Intelligent Imbecility

There are lots of ways to promote bigotry and ignorance. The easiest and most obvious is to just run around shouting “Fuck faggots!”, which accounts for 90% of internet traffic. Another is to declare that you heard from an invisible, silent being that exists…somewhere…that faggots are bad and don’t deserve equal rights. Another is to assert that it’s just your belief that faggots are evil, and how dare you insult my beliefs (which are insulting to other people) (oh, and I want my beliefs enshrined in the law)?

The problem with these approaches is that the public is catching on to them. Stupid can’t hide for long, and more and more people are saying “Fuck your beliefs” and giving gays equal rights anyways. “Damn it!” says the bigot. “I have to deny people their rights, but I can’t do it by being an obvious dumbfuck any more! Whatever shall I do?” The answer is provided, luckily for the bigot, in today’s Washington Post. You gotta be a sneaky dumbshit bigot. You gotta take what you think the opposition believes (which is, of course, nothing like what the opposition actually believes–you are a dumbfuck bigot after all!) and turn it around on them! You gotta be, not really clever, but what you imagine to be clever in your tiny little pea brain. You gotta be an intelligent imbecile.

Behold.

Is gay marriage really progressive?

  • By Norman Leahy and Paul Goldman
  • February 20 at 6:38 am

Ha! Take that, liberals! We put a question mark in our title! That should fill you with doubt about your own beliefs. ‘Cause that’s how intelligent imbecility works. We’re tricky and shit.

Same-sex marriage advocates, and their lawyers, cite Jefferson’s “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” to underscore everyone’s right to marry without state interference. Last week, they successfully challenged Virginia’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriages. Given current legal trends, there seems little doubt that the Supreme Court will ultimately agree with U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen’s ruling. Gay rights advocates believe this ruling is a major progressive advance.

I’m a gay rights advocate, and when I heard about that ruling the first thing I thought was, “Major Progressive Advance.” Except for the part where I never thought any such thing. Actually, my first thought was, “The bigots are gonna shit themselves,” and boy oh boy was I right.

We ask: Why is this progressive?

No you don’t. You never asked that. This is just a bullshit rhetorical device for you to try to make yourselves look smart while spouting idiocy. The only people you’re fooling with this shit are people who were already dumb enough to agree with you before you even wrote a word.

Or put another way: Why is giving the government more power over your personal life, as opposed to less, considered progressive?

Why are loaded, deliberately misleading questions the things you beat your wife with?

Oh, I’m sorry, was that out of line? I should have known you would never beat your wife. You just take out your frustrations by raping and murdering a hooker. My bad.

See? I can make up passive aggressive dogshit about other people and spout it without blinking! Publish me, Washington Post!

The government gives legal benefits to people in marriages that the government recognizes. All gay people are asking is that they receive the same benefits. It’s not that fucking hard to understand. This doesn’t involve government controlling their personal lives. But singling out gay people specifically to ban them from certain benefits? That DOES involve government interfering with people’s personal lives. No fucking duh.

Ironically, it may turn out that gay marriage advocates are trying to further cement a dangerous philosophical trend that they would normally see as conservative, retrogressive or even reactionary.

Ironically, there’s no irony here, since you’re just pulling this out of your tightly puckered asshole.

Gay marriage advocates believe the progressive position is to require every marriage to get the same governmental blessing. But this is actually not a progressive or liberating posture at all.

The right approach for those who believe in “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” freed from government control is self-evident: no government control over marriage.

This is becoming the new right wing way to promote straight privilege. They ignore all the legal benefits of marriage (hospital visitation, shared tax forms, tax benefits, etc.) and act like marriage is nothing but a word. But I guarantee you–if either of these guys’ wife is in the hospital, they’ll damn sure take advantage of the “government control” that lets them visit her. And when these two fucking nitwits file their taxes, they’ll damn sure let “government control” give them some marriage-based tax credits.

Which is to say, they’ll glad spew empty words about “government control over marriage” in a rag like the WaPo. That’s just words. But the moment it affects their real lives, everything they’re saying goes right down the shitter.

The same-sex marriage position requires first accepting the government’s right to sanction marriage.

It obviously doesn’t. It requires recognizing that straight couples get benefits that gays don’t. It requires recognizing how fucking unfair that is. It also requires knowing a right wing bullshit artist when you see one–and I see two that the WaPo decided deserved to have their verbal fecal matter spread to the entire country.

Moreover, advocates don’t merely agree to give government this power, they accept a state’s right to discriminate. The federal court decision overturning Virginia’s gay marriage ban is premised on the state failing to provide a sufficient reason for discriminating between couples wanting to get hitched. This presupposes the right of the government to sanction marriage. Ironically, this is the position of the supposedly conservative traditional marriage defenders.

Go back and read that paragraph again. The first sentence is supposed to tell us what the latter sentences will demonstrate. Read it. The first sentence has absolutely nothing to do with anything that follows. Read it again. I challenge you to explain how the first sentence is even tangentially related to anything that follows.

Keep in mind: The WaPo published this illogical garbage. And the WaPo is purportedly a respectable newspaper. Yeah, fucking right.

