Gay/Lesbian Issues

Could Rep. Polis Try to Push Gay Anti-Discrimination Bill to House Floor for Vote?

|

Jared Polis, Rainbow Warrior
Credit: Jeffrey Beall / photo on flickr

One of the less-libertarian efforts by gay gamer dad Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) has been taking up the leadership reins to get the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) finally passed after years and years of failure. This law, which would ban private employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, has passed the Senate but is going nowhere in the Republican-controlled House. An attempt to draw more conservative support for the legislation by providing a fairly broad religious exception caused a backlash within the gay community, and several activist groups dropped their support in the wake of the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court ruling (the fact that the actual text of the ruling doesn't simply give employers freedom to discriminate however they want on the basis of religious beliefs has been ignored).

Polis is now attempting to change the religious exemption to make it more restrictive by using the language from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so the exemption would be limited to actual religious institutions.

The Washington Blade in D.C. thinks this move may be an attempt to use a discharge petition to take the legislation to a floor vote despite House Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) refusal to bring it up. The publication notes:

A discharge petition for an ENDA with a narrow religious exemption would be consistent with what House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) declared during a news conference this month when she said he had a "plan" for ENDA that she couldn't disclose at the time. 

The Blade, though, may be overanalyzing the possibilities, as discarge petitions are rare and don't often succeed. After getting vague, non-committal responses from both Polis' office and Pelosi's office, the Blade notes that the Republican co-sponsor of ENDA, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), would not sign a discharge petition. The petition requires a majority of House members to sign on, which means a significant number of House Republicans would have to be willing to publicly embarrass Boehner for not allowing ENDA to come to a vote. While gay anti-discrimination laws are publicly popular, and more and more Republicans are declaring support for them, I'm not sure we've reached a state where Republican House members are going to be willing to fracture the party even further on this, especially with the tightened religious exemptions.

NEXT: 3 More Jurisdictions That Could Legalize Marijuana This Year

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Everyone together: You can’t legislate morality.

    This law wouldn’t ban discrimination. It would just make it even harder for employers to fire people they don’t want to employ for ANY reason.

    1. Even God couldn’t do it. Checkmate Progs.

  2. More lawsuits! Yay!

    1. We must break the great cake-baking litigant unions.

    2. When did “we must have fewer lawsuits” become part of the freedom agenda? What the fuck does it have to do with anything?

      All things equal, more lawsuits happening would seem to indicate more freedom.

      1. This is more government control over individual decisions, more bureaucracy, more money, more compliance costs, more reason not to start a business. And with a “broad religious exemption” it’s nothing more than empty campaign rhetoric fodder. It’s pointlessly destructive.

        1. Have the exact same protections for women, minorities, and the disabled been destructive to capitalism? Isn’t it a flaw in justice to leave out the gays while protecting everyone else? Or is there some rational reason to continuing to allow discrimination against gays?

          1. Only a vile immoral prog could promote bolstering one group’s privilege at the expense of another’s rights.

            You are a disgusting creature.

            1. And you’re an annoying simpleton. “Privilege” is what these efforts are trying to minimize. Getting the same access to society and commerce that straight, white males have is not gaining a privilege. Fuck.

              1. Not only are you immoral, but you are a fucking idiot on top of it.

                Making protected classes IS PRIVILEGE. It’s the only privilege that exists. It creates a protected group at the expense of someone else’s right to free association.

                You are a vile pig.

                1. Hey, you can’t discriminate against people for being white either, so there is no privilege.

                  You’ve got this entirely ass-backward. The only reason there was a need to create so-called protected classes is because of the de facto privilege enjoyed by others. Are you against privilege or aren’t you?

                  1. I have the right to free association. I can discriminate against anyone I choose. As can you.

                    You are attempting to strip people of their rights to get extra shit. But you are fine with that, because your philosophy is immoral at its core. Progs have NO PROBLEM stripping people of their rights, stealing from them or EVEN lining them up and killing them, so long as they get their way.

                    I am for liberty…for all.

                    You would stomp on it to take shit that you have no claim to.

                    1. I am for liberty…for all.

                      Yeah, well Tony has made it clear that he supports liberty as well. As long as it means coercion.

                  2. ‘Hey, you can’t discriminate against people for being white either, so there is no privilege.”

                    Actually dumbass yes you can. White people are explicitly not a protected class.

