Donald Trump

Let's Not Have an LGBT Panic over Trump's Election

Use this opportunity to reconsider the desire to punish one's enemies.


G. Ronald Lopez / ZUMA Press / Splash News/Newscom

Because President-Elect Donald Trump has taken just about every conceivable possible position on gay and transgender issues, and because these LGBT issues played almost no role in how the election turned out, I've been reluctant to even speculate what might happen in a Trump administration.

Others have been much less circumspect and are certain that Trump is going to be a disaster for LGBT issues. History suggests they would be saying that regardless of who the Republican nominee was, so it's helpful to recognize that this freakout would have happened if it had been Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, or probably any of the other GOP candidates except maybe John Kasich. The Republican Party did decide to maintain and even expand an anti-gay platform prior to the election despite the opportunity to move forward.

All of this response is rather disconnected from what Trump actually has the power to accomplish when in office and what the public at large would actually stand for. Yes, Vice President-Elect Mike Pence has legitimately awful positions on gay and transgender issues, but that should not be taken as indicator of what can actually happen. After all, conservative Christians rallied voters to the polls in 2004 with the possibility of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage recognition and that never happened or even got anywhere near where it was even a possibility. It did influence several state-level gay marriage bans.

Fear was used to keep the LGBT vote strongly directed toward the Democrats. Clinton lost, but the fear remains, even though it's tied to not a whole lot but rhetoric.

Walter Olson, Cato senior fellow and Reason contributing editor, took to the New York Post to actually analyze what's likely to happen under Trump and came away concluding that as president, he won't be rolling back gay rights. But LGBT groups may not succeed in pushing for even more federal oversight over private treatment of gay and transgender issues.

Gay marriage recognition is safe (Trump said on 60 Minutes that he has no interest in trying to relitigate that fight). There's going to be no effort to reinstitute a ban on military service. But there's a couple of issues that Olson points out where I agree and would like to flesh out a little bit. Quoting Olson:

  • The federal government will pull back from its ill-advised attempt to prescribe nationwide rules for school bathrooms and changing areas. Debates will continue at the state and local level, where public opinion will prove more amenable to workable compromise than one would guess from the loudest voices on both sides. Trump himself said in April he opposes the controversial North Carolina law on the issue that some social conservatives have championed.

  • Organized LGBT groups will go on refusing to concede any legitimate role for religious exemptions in discrimination law, even in the operation of, say, church-affiliated colleges. They will therefore decline to enter any negotiations to amend or refine proposals like the so-called First Amendment Defense Act. That will, in turn, increase the danger that congressional Republicans will themselves overreach by enacting some version of such a proposal that is unfair or impractical.

Right before the election, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of a transgender teen fighting with a Virginia school board over the Department of Education's rule-making that schools must accommodate his request to use male facilities at school. The case, though, could end up really being about the process of federal rule-making and could avoid answering the actual question of whether the Obama administration's interpretation of the law is correct.

The court could rule that the administration didn't properly implement policies, and then it could be up to the Trump administration to decide what to do next. But the worst-case scenario here would be that they decide not to try again to implement this federal policy and leave it to the states (Trump sort of flip-flopped on North Carolina's law after April and subsequently wanted to leave it to them to decide). That doesn't necessarily mean that transgender people are screwed over. It just means other people will be making the decisions.

What does that future mean? Let's look back at North Carolina. Gov. Pat McCrory, a Republican, signed and defended HB2, the law that requires (among other things) that transgender school students use the facilities that match their birth certificates. North Carolina voters may have just bounced him from office in favor of a Democratic rival who refuses to defend the law. The election is extremely close, and McCrory is refusing to concede at the moment. Given how successful Republicans were otherwise in this election, the possibility of McCrory losing is an important cultural sign of how people are viewing this issue. It's not necessarily the case that LGBT folks can't get wins outside of the federal government. Not turning to the federal government to fix every LGBT injustice doesn't necessarily mean there's no other way to deal with bigotry.