But the really important point to keep in mind here is PRIVILEGE. These two fuckheads have probably taken advantage of marriage rights numerous times.  They just take it for granted. Pick up your kids from school? Sure, Mommy and Daddy are married, and legally that’s all that’s required to retrieve your kids from school (even if they aren’t your biological children). They don’t even think about it. The only reason they can flippantly tell gays “Just don’t get legal recognition” is that they’re so used to legal recognition that they can’t even realize they have it any more.

Trust me, no married couple would ever voluntarily give up the legal benefits they enjoy. Norman Leahy and Paul Goldman are no different.

While the Supreme Court has made other important rulings on marriage in the past, no jurist ever suggested disagreement with state laws banning same-sex marriage — until recently.

It’s never been done before, so why do it now?

(Nota bene: This exact same argument could have been made against inter-racial marriage 60 years ago.)

Gay rights lawyers say such decisions were wrong, surely by today’s standards. We ask: What is progressive about conditioning the state’s right to sanction marriage on changeable judicial attitudes?

You don’t ask that. You’re not asking anything. Stop pretending that you’re capable of thought.

Anyone who reads this can see exactly what you’re doing. The bigots have lost the gay marriage debate on one front after another, so now you just wanna take your ball and go home. Just end legal marriage entirely! That oughta go over well! I’m sure the step-fathers out there who no longer have legal guardianship over their step-children won’t mind at all! Right wingers are smart!

The more principled approach, which is consistent across the philosophical spectrum, is leaving marriage to the religious and family institutions from whence it came.

What philosophical spectrum? Is there even such a thing as a philosophical spectrum? I’ve been studying philosophy since 2000, and I’ve never encountered any such thing.

Privilege is again at play here. What Leahy and Goldman are really asking is, “Can’t we just let the church (which already excludes gays) give us all the benefits and tell everyone who’s not like us to fuck off?” No, shithead, you can’t. It doesn’t work that way. Marriage is a civil contract. It has been for a very long time. And I know, you really want all the benefits to yourself, even if sharing them with others won’t cost you a thing. That’s because you’re suffering from a common disorder known in psychiatry as Being An Asshole.

Marriage existed long before there were government bureaucrats looking to raise revenue by collecting license fees.

Yeah, that’s why the government recognizes marriages. The tiny fees they get from licenses.

https://i0.wp.com/affordablehousinginstitute.org/blogs/us/wp-content/uploads/brilliant_cigar1.jpg

If a person meets whatever common sense, minimal legal requirements are established for people to wed — such as those related to age, health, mental capacity or banning incest — why should government approval be required?

That’s what the gays are asking. You seem to have missed this part.

You see, STRAIGHT marriages don’t require government approval. Wanna get married? Sure, why not. It’s not like there’s an exam. As long as you’re straight, you get married. Simple as that.

All gays are asking is that they be treated the same way.

If gay rights advocates truly believe marriage is a protected, inalienable right, then they should be in court arguing against state-sanctioned marriage per se.

It’s not that gays are destroying traditional marriage, it’s that they SHOULD be destroying traditional marriage. See how subtle and nuanced these bigots are becoming?

What about the traditional marriage position – that defining these unions is up to the states and that states have a vested interest in promoting traditional families? It runs counter to the conservative belief in limited government.

The true conservative position should be to let the church control everything. Christian hegemony for the win!

Same-sex couples are generally no better or worse at parenting than those with different sexual orientations. Limiting marriage on procreation grounds, even if legal, is a slippery slope that would trample the Constitution and personal liberties in a way worthy of China, not America.

That’s the only point in this op-ed where these two say anything even vaguely rational. But then they fuck it up by going, “China! Amiright?”

Most important, a marriage license is derivative, not the basic right at issue. If the right to marry is inalienable, then the government needs to stop seeing it as another revenue raiser or privilege creator.

We should just leave it to religious institutions! They secure privilege much more hatefully than the government ever could!

In practical effect, all same-sex marriage proponents are claiming is their inalienable right to be required to pay a marriage fee like everyone else.

How the fuck did this sentence make it past an editor?

All they’re claiming is a fee? So hospital visitation isn’t part of legal marriage? And neither is guardianship of children? What about inheritance rights? Adoption? Tax credits? Spouse benefits for insurance plans?

No, none of that exists. Well, it all does exist, but Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dumb are so caught up in their own privilege that they stupidly don’t even realize how much legal benefit they get from marriage. They think they can just erase the entire legal structure of the marriage cake and still get all the frosting. Well, sorry, fucknuts. It doesn’t work that way. If you actually got your way, you’d have no legal basis on which to claim you can visit your wife if she’s dying in the hospital. Think about that–if you ever even think at all.

Look, I’m not saying all conservatives are stupid. I’ve met a few smart ones. But too many of them are complete idiots. And the worst type of conservative idiot is the one who masters the English language just enough to make an argument that might be mistaken for rational human thought if viewed from a thousand miles away through layers of skin-melting fog. In other words, the one who’s able to gussy up his imbecility with just enough false erudition to be published in an overrated rag like the WaPo.

