Gay Marriage

Two Gay Men Apologize, Face Boycotts for Talking to Ted Cruz

Do not even speak to the outgroup!

|

Ideas for Reason Weekend 2016?
Broadway Bares

This is what we've descended to when it comes to cultural engagement: A charity group that raises millions of dollars annually to fight AIDS has canceled a fundraiser because the gay guys who own the club hosted a reception with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

To be clear: There is no evidence that these two men, Ian Reisner and Mati Weiderpass, have given any money to Cruz. The reception was not a fundraiser. In fact, Reisner's donation history shows him giving thousands of dollars to the Democratic Party. He has also given money to Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. He also gave money to Republican Rudy Giuliani when he ran for president back in 2008. He's not entirely a single party donor, but he is definitely focusing on Democrats. Weiderpass has a very similar donation history.

But that's apparently not enough. The two men hosted a meeting with Cruz, as The New York Times reported last week. The purpose of the meeting appeared to be to talk about Israel, but they did push Cruz on his position on gay marriage.

Somehow this was a bad and wrong thing to do, according to some in the gay community. The men are, I guess, supposed to boycott Cruz. Since they did not boycott Cruz, there are now calls to boycott them. I took note of this on Friday afternoon, but I didn't think much would come of it because it seemed just too petty, even in our era of online outrage.

Nope. Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS is a significant New York charity that raises millions of dollars every year to give out as grants. They have the best idea for a fund-raiser, too; they convince the attractive young men and women of Broadway to put on a burlesque show every year and take off their clothes. It's called Broadway Bares. They also do separate strip show fund-raisers. One of these, Broadway Bares Solo Strips, was scheduled for May 10 at one of the clubs owned by Reisner and Weiderpass. Hardly any time passed since the news broke of the meeting between Cruz and the two men when the executive director of the show announced they were flat out canceling it. From their executive director's statement:

We do business with and accept fundraising support from a variety of people across a wide spectrum of political and religious affiliations. The rich diversity of our community makes what we do together so special. It is a rare instance where the actions of a donor negatively impacts us as an organization and potentially jeopardizes our relationship with others whose support is integral to our success. But when it does occur, in a way that's blatantly against all we stand and work for, we can't pretend it doesn't come with consequences. Silence is not a neutral position. It is complicit.

This is not about partisan politics or punishment. This is about doing what's right to ultimately ensure that our commitment to the men, women and children we serve cannot be questioned.

They canceled a charitable fundraiser because the owners of the club hosting it met with and talked to a candidate for president with unpalatable views on gay marriage recognition. It is indeed partisan and obviously punishment (it's certainly punishment for whoever may have been the intended recipient of the donations). The New York City Gay Men's Chorus also canceled a fundraiser.

The two men are now falling all over themselves to apologize, because as I noted above, most of their financial donations have gone to Democrats and they are obviously huge supporters of the gay community. From Reisner's response:

"I was ignorant, naïve and much too quick in accepting a request to co-host a dinner with Cruz at my home without taking the time to completely understand all of his positions on gay rights. I've spent the past 24 hours reviewing videos of Cruz's statements on gay marriage and I am shocked and angry. I sincerely apologize for hurting the gay community and so many of our friends, family, allies, customers and employees. I will try my best to make up for my poor judgment. Again, I am deeply sorry."

Apparently Democratic LGBT groups are planning a protest outside of one of their hotels today, which is a good reason to repeat, again, that most of these guys' political donations have gone to the Democratic Party.

Back in 1999, I had the opportunity to cover a group of gay Christians from a then-new group called Soulforce. They trekked to Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, to meet with Jerry Falwell and his followers to push for gay acceptance. They were applauded for their activism in trying to lobby for a cultural shift in attitudes. It was a big media spectacle, and the University was protested not by angry gays but by the virulently anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church, who thought Falwell was being too kind for agreeing to meet with them.

How did we get to a point that attempting to even engage ideological opponents in discussion is now beyond the pale? Here's a thing to think about: Cruz is probably the worst of the front-runner Republican candidates on gay issues. He is campaigning on his religious conservative opposition to recognizing gay marriages.

And yet, the legislation that he's proposing—the massive representation of his opposition—is not a ban at all. He is trying to keep power over marriage recognition in the hands of the states. Even if Cruz got his way—and he's not going to—we could still end up with legal gay marriage recognition in much of the country. Compare Cruz's position today with the kinds of things people were saying (in both parties) about gay marriage back in 1999.

Reisner and Weiderpass were absolutely right to meet with Cruz and attempt to push him on gay issues. Furthermore, every single rich gay person or gay ally should strive to do the same. Anybody who has enough power to get access to any presidential candidate should use the opportunity to try to get these conservatives to understand where culture is on gay marriage and make it very clear that opposition is not a winning issue. Boycotting these two guys in a fit of pique expresses a lack of maturity.

Also, the cynic in me expects that the charity strip show will be back on before May 10, once Reisner and Weiderpass offer a big donation to Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS to match their apologies.

Advertisement

NEXT: Forget D.C., States Take Very Different Paths on Guns

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. anti-discrimination laws applied to speech rather than associations maybe .

    1. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
      http://www.work-cash.com

  2. Petty, counter-productive, and ,as noted by Scott in his article, it hurts those who need the fundraising the most.

    1. HAT TRICK!!!!

      *throws John Deere? hat onto rink*

      1. In in Detroit in the old days many would throw octopi.

        1. Living in Michigan, of this I am aware.

          1. But this being a sad, cynical, PC time, the practice was banned!

            I notice, however, people still do it. ALL THE POWER TO THEM!

  3. Is it homophobic to refer to the pearl clutchers and shunners in this article as “sissies”?

    1. Perhaps “the Gaystapo” is apt.

      1. +1 Springtime for Hitler.

      2. I saw that term often posted on Breitbart, etc… as well as Urban Dictionary who have other terms to use http://www.urbandictionary.com…..Al+Queerda
        http://www.urbandictionary.com…..=homo+thug

    2. I thought the phrase “in a fit of pique” was the polite way of saying ‘sissy’.

    3. So that’s the word I was trying to think of!

  4. Scott,

    I have no doubt you are like most gay people and just want to be left alone. Sadly, a bunch of really awful people have stood up and are claiming to speak for you. As a result, they are making “gay” mean “evil oppressive, nasty fuck” in the minds of a lot of people in this country. I don’t think things like this and the pressuring of Go Fund Me to take down the page to pay the bakery in Oregon’s bankrupting fine for not serving a gay wedding are helping the average gay person in this country. I think they are creating a real risk of backlash. A lot of people have gone from openly hostile to quietly ambivalent about gays in this country. And that has largely been a good thing for gays. This kind of shit is not going unnoticed and it is I believe causing more and more of those people to go back to being hostile. They are just not as open about it, yet. But that is not a good thing for anyone.

    1. There are plenty who started out ambivalent via the “What does it matter to me?” logic as well. The more campaigns are influenced, bakers are closed down, and charities refused, the more obvious the answer “What does it matter to me?” becomes.

    2. Being ambivalent is not good enough. You have to accept their gayness. And by accept they mean approve. And by approve they mean support. And by support they mean become another standard bearer.

      1. I’ve met a few individuals like you have described but in my experience the majority simply want to live their ives they way that they choose and generally be treated the same as everyone else around them.

        1. I agree with what Epi typed below:
          “That is standard, boilerplate TEAM positioning, dude. It’s how you maintain a strong group identity and hate of the other. It’s how partisanship works.”

      2. I support gays in their quest for personal freedom… I’ll bake them a frickin’ cake for their wedding if they insist, if they can tolerate my shitty baking skills, and will pay me for materials and labor. I hope not too-too terribly many of them want to persecute me if I balk when they want me to let them ass-fuck me, or get me to suck their pricks. Fer Christ’s sake, WHEN is enough gonna be ENOUGH??

    3. Ok. Can we now PLEASE wipe out the progressives?

    4. As far as I can tell, a whole lot of gay people support the modern fascism that the gay movement has degenerated into. They are abetted by the politically correct on the left, and the total moral buffoons of Silicon Valley – the ones who threw out Brandon Eichs because he had years before made a small donation to an anti-gay marriage ballot proposition group. Eichs’ contribution was only known because the gay mafia illegally obtained the names of donors and made them public.

      The forces of political correctness are the forces of totalitarianism. Libertarians should be very careful in what causes they support, or they will be used by the fascists to destroy all of our freedoms. You need to be free not only from government coercion, but from fascist actions against you by private groups.