              2. Do religious people have rights? I would support the right of a gay businessman to say that he would not hire people of faith because they discriminate against gays and he doesn’t feel that he should be forced to employ someone who feels that his lifestyle is sinful. By the same token, I would not force a religious person to employ a gay person if doing so would violate the employer’s sense of morality. In both cases I would say that the employer is making a foolish business decision but I believe that the market should penalize them for their decisions, not the government.

                1. I think sexual orientation should be treated exactly like race and sex are treated under the law, and that religion should continue being treated as it is under Title VII of the CRA.

                  Don’t you think it would be problematic to give religious people an extra exemption when it comes to gays that they don’t get when it comes to racial minorities? That’s still treating gays as second-class.

                  1. I think sexual orientation should be treated exactly like race and sex are treated under the law

                    So you want extra shit at someone else’s expense. Go figure.

                  2. I think…

                    No you don’t. You feel. You’ve never had a thought in your entire life.

              3. Getting the same access to society and commerce that straight, white males have is not gaining a privilege.

                You name ONE right that a straight white male has that a gay black female doesn’t already enjoy.

                NAME JUST FUCKING ONE!

                1. The right to marry in any state in the country.

                  1. The right to marry in any state in the country.

                    Anyone can get married to anyone or anything. Oh, you mean to have the marriage recognized by your god Government. Because nothing is real unless your god Government says it is, right Tony?

                  2. Not technically true. Marriage is legal in every state in the country.

                    Plus you have already thrown out the right of association so I’m not sure what right you think marriage falls under.

                    1. To Tony the right to marriage means the right to coerce people into recognizing a marriage that goes against their faith. Because to Tony liberty means coercion. Liberty means initiating force against others. He worships violence.

                  3. The right to marry in any state in the country.

                    As I said previously. You already have it. And I support it.

                    You are “equal” to me in the eyes of the law. You don’t get any special privileges as that would make us unequal in the eyes of the law.

                    You aren’t supporting inequality are you Tony?

          2. An argument could easily be made that in the case of women and the disabled yes it has harmed the economy. Not that their having equal rights is harmful but rather the law enforcing it has been

            1. If I’m not mistaken, unemployment among the disabled has risen dramatically since passage of the ADA.

      2. Lawsuits=freedom

        Words fail.

        1. Tony honestly feels that liberty means coercion.

          Notice I said “feels.” That’s because he doesn’t think. All he knows is emotion. He’s an animal that acts upon impulse, instead of a human being that uses its frontal lobe.

          1. Oh good you’re here. You always manage to contribute negative value to every conversation. Maybe you can go downthread and delete some of that inane bullshit.

  3. A poll that’s not about millenials

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/174…..-year.aspx

  4. One of the less-libertarian efforts by gay gamer dad Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) has been taking up the leadership reins to get the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) finally passed after years and years of failure.

    You say this as if this is some sort of aberration in Polis’ voting record. Polis is a prog. Granted, he is a consistent and intelligent one, which means that he is less of a hypocrite on e.g. drugs or war than his fellow Democrats — but that is what he is. He is not “libertarian leaning” any more than a conservative who supports free markets and the WoD is “libertarian leaning” merely for his support of the former.

    1. Polis is also big on anti-fracking, I believe. Actually annoying his statewide Dems because he’s pushing some anti-fracking referendums for the fall, and fracking is popular enough that the Gov and Senate Dem candidates prefer to refuse to state their position.

    2. Bbbbut, he’s gay and a gamer. How could he not be libertarian?

      1. Neither of those signs are symptoms of libertarianism.

  5. This is purely political. It does absolutely nothing except further alienate those people who vote against it for any reason from certain demographic groups. Which of course is what this bill is designed to do in the first place.

  6. I still don’t get how gays get lumped in with gender identity. One is saying “I know that most people like a chocolate ice cream cone, but I like vanilla”. The other is “I am a chocolate ice cream cone.”

    1. So, wait. You have your decades confused, I think. Is this a choice or not?

      The 90’s said choice. Everything was choice. My choice, my right, my everything.

      The aughts say nuh-uh, mofo. This is determinism. Clearly — game, set, match.

      Who knows what expediency the teens will give us for desired ends?

      1. Back in the 90s it was considered insulting to say people were gay because of genetics since saying that implied there were somehow defective or mutated. Now it is insulting to say it isn’t genetic.

        The facts change with the needs of the revolution.

        1. I love when people argue with me about it, because I went to one of those awesomely elite liberal arts schools and heard it was all about choice, because otherwise, the abortions were coming.

          No kidding.

          It’s actually kind of fun to watch. People tell me I even misheard or got misyelled at for kind of insinuating that you knew who was gay on the playground at around ten years old.