Trump and a Republican Congress also likely dooms the Equality Act, a bill that would formally add sexual orientation and gender identity to all federal antidiscrimination laws. But the bill is actually much broader than that, drastically expanding the federal government's definition of a public accommodation to cover nearly every consumer-oriented business in this country. This would have resulted in a massive increase in the ability of the Department of Justice to get involved in local accusations of business discrimination in all protected categories, even in cases where state laws already had it covered.

To me, it's remarkable that there are folks out there who are terrified at the level of power Trump will have once he takes control of the executive branch who are also upset at the possibility that this law that expands the power of the executive branch will not pass. Trump critics (rightfully) see him as a man with a tendency to punish his enemies. And yet, there's a serious desire to "punish" businesses and charities who are not on board with gay issues and are calling this "justice." This is what Olson is alluding to when he suggests that LGBT activists will not be willing to compromise on religious freedom issues. Some people cheered at the prospect of government officials punishing florists and bakers and photographers for not serving gay couples.

When you decide that it's moral and righteous to use the government to punish your enemies, then what happens when your enemies get themselves elected into power? It's not entirely clear whether a backlash against public accommodation law over-enforcement contributed to the anti-PC animus driving this election, but it seems possible.

Rather than panicking about having a federal agenda subverted, maybe the LGBT needs to stop and really think about what they're trying to accomplish. Why is it so important that bakers and florists be punished if they don't serve gay couples? Why are people trying to go after religious colleges and churches?

If the backlash to people feeling as though they're being threatened by the government because of their beliefs results in the election of an erratic authoritarian like Trump, it's time to take a step back and evaluate goals. If LGBT leaders are worried about federal authority being used to punish the community, don't support laws and regulations that normalize federal punishment toward others.

NEXT: SNL Hillary Clinton Singing 'Hallelujah,' Or How Political Correctness Gave Us Trump

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I heard that Trump is going to mandate conversion training for the gays and make Mexico pay for it.

    1. They’ll be sent to be gassed by Bannon’s trains, along with the Jews, the Muslims, the Blacks, the people not like Bannon, the illegals, the…

    2. I heard he married Ivanka off to a Jew in order to taint the Chosen People with goy blood.

      1. Mohel, here we go again.

        1. Kosher? I barely knew her. What… it’s gettin’ hot in here.

          1. Thanks for coming, folks. Try the brisket.

            1. You can’t silence chazal!

    3. He’s sending out the red hats right now to identify the fags and tattoo nazi symbols on their forehead so that they can be rounded up.

      1. Milo Y hardest hit?

    4. You mean make San Francisco pay for it, right? I think that’s where gays originally came fom.

  2. I say, let them panic. They’re main talents are whimpering and squealing. Trump’s election will inspire their best performances ever.

  3. Make America Fabulous Again!

  4. It’s not like the government has official lists of registered homosexuals.


    1. But they will now!

    2. The fairest and easiest solution would have been to overhaul the system so that being married legally entitles people to nothing. The absurdity of extending the franchise to gays, who can’t have children, is fair enough game. I agree, they shouldn’t get tax breaks for being married. Now, after that grenade was lobbed, allow me to cut the furious off at the pass: because nobody should be getting tax breaks for being married. Lower taxes for everyone. Why subsidize marriage in tax code? Why should the childless and unmarried pay more in taxes? Why can’t we get anyone in the progopshere interested in answering that question on behalf of equality? (Note: It’s rhetorical. Nobody wants to give up a tax break that they enjoy the benefits of.)

      For the rest of it: a contract’s a contract. Just streamline all the stuff that gay people wanted marriage recognition for into a contract process that’s just as easy as what marriage supplies. Next-of-kin recognition? Done. Power-of-attorney assignment? Done. Assignment of custody of children? Done.