  5. You would almost think meeting with prominent Homosexual and Democratic donors would be more detrimental to Cruz than to the donors.

    Almost.

    1. No one on the Right cared the slightest. Here is what this is about. Most gays are not nasty fascist fucks and don’t want to sue people to serve their weddings and don’t want their desire to live a particular lifestyle to become a weapon to deprive other people of their faith. The nasty, hateful fucks who want to make gay rights a weapon to go after their enemies don’t want the majority of gay people realizing that this is an easy issue to compromise on and coming out and saying “no gay marriage and gay rights should not be used to oppress other people even if those people don’t like us.” They want the majority of gays to wrongly assume that the other side hates them and wants them either dead or in jail and thus the only option available is to remain in solidarity with the “gay rights establishment”. Cruz meeting with these guys is dangerous because it creates the potential for compromise.

      1. John’s right about the right, haha. Little old ladies from Pensacola and Baptist greybeards in Pennsylvania no longer give a rat’s ass about ‘the gays’.* Being gay has become so mainstream (hahahaha) that it’s not a big priority. Not like guns, Social Security, and anything that isn’t Hillary.

        No comment about the rest of John’s post. I haven’t had sufficient coffee, and have not a clue in the world what he just said. I’ll try that in an hour, John. Morning.

        *So long as you don’t want their cake, or their favorite nephew.

        1. I thought they all want cake…

  6. Silence is not a neutral position.

    In other words, unless you loudly denounce your enemies then you agree with everything they stand for.

    Fan-fucking-tastic

    1. Stalinesque

    2. That is standard, boilerplate TEAM positioning, dude. It’s how you maintain a strong group identity and hate of the other. It’s how partisanship works.

      1. Maybe, but you gotta admit that things are being ratcheted up to previously unseen levels. It’s somewhat disheartening to see people reveling in their utter ignorance. The ability to not learn anything about your opponent has become a badge of honor now.

        1. They think they have learned, thought. But what they’ve learned is a caricature.

          I love it when people tell me what they think I believe.

        2. I think there have always been plenty of people who reveled in their utter ignorance. You’re just seeing more of it now because of the internet.

          Things do seem like they’ve never been this absurdly partisan. And that may be true. It may be that it only seems that way because of the internet. Or maybe things are at previously unseen levels…because of the internet. I can’t say. But whatever it is, something has to give at some point, I’d think. And when it does, it’s going to be interesting, in the “may you live in interesting times” curse way.

          1. Something has caused tribalism to ratchet up to toxic levels. Whatever it was, I have no idea, but things will get ugly if people don’t decide to calm down soon.

            1. I blame Bush

              1. Why do you hate women and the gender-reassigned?

              2. I blame Florida for not voting more decisively for or against Bush (or Gore) in 2000. And 911. The 21st century started off with a whole bunch of awful shit that I think helped move things in this direction. Of course it may well have happened anyway for slightly different reasons.

                I’m getting really sick of it. I might even have to cut back on H&R until 2017.

              3. Fuck you Alamanian! GLOBAL WARMING IS TO BLAME!

                1. Fuck you Rufus J. Firefly! Insufficient worship of Government Almighty is to be blamed! It is only the tiny-tiny smattering of us True Believers (like MEEE for example) who sincerely Worship Government Almighty, with the precisely right rituals, and infinite obedience, that preserves us ALL from imminent DOOOOOM!!!!

            2. I think a lot of people who otherwise wouldn’t care about any of this shit have still stumbled on to it on the internet and joined up because, as others speculate here, they have no identity of their own or they just want to belong to something, etc. Before the internet, they would have joined a local book club or a socialist newsletter or something else completely harmless. But now they can effortlessly–even less effort than joining a book club in town–be on a TEAM and be backslapped daily because of it if they just go to the right sites. That’s going to be very attractive to a lot of people.

              The TEAMs have made it incredibly easy to join their ranks. And that’s on purpose. Because their strength is in numbers. But if it’s easy to join, it’s easy to leave. But that’s not good for the TEAMs. And that’s why we see all this attacking of their own who stray at all; that’s how you keep people on the reservation.

              1. Hmm. Maybe the FCC should break the internet.

              2. A lot of people are finding out that the Internet is a force-multiplier, by giving most people an equally loud megaphone to voice their opinions and ideas. When the raggedy guy with the “End is Nigh” sign could only be heard by others within earshot, his ideas and opinions only affected a few people at most. With the Internet, he has an equally loud voice as the sane and intelligent, and can potentially reach everyone on the ‘net. When the crazies and the malicious were mostly isolated by the old media, the ripple effects were limited. There is also less ability to ignore and greater ability to misunderstand each other as well, due to limitations of the current suite of Internet tools. I remember the heady days when the Internet was just becoming popular, and the folks pontificating that the above would be a good thing. Oops.

                Also I blame “Crossfire” for starting the “shouting and interrupting” school of political “debate” that is now the norm.

                1. Almost. See if a crazy guy has a site, theendisnigh.com, nobody else will see it. But if you already know a site that reinforces your beliefs, that’s where you go. So, for instance, libertarians go to reason (drink!), progtards go to Huffington, and neo-cons go to The Weekly Standard.
                  It’s not so much that the crazy people now have a voice, it’s that the different viewpoints are being segregated, and everybody is listening to an echo chamber, rather than a robust argument. This, IMHO, leads to the crazy extremes of all sides having a louder voice, where in other days compromise and civility had room to exist.

                  1. And on top of this, the only way in which people in opposing camps interact with each other is by calling each other names on Twitter. Then they turn around, reply to the most offensive post from the other side, and tell their own team, “See! This proves that we were right! The other side is racist/misogynist/fascist/Stalinist and these tweets prove it!”

                    1. I opine that the internet has turned almost the whole population into a perpetual crowd, with all the concomitant perils of crowd psychology. The downside of being constantly connected with so many, is that mobs form daily over the littlest thing instead of just every few years when someone’s daughter got deflowered by the travelling salesman like in the old days. And while virtual mobs may be rather harmless, the mob mentality gets more regular and pervasive than it used to be.

                      Really, hatred is a form of entertainment. You used to have to wait for an excuse to go into a fit, and you might damage your reputation among the townsfolk; now you can go shopping for one and go as apeshit as you want with utter social impunity.

          2. It’s easier to express radicalism. If it took a little more effort, you would see a little less.

            1. It’s also very difficult to take a nuanced position in 140 characters, but it’s very easy to ramp up the hatred…

              1. Nuance had never been easy to communicate though.
                Much easier to parse a speech for three words strung together in a less than perfect arrangement.
                But you’re right: Twitter is the bumper sticker of the inter-webs

    3. “In other words, unless you loudly denounce your enemies then you agree with everything they stand for.”

      This has often been cited as the basis for Bo’s “seeing Red people everywhere”

      We don’t “denounce” SoCon stuff as much as we make fun of SJW retards. So that means we’re SoCons, see.

      Apparently that makes sense if you’re a moron.

      1. “A Botox on all of you, then!”

      2. Ah HA! The mask, it slips.

        /Bo

      3. I hope the next president is a Republican if for no other reason than it will force people to change up their idiotic reactions to politics for a while.

  7. I didn’t come up with this phrase, but I’ll repeat it: they hate Ted Cruz more than they hate AIDS.

    That’s pretty messed up.

    1. Imagine if they come up with a cure for AIDS during a Republican administration.

      1. The AIDS cure will come in shots, therefore THE AUTISMS!!!!

        1. Autistic AIDS: The helmet gets in the way…

      2. All the more reason to hate them. The bastards aren’t supportive and they took away their cause.

      3. They’ll come up with a narrative demonstrating it actually happened or started under a Democratic administration.

      4. Actually, George W. Bush’s admin did more to combat HIV/AIDS (especially in Africa) than any previous administration and was quite a pioneer in that respect. One reason Bush is oddly popular in parts of Africa is because over there, who gives a shit about Iraq and Afghanistan; they got AIDS aide from Bush and that’s what matters to them.

    2. So their stance is apparently “Give me partisan AIDS fundraising or give me death.”

    3. “they hate Ted Cruz more than they hate AIDS.”

      I’ve observed this phenomenon a lot with “progressives”. They start out with good intentions, but they get so enamoured with their own self-righteousness that they lose sight of the original objective. Pretty soon, their minds have been reduced to boiling cauldrons of hatred, completely devoid of any desire to actually help anyone. Once they have found an object of hatred, they become fixated on destroying that object even if it doesn’t benefit anyone at all.

