Freedom of Religion

Matt Welch Sticks up for Free Association on MSNBC

|

This morning I appeared on MSNBC's Up With Steve Kornacki to talk about this week's religious freedom/gay marriage controversies in Indiana and Arkansas, the purposes of Religious Freedom Restoraction Act laws, and whether the government should force businesses to work weddings. My co-panelists were Ana Marie Cox, former New York City Council president Christine Quinn, and politician/commentator Nan Hayworth.

NEXT: Ron Bailey on the Minimum Wage and Magical Thinking

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. Same-sex couples already have the right to marry. They always have. What they did not have was the right for people of the same gender to marry each other, which was a right that no one had.

    So, the Supreme Court is not “poised to give the right to marry to same-sex couples”; it is, in fact poised to expand the definition of marriage to include people of the same sex. This expanded definition, presumably, will not apply only to same-sex couples.

    1. This is, and remains, the stupidest, most pathetic anti-gay-marriage “argument” there is. Thanks for breaking it out for another spin so that we can marvel at it its idiocy. Again. Really.

        1. Well, that’s it. You got me. I’m convinced. You should argue before the Supreme Court, you’re so good.

        2. can you please explain why, because I can’t make heads or tails of what you actually said.

          is it that you think a ‘right’ still exists even when no one else recognizes its existence?

          or that sex and gender are crucially different?

          1. I used “sex” and “gender” interchangeably. This may or may not be correct, grammatically.

            I’m saying that people with same-sex attractions were always legally able to marry someone of the opposite sex (or gender). What they have not been legally able to do is marry someone of the same sex.

            When people say “the Supreme Court is going to allow same-sex couples to marry”, what they are saying is that the Supreme Court will decide that same-sex couples can legally marry each other (people of the same sex/gender). I am also pointing out that the expansion of the definition of marriage to include people of the same sex/gender will also apply to people who are not sexually attracted to others of the same sex/gender. So it would be more correct to say that the Supreme Court is about to expand the definition of marriage for everyone, not just same-sex couples.

            1. Thanks for reinforcing how unbelievably stupid this argument is by bleating it out once again. You really are a paragon of clear, unambiguous thought and unparalleled reasoning. Have you considered that you might be the reincarnation of Socrates?

              That’s pronounced “So-crates” of course.

              1. No personal attack ever fed a hungry gay-wedding reception attendee, Epi.

            2. So it would be more correct to say that the Supreme Court is about to expand the definition of marriage for everyone, not just same-sex couples.

              No.

              As I point out below, they are going to tell state governments that the act of defining marriage as between “a man and a woman” is unconstitutional under 14A because that definition is not equal protection under the law.

              1. the act of defining marriage as between “a man and a woman” is unconstitutional under 14A because that definition is not equal protection under the law.

                Ah, “equal protection”: is there anything it doesn’t mean?

                1. Ah, “equal protection”: is there anything it doesn’t mean?

                  Papaya, I’ve always defended equal protection, so I guess that means I support your right to fellate violent authoritarianism.

                  1. Cripes, JW is here with more straw man arguments to hurl against me.

                    Who in their right mind thinks that the “equal protection” clause meant “same-sex marriage”? So what doesn’t it mean? Is depriving a 10-year-old the chance at a drivers license a violation of equal protection? Can a mother and son marry? Can blind people be pilots? These may sound absurd, but no more absorb than equal protection = same-sex marriage did to the people who wrote the 14th amendment, and to everyone up to a few decades ago, at most.

                    Libertarians should be very wary of this sort of retroactive redefinition of terminology. Leftists use it restrict liberty all the time. Just because you like the outcome of this particular redefinition doesn’t mean you shouldn’t realize the dangers of redefinition.

                    1. Oooo, strawmen. Let’s see which ones you brought:

                      Who in their right mind thinks that the “equal protection” clause meant “same-sex marriage”?

                      Pretty much that. Anyone in their right mind should know that a right is something that extends to *everyone,* not just the politically connected or the popular kids.

                      Is depriving a 10-year-old the chance at a drivers license a violation of equal protection?

                      A driver’s license isn’t a right. Are you actually under the impression that it is?

                      Can a mother and son marry?

                      Ew. But, sure. Not my business.

                      Can blind people be pilots?

                      Beats me. What does the job description say?

                      I think I may have given you too much credit for being smart, in the past.

                    2. JW, the magic acronym is “BFOQ.”

                    3. Is depriving a 10-year-old the chance at a drivers license a violation of equal protection?

                      No because there are plenty of rights we don’t afford to children under the understanding they aren’t full grown adults. A parent can make his kid go to his room and we don’t call it kidnapping, but if I forced you to move from one place to another it would be. Do you seriously not get this?

                      Can a mother and son marry?

                      Yes, provided they are both of legal age. It’s disgusting, but none of my business.

                      Can blind people be pilots?

                      No airline would ever hire a blind person as a pilot because of all the lawsuits that would occur if there was an accident – which there would be since the pilot can’t see.

                      My job requires me to do lots of office work, including lifting boxes, etc. My boss probably would not have hired a person with no arms since the job requires lots of typing as well. This is not an equal protection issue since it’s businesses making decisions based on job needs, not the government declaring certain people don’t have rights which are afforded to others.

                      Next question.

                    4. Who in their right mind thinks that the “equal protection” clause meant “same-sex marriage”?

                      Who in their right mind denies that it is about …. ummmmm ….. PEOPLE.
                      See, we have this concept called INDIVIDUAL rights.

                      Plus, at no time has government been delegated ANY power to control or regulate marriage. THAT is what we call the founding concept that the only legitimate powers are delegated by the people.

                      But you progs love to trash our constitution and founding principles.

                    5. Don’t forget, the Libertarian label was rejected by 91% of…LIBERTARIANS!!!

                      #ThreadOver

                    6. retroactive redefinition

                      You can always tell that you’re dealing with a redtard when they fall back onto this thin sheet of ice of reasoning. Yes, that’s exactly what it means when you stop using the force of the state to deny an actual, genuine right to any group previously denied.

                      Don’t worry, Papaya, the hoards of homos won’t break down your door to force-marry you. You’re safe.

                    7. Don’t worry, Papaya, the hoards of homos won’t break down your door to force-marry you. You’re safe.

                      No-one is safe. That’s exactly what they did to me.

                      My butt still hurts. How can you people LIKE that?

                    8. Is depriving a 10-year-old the chance at a drivers license a violation of equal protection?

                      Yes it is. If they can get liability insurance they should be able to drive. What the fuck does an arbitrary age have to do with it?

                      Can a mother and son marry?

                      Yes. If they are consenting adults.

                      Can blind people be pilots?

                      Yes. Once.

                      These things do not need to be regulated by the government. They either regulate themselves or harm no one else.

                      Yes, I realize that government interpretations of 14A have given the government a lot more latitude to violate it than was intended, but it says what it says. It should be interpreted to mean that if the government can’t write a law so that it doesn’t discriminate against anyone, it has no business making such a law to begin with. Yes, I realize the ramifications of that interpretation and stand by them. No cronyism, no tax breaks/brackets, no drinking ages, no police immunity, no special government favors, no targeted regulation…very little government whatsoever…a lot more liberty as a result.

            3. “people with same-sex attractions were always legally able to marry someone of the opposite sex (or gender). What they have not been legally able to do is marry someone of the same sex.”

              So you just stated something *SO blindingly obvious* that no one ever feels compelled to describe this as being ‘worth noting’ as a relevant distinction.

              because pretending that people are “free” to marry people *except those of their own sexual orientation*….is a ‘freedom’? is fucking retarded.

              so is everything else you just said. thanks for the clarification that ‘its not me’.

              1. If you can offer no rebuttle, the “argument” still stands. Though I wasn’t really making an argument, just a few observations.

                1. Yeah, you got us. We couldn’t “rebut” something so stupid, the only person here who thinks it is some kind of actual argument…is you. I feel so ashamed that I failed so miserably. I’m going to go get married to someone who I have no physical attraction to now, just because I can. Thank you Supreme Court!

                2. If you can offer no rebuttle, the “argument” still stands.

                  But,

                  Of course they will.

                  is a rebuttal.

    2. “Same-sex couples already have the right to marry. They always have. What they did not have was the right for people of the same gender to marry each other”

      is there some important “Sex/Gender” semantic distinction here i’m missing?

      1. its like the old joke, they can get married just not to each other.

        1. If this turns out to be the punchline, the old “You don’t pick on the special ed kids” no longer applies.

        2. ahh.

          “maaawage, is a saqued institwoooshun….”

          So its some bullshit about how allowing people of the same gender to marry somehow ‘affects’ people who are already married by undermining the definition?

          1. SAY MAN AND WIFE – SAY MAN AND WIFE!!!

      2. Nope, cavalier is showing us all what a super-smarty he is by parsing into oblivion a totally clear common-language phrase. The fact that he conflates two distinct concepts by using his terms inconsistently while doing so is the result of either carelessness or idiocy.

        1. Word salad.

          At least Johnny Ringo was an educated man.

          1. A man like Ringo has got a great big hole, right in the middle of him. He can never kill enough, or steal enough, or inflict enough pain to ever fill it.

            1. Cavalier thinks he’s Johnny Ringo, when he’s really Johnny Tyler.

              Oh. Are you still here, Johnny? You may go now.

            2. Wait, what kind of hole?

                1. DAMN YOU IT’S A FRY-HOLE.

        2. “Parsing into oblivion a totally clear common-language” word is what the SCOTUS is about to do. Hope everyone has his new edition of the Newspeak Dictionary handy.

          1. Your claim that an “expanded definition” necessarily changes the definition and theoretically affects the lives of already-married people is so appallingly stupid that it hurts to hear you say it as though you expect it to be taken seriously.

            “”Why, making black people ‘citizens’ instead of slaves…. why, will no one think of how this affects *already free citizens*?? won’t they just look in the mirror and go…. “it just doesnt *feel the same* anymore”…”

            marriage isn’t changed.

            who can get married has changed.

            this doesn’t affect already-married people in any way whatsoever.

            now fuck off, because i need a beer now to erase the experience of reading your inanity.

            1. “…this doesn’t affect already-married people in any way whatsoever.”

              I don’t recall trying to make that argument.

              I will say that your apparent trust in the government’s ability to not screw this issue up and use it to further erode liberty in several different ways, plus the obvious emotional stake you have in this issue, makes it difficult for me to take you seriously.

              Enjoy your beer.

              1. plus the obvious emotional stake you have in this issue

                Oh god, the projection. The un-self-awareness. Phenomenal. More please.

              2. ” the obvious emotional stake you have in this issue”

                You apparently missed my gay-hating ways in my robby-ball-busting earlier

              3. ” use it to further erode liberty in several different ways,’

                You just said “you’re not claiming that it affects already-married people”

                and then in the next sentence assert that “several different ways” exist in which liberty could be eroded.

                Either you’re completely incapable of using the english language, or think other people are too stupid to see through your glaring inconsistency.

                I’m going with “both”. You’re an idiot who can’t conceive that anyone is smarter than themselves. this happens. Stay away from sharp objects, shiny things.

    3. So, the Supreme Court is not “poised to give the right to marry to same-sex couples”; it is, in fact poised to expand the definition of marriage to include people of the same sex. This expanded definition, presumably, will not apply only to same-sex couples.

      What the SCOTUS is going to rightfully say, is that states have no power to define marriage as between a man and a woman to begin with because doing so is NOT equal protection under the law.

    4. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing
      http://www.work-mill.com

  2. I’m glad they got your good side, Welch.

  3. I commend you, Matthew, for not just going Eurotard on their arses, slapping them over and leaving the set.

    Politics in Eurotardia

  4. Does MSNBC use a different video player than the rest of the planet because they’re smarter and better than anyone else? I can only assume so.

    1. Well their add works. Not so much on the actual content. The fact that I gave those wankers two ads’ worth of revenue and they provided zero desired product may speak to the cunning of their IT at the very least.

      1. That player! I had to open IE to view it, and I avoid that like the plague. `Course, I have all sorts of extensions running on my preferred browser to thwart malware, etc., but even
        exempting that player from them wouldn’t solve it.

        The Westboro question was incomplete. The fundie nutcase has to ask the gay baker to write “God Hates Fags” on it. I think we all agree that if the state says “you are a common carrier and can’t censor your customer’s message” and that they can’t turn down the business that we’d have a first amendment violation?

        Also, 5 and 13 get trampled on, but proggies don’t care about those when they want something.

        Kevin R

  5. MSNBC really goes balls-out with the “Framing Everything” before they allow the first bit of ‘debate’ to even occur.

    The set-up describes the issue as being one of allowing people to “opt-out of a culture”(?)… not (of course) forcing people to participate in something that runs counter to their religious beliefs.

    And they call the issue “irreconcilable” and requiring “balance”, as though any 2 person’s “rights” necessarily conflict (which would be a concept impossible if you didn’t think of ‘rights’ as positive to begin with)

    Oh god, its Christine Quinn. I didn’t see that in the description. She’s Cthulu incarnate.

  6. The headline should read:

    “Matt Welch Attempts to Stick Up for Free Association on MSNBC”

    I don’t think that anybody actually let him complete a sentence.

    Probably for the best. If he had said anything like “One of the implications of Freedom of Association is that individuals can refuse to do business with any other person for any reason.”, he may well have been ritually sacrificed right there on the table.

    1. the progs take the crazy one step further and assert that there’s a “conflict” because these religious people are “forcing” their beliefs into their business. because “business” is a special thing. they continue to pretend that everyone sacrifices their individual identity when they perform the magical process of engaging in voluntary commerce with one another. at that key point, everything is now controllable by the government (*or the mob, whatever)

      I called this “The Personal Is Political (*And Pizza!!)” the other day. I think the same general attitude applies as it does with the traditional feminist origin = there is basically no limit to how far they want to get the force of the State up in your shit to “rectify” your thinking.

      1. What the fuck kind of world would it be if nobody was allowed to operate their business according to their moral beliefs?

        This would imply that Jewish delis are forcing their Judaism into their business by making their food Kosher. How DARE THEY? If I want to buy ham at a deli and the Jew behind the counter doesn’t sell it to me, he’s forcing his religion down my throat! Why, I might have to drive an extra half a mile to find a grocery store that will sell me ham!

        1. ugh, I’m not making another stop, we’ll just have pastrami instead.

          1. Then… poison pizza..

  7. But-but-but religion is the panacea of the weak-minded and all my college professors said there is no God anyway, so that’s a strawman. Some weak-minded belief in fairy tales shouldn’t be allowed to trump muh rights!

  8. On the Pink Shirt/Blue tie =

    I think tactically, Matt seems to be using the Easter Weekend to his advantage.

    MSNBC’s “Progressive Death Harpies*” (Cox/Quinn) will be confused by the “gay-friendly” and “gender-flexible” color-combination connotations. Pink-dominant was an excellent choice.

    It doesn’t *just* say, “I’m going to an Easter Egg hunt later, and why do you hate children?”… it also says, “I have plenty of gay friends”, and “i’m probably more fun than these squinting, angry menopausal liberal-anger-mongers to my left”

    1. I think a bull frog would look more fun than those 2 barren harpy molusks.

      1. I’d rather fuck the bullfrog.

    2. This is like a quick flashback to the ole’ independenz attire review. *sniff*

      1. It’s okay, Steve. The Independents are in a better place now, and one day we’ll get to be with then again…

  9. How to reconcile religious freedom and gay marriage

    Eliminate the concept of protected classes and allow the god given right of free association?

    Call me crazy.

    1. You’re crazy.

      Didn’t you see my post yesterday, where a gentleman at The Atlantic clearly explains that people must be forced to associate with eachother because of slavery, and that freedom is only a legitimate argument if everyone started off entirely equal?

      1. How could I forget the “life needs to be fair before we can have liberty” principle?

        You are better looking than me G. You have attractiveness privilege. That’s not fair. I’m going to have the government cut off your nose to rid you of this unearned advantage.

        I’m sure you’ll understand…it’s only fair.

        1. “Harrison Bergeron, you have a call waiting on the white courtesy phone.”

          1. Well played.

            1. Notice it was the white courtesy phone. I will not bow to intimidation.

              I would also like to point out that in my hypothetical sentence, the phone is heterosexual.