      It’s stupid as shit, let’s be honest, because all that even matters to people is that the word “marriage” is used. Since we can’t get the pearl-clutchers of the religious right to stop falling to their fainting couches the moment a religious word is uttered in a secular context, apparently we have to move the apparatus to accomplish the same thing but not hurt their feelings in the process.

      1. But that would have given the ‘hateful bigots’ the satisfaction of feeling correct when they claimed the goal was to ‘destroy marriage.’

        No, better to go for prideful vindication and insist on creating an official government registry of self-declared homosexual couples.

        Because there’s no way that could ever go wrong, now that Barack Hussein Obama has wisely guided all of humanity to ‘the right side of history.’

        1. You know who else used a registry to deny the population a human right?

          1. Gun control advocates?

          2. Microsoft?

      2. ^This indeed

  5. What, I’m the only one who heard Trump threaten the whatever alphabet soup community? Oh wait, I didn’t hear that either.

    1. In fact, Trump actually stated at a campaign event that he wanted to protect LGBTQ people, and also held up the LGBTQ rainbow flag at a campaign event to cheers from his audience, but we somehow should believe he might be the bringer of death squads against the gays.

      Reality is just meaningless, I suppose.

      1. I mean the red hat brigade could just get out of control. What, you thought that red hat had no sinister meaning behind it? There were the brownshirts, but now it will be the red hats!

          1. My mother is a member, lol. Not those redhats, The Trumpets damnit!

            1. Trumpets or Trumpettes? Because one of them sounds a little gay.

      2. Wait, you’re trying to tell me that a New York City real estate developer and hotelier who’s a regular on the NYC social scene isn’t anti-gay to the core??? Unpossible, I tell you!

      3. In fact, Trump actually stated at a campaign event that he wanted to protect LGBTQ people, and also held up the LGBTQ rainbow flag at a campaign event to cheers from his audience, but we somehow should believe he might be the bringer of death squads against the gays.

        Not to mention Melania’s explicit girl-on-girl pictorials which totally doesn’t count because oppression, women, and patriarchy.

        1. I, for one, want to see more of these pics!

      4. Yeah, but I keep hearing LGBT people say that the flag was upside-down. Seems strange that they would complain about its orientation.

        1. ::narrows gays::

  6. No one’s coming to take away your gays.

    1. If you like your gays you can keep your gays.

      1. But I haven’t seen jesse for a while 🙁

        1. He’s out there in California, keeping that whole place gay all by himself. Poor bastard.

            1. I knew you were going to say that.

        2. I hope Jesse didn’t hurt himself dancing too vigorously across some lube covered floor.

          1. Please, everyone knows that homosexuals have a supernatural sense of balance.

            1. You are back!

              [dances vigorously]

              1. It might be temporary. I have a meeting later today to see if I’ll still be on a project that has caused an enormous amount of unnecessary work drama. If I can get off this project I may have time to comment more regularly, if not, I’m going to hide a ton of booze in my desk and pretend I was taken off of the project until I get fired.

                1. That sucks. Good luck with that. I hope you get your preferred work situation.

        3. I’ve already been rounded up and deported back to Greece/France/English boarding school the home country of my people.

          1. [fumes jealously]

          2. Jesse,
            I will hide you in a 55 gallon drum to fight der Drumpf. I don’t know where the 55 gallon drum came from…

      2. “Gay is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together.”

    2. We just need common sense gay control.

      1. You mean requiring a thorough background check and a mandatory waiting period before anyone can go gay?

        1. And no gay show loopholes.

          1. I don’t want all gays banned, just assault gays. The ones with all the attachments.

            1. No one needs a machine gay.

            2. Especially the shoulder thing that goes up.

              1. Remember that the only thing you really need is the receiver.

            3. Wait, I thought automatic gays were already illegal.

              1. Not with a powerful lobby like the NGA behind them…

            4. Of course you’ve got to ban the long black ones.

          2. Isn’t a gay show just called “brunch”?

            1. Ugh, now I am in the mood for a Bellini.

              1. BELLINI!?

                No, add some elderflower (St. Germain) to your mimosa and homo right.