      They hate the rich more than they hate poverty.

      They hate gun culture more than they hate violence.

      They hate white people more than they hate racism.

      Yet, they’ll still parrot the lines about how they’re trying to help the poor, reduce deaths from criminal violence, and end racism. It’s just that they don’t really believe those things anymore. They’re motivated by pure hatred, and they hide it behind a facade of their former good will. And of course, there are plenty of “progressives” who are just evil right from the start. Not that it makes much difference in the end result…

      1. They hate the rich more than they hate poverty.

        They hate gun culture more than they hate violence.

        They hate white people more than they hate racism.

        So, so much this. It’s not true of all of them, but there are a good many whose hearts are rotten with envy and hatred.

      2. From what I have read this was the path Germany went down after the hyperinflation, originally it was about an aggrieved population that suffered tremendously and wanted to go after the 1% that benefited from the misery of the large majority. But in wanting to right that legitimate wrong, it turned to hated for the banker class, which turned into hatred of the jews. And this wasn’t limited to the evil white people. The Japanese Rape of Nanking followed a similar path. And the future Chinese rape of Japan will be based on similar logic of righting a past wrong.

        Progressives, if they ever gain a majority, will do the same. Thankfully the majority of people who currently support the left are not like this. It seems to be limited to more of the very vocal minority in the party. But that vocal minority is starting to make them look scary to everyone else.

        1. Beware of vocal minorities though. They’re more powerful than silent majorities. The hardcore Nazis, the annihilationist anti-Semites, they were a fairly small minority even within the party; so were the Bolsheviks (even though their name, ironically, means majority) among the Russian left. But if they’re fearless enough, and enough of the rest of the population is afraid of them, then there’s no stopping them.

      3. Sense much fear in them I do. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to progressivism.

  8. We appear to be stuck in middle school cultural norms.

    Sally said you talked to Betty and that is like so not cool. Sally says if you still want to be her friend you have to put this dead mouse in Betty’s locker or she’s not going to talk to you again.

  9. Is this really different than say, an African-American boycott of someone who hosted a meeting with David Duke? Everything’s relative. You could state that Cruz has a higher position of authority and more general acceptance and thus bridge building makes more pragmatic sense, but still, holder’s of strong negative opinions of a class of individuals shouldn’t expect wine and roses.

    1. First, Cruz attitudes towards gays is nothing near as extreme as Duke’s attitude towards gays. Second, even if the two cases were analogous, I would say blacks boycotting in that situation would also be wrong. There is nothing wrong with meeting and talking.

      1. I wouldn’t say that there’s anything wrong with it. But to have a meeting which ignores the elephant in the room and then not expect to get called out for it is rather naive.

        1. The elephant in the room is the lack of a valid analogy. He’s a national political candidate doing outreach to a group outside of his normal support base, how is that anything like hosting David Duke?

          If anything it’s like being upset that David Duke is doing outreach to blacks. I fail to see the problem, it’s not like he’s in a position to win their support.

          1. Duke was an elected representative who almost won the Governor’s seat. Again, everything is relative. My point is that mere outreach, when not addressing any obvious outstanding differences between the two parties having the discussion, can easily be subject to criticism depending on the intensity of the position that one/both sides have. Is Cruz really a direct comparison to Duke? I think not. But I also think that the mere existence of any meeting is not automatically not subject to scrutiny, which is what I believe is implied by the post and a variety of commenters.

            1. The proggy bullshit here isn’t scrutiny. It’s not as though they’re actually interested in a debate on the issue, they’re interested rooting out perceived collaborators. It’s about the vitriolic consternation that was unleashed onto the hosts of this dinner party for no other reason than that they were entertaining opposing views.

        2. Not seeing how they ignored the elephant in the room, unless you’re inferring gay people require a permit from the Hive Mind in order to have a Republican over for dinner.

    2. You could state that Cruz has a higher position of authority

      Cruz didn’t choose to join the Klan like David Duke did. End of story.

      1. ALLEGEDLY, Johnny. ALLEGEDLY didn’t choose to join the Klan…

      2. But he did choose to join the Republican party, which is just as bad in the minds of many people.

    3. No, both would be equally bad.
      These guys own a club. The club happened to host a Cruz event. So now we should boycott the club?

      If David Duke had a birthday party at Red Lobster, should we boycott Red Lobster?
      I mean, how dare racists be allowed to have birthday parties right?

      1. Actually, the Cruz event was a private dinner in their home. There were like a dozen people there or something.

        Yes, they’ve been ostracized over a dinner party.

        1. So much for “why can’t we all just talk things out and get along?”.

        2. I just had an idea. You should have a dinner with John. We’ll film it and call it My Dinner With Nicole. It’ll be the worst. And then we can ostracize you over it. Just like these guys!

          1. I’m in!

            1. John? How about you? If John won’t do it let’s call Wallace Shawn.

              1. Wallace Shawn.

                That would be great. He and Nicole could have a “Melinda and Melinda” type of conversation but rather than speculating about Melinda they can speculate about Rand Paul.

            2. What will you have for dinner? What will the beverage of choice be?

              Now I’m interested.

              1. They should replicate any meal Hannibal Lecter ate.

                1. That’s probably doable…..I mean Ray Liotta is hardly working these days!

          2. And then we can ostracize you over it. Just like these guys gays!

            Works better.

    4. A boycott on the American and African continents?

  10. Pretty bizarre when “petty” is too petty a word to describe their petty tantrums.

  11. The Really Stupid Part is that gays and Democrats should be applauding every effort keep Cruz and his views center stage in the election, as opposed to having to run on what their candidate is floating in.

    1. Indeed, sir. Plenty heap big damage was done to the Sanctity Set merely because they opened their mouth in public. Better to be thought a fool, and et cetera.

      Best thing would be to hand Cruz a mic and roll camera.

  12. I’ve noticed a curious pattern regarding two news stories of last week.

    The number of people outraged that Bruce Jenner is now a transwoman is less than the number of people who are outraged that Bruce Jenner is a conservative Republican.

    The number of people outraged Ted Cruz had dinner with a couple of gay activists is basically zero compared to the number of gay activists outraged gay people would talk to Ted Cruz.

    Have we considered the possibility that progressives are the intolerant ones and that everything they believe is terrible about conservatives is equally true, if not more, about themselves?

    1. Serious question, is there anyone on the right who is “outraged” by Bruce Jenner? I haven’t seen any. I think most people don’t really care.

      1. I’ve read a lot of grumbles about it not being newsworthy and that he/she just did it for money and whatnot. But that’s nothing compared to a full-scale boycott like people are pushing here.

        It’s not like conservatives are boycotting ESPN for covering the Bruce Jenner news.

        1. I was definitely speculating about whether this was supposed to help him not go bankrupt due to that car crash he was in last year (apparently he was carrying almost no insurance for some reason).

      2. He’s clearly the least objectionable person in that family.

        I did, however, see a trans woman on CNN over the weekend who claimed that Jenner’s desire for others to continue calling him “he/him/his” for the time being was MALE PRIVILEGE.

        1. The Jenner thing spawned one of the greatest Facebook memes I have ever seen.

          On one side is a picture of Kayne West with the caption “Bruce Jenner is my mother in law.”

          On the other side is a picture of a stoned out looking Keith Richards with the caption “Jesus Fucking Christ”.

          I laughed out loud for about five minutes when I saw that.

          1. I laughed out loud for about five minutes when I saw that.

            You were stoned.

            1. No I wasn’t. It was just that funny.

            2. No, that’s me, dude.

              1. I can never tell you guys apart.

                1. John and I are basically twins. Like in that movie.

                  1. The one with the guy whose brother was a tumor on his back?

                    1. Epi is a tumor on John’s back? THAT EXPLAINS SO MUCH.

                    2. He has a message for us

                      *Start the reactor….*

      3. Serious question, is there anyone on the right who is “outraged” by Bruce Jenner? I haven’t seen any. I think most people don’t really care.

        Would disgust, not at being trangender/sexual per se, but at one-upping the Kardashians’ with even more irritatingly irrelevant, but spun up as being culturally defining and ground-breaking, bullshit count as outrage?

        Not outraged, just the same sort of disgusted indignance as Dennis Rodman’s breakthrough with N. Korea.

        I’d rather hear from a (closet?) lesbian about being on the top 100 list of people selected for a privately funded one-way trip to Mars than see an in-depth interview with Bruce Jenner about anything other than winning the Olympics.