              1. I think that is supposed to be the white privilege telephone.

        2. Don’t be absurd, Francisco. You and JJ are both equally ugly. There’s no reason to disfigure either of you any more than you already are.

    2. First sensible thing you’ve posted this year.

  10. There you go: the tyranny of diversity.

  11. And don’t you just love how the MSNBC hosts are so generous with their questions…? like

    “one one hand, you’ve got people who want a cake. And on the other hand you have hateful discrimination. Matt, tell me more about why you support the latter? =”

  12. This is not just about gays. How about someone who wants a preacher, photographer, or caterer to come to a nudist wedding? How about a request to bake an obscene cake or make an obscene piece of art? What about someone asking a fervently democratic artist to do a line of posters for a republican candidate (or vice versa)? How about asking a Catholic artist to do a line of art work demeaning the Pope? Or asking a Muslim caterer to cater to a Jewish wedding? Or asking a black caterer to cater to a KKK meeting? The list goes on. Artistic and service professions are not public stores.

    1. I made the point at the beginning of this stupid fucking thing…. I was once asked to DJ a Bar Mitzvah, and I refused.

      Why? because i’m “antisemitic”? Because I hate kids?

      Maybe because i just didn’t want to do it?

      Does it even matter? I’m not sure the “artistic and service” distinction is even necessary… it was simply an issue for me of not serving every single person who wanted to pay me. I did a gay wedding once! for free. it was a buddy. I also took money to DJ some weddings I *wasnt* jazzed about. Because *it was $1000* for an afternoons work, and i happened to want money at the time.

      I dont’ even believe ‘religious exemptions’ are necessary to define anything as an important “freedom of association” principle. People shouldnt be forced to do business with anyone they don’t want to, for any reason. There’s no “Right to Access Services” as Christine Quinn claims. All the idiotic hypotheticals about “but what if a gay person needs gas in the middle of the desert” are basically attempts at avoiding the more-realistic, banal implications of what such a presumption of positive-rights would entail.

      1. You know what it entails. Force. At the end of the day, all “positive rights” bullshit involves force. Forcing people to serve up those “positive rights”.

        1. If I’m not free to force anal on my unwilling victims, I’m not really free.

          1. Hmm, that was supposed to say, “girlfriends”, after the struck-through word. I fail at html. I have a positive right not to fail at anything. Therefore it is the responsibility of Reason to give me an edit function.

    2. Or asking a Muslim caterer to cater to a Jewish wedding?

      I’m not sure I get that, because they’re both going to agree on “no pork” and ful medames is fucking delicious.

      1. Full madames? You and John have something in common.

    3. “What about someone asking a fervently democratic artist to do a line of posters for a republican candidate (or vice versa)?”

      I think there are literally dozens of cases of a band refusing to allow a conservative to use their music relating to their campaign.

  13. Kudos for Matt bitchslapping them right out the gate by pointing out that despite all their “framing”, that RFRAs have never been used to ‘discriminate’ despite existing for years all over the country.

    they will, i assume, continue to pretend as though this was never said.

  14. Holy fuck, what a wasted 13+ minutes. I thought Matt was going to, you know, stick up for free association.

    1. ok – since you are relatively clueless here goes

      marriage was invented to protect women and children. without some manner to establish paternity and compel fathers to contribute to the upbringing of children and the women who are their primary caregivers both women and children are in a vulnerable state. It did not legitimize the parents relationship, it legitimized the children for parental support and for inheritance. This entire construct was devised for heterosexuals as they were and are the only ones that can have biological offspring. (btw sperm donation or adoption is not biological offspring.
      This is the reason the state is involved, no to ensure that two people stay together, it is to make sure that the children are cared for by the father in particular. This is the way family life was structured for thousands of years. Alon comes the 1960s with their social upheaval – we end up with single mothers having children out of wedlock and and popular culture romanticizing and legitimizing single motherhood despite the fact that every study shows that it is destructive of both the children and society in general.

      1. At the same time gays want to have their relationships legitimized in the same way that heterosexuals do- the problem is they don’t share genes to create children. Because of this fact, some religions will not accept a gay marriage as legitimate as it has no reproductive mandate or thousands of years of religious and cultural precedent that hetero marriage does. Gay marriage changes the definition of marriage and makes it more elastic.

        Does that clear things up for you a bit.

        1. Does that clear things up for you a bit.

          No because everything you just said is dumb and has nothing to do with the initial post.

          It did not legitimize the parents relationship, it legitimized the children for parental support and for inheritance.

          Cool – and if a gay couple adopts, how will this be any different for their relationship?

          (btw sperm donation or adoption is not biological offspring.)

          Sperm donation is biological offspring because it’s from your sperm. Also, they can now actually have three-parent babies where they can take sperm, for example, from two men and use it to inseminate a woman, in which case the kid would have genes from both male parents.

          Regardless, this is entirely irrelevant since whether or not the kid is biologically related to the gay parents, that has nothing to do with issues of inheritance or caring for the child since you can care for an adopted child just as well as for a biological child.

          Does that clear things up a bit?

      2. If we legalize gay marriage, it will lead to an explosion in single mothers 40 years ago.

        Gay marriage is like a time traveling pathogen that will go backwards throughout history wreaking havoc on the American way of life. I bet there was no slavery until we legalized gay marriage in recent years, at which time gay marriage went back in time and caused the enslavement of shitloads of Africans.

        Gay marriage – what can’t it do?

        1. *slow clap*

      3. Alon comes the 1960s with their social upheaval – we end up with single mothers having children out of wedlock and and popular culture romanticizing and legitimizing single motherhood despite the fact that every study shows that it is destructive of both the children and society in general.

        Eddie, is that you?

      4. Marriage was not for the protection of women and children.

        It was all about property rights. Marriage was to ensure that there was no doubt about who those strapping young sons belonged to. Sure maybe the hired hand was slipping it to the farm wife on the sly, but any kids that popped out of that woman belonged to the husband.

        Marriage has always been first and foremost about property rights. Who the labor of the kids belongs to. Who the property goes to when the husband kicks off etc.

      5. Bull crap.

  15. The best that Quinn and Cox seem to come up with is this vague, “Uhm, well look, sometimes its *just necessary in a ‘democratic society’ to force people to do stuff” Otherwise there are “troubling” implications. (scare word!)

    …as though any actual issue of what the ‘stuff’ is, or why you’re forcing them is irrelevant. Reminiscent of the “”ROADS!! use them, you lose all your small government claims!!” rhetorical masterstroke.

    Cox continues with this rhetorical B.S. and insinuation that these ‘negative rights’ are ‘scary’…because “what about their *ugly* intent!?”….

    i.e. “”” its not just that they want to be free to pray to their god!(good!) its that their god isn’t nice and warm and fuzzy and has bad opinions of gays!!!(frowny face!!)”” WHICH IS TROUBLING?!

    Thist injection of their value-judgement into anything about ‘rights’ is reminiscent of the “what’s Ok and what’s not OK” bullshit we heard the other day from others talking about this topic.

    1. Remember the immortal advice of Rudy Giuliani – freedom means doing whatever the fuck the man in the uniform tells you to do, and you’d better do it right the fuck now.

    2. Except that there is nothing about rights in any of this. There is no right to be served (Doubly so, since the state regularly obstructs the right to provide services.), and how many homos are rotting in prison or have been put in the stocks or crushed under stones aftering being convicted of doing a gay “wedding”? No one is obstructing their “right” to “marry”, so there is no question of rights in it. The question of whether the state ought to be approving of their “marriages” is something else entirely, wholly outside the realm of rights, and through which in order to reach one has to pass a cavalcading panoply of absurdities and subhegelian folderol. Por otro lado, there is people in this country that gets actually persecuted by the state with no abashedness for entering into marriages (marriages which no one could by any stretch claim in any way step outside the conventional meaning of the word) that are of prohibitted types, something not happening to homosexuals that marry each other.

  16. The republican woman seems to think that stating extremely obvious things while waving her hands and modulating the tone of voice makes them into wit and insight.

    to be fair, lots of people do this. but it borders on the absurd sometimes when people do it on TV

  17. Matt again makes a great point which will be ignored by the Prog-Harpies =

    There is no real “problem” of massive anti-gay discrimination, and the demographic reality is that the more-tolerant future they hope for is already on the horizen

    Pretending that we need laws which compel complete and total “acceptance”, regardless of people’s minority opinions, seems to be an effort these people want for *its own sake*

    In fact, they seem to *desperately need* these isolated examples of “one person in the middle of nowhere” so they can further their agenda of Compulsion By Any Means. its not about the gays at all. Its about progs and power, as usual.

    thank egg-laying-jesus that Quinn was disconnected because she makes me nauseous

    1. Well, really, in this case, it is about signalling. For center left liberals who have just recently converted to the gay marriage bandwagon, this is their first opportunity to show off how “advanced” they are.

  18. Do I need something special to watch the video? Says loading…doesn’t.

    AND I’M NOT SUBSCRIBING TO MSNBC, Welch or no Welch.

      1. What is this, 2002?

        MSNBC

        Oooohhhh

        1. Yeah, I’m surprised the Peacock hasn’t partnered up with Tim Cook and renamed it iNbc…

    1. The accusation of “thugging” is unsubstantiated without the presence of a #thuglife caption.

      1. Brushing your teeth while flashing your heater definitely needs a “#thuglife”.

        I didn’t choose the Listerine life, it chose me.

    2. Dude, the best part:

      “And there is no such thing as a petty crime,” said Kevin Carroll with the Fraternal Order of Police. “There is no such thing as a petty offense.”

      Of course there isn’t. All offences against the state and its goons are non-pretty by definition, amirite?

      1. The smirk on his face throughout the whole thing made my blood boil.

        1. In fairness to the reporter, he seemed to be properly incredulous when he was asking Officer Dumbfuck why he was arresting people for speech.

          I’m guessing it was his editor who cut his follow up question, “Are you shitting me? Do you really think you can arrest people for cursing?”

      2. Notice that she didn’t get a swat team visit. Probably because they were scared shitless by the idea that she had a gun and might shoot them.

      3. Any offense against a power of infinite extension is an offense of infinite severity. Two nothings is nothing.

    3. Barbara Roberts:

      Umm Freedom of speech is so overused these days. Its a freedom from the Government controlling what we can and can not say, it does not give you the right to just say anything to anybody. You can and will be held accountable. As often as you hear it yes cussing in public is a crime and people can press charges against you for cussing at them in person or on line. (minor disorderly conduct charge) but still a charge that can be brought against you. ( Freedom of Speech is limited: Governments restrict speech with varying limitations, though such restrictions are not necessarily an infringement on the right to Freedom of speech. Common limitations on speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, hate speech, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, right to privacy, right to be forgotten, public security, public order, public nuisance, campaign finance reform and oppression) Freedom of speech is not a universal right to talk to people how we want to, it has limits and exclusions

      1. You mother fuckers better watch what you say to Barbara.

      2. These people see public acceptance of “speed limits”…

        …and translate that as: ‘people having granted Government the right to “give you permission to move at all”…

        …and then go seamlessly into assuming that people have also therefore granted Government the ability to compel you to move

        they are so fucking stupid that they can only think in terms of “Universal Rights” and because, well, they’re *not really ‘universal’*, well…. That Means The Mob Can Compel Anything!

        they consider this “logic”. Its the same reason they’re too stupid to understand ‘limited government’. For them, authority is either unrestricted, or you’re arguing that it shouldn’t exist *at all*, and there are no possible alternatives.

        1. Whoa there. You are dangerously close to exceeding your free speech limits. I counted 12 possible infractions: libel, obscenity, sedition, hate speech, incitement, fighting words, right to privacy, right to be forgotten, public security, public order, public nuisance, and oppression

      3. right to be forgotten

        Okay. Let’s forget what Kristin Holmes (the accused) posted. Case dismissed.

      4. As often as you hear it yes cussing in public is a crime and people can press charges against you for cussing at them in person or on line.

        Citation needed.

        Governments restrict speech with varying limitations, though such restrictions are not necessarily an infringement on the right to Freedom of speech.

        Citation needed.

        Freedom of speech is not a universal right to talk to people how we want to, it has limits and exclusions

        Citation needed.

        1. As often as you hear it yes cussing in public is a crime and people can press charges against you for cussing at them in person or on line.

          Citation needed.

          The citation, at least for ol’ Virginny, was provided by the Fraternal Order of Police douche, who gleefully explained that under VA State Code “public cursing” is considered to be “disorderly conduct”, a misdemeanor offense.

          1. Which seems to conflict substantially with Section 12 of the Virginia Constitution:

            That the freedoms of speech and of the press are among the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained except by despotic governments; that any citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; that the General Assembly shall not pass any law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, nor the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances.

            What part of that allows for outlawing curse words?

        2. “Freedom of speech is not a universal right to talk to people how we want to, it has limits and exclusions.”

          Then it’s not “freedom of speech”. But wait, I am a fool. Words have no meanings!

      5. Its a freedom from the Government controlling what we can and can not say, it does not give you the right to just say anything to anybody. You can and will be held accountable.

        Huh? Do these people hear the words that are coming out of their own mouths?

      6. I don’t know what a Barbara Roberts is, but it seems blindingly stupid and jumping up and down like a fucking Jack Russel terrier at the thought of pistol whipping you into compliance.

        1. She strikes me (whomever she is) as the kind of coward who outsources violence.

    4. Some of the comments are fantastic.

      Janet E. Nisbett:

      what ever happened to Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Why is there all of this hate? I don’t remember so much hate when I was younger. Maybe we need another devastating war like WWII for us to be kinder. How much more energy does it take to not say something mean and hateful. I just don’t get it.

      1. He makes a valid point. WWII was one of the kindest periods of time in human history. The Nazis were such nice people they actually gave Jews free trips to camp.

        1. I think she is saying that we need slaughter vast amounts of people until our hatred is satiated. Then we will be all murdered out.

        2. On trains no less. The most glorious and enlightened mode of transportation

  19. So long as we believe that people have the “right” to access services, as Christine Quinn insists, and not the right to TRY and access services, this debate will never be resolved. And freedom of movement, commerce, and association is doomed.

  20. I voiced an opinion about how each and everyone one us should have the right to free association, not just those who have claimed to have “religion” on another forum I frequent. A lawyer there responded with “You really seem to love majority persecution of minorities. Also you have virtually no grasp of the Constitution”. I was flabbergasted.

    1. Being ‘a lawyer’ doesn’t mean someone isn’t an idiot.

      I mean, look at bo.

      1. Citation needed.

        1. +1 if you can’t prove it in court, it never happened

  21. How to reconcile religious freedom and gay marriage

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but if you allow gay marriage and you allow people not to engage in gay weddings if they don’t want to, you have already reconciled religious freedom and gay marriage since both exist simultaneously.

    There therefore is no conundrum – if you allow legal gay marriage and you allow people not to participate if they don’t want to, then voila! It’s been reconciled! What progressives are trying to do is have all religious freedoms superseded by gay rights such that gay people are allowed to essentially order the religious to do what they want. Of course, most gay people, if someone said ‘hey, I’d rather not take part’ would just go find another florist because they’re rational human beings, but the more fascist gay people, like the more fascist straights, will use this as an opportunity to force their political opponents to do things against their consciences.

    This is a power play where progressives are just trying to hurt religious people because they’re totally Christ Fags. That’s all.

    1. At this point I think it has been totally taken over by rampant moral signalling. People who missed the boat on the original gay marriage issue need to find something to protest so they can pretend they were part of it. People not catering gay weddings? BIGOTRY! MUST BE STAMPED OUT IMMEDIATELY! This is what happens when you win. All the cowards who were to afraid to help out when the battle was raging, suddenly rush to help you kill off the enemy wounded. And make a big point out of it to show everyone how much they are “helping”.

      1. “This is what happens when you win. All the cowards who were to afraid to help out when the battle was raging, suddenly rush to help you kill off the enemy wounded”

        As Conor F. said it =

        “Now that those who would discriminate against gays are a powerless cultural minority that focuses its objectionable behavior in a tiny niche of the economy, elites have suddenly decided that using state power to punish them is a moral imperative. The timing suggests that this has as much [*more, in my mind – G] to do with opportunism, tribalism, humanity’s love of bandwagons, and political positioning as it does with advancing gay rights, which have advanced thanks to persuasion, not coercion.”

