Vox Populi

If you’re like me and enjoy reading something excruciatingly dumb every now and then, then you can rarely go wrong with the Letters to the Editors pages of local newspapers. I usually find myself wondering, “If these are the ones they saw fit to publish, just how awful must the unfit ones have been?” And today’s three letters are no different.

Let’s start with C. Dale German of Bethany, OK, who has a nuanced and original take on the current condition of these great United States.

One nation under God

Ha ha! Just kidding. He’s just gonna regurgitate dishonest god-humper boilerplate. This asshole has totally drunk the “1950s were a utopia” Kool-Aid about the 1950s that too many Americans gullibly believe, and he wants us all to know how deluded he is.

America was once a civil place.

Even our Wars were Civil!

Democrats and Republicans fought from opposite political perspectives yet were both proud Americans.

In fact, just like now, they would NEVER shut up about what proud Americans they are. It’s practically the only thing politicians ever say in this country.

Families could watch TV with small children and never hear profanity.

Talk about first world problems. Oh, I’m sorry, I meant fucking god damn first world problems, you cunt-faced son of a bitch.

School days began with Bible reading, a salute to the flag and the Lord’s Prayer.

That flag reference sandwiched between two religious references is very revealing. As much as they yammer on about the evils of idolatry, the flag might as well be a god to fundamentalists.

We went to work and left our houses unlocked.

Then you were idiots, seeing as crime rates were about the same in the 1950s as they are today, and are actually steeply declining over the last two decades. The only thing that’s changed is now you have sensationalistic 24 hour news channels constantly bombarding you with real life horror stories.

The American military was strong and respected.

That’s because we’d just dropped a fucking nuke on Japan. The “respect” was bullshit. People just didn’t want to get fucking nuked.

Americans felt blessed to live in America.

We still do. I just had a conversation the other day about how happy I am not to live in fucking Mexico where the fucking cartels are leaving duffel bags full of severed heads in elementary schools. The difference is that I don’t feel the need to buttress those feelings with glurgy, sentimental garbage and lies like you do.

“Blue laws” supported businesses that closed on Sunday.

Free enterprise!

Those who don’t remember this America don’t know how heartbreaking it is for those who do remember the America we lost.

It wasn’t lost, because you can’t lose something that never existed.

For sure there was poverty, segregation and social ills to be cured in an evolving America.

*Snort!* Yeah, America in the 50s was great! We saluted the flag and didn’t say the word “shit” on TV! Sure, there was crime, injustice, racism, sexism, higher poverty rates, higher illiteracy rates and all. But we had blue laws! (By the way–blue laws still exist in many cities…)

But we remember a nice country.

That’s because you were a spoiled little brat who was shielded from the harsh realities of the country you lived in. Social ills and injustice are perpetuated by silence, and silence is exactly what a sanctimonious, censorious, prudish, sheltered society like 1950s America breeds. That’s why you were so content with your fucking censored TV and chintzy American flag crap while black people were being beaten in the streets just for protesting Jim Crow laws. “Yeah, there was segregation and poverty, but I remember a nice country.” Shut the hell up.

School teachers and clergy wore suits and were respected.

If you paid school teachers a decent wage maybe they could afford more suits. Or, you know, feed and clothe their children. But the suits seem to be what’s important to you, and if that’s what it takes to get you to pay teachers more, then I guess I can go with it.

Men respected women as ladies and women responded as ladies.

“As ladies”. There is so much packed into those two words that I could write an entire blog post unraveling it. (Don’t worry. I won’t.) Let’s just say that this is the 1950’s “suits=respect” way of saying “Bitches stayed in their place.”

We can hope that not all is lost.

I hope all of it is lost. I don’t want to live in a society where superficial crap like words on TV, saluting a flag and wearing a suit are more important than real life concerns like poverty and injustice. Take your shallow-minded, cotton-candy, shiny-surface-with-a-rotten-core vision of America and shove it.

When those who remember are gone and only those who don’t remember remain, we can hope today’s crass, vulgar, obscenity of incivility will one day fade into history in a born-again America true to its founding purpose — one nation under God.

Or we could just keep living our lives and wait for all you pathetic old fogies to die so we don’t have to hear about this crap any more. The really funny thing is that 60 years from now people will be saying these exact same things about the times we’re currently living in. Humans are nothing if not predictable animals.

Our next subject, Wayne Hull of Yukon, OK, has some serious fucking Fatwa Envy going on:

Regarding the staging of “The Most Fabulous Story Ever Told” at Civic Center Music Hall: Why would anyone during the holidays condemn an actual religion of peace? Imagine the ferocious protests if the same venue was being used to stage “The Most Fabulous Ramadan.” Why mock people of faith who celebrate their faith?

Because it’s funny? It’s telling that every time Christianity is mocked, the response is a furious protest by Christians claiming that Christians don’t do furious protests so fuck the Muzzies. They are so jealous of Muslims they can barely contain it.

What’s hilarious about ridiculing the story of Christ, likely using the most exaggerated homosexual caricatures in the presentation, and infusing sex acts into a holiday otherwise devoid of promiscuity?

Christmas? Devoid of promiscuity? Are you fucking high? The whole damn holiday revolves around a teenage girl giving birth out of wedlock.

Oh, and notice how he says “likely” when describing the contents of the play he’s furiously not-protesting. That means he hasn’t seen the play he’s criticizing. Fucking typical.

How is this anything but an affront to people whose beliefs are different and, consequently, threatening?

Pretty sure you’re the one protesting people whose beliefs you view as different and threatening. Hasn’t that been the whole theme of every single sentence prior to this one?

They made a play about gay Jesus. Fucking get over it. You didn’t even fucking see it, and no one is forcing you or anybody else to watch it. Yet you protest its very existence. You, my friend, are the one being intolerant.

Last year the Obama administration openly condemned an American citizen for a YouTube video poking fun at the Prophet Muhammad.

This would be a good time to remind everyone that the term “religion of peace” in regards to Islam was coined by George W. Bush. Pandering to Muslims is nothing new, and both parties do it. It’s not right, but it’s not exclusive to Obama, either.