Advertisements

The First Church of Commerce

I hate the word “libertarian”. Not because I have anything against libertarians. Many libertarians are smart people with a lot of good ideas (and other ideas that I strongly disagree with). I like the fact that libertarians defy the two-party system and strive to transcend the tired, oversimplified, black-and-white politics of liberal vs. conservative. It’s not libertarians as a whole that piss me off.

What pisses me off is that any jackass can call him or herself a libertarian. This means that just as “socialism” has become an utterly meaningless term because of how people (including too many libertarians) apply it to others, so has “libertarian” as a label one applies to oneself. You might as well call yourself “smegmatarian” for all the word “libertarian” tells me about you. (Let’s just hope “smegmatarian” doesn’t work like “vegetarian”. Ew.)

Many so-called libertarians are virtually indistinguishable from your standard run-of-the-mill god-humper religious rightists. They stand for all the same things as the religious right, but because they worship the free market and think millionaires should be allowed to wipe their asses with starving children (we all know they’d do that if they got the chance), they call themselves libertarian.

Such is the case with Bob Livingston of personalliberty.com. And he really, really wants you to know just what a libertarian he is.

#1 Libertarian site! Free! Liberty! Shop the liberty store! Put on your freedom panties! Did I mention I love free liberty libertarian freedom! Buy my book!

#1 Libertarian site! Free! Liberty! Shop the liberty store! Put on your freedom panties! Did I mention I love free liberty libertarian freedom? Buy my book! It’s Free! (In that, you’re free to give me 30 bucks for it.)

For someone who loves personal liberty so much, you’d think maybe this guy would support the idea of people being free to practice harmless personal relationship choices without facing discrimination.  But this brings us to a problem I do have with libertarians in general: They usually understand personal liberty entirely in economic/commercial terms, and always purely from the supply-side. Any other form of personal freedom or rights just doesn’t register with them.

This is very much the case with Mr. Livingston, who just can’t comprehend why anyone might support gay marriage.

Gay Marriage Trumps 1st Amendment

December 10, 2013 by

No, it doesn’t. But that ain’t gonna stop you from pulling the dumbest fucking arguments in the galaxy from your liberty-hole, is it?

When government creates special rights for one group, it inevitably does so at the expense of the natural rights of the majority.

You sure you included enough dog-whistle terms in there? Maybe you should’ve found a way to cram in “job creators”, “gay agenda” and “urban thug”, just to be sure you’ve sufficiently whipped your Pavlovian conservative readership into an irrational frenzy.

Such is the case with abortion, where the courts created out of whole cloth a “right” for the mother at the expense of the unborn child’s right to life.

Fetuses are the majority now? When the fuck did that happen? Perhaps more importantly, HOW the fuck did that happen? Someone out there must have a serious case of clown-car vagina to make that work.

Or do you just not know what the phrase “such is the case” means? Well, you see how in your previous sentence you brought up the rights of the majority? Yes, I know how hard it is for god-humpers to remember the words they blurted out just seconds before, but really try this time. You see, when you end one sentence with “rights of the majority”, and then begin the next with “such is the case”, then what follows SHOULD BE A FUCKING CASE OF IT, YOU FUCKING ILLITERATE FUCK.

But none of this matters, because this claim about abortion is just god damn stupid. A fetus in the first two trimesters doesn’t have higher brain functions (I’ll avoid the obvious joke). It’s not thinking or feeling or experiencing or doing any of the things a person does. It doesn’t have any thoughts, so it doesn’t have rights any more than a rock or a tree or a Juggalo does. The woman carrying the fetus, however, does have thoughts and feelings and experiences, so she has rights. Once the fetus has a functioning brain and can survive on its own, this relationship changes. But before that happens, she could play fucking tennis with the fetus for all I care.

And such is the case with gay marriage and a recent judge’s ruling in Colorado that will require the owner of a bakery to serve homosexual couples over his religious objections.

Good galluping god gravy, man. Just stop using the phrase “such is the case”. A majority of Americans support gay marriage. You’re in the minority, Bob.

Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips declined to bake a cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins when he learned it was to celebrate their “gay” marriage. Colorado doesn’t recognize gay marriages, but the men had “married” in Massachusetts.

If you’re gonna use the smug conservative scare quotes, at least use them consistently. To punish you, I’m going to skip ahead to something you say just a few sentences later in your op-ed:

Note that there was no evidence in any of the cases that the businesses refused to serve the customers on the basis of their sexual preferences.

Remember that thing I said about conservatives being verbal goldfish, immediately forgetting what they said just a few seconds after they say it? Well, Livingston’s brain is hard at work flushing his own statements down his cerebral toilet with every word he types. One second, it’s “they refused to cater when they heard it was a gay marriage,” the next it’s, “Discrimination? What discrimination? I never said anything about discrimination.” *Flush!*

Masterpiece Cakeshop’s attorney Nicolle Martin said the judge’s order puts Phillips in the impossible position of going against his Christian faith.

“He can’t violate his conscience in order to collect a paycheck,” she said. “If Jack can’t make wedding cakes, he can’t continue to support his family. And in order to make wedding cakes, Jack must violate his belief system. That is a reprehensible choice. It is antithetical to everything America stands for.”

