Hands Up, Don't Discriminate Against Gays!

M

miles

Guest
Happy National Hate Week! Today, we're all hating on Indiana. Who will be the left's Emmanuel Goldstein next week?


Evidently, the sole function of the media these days is to subject the public to a steady stream of manufactured events: "Hands Up, Don't Shoot"; nuclear power kills; Lena Dunham's rape by a college conservative at Oberlin; the "mattress girl" raped at Columbia University; Jon Stewart is funny; a fraternity gang-rape at the University of Virginia; and a law protecting religious freedom will lead to separate water fountains for gays in Indiana.


The whole country has to keep being dragged through these liberal hate campaigns, but as soon as the precipitating event turns out to be a gigantic hoax, the truth is revealed like a bedtime story being read to a child: The ending is whispered and the narrator tiptoes out of the room.


Here's a time-saver: Whenever one of these conscience-shocking stories is promoted to front-page status by The New York Times and involves:


-- police brutality;


-- the environment;


-- a campus rape; or


-- gays;


... you can be pretty confident it's a hoax. As the saying goes, it didn't happen until it's reported by The New York Times, and not even then.


Many months, several million wasted taxpayer dollars and one cop's career later, even Eric Holder's Justice Department finally admitted that the whole "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" story was bunk.


After the Fukushima nuclear meltdown in Japan four years ago, Bill Nye "the (self-proclaimed) Science Guy" gravely informed CNN viewers, "This is all bad and very scary. ... You know, it's nothing but danger. It's nothing but very serious, very, very long-term problems."


Wired magazine recently reported that, in the four years since the disaster, more than 96 percent of food, fish and agriculture throughout Fukushima has contained less than one-sixth of the radiation permitted in food imported to Europe.



Lena Dunham, star of HBO's "Girls," was forced to retract her autobiographical account of having been raped by a campus conservative named "Barry."


The alleged rapist of Columbia University's mattress girl finally released her alluring texts to him, and now we all know she was a desperate, spurned lover, not a rape victim.


Sabrina Rubin Erdely's much-celebrated Rolling Stone story about a fraternity gang-rape at the University of Virginia turned out to be based on one poor, sad girl seeking attention by creating a fake online boyfriend and fantasizing her own gang-rape.


And this week, we all have to be in a panic about Indiana passing a measure that enshrines a basic principle of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, because of the utterly apocryphal assertion that the law will be used to turn gays away from restaurants.


The idea that generally applicable laws may, in certain circumstances, be required to accommodate individual religious beliefs has been around for centuries. That's why priests don't have to reveal penitents' confessions to the police and Quakers don't have to join the military.


Having won the war on gay marriage (by judicial fiat), now some liberal zealots insist on going house-to-house and shooting the survivors. They seem to seek out Christian businesses to provide floral arrangements and cakes for gay weddings so they can call the cops if the Christians try to pass.


A roomful of gays would say, "Why don't you guys just go to one of the nine out of 10 florists who would be happy to have your business?" (My guess is, if the zealots looked really hard, they might even be able to find a gay florist!)


That is all the religious freedom laws do: Encourage steely-eyed activists to stop requiring every last Christian to celebrate gay marriages.


Right now, in states that don't have religious protection laws, Christians are being compelled, by general non-discrimination laws, either to participate in gay marriages -- or go out of business.


With the law, the Christian gets a legal argument. He might win in court or he might lose, but he'd at least have an argument, thus encouraging the kill-the-survivors nuts to go to another shop for their gay weddings and stop doing their victory dances on top of Christians.


It's utter nonsense that any shopkeeper, least of all a nice Christian, would turn away a customer for any reason other than a deeply held religious belief, such as not wanting to participate in a gay wedding, a Planned Parenthood gala or any event involving Bill Clinton.


Do not assume that because liberals are in an absolute panic over Indiana's law, they must have a point. To the contrary, the more hysterical they are, the more you should assume the whole story is a sham.