        1. Also, the cowardliness of the people in question when gay marriage *didn’t* have majority support.

        2. Either they are fickle now, or they were cowardly then. Sort of like Barack Obama.

          Oh wait, I was actually FOR gay marriage all along! I just campaigned the opposite way because, well, people might not have voted for me otherwise!.

      2. I know someone who discovered they were gay at nearly age forty. Now she walks around sounding like Harvey fucking Milk.

        It’s like finding out at mid life you have black ancestry, and the next morning you’re saying, “power to the people baby!” While holding up your fist and quoting Malcolm X.

      3. Great point Hazel.

        I hadn’t thought of it like that before. Now that you have brought it up, you are absolutely right. These fuckers are terrified that when the Great Awakening happens that they might be hauled in front of a committee to explain exactly when they were for gay rights.

        Like Epi has said, they don’t give a shit about gay rights, they just care about belonging to the tribe.

    2. Remember “If you don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one”? But if you don’t believe in gay marriage, I guess you have to participate anyway.

      1. They actually used to say ‘if you don’t believe in gay marriage, don’t have one,’ so these attacks on people for not wanting to participate are directly contrary to the arguments they were making approximately 2 years ago.

    1. Reserve Deputy Robert Bates, a 73-year-old former police officer, was trying to help officers take Harris into custody when he fired his gun, the statement said.

      Oh for fuck’s sake!

      1. It was Take Your Grandpa To Work day.

      2. Oh for fuck’s sake!

        You’re really going to be openly ageist like that. Old people, yada yada.

        *Heroic Mulatto now officially marked as bigot. His post’s, from here on, subject to additional levels of scrutiny. Bluff gains “moral superiority” boost among Reason community.

        1. Heroic Mulatto forbidden to write science fiction.

          h/t Irish

          1. That site in general is a fountain of SJW dipshitery. Look at this shit.

            You cannot truly change culture without addressing the media. Ultimately, we can pass 100 laws saying that misogyny, homophobia, racism, transphobia, ableism et al are not okay. We can we fight, we can vanquish a thousand bigots, and make a thousand impassioned speeches, but if everyone goes back home to books and TV full of hate speech, stereotypes, tropes, and marginalised servants/villains or ? and most commonly ? to fictional worlds where we don’t even exist ? then how much can you change? “Hearts and Minds” are the key here ? and it’s in the pages of books and the light of the TV screen where we will reach them.

            WE MUST TURN ALL ART INTO PROPAGANDA! WHOOOO!

            1. You know who else wanted to win hearts and minds?

              1. Jake Fratelli?

              2. The Girl Scouts when passing out cookies?

              3. Hypnotoad?

    2. How am I supposed to know this was an outrageous civil rights violation if they don’t tell me the victim’s skin color?

      1. By “victim”, do you mean the officer who injured his knee on the neck of the suspect?

        1. Speaking of which, let’s go to the comment section!

          “I feel badly for him. Clearly some of the blame must fall on the person resisting arrest though. We cannot continue to support fighting with police, trying to kill police and have the expectation that things like this won’t happen. Perhaps if obama and the rest of the liberal idiots making the police out to be the bad guys ALL of the time, more compliance by criminals might be occur. When you either run from police or fight with them, having the expectation something good is going to happen you’re clearly delusional.”

          You hear that? Because Obama.

  22. So what I’m hearing from the panel is, if you’re a business, offering services to the public, you can be compelled to provide those services against your will.

    So the New York Times must allow me to take out a front page ad which, I dunno, rips the Palestinians a new one.

    I’m trying to remember, but wasn’t there recently a controversy where the left felt it had the right to deny a Jewish group advertising space? Anyone?

    1. http://www.israelnationalnews……SBW9-G3qXc

      NYT owned radio station banned pro-Israel ad, to sum it up. Claimed it was “outside our bounds of acceptability.” It made no derogatory reference to Palestinians.

      There are a plethora of contradictions in the leftist position on this that Welch did not have a chance to highlight in that segment. But that’s not an issue to these people because they are never logically consistent.

      The shrew from NY on the panel was really funny because she actually tried to be consistent and said a gay business has to provide a cake to the Westborro Baptist Church. So, I’ll give her a slight kudos for actually having the willingness to say that. Of course, in practice, the left has no problem writing arbitrary laws that serve only to protect certain groups.

      1. Of course, a more obvious example of hypocrisy – I’m sure MSNBC would have no problem airing ads for Ted Cruz’s campaign.

  23. These threads are getting obnoxious in general, but I particularly loathe the influx of right wingers making ridiculous arguments against gay marriage. There’s just about one argument you can make that’s sensible, as I see it, and that’s take away state sanctioned marriage entirely.

    The whole legal basis for gay marriage has existed for decades at the least. It’s really an incredible example of how culture impacts the interpretation of rights. Which is why I wish shit was more explicit in the Constitution.

    On another note, I’d criticize Welch for one thing. He never actually used the phrase ‘freedom of association,’ if I’m not mistaken. Most Americans are completely unfamiliar with the concept as a right. Introducing them to do it in technical terms may actually help.

    1. “I particularly loathe the influx of right wingers making ridiculous arguments against gay marriage’

      If you mean the Robby threads… I don’t think those people *really are* ‘right-wingers’.

      A lot of the unfamiliar commenters seem to me to be liberal trolls attempting to associate the board with SoCon type fag-bashing. i can’t remember which one, but it was obvious from the comments in one of the robby pizzageddon threads that one dude was a prog laying down the Socon parody.

      You see this in a lot of more-mainstream news sites… half of the comments are ‘liberals arguing with liberals-pretending-to-be-conservatives’. Not to say there aren’t plenty of REAL AMERICAN types who bleed red and bemoan the liberal communist islam lovers … just that they don’t read Reason, or care enough to troll here.

      we never really got it here much at all, with the exception of Underzog/American, who as far as i can tell are *actually* genuwine racists.

      He never actually used the phrase ‘freedom of association’

      “Freedom of Association” has some problems as a term. Some people just translate it directly to “racism”. I get your point and i think people do need to be ‘educated’ about how its a logical extension of self-ownership…. but if matt avoids the *phase*, i’m less bothered than when say, other writers like Robby don’t just avoid the phrase… they avoid the *idea in its entirety*.

      ENB has also openly said she doesn’t think *it should exist*.

      1. ENB has also openly said she doesn’t think *it should exist*.

        GILMORE, do you have a link to that?

        1. from a 2013 piece she wrote for Bustle

          “”If you’re in business in the United States, you shouldn’t be able to choose what classes of people you will or will not do business with. You have the right to not go into business, to choose a profession that will allow you to never deal with whomever it is you don’t want to deal with; you don’t have the option to go into business and then discriminate based on basic, immutable things ? or you shouldn’t have that option, anyway””

          1. How….daringly dull.

            ENB, you disappoint me.

          2. Notable, compared to ENB’s comment above….

            …is that Shackleford, Reason’s Gayest* Writer? Wrote a piece a year later entitled, Nobody has a Right to an Anti-Gay Cake Either, where he pointed out that no business is obligated to serve gay weddings any more than they should be required to serve Anti-Gay pep-rallies or any other function they personally disagree with

            *(I actually have no idea where on the Gayscale other writers reside, but Shaq gets the crown by default)

            i just point it out, because it often seems the Social Justice Warriors are sometimes at odds with the actually-aggrieved classes they claim to be ‘defending’.

      2. Whoever they are, their arguments are boring to read.

        “Freedom of Association” has some problems as a term. Some people just translate it directly to “racism”.

        Pretty soon I think we’ll see free speech associated with racism now that it’s been linked to evil profits. Most Americans aren’t batshit crazy leftists who tie things like small or limited government to racism.

        I do recall ENB making that argument and it’s pretty absurd special pleading to me. But it says something that she was still rational in the way she said it than what passes as intelligent commentary on Slate.com.

      3. “Freedom of Association” has some problems as a term.

        From a libertarian perspective, Freedom of Association seems a lot more like a natural right or self-evident truth, especially when compared to a term like ‘equal protection (under the law)’.

        Especially considering the latter requires a government to identify/generate equality and/or enforce protection and the “under the law” part implies that the law can/does/will fuck up to begin with.

        I agree that if the majority of your paycheck comes from the FedGov, they probably ought to be able to kick you off the dote if you can’t follow their rules. The problem is that, increasingly, avoiding the government dote is becoming impossible and the reach of equal protection far exceeds anyone/everyone having anything to do with a government paycheck.

    2. There’s just about one argument you can make that’s sensible, as I see it, and that’s take away state sanctioned marriage entirely.

      I am against state sanctioned gay marriage because I think it is silly. Is that an acceptable reason?

      Which is why I wish shit was more explicit in the Constitution.

      You know if it was more explicit and they knew that the 14th amendment would be used to force states to recognize gay marriage, the clarifying text would roughly state that this amendment in no way compels states to recognize marriages between people of the same sex.

      1. I am against state sanctioned gay marriage because I think it is silly. Is that an acceptable reason?

        No. Not unless you are also against straight marriage being sanctioned and treated as special by the state.

        You know if it was more explicit and they knew that the 14th amendment would be used to force states to recognize gay marriage, the clarifying text would roughly state that this amendment in no way compels states to recognize marriages between people of the same sex.

        Saying the government cannot make laws that violate the rights of individuals to associate freely between one another has nothing to do with an amendment that says that the government cannot discriminate under the law against people who are black and gay. And a freedom of association amendment would trump the court cases that have expanded it to impact private individuals.

        1. No. Not unless you are also against straight marriage being sanctioned and treated as special by the state.

          Is it irrational for me to recognize a difference between a male-female sexual relationship and a male-male sexual relationship?

          Is this one of those situations were 2 + 2 = 5 and if I don’t see that I am unfit for society?

          1. Is it irrational for me to recognize a difference between a male-female sexual relationship and a male-male sexual relationship?

            Yes. Unless it’s you.

            1. I should clarify, “Yes, in a legal sense.” Your own taboos are your own business.

              1. Your own taboos are your own business.

                This. I have no problem with Christians until they start trying to get their beliefs enforced upon the rest of society. The law doesn’t recognize Christianity as being superior to atheism. There is a difference between how YOUR religion defines marriage and how the state should do so. Because rejecting that notion means you are also rejecting how other religions and cultures view marriage. No, not explicitly, but that’s the natural and undeniable implication of your desire to see it defined.

                …and if I don’t see that I am unfit for society?

                If I wanted to argue with someone pretending to be a victim, I’d go to Slate.com

                I defend the right of any Christian church or Christian individual to oppose gay marriage regardless of my own personal beliefs on the matter (which is that, yes, you are a bigot). You, as a Christian, cannot afford others that same courtesy. You want YOUR rights and beliefs protected, but not those of others.

                Your church, or you as an individual have no obligation to support or deal with gays who have married.

                1. Your church, or you as an individual have no obligation to support or deal with gays who have married.

                  Maybe in Libertopia you don’t have that obligation but here in the real world you do…

            2. Your own taboos are your own business

              Forget taboos, forget love, I am speaking on a functional / engineering level an evolutionary level. There clearly is a real , not something I learned because of the culture I was raised in, not something that I perceive due to my religion, but a real tangible difference between the two. It is madness to deny it.

              1. Forget taboos, forget love, I am speaking on a functional / engineering level an evolutionary level. There clearly is a real , not something I learned because of the culture I was raised in, not something that I perceive due to my religion, but a real tangible difference between the two. It is madness to deny it.

                The other argument where the right winger tries to cast aside religion. Then they really don’t have a leg to stand on…

                I don’t deny physical, biological realities. None of that has to do with what is ultimately a contract between two consenting adults. Nor does any biological difference change the fact that many straight couples function no differently than gay couples. Because the real biological difference that impacts society is children, and plenty of straight couples never intend to have them when they get married.

                So, we have another form of special pleading.

                Regardless, the government has no business social engineering. It’s bad at it, and it has negative consequences for people on top of just being an infringement of individual agency/free will.

                1. I don’t deny physical, biological realities.

                  I don’t care about your morality or Christen morality for that matter either. I don’t know where Christian morality entered the discussion but I never made any claims to it.

                  Because the real biological difference that impacts society is children, and plenty of straight couples never intend to have them when they get married.

                  And this is where I draw the line regarding exemptions. I am okay with granting special privileges for married couples of the opposite sex. You probably draw it at: all parties must be human and above a certain age. Maybe they can’t be closely related, I am not sure, you have your own preferences.

                  I draw the line where I do because I accept the tradition of thousands of years. I do not really care about gay marriage. Like I said it is silly to me. However, I reject the argument that the constitution guaranties it. This is a something new and if marriage is going to be redefined and benefits are to be extended to same-sex couples it is something, that in a democracy, the citizens have a voice in. My voice meekly whispers, “no”.

              2. There clearly is a real , not something I learned because of the culture I was raised in, not something that I perceive due to my religion, but a real tangible difference between the two. It is madness to deny it.

                What is being denied?

                Marriage is little more than a loving relationship in which its participants want to legitimize it’s union with the protection of the same laws that everyone else enjoys by executing a marriage contract.

                Don’t like homo marriage? Don’t have one.

                1. Don’t like homo marriage? Don’t have one.

                  Do I still get a cake made for me?

                  1. Do I still get a cake made for me?

                    I think if we adopted the Repo Man world, a lot of problems would go away.

                2. Marriage is little more than a loving relationship…

                  Why is love an essential element for marriage?

                  Why should it even be exclusive?

                  1. Why is love an essential element for marriage?

                    It’s not. But you knew that.

                    Thanks for playing, stepchild.

                    1. It’s not. But you knew that.

                      Then why did you write the sentence that I quoted?

                      What is the logical reason for the state to grant privileges to married people? Especially since we have apparently decided that family formation and child rearing is not the reason.

                      Why should the state give a fuck about anyone’s relationships then? Why should anyone else be forced to affirm them?

    3. “Which is why I wish shit was more explicit in the Constitution.”

      The Constitution is pretty explicit that government has no business doing about 95% of the shit it does.

  24. “Introducing them to do it in technical terms may actually help.”

    I would agree and if you can make the parellel to free speech people may “get” even if they atill don’t agree. Defenders of Free speech don’t that hateful or racist is “ok” they just embrace the freedom of being able say what they want so they defend others right to do so as well. Its not that far off from freedom of association.

    1. Dont think that.

      1. Of course people don’t really respect rights when it comes to business owners or you wouldnt have smoking bans. I hate this damn phone.

  25. By the way, Ana Marie Cox has to be one of the dumbest human beings in existence. Remember her article about ‘coming out’ as a Christian where she said this?

    I am not smart enough to argue with those that cling to disbelief. Centuries of philosophers have made better arguments than I could, and I am comfortable with just pointing in their direction if an acquaintance insists, “If there is a God, then why [insert atrocity]?” For me, belief didn’t come after I had the answer to that question. Belief came when I stopped needing the answer.

    Yeah, I can’t actually provide any argument on behalf of my religion to those of you who ‘cling to disbelief,’ so I’m just going to assert that centuries of philosophers have already disproven all of your complaints, even though they haven’t.

    She also admits that she doesn’t actually know what the Bible says. So she belongs to a religion she can’t defend and which has a Holy Book she doesn’t understand and has never actually read.

    What a brilliant woman she is.

    1. I actually wrote something about that article when Ana Marie Cox first published it and I’m still amazed at what a fucking idiot she is:

      To be clear, I don’t just believe in God. I am a Christian. Decades of mass culture New Ageism has fluffed up “belief in God” into a spiritual buffet, a holy catch-all for those who want to cover all the numbers: Pascal’s wager as a roulette wheel and not a coin toss. Me, I’m going all in with Jesus. It’s not just that the payoff could be tremendous, it already has been! The only cost is the judgment that comes from others, from telling people that my belief has a specific shape, with its own human legacy of both shame and triumph.

      I’m all in for Jesus and say my belief has a specific human legacy, but I can’t actually explain to anyone what that legacy is because:

      What about Bible literacy? Mine is mostly limited to dimly remembered excerpts from the Old Testament we read in my college humanities class and a daily verse email. I read spiritual meditations, but the Word is still a second language I speak less than fluently.