          But heaven forbid.

          I don’t care about gay rights that much, frankly. I care about the way so-called “politically correct arguments” are shaped, and people are branded heretics or not based on certain positions that were accepted ten years prior.

          It’s disgusting to me.

          1. It is. Gays are less than 5% of the population, yet we obsess about them as much today as we did about Blacks 50 years ago.

            1. When they have all the same rights you do, we can stop “obsessing.” If all you stupid assholes would just give up your inevitably losing fight to keep minorities in their place, things would move along a lot quicker.

              1. Actually, I’m not interested in keeping minorities in their place. I’m interested in your compulsion and obviously totalizing attitude.

              2. What rights do straight people enjoy that gays don’t Tony?

                1. The right to marry (people they have any interest in marrying so don’t start with that bullshit).

                  1. The right to marry

                    What the fuck are you talking about? Of, course you have the right to marry. The courts have thrown out EVERY SINGLE gay marriage ban that was passed on 14A grounds.

                    You are now equal. NOW, shut the fuck up and enjoy it. You don’t get “extra” shit.

                    1. What extra shit? And I’m still not allowed to marry. But yeah I will soon enough.

                      Then… what? What do you want exactly? For gay people to stop talking in your presence? For people to never talk about gay people in your presence?

                      Talk about special privileges. Entitled fuck.

                    2. WHAT DO YOU MEAN WHAT EXTRA SHIT?

                      (ENDA) finally passed after years and years of failure. This law, which would ban private employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity

                      You are asking to become a protected class. You are asking for more protection than everyone else gets.

                      What do you want exactly? For gay people to stop talking in your presence? For people to never talk about gay people in your presence?

                      What are you talking about, you stupid fuck? Gays have and should have all the rights and protections as everyone else. AND NOT ONE BIT MORE!

                      If you want equal rights, you have no better advocate than I. If you ask for more (like a thieving prog), you will lose my advocacy.

                    3. You are asking for more protection than everyone else gets.

                      I don’t think you know what the fuck you’re talking about. ENDA is simply extending protections already afforded to other groups (races, sexes, disabled people) in the CRA and other laws, to sexual orientation. We don’t want extra rights, just the same ones.

                      At the very least, can’t you acknowledge that if we are going to have nondiscrimination law, sexual orientation should be included?

                      And if you’re so damned concerned with the carnage antidiscrimination law has brought upon freedom, why are you bitching about this instead of the stuff already on the books?

                    4. ENDA is simply extending protections already afforded to other groups

                      EXACTLY CORRECT. You are asking for protections other groups don’t get. Can a guy be fired for going bald? Can a person be fired for getting fat? Can someone be fired for a skin condition? Of course they can. If I own a private company, I have the right to hire and fire whomever I please, for ANY reason I pull out of my ass.

                      Dictating who I associate with, violates my rights, causes resentment and is a surefire way to ensure the equality, you claim, to want never happens.

                      You are too fucking stupid to understand that voluntarily accepting others as equals is NOT the same thing as forcing someone to do it. But, again, if you were smart, you wouldn’t blindly follow the evil ideology you do.

              3. So, stop government poverty programs? That’s what’s “keeping minorities in their place,” their place being on the Dem plantation. And that’s why any minorities who dare to stray off the plantation are so viciously attacked by “progressives.”

            2. It’s not about numbers. Jews are a small minority, yet it ought to be wrong to discriminate against them.

              It’s that they aren’t turned on by the prospect of procreative-style sex (oh no! Older couples! sterile couples!). Modifying public policy to distort that reality, because you feel sorry for your Uncle Bob who got bullied for his orientation, is a bad idea.

              1. they = same-sex attracted men and women.

            3. I actually don’t care about the level of the population that is gay, it’s the intellectual dishonesty and the isolationist shaming and ridicule that upsets me, so we kind of have to part ways there.

              1. You mean the fact that you can’t be a bigot against an entire minority group in polite company anymore? You truly are the real victim.

                1. No, it’s that your premise changed. And that innocent statements made about someone like, say, Kevin Brown, who was queer when he was ten was shamed as illicit and stupid. I didn’t even hate the guy. At all. He was just…gay. At the age of ten.

                  But in the 90’s, at college, I’d already been shamed for believing the aughts version of genetics back before it was cool. And was ridiculed for not an anti-gay stance, but a stance that sort of reflected what I thought was reality. Now that it suits your political ends, you’re all for it. I don’t trust you because you’re intellectually Machiavellian and dishonest.