When the journalist Richard Bradley raised questions about Erdely's Rolling Stone gang-rape story, Anna Merlan responded at Jezebel, calling his questions a "giant ball of sh*t," in an article titled "'Is the UVA Rape Story a Gigantic Hoax?' Asks Idiot."


Even after Rolling Stone had retracted the story and Charlottesville chief of police Timothy J. Longo confirmed that the man Jackie accused of precipitating the gang-rape didn't exist, his department merely "suspended" the investigation. I'm going to call Chief Longo with a complaint that I was raped by a unicorn to see if we can get him to actually "close" a case.


It's one thing to treat disturbed girls falsely crying rape with kid gloves. (Though the boyfriend of the Duke lacrosse false-rape accuser, Crystal Gail Mangum, might have wished she'd been held a little more accountable: Mangum was never prosecuted for her lies and she later murdered her boyfriend, thus dashing her hopes for a primetime show on MSNBC.)


But why do we have to treat liberal fantasists in the media as if they're children, too? Believing there's a monster under the bed is cute. Falsely accusing cops of murder, men of rape and an entire state of homophobia is not.


Every single cause championed by liberals is based on a fake story. They make up events that didn't happen and get apoplectic over things that never will happen. The definition of "liberal" is quickly becoming: people who believe their fantasies should be facts.


COPYRIGHT 2015 ANN COULTER

DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-04-01.html#read_more
 
An when we come in your deli take everything apart and wash it cuz we aint eating shit that got near pork. THE ISLAMIC MUTHAFUGGAS
 
People still pay attention to Ann Coulter? I thought her brain dead fan base had been coopted by Michelle Malkin.

:cool:
 
It must be great to be straight and white. I mean, you've never felt discrimination, you've never been humiliated because of your race, your skin color, your sexual orientation. Christ, if I had lived with such privilege, I don't know what I'd do with myself.
 
Also...

You know your legislation is a piece of shit when NASCAR calls you out!!!!
 
It must be great to be straight and white. I mean, you've never felt discrimination, you've never been humiliated because of your race, your skin color, your sexual orientation. Christ, if I had lived with such privilege, I don't know what I'd do with myself.

It is great. Occasionally, when I think of being white and male and straight and the spawn of damn near every asshole who mattered, from antiquity till 1930, I feel so smug I cant stand myself. I actually wallow in my superiority. You and the others cant imagine how cool it is.
 
OK, cutting through the hype from both edges (I know, I know, that's not likely possible on this forum), information please on how the Indiana law differs from the federal one signed by Clinton in 1993 and already adopted by 20 states? What, other than the opportunity to flame, does the Indiana law have in it that the 1993 federal law doesn't? I'm not claiming anything; I'm asking for the claims of others to be backed up.

In this link, http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/l...cle_52090c48-d8d7-11e4-ae55-bb16c63d9e67.html, someone who helped formulate the 1993 federal law claims there's nothing different in the wording of the Indiana law, that this won't go beyond screaming matches across the divide in functional application, and that there are a bunch of antidiscrmination laws in effect that mitigate the effect of this. Can someone point to evidence that Indiana will be exempt to these other laws?

I suspect that this is one of those cases where the functionality is a lot more limited than the hype (from both ends) and that the marketplace, indeed, will take care of it.

I don't see same-sex marriage in the United States being put into reverse and I don't mind reactionary candidates shellacking themselves ultimately in the polls for so publicly resisting it.
 
OK, cutting through the hype from both edges (I know, I know, that's not likely possible on this forum), information please on how the Indiana law differs from the federal one signed by Clinton in 1993 and already adopted by 20 states? What, other than the opportunity to flame, does the Indiana law have in it that the 1993 federal law doesn't? I'm not claiming anything; I'm asking for the claims of others to be backed up.