      Yeah. I’m all in for Jesus, but I don’t know what his actual teachings were because I don’t know anything about the book on which my alleged religion is founded.

      1. You forgot to add several ad hoc “like” into her utterances….what a moron.

  26. I have a medical condition that forces me to eat only pork! Those Jewish/Halal delis won’t sell it to me! They are discriminating against me by not selling me anything I can eat!
    They are forcing their religion into their business!
    All businesses should be entirely amoral entities who activities are totally directed by the government! The people who own them are just employees of society! They should be compelled to provide me with the food I want and not shove their religion down my throat! They didn’t build that! If you own a business, I OWN YOU!

  27. I ran some of this by a proggie friend. He agreed business owners still have large measures of freedom of association and can refuse service to some people, but not to those individuals who are members of certain groups that have been given extraordinary rights because they can’t help being in the group: that is – race, gender, and sexual orientation. So, the Muslim shop owner can still toss out a Franklin Graham supporter who is wearing a “Islam is a gutter religion” t-shirt but he couldn’t toss out a gay person wearing a “Gays Against Islam” shirt. A Jew is free to
    refuse service to neo-Nazis but not to women who may be menstruating. A black can refuse to serve klansmen but not white people in general. So, until more groups make the privileged list (and I’m sure the progs are working on this), it is still o.k. to discriminate on basis of ideology, religion, body weight, fashion style, no shoes, etc.

    1. And white cis-het males will never make the list. The real goal, it seems to me, is to make it okay for progressives to discriminate at will against people they don’t like (Christians, for example) while those groups can never return the favor.

      It’s a means of ghettoizing opponents of the progressives so that they have no capacity to defend themselves against prog infringements on their rights.

    2. It is a dangerous game the left plays with this crap. For one, they cannot actually prove that homosexuality is genetic. They sure as fuck can’t show gender identity is genetic. The clip above featured one of the panel throwing in the word ‘inherent’ to describe the protected traits.

  28. Another great injustice that cannot be allowed to stand.

    Gay couple:
    If only there were a law that forced doctors to do what we want them to do. Won’t anyone think of the children … with two mommies.

    1. That one I am actually sympathetic toward. The baby isn’t gay or straight at this point and doctors have certain professional obligations to treat everyone that bakers and florists don’t.

      1. doctors have certain professional obligations to treat everyone that bakers and florists don’t.

        In an emergency life-or-death situation, I agree with you in principle, but beyond that, there’s no rational for treating the professions any differently.

        Either you have a right or you don’t. It’s not something that can be turned on and off at a whim.

      2. That one I am actually sympathetic toward.

        What if that gay baby grew up to be Hitler?

        The baby isn’t gay or straight at this point and doctors have certain professional obligations to treat everyone that bakers and florists don’t.

        Another doctor at the same hospital saw the baby. If you watch the clip, especially the end, it becomes clear that it is just a piece of propaganda.

        And just for the record I was a gay baby.

        1. HIPAA is a whole other mess to deal with. It’s a separate argument from gay rights entirely.

          I would argue that no doctor should be forced to treat someone they don’t like, but the government has already so heavily regulated healthcare and who can provide it that the argument is a lot messier.

          That said, any doctor who would discriminate against a child with gay parents is a piece of shit, and yes – anyone making that argument is a propagandist.

          1. That said, any doctor who would discriminate against a child with gay parents is a piece of shit, and yes – anyone making that argument is a propagandist.

            What is the point of going on the news and telling everyone that a doctor did not want to personally serve your child but instead had another doctor perform the service? Then, they go on to plead for legislation to prevent anything like this from happening again. The baby bouncing on their laps the whole time.

            1. They are playing on emotions and the prejudices of the media and those ideological aligned with them.

              Sort of like what you have put forth as arguments in this thread going the other way.

              1. They are playing on emotions and the prejudices of the media and those ideological aligned with them.

                Sort of like what you have put forth as arguments in this thread going the other way.

                The other argument where the right winger tries to cast aside religion

                which is that, yes, you are a bigot

                You, as a Christian, cannot afford others that same courtesy

                Your church, or you as an individual have no obligation to support or deal with gays who have married.

                Yes, I was the one who was playing on emotions and prejudices. No where have I made any of claims or exhibited any of the characteristics which you claim to be held by the person you are conversing with. You have completely constructed a fictional christian right-winger. I have not attempted to label you in any way.

  29. Social inclusion laws are not only stupid but also dangerous. When the government can dictate who you must do business with they can and will be able to dictate just about anything to a business.

    BTW what happened to the concept of freedom of choice? oh my bad that only applies to left-wing approved choices like choosing to kill your baby. An important choice is what type of clientele your business associates with. Very soon, private institutions will be forced to admit people that do not fit their membership requirements(oops already happened with private clubs like Augusta National).

    Eventually, all choices, will be dictated by the government. They already know everything you do online and are developing all sorts of ways of collecting info on the rest of what you say or do.

    Protecting freedom is far more important than making sure that a minority has to choose photographer B instead of photographer A. Nowhere in the constitution is the right to have you or your lifestyle approved by everyone in the country. Disliking you is their right as is running their business as they chose. End discrimination by economic choice, not by government fiat

  30. Nobody noticed how one of the three interchangeable liberal women on the panel said it was OK to force gay bakers to make cakes for the Westboro Baptists?

    In defense of the interchangeable liberal women, she could be lying.

    But if she’s telling the truth, then she’s honestly facing up to the consequences of her own BS. She’s willing to sacrifice lefty business owners who may actually have conscientious objection to serving the Phelpses – or even more mainstream religions like the Southern Baptists.

    What happens when an organic commune refuses to cater a “30 years of defending real marriage” party for old Pastor Bob at the Pentecostal Church? Assuming the Pentecostals are uncharitable enough to sue (which might happen), is Interchangeable Liberal Woman willing to cheerlead the bankruptcy of the commune at the hands of the government?

  31. Since everybody on this thread is so smart, can one of you explain to me what business it even is of the government who gets married to whom (or what)?

    1. None of its business. None.

      Just like it’s none of the government’s business if a random bakery won’t bake cakes for gay weddings.

      There sure are a lot of things that are none of the government’s business, huh?

      1. It isn’t the government’s business what consenting adults form what relations. The purest libertarian argument (in my own view) is against government sanctioned marriage along the lines of that espoused by Rand Paul, only part of that is just an appeal to the religious right when he makes it.

        But since no one is seriously in favor of that, I’ll settle for general equality under the law. Consenting adults should be able to marry whoever they please, and if the government recognizes it between straight couples there’s no rational reason gay or even polygamist couples shouldn’t have the same right.

        Everything else argued by the religious right is a form of special pleading.

        1. Nobody noticed how one of the three interchangeable liberal women on the panel said it was OK to force gay bakers to make cakes for the Westboro Baptists?

          I, too, was surprised at this. But this isn’t how the law would ever practice or end up implemented by the left. She realized in the moment she needed to say something for intellectual consistencies sake.

          Another member of the panel said you can’t discriminate based on ‘inherent’ traits which opens up a whole other can of worms that can’t be discussed frankly because the issue is so political. Mainly, how inherent sexual attraction is in the first place and what precisely inherent means. Because last I checked, no one has ever shown a proven gene that causes homosexuality (I argue this as a complete agnostic). Why a person is gay doesn’t matter, though. It’s none of the government’s damn business.

          1. She also knows that, although the Westboro Baptists are loathsome jerks, they’d never pull a jerk move like demanding a gay baker to make them a cake. The Westboro Baptists would know that the gay baker would either refuse outright or bake a really bad cake, and they know that they are so culturally unpopular that there is no way they would prevail in litigation for remedy in either case. No government entity would assist the Westboro Baptists in securing their so-called “right” to coerce the baker, and no jury would find for the plaintiff if they sued the baker for delivering a really crappy cake.

    2. In a sane world, the state would have no part at all in marriage, beyond enforcing the contract terms.

    3. The government’s only business is not to decide who should be married, but to recognize existing marriages, and perhaps impose some fees and recordkeeping requirements.

      Of course it’s not the government’s business to *define* marriage, since marriage is a pre-state institution. It doesn’t owe its existence to the government, but one of the reasons governments exist is to protect and defend marriage.

      So if marriage means, and has always meant, “two (or more) people who love each other, regardless of what sex they are,” then that definition sure escaped every civilization before us, Christian or non-Christian.

      So apparently, the *true* definition of marriage was only discovered in parts of the secular West in the past few decades. Everyone else got it wrong.

      1. So if marriage means, and has always meant, “two (or more) people who love each other, regardless of what sex they are,” then that definition sure escaped every civilization before us, Christian or non-Christian.

        Every civilization does not define marriage this way, though. Most doing so is irrelevant. Pre-Christian societies in the West did not define marriage or their equivalent that way. There are societies today that don’t define it that way. The government privileging certain cultures over others isn’t the role of government that most libertarians would accept. The very concept of an appeal to tradition is a form of special pleading. You are basically arguing the law should not be blind, and that government should get to make choices that favor certain choices regardless of whether they violate the NAP.

        The tradition argument being made could have just as easily applied to slavery in the 19th century.

        1. (1) Slavery was a tradition
          (2) derp derp derp

          THEREFORE:

          (3) No tradition whatsoever is entitled to any presumption of validity.

          1. I think it’s funny that he didn’t mention slavery until the last sentence, so you willfully ignored the preceding arguments because you have no answer to them.

            No tradition whatsoever is entitled to any presumption of validity.

            No – no tradition whatsoever is entitled to any presumption of validity if no facts back it up.

            If you can’t make an argument and just say ‘well, tradition,’ that is not an argument I have to respect because it is based on nothing but the prejudices of past generations. Tradition has value in many instances, but it should not be given the force of law in the face of countervailing arguments and evidence.

            1. I wasn’t actually sure what Brochettewald was saying before the final paragraph, and I suspect any attempt on my part to summarize what he was saying would be met with a vigorous retort of “YOU’RE DISTORTING HIS AWESOME ARGUMENTS!”

              So I’ll wait until he clarifies his remarks before I undertake to refute them.

              1. What I said was pretty clear outside one word error on my part where I said:

                You are basically arguing the law should not be blind, and that government should get to make laws that favor certain choices regardless of whether they violate the NAP.

                But if you want something clarified, I believe it’s proper etiquette to actually specify what part you found confusing.

                In reality, I think you’re full of shit because my point was clear. You arbitrarily choose which part of tradition you want to recognize but discard the parts or other traditions you don’t.

                Because there were ancient societies that recognized gay marriage. And other cultures today view marriage in different ways. The definition isn’t something we ‘just’ got right in the last few decades. Your view is myopic and values one specific tradition of many.

                1. “there were ancient societies that recognized gay marriage.”

                  Now we’re getting somewhere. Which societies were you thinking of?

                  1. I’m pretty sure it’s been pointed out to you in the past, but ancient Greece and Rome in their heathenish days, for two examples. If you look at the Middle East and Central Asia, there is a long history of homosexuality being practiced by large segments of the male population. The Egyptian Mamlukes were a society that favored homosexuality. There are matriarchal societies that completely break the patriarchal family unit structure with brothers raising children instead of the biological father. Certain Latin American cultures had widespread homosexuality and I believe its in Peru where the Chimu look at relationships with women as being inferior to those between men. They are to produce children and that’s it.

                    But the argument I made was clear in the very first comment.

                    There are drastically different conceptions of family and marriage in human history. You recognize only one as legitimate and right.

                    1. The proposition you are trying to establish is that “there were ancient societies that recognized gay marriage.”

                      I don’t really see any evidence of that in the examples you give.

                    2. What is evidence, in your view? Because I provided a number of concrete examples of societies. Some of them didn’t just recognize gay couples, but actively encouraged them to the detriment of straight relations (The Mamluks).

                      If you can’t argue in good faith, there’s no point in bothering. For instance, just like when someone says they need something clarified they should specifically ask what they need clarifying, if you think some point lacks evidence or is irrelevant you should say which part and why.

                    3. You offered to show that “there were ancient societies that recognized gay marriage.”

                      So by all means provide some examples.

                    4. Greeks
                      Roman
                      Mamluks
                      China

                    5. You listed several supposedly gay-friendly societies, but gave no examples of where they “recognized gay marriage.”

                      So even those past societies which you characterize as gay-friendly did not recognize gay marriage.

                      You have scored several points against yourself.

                    6. The Mamluks only recognized gay relationships and didn’t believe in ‘straight’ couples.

                      The Romans and Greeks BOTH had gay unions. As did China.

                      The Latin American societies mentioned had widespread homosexuality and even transgendered individuals. Whether they had marriage or unions or not isn’t something I or anyone else can say. But given how freely they depicted it and how widespread it was, it’s a good bet the answer is yes.

                      And there are matriarchal societies that break down the entire concept of marriage as you would define it.

                      So now it is stated explicitly. I look forward to your next attempt to stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and repeat I’m not listening.

                    7. Oh, I’m listening, all right…listening for the sound of your evidence.

                      Maybe I should turn my hearing aid up to full volume.

                    8. Just one pedantic point: Avuncular societies are matrilineal, not matriarchial. The authority in the family is maintained by the mother’s brothers, not the mother, even if property rights are assigned martrilineally.

                      It boils down to a rather shrewd if cynical observation from the pre-DNA test days: “You can’t be sure who’s the father, but you can be pretty sure who’s the mother.” Avuncular societies maintain the male control over property and family, it’s just uncles instead of fathers.

          2. Appeal to tradition doesn’t make something valid, and you didn’t address the nuances of the argument I presented. There are matriarchal societies, polygamist societies, and even patriarchal societies have and do differ in how they define marriage.

            Your entire argument is, as stated, a form of special pleading. Your ‘facts’ to support it (your outline of the actual tradition) aren’t even right. There WERE Western societies that accepted the gay relationships under the law in the same way as straight couples.

            There’s some derp here, but it isn’t coming from me.

            1. “didn’t address the nuances of the argument I presented”

              In other words, you were vague enough in your remarks that I knew however I interpreted your remarks I’d be open to the rebuttal of “OMG, you totally didn’t get what I was saying!!!”

              1. No – you just didn’t respond to the bulk of my post. You replied to one sentence of it.

                You’re behaving worse than Bo now.

                1. I replied to the one sentence of your post whose meaning was clear.

          3. No tradition whatsoever is entitled to any presumption of validity.

            Tradition can fuck itself. Tradition carriers as much weight as folklore when it comes to the governance of others. It never occurs to these midgets that different people have different traditions.

            Note that we have supposed libertarians who only want the state to use its monopoly on force **just in this one little teensy-weensy spot** I swear that’s it! Just make those dirty homos go back to their closeted ways. There’s no WAY they can use that violence anywhere else!

            I guess all the shame boners they get thinking about all those sweaty men get to them after a while. It clouds their thinking.

            1. “Tradition can fuck itself.”

              The rallying cry of revolutionists from the Jacobins to the Bolsheviks to today.

              Every movement which has “tradition can fuck itself” as its slogan has severely damaged society, and has certainly destroyed liberty.

              1. You can have all the tradition you want Eddie. Go fucking nuts with it. Share it with anyone who wants to enjoy it with you. Have parties in the street. Invite food trucks just to piss Tulpa off.

                The moment your tradition trespasses on my rights as a human, and you insist that I have to follow it or else, it stops being a tradition. It’s just an excuse that every jackboot has ever used to have power over others.

                1. “The moment your tradition trespasses on my rights as a human, and you insist that I have to follow it or else”

                  You must have the wrong number – apparently you were trying to call the people who insist that businesses (including small family businesses) share a particular definition of marriage or else go bankrupt.

                  In the previous regime, the regime where the government didn’t recognize gay marriage, businesses were perfectly free to decide whether to honor same-sex unions or not.

                  Under the current regime of “be tolerant or else,” businesses are denied that freedom.

                  1. You are not the government and the government is not you. And just because there are people who support gay marriage who are statist cunts doesn’t mean everyone on that side of the argument is.

                    This whole article is about a libertarian on MSNBC trying to argue for freedom of association. You can argue how effective he was or about his tone, but you can’t argue he was defending people like you who take offense to it.