                  Eat a bag, you loser.

                  1. So keep the fuck up. You’re still blaming ALL GAYS for… whatever the fuck you’re bitching about, which I still don’t quite understand. That’s the problem. Disagree with some gay activists. Fine, who gives a fuck. But you’re saying you’re a victim of ALL GAYS because you’re confused or whatever. That, ta da, is what we call bigotry.

                    1. No. This is just nonsense. I blame gays for nothing. You’ve labelled me a bigot and other stuff, which doesn’t seem to flow with the argument. At all. I think you’re just in over your head, son.

                    2. I may not be old enough to remember the gay rights rhetoric of the 90s, and I was a wee child in the 80s when we gays were, you know, all dying of a horrible disease and being ignored and shamed by society like the lowest possible caste in society, but I’m sure you’re very sincere in how hurt you are that the rhetoric changed.

                    3. This really goes nowhere. There was a terrible disease that killed innocent people.

                      Your infuriation with the lack of response to said disease does not detract from the argument that one got ridiculed for explaining the cause for being gay in the 90’s.

                      Again, sorry if you lost friends or loved ones. That’s not what we’re discussing here. We were discussing the changing notions of gender identity and homosexuality as it relates to sexual practice.

                      So please do not impute any bad motive to my point about your straight advocates in the 90’s.

                      And that’s going to be the end of it, as I think my argument is pretty damn clear, and yours is emotive.

                    4. my argument is pretty damn clear, and yours is emotive.

                      In other news, the sky is blue and water is wet.

                    5. Then maybe you can explain to me what Rock’s argument was?

                    6. OK you stupid fuck, I’ll try (this is long after the fact, and mostly for the benefit of others who may view the thread later.) What Rock is saying is that in the 90’s he was savaged for his observation that a friend was gay at 10, and that in his estimation homosexuality was genetic, or innate in some way rather than a choice. Now the genetic or innate view is dominant, and if you imply it is merely a lifestyle choice that one can change, you are similarly pilloried.

                      For an English major your reading comprehension is embarrassing.

    2. Because the gay rights agenda has been coopted by progs. It is not about gay rights. It is about constantly and aggressively waging the culture war. If you win on gay rights, you have to move onto something else because the point is to wage the culture war as a way of advancing the prog agenda. Transvestites are the next front in the never ending culture war with Oceana.

      1. I’ve been making a man with blond hair and a tan

        1. Good for relieving your….tension?

      2. You do understand what the word “progressive” means? If there are minorities being harmed by society, yeah, progressives are going to work on their behalf. It’s what we do. What do you do?

        1. Tony, that statement is stupid and simple minded, it is unworthy of a response. What is sad is that the moment gay rights no longer fits the gay agenda, progs will turn on gays and start locking them up and declaring them mentally ill like they did in the early 20th Century and gays like you will never see it coming because you are so stupid you have no idea what Prog actually means and why they ever championed your cause to begin with. If it wasn’t so sad, it would be funny.

          1. You’re crazy, you know that? Of course you don’t. Crazy people don’t know they’re crazy, right?

            1. Tony once again shows his rhetorical skill and razor sharp wit. While also proving he doesn’t understand history, current politics, individual rights, or the natural definition of words he uses.

            2. So you are all about equal rights and you can’t even handle information on the mentally disabled?

              First off most “crazy” people do in fact know that they have psychological issues second, it is rather rude and dismissive of those struggling to try and live a normal life to presume that just because someone disagrees with you that they have a mental disorder

          2. John, Tony is referring to such tolerant people as Margeret Sanger (who sang the praises for blacks throughout her life), FDR (who sought cheap housing for asian citizens/immigrants during WWII)and LBJ who created some of greatest welfare programs without any perverse incentives at all.

        2. I leave people alone, if I think a business owner is being an asshole I refuse to do business with them. You OTOH demand that the state put a gun to peoples head if they don’t behave the way you want them too. Two reasons for this.

          1) You’re ignorant and arrogant enough to believe that you know what is best for every single person on planet earth.

          2) You’re to much of a coward to hold the gun yourself.

        3. Lol “If there are minorities being harmed by society, yeah, progressives are going to work on their behalf.” a brief lesson of the history progressive movement and its leaders would prove this incorrect but whatever.

          1. Would anyone bringing lumps of bullshit from their time at Glenn Beck U kindly step aside to this end of the room, and I will get to you at some later time. I believe there is coffee. Thank you.

