’s horrendously racist piece of hateful propaganda was well-made. In fact, it is, sadly, a legitimate contender for the title of Most Influential Movie Ever. Zelikovsky’s piece, however, is just more of the the poorly written fucking dogshit we’ve come to expect from American (non)Thinker.

When I awoke this morning and looked at myself in the mirror, I realized that I had undergone a fundamental transformation — a  Kafkaesque metamorphosis.  I was no longer myself.  I had become…a racist.

In my junior year as an undergrad I participated in a preceptorial on the works of Kafka. During our discussions of The Trial, one of the other students suggested the idea that some aspects of Kafka’s work represented the gas chambers in the Holocaust. I pointed out that Kafka died in 1924, long before Hitler took power and began the Holocaust. But she insisted on her interpretation, even going so far as to claim that Kafka somehow psychically predicted Zyklon B showers. This was the point when I realized that “Kafkaesque” means whatever the fuck the person using the word wants it to mean.

But there is, ironically, a sort of Kafkaesque quality to Zelikovsky’s little Whiny Whitey tirade. The joke of “The Metamorphosis” is that Gregor Samsa didn’t really change. He always was the spineless vermin that he supposedly transformed into–there actually wasn’t any real metamorphosis in terms of personality. The same is true of Zelikovsky. Being a racist is a Kafkaesque metamorphosis for her. Which is to say, nothing about her really changed. She was already a racist to begin with.

I didn’t do it to myself.  I’ve always been sensitive to race.  I don’t support racism or racists.  I’ve never considered myself racist and don’t think others would consider me a racist.  How could I be one now?

I’m pretty sure others would consider you racist, given what you say later in this article. This appears to be primarily an issue of your self-delusion and narcissism.

I never enslaved anyone, prevented them from working or voting or living in my neighborhood or joining my clubs.

That’s all it takes to be non-racist, right? As long as I don’t own slaves or kick blacks out of my neighborhood, I’m not racist. That’s all it takes. Right? RIGHT??? TELL ME I’M RIGHT SO I CAN FEEL GOOD ABOUT MYSELF!

I don’t think there was any proof that George Zimmerman did either.

There’s also no proof that he had any reason to suspect Trayvon Martin of anything at all. But you’ll be conveniently ignoring that fact, won’t you?

But now I know if I ever cross or injure a black person — no matter how justified my actions might be — there is a presumption that I am a racist.

Only if “justified” means “The unarmed child I shot was black.”

I don’t like it at all.  It isn’t true.  But here I am, non-racist me trapped inside this new racist body I’ve been assigned.  My actions and beliefs are irrelevant.  Society has decreed this is who I am.

Oh, poor you. Society declared you racist, and it makes you feel poopy. Meanwhile, society also declared it okay to kill Trayvon Martin because he…what? What did he do? Walk around at night while black? You’re declaring your feelings to be more important than his life. Fuck you.

Like alien pods taking control over our slumbering bodies, unstoppable forces have gradually been redirecting our programming as a society so that any time a minority is harmed or disliked by a white person, the precipitating cause of the harm or dislike is ipso facto racism.

Euphemism is always the friend of the prude and the whiner. Please note that in the case under consideration, “harmed or disliked” means “stalked without any justification and then shot dead.”

After the Zimmerman verdict, many white people woke up just like me, realizing that we will be deemed haters whenever we interact with non-whites and something goes wrong — no matter what our motivation or innermost thoughts are.

To understand the meaning of “something goes wrong”, see above. And, again, Zelikovsky is claiming that her precious, delicate little “innermost thoughts” are more important than a 17-year-old boy’s life. Fucking horrible, hateful, selfish, racist bitch.

Most of us didn’t grow up this way.

No shit.

Quite the opposite.  I was taught never to hate and only to judge people by their actions and not by their color, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc

If so, your teachers failed.

Didn’t Martin Luther King say we should judge a man by “the content of his character, not by his color of his skin”?

Didn’t Martin Luther King devote his entire life to opposing people like you?

Use of racism to implement an agenda or get one’s way, has been building over years.

This guy called Martin Luther King may have done it, too.

Anytime you fire someone who is a minority, you must have documentation backing up your non-racist justifications.

I’ve had several jobs and seen people of all races fired. Being able to justify a firing is something a business has to do no matter what.