Now our elected officials waffle with another public piece that, if paralleled in regards to Islam, would likely result in mass riots.

More fatwa envy. American Christians really, really, REALLY wish they could get away with the violence that goes on in the Muslim world. They’d love to riot and chop people’s heads off if they could.

Christians are supposed to shut up passively as their faith is ridiculed. If they speak up, they’re chastised as being bigots or, at least, anti-First Amendment.

And rightly so, because that’s exactly what they are. But no one is calling for you to be censored. What you’re asking for, on the other hand…

Those who support a “gay agenda” must know how deeply regressive this play impacts their desire to be recognized as part of a larger society.

Only amongst small minded bigots like you. Normal people don’t respond to a gay Jesus play by thinking, “Well, I guess that means I should deny gays their rights!” That’s not how human brains work.

The Christmas story isn’t a story of gay sex, let alone gay persons.

See? The gay people don’t need your fucking approbation anyhow. You’ve already excluded them, so why should they censor their play to appease your bigoted ass?

It’s a Middle Eastern story of one man whose life changed the world forever.

Which is why we Christians fight tooth and nail to make sure it never changes again….

…And lose every time.

And just so it doesn’t look like I’m unfairly picking on my home state, let’s move on to Pennsylvania. Central Pennsylvania, to be more precise. And as we all know, central Pennsylvania is the most important Pennsylvania, because it’s central to all that other Pennsylvania. And it’s got those fires that never, ever, ever go out.*

But that’s not what the real problem is. Take it away, Chris Hicks of East Pennsboro Township.

If the question is gay marriage, God has the answer

Please tell me Jesus finally proposed to Muhammad.

In response to Shirley Ericson’s letter, “United Methodist church is acting against a courageous minister“:

Contrary to Ms. Ericson’s opinion, God is not this grandfatherly-cosmic-casual-genie that looks down on us and is OK with our sinful condition.

Grandfatherly Cosmic Casual Genie sounds a lot better when you sing it to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon theme. Seriously, try it.

And why would god even be a genie, casual or otherwise? I read Shirley Ericson’s letter. She at no point implies that Jeebus is played by Shaq or Robin Williams, or that he ever grants any wishes (see what I did there? Prayer is bullshit!). The only person talking about this weird genie Jesus is you, bub.

Anyways, if gob doesn’t like our sinful condition, he shouldn’t have created it in the first place. He chose to give us free will and put tempting fruit in the garden. If he’s unhappy with the result, he has no one to blame but himself. Would you put a steak on your floor then beat your dog for eating it?

His word is clear and infallible. It does not change, while a culture’s moral compass becomes clouded and is in decline.

How exactly can a compass be in decline? Maybe he’s referring to the Golden Compass film franchise…

His word is rock solid, firm and clear.

Weirdly, this is also true of his dick.

Sin is bad because it hurts the heart of God.

What is it about fundamentalist religion that turns its followers into prattling five year olds? The baby-talk that comes from these people is just plain fucking creepy. The above sentence should never be spoken by any human being over the age of 8, unless they have, like, Down’s syndrome or something. And even then they should keep it to a minimum.

But apparently, in this guy’s puerile mind, an omnipotent being can be hurt. How? How could a perfect being be harmed in any way? If he has ANY vulnerabilities or shortcomings whatsoever, then he is not perfect and omnipotent.  It makes no sense to speak of a perfect being feeling or wanting or needing anything at all. And, with one fell swoop, I’ve just erased the motivation for all but the most deistic forms of religion. Sorry about that. I know how you guys hate logic.

When will we quit trying to pursue our own fleshly lusts and sinful desires and seek to live sacrificial lives unto our great, gracious, holy heavenly Father?

When we all lose our god damn minds. So, hopefully never.

For a closing exercise, click on that link above and read Shirley Ericson’s letter, then go back and read Chris Hicks’ again.  These are both Christians, but they are clearly very different kinds of Christians. And I’m not just talking about their views on gay marriage being different. Their brains work differently.  They’re processing information and reacting to it in starkly different ways.

Even before we get to their beliefs and their claims, just the language of the two letters shows striking contrasts. Both letters, for instance, contain a single interrogative sentence. But they use the interrogative for entirely different purposes. Ericson’s interrogative (third paragraph) is a hypothetical in which she presents some evidence and then provides a logical conclusion from it in order to make the reader THINK about their position. She’s challenging her audience to use their minds and reconsider their position.

Now look at Hicks’ interrogative, which I just snarked at above. It’s a lament, intended to get people to stop behaving differently from him and start unquestioningly obeying an authority. It has precisely the OPPOSITE purpose as Ericson’s. And rather than use logic to persuade, he tries to change the reader’s mind by appealing to a cognitive bias humans have to be more trusting of people who look wealthy, clean, beautiful, or powerful. Seriously, would even North Korea use language like his to describe its leader?

The baby-talk is completely absent from Ericson’s letter. Her declarative sentences are more complex than Hicks’, and again she uses them differently. Her declarative sentences consist mostly of statements of fact that are not a matter of belief, such as “This guy will lose his job,” etc. She often uses these facts as premises and conclusions in arguments. For Hicks, EVERY declarative sentence states as fact something that is a matter of his own personal faith. He doesn’t actually state a single faith-free fact anywhere in his letter. Not one. And he doesn’t make any arguments at all. He just declares his own beliefs as absolutely true by fiat, as if he himself were god.

I could go on and on analyzing the differences between the two, but the point should be obvious by now. There are different kinds of Christians, and differences between them run so deep that they alter the very way they process information and interact with the world. Ericson focuses on concrete facts. She then processes these to see what they imply. And if what they imply contradicts what she believes about gay marriage, she adapts her beliefs to the new information. She then proceeds to spell out these premises and conclusions for others, hoping to replicate the process in other minds as well. This is all just a long way of saying she’s a RATIONAL FUCKING PERSON.

Hicks, on the other hand, is a textbooks example of an authoritarian. He associates power with truth and beauty. If someone is powerful, then whatever they say must be true and good. He sees himself as a conduit of this power, and issues demands on its behalf that others assimilate to his thought processes or face dire wrath. So he’s like the Borg, but without any real power. He views communication between humans as a string of commands that others obey the power that he is vicariously channeling from an imaginary being.  And he sees value in others only insofar as they conform to this arbitrary string of commands. Which, again, is just a long way of saying he’s a FUNDAMENTALIST FUCKFACE.