      4. I see and hear plenty of things that are insulting or dismissive about transgender people. But outrage doesn’t seem to be among them.

    2. Projection is real

        1. Fuck off and stop stealing my ideas

      1. It’s more than just real. It’s a central, core part of who and what they are. I’ve never seen projection on the scale and intensity that now emanates from the progressive/SJW movement. Never. It’s become almost everything they are. It radiates from every single thing they say. It’s very weird and I’m trying to figure out what it means.

        1. It’s very weird and I’m trying to figure out what it means.

          I’m going with self-loathing

          1. Narcissism. They’ve been told their entire lives how precious they are, while swaddled in cotton wool. Bad things happen in foreign countries, nothing in their lives will ever change unless its for better, and ‘wrong’ is negotiable.

            You see that lawn? You see it? You know how much time I spent on that lawn and then you go walking all over it? You know the value of a dollar? And cut your damned hair!

        2. This came up last week. My opinion is that they have no real sense of self. If you talk to any of them it doesn’t take long to realize their self-esteem is in the shitter. They define themselves by the social groups they identify with. I suspect it’s because they grew up in a world with social media. And because no matter how much they screwed up they were still rewarded for being a special snowflake.

          1. Heinlein had a great bit in Starship Troopers about everyone getting a trophy.

        3. It’s very weird and I’m trying to figure out what it means.

          For more of the latter part of the LGBTQWERTY group, projection is the be-all, end-all of the issue, literally.

    3. Have we considered the possibility that progressives are the intolerant ones and that everything they believe is terrible about conservatives is equally true, if not more, about themselves?

      Unpossible. They tell us their intentions are pure.

    4. The 40-60 year old “man’s man” still understands and respects that Bruce Jenner could hit them with a javalin across a football field. Its an interesting phenomenon.

  13. I do not mind at all if this continues.
    Because the end result will be NOT that the people they hate will all be ostracized, it will be that they will ostracize themselves into an insular “pure” community composed only of people that are exactly like them. They can then share their mututal hatred of everyone not like them ALONE.

    The SJWs somehow believe that they have some sort of overwhelming cultural power that they are are going to suceed in isolating everyone and anyone they target. But eventually, as they start boycotting every single group of people they don’t like, all of those groups of people are going to start adding up to A LOT of people. And the more people are “othered” the fewer people are in their camp and the less cutlural influence they have.

    They will destroy themselves. Let them.

    1. I hope you are right Hazel and I think you might be. The people who should be apalled by this are other gays like Scott. The gays are now being told by their self appointed “leaders” who they can speak to and what they are allowed to think. Gays better think long and hard before they let that continue to go on.

      1. When gay SJWs start alienating other gays, that’s when you know that they are confining themselves into increasingly tight insular circles. When happens when every gay group in the country that doesn’t not follow the SJWs tactics is officially boycotted? Who the fuck is even left? They will turn themselves into a tiny powerless group of bitchy whiners. And the mainstream gay groups will proceed right along doing what they want to do.

        Of course it would be nice to help this along by having some sort of event that breaks the SJW grip on liberal social culture. The more people start revolting, the more people they will be forced to boycott. We want to get them to the point where they are boycotting over 50% of the country.

        1. But you forget that politicians exist to cater to each and every identity group. What do they care that the groups cordon themselves into smaller and smaller factions? As long as they all hate the appropriate enemy, it’s fine.

        2. Maybe. The example of the black civil rights establishment shows that it can go the other way. Today, the NAACP no more represents the views and interests of the average black person than the worst members of the gay mafia represent the views and interests of the average gay person. Yet, those groups continue to wield tremendous influence over the very people they are selling out.

          The reason for this is because they have managed to convince black people that white people and especially Republicans hate them and mean them harm and thus it doesn’t mater that they are being sold out because there are no alternatives. If the gay SJWs can convince gays that everyone on the right hates them, they could do the same thing. This is why they are so angry about this meeting. It shows Cruz and those on the right don’t hate them and there are alternatives to following.

        3. When gay SJWs start alienating other gays, that’s when you know that they are confining themselves into increasingly tight insular testicular circles.

          Works better.

      2. Maybe the moderate gays and moderate muslims can rent space in the libertarian’s phone booth to hold their meetings?

        Yeah, I agree that this doesn’t do all the normal gay people any favors.

      3. The gays are now being told by their self appointed “leaders” who they can speak to and what they are allowed to think.

        Meh, it’s been like that for a loooooooong time. The “silent majority” will tune them out as always.

      4. Isn’t there animosity amongst “black leaders” that Thomas Sowell isn’t a Democrat?

        Most leadership cannot stand when a person thinks for himself.

        1. For sure. And look at how that kind of oppressive political culture has worked out for blacks. As I say above, gays better think long and hard before they walk into ideological slavery in the name of group loyalty.

          1. It’s way too late for that. I’ve already coined the term for anyone who doesn’t vote with the unified gay herd – Uncle Marys. In a sentence: “That Uncle Mary voted for Rand Paul! He is a traitor to us all, doesn’t he know Rand Paul hates teh gays?!”

            But yeah, gay political opinions are insufferable for those of us who lean in any direction other than progderp.

        2. You misunderstand. If a person truly thought for himself, he would agree with them. Therefore, anyone who disagrees with them obviously can not think for himself.

    2. The Cannibal Within.

      Nice book idea.

    3. they will ostracize themselves into an insular “pure” community composed only of people that are exactly like them

      Just like libertarians!

  14. Tolerance isn’t what it used to be.

  15. How did we get to a point that attempting to even engage ideological opponents in discussion is now beyond the pale?

    Simple. Partisanship. The continuous escalation of TEAM bullshit and rabid partisanship results in shit like this, without fail. Because the end result of partisanship is the demonizing of the other TEAM, to the point where they’re someone you can’t even speak to or be in the same room as. We see elements of this in college campuses where speakers that people don’t like are just disinvited, because the people who don’t like them cannot even abide the idea of having to tolerate their presence on the same campus as them. It’s all part of the same thing: Identity Politics combined with rabid partisanship.

    But the good thing is that these people eat their own. Always. Just like here. And the guys who got in trouble here seem like pretty open-minded people. Even though they’re groveling right now, they will have learned something about people they thought were their friends and allies. And so will other, non-dogmatic people who see it.

    1. It’s all part of the same thing: Identity Politics combined with rabid partisanship.

      Heaven forbid people should choose who they associate with based on their political and moral views! What is the world coming too! Next people are going to demand freedom of association! /sarc

      1. “Heaven forbid people should choose who they associate with based on their political and moral views!”
        Yes, actually, heaven forbid it. When I find out that a person only associates with people that share their political opinions, I immediately know that that person is a closed-minded idiot and a coward. Mind you, idiots and cowards have every legal right to form tight-knit little circle jerks and banish outsiders therefrom, as you have every right to join the Illinois Nazis, but it reflects pretty poorly on your character.

        1. When I find out that a person only associates with people that share their political opinions,

          And who “only” associates with people who share their political opinions in this news item? This is people choosing not to do business with businesses who they believe (rightly or wrongly) support their political opponents, a common and completely legitimate choice.

          as you have every right to join the Illinois Nazis, but it reflects pretty poorly on your character.

          Well, your over-the-top diatribe and misrepresentations certainly reflect poorly on your character.

    2. And there’s a massive lack of perspective going on here, too. This kind of ostracism might make sense for, like, Nazi collaborators. But for some people who talked to a guy??? It’s insane.

      1. But that’s the thing about super-rabid partisanship. They keep people on the TEAM and in line by basically saying that their opponents are, actually, worse than Hitler. Hyperbole like that is part and parcel of partisanship. It’s absurd but it works. Especially when the people who you’re telling this to are never, ever going to otherwise go and learn about “the other” on their own anyway.

        1. If people start thinking the other side is not evil, they might do things like compromise and settle differences and move on to doing something besides fighting over politics. And if that happens, where will that leave the partisans? When your whole life is politics, the last thing you want to see is for people to get along.

          1. Says the guy who thought responding to someone’s gay wedding invite with an email about how you weren’t attending because you thought it was fundamentally wrong was unproblematic. Haha

            1. That is so stupid it is impossible to respond to. Tolerating other people’s views does not mean we stop having views of our own.

              1. Again, disassociation motivated by disapproval of gays is ok, dissociation motivated by disapproval of those who disapprove of gay marriage is intolerance. I see.

                1. Don’t take the bait, John. He’s going out of his way to annoy you because you’re pretty much the only person left who’ll talk to him.