For example, he refuses to make cakes for divorced people getting remarried, because the Bible forbids that (in its many cake-related verses). What’s that? He doesn’t? He only applies this supposedly deeply-held belief to the gays?

What an asshole.

In a similar case, the New Mexico Supreme court ruled in August that a Christian couple could not refuse to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony. Gay marriages are not legal in New Mexico.

Let’s do that goldfish thing again. A few sentences after the above, we get this…

A common refrain from supporters of gay marriage legalization is that laws allowing gays to marry won’t affect anyone outside the couple. Clearly, this not the case.

*Flush!* As your New Mexico quote clearly indicates, this has NOTHING to do with legalizing gay marriage. Discrimination laws are a completely different thing. Your ball-fuckingly stupid argument contains its own refutation. The stuff you’re describing will happen whether gay marriage is legal or illegal, as you yourself clearly said.

So your argument against gay marriage isn’t even an argument against gay marriage. But your argument against discrimination laws is just as stupid. Freedom of religion does not include the ability to discriminate against others. You can’t just say, “God hates Jews” and then refuse to let Jews in your restaurant. That’s not how it works. The first amendment does not allow you to break the law.

But none of that matters to the freedom-loving libertarian, because he just simply can’t comprehend any kind of freedom other than businesses and corporations being free to do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want. Discriminate against already oppressed minorities? Sure. Rape the environment? Yeah, why not. Destroy the economy by giving sub-prime mortgages to people who never had a chance of paying them off? That’s poor people’s fault for not understanding the complexities of finance. Why couldn’t they just go to Yale like me?

There’s more to freedom that just buying and selling. Hell, there’s more to LIFE than just buying and selling. And something that makes buying and selling marginally more inconvenient isn’t the end of the world. So ease off, libertarians. Shallow, paranoid, and tunnel-visioned is no way to go through life.

God hates facts

While most of the rest of the country gradually moves towards equality on the gay marriage issue, Indiana is resolutely planting its feet in the past. There’s a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage headed for a vote some time in November 2014. Why, you ask? How could Indiana be this backwards when their neighbor Illinois just decided to join the 21st century and legalize gay marriage? The answer is simple. It’s because of assholes like this guy:

Gay marriage would violate God’s laws

You say that like it fucking matters. Yet God doesn’t seem to give a fuck about people violating his oh-so-sacred laws. Adultery is supposedly against his laws, yet it’s legal in all 50 states, and he hasn’t done jack shit about it. Did it ever occur to you that maybe he just doesn’t care about you or any other glorified primate on this planet?

In Sunday’s Indy Star, business columnist John Ketzenberger’s statement that Indiana’s passing of HJR 6 would make the state less economically competitive and that Indiana would become a “beacon for limiting rights” is as far from the truth as most of the other arguments that favor voting down the proposed amendment.

Apparently god hates punctuation. God’s law says you get just one comma in your paragraph. After that, you just have to string words together without any kind of structure or coherence until you reach that weary period at the end. If “comma” meant sex partner, “words” meant “every aspect of your life”, and “period” meant “miserable death”, then that’s also a pretty apt description of god’s views on sex and marriage.

The author of this dribble, Jim Riecker, makes no actual arguments against the claim that banning gay marriage would harm the economy. He just simply asserts it as fact. It’s what liberals believe–so it must be false! Logic!

But there is very good reason to think it’s true. Businesses of all sorts want to cater to the under-40 crowd. They spend lots of money, which is why most things are marketed towards them. And they overwhelmingly support gay rights, including the rights of gays to marry. They’re not gonna want to come to your state if your state presents itself as a backwards redneck shithole, which is exactly what Indiana is doing right now.

The fact is that the push to move this state to the secular left has nothing to do with economics or individual rights, but is another example of misdirection by a group and their supporters to engage in spiritual warfare through public opinion and deception against the laws of God that this nation was founded upon.

I bet you thought I was kidding about that whole “One comma then no more punctuation” rule, didn’t you? The lord works in mysterious ways, I guess. Either that or Indiana is currently experiencing a massive shortage in punctuation marks. If only punctuation were made from limestone! We could make a fuck ton of commas, periods, dashes, and parentheses here in Bloomington (one of the few sane places in Indiana).

This asshole could clearly use some. Here, dingleberry, let me try to make that sentence a little clearer for you:

The fact is, that the push to move this state to the secular left has nothing to do with economics or individual rights. but It is another example of misdirection by a group (and their supporters) to engage in spiritual warfare (through public opinion and deception) against the laws of God that this nation was founded upon.

There. It’s still a clunky, ugly paragraph. But at least it’s readable now.

And now that it’s readable, I see that I’m wasting my fucking time. “They want gay marriage because they hate baby Jeebus.” Real fuckin’ original. Yeah, the other side couldn’t possibly be concerned with helping gay people. They just hate your pathetic deity. A deity, I might add, who seems utterly impotent to actually address this issue himself. It wouldn’t be that difficult for Jeebus to just come down and say, “Hey, bros! Gay marriage? Cut that shit out.” But apparently he can’t get off the fucking god-couch. Lazy-ass motherfucker…

It seems like God’s law is always being conveyed by his sad little followers. It’s been, according to your ignorant followers, 6,000 years now, God. When are you gonna get your head outta your Holy Hole and actually do something?