I’m glad there’s no heaven. Spending eternity with these guys would be hell.

 

____________________

*No wonder they based a horror video game on it. That shit is fucking scary.

Advertisements

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.

Gay rights = Civil rights

Civil rights movements are always transgressive in their own time. They break social mores, challenge previously unquestioned biases, and root out traditional moral values to replace them with newer, more progressive ideals. This is true of the abolitionist movement to end slavery, the women’s suffrage movement and subsequent feminist/women’s lib movement, and the civil rights movement for African Americans. In their own day, the “right thinking” traditionalists denounced them as unchristian and anti-biblical. But eventually, they become the new status quo, and the new religious right has to find a way to distance themselves from what their intellectual forebears wrought. Despite the fact that the Southern Baptist Convention specifically formed to defend slavery, you won’t hear Baptists today bringing that talking point up very often.

This creates a problem for god-humpers. The most prominent civil rights movement today is the gay rights movement. God-humpers oppose it, because it involves people living their own lives uninfluenced by a 2,000 book of fables that they believe should control everyone and everything. But the gay rights movement is playing out very much like past civil rights movements–civil rights movements which the fundamentalists now pretend they supported all along (they didn’t).  In fact, the arguments for and against gay marriage in particular are extremely similar to the arguments for and against miscegenation in the first half of the 20th century. In both cases, it was argued that god separated the races/sexes because he never meant for them to marry. In both cases marriage between people of different races/same sexes were argued to be “unnatural”. In both cases it was argued that mixed race kids/children of gay parents would somehow suffer from their parents mixed race/same sex relationship. And in both cases these arguments are complete and utter horseshit. The Loving v. Virginia case of 1967 guaranteed the right to marry to all mixed race couples in all 50 states, and the gay marriage issue is progressing in a very similar fashion, except at a much faster rate. It’ll be legal in all 50 states in maybe 5 to 10 years or so, and even the staunchest opponents seem to realize this.

What to do? The god-humpers want to oppose gay marriage, but they also want to pretend that god-humpers never took the wrong side in the very similar fight over interracial marriage. Well, there’s no way to resolve the cognitive dissonance other than to pretend it’s not real at all. Gay rights has nothing in common with black civil rights! Why, because I SAY SO DAMN IT!

Last month, Pennsylvania’s attorney general refused to defend a state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Her website argues: “The issue of same-sex marriage is squarely in the tradition of the struggle for civil rights in the U.S.” That comparison has significant implications for how same-sex marriage advocates treat marriage laws that they disagree with. It also deserves more scrutiny.

No, it really doesn’t. The Pennsylvania judge didn’t just pull that comparison out of her ass. It has been noted again and again by numerous observers of the movement, and has strong historical evidence to support it. Like I said, look up the ruling in the Loving case and read it. Replace the racial stuff with sexual orientation stuff, and it’s easy to see that we are having the exact same argument, just about a different minority.

As a grassroots supervisor for California’s Proposition 8, I was surprised to see numerous yard signs stolen, slashed and defaced. Those responsible were likely law-abiding citizens. Why the exception? Undoubtedly, many felt they were in hand-to-hand political combat against discrimination, hatred and bigotry.

“Grassroots”? Bullshit. Michael Erickson, the author of this garbage, got his law degree at Brigham Young University. So he is probably a Mormon. There was nothing grassroots about the Mormon church’s support for Prop. 8 in California. The church itself funded numerous political operations in hopes of influencing the voting public (something non-profit organizations are not supposed to do), and then lied about their involvement repeatedly, even after documents proving their financial involvement surfaced.

I don’t support vandalizing signs, but if the vandals (misguidedly) thought they were helping fight discrimination, hatred and bigotry, they were merely using the wrong methods to target the right group. Anyone who supported Prop. 8 supported discrimination, hatred and bigotry. That includes you, Mr. Erickson.

I will give him credit for at least recognizing that the people who defaced signage are probably otherwise good people, and will extend the same courtesy to him. I have no doubt that Mr. Erickson opposes any form of violence or vandalism against gays or gay rights supporters, which automatically makes him better than the entire Russian government and a healthy chunk of the Russian people on this issue. But the fact that he is humane in one area of human rights does not cancel out his bigotry in others. In the 1960s there were undoubtedly people who thought blacks should be treated equally….except when it comes to marriage. Mr. Erickson has taken a similar position on gays judging by the rest of his op-ed. It’s a lesser bigotry, but lesser bigotry is still bigotry.

It’s no secret that media coverage disproportionately favors same-sex marriage. A candid admission in the Washington Post explains why “(many journalists) see people opposed to gay rights today as cousins, perhaps distant cousins, of people in the 1950s and 1960s who, citing God and the Bible, opposed black people sitting in the bus seat, or dining at the lunch counter, of their choosing.” (What goes unsaid is that the most influential civil-rights leaders, “citing God and the Bible,” opposed discrimination and segregation on religious grounds.)

Actually, what most often goes unsaid is that in almost every civil rights conflict, the Bible is quoted to support BOTH sides of the issue. This is because the Bible is murky, muddled, contradictory, and irrelevant to modern life. It’s primed to be manipulated and read however the reader wants to read it. Every civil rights movement (including the gay movement) has religious people on both sides, quoting the same scripture to say the opposite thing. It’s almost like the Bible is bullshit or something!

Regrettably, some infamous groups spew anti-gay rhetoric that is hateful and indefensible. But far too often the media amplify these voices and conflate all religious opinion with this easily assailable straw man.

Comparing you to the yahoos at Westboro Baptist Church or the American Family Association would indeed be tearing down a straw man. But that doesn’t mean that your views are not hateful or indefensible. Lesser bigotries, as before.

As such, they entirely ignore, as a Deseret News editorial put it, our “morally complex and pluralistic world” (June 30). A world where some religious faiths that only endorse marriage between a man and a woman also support nondiscrimination laws for gays and lesbians. And a world where some gays and lesbians oppose same-sex marriage “citing a belief that children benefit most from opposite-sex parents.”