                  I was thinking. I can’t decide whether Jake Gylllenhaalalala is an utter twat, or an extraordinary actor. Thoughts?

                  1. What’s your opinion on Donnie Darko?

                    1. Pretty much the same as the actor who played the role. On one hand, I suspect it was a silly, pointless story with a so-so cast who turned out a few memorable moments. To the left, I think it was mindblowing and an incredible turnout from the young, untried cast.

                      I may be unfairly biased, is what I’m saying. He has a face that looks in need of a slap.

                    2. I’ll admit that I really enjoyed Bubble Boy, but that’s partly because it’s kind of like a weird modern version of Tod Browning’s Freaks.

                      Haven’t seen or don’t care for much of his other work.

                2. You are not exactly an authority on want constitutes free association. You have no respect for it and you wouldn’t even know what it looks like if you saw it because you’re a delusional slaver who thinks he’s a libertarian.

          2. they might do things like compromise and settle differences and move on to doing something besides fighting over politics.

            Well, so what kind of compromise do you propose on gay marriage, abortion, Israel, and all the other issues that seem so dear to your heart?

      2. Lefties think Republicans literally are Nazis.

        1. That’s a pretty shitty thing to say about Nazis.

    3. They will always turn their knives upon the more well-off among them, until only one remains.

      1. ‘So how do you get rats off an island, hmm? My grandmother showed me. We buried an oil drum, and hinged the lid. Then we wired coconut to the lid as bait. The rats come for the coconut, and…they fall into the drum, and after a month, you’ve trapped all the rats. But what did you do then? Throw the drum into the ocean? Burn it? No. You just leave it. And they begin to get hungry, then, one by one… they start eating each other, until there are only two left. The two survivors. And then what – do you kill them? No. You take them, and release them into the trees. Only now, they don’t eat coconut anymore. Now they will only eat rat. You have changed their nature. The two survivors; this is what she made us.’

  16. Hmmm… where have I seen this before? Oh, right, it’s a centuries-old practice to ostracize, punish, and excommunicate people who don’t support their church’s political agenda. Just one of many examples:

    After Joe Biden, a pro-choice Catholic, was nominated as a vice presidential candidate in the 2008 presidential election, Bishop Joseph Francis Martino of Biden’s hometown of Scranton, Pennsylvania, said Biden would be refused communion in that diocese because of his support for abortion rights.

    Now, is there anything wrong with ostracizing people whose politics you don’t like? No, of course not. It’s the essence of freedom of association, and both the left and the right are free to practice it. You can’t have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association if you don’t have the freedom to condemn and to refuse to associate.

    Problems only arise when it’s practiced or supported by the government, i.e., when the government steps in and either refuses to provide services for some group the majority doesn’t like, or subsidizes organizations that provide service preferentially based on speech, religion, or ideology. That is, unfortunately, still all too common, although we are gradually reducing it.

    1. There is a lot wrong with it. it makes you an intolerant asshole. Just because you are free to do it, doesn’t make it the right thing to do or you any less of an asshole for doing it. If you want to run someone out of business for the crime of talking to another person, you are a fanatical idiot whose views should be ignored.

      1. John, does refusing to cater a gay wedding make you an intolerant a$$hole too, or does this only work one way?

        1. Depending on your view of gay weddings, it could. But that is of course your right. What it doesn’t make you is a bad baker or unworthy of being in business or worthy of oppression by the government.

          1. So expressing disapproval of gay weddings and not associating with people who disagree is ok, but expressing disapproval of those who disapprove of gay weddings and disassociating with people over that is bad. Got it.

            1. Cake bakers who provide goods and services for gay weddings aren’t the ones being threatened. It’s the ones who don’t who are threatened. All boycotting aside, the SJW crowd demonstrates that they want the blood of non-believers, not free association.

            2. The point is WHO is choosing to disassociate. I can damn well choose whomever I wish to associate with it is not your choice nor anyone or any groups.

              When a group tells me, even a group I belong to, that I can’t associate with anyone whom I want to, that group by definition is made up of fascist assholes.

              Forcing who someone can and can’t associate with is a key aspect of personal freedom. Of course those trying to keep people from associating with each other eventually build camps for those they need (and believe everyone needs) to be kept away from.

              1. When a group tells me, even a group I belong to, that I can’t associate with anyone whom I want to, that group by definition is made up of fascist assholes.

                What “group” are you referring to? What “group” is telling its members to do anything in this news item? Which “group” is “by definition made up of fascist assholes”?

      2. If you want to run someone out of business for the crime of talking to another person, you are a fanatical idiot whose views should be ignored.

        How does “hey, fellow Catholics/homosexuals/Mormons/progressives, don’t do business with these people because they don’t seem to share our values” amount to “running someone out of business”? How is such a simple free market choice and free speech act “fanatical”?

      3. Well, John, pot calling kettle black. Google “christian conservative” boycott and similar terms.

        Of course, how a minority comprising maybe 2-3% of the US population could run anybody out of business even if they wanted to is hard to see.

        Mind you, I think “Broadway Cares” and the calls for a boycott are stupid and I have no problem with Reisner and Weiderpass (or Ted Cruz, for that matter; I might vote for him).

        What I have a problem with is your kind of hypocrisy.

    2. What is the point of freedom or association if you don’t have the freedom to ostracize half-assed members?

      1. Too true. It’d be even easier to keep track of if the “correct” members had some kind of salute or armband to indicate their “inness” with the group.

        1. It’d be even easier to keep track of if the “correct” members had some kind of salute or armband to indicate their “inness” with the group.

          Traditionally, the symbol is a cross around the neck, plus bookkeeping about financial contributions and attendance. If you were kicked out of the group, you used to lose a lot more than your business.

    3. Once again, false equivalency. The Archbishop was ostracizing Biden for an opinion he held. These leftists are ostracizing these men not for any opinion, but merely because they so much as interacted with a person who has a different opinion.

      What’s wrong with ostracizing people for petty, insignificant reasons? Well, it generally renders one a bigot, a retard, or both.

      “although we are gradually reducing it”
      How on earth do you figure that?

  17. This is not about

    Signal that what follows is exactly what it’s about.

  18. Reisner and Weiderpass were absolutely right to meet with Cruz and attempt to push him on gay issues. Furthermore, every single rich gay person or gay ally should strive to do the same. Anybody who has enough power to get access to any presidential candidate should use the opportunity to try to get these conservatives to understand where culture is on gay marriage and make it very clear that opposition is not a winning issue.

    Maybe that’s the root of the problem. What were these gays thinking trying to help rethuglikkkan strategy?!? Rethuglikkkans are worse than nicole

  19. Now, if I thought that the gay-liberation agenda was The Most Important Thing in the World, and if I sincerely believed that anyone not fully signed up for that agenda was basically Hitler (only worse-dressed), then holding those views, I would be perfectly consistent in demanding that my worse-than-Hitler opponents be socially marginalized.

    The problem is that people with reservations about gay lib are *not* like Hitler – they are in fact *much* nicer people than the gay libbers. This is the point which I hope will be brought home to the general public – people who support traditional marriage, or at least have a vague nostalgia for it, actually have a moral advantage over their enemies – they’re nicer to be around, they don’t go around being nasty to people, etc.

    The next step is to acknowledge that maybe the traditional-marriage crowd might actually have something useful to say re public policy.

    1. “The next step is to acknowledge that maybe the traditional-marriage crowd might actually have something useful to say re public policy.”

      Yeah, like lifetime marriage lock ins and chaperoned college dating!

      1. Like Bo kissing my ass.

        1. Don’t let your Bishop hear that Eddie! Catholic school teachers get fired for less

          1. I keep comparing you to a jackass, but that’s unfair because jackasses can sometimes be funny. Consider:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUJtLjXiNrA

            1. You weren’t confusing me for an altar boy were you Eddie?

              1. Can you even tell the difference between a funny joke and retarded sarcasm?

                Do you laugh at knock-knock jokes? Or are they too sophisticated for you?

                1. Is knock knock what the bishop says before his ‘special’ visits with the altar boys Eddie?

                  1. Is knock knock what the bishop says before his ‘special’ visits with the altar boys Eddie?

                    Is it just me or does Bo come off as a total piece of shit?

                    1. Bo, here’s a hint – if people on H&R think even your jokes about the resident theocrat are offensive…

                    2. I thought Bo was the resident theocrat?

                    3. FS, it’s not just you.

                    4. It’s not just you, the Botard is an insufferable twit. Typical of the proggus genus.

      2. Chaperones, thats just another word for the notary you have to have with you to authenticate your “yes means yes” documents isn’t it?