Even though we are supposed to be a color-blind, post-racial society, groups and individuals force us to think about race all the time.

Classic Whiny Whitey. “By talking about racism, they’re FORCING me to experience the horrible, unutterable suffering of having to THINK!”

We have become a hyper-racial society.  Furthermore, since very few of us want to be labeled with anything as odious as “racist,” we will do anything — including keeping incompetents in our employ — to avoid the moniker.

Or maybe we’ll just construct such excuses in order to make ourselves look like victims.

If you don’t like your black neighbor because you have a personality clash, you are a racist.

Nope. Lot’s of people don’t like Chris Brown. No one has ever been called racist for it. He’s an asshole.

If you complain about a black clerk in a store because she wasn’t helpful, you are a racist.

Nope. I’ve complained about bad service from people who happened to be black. No one ever called me a racist for it.

If you oppose affirmative action, you are a racist.

True.

If you disagree with a black President’s ideology and disapprove of his policies, you most definitely are a racist.

Nope. But it helps your credibility with the right if you are a racist.

If you are a juror in the Trayvon Martin case and find George Zimmerman not guilty, you must be a racist. Heck, the entire system that acquitted Zimmerman is racist. Those shots were fired not out of self-defense but because of racism. And we know that, because Trayvon was black and Zimmerman white.

There is no sane universe in which stalking an unarmed boy–even after a 911 operator told you not to–and then starting a confrontation with him and shooting him should be considered “self defense”. Florida, obviously, is not sane. Zimmerman was not defending himself. He started the confrontation. Trayvon Martin was the one defending himself. If you think differently, I don’t even care if you’re racist or not. You’re just an asshole, plain and simple.

Whether or not he did or did not provoke the confrontation with Trayvon, it’s hard to believe the wimpy George Zimmerman’s last thoughts were “I’m going to kill a black man because I don’t like blacks” as opposed to “This guy is bashing my head in and I better do something before I lose consciousness.”

No. Bullshit. The fact that Zimmerman started the whole thing is very much an issue.

In trials like this — where you have one-on-one action with little else to go on — and you want to prove racism, you are either forced to (1) look at surrounding evidence, statements and circumstances and try to re-construct what you think the state of mind or intent of the accused was, or (2) intuit what the accused was thinking, in other words, jump into his mind and make the leap from assumption to assumption.

While there was a credible eye witness who saw Trayvon beating up Zimmerman,  if hate is to be the crime on trial, then we are compelled to examine the thoughts of the perpetrator and the victim, even though we have no way of ever knowing what they really were.  Until we can read someone’s thoughts as if they were files on a computer, we are treading into dangerous territory.

Fuck you. You’re the one pretending to “intuit” what Zimmerman was thinking. Here are some facts, which neither side of the debate disputes: 1.) Zimmerman was carrying a gun even though no one ever asked him to do this; 2) Trayvon Martin wasn’t hurting anybody; 3) Zimmerman chose to follow him; 4) The 911 operator specifically told him not to do that; 5) Zimmerman ignored this and continued following Martin; 6) Zimmerman was the one who initiated a confrontation between the two; 7) a fight broke out; 8) Zimmerman shot and killed Martin, 9) Martin was UNARMED.

I don’t need to read anyone’s thoughts. Zimmerman was wrong. Period. No one should be allowed to do what he did, even without the race issue.

These are the kind of cases that try men’s souls.

Fuck off.

…the public is unsettled because any one of us, at any time, of any color, could be either Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman.

Complete and utter bullshit. I can’t be Trayvon Martin, because I am a 32 year old white man. You are a white woman, and therefore also cannot be Trayvon Martin. Society frequently treats young black men as if they’re automatically dangerous–something that doesn’t happen to white men or to women of any race.

On top of all this, some in the public — MSNBC, loonies on the left, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and the minions they have summoned to protest — want us to further restrict the self-defense laws that protect all of us in these situations.

Bullshit. Zimmerman was not defending himself. He started the fight. He was the aggressor.

This means it would be even harder for you to shoot an intruder or rapist or pedophile when protecting yourself or your family.  This means people will hesitate before coming to the aid of a neighbor or being a Good Samaritan.  This means when someone robs your store at gunpoint, you have to succumb to injury or death.  This means when your daughter or son is raped, they must yield and never fight back because self-defense will no longer be available to them.