Those are both minority opinions. Sure they count to some extent, but they don’t represent either group. More importantly, yes, we do live in a morally complex and pluralistic world. But that’s exactly why religion is growing more and more irrelevant every day, and why more and more people are leaving their churches. Religions too often speak in absolutes, in black-and-white morality, in unquestioned divine authority, in faith unsupported by facts and evidence, in the primacy of tradition over a society that adapts to improve the lives of real people instead of please the whims of invisible imaginary people. Religion just doesn’t fit any more, and it is slowly dying as a result.

Unfortunately, the situation is unlikely to change unless this civil-rights comparison is scrutinized. Here are three differences that deserve attention:

Scrutinize it all you want. It will change nothing, because your starting position, the very beliefs you stand on, are what’s really wrong with your argument.

First, laws prohibiting interracial marriage were designed to promote white supremacy. That’s why a unanimous Supreme Court invalidated these laws for having “no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination.” In sharp contrast as one gay-marriage advocate acknowledges, “Unlike racial segregation, to which anti-gay laws are often compared, the traditional restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples was not designed, in and of itself, to denigrate or harm same-sex couples.”

“One gay marriage advocate said something stupid, so that makes the stupid thing true!”

When North Carolina outlawed gay marriage in 2012, do you think that had any purpose other than to reinforce straight privilege? Straight people get the benefits of marriage, gay people don’t. Therefore, privilege. Straight people get to visit their dying spouses in the hospital, gay people don’t get that privilege. The law was designed specifically to reserve certain privileges to straight couples and deny them to gays. To argue that it serves any other purpose is absurd.

As for “traditional marriage”, there’s no such thing. Racial segregation has a long and storied tradition as well, and not all forms of it were “designed” to reinforce privilege in one race. Many, like marriage, weren’t designed at all, but instead arose organically and only became enshrined in law later on. Regardless of whether opposite-sex marriage was ALWAYS designed to denigrate gays, there’s no questioning that RIGHT NOW it is. And that’s what matters.

Second, the Civil Rights movement, according to noted leader John Lewis, “was built upon deep-seated religious convictions” and, without such faith, “would have been like a bird without wings.” But it’s hard to imagine prominent gay-marriage advocates describing their movement as “built upon deep-seated religious convictions.” Indeed, it has often been hostile to religion.

To be sure, some of that hostility stems from perceived, and sometimes very real, denigration by some religious adherents. Nevertheless, the different roots of these movements appear to manifest sharply contrasting fruits. Compare, for example, the gospel-inspired Civil Rights anthem “We Shall Overcome” to the now popular mantra “Get on the right side of history!” Or compare the Christian perseverance evident in this preacher’s promise, “We will win you with the power of our capacity to endure,” with the conventional pride revealed in this politician’s bluster, “It’s going to happen, whether you like it or not.”

The past civil rights movements also took place in a time when religion had more political strength than it does today. As I already mentioned, our society is going through a slow process of secularization, and religion’s power is waning. It should come as no surprise, then, that religion has less of a role to play in current issues.

This doesn’t change the fact that there are indeed many Christians who support gay rights. As I discussed above, this shouldn’t be surprising to anybody, because the Bible says only what the person quoting it wants it to say.

Third, whereas segregationists fought to preserve their social status and political power, many in the religious coalition for man-woman marriage seek, in the words of President Obama, “to preserve and strengthen families.” Although in favor of same-sex marriage now, even President Obama acknowledges that their “impulse” to strengthen families “is the right one.”

Bullshit. “THINK OF THE CHILDREN!” was a constant refrain amongst segregationists. It was alleged, without evidence, that mixed race families would be unstable, that allowing interracial marriage would lead to black men raping white daughters, that mixed race children would not turn out as well as “pure” children. The gay marriage opponents make all the same unsupportable claims, saying children of gay parents will turn out bad, comparing gays to pedophiles, and insisting that only opposite sex marriages can be stable. Nothing has changed except the identity of the minority being denied its rights.

Notwithstanding these differences, discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation should be addressed. Marriage, however, is about more than civil rights for individuals. Marriage has profound implications for a historically vulnerable and underrepresented class of persons — children.

That’s what the opponents of interracial marriage said. They were wrong, and so are you. Their beliefs were based on superstitious misapprehensions of a minority, and so are yours. Because of white privilege, they couldn’t see (or wouldn’t see) how they were harming others. The same goes for you and your straight privilege.

In the fortieth year since Roe v. Wade, public opinion has settled on a middle ground that recognizes the concerns of both pro-choice and pro-life advocates — approving of abortion for threats to a mother’s health, rape, incest, and birth defects, but disapproving for elective birth control, selecting birth traits or avoiding parental responsibility.

If the public discussion on marriage is not prematurely curtailed, public opinion might yet arrive at a common ground that recognizes the dignity of gay and lesbian Americans while also preserving marriage between a man and a woman as the surest foundation for the future of children.

How would you like it if we found a “middle ground” when it comes to YOUR rights? You seem to be fine when the rights of gays and women are on the line, but what if we start curtailing yours because of “the children”? That sound good to you? Would you like it if the people took a vote on your marriage? Would you like it if we declared, based on no evidence, that Mormons make bad parents, and that therefore you can’t get married? Would that be okay with you? Would you feel that we were “respecting” your “dignity” if we prohibited you from visiting a dying spouse in the hospital just because we disagree with your faith/lifestyle, based on such stupid arguments? You can’t respect people’s dignity while denying them certain basic privileges which you reserve to yourself. So long as you insist on doing so, you are a bigot, and you are discriminating.

Oh, and the Mormon church didn’t allow blacks to be ministers until…what? 1975? 1976? Some time around then. But you’d rather we forgot all about that, wouldn’t you, Mr. Civil Rights Man?

Immutable Stupidity

The WingNutDaily never fails to entertain me, especially their excessively mustachioed publisher Joseph Farah, who consistently sputters out right wing nonsense so insanely stupid that one can’t help but wonder whether his entire journalistic career is one big Andy Kaufman-style piece of performance art. Today’s piece is a particularly exquisite morsel of Dumb, because nothing causes fundamentalist brains to go haywire quite like the menace of Gay.