                  2. Oh Eddie. I thought you were smart enough to not confuse and conflate the negative right to marry with the positive right that you must serve everyone and anyone in your bidness.

                    I guess I was wrong.

                    1. JW, you said

                      “The moment your tradition trespasses on my rights as a human, and you insist that I have to follow it or else”

                      I replied by pointing out that one side of the “gay marriage” debate does what you say, but it isn’t *my* side.

                    2. I replied by pointing out that one side of the “gay marriage” debate does what you say, but it isn’t *my* side.

                      You aren’t worth my time, Eddie.

                      Jebus has made you too stupid to talk to.

                    3. A happy coincidence that I am a known Jebus-fancier, or else you may have to reply to the substance of my criticism.

                      Which you *totally* could have done, you just didn’t feel like it.

                    4. Oh, don’t sell yourself short Eddie. You’re more than just a Jebus-fancier.

                      You’re a push-Jebus-on-everyone-else-ier and a use-government-to-help-you-do so-ier.

            2. ok – how about pragmatism – the only family social construct that seems to work properly so that everyone’s rights are protected and children are raised to be reasonably functional adults is monogamous heterosexual marriage. All research bears this out and that is why it has been practiced for thousands of years.

              Single motherhood has been a complete disaster in the USA. thank you liberals and feminists

              1. the only family social construct that seems to work properly so that everyone’s rights are protected and children are raised to be reasonably functional adults is monogamous heterosexual marriage.

                HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh, you bigots are so fucking transparent., so fucking pathetic. You must be at least as dumb as you think we are.

                All research bears this out and that is why it has been practiced for thousands of years

                THE TOTALLY CONVENIENT SCIENCE IS SETTLED.

                1. I like the way he links to no such research, too. All research agrees with me, but don’t expect me to provide evidence!

                  How much do you want to bet that if he tries to provide evidence he’ll show the negative outcomes of, for example, single motherhood, even though gay marriage and single parenthood are two different things?

                  1. We should make single mother get married to gays.

      2. So apparently, the *true* definition of marriage was only discovered in parts of the secular West in the past few decades. Everyone else got it wrong.

        There have been quite a few societies that allowed polygamist marriages. So by your logic, homosexual marriages should not be allowed but polygamy should.

        So Eddie – do you favor polygamous marriages, and if not, why not?

        1. Polygamy as a tradition is entitled to some presumptive validity, unlike the complete abolition of the gender binary.

          As with slavery, the presumption of validity which applies to polygamous societies in respect of their traditions can be overcome by strong evidence of the harm done by the institution.

          And in societies whose founding institutions never contemplated polygamy (eg, the United States), we can afford to be *much* less deferential to those who tried to introduce the institution into the community (eg, the Mormons with their first-in-America attempt to establish polygamy, which was rightly crushed out by federal authority until they admitted they were wrong).

        2. Sure marriage is what you define it. So why do you want to put a gun to people’s heads and tell them they must considered gay marriage to be a real marriage? Gays could be married before. They just couldn’t sue anyone who disagreed.

          1. Sure marriage is what you define it. So why do you want to put a gun to people’s heads and tell them they must considered gay marriage to be a real marriage? Gays could be married before. They just couldn’t sue anyone who disagreed.

            How could gays be married before when gay marriage was illegal, John? Show your work.

            1. Because being married is nothing more than considering yourself such. If you or the government say I am not, I still am because the status doesn’t depend on them.

              All the government does is force you to agree with me. And you hate people who object to gay marriage. So yes threatening them with bankruptcy for even refusing to participate in a marriage ceremony is good thing. This is what government recognition of marriage means and you wanted it. Be happy and go help sue some evil SOCONs out of business or maybe get them killed. You wanted it. Enjoy it.

              1. Becuz SSM = protected class.

                Christ you are a retard.

                1. Frank you are a fucking idiot. You are so stupid you can’t even understand the basics of what protected class and equal protection mean.

                  You do at least recognize that there is such a thing as a protected class. When we started this, you didn’t even understand that. You still don’t know what it means or how it works. But you know it exists. And when I consider how stupid you actually are, getting you that far is an epic accomplishment on my part.

                  Frank, you are the dumbest person who posts on here. Tony and Shreek are tolls. You are a real poster and you are the dumbest person on here and by a wide margin.

                  1. Yes moron. I’m the one who doesn’t understand that equal protection is guaranteed under 14A, which means if legislation is written that violates the amendment, a court may strike down said legislation as unconstitutional.

                    A protected class, OTOH, is a result of a legislative act. To obtain protected class status, requires the legislature to actively vote on and amend the CRA (et al) to add said group to the list. No judge may force any legislature, anywhere to do so.

                    That means, YES, a judge may strike down defense of marriage acts as unconstitutional AND legislatures can choose NOT to add gays to their list of protected classes. THUS legalization of SSM WITHOUT gays becoming a protected class. You fucking moron!

                    Jesus fucking christ on the cross!

        3. Sure marriage is what you define it. So why do you want to put a gun to people’s heads and tell them they must considered gay marriage to be a real marriage? Gays could be married before. They just couldn’t sue anyone who disagreed.

          1. So, the government recognizing gay marriage is the same to you as the government putting a gun to the head of others and forcing them to recognize it?

            That only holds true if you conflate two different issues. I can support one without supporting the other.Just because other assholes who support one also support another doesn’t mean I should oppose both.

            1. It is. That is all it means. If the government says you are married no one can say you are not. That is the whole point.

            2. It is. That is all it means. If the government says you are married no one can say you are not. That is the whole point.

              1. So, you agree we should get rid of all government approval and special protections for marriage, right? I mean, beyond the basic enforcement of contract rights?

                1. Sure. But that isn’t going to happen and libertarians know it. All saying that is is a rationalization for helping the progs fuck the real enemy.

                  1. Your argument can be reduced to that we are all closet progressives. To which I can only really say screw you.

                    Not only that, but you are all for screwing the gays so the SoCons don’t have to admit gay people are legally married.

                    1. So, how AREN’T you favoring SoCons over gays? And how aren’t you doing it because you sympathize with one group over the other?

                      You want us to not have a position that aligns with our ethics because other people want to extend it further than it should. That’s not an appeal to reason. It’s at best utilitarian, and in many ways an appeal to emotion.

                    2. No I am not. What should have happened is gay marriage should have been done but only done in a way that didn’t fuck other people’s rights. But Libertarians didn’t support that. They supported doing it via the courts. Doing it by the courts ensured that it would screw anyone who objected to it. And Libertarians didn’t care. They were warned. Instead of demanding it be done state by state and by statute, they demanded it be done by the courts via constitutional rights. And now hypocrites like Irish and JW and Frank, though in Frank’s defense I don’t think he is smart enough to be considered a hypocrite, he is just really that stupid, pretend they are so upset about all of this even though they supported exactly what made it happen.

                    3. How did libertarians ‘demand’ anything from the courts? Were libertarians bringing forth the lawsuits?

                      More than that, how did the courts overturning it have anything to do with discrimination lawsuits?

                      Not only that, but the whole state by state argument I’ve seen you make in the past is wrong. Federal courts do have the right to rule on this because they already did in 1967 for interracial marriages. They overruled state bans based on the race of those getting married. You could argue that the case was the wrong decision, but the precedent existed.

                      But functionally, a piece of legislation wouldn’t have changed anything. But it’s really ridiculous to claim that libertarians were the impetuous for the court decisions or that even libertarians who cheered them along were in anyway responsible.

                    4. They supported doing ti through the courts, CATO at least filed amicus briefs and were wildly happy about it occurring. They were warned of the consequences and didn’t care. In the end, they just had the courage to risk the rights of someone else so that someone they liked could get what they wanted.

                    5. How did going through the courts actually risk rights that legislation wouldn’t have?

      3. straight to the fees. ffs.

  32. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/bu…..story.html

    Apparently the other side has learned to play the use the mob to ruin a business game. Thank you gay marriage supporters.

  33. We can debate all day what marriage means. One thing is for sure you are not married unless the government forces everyone to affirm you and participate in your wedding. And it also involves sueing people into bankruptcy.

    1. If it’s any comfort to the people opposed to gay marriage around here, I personally feel incredibly dirty being on the side of progressives.

      1. You should. You were warned this was going to happen. The worst part of it is that gays are now associated with progressives. And that is likely not going to end well for gays.

        1. When *weren’t* gays aligned with the left politically, as a whole? What little political support they had tended to come from the left (libertarians are a small minority most people barely recognize).

          I should oppose the rights of gays because I don’t like their politics?

          1. I should oppose the rights of gays because I don’t like their politics?

            No, rights are only valid when they don’t have icky outcomes.

            At least that’s what the yokeltarians have been telling me.

            1. No the rights are only valid when they are rights not the ability to force other people’s face.

              Come on JW. You knew this was going to happen and you like it. Be honest you think those yocaltarians who owned that pizza place got what they deserved. You are just sorry the other dumb asses sent them money. But the rest of them got the message

              Come on if you are going to stick a boot on someone’s face, at least have the decency to enjoy it.

              1. Come on JW. You knew this was going to happen

                It doesn’t matter whether it was going to happen or not John. That’s how rights work. **It doesn’t matter how many ugly things happen as a result as an exercise of that right.**

                and you like it.

                Let me quote you, John as you have said many time to others: Fuck you.

                I spelled it out for Eddie elsewhere. I thought you were smart enough to not confuse and conflate a negative right of marriage with a positive right of forced servitude that the progs created out of thin air.

                Am I wrong?

                Come on if you are going to stick a boot on someone’s face, at least have the decency to enjoy it.

                No seriously, fuck you.

                1. John becomes immensely disingenuous on the subject of gay marriage.

                  Basically, if you support the right of gay people to equal protection under the law, that must mean you also support progressives using gay rights to oppress other people.

                  By John’s logic, black people never should stopped being discriminated against by the government because eventually the protections that stopped the government from discriminating against blacks would be used against private organizations and would damage free association.

                  It’s the exact same argument, so unless John is willing to argue that black people never should have gotten equal voting rights, I could just as easily argue that he is ‘sticking a boot’ in someone’s face whenever a bank gets sued because they don’t give out as many loans to black people as the government says they should.

                  Do you see why this line of reasoning is absurd, John?

                  1. By John’s logic, black people never should stopped being discriminated against by the government because eventually the protections that stopped the government from discriminating against blacks would be used against private organizations and would damage free association.

                    If everyone would just know their place, there wouldn’t be any problems.

                2. Sorry the truth hurts. You knew it was going and supported it. You Like it. Why wouldn’t you? You hate SOCONs and like gays. If fucking SOCONs was the price to get gays what they wanted, too bad in your view.

                  Be happy you one. You smited people you hate and helped ones you like. Tough shit if you don’t like the truth shoved in your face you own it.

                  1. You know what John, I’m starting to think that you are too stupid too see the difference. Those times when you’re enjoyable to be around and you make witty and insightful remarks? This isn’t one of those times.

                    Have fun fucking off now.

                    1. I am starting to think you are too dishonest to admit the truth. You love this Why wouldn’t you. Public accommodation laws are not going anywhere and you know it. But now you know they are equal and finally screw people you really hate.

                      Be honest do you don’t care about people hurry by this? Didn’t those people going out of business make you a little happy? Come on be honest it made you happy

                  2. You’ve lost your mind, John. I’m supporting social conservatives in this very thread and would doubtlessly be declared a bigot by the left for doing so.

                    As for ‘hating SoCons’ and ‘liking gays,’ I actually don’t like or dislike any group – I like them as individuals depending upon their actions. I know many social conservatives who don’t wish to force their values on everyone else and bear them no ill will. Meanwhile, gay people like Dan Savage are authoritarian slime who love having the opportunity to brutalize and defame EVUL CHRIST FAGS! whenever he has the opportunity, so I hate Dan Savage, despite the fact that you apparently believe I unequivocally love all gay people.

                    If fucking SOCONs was the price to get gays what they wanted, too bad in your view.

                    Well John, unlike you I believe in equal protection under the law for everyone, so if ‘getting gays what they wanted’ meant giving them equal protection under United States law, you’re damn right I support it. Just like I support the right of SoCons to free association. Those are two different things and your attempts to conflate them are rather pathetic.

                    1. Irish don’t you have a bakery or a pizza parlor you should be out suing? You guys won. Why aren’t you happy and exploiting your victory? You wanted this. You should enjoy it.

                    2. JOHN SO ANGRY! JOHN NOT LISTEN TO REASON FROM IRISH BECAUSE JOHN FILLED WITH RIGHTEOUS ANGER

                      GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

                    3. That is right Irish, if you can’t sue someone, at least gloat. Come on Irish, why don’t you bust out a good “are you mad bro” ala Mary. You won dude. People are losing their businesses. People are afraid to say the wrong thing. You have got them on the run./

                      You should be gloating. You are ascendant dude. Feel proud.

                3. It doesn’t matter whether it was going to happen or not John. That’s how rights work. **It doesn’t matter how many ugly things happen as a result as an exercise of that right.**

                  And what is right just happened to be fucking people you hate and rewarding people you like and getting to fit in and look cool doing it. You are such a courageous guy JW. What hero you are for taking the popular position and having the courage to totally fuck some unpopular group in the process.

          2. No you should not. Understand a lot of people will and that isn’t going to end well for gays. You tell me what gays stand for today other than suing anyone they don’t think sufficiently affirms them? A whole lot of people who while not pro gay were at least not anti gay are going to be anti gay in response to all this. And that is not good.

            And there is nothing not Libertarian about refusing to stand up for people’s rights because you don’t like their politics. Libertarians do it all of the time; the people in question just have to. Be SOCONs

            1. I’ve made that very argument to leftwing twits who want to browbeat people and was accused of being a bigot right winger. There’s not much I can do on that besides shrug and/or keep arguing with them.

            2. And there is nothing not Libertarian about refusing to stand up for people’s rights because you don’t like their politics. Libertarians do it all of the time

              [citation required]

            3. Libertarians do it all of the time; the people in question just have to. Be SOCONs

              Laughing my ass off.

              This entire thread is people standing up for the right of SoCons not to cater to gay weddings and it started when Matt posted a video where he defended the right of SoCons to free association.

              So you’re claiming libertarians don’t support the rights of social conservatives in a thread where they do just that.

              Okay, John.

              1. This entire thread is people standing up for the right of SoCons not to cater to gay weddings and it started when Matt posted a video where he defended the right of SoCons to free association.

                So you’re claiming libertarians don’t support the rights of social conservatives in a thread where they do just that.

                Gottdamn. You nailed it.

                Bravo!

                  1. “How to tell if your religious liberties are being violated”

                    That list certainly rebuts all those SoCons who want the government to close down worship services in the Episcopal Church and the Metropolitan Community Church, to put people in prison for selling or using contraceptives, to lock up anyone who solemnizes a gay wedding, etc.

                    If you can find such SoCons, let me know.

              2. No it’s not. This thread is a bunch of chin scratching and pointless ah that is just too bad statements about a result libertarians helped create. Libertarians hate SOCONS and if they were honest couldn’t be happier about this result. They have spent years working with Progressives to achieve

                1. Are you drooling on yourself right now?

                  1. No, he’s just a mind reader who can tell what’s going on inside our heads.

                    I think it’s hilarious that Tonio has concluded I’m a homophobe because I don’t properly respect how hard it is to be gay (sobs quietly), whereas John thinks I’m a homo-philic SoCon-hater because I don’t splutter and shake my fists angrily at the Gaystapo.

                    Apparently when you stand on principles (such as equal protection and free association) you become like a Rorschach blot where political obsessives see whatever they want to see.

                    I actually was very upset by what happened to those poor pizza shop owners in Indiana and ranted about it with my dad yesterday, but John simply knows I love when bad things happen to social conservatives because he is a psychic.

                    1. Apparently when you stand on principles (such as equal protection and free association) you become like a Rorschach blot where political obsessives see whatever they want to see.

                      John has no concept of principles. He has said, right here in this very thread (or at least implied) that we should not apply equal protection under the law for gays because it will lead to gays becoming a protected class.

                      Not only is that a nonsequitur, but it’s completely fucking immoral even if it were true.

                    2. “I’m a homo-philic SoCon-hater because I don’t splutter and shake my fists angrily at the Gaystapo.”