In this link, http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/l...cle_52090c48-d8d7-11e4-ae55-bb16c63d9e67.html, someone who helped formulate the 1993 federal law claims there's nothing different in the wording of the Indiana law, that this won't go beyond screaming matches across the divide in functional application, and that there are a bunch of antidiscrmination laws in effect that mitigate the effect of this. Can someone point to evidence that Indiana will be exempt to these other laws?

I suspect that this is one of those cases where the functionality is a lot more limited than the hype (from both ends) and that the marketplace, indeed, will take care of it.

I don't see same-sex marriage in the United States being put into reverse and I don't mind reactionary candidates shellacking themselves ultimately in the polls for so publicly resisting it.

The difference is that Indiana's law did not have LGBT as a protected minority, unlike the Federal Law, and all the other state laws.
 
OK, thanks. That would be relevant.

Arkansas had a similar bill, but the governor backed down and had it sent back to the legislature to be redefined. His son had signed a petition asking him to veto it. I think Walmart's calling him out had more to do with it, though.
 
Originally Posted by RjThoughts View Post
It must be great to be straight and white. I mean, you've never felt discrimination,


Now just how in the hell do you know that about me? You don't, do you?

Fucking moron.
 
Originally Posted by RjThoughts View Post
It must be great to be straight and white. I mean, you've never felt discrimination,


Now just how in the hell do you know that about me? You don't, do you?

Fucking moron.

Your actions on Lit show that you're either a WASP or a wannabe! Which one are you?
 
OK, cutting through the hype from both edges (I know, I know, that's not likely possible on this forum), information please on how the Indiana law differs from the federal one signed by Clinton in 1993 and already adopted by 20 states? What, other than the opportunity to flame, does the Indiana law have in it that the 1993 federal law doesn't? I'm not claiming anything; I'm asking for the claims of others to be backed up.

In this link, http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/l...cle_52090c48-d8d7-11e4-ae55-bb16c63d9e67.html, someone who helped formulate the 1993 federal law claims there's nothing different in the wording of the Indiana law, that this won't go beyond screaming matches across the divide in functional application, and that there are a bunch of antidiscrmination laws in effect that mitigate the effect of this. Can someone point to evidence that Indiana will be exempt to these other laws?

I suspect that this is one of those cases where the functionality is a lot more limited than the hype (from both ends) and that the marketplace, indeed, will take care of it.


I don't see same-sex marriage in the United States being put into reverse and I don't mind reactionary candidates shellacking themselves ultimately in the polls for so publicly resisting it.

You would be wrong.
LINK.

The Indiana law is basically the same as the federal RFRA act in 19 other states.

They slipped in two toxic paragraphs in the post-Hobby Lobby era.

The first is Section 7.3, which give ANY Indiana business (not just the very limited "closely held" businesses in the Hobby Lobby case) the right to assert it's religious beliefs to legally discriminate against any "non-protected class" of people in America.

"Protected classes" include race, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, etc.

"Non-protected classes" seem to consist entirely of.....wait for it....gays and lesbians! :rolleyes:

The second toxic change is technical but nasty: Enlisting the aid of the state government to help you prove you're being discriminated against by bigots requires the government to bend over backwards to first prove the business owner's rights weren't being discriminated against ("least restrictive" doctrine), which neatly flips the intent of the federal law on its head.

Bottom line: the legislation was designed to encourage legal discrimination against gays, in the hopes that it could force the issue to the Supreme Court to decide once and for all if homos are a "protected class" (i.e. "born that way" and Consitutionally protected) or a "nonprotected class" (i.e. a behavior that can be regulated by state law). The Supreme Court has been unwilling to address this for over ten years.

The bigot authors of this legislation are obviously betting huge that the Supremes will define homos as a constitutionally unprotected class, because it's prohibited in teh Bible.
 
You're in the minority with your room temp IQ.

Aren't you tired of being stupid?

Why are you so angry?
Does have a feeling of internet superior make you happy every day?
Does acting like a child helps you get through the day?