      2. “Extreme vetting”.

      3. I assume some are mostly good people,
        Did I do that right?

        1. Who even knows anymore, man.

          1. What difference, at this point, does it make?

    3. You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 different gender identities when there are hungry children in this country.

      1. Only assault genders have more than 10 identities.

        1. You can have a leash, a ball muzzle, or assless chaps; just not all 3.

          1. I am NOT giving up my assless chaps, thank you very much.

            1. Goddamnit! ALL CHAPS ARE ASSLESS!

              1. Now there are two of us. They might think we’re faggots or something*. But if there were three of us, we might form a movement.

                *Its that time of year for Alice’s Restaurant Massacre. Don’t blame me that Guthrie was a homophobe.

              2. Then whence “chaps my ass”? Must be assful chaps to chap an ass. Assless chaps couldn’t do it.

                1. I meant this for Brett L below.

              3. So I can keep my chaps then??

                1. Even if you lose your ass.

              4. You know, I know, they know but the forms must be obeyed…

          2. ALL CHAPS ARE ASSLESS!!!

            Seriously. That’s why we don’t call them “pants”. Its like talking about assed pants. If we’re gonna have a reason to burn it all down, this is mine!

            1. Then whence “chaps my ass”? Must be assful chaps to chap an ass. Assless chaps couldn’t do it.

              1. Are there chaps for your lips? Chaps are to keep your inner thighs from getting chapped by rubbing across your saddle. Also the reason cowboys wear their jeans so tight. The less rub, the better. If you think chub rub on a 10 mile run sucks, try an eight hour day on a cattle ride. They didn’t make 55 gallon drums of lube, so they had to settle for leather that tied around the waist and legs.

                1. Chaps were to protect your legs from brush and mesquite thorns.

                  1. Leather seems a poor choice to keep mesquite out. Some sort of scale plate, or maybe a really tight chain mail weave, but I don’t think any hide product is keeping mesquite from tearing you up. But maybe I give it too much credit.

                2. If Jesse were here, he would vehemtly defend the idea that one can have both ample lube and chaps as well.

    4. If you lime your gay, you can keep your gay.

      1. “like”, goddammit

        1. Lime Rickey. Because all gays like the hull.

          1. Ah……so…..not quicklime then?

  7. “The Republican Party did decide to maintain and even expand an anti-gay platform prior to the election despite the opportunity to move forward.”

    The link is to an article about how those hypocritical Republicans are against state-recognized SSM, and want the Obergefell ruling overturned, OMG!

    I get it, the entire human race has been anti-gay for millennia, with the exception of a few Western countries in the last couple of decades.

    This is the kind of hysteria you are supposedly deploring.

    1. Eddie in 1952: The entire human race has lived at the whim of polio for millennia.

      Eddie in 1865: The entire human race has depended on slave labor for millennia.

      Eddie in 1859: The entire human race was created in an instant millennia ago.

      Eddie in 1789: The entire human race has been the subject of kings for millennia.

      Eddie in 1543: The entire human race has been orbited by the sun for millennia.

      Eddie in 1517: The entire human race has sworn fealty to the pope for millennia.

      Eddie in 23: The entire human race has worshiped Ba’al for millennia.

      Eddie in 12,500 BCE: The entire human race has subsisted on wild plants and animals for millennia.

      1. Damn. How old IS Eddie, anyway?

        1. He’s recursive, yo.

          1. I thought he was Catholic. Weird.

            1. He is a recursive catholic. It’s guilt no matter how much you zoom in.

          2. They stopped teaching that in school because everyone types now, didn’t they?

        2. The cranky conservative who complains ceaselessly about things that have no effect on him is a cliche as old as the written word.