        1. Precisely; makes perfect sense given how leftards now like to define ‘rape’, I think Bo just accidentally made a valid point.

    2. The next step is to acknowledge that maybe the traditional-marriage crowd might actually have something useful to say re public policy.

      Ah, yes, because of course, libertarianism is all about adopting “useful public policy”, in particular when it comes to something as private and personal about sex and child raising. /sarc

      Your mask is slipping.

  20. Broadway Bares Solo Strips

    Reminder to look into this when Emelia Clarke returns to Broadway

    1. Her body double is even hotter than she is. Maybe she can do the Broadway show instead.

      1. She’d make a great addition to any Brazzer’s porn title. People keep telling me that those women are the hot ones.

  21. “I have in my hands a list of 205 known homosexuals who have met with Republicans.”

    1. “I have in my hands a list of 205 homosexuals who have met with known Republicans.”

  22. “We do business with and accept fundraising support from a variety of people across a wide spectrum of political and religious affiliations.”

    Nope.

    1. They certainly won’t for much longer. Anyone donors who lean right, or just dislike putting bullshit signaling ahead of everything else, will most likely NOT be donating any more money to these assclowns. I sincerely hope this stunt bites them in the ass.

    2. Where “wide spectrum” = 10 through 20 of 1 through 50.

  23. Ideas for Reason Weekend 2016?

    Is that the gay steel mill?

    1. I thought we were going gay seasteading?

      I just bought a new sailor outfit!!!!

        1. FAAAAAAABULOUS!!!

          Mom and me on the cover….noyce

      1. I’ll come as the construction worker.

        1. Rufus, you did something there which was, ahem, ascertained by others.

  24. Re: Scott Shackford,

    The two men are now falling all over themselves to apologize, because as I noted above, most of their financial donations have gone to Democrats and they are obviously huge supporters of the gay community

    Yes, well, one can interpret it that way. Another way of seeing it is that both Reisner and Weiderpass are two politically-correct and spineless buffoons who are incapable of standing up to such ideology-driven bullying and calling out the hypocrisy of a “community” that has allied itself to leftists, who speak of tolerance while showing none.

    1. I was hoping they’d stand up for themselves and conservatives would give them money in solidarity and support. Imagine the mental contortions the boycotters would have to engage in to square that!

  25. So is people exercising their freedom to associate, albeit irrationally, something we’re praising and defending from angry social media mobs or are we joining such a mob and attacking the same today?

    1. The fact that it is exercising a freedom says nothing about its praiseworthiness or lack thereof. They have a right to free speech as well as association don’t they? If they used that to call Cruz a wet back, would criticizing them for it mean we were anti-free speech? Hardly.,

      Go troll somewhere else until you get a better act. There are few more stale trolling tactics than the old “so since you don’t like this, I guess you don’t believe in freedom of association” gag.

      1. But wait, when people criticized the pizza parlor for exercising their rights they were an angry Twitter mob. So what’s the principle today John?

        1. Well death threats and national boycotts of local venues, because of purely hypothetical business practices no less, tends to place one in the angry mob category.

    2. Don’t you get it, Bo? When a Christian baker refuses to do business with someone because they’re upset over two gay men being at a wedding, they’re a hero defending freedom of association. When a gay chorus refuses to business with someone because they’re upset over Ted Cruz being at a dinner party, they’re evil Stalinists.

      1. Some people get angry at being smeared with the label “mendacious fuck”

        Stormy, on the other hand has the courage to embrace the label and bathe in it.

      2. In both cases, you have a horde of rabid lunatics flipping 80 tons of shit over something sane people look at and go ‘meh.’

        You have every legal right to be a self-righteous SJW dipshit. Go ahead, tweet away. But you’d still be a dipshit.

  26. Dammit, just once I want someone with a spine to stand up to those people. Why are they apologizing when they did nothing wrong.

    Appeasement never works with totalitarian fascists like these SJWs

  27. Enjoy playing with the troll, everyone.

    1. Looks like the gay group here ain’t the only ones deeply upset about who talks to who!

    2. The sad fact is that it was an interesting thread. So of course he had to come and shit all over it with various non-Sequiturs and bullshit. You are correct, the best tactic long term is to ignore it. That said, the non-Sequiturs hanging there without response are just such an eyesore.

      1. You’re not going to be intolerant of me for disapproving of your comments are you John? Lol

        1. Note how, in characteristic leftist fashion, it thinks not paying attention to it=being intolerant of it. To “tolerate” it necessitates that you perpetually actively acknowledge it, unlike the real definition of ‘tolerance’ which is a passive endeavor.

          Run along Bo, I was just using to illustrate a point about the nature of your species.

    3. We should ostracize those who engage it.

      1. As the board’s worst offender, I am forced to agree. Please JW, I need help. Is there some kind of URKEBOLD seven step troll addiction program I can enroll?

        1. You’ve already completed the first step, John. Admitting that you have a problem and that you need help.

          Step 2 is accepting Episiarch as your lord and savior.

          1. Someone actually died and made Episiarch, God.

              1. What does God need with a starship?

          2. I picture Epi as living more underground than in the sky.

            1. His Man Cave is actually a cave.

              1. Dude, you shouldn’t talk about your mom like that.

        2. We’re going to have to beat you with socks filled with soap. I’m sorry John, it’s the only way. Now get in your bunk.

          1. ARE YOU ALLOWED TO EAT JELLY DONUTS, PRIVATE JOHN???

            1. Did your parents have any children that lived?!?

              1. MY HAND! CHOKE YOURSELF WITH MY HAND!

                1. DON’T TOUCH ME, NUMBNUTS! NOW LEAN FORWARD AND CHOKE YOURSELF!!!

              2. I hate that name only faggots and sailors are named John! From now on you’re Gomer Pyle, do you like that name?

                1. Are you quitting on me? Well, are you? Then quit, you slimy fucking walrus-looking piece of shit! Get the fuck off of my obstacle! Get the fuck down off of my obstacle! NOW! MOVE IT! Or I’m going to rip your balls off, so you cannot contaminate the rest of the world! I will motivate you, IF IT SHORT-DICKS EVERY CANNIBAL ON THE CONGO!

                2. Jaaysus Aaitch Chraahst, what is your damage?

            2. DON’T DIE ON ME, JOHN, THAT WOULD BREAK MY HEART

          2. Are you quitting on me? Well, are you? Then quit, you slimy fucking walrus-looking piece of shit! Get the fuck off of my obstacle! Get the fuck down off of my obstacle! NOW! MOVE IT! Or I’m going to rip your balls off, so you cannot contaminate the rest of the world!

        3. Botox must be stroking furiously when he gets attention from the regulars.
          He’d jizz all over himself if he got your approval.

        4. Well, misspelling the Master Source of All Trollness’ name might be a mistake.

          1. Are you going to be OK?

            1. I am, but I’m not sure about John.

      2. +1 Cruz

    4. Troll successfully baits the commentariat.
      He’s a master baiter.

    5. There wasn’t even a pretense of civility this time. Full on troll.

      I’m still checking the mail for tickets to his law school graduation. Nothing yet.

      1. I thought he claimed to be a 2L.

        1. He claimed 2L a year ago. That would mean that he’s graduating next month, unless he’s a liar.

          I volunteer tol bring an airhorn to his graduation. I’ll sit right next to his Jewish girlfriend.

          1. His CANADIAN Jewish girlfriend.

        2. The Esq is an honorific of a completed degree. The whole story is a fake. Have you noticed any actual knowledge of law? I didn’t think so. He’s just an old troll repackaged as a phony lawyer with Asperger’s.

          1. It’s obvious in hindsight. He likes to argue, why not claim to be a lawyer?

      2. Yes, Playa is so concerned about civility. He’s the civility police.

        As usual, you, Warty and the rest of the Gamergate crew here are really upset at even the smallest disunity in what you’d like every thread to be: a two minute hate where you signal your superiority to the progs. Dissent to that upset you. And of course our resident Hit and Runpblicans will join in given the target of this particular two minute hate. Predictable if anything.

        1. Not those Gamergate psychopaths! Are they at it again? Wreaking havoc across the world, making mentally unstable women who blog for a living cry sweet tears all over their keyboards. The terror must be stopped!