I know many observant Jewish men and women. They're not close to showing your anger. Most of them assumed I was, too, because of my surname. There's no discrimination you've had that I've not had, too, because of it, but I suspect you've never felt anything close as to being given slow service at a restaurant because of your skin color or because who you love.

So, you're a Wannabe WASP. We get it.
 
You would be wrong.
LINK.

The Indiana law is basically the same as the federal RFRA act in 19 other states.

They slipped in two toxic paragraphs in the post-Hobby Lobby era.

The first is Section 7.3, which give ANY Indiana business (not just the very limited "closely held" businesses in the Hobby Lobby case) the right to assert it's religious beliefs to legally discriminate against any "non-protected class" of people in America.

"Protected classes" include race, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, etc.

"Non-protected classes" seem to consist entirely of.....wait for it....gays and lesbians! :rolleyes:

The second toxic change is technical but nasty: Enlisting the aid of the state government to help you prove you're being discriminated against by bigots requires the government to bend over backwards to first prove the business owner's rights weren't being discriminated against ("least restrictive" doctrine), which neatly flips the intent of the federal law on its head.

Bottom line: the legislation was designed to encourage legal discrimination against gays, in the hopes that it could force the issue to the Supreme Court to decide once and for all if homos are a "protected class" (i.e. "born that way" and Consitutionally protected) or a "nonprotected class" (i.e. a behavior that can be regulated by state law). The Supreme Court has been unwilling to address this for over ten years.

The bigot authors of this legislation are obviously betting huge that the Supremes will define homos as a constitutionally unprotected class, because it's prohibited in teh Bible.

I'm still waiting for the gay couple that would have pizza served at their wedding. LOL
 
Why are you so angry?
Does have a feeling of internet superior make you happy every day?
Does acting like a child helps you get through the day?

I know many observant Jewish men and women. They're not close to showing your anger. Most of them assumed I was, too, because of my surname. There's no discrimination you've had that I've not had, too, because of it, but I suspect you've never felt anything close as to being given slow service at a restaurant because of your skin color or because who you love.

So, you're a Wannabe WASP. We get it.

LMAO!!!

You're the one making the accusations, schmuck!

You know nothing about me. Like most ignorant bigots you make blanket statements which have no basis in fact. Face it, asswipe...you're busted... you stepped in a pile of dog shit and can't get it off your shoe.

Next time think before you post, as difficult as that may be for you.
 
I'm still waiting for the gay couple that would have pizza served at their wedding. LOL

I can think of those that would do so. I also think they'd have no trouble finding a pizza parlor that could get pizzas to them still warm. The claim was made on the example given that it was the only pizza parlor in town, but I didn't see any evidence backing that up.
 
There are a lot of posters here, on both fringes of the spectrum, who are spitting their posts out in anger.
 
LMAO!!!

You're the one making the accusations, schmuck!

You know nothing about me. Like most ignorant bigots you make blanket statements which have no basis in fact. Face it, asswipe...you're busted... you stepped in a pile of dog shit and can't get it off your shoe.

Next time think before you post, as difficult as that may be for you.

And yet, you're the one acting like the child.

Before you accuse me or anyone else of bigotry, look inward and think before you press enter.
 
There are a lot of posters here, on both fringes of the spectrum, who are spitting their posts out in anger.

I'm not angry. I just love pointing out facts and bringing out true attitudes people have towards others. It's easy with some.
 
I can think of those that would do so. I also think they'd have no trouble finding a pizza parlor that could get pizzas to them still warm. The claim was made on the example given that it was the only pizza parlor in town, but I didn't see any evidence backing that up.

So far, none of those Same Sex marriages have served pizzas. The closest was my cousin's. She and her spouse had burgers and hot dogs served during the cocktail hour. (LOL Cocktail hour, what a joke..it lasted 3 hours)
 
Back
Top