            1. lol I can’t even comprehend that retort. Can you please clarify.

            2. So I guess you’ve never heard of the “Eugenics” movement.

              1. Yes, I’ve heard all about it, thanks. I’m still not ready to address the Glenn Beck U visiting scholars. Please, there is ample coffee.

        4. You do understand what the word “progressive” means? If there are minorities being harmed by society, yeah, progressives are going to work on their behalf. It’s what we do. What do you do?

          Unless they fall into the category of “industrial residuum” or the “low-wage races,” in which case, you had to be removed from the workforce and either bred out of existence or managed by a benevolent state appartus.

          1. This side of the room, please. Do keep it to inside voices. Coffee?

            1. Oh look, Tony w/o spaces is attempting snark. A shame he spends more time picking coffee blends than studying politics. He might actually know how utterly reprehensible Progressivism has been and continues to be.

              1. Do you fucking morons have any idea how tired I am of being lectured to about how progressives of the early 20th century were racists just like everybody else? Like, I get it. Isn’t the real problem the people who are racists and still living? The ones, I dunno, obviously and shamelessly trying to suppress the black vote? That’s not progressives!

                1. progressives of the early 20th century were racists just like everybody else

                  Calvin Coolidge, 1923:

                  “Our Constitution guarantees equal rights to all our citizens, without discrimination on account of race or color. I have taken my oath to support that Constitution. It is the source of your rights and my rights. I purpose to regard it, and administer it, as the source of the rights of all the people, whatever their belief or race.”

                  Facts can be so inconvenient.

                  1. The NAACP was formed in 1909 by white and black progressives. Yeah, at the time there was some debate about how much of a push for black rights should be made. It was the fucking 1900s!

                    Just be clear, I am aware of the Glenn Beck shit. I know he likes to conflate early-20th century progressives with modern progressives (the ones who elected the first black president–how tricky of us!)

                    The point is even having this conversation is making everyone in the vicinity dumber.

                    1. The NAACP was formed in 1909 by white and black progressives.

                      Really? Who were they? And what made them “Progressives”?

                      Yeah, at the time there was some debate about how much of a push for black rights should be made. It was the fucking 1900s!

                      Ah, nothing like a healthy dose of chronological snobbery to brighten up one’s day!

                      Just be clear, I am aware of the Glenn Beck shit.

                      Aware as in…visual awareness? Tactile awareness? Gustory awareness?

                      I know he likes to conflate early-20th century progressives with modern progressives (the ones who elected the first black president–how tricky of us!)

                      Half-black, not a black man from America, who has done nothing for black people and has almost nothing in common with American black people, which makes him perfect for Progressives in that it gives them the appearance of diversity, without actually dealing with American black people (who, you know, Progressives refuse to live near, or even give any real power in government).

                2. Then why did you coopt the name of a movement that one of its stated goal of eradicating minorities through interbreeding, abortion and committing them. It would be like if I called myself a Neo-Confederate and got pissed when people called me an antifederalist.

                  1. I didn’t co-opt anything! I prefer the term liberal. Some people started calling themselves progressives when the right-wing propaganda machine turned “liberal” into a pejorative.

                    Who the fuck cares? Do you not think at a level deeper than labels? Isn’t the only thing that really matters what people, living and breathing today, believe and advocate for?

                    For Christ’s sake, are you gonna take ownership of all the racist nastiness the living, breathing Ron Paul has ties to? Or the various other John Birch ties libertarianism has? Is this some kind of joke?

                    1. I didn’t co-opt anything! I prefer the term liberal. Some people started calling themselves progressives when the right-wing propaganda machine turned “liberal” into a pejorative.

                      Incorrect, as ever.

                      “In the United States “liberal” means today a set of ideas and political postulates that in every regard are the opposite of all that liberalism meant to the preceding generations. The American self-styled liberal aims at government omnipotence, is a resolute foe of free enterprise, and advocates all-round planning by the authorities, i.e., socialism.”

                      -Ludwig Von Mises, Liberalism (1929)

                      Who the fuck cares? Do you not think at a level deeper than labels?

                      “You’re black!” said the pot to the kettle.

                      Isn’t the only thing that really matters what people, living and breathing today, believe and advocate for?

                      No, especially when you use history as a justification for the policies advocated by people “living and breathing today.”

                      For Christ’s sake, are you gonna take ownership of all the racist nastiness the living, breathing Ron Paul has ties to?