    6. I learned years ago about MNG. The new handle and fake identity has not cured his terminal personality cancer.

      1. I doubt he’s MNG. Not enough bragging about how much money he makes.

        1. And his advanced degrees…

          welllll….maybe the “I’m in law school” covers that.

          Hmm….

        2. Fake degrees. Reflexive Jew-hatred, even using some of the same phrases. Pointless semantic arguing. No, it’s MNG, I recognize him like I recognize a re-infected pustule.

        3. He also doesn’t have some of the rhetorical tics MNG used to have.

          1. Like what? Sometimes the tics are deliberate style elements. In one of my earlier incarnations, I used all lower case, maybe in a nod to Don Marquis.

            1. Well, one of MNG’s favorite tactics was to make up his own definition for words and then argue based on his definition. I haven’t noticed Bo doing that one.

              1. Are you kidding? That’s a basic component of this newer persona. Even John has finally caught on.

                1. Greasonable. Why does everyone not just filter?

                  1. I like to punish myself. It makes me feel alive.

                    You do it too, Gilmore.

                    1. “You do it too, Gilmore.”

                      yes.

                      but its because i’m a sadist, not a masochist.

                2. Hm, maybe I just haven’t noticed it because I don’t pay much attention to him, or maybe he tweaked his writing style to make it less MNG-like. I’ll have to take a look now to see if it really matches MNG, because now I’m curious.

      2. You think that is who he is? I am sure, but I that is a reasonable guess. Joe from Lowell has slithered back under a new name. Why not MNG?

    7. Did Bo show up? This thread looks pretty tame to me.

      1. He started, but got shut down pretty quickly.

        1. See, this is the joy of blocking.

  28. It was a big media spectacle, and the University was protested not by angry gays but by the virulently anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church, who thought Falwell was being too kind for agreeing to meet with them.

    Not seeing a whole lot of difference here, only that the sides have switched.

    1. There is one difference, the WBC people are total nuts who are loathed by pretty much everyone in America. The people who are demanding that these guys be bankrupted are members in good standing of both the Prog movement and no doubt the Democratic Party.

      1. FAGS HATE CRUZ.

        Seriously, it’s not the players that matter so much, but the attitudes and tactics.

    2. The Westboro Baptist Church has always been a joke. These people managed to shut down a fundraiser for AIDS research.

  29. You know who else ostracized people for talking to someone they didn’t like….

    1. Warty?

    2. Hillary Clinton?

      (It depends on what the meaning of “ostracized” is.)

    3. Mean Girls?

    4. Cersei Lannister?

  30. So, we gonna get the 12 minute segment on NPR or the 10,000 word essay in the NYT about partisanship in politics? Or is that only when Republicans don’t rubber stamp Obama’s favored legislation?

  31. Lock eyes? No! Do not!
    Botox does not own the night.
    Who wants cake? All do.

    1. Bo wants frosted cake.
      We don’t serve retarded trolls.
      Hire a real lawyer.

  32. The hay righys movement has demonized its opponents, questioned their mental health, and otherwise villified them as evil.

    Once that golem has been set in motion, getting it to stop is a more difficult trick.

    1. The hay rights movement? Does that also include alfalfa?

      1. The part of the movement that’s left over once the wheat has been separated from the chaff.

        1. I thought that was straw.

          1. *Straw* righys movement? What sense does that make?

      2. It is my spotty ability to type on my phone coupled wih an indifferent approach to proofreading.

  33. Apparently social signaling/ SJW mobbing is more important than raising money for AIDS research.

    1. To be fair, AIDS research is overfunded. It gets a share of funding that far exceeds its prevalance, because heart disease, malaria, etc. don’t have large organized political groups advocating for them.

      1. Did anybody catch the bus that Stormy just threw AIDS patients under?

        1. Pretty bumpy ride considering it had to ride over the entire population of sub-Saharan Africa.

          But hey, they’re only Africans, and only Rethuglicans have to feel guilty about their suffering.

  34. question-Did they donate the event space or merely rent out the event space. If the latter then they are guilty of nothing at all. In fact, if they merely rented out the space, they are setting an example by catering an event they disagree with, exactly as if they were a ‘holy roller bakery’ who swallowed their opinions and baked a cake for a gay wedding!

  35. Is the gay community now going to do the Right Thing and sue themselves for not doing business with them?

  36. So, let me see if I get this story straight (pardon the unfortunate word choice). A group of gay activists felt that these guys were wrong to host an event with Ted Cruz because they feel Cruz’s attitude toward gays is ignorant, bigoted and stereotyping.

    And they respond by acting pretty much exactly like the stereotype of vindictive little queens.

    1. And they respond by acting pretty much exactly like the stereotype of vindictive little queens.

      That’s racist!

      1. Good impression of the average social justice warrior.

        1. Your Gravatar icon (which you can see with Reasonable) looks like a swastika in a kaleidoscope. Coincidence? I think not.

    2. I’m positive at some point they were referred to as fags.

  37. Tolerance mean not tolerating intolerance,

  38. So, they’re boycotting someone for not boycotting someone who, in their view, should be boycotted.

    Should the people who don’t boycott the boycottees be boycotted as well? Where does this ridiculous bullshit end?

    1. when women start girlcotting the boycotts

      1. Oh so women are girly? They can’t have womancotts? Typical patriarchist trying infantilize women to demean their community organizational intersectionality with post-modern economic justice.

        1. Would you then suggest we Mancott the village of Mancot, Whales?

    2. Hush. This is exactly what I’m talking about upthread.

      We should be adamanetly encoraging SJWs that they ought to boycott not only the targets of their ire, but also anyone that doesn’t boycott them, and anyone that doesn’t boycott people who don’t boycott, and so on , ad infinitum.

      This is how we get them into a positon there they are boycotting the 95% of the population that isn’t them. Which I am all in favor of. I want them to paint themselves into a social-cultural corner.

      1. This is how we get them into a positon there they are boycotting the 95% of the population that isn’t them. Which I am all in favor of. I want them to paint themselves into a social-cultural corner.

        I would love to believe this would isolate them and fix the problem. Unfortunately, everywhere I turn I see people boycotting GMOs and Gluten successfully. Despite any sense to the contrary.

  39. If a member of the Saudi Royalty (coming from a country that beheads gays) visited these two gay men, there would be ZERO controversy. If socially conservative black person of power (politician, CEO) who opposes gay marriage talked to these people, there would be zero controversy.

    Of course this is partisan hackery. I bet the boycotters voted Obama in droves back in the day he opposed gay marriage. At various points in their lives they filled their cars with gas produced by anti gay nations and carry products assembled in nations with horrible human rights record.

    And gay marriage issue here is just incidental. If Robby Soave or Christina hoff Sommers talked to some traditional feminists, the usual crowd will also demand boycott.

    This is about the left opposing freedom of speech and association. It’s really that simple. The gay marriage and “war on women” issue gives them moral high grounds to thump their chest, but don’t have that on incidents like Charlie Hebdo. In that case they sort of grumble “Free speech should be accountable, you know”

    1. If a member of the Saudi Royalty (coming from a country that beheads gays) visited these two gay men, there would be ZERO controversy.

      Yes there would. Google “Beverly Hills Hotel Boycott”.

      1. But that seemed to involve actual policy. Not because the Sultan (if I understand this incident correctly) arrived there to stay at the hotel or just to chat with someone.

  40. Proggies will always eat themselves, and cultural Marxism will always descend into the lowest common denominator and ultimately fail. Keep up the good work.

    1. Really?

      The Russian Social Democratic and Labor Party defeated the Cadets, and the party tore itself into Mensheviks and Bolsheviks. Yet somehow, with all this factionalism, the Bolsheviks were able to seize power.

  41. Clearly, homosexual activists are less concerned with AIDS prevention than with feeding their Hate of those who dare to dissent from homofascist orthodoxy in any respect (even by having a civil meeting with a dissenter). So the GOP should simply stop funding AIDS research. Let the homofascists fund it all themselves. And if more of them die from it because of this — well, that doesn’t seem to be any loss.

  42. Good. Let them attack one another.

  43. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week…………

    http://www.Jobsyelp.com

  44. Homosexual “marrages” are mentioned in the Bible and were/are not considered evil.
    If you are homosexual, then you should marry one person and express your sexual love within a lifetime monogamy.
    Sex is to be shared only during a committed a life-long union of monotony or err. . . . monogamy.
    The more-honorable of the dishonorable people in the times of Noah and of Lot were…Mathew 24:39 “For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark.”
    . .
    This was said by Jesus Christ to advise of things happening like usually happen among humans like will son be required by all States.
    . .
    Civil monogamous unions between two people must be allowed regardless of gender or the title those who make these unions call these civil monogamous unions because no government can mandate the definition used for any word.