                      Well, *duh*

                    3. Why were you upset Irish? You hate those people. And you wanted gay marriage. And you knew gay marriage was absent a miraculous change in the law was going to produce that result.

                      Just be happy. You won. You knew some people were going to be hurt if you did but those people suck anyway. Just admit you hate them and don’t care and move on and be happy about the great good you did and how cool and pro freedom you are

                    4. Why were you upset Irish? You hate those people. And you wanted gay marriage. And you knew gay marriage was absent a miraculous change in the law was going to produce that result.

                      Just be happy. You won. You knew some people were going to be hurt if you did but those people suck anyway. Just admit you hate them and don’t care and move on and be happy about the great good you did and how cool and pro freedom you are

                    5. Why were you upset Irish? You hate those people. And you wanted gay marriage. And you knew gay marriage was absent a miraculous change in the law was going to produce that result.

                      Just be happy. You won. You knew some people were going to be hurt if you did but those people suck anyway. Just admit you hate them and don’t care and move on and be happy about the great good you did and how cool and pro freedom you are

                    6. Why were you upset Irish? You hate those people. And you wanted gay marriage. And you knew gay marriage was absent a miraculous change in the law was going to produce that result.

                      Just be happy. You won. You knew some people were going to be hurt if you did but those people suck anyway. Just admit you hate them and don’t care and move on and be happy about the great good you did and how cool and pro freedom you are

                    7. GRRRRRRRRRRRR

                      JOHN SO MAD HE POSTS NONSEQUITOR POSTS FILLED WITH IMMENSE UNREASON 4 TIMES BECAUSE HE CANNOT WAIT TO POUND THE SUBMIT KEY FURIOUSLY

                      JOHN SUPER MAD AND YELLING ABOUT HATE BUT PROJECTS HIS OWN OUTRAGE ONTO EVERYONE ELSE!

                      You’re right John. Every day I wake up thinking ‘how can I destroy the lives of random SoCons in Bumfuck Nowhere, IN?’ When I first heard of what happened to that pizza shop, I was so aroused by my success that I masturbated while thinking about those peoples’ suffering.

                      Every night I bathe in the blood of virgin social conservatives as a means of maintaining my infernal youth and when I get married I will desecrate the church in which the wedding takes place by debauching a nun on the altar in the middle of the ceremony.

                      I slit a priest’s throat last night for no reason – I just wanted to show God how I felt about his children.

                    8. You’re right John. Every day I wake up thinking ‘how can I destroy the lives of random SoCons in Bumfuck Nowhere, IN?’

                      If you don’t, you damn well should. Those people are not cool. They have no right to even exist.

                    9. how hard it is to be gay (sobs quietly)

                      Did you have a bad experience? It’s okay this is a safe space.

                  2. No but I assume you are Frank if for no other reason than the thought of all those SOCONS who are finally getting theirs. You won Frank. These people can no longer publicly practice their vile religion and still own a business. They can no longer stand in the way of gay marriage and are likely to pay a big price for ever doing so. You must be euphoric.

                    1. Hilarious. Let’s break this down:

                      No but I assume you are Frank if for no other reason than the thought of all those SOCONS who are finally getting theirs. You won Frank.

                      Never mind that FDA has been supportive of the rights of social conservatives to free associate. He supports gay marriage, so he must want SoCons to be abused by the law.

                      These people can no longer publicly practice their vile religion and still own a business.

                      Really? Because it seems to me they can’t discriminate (which is wrong since they should be allowed to) but can still practice their religion in pretty much all other fashions. Is the government stopping business owners from praying? Can they not attend church? Are they not allowed to SAY they don’t support gay people without government intervention? The idea that they can’t ‘publicly practice their religion’ is absurd.

                      They can no longer stand in the way of gay marriage and are likely to pay a big price for ever doing so

                      Which everyone in this comment section is on record as opposing.

                      You must be euphoric.

                      JOHN SMASH

                    2. Irish everyone on here supported gay marriage and ignored the warnings about what it would mean because the people it harmed were people they hated.

                    3. If you can’t run a business Without being forced to participate in weddings that violate your religion, you can’t practice it. But they can still think what they want. They just can’t say it or act on it.

                      You got them Irish. Aren’t you proud?

                    4. You got them Irish. Aren’t you proud?

                      No. As you must know by now, I won’t be happy until every Christian in this country is crucified publicly while throngs of naked pagans cavort madly, cackling at the suffering of the Christ Fags.

                      When my dread Lord Cthulhu at last rises from his palace beneath the waves, I will weep joyously as all symbols of vulgar Christendom are supplanted by shrines to the Great Old Ones.

                    5. There you go Irish. Good thing you are honest. But really, don’t lay it on too thick. The point is to be cool and be accepting and be sufficiently gay affirming. You don’t want to look like you are trying too hard.

                      Don’t worry, your cool. And that is what it is all about.

                    6. No but I assume you are Frank if for no other reason than the thought of all those SOCONS who are finally getting theirs. You won Frank. These people can no longer publicly practice their vile religion and still own a business. They can no longer stand in the way of gay marriage and are likely to pay a big price for ever doing so. You must be euphoric.

                      That’s borderline libel. I’ve supported free association at every turn, for SOCONS and everyone else on the planet.

                      You simply can’t get your brain around the concept that SSM and free association are two different topics. For the record, and for the 69th time, I favor both and without contradiction in principle.

                    7. That is nice of you not to gloat Frank. Irish is laying on a bit too think. You are a bit more savvy. I know it is just a damn shame these people had to do this.

                      But hey, we have gay marriage now. Isn’t that great?

                      I think that is the tone you want to strike and you should fit right in. No worries.

                    8. “Irish everyone on here supported gay marriage and ignored the warnings about what it would mean because the people it harmed were people they hated.”

                      Assuming facts not yet in evidence. Citation required.

                    9. Life is not Wikipedia, dolt.

                    10. Bonus for being succinct, points taken off for irrelevancy. There’s a distinct feel for the idea of insults, but, all in all, a lackluster effort. Could use a little zip.

                      Overall, 4/10.

  34. I like Matt but is genuine surprise that the gay left are being such sore winners over this is almost cute it is so naive. For gay rights activists gay marriage has always been about government forced acceptance of gays and never about freedom.

    The sad thing about this is that it is undoing so much of the acceptance gays have achieved. There will be a backlash over this. And it is likely to be ugly. Why anyone who doesn’t just hate gays thinks associating gays with sueing anyone who won’t tak part in their wedding is a good idea is beyond me.

    1. I think the activists have been willing to court the possibility of backlash based on the calculation that they will ultimately be able to win a total victory, silencing some of their opponents by persecution and threats and sidelining the rest so that they are politically weak and irrelevant.

      They know what they’re doing, they’re playing a high-stakes game. So far, they’re winning. So why should they stop?

      1. Probably. Maybe Nick can scratch his chin and write an article about what a shame that is and how the conservatives were askinf for it and need to get with the times. Funny how people who claim to be for freedom rolled over the first time popular culture made it hard to stand up.

        1. John, how isn’t your argument that we as libertarians should favor the rights of SoCons over gays?

      2. Yep. Even if they lose for the time being, it will only serve to flush out their opponents and allow them to go on witch hunts in 5 years after they’ve regrouped. Just like what happened to the Mozilla CEO.

    2. “For gay rights activists gay marriage has always been about government forced acceptance of gays and never about freedom.”

      because John really knows a lot of gay rights activists. and they told him this.

      you know, if you just added the one-word caveat, “for some gay-rights activists…“, you’d sound a million-times more reasonable.

      1. So what? The result is what the nasty ones wanted and the not nasty ones, however many they are, didn’t do anything to stop it and actively helped bring it about. So what difference does it make?

        1. “the not nasty ones, however many they are, didn’t do anything to stop it “

          “it”, referring to the Pizzapocolypse?

          I’d note that the “nasty” stuff seems to be largely perpetrated by non-gay SJWs, not gay-rights activists.

          See attitudes of ENB vs Scott Shack (an actual real-life gay) above for illustration purposes.

          Regardless, the generalization is false, and makes you sound like a loon. Not that you’ll care, but it is what it is.

          1. I am referring to suing businesses and the pushing for laws that will allow it. I don’t blame gays for the mob on the pizza parlor. If gays would stand up and tell the mob to stop, they would likely do a lot of good, but that is not their obligation.

            Ultimately, the gay community wanted the constitutional right to be married such that every state had to give them licenses. Absent a radical change in the law, doing that is going to mean anyone who refuses to participate in a gay marriage ceremony, as in not want it at their place of business or sell things to it,. was going to be sued into bankruptcy. People warned of that result and no one cared. Do a lot of gays and libertarians not like that result? Sure. But however much they don’t like it, they like gay marriage more such that they were willing to let it come about rather than only accepting gay marriage in terms that would have not resulted in that.

            In the end, the lawsuits and such are just an unfortunate but foreseeable result of the greater good of gay marriage. What is more important, gays getting married or the right of some socon asshole to not participate in the ceremony by catering it or baking a cake? We know what the answer to that is. gay marriage. Gays are more important and valuable people that SOCONs in most people’s minds.

            1. Absent a radical change in the law, doing that is going to mean anyone who refuses to participate in a gay marriage ceremony, as in not want it at their place of business or sell things to it,. was going to be sued into bankruptcy.

              John, the only way denying service to a homosexual would be against the law is if gays are added to the CRA (or state equivalent) to make them a protected class. This requires an act of Congress or the state legislature respectively.

              Striking down SSM prohibitions as unconstitutional under 14A does not add gays to the CRA. Furthermore congress/state legislatures can add gays to their protected class lists whether gays are allowed to marry or not.

              What am I missing here?

              1. No a lot actually Frank. I have to give you credit. That is a very cogent explanation of the CRA. Two things, however. First, states have laws that make homosexuals a protected class. That is what did in the bakery in Oregon. Cities do as well. All the Indiana law was doing was saying those city ordinances couldn’t screw people with a religious objection.

                The problem with doing gay marriage as a constitutional right is that unless you want to say that the state has to recognize every marriage, meaning polygamy and marrying your cousin, you have to explain why it has to recognize gay marriages. That means gays for the purpose of marriage are a special class different than the person who wants three wives or to marry his German shepherd. That makes gays a protected class. You can’t deny gays the right to marry each other just like you can’t deny Jews the right or black people the right to marry white people. That means being gay is like being Jewish or being black and not like the guy who wants to marry his sister, which means it is a protected class. If and when that happens, the floodgates will open because I don’t see how any court could not then read gays into the CRA. The feds couldn’t have passed the CRA and had it only apply to Mexicans or not apply to religion. It had to cover all of the protected classes. If gays are now one, then they will be read into the CRA.

                1. I think I see the disconnect.

                  The problem with doing gay marriage as a constitutional right is that unless you want to say that the state has to recognize every marriage, meaning polygamy and marrying your cousin, you have to explain why it has to recognize gay marriages.

                  Yes, John, that’s EXACTLY what I want. I really don’t care if you want to marry two of your consenting brothers and your German Shepherd once removed. Have a nut! I, therefore, DON’T have to explain why gays are different from polygamists and therefore I don’t have to make gays a protected class.

                  Which makes the rest of your point immaterial.

                  So a federal judge CAN have SSM prohibitions declared unconstitutional under 14A, effectively making SSM legal.

                  Placing a group on the CRA (or it’s state equivalent) requires a legislative act. No judge can order a legislature to make law. All they can do is declare existing law unconstitutional.

                  So it is completely possible to have SSM struck down under 14A ANDhave the legislatures not add homosexuals to the CRA as a protected class at the same time.

                  Viva la libertad!

                  1. No it doesn’t frank. The court reads the car to make it constitutional and cover all protected classes. You don’t un how these thinks work

      2. Gilmore, it is possible to infer attitudes and motivations from behavior. In fact, we do it every flerking day in our personal and professional lives.

        1. Of course we do. But gays are special. libertarians love them and know they always mean well.

  35. Let me add that I’m glad Matt Welch went into the den of lions and defended the rights of businesses to choose which weddings to cater.

    Welch has a degree of credibility with the MSNBC audience because he is for government-recognized SSM.

    So they can’t treat him as just another SoCon who wants to burn gay people at the stake.

    Or maybe they *can* treat him that way?

    The debate is rapidly shifting from govt-recognized SSM to the rights of businesses. After Matt Welch and other…I almost said useful idiots…shift from supporting the former to supporting the latter, I anticipate that the rhetoric about Koch whores and Korprashuns will get a lot more nasty.

    Recall the fate of the Girondins.

    1. Let me add that I’m glad Matt Welch went into the den of lions and defended the rights of businesses to choose which weddings to cater.

      Does it really matter. Probably 500 people watch that show.

    2. “the den of lions”

      meh. more like a conference room filled with brain-damaged sheep.

      “Recall the fate of the Girondins”

      meh? you and your french revolution shit again. i sometimes google the terms, but half the time it’s just a fancy name for a wheelbarrow.

      1. For “wheelbarrow,” put “tumbril.”

        “Ah, tolerance, what crimes are committed in thy name!”

      2. Gilmore,

        The entire Left, you know the people who you are allied with and are so hopeful of impressing on gay marriage, is the direct decedent of the French Revolution. There is nothing they do that doesn’t trace back to it.

        1. “The entire Left, you know the people who you are allied with and are so hopeful of impressing”

          Is everyone a liberal now except you?

          Just yesterday i was the apex of socon-ry because i was bashing robbie for failure to even mention “freedom of association”, and his inability to criticize a liberal lynch mob…. whereas now I’m trying to impress the Progs, somehow, by …what? making fun of Eddie’s Reductio-ad-Les-Miserables?

          You’re having one of your moments again.

          1. No Gilmore. I am just being snarky. I don’t think you are a liberal. I just think a lot of people for whatever reason want liberals to accept them. You, however are not one of them. I was speaking more of the general you and not specifically about you.

  36. Libertarians should really pat themselves on the back about gay marriage. They were amazingly heroic on the issue. They took a stand that was wildly popular in the mass culture and had the courage to be willing to risk totally fucking the rights of a deeply unpopular minority. It was hard I am sure to risk the rights of other people, that you also happened to hate, in the cause of doing what you felt was right, which was also really popular among the people you most want to be accepted by. But God damn it you did it because it was the right thing.

    1. We were down with gay rights WAY before it was cool, John.

  37. Good grief, John.

    You are drunk, aren’t you?

    I guess i will get that way……more……and sue a pizza parlor. Or something.

    Oh, wait, I forgot. I am a homophobe. And a racist. OK, I will get drunker and beat up a black ragheaded fag.

    Nah, I will just buy him a drink.

    1. No Suthenboy,

      Look at my post just above yours. It would be one thing if people on here would be honest and say “this sucks but I knew it was going to happen and sadly it is a price we have to pay for gay marriage because of our fucked up laws”. That I could respect. But what they do instead is act like they had no idea this was coming and are just shocked and angry it is. Bullshit. That is just bullshit. If you support a policy, stand up and take responsibility for the results of it. Don’t feed me a bunch of bullshit about how in your fantasy world this wouldn’t have resulted and it is not your fault all of these other people passed all of these laws that ruined your fantasy world, which is what is going on on this thread.

      So, yes, I am fucking with them. I am trolling the shit out of them on this thread. I generally don’t just troll people. But here, I am guilty as charged because they deserve to be trolled. How dare they sit around and act like this is some result totally unforeseen and unrelated to the policy they supported.

      1. I think Francisco put the general position of everyone here very succinctly; “I’ve supported free association at every turn, for SOCONS and everyone else on the planet.”

        This is not the inevitable result of gay marriage, which I support, but the result of fascist shitbags taking a mile because no one seems to have the spine to stand up to them, save Matt and the very people you are now trolling.

        I don’t know anyone here, except Eddie, who doenst take that same stand. Yes, you are trolling, but trolling the wrong people.

        1. You knew the fascist shitbags where there and you knew what they were going to do. Sure, you didn’t do it. But you still supported what gave them the weapon to do it. Maybe that was still the right thing to do. If it was, be honest and admit it that you think gay marriage was worth giving the fascist shitbags the weapon to do this, because there was no way to get gay marriage without giving them the weapon. Life is full of hard choices. In this case the choices were “I support gay marriage and think it is important enough to outweigh the harm the fascists will do with it” or “I support gay marriage but won’t support it being enacted until it can be done in such a way the fascists can’t use it as a weapon”. Those were the choices and neither was bad. What is bad is not owning up to which one you made.