The only opportunity that Indiana has in this argument is whether to remain a beacon for the laws of God.

True story. The other day I was in a bar here in Bloomington. This dumb hick sitting a couple seats down from me starts spouting out a bunch of racist jokes. And I mean, really bottom of the barrel dumbshit racist jokes, like “Why shouldn’t you play Uno with a Mexican? ‘Cause they get all the green cards! Hurr hurr hurr!” Keep in mind, in this bar, there was me, this racist asshole, and two black guys, and that’s it. He thought this was appropriate.

Eventually he turned to me and blurted out, “And you know what else?” I was sick of his shit, so I responded, “This better not be another fucking bad joke.” He looked nonplussed for a second, then proceeded to explain to me that Americans can apply for refugee status in Canada from the War on Drugs. I said that’s bullshit. Which, by the way, it is.

The motherfucker was so offended by this–a mild insult, by my standards–that he immediately demanded his tab and left the bar without speaking another word. He just simply couldn’t handle the idea that someone might point out that simple facts contradict basically every stupid, childish, racist, xenophobic thought in his barely functioning brain.

Indiana has too many of these fucking people. Mr. Riecker here just wants to shout “God’s law! God’s law! God’s law!” and simply can’t abide by someone saying something like, “A gay person whose loved one is dying isn’t allowed to visit them in the hospital because they aren’t allowed to get married. This is injustice.” If you say that, they demand their tab and storm off like spoiled children.

Maybe Illinois will spank them and set them straight.

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.

Gullibility to Galilee

Le pompe des enterrements regarde plus las vanité des vivants que l’honneur des morts.

–François de la Rochefoucauld, Maximes et Réflexions diverses

“The pomp of funerals is more for the vanity of the living, than for the honor of the dead.” Some might fault de la Rochefoucauld’s typically French cynicism and snideness (I can’t even read the French text without adding a sneer to the voice), but like many cynical assholes, he’s right. Generally speaking, when people call you a cynical asshole, they’re accusing you of saying too many true things. Funerals really are more about tamping down our existential dread in the face of inevitable death rather than “honoring” whatever poor sap just kicked the bucket.

This is why we spend a bazillion dollars on tacky, pointless caskets, flowers, headstones, and needlessly funnel billions of dollars into America’s lucrative funeral industry. Grief is easy to exploit. If you’re interested in just how much it gets exploited in this country, I recommend the excellent Bullshit! episode called Death, Inc. Grief makes people stupid. The funeral industry knows how to make money off this grief-induced stupidity.

And as with any industry, they only strengthen their brand when they combine it Jeebus.

Want your ashes spread where Jesus walked?

By Sara Sidner, CNN

No.

Nobody should.

A new business called Holy Land Ash Scattering is targeting U.S. Christians as customers.

They may or may not be atheist moles trying to prove just how gullible Christians can be…

Company president Larry Deverett says he has found the perfect spot for people of the Christian faith to have their own or their loved ones cremated remains scattered.

The spot is located in a small garden in an orchard on a hill above the Sea of Galilee, the area where the New Testament says Jesus prayed, taught and performed many miracles including walking on water.

“I researched the market and found that there is a strong need and demand for this type of service and the No. 1 location on the planet, when you are talking about spirituality, is the Holy Land,” Deverett said.

Translation: I saw all these televangelists scamming their Christian sheep and thought, “Fuck, I could do that!”

Deverett knows there will always be potential clients. The funeral industry will always have a source of clients since we all have to go sometime, and many of us will likely have a funeral of some sort.

Kinda funny how “spirituality” and “crass, exploitative capitalism that doesn’t actually create any useful product or service” always seem to go hand in hand.

One reason for an upswing in cremations may be economics. Simply put, cremation is cheaper than a burial.

So let’s make it expensive again by adding “Transportation to fucking Jerusalem” to the package.

For $750 after cremation, you can have your ashes shipped and scattered near the “Jesus Trail,” where a bearded man resembling a person right out of the Bible performs a ceremony. It is all put on a DVD and sent to the family.

The Jesus Trail is much like the Treasure Trail. They’re both hairy and have a dick at the end.

And seriously, Christians. If you wonder why I don’t take you seriously when you speak of the profundity of “spirituality”, it’s because to you guys it includes watching a cheap DVD of some guy dressed as Moses poor your grandpappy’s ashes out in a spot that might have come into contact with Jesus’ foot fungus.

The company is looking into trying to do a live feed over the Internet so you can watch it in real time.

Can’t you people just watch porn like normal humans?

“It’s a great privilege to be able to do this act of loving kindness for our Christian brothers and sisters, ” said Benzion Lehrer, who says the prayer and scatters the ashes.

Translation: I’m rich, bitches!

Deverett is hoping to draw business from far and wide.

Sadly, he might actually pull that off.

But the President of Holy Land Ash Scattering can’t use the service for himself or his family. He is Jewish and adheres to the traditional belief that his faith forbids cremation.