  45. “A charity group that raises millions of dollars annually to promote marriage between a man and a women has canceled a fundraiser because the the club hosted a reception with LGBT promoters.”

    I can only imagine the outcry if that was the headline. Tolerance is a double edged sword.

    1. It’s called Free Speech and/or Freedom of Association … long ago and far away, libertarians defended both. Really!

  46. The GLBT community seems like a pretty cynical bunch to me, haven’t really seen a more tyrannical group in my day. Bake me a fucking cake or go to jail. What they did to the Hoosiers was surreal. Only their god matters. But the few gay friends I’ve met are nice and realistic, so it makes me wonder. Is there a hidden hand that manufactures chaos?

    1. The GLBT community … haven’t really seen a more tyrannical group in my day.

      Umm, the Christian Taliban.
      Plus the followers of Huckabee, Cruz, Bachmann, both Pauls and Santorum (who pukes at the notion of Separation)

      1. So you’ll just take theocracy of any other kind, then?

        1. Theocracy is not part of the dialog.
          And your comment makes no sense.

  47. So, not only demanding forced association, but demanding forced non-association?

    How is this not the definition of fascism?

  48. And yet, the legislation that he’s proposing?the massive representation of his opposition?is not a ban at all. He is trying to keep power over marriage recognition in the hands of the states

    The same anti- constitutional bullshit as Ron and Rand Paul, Orval Faubus, George Wallace and the KKK. … a crazy notion that fundamental human rights are NOT guaranteed at the federal level … to EVERY American … and that states have powers which have NEVER been delegated.

    Ron Paul even tried to forbid homosexuals from defending their constitutional rights in court — the first group denied constitutional challenges since slavery and the Japanese Internment camps — the same “argument” Orval Faubus used when he tried to use his state militia to forcibly deny equal rights. Then Ron said it was “rogue judges” who overturned FEDERAL restrictions in DOMA. None of the founders ever argued for Separation, as Ron sucks up to the Christian Taliban. So Washington, Adams, Jefferson and the UNANIMOUS US Senate were not founders. Who knew?

    In today’s fucked up libertarianism (promoted by Reason) , “leave it to the states” is an excuse for ANY abuse of individual rights … in defiance of the 9th and 14th amendments … and PRECISELY like southern racists.

  49. uptil I looked at the paycheck which was of $6898 , I have faith …that…my father in law was actually erning money parttime from their computer. . there neighbor had bean doing this for less than nine months and at present cleard the loans on there apartment and got a great new Nissan GT-R:…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  50. The people flipping their shit do not want gay acceptance, they want enemies. To anybody with any idea on how opinions are changed, what these men did was the right thing to get Cruz to change his opinion. But what the opponents of this strategy want is not for Cruz to change his opinions, they want him to keep them so they can have somebody to hate. He’s their enemy, not because of his views now, but because even if he changed them, he at one point had those views and they can not tolerate “past sins”. And at the same time, they realize that if he had changed his opinions and was on their side that they would look like the villains, so they don’t want him to change his mind because then they would have to either accept him or become the bad guys in the whole ordeal.

    The problem is that even then, their tactics hit one of their own. They’ve essentially thrown one of their own members under the bus for merely trying to change one man’s opinions. To them, these men were fraternizing with the enemy, and they essentially became one of the enemy. More perceptive people can pick up on this.

    1. Seek help. It’s called Anger Management Therapy.
      It can cause one to act like the same people they hate.
      None dare call it bigotry.
      On either side.

      And both sides believe … believe … that Americans are eager … eager … to hear them rage.

      1. I’m not angry. I’ve just seen more than enough reason not to trust the lgbt movement in general. LGBT individuals tend to be okay, but many also are quick to turn into a mob, see the article.

  51. I’ve seen this happen, hateful people love being hateful, and at the same time appearing like they are tolerant. THIS is not how you garner support. I’ve argued with people who think they are supporters of somebody being gay, bisexual, lesbian, or transgender, but more often I’ve received ridicule or discrimination or seen them give ridicule/discrimination over these traits than anybody they blast for being against lgbt people. To somebody with a very small perception of the lgbt movement, it is about tolerance, but the more you learn about it, the less tolerant the movement is revealed to be, even to members of their own movement.

    This is why you will sometimes find people who are gay/lesbian, bisexual, or transgender that do not consider themselves a part of the lgbt movement. These people were often hurt by the very same movement that claims to represent them. I’m trans and polysexual, and I don’t claim membership in a movement, rather I consider myself an individualist. Too often, by representing myself as a member of some movement, I risk representing myself with their actions.

    1. I’ve seen this happen, hateful people love being hateful, and at the same time appearing like they are tolerant

      You don’t see the irony, do you?

      1. How is pointing out how others bully people and then try to act like the good guys ironic? Do you think I hate them? I may hate their actions, but not them in particular. It could take years, but everybody can change, that is why I don’t hate anybody, even those who personally wrong me. I hold no confidence that the movement itself will change for the better though, while many of the individuals will change their opinions over time, movements tend to move in direction or another, old members influence new members, those members become old members and influence newer members. The old members may change their opinions, but it takes a bit more to change the opinions of the newer members. By then it may be too late.

        When I was a child, doctors told me to throw tantrums, because my step-father was a jerk. I didn’t like them though. For some reason I just didn’t like anger or hatred. That doesn’t mean I don’t get angry or hate things, but honestly, when it happens it always feels like it hurts me more so it takes a lot to get me angry or hateful.

  52. I’ve seen a lot of bullying in my life, most of it were from people who felt they had power, so people I once considered friends, people I personally defended, turned on me and others when they gained acceptance, sometime using the same justifications as others had used on them. It’s something I’ve gotten cynical about, that people naturally are hateful about something, that people are naturally more open about their hatred when that hatred is accepted, and that people naturally desire to look tolerant despite their open hatred. Living and let live, leaving people alone (non-infringement) is the best solution.

    I couldn’t care less if some stranger hated me, but what I do care about is not having my life, liberty, or property harmed. At the same time, I can tell when a spade is a spade, if somebody hates me because I’m trans, or that I have a penis, and at the same time call themselves a member of the lgbt movement, I’m going to call them a hypocrite. I’ve been hated by gay and bisexual people, because of my gender, and I’m not talking about somebody thinking it’s a sin, I’m talking actual hatred. I’ve seen gay people hate bisexual people because of their sexuality. Hypocrisy doesn’t make me want to join, not at all.

  53. I am assuming that had they refused to hold the event for Cruz, they would have been illegally discriminating against the cisnormative.

    CB

  54. The Gay “Gestapo” are at it again trying to force people to their point of view in order to get their own way. If gays had a lick of sense they would all stop supporting all this “in your face” nonsense so gays can each live their lives the way they choose without worrying whether these horribly nasty, dare I say evil, people will attack them.

    Forcing people to support a view that is not in their own best interests is an uphill task at best and won’t make them any friends. If Gays would band together to do wonderfully charitable works the public would genuinely start liking them and would spontaneously want to help ‘THEM” to get what they want!

  55. power to get access to any presidential candidate

  56. roomate’s mom makes $61 /hour on the computer . She has been out of a job for nine months but last month her check was $13778 just working on the computer for a few hours
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  57. – “This is not about partisan politics or punishment.”

    Bullshit.

  58. Yet the pizza restaurant and the florist are condemned for their refusal to take part in a same sex marriage?

  59. I believe the responses to, “some in the gay community,” should have been,

    “Fuck off you little twats… you’re an embarrassment to the gay community. Try doing something constructive instead of destructive for a change.”

  60. upto I looked at the receipt four $4773 , I didn’t believe that…my… mom in-law was realy receiving money parttime from there new laptop. . there aunts neighbour started doing this 4 only twenty one months and recently paid the dept on their villa and bourt a new Car
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  61. my roomate’s half-sister makes $71 /hr on the computer . She has been laid off for 5 months but last month her pay was $17321 just working on the computer for a few hours
    …… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  62. So now you are not even allowed to TALK to someone who opposes same sex marriage. I love how supporters insist they are seeking equality and then turn around and dictate who is allowed to speak and what they are allowed to say since that is the opposite of equality. Equality means everyone is treated the same. They seek a country where those who have the same political views are given special status and those opposed silenced and punished.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.