          1. “I support gay marriage but won’t support it being enacted until it can be done in such a way the fascists can’t use it as a weapon”.

            I support freedom of association. Period.

            If you can think of a way to do that without giving fascist shitbags a weapon I am certainly open to any suggestions you have. The nature of fascist shitbags is that they turn everything into a weapon and have to be fought at every turn, which I am willing to do.

            1. What association was being prevented by SSM not being endorsed by the state?

              1. None really. It was just more complicated for people of the same gender to enter into life partnerships, which is what marriage is. All they had to do was give each other power of attorney and voila…..marriage.

          2. Gay people who wish to go into that insane institution called marriage need to not be looked at like filth, John. And, you are right, our society should not be harmed violently for having to adjust to that.

        2. Next step is going to be a case arguing that the 14th amendment’s EPC requires that govts protect sexuality minorities from discrimination if they protect racial and religious minorities.

          And given how the federal courts rolled over for SSM despite zero constitutional backing, it will have no problem winning the day. Then we’ll have real coercion as a result of SSM. Tell me again that the slippy slope is a fallacy.

  38. I just want that cute gay couple to have my baby.

  39. I personally think the fights over the Mexicans and Government-Subsidized-Weed-Allotment will be far more interesting than this Gay Pizza shitshow.

    Its kind of fucking amazing that the prog lynch-mob goes full retard over 1 pizza place in the midwest…

    ….while meanwhile they can’t be bothered to do fuck-all about criminal justice reform. They were all falling over themselves protesting over Eric Garner 6 months ago… and I sincerely doubt the issue of “police reform” or “ending punitive Drug War sentencing” will even be *breathed* during Frau Clinton’s campaign.

    1. It is because it is all about signaling and being a part of the enlightened mob. Going after the pizza place signaled that they were part of the group.

      1. Very few cock suckers went after that pizza place. It was a cabal of progressive hands-up look at me types.

      2. What kind of idiot would order pizza for a wedding anyway? Especially a gay wedding. That would be even worse than having a straight guy arrange the flowers. They’d revoke your gay card roughly immediately.

        1. What kind of idiot would order pizza for a wedding anyway?

          The poor ones. All the brides don’t have rich Daddies like you Koko.

          1. I’ve never met or heard of a poor person who was gay. Sexual deviance is a luxury of the bourgeoise.

    2. “Its kind of fucking amazing that the prog lynch-mob goes full retard over 1 pizza place in the midwest…”

      No, it is expected. It is a fucking squirrel. They scrapped it together in an instant to distract from the vile Hildebeast’s felonious behavior as Secretary of State now that she is trying to ramp up her run for the White House. I thought Obumbles was the worst possible person that could ever get the Presidency, but I was wrong yet again.

      1. Hilary’s email thing, while awful, is much less awful than the crap BO has done in office. Hillary would probably be an improvement, as depressing as that is to say.

        1. Oh no, she will do shit as President that will make Obumbles look like a piker. She is orders of magnitude more corrupt and incompetent, and that is really saying something.

          1. I disagree. She’s much more competent than BO. The most destructive things that BO has done have also been the things that killed his party electorally in 2010 and 2014. Hillary won’t do those kinds of things, if only to preserve her power in Congress.

            1. I disagree. She has 10x the reverse Midas touch as Obumbles. Think of our Ambassador being shot, ass raped, his body dragged naked through the streets of Benghazi and then her saying ‘At this point, what difference does it make?’.

            2. Hillary would be more corrupt but less progressive. I have a hard time deciding whether that’s an improvement or not.

            3. She’s much more competent than BO

              In terms of actual positive achievements, they’re both stuck on zero. Hitlery was on the sickcare reform bandwagon while Obumbles was still riding the Choomwagon, so that’s just one example of how they are at the very least equally craptastic.

  40. So, has anyone here that is male sucked a cock? John, Gilmore, Playa, Epi, Suthen, bluff, Franc, Barn, stic, Sterl, Borch, Oh Christ… that Old Man with Candy… how interestingly creepy …. but… questions stands…. Has anyone in this entire thread sucked a cock?

    1. Do roosters count?

      1. koko.

        no

        1. Then no. But, I would pleasure Obama if he rescinded his immigration amnesty EO.

      2. My brother used to live in Hope, Arkansas. I went to visit once. We were all sitting around a bonfire and drinking one night when his neighbor showed up and joined in. He was a chicken farmer. The guy only had one arm (he lost an arm in Iraq). After a while my girlfriend at the time asked him “Do you mind if I ask how you lost your arm?”.

        He just said “Jealous Rooster”.

        I think every single person there shot beer through their nose.

    2. No, never have. I see other males in the same way I see trees, cars, or roof shingles. They are basically invisible to me as sexual entities. I will be interested in them when I have given orgasms to all the women in the world, which isn’t likely to happen any time soon.

      I still have a sad for HM. He should take a solo vacation to New Mexico. No, Costa Rica….definitely Costa Rica.

      1. I still have a sad for HM. He should take a solo vacation to New Mexico. No, Costa Rica….definitely Costa Rica.

        If you’ll help me make the case to my wife, I’m all in.

        1. Oh I can do that, and very effectively. She would be enthusiastically packing your bags for you with a smile on her face.

          I doubt you would approve of the case I make though.

          Costa Rica dude. You walk down the street and incredibly hot women jump into you pocket. The gringos there all refer to themselves as ‘Mr. Planeticket’.

          Really…the girls there…..words just fail.

          1. Oh I can do that, and very effectively. She would be enthusiastically packing your bags for you with a smile on her face.

            I doubt you would approve of the case I make though.

            I’m not sure you understand. You’ve heard of Hmong Batshit Insane Murderous Rage Syndrome (HBIMRS), right? Well, my wife’s Thai Nyaw, their next door neighbors.

            I could only see this ending in bloodshed.

            1. You underestimate me….greatly.

    3. sorry no. I love disco however. And i think that makes me at least partly gay.

      my appreciation of formal men’s fashion is ragingly heterosexual.

      1. *squints at Gilmore suspiciously*

          1. I loved disco chicks, but the music is just poison. Poison.

    4. No. Does that mean I am not gay affirming enough?

      1. It’s Agile Cyborg. Only the Void knows what he means.

    5. No. Why’d you include my name?

  41. Has Matt Welch or Nick Gillespie sucked a cock?

  42. I’m pretty sure ENB has sucks cock and the sweet indian lady Dalia waka shaw and the sweet wife who writes about the children… she sucks cock…. but a LOT of gay rage here but is anyone bi or gay?

    Do these threads have actual GAY commentros? Or bi?

    1. There are a number of gays here AC. jesse, Tonio, and…uh….I don’t remember who else. But yeah.

      Also, that vile, fascist piece of shit Tony.

      1. Tony did not admit to sucking cock. Whatya speak of, Suthen? Jesse? Jesse.in? He admitted nothing. I’ve found not a single admitted cock sucker anywhere on this site.

        1. “Tony did not admit to sucking cock”

          Sometimes you just have to trust certain things.

        2. I just assume when those guys tell me they are gay that they don’t mean they sit around with their friends crocheting tea cozies. I figured it mean cocksucking and the butsecks.

          It was just an assumption so I could be wrong.

        3. Just because you suck cock doesn’t mean you’re queer. It just means you’re a cocksucker.

          Twice in a week I’ve got to use that line. Winning!

    2. “Do these threads have actual GAY commentros? Or bi?’

      If you mean the Pizzapocolypse threads, yes.

      Tony, Tonio, Jesse, Rhywun (sp), … others maybe.

      I’m not sure it really matters, because its *not* really a “gay” issue so much as it is a question of whether the government intends to attempt to ‘legislate tolerance enforcement’ and make it a crime to defend your right to freedom of association.

      1. It matters…. cuz, if all the culture fighters aren’t really sucking or fucking cock then what.the.fuck.is.up.wid.dat? Doesn’t mean that you can’t fight either way, but… if all the gays mostly don’t give a shit and all the culture premos are out there fight trick battles then… shit does hit a weird angle.

        1. “On a site with 5 gay posters, only 5 posters on the issue are gay. Therefore, gays do not care about the issue.”

          Excellent logic.

          1. Koko is prozac and nothing cannot be hated about prozac and koko

        2. I have no idea what you just said, but see my point above about how 99% of the bloody political fighting is done by SJW’s and not actual “minorities”, who usually worry about actual “real life” problems rather than this media-frenzy-bullshit (*exception noted for the whole #blacklivesmatter thing for a hot minute)

          This is par for the course.

          1. Gil, your brain zest is a dracula.

        3. if all the culture fighters aren’t really sucking or fucking cock then what.the.fuck.is.up.wid.dat?

          Signalling that they’re cool and sticking it to the christfags.

    3. Dalia waka shaw

    4. I like to surreptitiously check out man-tackles while using a public urinal, if that counts.

      1. I tripped on you without your permission… I took too many shrooms with some cocaine and I juggled actual planets but the place where I did this in your metaphor doesnt really exist becuase fun doesnt have a king and i slipped off and played with planets like a crusty Juggalator… Lovya baba

        1. So, yes, we can sword-fight?

          1. YES! I want my cock on yours

  43. So this entire shit is about erect male penis into the ass and mouth of another male and no one here does that…. Does anyone on Gawker do this? Or Slate? oohh, yea… Salon is full of fucking real gays… Breitbart? hahahahhaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

  44. I believe that the only correct path to gay marriage was, and is, getting government out of the marriage business. Having said that, does anyone really think the “gimme cake” crowd would be any less demanding in that scenario?

    1. This is a valid point. Most discrimination cases do not involve services related to govt issuance of a piece of paper and pat on the head.

      1. Without that pat on the head, you’re nothing. Nothing!

    2. There is no scenario where the gimme cake crowd won’t be demanding cake. It is what they do.

  45. I’ve sucked like three cocks. I enjoyed it. No big deal. Seems all the gay fighters here are afraid to admit to sucking cock. Big fucking deal.

    One night on a fall in 2012 I has a dude and his wife and all come visit for ribs on hickory wood vapors and the entire woods here was like a Mars wave…. bitches all lighted up and tokey and super stomache satisfied…. and all the humans here late night after pot, booze, and ribs all went to sleep in the various beds and I and this cool dude I knew were up at like 3.3 am… smoking cubans and sipping vodkas and this bro who was a fundamentalist christian asked me if he could fuck me up the ass in the oaks and I said “that is an interesting idea but not right now”…. I’m bisexaul but not gay enough for a christian man to fuck me in ass I guess tho I didn’t judge my bro for it…. life is a flow… we don’t live long

  46. This topic is going peak derp. Some excerpts:

    “Saying that a business has no right to discriminate is absolutely not remotely tantamount to denying property rights. They have a right to not serve, just not for particular unjust reasons. On the flipside, your assertion would allow businesses to refuse to serve women who don’t sleep with them.”

    “And that business in turn has no right to have my tax dollars give them police, or access to my courts. Businesses accept a host of regulations from environmental to work safety regulations. This is another such regulation, a cost of them operating in the public sphere. I think it’s not an onerous one.”

    “Here, there is a state interest, a compelling public interest, to have a fair and equitable marketplace that I think there is a strong argument to claim trumps the right of private peoples to choose who not to serve. “

    1. “The problem here is we have two different sects of people in this thread. On one side we have those who are debating real world application of law. On the other side we have people debating “freedom” in a vacuum. Neither are inherently wrong in their views, but neither should be talking with one another. It’s like trying to debate science with a creationist, or theology with an atheist, you’re never going to get anywhere in either situation.

      If we can’t look at legal precedent for setting our boundaries, what can we use? And therein lies the inherent problem with philosophy, it’s just people butting heads over their beliefs, spewing asinine quotes in some vain attempt to fortify their position, and in general no one ever grows or changes their mind. What is the point?”

      Then, when I basically said he’d rather have an echo chamber than a debate on principles, he went off on me and called me a bitch. Real enlightened.

  47. John is a creampuff. And all the rest of you whores are creampuffs and I love every single fucking fiber of all that is you, including the kidnapped whores in your trunks… wait…

    1. We love you to Agile….your prose is seductive. You are a true credit to this place.

      1. I am the king of the nothingopolis… the true prince of the ultimat zero… the masterosis of the masses of never. The prince of the supernothing.

  48. I will NOT fucking drink that dirty rap can of colt 45 you fuckng whore as rappers… I grew up in the gutters but NOTHING abuot colt 45 is worth snatching tunes bout cuz colt 45 punches me in the face… the only fuckin way you can do a colt 45 is on crack or coke…. colt 45 is a block trip between the hits and the gas station.. skatin on a coke hit between parties… most whities don’t know this shit but the convenient store is the bologna on the cocaine sandwich…. tumbleweed rolls but bong sneed water and light liguor and the later the night rollls hennesy is the albino

    1. So, um, Galinoukus is not the butler?

    2. Colt .45 is something entirely different for me.

  49. It’s very entertaining to see Francisoco, Irish and other embracing their inner prog on this issue.

    To whit, they didn’t intend the predicted consequences of government crushing freedom of association as a result of SSM. So they’re blameless for supporting that policy.

    Because it’s all about

    FEELINGZ,
    I got these feelings for you
    And I can’t help myself no more
    Can’t fight these feelings for you
    No I can’t help myself no more
    Feeling superior to you

    1. The inanity of this argument truly is astounding. You are discussing two completely different issues, and there is zero emotion involved for myself. I’m pretty most of the actual libertarians in this thread could say the same.

      Nor is violation of freedom of association a product of allowing gay marriage. Regardless of whether you had gay marriage, there would be progressives and gays fighting to prevent discrimination by businesses against people as a result of it.

      The best part of the past week is the faux libertarians around here arguing that they saw all this coming even though they totally didn’t. Right along with that is their unwillingness to admit they are opposed to it all because they are Christian.

      Then they claim they are just the realists.

      Well here’s a realist, utilitarian stance for you. if the choice is between allowing ~3% of the population to marry who they want and getting the same benefits as straight couples or the infinitesimally small number of business owners who are going to be forced to do something as awful as baking a cake for a gay wedding they don’t support, I will choose supporting the right of those people to marriage.

      But that’s not the choice, anyway. You asshole wingnuts just want to conflate the two issues. That’s the real appeal to emotion.

      1. This lots of letters and a lot of penis sperm…. constant penis sperm… TONS and PILEs of sperm…. wow

      2. This lots of letters and a lot of penis sperm…. constant penis sperm… TONS and PILEs of sperm…. wow

      3. The best part of the past week is the faux libertarians around here arguing that they saw all this coming even though they totally didn’t.

        Bullshit.

        SSM being used to further degrade freedom of association has been argued (on both sides) here for the last 3-4 years.

        1. SSM being used to further degrade freedom of association has been argued (on both sides) here for the last 3-4 years.

          And there’s never been any evidence for it. Even if there was it’s asinine to deny one freedom in an attempt to save another.

          This is why you’re a conservative: because you really are reactionary tools.

          1. You’re a dumbfuck.

    2. I think they believe it could’ve gone another way, which I disagree with because ..frankly..activists are 98% the same. Maybe not for all time or for every place, but for the past few decades in the USA they’ve been all the same. But I don’t think the misplaced trust has anything to do with “inner prog”, let’s put the blame where it belongs.

      1. The inner prog part is elevating intentions over results and basing decisions on feelings instead of rational analysis.

        I’m sure that their intentions in supporting SSM were pure, an expansion of freedom, motivated by a sense of fairness. However the real world is messy and given the existing legal and political framework it was in fact predicted that SSM would be used as a cudgel by the socialist left to reduce the freedom of association of many times the number of people that would benefit from SSM.

        The position is directly analogous to progs that feel they are helping the poor by enacting policies, with the right intentions, whose second and third order effects cause much more damage than the first order benefits of the programs.

        Oh but that;s a mean utilitarian argument, that interrupts the buzz of feeling superior for supporting a faux expansion of liberty.