“Non-discrimination” is one of those new buzzwords that has widespread appeal.

It’s not exactly new…unless your thinking is permanently rooted in the 1950s.

After all, nobody can defend discrimination against people because of immutable characteristics like their skin color, religious beliefs or ethnicity, right?

*Spit take* Did you just describe religious beliefs as immutable? Then does that mean you fucking Christians will stop hassling everyone and trying to convert them?

People like you, Mr. Farah, do defend discrimination based on these things all the time. Evangelicals have no problem with discrimination based on religion–so long as it’s not against their own religion. And, no, Mr. Farah, religious belief is not immutable, but homosexuality is.

But America has moved way beyond that ideal. The cultural and political pendulum has swung so far the other direction that “non-discrimination” actually means victimizing people because of their religious convictions.

I bet you like thinking about that pendulum swinging. That big, luscious pendulum, swinging back and forth, back and forth.

WND reported last month that the San Antonio City Council, way down in the heart of Texas

It’s actually closer to the rectum of Texas. But that’s not San Antonio’s fault. Texas is mostly rectum.

of all places, is considering a change to its “non-discrimination” ordinance that will seemingly bar those who take the Bible seriously from holding office.

I can’t understand why I’ve got this sudden feeling of skepticism towards absolutely every word that follows…

In the rush to condemn “bias” of any kind, in particular discrimination against people based on their sexual proclivities and behavior, faithful, Bible-believing Christians and Jews could be permanently banned from participation in city government, business and even employment!

Note how he leaves out Muslims, who are even more hostile to gays than Christians.

“Now wait a minute, Farah,” you say.

Actually, what I say is more like, “Go fuck a goat and die of goat AIDS, Farah.”

[“]What are you talking about?

You probably get asked that a lot, don’t you?

That wouldn’t be legal. This is still America, where people’s religious convictions are protected by the First Amendment! Furthermore, the Constitution explicitly prohibits any religious test as a qualification for office or public trust.”

A fact Farah will conveniently forget when it comes to the question of an atheist holding office.

Well, tell the city council in San Antonio.

There, council members are on a path to add “sexual identity” and “sexual orientation” to the city non-discrimination ordinance, which, on the face of it, would bar anyone from office who has “demonstrated a bias” against someone based on categories that include “sexual orientation.” The proposal does not define “bias,” which, according to local church leaders, could mean someone who declares homosexual behavior is sinful, as the Bible clearly does.

Local church leaders have a bad habit of being completely and utterly full of shit.

The new ordinance would state: “No person shall be appointed to a position if the city council finds that such person has, prior to such proposed appointment, engaged in discrimination or demonstrated a bias, by word or deed, against any person, group or organization on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, age, or disability.” [emphasis added]

And here is where we learn that Joseph Farah can’t read. Or, more likely, that he knows his audience can’t read. I’ve highlighted the word here that he is clearly ignoring. Barring “Bible-believing” Christians from office would clearly violate this ordinance. So if the ordinance is enforced correctly, god-humpers in San Antone have nothing to worry about.

That said, I don’t think this ordinance could cut the Constitutional mustard. Not for the dumbshittery that Farah gives as reasons, but because it says “in word or deed”. Farah is right about one thing–the ordinance is vague. It might be construed as barring people from appointments based on their speech, which would be a violation of the First Amendment. It’s hard to tell, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this ever went to court and got shot down.

Church leaders have gathered to discuss what they consider an alarming plan. They said it would allow the city council “to prohibit those that speak their religious beliefs regarding homosexuality from serving on city boards.”

No, it wouldn’t, because it clearly states that religion is one of these protected classes. This is classic right wing scaremongering. Create an artificial crisis, trust in your dull-witted followers to believe it even when the evidence that it’s fake is right in front of them, then profit off of them. It’s fucking sickening, and speaks poorly of our species that people like Farah are able to do it so easily.

It’s why America’s founders established a Bill of Rights. These were not “special privileges” bestowed by government. Instead, they were recognized as God-given rights.

Which is why the Bill of Rights mentions god precisely ZERO times.

Whenever government starts handing out special protections of classes of people, especially based on their behavior, you are no longer protecting rights, you are denying them.

Religion is a behavior. Should we not protect your rights?

That’s where the homosexual agenda is rapidly heading.

The movement started with this slogan: “It’s nobody’s business what I do in the privacy of my own bedroom.” It has become a movement that is obsessed with what people do in their own bedroom – a movement that seeks to identify people based on what they do in their own bedroom, or anywhere else for that matter.

And they project their own shortcomings onto others, too!

Yet, few Americans have yet realized how far off the rails this train has veered.

That’s because most Americans aren’t so stupid that they wouldn’t see the word “religion” in that quote above and fail to realize that you’re making all this shit up.

The popular culture loves, adores and worships all things “gay.”

Well, I do like Batman. So you got me there. And Lady Gaga is pretty gay. I’m not a Lady Gaga fan, but I do like her a lot when she’s naked. Does that make me so straight I’m gay?

But I don’t think a guy with Joseph Farah’s mustache has any right to attack people who like gay things.

In such an environment, is it really that tough to imagine Americans being victimized because of their most heart-felt religious convictions?

Poor god-humpers. Always the victims. Boo hoo hoo.

Grow up, shitbritches. No, you are not the victim. No one declared your marriage illegal. No one beats you up for going to church. No one fires you for being a superstitious testicle head. No one is telling you that your consensual adult relationship is evil and disgusting and a threat to all of society. You are not the fucking victim here, so stop bitching and whining.

It’s easy. It’s just one small, inevitable step from where we were just a few years ago.

He’s got one thing right here. Gay rights is inevitable. People like Farah are flailing because it is becoming increasingly obvious that they have lost the fight and that full equality for gays and lesbians is now a matter of when, not if.