So his company has even less integrity than Hair Club for Men.

One more thing: Shame on you, CNN. This is not a news article. It’s a fucking puff piece. I would not be shocked at all if Holy Land Ash Scattering paid for it. The only interviews are with people from the company, nothing but nice things are said, and not a hint of skepticism is expressed. I expect this kind of “advertizing masquerading as news” horseshit from WingNutDaily, but CNN is supposed to be an actual news outlet.

The thing is, I know why WND takes so many obvious scams and writes them up as “news”. It’s because they know their audience. The average WND reader is a daft, gullible, bigoted, paranoid, ignorant nincompoop with a severely restricted stream of incoming information. They fall for shit like this, and WND can profit from their credulity, so they do it. The obvious question we should ask now is: What does CNN believe about it’s own audience?

Godly Goldfish

American news media is so pathetic that sometimes I really do wanna puke. It’s not just that they report on bullshit like a woman who claims that god sent her a sign on a goldfish cracker.  It’s that they do so without even a hint of skepticism or critical thought. The news mantra seems to be “Don’t think about it. Don’t question it. Just repeat it.” Woman says god speaks to her through crackers? Okay. Let’s disseminate this to the world exactly as is. And that guy over there having an in depth conversation with an empty KFC bucket while urinating in the street? He seems credible. Let’s just regurgitate whatever words dribble from his mouth whenever it doesn’t have a crack pipe in it.

MELBOURNE, Fla. –

A Brevard County woman found more than she expected while eating a bag of Goldfish crackers, according to Local 6 News partner Florida Today.

Patti Burke eats two or three pounds of Goldfish crackers in a week, one by one, looking for the saltiest of the snacks.

Okay, that can’t be healthy.

But only once has she found a sign from God on a little orange cracker.

The sign said, “Eat something other than goldfish crackers, you crazy bitch!”

“When I picked this one up, I knew he was special,” the Melbourne woman said of her Holy Week discovery. “He had a cross on him, and he had a crown circle up by his head. Something I’ve never seen before out of all the Goldfish I’ve eaten.”

Seeing as you’re basically a walking Goldfish Holocaust, I’ll grant that at least you’re right about it being rare.

So what exactly does this sign from God look like?

Goldfish

And I’m supposed to be impressed with this…why?

“I called Pepperidge Farm and said, ‘Hey, do you have some special promotion going on, I think I’ve got the lucky fish,’” she said. “They called me back and said there’s no way this could have been printed like that in the factory. … They said it sounds like something miraculous happened and we don’t know how it happened.”

There’s no way! Nothing on the machine that makes the goldfish crackers could ever make that shape! It could only be a miracle! There is literally nothing on a machine shaped like–

Pan Head Machine Screw3

Damn it! Stop piddling on my Jesus parade with your silly “facts” and “really obvious shit.”

It should be noted that the Yahoo! News version of this story includes an important caveat which the local Florida affiliate failed to mention:

(That comment has not been confirmed by Pepperidge Farm.)

Yeah, no shit.

And another thing about that Yahoo! News story. It begins thus:

It’s a fishy story, but the woman telling it believes it’s pure gold.

*Vomit*

Journalists, please. Just stop doing this. I seriously don’t understand why you guys are unable to express yourselves without the use of puns. Did you notice above how I didn’t make some sort of pun on the machine having a “screw loose”? Follow my example. Let’s call for a sweeping moratorium on all puns in the news. If you guys are going to report this bullshit so credulously (note that the obvious phillips head screw explanation isn’t even considered in either news report), the least you could do is avoid raping comedy and the English language in the process.

All the kewl kids are bigots

Hey, kewl kids! I’m hep wit da lingo, yo, and I wanna tell you dudes about all the krunk shiznit my dawg Jesus be doin’, yo! If you wanna be da Big Dawg, you gotta be down wit da Lynch Mawb, yo! Word to yo’ mama, bitch! Those whack liberals be trippin, yo, if they ain’t down wit da rope, dawgz! Lynchin’ nigs iz DA BOMB, y’all! Jesus loves lynching, homies!

I presume the above wasn’t enough to convince anybody that lynching is the hip, cool thing to do. I presume this because I don’t think people are utter morons who need to be lead around like sheep. But that’s because I’m not Christian.

Basically any time society decides that some practice is a backwards, cruel relic of a more ignorant time that should be abandoned, someone will come along to try to make it “cool” again. I can’t imagine how it could ever work, and know of no instance where it has, but making outdated, boring, bigoted crap out to be the hip cool thing is a common pass time amongst conservatives who just can’t deal with the fact that society (like almost everything else) changes over time, but also don’t want to be viewed as a complete fossil by the under-30 crowd.

Enter this douche-toaster:

His name is Doug Giles, and unfortunately he’s not nearly as cool as that other Giles, despite being much younger. No, this Giles is senior pastor at Clash Church (apparently Rob Liefeld consulted on the name). This is how he describes himself at his TownHall.com profile:

Doug Giles is the Big Dawg at ClashDaily.com. Watch him on ClashTV. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter. And check out his NEW BOOK, Sandy Hook: When Seconds Count, Police Are Minutes Away.