Whiny Whitey sure does love some good old fashioned scaremongering. And, no, recognizing the injustice of the Martin case does not mean you have to let your daughters get raped. It just means you can’t stalk and kill unarmed teenage boys. If you consider not being able to stalk and shoot 17 year old black boys to be an infringement on your rights, please fucking fuck yourself with the first sharp object you find.

This would be a return to the lawlessness of the Wild West where anything goes and your only justice is revenge.  Call it feudal, barbaric, mob rule or lawlessness: either way, it is the unraveling of the criminal justice system in America and a giant step back for mankind.

That’s precisely the opposite of what you said the the previous paragraph, you stupid hateful bitch. First you say this will make everyone cowed and submissive–next it’s the Wild Wild West. You don’t have any activity in your anterior cingulate cortex at all, do you?

Do we really want to throw the self-defense baby out with the racism bathwater?

No, but only an idiot would think that those are our only two options.

Most of these cases are admittedly hard to prove — that’s why our system errs on the side of innocence.  It’s better to let a guilty man go free than incarcerate an innocent one.  If you were the accused, believe me, this would be your mantra.

I agree that it’s better to let guilty men go than imprison innocent men. So, let’s talk about all the black men who get railroaded into our prisons by a justice system that–HEY! Where are you going???

I wonder if the race industry has any idea what they are clamoring for by restricting the claim of self-defense.  Black-on-black crime is the overwhelming source of crime against blacks in America.  If the Zimmerman protesters have their way and a black intruder breaks into the home of a black family and is shot dead by the homeowner, the homeowner will more likely be the criminal on trial than the perp, as we have seen in the Ron Dixon case in Brooklyn, where a Jamaican family man killed an intruder (whose race isn’t clear in the reports) and was shockingly sentenced to jail for illegally possessing a gun.

Do I even need to explain how this situation has nothing to do with Zimmerman? (Nota Bene: If you need me to explain, then you’re an imbecile, much like Sally Zelikovsky.)

My heart breaks that slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, the KKK, lynching, and discrimination ever existed.  Every reasonable human being feels this way.

Sure it does. But you know whose hearts don’t break for those things? The commenters on the website where you published this.

This is not exclusive to race.  Gay activists have hijacked the black plight for their own purposes.  Gay students are given special consideration in the college application process to right the wrongs visited upon previous generations of homosexuals.  If you dislike a person who happens to be gay, you are homophobic.  If you disapprove of redefining marriage, you are homophobic.  If the thought of same-sex sexual conduct makes you feel uncomfortable, you are homophobic.  If you think AIDS is a gay disease brought on by lifestyle, you are homophobic.  If you fire anyone who is gay, you are homophobic.

“I can’t understand why every time I restrict the rights of gays I get called homophobic!”

And, as we have seen in the media’s reaction to the Zimmerman case, for many, there is no room for self-defense if the puncher-turned-victim is black and the accused is white.

The media is evil for turning the “puncher” into a victim. Rather, we should treat the SHOOTER as a victim.

You right wing assholes are so very clever–in the Spinal Tap interpretation of clever which actually means stupid. But make no mistake. If you ever punch someone, and then they shoot you in response, all this indignity will vanish in an instant, and you’ll suddenly realize what “proportionate response” means. Especially if the guy you who picked a fight with you is black.

Couldn’t have said it better myself

More good news: Minnesota is set to become the 12th state to legalize gay marriage. We got the bigots on the run, people. And their own words about this issue indict them more than anything I could say about the issue.

Republican fucknut legislator Dan Hall of Minnesota wants the world to know what a hateful shit-biscuit he is. In doing so, he reveals the authoritarian fundamentalist mindset that all freedom-loving people are up against:

“Forcing others to give you your rights will never end well,” said Sen. Dan Hall, a Republican and a pastor. “It won’t give you the recognition you desire.”

Hear that, folks? A vote held by a democratically elected state legislature is “forcing” the bigots to give you “your rights.” You really can’t make it any more clear who’s on the right side and who’s on the wrong side of this issue.

Well, maybe you can…

Hall said gay marriage supporters have told him he’s on the wrong side of history but, he said, “the truth is I’m more concerned about being on the right side of eternity.”

Sen. Hall, let me be the one to explain to you why we’re winning: History is REAL.