And I love watching them flail. Schadenfreude is a wonderful thing. 🙂

Russia Sucks (at least when it comes to gay rights)

Mother Russia is trying as hard as it can to avoid joining the 21st century when it comes to LGBT equality. They’ve recently outlawed “gay propaganda” (which is code for “any public assertion that gays are human beings”) and adoption of Russian children in countries that support marriage equality; they’ve sent police and soldiers to viciously attack gay rights protesters; and they’ve turned a blind eye to homophobic violence, up to and including murder. They’ve also issued confused and contradictory statements on whether they will equally harass foreign gay athletes and spectators at the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi (which is apparently some shitty little burg way out in frozen buttfuck Russia). Oh, and check out the warning label under the heading of those articles from a Russian website:

This article contains information not suitable for readers younger than 18 years of age, according to Russian legislation.

Even talking about oppressing gays is “not suitable”! We’ll oppress them, but SSSHHH! Don’t talk about it! Oppression works better when no one talks about it in public!

It’s safe to say that Russia never fully recovered from its Stalinist totalitarian days, and Vladmir Putin is more than happy to stoke the bigoted irrational fears of right wingers in his country in order to solidify his power. Older gays must be having flashbacks to the days of a repressive Communist regime that ruled through fear and intimidation. But you know who the real victims are? The bigots, of course! Or at least, that’s what the English version of Pravda.ru wants us to believe.

Good bye, totalitarian Facebook

31.07.2013 | Source:

Pravda.Ru

See all that stuff I linked to in the first paragraph? Yeah, Facebook didn’t do anything like that, in case you’re wondering. So what makes Facebook so totalitarian?

Something has to be said. It has been over six week since I last posted on my Facebook account, and rarely opened it. I was trying to get rid of the addiction, communication with many people who became my close friends. It turns out that at times I shared with them my thoughts that were once spoken only among very close friends. I was flattered that these thoughts were discussed by people I’ve never met in person, but who turned out to be like-minded individuals.

I decided to put an end to this communication, and, likely, for good. It is a shame…: (

So Facebook helped you meet fellow dumb people. Why is this a problem for you? (I could tell you why it’s a problem for me, but you wouldn’t care.)

It’s funny, but six weeks ago I decided to stop using Facebook after the social network has blocked my account due to complaints of a sexual liberties advocate who called me a homophobe, and who I called a homophile in response.

“Homophile”? You must have gotten blocked for butchering the English language.

I posted some objections to the support team of Facebook Russia over the use of the antonyms “homophobe” – “homophile” in the Russian language. No one bothered to respond.

Can’t imagine why they weren’t prompt in getting back to you…

On my page I posted against gay propaganda aimed at children.

Right wingers are the same everywhere, aren’t they? Just like in America, Russian bigots just simply echo boilerplate terms without putting so much as a moment’s thought into it. In reading on the new Russian legislation, this term “gay propaganda” has pooped out of just about every bigot’s ass-mouth over and over and over, and it really just means “support for gay rights.” Are you publicly stating that gays should have human rights? Well, that’s gay propaganda! We must silence you, FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!

I shared what I do not like about various public figures who oppose the independence of my country or call for what they believe to be freedom and democracy.

“Don’t they realize that only bigots like me get to have freedom and democracy?”

On my initiative, Pravda.Ru was nearly the first Russian online media outlet that started actively working with Facebook placing their interactive panel on Pravda.Ru’s pages.

*Golf clap*

In short, I tried a six-week long break in communication with the people I used to chat almost daily since 2009. Now I realized that I am not willing to work for people who can block my page because my thoughts are different from theirs.

I’m not privy to the entire ordeal, but I’m guessing they blocked you not for your thoughts, but because you’re an asshole.

I am not going to let some Facebook employees hired by a certain Katya Skorobogatova (who is she anyway?) to tell me what I can and what I cannot post on my account in the literary Russian language? ! 🙂

Oooo, literary bigotry! Dostoyevsky hates fags!

I am not a fighter with misfits like Skorobogatova and her staff on their territory and in their coordinates system. Why? Pravda.Ru Media holding that I own has over 20 resources where I, as a founder and editor, can post anything that does not contradict the Russian legislation without looking at Zuckerman’s boys and girls who moderate the opinions of their users when it comes to the issues of same-sex love.

I can say “anything that does not contradict Russian legislation.” That phrase right there should tell you who the real totalitarian is. A country that outlaws speech has no right to call itself free. But in this authoritarian’s mind, it’s a travesty that Facebook (a private company) would block his anti-gay bigotry, but perfectly okay for his government (which is supposed to represent the people) to use violence and prison sentences to silence anyone who publicly advocates for human rights.

Why would I fight with them? They are a minority on a global scale, because the most important thing for every normal person is children. Homosexuals cannot have children by definition.

I win because I procreate! It’s like Vadim Gorshenin thinks this cartoon (NSFW) is meant as actual advice on how to win a fight.

He also seems to think humans are fruit flies, whose only goal in life is to make more fruit flies. Sorry, pal, but some of us have broader horizons than that. It’s a stupid point, anyways, because gays are perfectly capable of procreating. They can also adopt, for that matter, unless some assholes in Russia pass an idiotic law prohibiting it.

While I was writing this, it grew into a column that I can publish on Pravda.Ru.

Translation: Pravda.ru will publish any horseshit as long as it’s bigoted, ignorant, and poorly reasoned.

Why do these thoughts deserve to be published in this online newspaper as opposed to a journal or a social network status?

Because the internet is an echo chamber of babbling inanity, hatred and delusion?

It is simple: I, like probably many others, faced sex-censorship by Facebook whose leader headed a gay parade of nearly a thousand employees of this gay social network (it must be the way since about a thousand FB employees joined him on this parade?)

How dare they hold a gay pride parade???

Hypocrisy, thy name is Vadim Gorshenin.

In short, I have three kids and I do not want any social network as part of their totalitarian “tolerance” prohibit heterosexuals from not just expressing an opinion, but simply defending it, eating antonyms of the insults they were insulted with, and dictating what should a “tolerant “community” be like.

Like American bigots, Russian bigots are complete fucking pussies. They bitch and whine like little children when some minor problem affects them, like getting blocked on Facebook. But they’re perfectly fine with gays being beaten and imprisoned.