“Big Dawg”. Jesus titty balls, do I hate these guys. The “hip” preachers, the ones who try to make Christianity out to be something other than the outdated, irrelevant superstition that it is.  When I was a kid and my parents forced me to go to church, our youth group was subjected to endless amounts of simpering, pandering horseshit from these types, and endless amounts of inane praise “music” cynically designed to mimic modern pop music without any of that nasty nuance or originality or creativity. These guys are an utterly empty marketing ploy more ill conceived, out-of-touch and downright cringe-inducing than McDonalds’ infamous I’d Hit It campaign. Honestly, I’d rather listen to one of the stodgy old preachers and the classic hymns than have to spend five minutes around one of these types.

Religion is not, nor will it ever be, hip. It’s not cool. It’s not edgy. It’s not. It’s just not. Religion is everything old and backwards and boring and patronizing. It’s the apotheosis of the status quo, the lionization of the imagined past, the bulwark against which anything new or progressive or challenging or groundbreaking must contend. Religion is Spam, station wagons, public lynchings and “Damn kids get off my lawn” all rolled up into one big, greasy, hypocritical wad of irrational dogma. Wearing sunglasses and calling yourself “dawg” won’t change that. You’re not hip. You’re lame. Deal with it.

But of course, he won’t. Rather, he’ll write insufferable op-eds at Town Hall full of hamfisted humor and confabulated coolness to try to convince the millennial generation that all the kewl kids want to interfere with gay peoples’ relationships.

The other day I was on a radio show being interviewed about my new Sandy Hook Massacre book when the conversation turned to gay marriage. I’m sitting there thinking, “Huh?” … “I didn’t sign up to talk about gay marriage” … “Good Lord, man, I’d rather watch Yoko Ono do an interpretive dance to “Riders on the Storm” then yap about two big lesbians wanting to get hitched.”

Huh huh. It’s funny ’cause they’re fat. And gay. Gayfat is funny. Huh huh.

Number One. Before I directly address the gay marriage issue, allow me to state that I care more about the $16.7 trillion in debt that our nation’s mired in, our evaporating Bill of Rights and national security issues than I do whether or not Brad and Chad can be betrothed. Call me selfish and ill focused.

Okay. You’re selfish and ill focused.  Talking about gay marriage doesn’t stop you from also talking about other (real or imagined) problems. And the fact that you’re writing an entire article on gay marriage makes me suspect that your claim that you don’t want to talk about it is disingenuous at the very least. But more importantly, the reason you don’t want to talk about it is that you want to be able to outlaw someone’s basic rights without ever having to justify your actions to the public. You don’t want to talk about it because it’s easier to oppress a minority when no one talks about them. So, yes, you’re selfish and ill focused. You’re also an assfuck.

In addition, I told my host that, as long as we have men and women in harms way who have to ration food, fuel and ammo due to the sequestration, I don’t give a rat’s backside about gay marriage. I’m so mean, eh?

Listen, right wing nuts. We need to get something straight. Do you, or do you not, support budget cuts? It seems like you’re always asking for them, but then when they come (along with the loss of jobs that always coincides with budget cuts) you suddenly start bitching and moaning about how horrible budget cuts are.

You got what you asked for. The government slashed the budget. People lost their jobs as a result. This is what you wanted. Stop fucking crying about it.

With that said, I went on to inform Mr. Radio Show Host, that if he really wants to get down to brass tacks regarding where I stand on the gay marriage issue, well then, here it is: I am against gay marriage, especially Liza Manelli’s former marriage to David Getz. That was the gayest thing that I have ever seen in my life and it should have never happened.

Sigh… This is just getting tedious.

Not knowing why he was so interested in the gay marriage debacle I asked him, “Why do you care? Do you want to marry a man or something? Do you think you got a shot at Ryan Seacrest?” He was speechless.

“Speechless” is the hip new lingo for this:

https://i2.wp.com/fc09.deviantart.net/fs50/f/2009/330/2/a/Facepalm_by_iceman_3567.jpg

As our segment was wrapping up I told him if he wanted someone on his show that’s a staunch supporter of gay marriage then he should invite on some divorce lawyers because they can’t wait for the gay marriages to get a-crankin’.

That’s funny, seeing as divorce lawyers tend to be busiest in states like Oklahoma, where gay marriage is illegal and churches are more common than Starbucks and red dirt. (I don’t say this to demean Oklahoma–I love my home state. I just wish it didn’t contain so many hypocrites and morons.)

In all seriousness, I’m kind of torn on the gay marriage issue

How long is this “seriousness” thing going to last?

I’m split between Ted Nugent’s take on homo-matrimony and Jesus Christ’s opinion on the issue.

Not even one sentence, I see.

Nugent told me a few years back that he didn’t mind gay marriage if: A). We didn’t call it marriage. B). We didn’t have to pay for it via our tax dollars and C). it was only between two good-looking lesbians.