                      I believe Ron Paul is a big boy, and can take up his own rhetorical slack, as to what he did or did not say or write. He has a forum and couple of websites you are free to contact him on.

                      Or the various other John Birch ties libertarianism has?

                      ???

                      Is this some kind of joke?

                      Just you, Tony w/o spaces. Just you.

                    2. So why should I have to answer for Woodrow Wilson?

                    3. So why should I have to answer for Woodrow Wilson?

                      If you don’t want to, don’t. There’s enough blood and ink spilled on Wilson’s behalf. But Progressives don’t get to claim that Wilson was a wonderful Progressive president because he helped create the Federal Reserve, created new regulatory agencies, and supported the federal income tax, and then not explain why segregating the federal government, lying America into World War I, suppressing dissent of that War, and endorsing Birth of a Nation (as a sitting President) are not Progressive as well.

                      Not even going to ask for an explanation of all the black applicants Wilson rejected from Princeton when he was that university’s president.

                    4. I prefer the term liberal. Some people started calling themselves progressives when the right-wing propaganda machine turned “liberal” into a pejorative.

                      And they called themselves “liberal” to hide their progressiveness after the failure of the Wilson administration and the ensuing distrust of “progressives.”

                3. Do you fucking morons have any idea how tired I am of being lectured to about how progressives of the early 20th century were racists just like everybody else?

                  Ahem, inside voice, Tony w/o spaces. Or is this just another case of Progressives not playing by the same rules they lay out for the peasants?

                  Like, I get it. Isn’t the real problem the people who are racists and still living?

                  Point them out.

                  The ones, I dunno, obviously and shamelessly trying to suppress the black vote?

                  As opposed to the ones who tell black people that they can do nothing and accomplish nothing without the government’s benevolent handing interfering in their lives?

                  That’s not progressives!

                  So, No True Progressive would ever do anything harmful to minorities? Good to know.

  7. Paging Jesse “gay gamer dad” is this some kind of newfangled slang in the gay community that I’m not hip to?

    1. Please don’t ask Jesse about gay slang terms. You’re just asking for it.

  8. In principle, I think a majority of the public and Congress support “banning discrimination against gays.”

    It’s when we get into the weeds that some moderates may start asking questions.

    Religious freedom would hopefully be one example.

    Then there’s the “gender identity” provision that they’re trying to smuggle into the bill. I don’t think there would be majority support for this unless the bill is rammed through with “tolerance” rhetoric.

    If someone is nuts on one topic, the best thing is to engage them on other topics. “So what about those Browns – letting you down again?” Maybe sometimes indulging them, so as not to set them off. (This would also apply if they think they’re Napoleon. “Should we review the Imperial Guard today, Your Majesty?”)

    But it’s a bit much to *punish* people who won’t indulge someone else’s fantasies. Sometimes you’re going to meet rude people who say things like, “look, you’re a man, you’re not going to have babies, where’s the fetus gonna gestate?” Or, “You’re not Napoleon, and I’m not giving you an extension on your paper so you can fight the Austrians!”

    Encountering such insensitivity and rudeness is part of the price you pay for being delusional.

  9. All things equal, more lawsuits happening would seem to indicate more freedom.

    WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

  10. Hey Republicans, why do you hate teh gheys?

    1. “Teh Gheys” killed my father and raped my mother.

      But they didn’t enjoy it.

  11. Recall those polls that show ENDA is *more popular* than SSM. It’s the *moderate* position, in the funhouse-mirror world of modern politics.

    Expect several Congresscritters who oppose SSM to show their “moderate” bona fides by supporting ENDA, to show that they’re not haters.

  12. Well, I for one, support legislation banning discrimination against religious orders who want to hold services in Mr. Polis’s house. And I look forward to the prospect of the Westboro Baptist Church holding services in his bedroom at 3 AM.

  13. I’ve been making a man with blond hair and a tan

    DAMMIT, Janet!

  14. If there are minorities being harmed by society, yeah, progressives are going to work on their behalf.

    I eagerly await Senator Warren’s efforts to tie decertification of the American Federation of Teachers to the next Department of Education budget.

  15. I don’t like bigots. But I detest bullies. And at the end of the day, telling people what they can with their own property to satisfy your beliefs or aesthetics is the act of a bully. Period. It doesn’t matter that you’re a bully for “a good cause”. You’re still a thug and a goon.

  16. Maybe it’s time to stop pretending that Polis in any way resembles a libertarian?

    1. Aren’t we looking for more diversity around here? What’s more diverse than a gay gamer dad.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.