I, unlike Zuckerberg and Skorobogatova, want to have grandchildren. I want to give them the love that parents do not have a chance to give their children…

How the fuck do you know they don’t want to have grandchildren? And what the fuck does this have to do with anything?

I understand that FB, through the hands of their moderators hired by Skorobogatova, does not let me share with you my thoughts as a father of three … If so – why don’t they get lost?

You seem to be the one throwing a hissy fit after they told you to get lost by blocking you. Fuck, Gorshenin has done everything but stomp his feet and hold his breath because Mommy wants him to eat broccoli at this point. He should be less worried about having children and more worried about not acting like one.

All I want to write will be publish by Pravda.Ru or VKontakte where I’ve moved for now.

Vadim Gorshenin

Yeah, see, that would be you fucking off, not them. I seriously doubt Facebook gives a flying assfuck about your whiny bullshit.

The comments are about on par with what one would expect from WingNutDaily. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were considerable overlap in readership between Pravda.ru and WingNutDaily. Here’s a pretty typical one:

Seeker World в 20:34 01 августа

Homosexuality -Proof Government Promotes Sickness. This is not “homophobic.” What homosexuals do is their business. This is about they pushing a destructive lifestyle on heterosexuals. Their satanically-inspired, social engineering is our business.  “Gay rights” and “Gay marriage” are a ruse to hide a deliberate attack on heterosexual norms.  Whether it is false flag state terrorism, vaccines or chemtrails, their agenda is to weaken, depopulate and enslave society. The promotion of homosexuality is designed to destroy the fundamental building block of a healthy society: the traditional family. The USofA is Morally bankrupt!

Chemtrails. Oy vey.

The Dumbest Comment in the Universe

The Atlantic Wire recently posted an article on recent poll data regarding the issues of gay marriage, affirmative action, and the NSA. It says about what one would think. Most Americans favor gay marriage, oppose affirmative action, and really hate the NSA. This is consistent with what several other polls have shown. It comes as no surprise.

But, oh, the comments on that article. A piece that involves both homosexuality and race is bound to bring out the pudding-brained godfuckers and hate-sucking bigots, and this one is no exception. There are a ton of dumb-as-a-box-of-finely-sifted-shit comments on it. But one in particular really stood out to me, so I thought I’d single it out for some mockery.  Ladies and gentlemen, may I introduce you to the man who calls himself vanhellsinger:

vanhellslinger 2 hours ago

The numbers change from day to day. For Example.

Now, normally when a human being types something like this, statistics usually follow. But that’s only true in this case if you speak some strange language in which “statistics” means “utter fucking imbecilic lunacy.”

Since the beginning of gay rights which started when Obama was elected…

Wait wait wait. Let me pull a Kanye here. I’ma let you finish, but first I gotta point something out. If you think Obama invented gay rights, you seriously haven’t been paying attention. I mean, where have you fucking been for, oh, the last thirty fucking years or so? You do realize that when the Netherlands became the first country to legalize gay marriage in 2001, Obama was a state senator in Illinois, and no one outside of that state even knew who the fuck he was, right? This is another way of asking just how goatfuckingly stupid do you have to be to think gay rights started with Obama?

Anyways, please continue.

Since the beginning of gay rights which started when Obama was elected the number of violent attacks against homosexuals has risen exponentially.

I mentioned this last time, but it bears repeating. The right wing bigots love pointing to the problems that they themselves create by discriminating as justification for discrimination. It’s like a dog that shits on your carpet then demands a laxative. “See this shit? This shit proves that you need to help me shit more.” Fuck you, dog. How about I rub your nose in your shit, whap you with a rolled up copy of the Constitution, and throw your ass outside where there’s no carpet for you to shit on?

Millions of people are outraged that a proven degenerate behavior is being promoted as a civil right.

Vanhellsinger of course provides no evidence for this. But like all bigots, he speaks for the people! And the people, apparently, are fucking nitwits.

Why not make having cancer a civil right?

Are you suggesting we shouldn’t let people with cancer get married?

Giving minorities a job, promotion, passing grade, and much more just because they are black is so wrong with obviously most people.

Who the fuck gives people a passing grade just because they’re black? I’ve taught at universities for years and never seen anyone do that.

Look what AA got us a President with what appears as an educated intelligent man, but is he?

I can tell someone here is not an educated, intelligent man.

The NSA leak is just another way for the liberals to distract us from the real issues-

Yeah, they’re distracting us by making Obama look  like an asshole. What a brilliant strategy!

The failure of ObamaCare

I don’t like it, therefore it’s a failure!

So if I don’t like the Miami Heat, does that mean I can just give last year’s NBA championship to the OKC Thunder? Because I’d love to do that.

the Fraud of Gay Rights

Let’s be clear here. This guy is actually saying that the NSA scandal was a conspiracy to distract us from the fact that gay rights isn’t real. It takes a special kind of mind to come up with something like that. It’s one of those special minds that rides the special bus and wears a special helmet.

a President that is a coward and unable to defend the American people- Bhengazi

Yeah, the president is soft on terror. I mean, all he does is send flying death robots around the world to kill al Qaeda members whenever they poke their heads above ground. What a pussy.

and not doing anything about Nuclear development in Iran and NK.

“Not doing anything” must mean “levying heavy sanctions on both countries and building up our military presence in the region in response” to this guy.

I suspect the democrats orchestrated this NSA scandal.

You thought I was kidding earlier when I said this guy actually fucking thinks that the NSA is a conspiracy to distract us from our God-given duty to hate fags? Nope. He really is that deranged.

I often wonder what the world must look like to one of these people who think everything is a conspiracy based around whatever they happen to hate.

“My coffee maker broke! Fucking homos!”

“A bird shit on my car! God damn you, Obama!”

“ObamaCare spoiled the end of Game of Thrones for me! Nooooooo!”

Dems have destroyed America ever since the civil war, FDR, Truman, JFK all were bad leaders and caused mass death in unnecessary wars.

…Unnecessary wars? You mean like World War II, the war that FDR and Truman fought? You think we need to bomb Iran and North Korea, but we shouldn’t have retaliated for Pearl Harbor, or stopped the Nazis from overrunning Europe?