This is why A) nobody gives a fuck about Nugent, B) I wish our tax dollars didn’t go to either of his two marriages (but nobody ever asked me–at least he only married 2 out of the 4 women he’s had children with…), and C) telling the same joke for a 1,067th time doesn’t make it funny.

Hmmm. Interesting, Uncle Ted but what would Jesus do? What’s Christ’s take on the gay marriage conundrum?

No, let’s go back to Nugent. I can almost take him seriously.

I’d like to know because, as a Christian, I probably ought to listen more to Jesus than to the “Motor City Mad” man on such a serious issue, right? Right.

Wrong. You shouldn’t listen to either of them.

According to Matthew 19:4-6 Jesus said, many moons ago when He was walking the mean streets of Galilee, that marriage is a union that God ordained between a man and a woman. He said it. I didn’t. So, if you’re going to get pissy then take it up with the Son of God.

How ’bout I take it up with the bloviating frat boy douchenozzle insisting that I should give a fuck about what this alleged “Son of God” had to say at all?

Now, I would remind those who supposedly take their cue from Jesus that there were gay dudes and dudettes around Him in His day.

Ugh. Just ugh. You are not hip, motherfucker. Stop trying. I’m only 31, and already I’m old enough to know better than to try and talk this way. Just give it up, “dawg”.

It’s not like homosexuality just started showing up during Liberace’s lifetime.

Holy shit balls! Liberace was gay! That’s such a clever pop culture reference!

Gays have been around since the dawn of man. Matter of fact, I think that was the name of the first gay rock band.

Can we please just go back to Ted Nugent? He’s a piece of shit and all, but at least he’s unintentionally funny sometimes. This shit is just becoming intolerable.

Indeed, several cities such as Sodom and Gomorrah celebrated homosexuality, as did ancient Greece and Rome. By the way, what ever happened to those cities and cultures?

They declined, as all cultures eventually do. The decline had nothing to do with homosexuality. In fact, the Roman Empire’s decline actually coincided with its widespread acceptance of Christianity. Not that you care about stupid, uncool things like facts.

The God of Love said, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, in the midst of a culture that contained gays, that when it comes down to what constitutes a marriage in God’s eyes, well … that would be a union that is fundamentally betwixt a guy and a girl.

Lo, doth he bravely proclaim the majority opinion in a society where a minority doth have the temerity to exist! And in public!

But then again … what does Jesus know? Heck … He can’t be smarter than a postmodern twenty-something, can He? Surely, He’s not keener than a radical Leftist. Jesus couldn’t have been shrewder than say, Rosie O’Donnell when it comes to the divine pattern prescribed for the continuity of God’s created order for humanity, right? Huh?

He was certainly not as smart as Thomas Jefferson, and yet Jefferson owned slaves. The man was a product of his times, and no matter how smart he was, he was still wrong on many issues. There’s no reason to think Jesus had any special insights on sexual politics in the 21st century; just like Socrates, smart as he may have been, is not a very good source for erudition on modern geopolitics. And what the fuck is “the divine pattern prescribed for the continuity of God’s created order for humanity”? Theology seems to give people this weird predilection for lapsing into laughable prolixity whenever they want to say something like “Fuck fags” or “Bitches need to get back in the kitchen.”

So, what do you guys think? Was Jesus out to lunch on what constitutes a marriage in God’s eyes or what?

Yes. His lunch was penis.

With all that said, how effectively is Doug Giles reaching America’s youth? Let’s look at some comments on his op-ed…

Ann Anon Wrote: 12 minutes ago (8:57 PM)

 Imagine; in the 50’s I stopped some of my girlfriends from speculating on the relationship between our girl team’s two coaches who were ah, roommates and the subject of homosexuality. A suspicion like that would get them both fired. I told them it was a terrible thing to accuse two nice ladies of without any more proof than a lease in common. They agreed and never mentioned it again. I thought I was really brave to stand up to my fellow students. And now in the year 2013 that makes me a homophobe.
I see he’s locked in the crucial Under 80 demographic.
Georgetwin-In-Pa Wrote: 2 hours ago (6:57 PM)

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!The FAT PIG, Rosie O’Doughnuts is ALREADY divorced!!!http://www.ihatethemedia.com/rosie-odonnell-kelli-carpenter
Bwahahaha! That totally validates Nugent’s multiple marriages!
uvuvuv Wrote: 3 hours ago (5:41 PM)

if the gays are so wildly accepted, where are the movies? the silly comedy romances? if they were truly so accepted the theaters would have lines 2 blocks long for the gay loves gay movies. so far all we had was broken back mountain. one movie.
The pop culture knowledge is strong with this crowd. I’d tell them about my favorite gay movie, Room in Rome, but I’m having trouble shouting over the gigantic erection I get every time I watch it.
uvuvuv Wrote: 3 hours ago (5:36 PM)

gays are mutants and i think if we throw society over to them we might as well have 6 fingers pride parades or spinal bifida studies in the public schools starting with kindergarten. churches can welcome their new cystic fibrosis members, and the muscular dystrophy legation can petition for acceptance in the nba. after all, fair is fair.
Dear Doug Giles,
This is your audience. You brought this on yourself.
Sincerely,
Wes
P.S. Go fuck yourself.