    3. To whit, they didn’t intend the predicted consequences of government crushing freedom of association as a result of SSM. So they’re blameless for supporting that policy.

      It’s nice to see you guys pulling out your inner prog through making bizarre non-sequitor arguments that have nothing to do with the topics under discussion.

      “You’re in favor of states having the right to secede? THAT MEANS YOU FAVOR SLAVERY!” I hope you realize that’s the quality of argument I’m seeing from you and John at the moment.

      1. Who have I seen repeatedly write that:

        foreseeable consequences are not unintended?

        Hmm, someone here I’m certain.

        But it’s different in this situation because feelingz, or something.

        1. You’ve seen RC Dean write that and it was never true. It never made sense.

          The only ‘feelingz’ out of hand here are your’s and John’s.

      2. Except secession was the result of slavery, not the cause.

  50. Hongkong in the swamps you take a boat ride into the rich pillars in orlando and the wife and husband doctors are hitting the hardest bongs you’ve ever fucking ripped we did shrooms and coke and golden monkeys and the boy in the grove shoved his boat onto a dream and we followed into the rivers …. florida likes to pretend it is a tyrant Bush on drugs but I’ve done the best drugs in florida BUSH you fucking lame ass reject… we skated the reeds and entered the pillars deep in the swamp and I wanted to fuck the wife of my best friend cuz she was lovely and rolled a ton of power mary… we danced into the florida night while the alligators lied…

    1. Wait, is Shane dead or alive?

      1. Sweet sweeping finger the mummies can’t drop super dreads…

  51. OT: So a Kentucky player slaps a Wisconsin player away from the play, no call. A Wisconsin player goes on the drive, Kentucky big guy flops – OFFENSIVE FOUL!

    #bullshit

    1. First, he ran into his hand. Duh.

      Second, the Wisconsin player’s arm was slightly extended…slightly!

      Thankfully, no one will speak of those calls again.

      1. Can’t review it! Oh, stupid rules.

        1. Oh, and that was a flop!

        2. Oh, and that was a flop!

  52. Tech 9 is not a human but he lives in the various dictionaries…. and those tongues cannot be replictied on the altars of the tongue cults.

    1. I am the walrus.

      1. crustacean toothed mastadon kang?

  53. John is a cubed lover and all those letters on the threads are meanings of the reality of logarithms of time and space. . the collusion of energastic flumes of tarpedoed mental conjectaculation is a totaled mass of multiple galaxi…. i live to solve while flying on several drugs and a 2 pussies

  54. I seek a simple bottle in this threads of gays… I might be too drugged and drunk to go a level below for my needs but I insist on this and the letters love the writers above thousands of letters fingered for a topic oh pirates of the font seas.

    1. Pirates of the font seas. It needed to be repeated.

  55. ITT, John reveals himself as a disingenuous moron and a crybaby. Remember, he’s nuts. Underneath the veneer, he’s a fucking fruitcake-and a hazard to freedom.

    1. We are all nutsabozo, venom. You’ve never liked all the bong dudes or anythangzo striped weirdz… never… cyt is a fuckin homey blast of preppy middle finger,,, the fine rosemary middle finger…

    2. Nah…John is not any of that…except nuts, but who isn’t? Like anyone he hits the mark sometimes and misses it others. Hell I once told the guy I would put a bullet in him and an hour later I was endorsing his arguments. I didn’t take back the bullet though. I still don’t.

      I am probably too drunk for this…12 oz of vodka seem to be missing from the bottle, and an ambient from the jar…..but he is no hazard to freedom.

      1. I once told the guy I would put a bullet in him

        Wait, what?

    3. John reveals himself as a disingenuous moron and a crybaby. Remember, he’s nuts.

      Says the Canadian douchebag that wants to start WWIII.

      1. Stop lying.

        1. Shouldn’t you be masturbatking yourself to exhaustion fantasizing about Ayn and the final solution to the Muslim problem ?

          1. According to John and probably you the final solution is just to sue them. Or something. BTW it’s John that’s more down with killing all the Muslims at least in France. Fuck off and beat a strawman elsewhere.

            1. Why? You got dirty mohammedans to go kill or something?

  56. John your tears are tasty.

    1. the snake reels from his coke den

    2. John is whining because the courts are allowing gay marriage and argues this is worse than legislation at the state level. He doesn’t connect how the courts acting and a piece of legislation is different. As if a legislature passing it and a court allowing it would have changed anything about the argument over discrimination laws.

      He also operates under the delusion that most Americans are going to turn on gays over these arguments when the trend is going one way and it was only a matter of time before legislatures did what the courts did. All the while he did this with a faulty and ridiculous legal argument that ignored precedent already set decades ago that allowed the federal courts to rule on the matter.

      And he dances around the whole time avoiding having to say he’s opposed to gay marriage. Then they claim we are the ones behaving based on ‘feelings’ all the while they appeal to tradition as the basis of their argument.

      1. I love the accusations that I might not be for gay marriage. Oh my God I might be one of the other.

        I am fine with gays getting married. I am one of you. I am not one of the other you fascist fuck.

        1. Yes, clearly you are just fine with it. Doesn’t bother you at all.

          This coming from the guy who said its fine not to support rights for people with the wrong politics.

    3. Of course they are. You are the only honest fascist on here cytoxic. You admit your desire to oppress the living fuck out of everyone you don’t like. Be happy man the people you hate are getting theirs.

      1. John your tears are delicious and tinged with a lot of vodka. All that alcohol has made you retarded and whiny.

  57. So imagine you read in all the white spaces here like a fucking empty sand and if you touch yo screen that spaces are the gravity science of the quicksands… you can actuallies reach into that screen and not get out… cytotoxic is the thang sucking you into a hellish nowhere….

  58. Agile Cyborg is the Yellow King.

  59. I just need all these lovely doughnets to love each of the others because of a those and all these lovely boys are huggable wuggable peanut butte yummies …. so I did get lost in all that and I’m not sure where all this wounded but you all should know these thing s are pebble array…. lots of fuckyu pebbles be all about this shit and math from hellgeo and all those stones on fire and yea so

    let’s hav a picnic

    1. I took that and used Google Translate to translate it into Japanese and back to English until the results were consistently the same. This is the result:

      It’s just, IS, all of them of I lose my volume, causes and hug, each particular wuggable peanut Bute, loved it was actually injured the there, the other people, all of them .. it is my place. I, you yummies is, you are done, in, perhaps, I do not know all of this hatred that have of these beautiful boys, mathematics this shit to it under doughnets is, your pebble, beautiful requires a lot of all all of all of Sekka, to Al a, … all of hellgeo of these of these fuckyu for these things, s from, know an array of pebbles you Do you you need to hope

      So, you, can you be a picnic of HAV,

      1. HEROIC!!!!!!!!!!!! I am FUCKED UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!OSITIONS!…
        !!!!!!!!!!!!! leave my poor ass OUT of your fucking ECXP
        I DO NOT Do that to you BITCH……

        NO ONE HERE WANTS HEROIC MULA fucking with theres fucking ass… spec logs arithmo psyo boobs tits… vagina cum…. curves FM weed on tights nipp;le

  60. I’m fully on board with the cavalier definition of marriage thing from above. Just because anybody can get married doesn’t mean anybody can get GayMarrried. I’m afraid to read the John vs whoever parts though.

    You can all yell at me on monday or tuesday.

    1. monday is delicious and can you give us your all limbs? cuz we can grind them up and make hamburgers fro emmerson limbs for all the poor childrens….. emmerson burgers on bunss for all the poor kids… emmerson limbs ground up with ketchup and mustard and lettuce and cheeso

  61. I just found a bunch of voices that will escape all of you… if you lie head on feathers and get conbomed…. you slipslap and I get tripped with you in me…

    you have tripped with me and if you hadzo strange lightheaded…. on your mat..with a babe or man.. you sklepped a tits in the late nightsz or ball sakc fondle or sweet breast or lips or the boy or girl of 19 and above slept and i was there like zeus…. my shrooms found you all….

    1. Well there goes my plans for the night.

    2. I think it’s funny that this is such a weird comment section that we all just accept Agile Cyborg for who he is.

      1. Huns own the strangest places……. ever…… the huns are neck cutters of ole/

      2. If you don’t Irish, just sue the shit out of him. But I really don’t think he is one of the other. So don’t worry, you can accept him and still fit in.

        1. But I really don’t think he is one of the other.

          Today – no.

          Tomorrow – who knows?

        2. Stop projecting your pathologies onto us please. You are the other.

      3. Agreed. The man has a way with words.

      4. Agreed. The man has a way with words.

  62. I found a pile of feathera…. and beneath this parallel unibossi was a huge pile of taffy and cunt pee… I love when cunts pee on me…. I am a flower and i need to be peed on….

  63. wait… why shoulds flower need to be peed on? Is Hazel or ENB ready to pee on my flower? Or Kapria Kristacious …. where are all the girls to pee on my flower?

  64. zI just smoked a huge dooby and I called it mohameds cock.

  65. I just smoke cum from your muslim gods cock you fucking dumbas bitch terrorists.. your god makes me high i get drunk and high on heze cum

  66. So all the aleins gathered with the jim beam and mary jane and mister cocaine and those pills in the suitcase but I have a fucking story to tell and I need all the fucking singers to shut the fuc up…. so enters the bugg and his strings….. nothing about this about or against the drugs or alterd states…. I do this all the time and ai love my special loves on this site but philosophy is a rise above…
    PLEASE focus on 200 hundred years beyond us, bros and 4 sisters…..

    The gay thing is simple, tired and over…. when we are dead… it will be new oppressors and our children won’t see the gays as anything less than normal…

  67. I want to fuck every single fucking reason poster in the vagin or male ass…oh so all this things

    1. I bet Irish would go for it. Just get him a lite drunk and start talking about the cause and how cool being down with being gay is. Just tell him he needs to show how gay affirming he is if he wants to be cool. He lay down for you and not even be mad if you didn’t call him the next day. I say go for it. You got a great shot.

  68. http://m.wwnc.com/onair/pete-k…..-13461678/

    Here is one libertarian who is willing to admit the truth. I bet he is really a so on anyway. What is really important here is that gays are cool. And you guys are cool for supporting them. I really think the progs are going to start to like you now. And really that is what it is all about for most of you, except cytoxic who is a no kidding fascist nut with goals known only to him and Murry Rothbards mummified body he keeps dressed in an SS uniform in his bedroom.

    1. It’s Ayn Rand’s body, not Rothbard’s.

    2. Whatever you’re on, Agile Cyborg must have purchased it for you.

  69. http://m.wwnc.com/onair/pete-k…..-13461678/

    Here is one libertarian who is willing to admit the truth. I bet he is really a so on anyway. What is really important here is that gays are cool. And you guys are cool for supporting them. I really think the progs are going to start to like you now. And really that is what it is all about for most of you, except cytoxic who is a no kidding fascist nut with goals known only to him and Murry Rothbards mummified body he keeps dressed in an SS uniform in his bedroom.

  70. humongous strums hit my face jello like a ninja mangle by a million bullets and who did this all to my ninja… i hope it wasn’t you juggler? I wood be so not smile…

  71. you can listens on those boze in the boxes and …. come into the trap and visit me boys and girls i have a jammin candy for your jello faces on all tired gravity but dont get not lost and screwjamme

    I lost all the leeks….

    1. Come to think of it, just fuck me instead. At least it would be an honest fuck. Just do it with your dick. Don’t let Irish talk you into doing it with his dick only to have him claim he had nothing to do with it the next morning

      1. Johnz is a lovely…

      2. Come on John,

        That’s not the Cosmo way.

        They’ll get the state to fuck you and then claim shock because it’s not what they intended.

        1. No they won’t. They won’t get the state to do anything, then disingenuous cunts like you will pretend the Cosmos made it happen. Becuz feelingz ‘n butthurt.

  72. My ticket is that 80’s train and my trip means i must go…. I did cocaine, booze, and a light bullshit pharma but there are worlds i want to go and i wanted to stop and tell all my wonderful lovers on this binary place I love you and I have at least 10 hours of gone before easter I have to lose control on and it needs to start now…all due love and respect I am sniffing pure cocaine and drinkng a pill on booze so i am now…. being pulled and

  73. What’s so blindingly obvious here is that businesses have to discriminate all the time. For example, a caterer might cater a wedding that pays him more. This means he can’t cater two weddings at once because he can’t be in more than one place at one time.

    So how do these prog idiots think this law will be enforced? Ok, so a caterer can’t say “I don’t want to cater your wedding because it’s gay.” What’s to stop him from saying “I can’t cater your wedding because I don’t have enough flour” or “I have a personal commitment that day” or “I’m busy doing other things” or “I have another wedding to do.”?

    What, are they going to send detectives out to see if his motives for refusing service are correct? Sounds like a great use of police resources.

    This makes it nothing more than a thoughtcrime. You have the right to refuse service, IF your intentions are pure.

    Sometimes I don’t think the progs realize how much like the Christian right they are.

    1. By “This law” I’m not referring to the RFRA, but antidiscrimination laws.

    2. For example, a caterer might cater a wedding that pays him more. This means he can’t cater two weddings at once because he can’t be in more than one place at one time.

      CODE LANGUAGE!!!11!

      BTW love your alias.

    3. It’s the same with hiring and housing.

  74. I pity the padded walls of John’s cell. They must be as tired of his shit as we are.

    1. John’s a genius. He’s somehow stumbled upon the worst argument against gay marriage EVER:

      “We can’t let gays marry because if we do, social conservatives might be forced to bake them wedding cakes.”

  75. I say we hittem up jd. like Wow.

    http://www.AnonGO.tk

  76. Indiana = outrage of the week. Progs needed to stir up their base, so invented this “issue.”

    What Matt should have said:
    Ms Proggie Rep, the Grand Dragon is on the phone and will pay you to speak at his ‘cookout.’ What do I tell him?

    1. Liberals are particularly enamored of the “public accommodations” language in the Civil Rights act which considers ‘restaurants, hotels, theaters’ etc. to be quasi public-services distinct from sole proprietorships and subject to requirements to serve all-comers.

      Never mind that liberals will dump these distinctions whenever they want, and will insist that it makes no difference if the Boy Scouts of America aren’t the same as a gas station, they still can be prevented from discriminating *because fuck you, that’s why*…. because, well, they use “public resources”*…. or they have an association with other public entities like schools, or ever engage in any commercial activity in the general public (fund drives?), etc and on and on and on.

      (see: the retarded resort to “Roads” that will always emerge, and basically suggest all individuals sacrifice rights through mere existence)

      In the end, its always “principals” for them. the rules shall conform as needed

      1. “(see: the retarded resort to “Roads” that will always emerge, and basically suggest all individuals sacrifice rights through mere existence)”

        I’ve found that 9 times out of 10 when arguing this issue, this comes up. “You have to participate in society because ROADZ and taxes and public water! If you don’t like it move to SOMALIA!”

        It’s another permutation of “You didn’t build that.” and the left is grabbing hold of it.

        They are Marxists, pure and simple. They no longer have the mask on, they ripped it off.

  77. Watching John lose his mind on a topic (body armor, SSM) when he’s normally kind of reasonable makes me sad. He’s obviously well educated but can’t see past his own pre-conceived ideas sometimes. I suspect that in a year or so he will move from this position and admit he was a little over the top.

    However, watching Cytotoxic arguing as the pure as the driven snow libertarian is hilarious. There are few people that post here that want to impose their will on others thru the use of the USG than many others. I still find it curious how much he wants the US to police the world to enforce his worldview and he doesn’t have the decency to abandon Canada and join the forces he wants to use.

    1. We are pawns in a war between two groups who want to control people. Both the left and the right want to enforce a vision of society onto all of us in direct contravention of what actual people are really doing. This is plainly evident by the constant rejection of marriage as a private contractual arrangement and insistence upon it being a government-sanctioned institution. There is no “definition of marriage” set by the state because the state is not a party to marriage. It is not husband, wife, and government. Yet so many people just don’t give a shit about who is affected or how, only in whether or not the proper appearances are maintained.

      The left and the right are made for each other. At the end of the day they’d rather score points over the other than engage in sincere consideration of the issues involved.

  78. So, John got drunk and Agile Cyborg got high. Sounds like everyone had a fun weekend.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.