And that’s the sentiment on which this dingleberry ends his dribble. Obama created fags, and we should have let the Nazis win. Thank you, Internet, for making me aware of this guy’s existence. Now excuse me while I go take a shower and silently weep for humanity’s future.

Religion vs. Reality

WingNutDaily has a story out of Washington about a woman who has made a very poor career choice.

Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson recently sued a Richland florist, Barronelle Stutzman, for alleged violations of state law authorizing same-sex “marriage,” but now he is finding himself a defendant for allegedly trying to violate the state and federal constitutions’ religious freedom provisions.

Bit of advice: If you don’t want to be around gay people, DON’T BECOME A FUCKING FLORIST.

But how exactly did she violate the “state law authorizing same-sex marriage”? How is that even possible? Here’s what voters in Washington voted on:

The ballot title reads as follows:[4]

The legislature passed Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6239 concerning marriage for same-sex couples, modified domestic-partnership law, and religious freedom, and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this bill.This bill would allow same-sex couples to marry, preserve domestic partnerships only for seniors, and preserve the right of clergy or religious organizations to refuse to perform, recognize, or accommodate any marriage ceremony.

Should this bill be:

Approved [ ]

Rejected [ ]

The ballot measure is accompanied by the following summary:

This bill allows same-sex couples to marry, applies marriage laws without regard to gender, and specifies that laws using gender-specific terms like husband and wife include same-sex spouses. After 2014, existing domestic partnerships are converted to marriages, except for seniors. It preserves the right of clergy or religious organizations to refuse to perform or recognize any marriage or accommodate wedding ceremonies. The bill does not affect licensing of religious organizations providing adoption, foster-care, or child-placement.

There’s nothing in there to break. There are no penalties mentioned. How could anyone “violate” this law?

Stutzman has served homosexual clientele with a wide range of floral products over many years, and also has employed those who portray themselves as homosexual, with no issue. But she decided she could not, without violating her faith, give the appearance of endorsing same-sex “marriage” by creating special services for such an event, according to legal documents in her case.

A few things here.

  • The same sex marriage law in Washington says nothing about fucking floral arrangements, so WND is clearly misrepresenting which law she’s alleged to be in violation of.
  • They’re likely doing this on purpose in order to create the illusion that legalizing gay marriage somehow harmed someone.
  • So if you provide floral arrangements, that means you endorse said wedding? Who made that fucking rule? If a serial killer eats a McRib, does that make Ronald McDonald a proponent of axe-murder?
  • There’s that word “special” that we see again and again from the dumbass wingnuts who want gays to be second class citizens. If a florist provides THE EXACT SAME SERVICE that a straight person gets to a gay person, that service suddenly becomes “special”.
  • She has Gay Friends. So it’s not like she hates gays. It’s all about Jeeeeeebus.
  • And you just gotta love the way WND insists on putting scare quotes around “marriage” whenever it’s a gay doing it. Note that this is not an opinion piece. They do this even in their articles which are supposed to be straight news. (See what I did there?)

Moving on, what in the great gobblin’ shitbuckets is this countersuit based on?

The countersuit asks for a declaration that Ferguson’s actions are “unlawful” and to enjoin similar future actions, reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation costs and “such other relief that the court deems just and equitable.”

The countersuit was filed by Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys on behalf of Stutzman, whom they already were defending from the attorney general’s complaint.

If there were a Bad Legal Advice Hall of Fame, this countersuit would have its own wing. I’ve already pointed out that there’s nothing in the law legalizing gay marriage that has anything to do with fucking flowers.  The law she actually violated is this one:

RCW 49.60.030

Freedom from discrimination — Declaration of civil rights.

(1) The right to be free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability is recognized as and declared to be a civil right. This right shall include, but not be limited to:

(a) The right to obtain and hold employment without discrimination;

(b) The right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement;

That’s right. Washington prohibits businesses from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. News articles about this issue clearly state this:

“Because she refused to sell flowers to Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Freed for their wedding,” the ACLU’s website states, “defendant Barronelle Stutzman aided Arlene’s Flowers in violating the Washington Law Against Discrimination by discriminating against the Plaintiffs on the basis of their sexual orientation.”

Maybe the ADF and WND should have paid a little more attention. And by a little more I mean any at all. She clearly broke the law. This countersuit has no hope of succeeding whatsoever, and is only going to be a big waste of money for them. Oh, and get this:

“He said he decided to get married, and before he got through I grabbed his hand and said, ‘I am sorry. I can’t do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ,’” Stutzman told KEPRTV News.

How does a sentence like that even exist? How could anyone possibly utter something so nonsensical and imbecilic without her brain giving up, shutting down, and putting her body into a permanent catatonic state?

“Everyone knows that plenty of florists are willing to assist in same-sex ceremonies, so the state has no reason to force Barronelle to violate her deeply held beliefs,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Dale Schowengerdt.

Do these guys really think that argument is going to fly? I’d love to see them try that in court.

“Your honor, I hearby submit that it is okay for me to break the law because there are other people who don’t break it.”

*Lawyer permanently enters catatonic state. He is placed on the courthouse lawn as a warning to others. He is later murdered by Mayor McCheese, who is exonerated on the basis that there are other people who wouldn’t have murdered him.*

“In America, the government is supposed to protect freedom, not use its intolerance for certain viewpoints to intimidate citizens into acting contrary to their faith convictions. Family business owners are constitutionally guaranteed the freedom to live and work according to their beliefs. It is this very freedom that gives America its cherished diversity and protects citizens from state-mandated conformity.”

Boiler, meet plate.

It’s especially amusing that they refer to our “cherished diversity” while defending a woman against a discrimination charge. Cherished by whom, exactly? Certainly not by any of the god-humpers. But they do have a worrying penchant for heaping praise the very things they fight against. The praise freedom while fighting to restrict it. They insist on the importance of equal rights while doing everything in their power to preserve inequality.  They babble about how much god loves women while carefully inserting as much government as they can into every vagina that walks the land. They love the Constitution, but try to violate it every chance they get. Jesus loves the poor and sick so much that he wants them to stay that way! It’s more to love, right?

Dumbshits.