          1. It’s true that I’m not a baker, signmaker, florist, etc.

      2. In the same spirit of fairness:

        Hugh in 1534 – The Anabaptists of Munster are creating a new society and shedding the shackles of the past. It’s a Libertarian Moment!

        Hugh in 1789 – The French revolutionaries are creating a new society and shedding the shackles of the past. It’s a Libertarian Moment!

        Hugh in 1861 – The Confederates are setting up a bold new experiment in scientific racism, shedding all that supersitious nonsense about God making of one blood all nations of the earth. Libertarian moment!

        Hugh in 1917 – Woodrow Wilson is waging a crusade for human rights and making the world safe for democracy. And the Russians are mounting a revolution against their oppressors. Libertarian moment!

        1. And I suppose I should mention that Hugh actually compared gay marriage to the polio vaccine.

          And seems to think Darwin was a geologist whose achievement was in rebutting Ussher, the Protestant Archbishop.

          1. You completely misunderstood. His assertion wasn’t that homosexuality prevented disease or some other more abstract social ill but that homosexuality is an empirically good social innovation and unquestionable natural fact like movable typeface or powered flight.

            P.S. – Gay Marriage, the science is settled. – Hugh Akston

            I kinda wish he’d use a puppet when he does shit like that. As so-so as Ayn Rand could be sometimes philosophically, that sort of nonsense is beneath even one of her caricatures.

      3. As loud a “Zing!” as was the sling that downed the thing Goliath.

        1. A loud “thump” as he belabors a straw man with a stick and says “take that!”

          Conservatives say though the past should not have a veto over the present, but should have a seat at the table.

          Progs think it’s a sufficient argument for a new policy to shout “new and shiny!” and “they laughed at Galileo!”

          Yes, but as others have noted, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

          If you think you can defend American liberties with a mocking attitude of tearing down what’s “old,” then of course you’re encouraging the progs who are busily trying to tear down “old” things like the Constitution.

          They want to rip a hole in the First and Tenth Amendments, as well as the Electoral College. And the list goes on.

          1. The Tenth Amendment was also not intended as a loophole to the First. It didn’t imply that states could or should have the power to ignore the prohibition of religious views controlling the state simply because they’re popular. The states ratified the Constitution. They joined the union. They are bound to the same prohibitions within state government on governmental overreach that the Constitution placed upon the federal government, and the rest not mentioned in the Constitution were reserved to the states and the people.

            1. Now, if you’d like to argue for peaceful secession in lieu of that unconstitutional overreach, you’d have a more sympathetic ear.

            2. Which law *isn’t* an example of “religious views controlling the state”?

              The 13th Amendment of course was the end point of a lot of turmoil which included religious abolitionists.

              The first section of the 14th Amendment (the civil-rights section) was drafted largely by an evangelical, John Bingham.

              The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as well as the numerous examples of those rights listed in the Declaration of Independence, are “tainted” (by your standards) by the idea that these rights are God-given. (remember “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”?). If you don’t like that, take it up with that right-wing theocrat, Thomas Jefferson.

              So you’re going to have dial back your idea of repealing all laws tainted by religion, if you want to keep any pro-freedom laws.

              Or perhaps you mean that only laws you *don’t* like are tainted by religion?

              1. And who said the correct definition of marriage was the popular one? Both major candidates in the last election want the govt to recognize SSM.

              2. The Constitutional and historical revisionist comes out to play. Yes, those men of straw made to dance in the halls of the institution, but those men of straw are dressed more to my liking, and don’t they dance with grace and so prettily? Those other men of straw, they dance to a tune not at all of my liking. Mine are by far superior.

                1. You’ve lost me, your argument must be tad too sophisticated for me.

              3. It’s not a question of “was a law was created by someone with religious views?”

                It’s a question of “without religious views, does a law stand on it’s own merit?”

            3. The First Amendment originally only limited the U.S. Congress (that is, after all, the exact wording). While it does seem like some of the protections were “meant” to extend to the States, the issue wasn’t clear-cut. Massachusetts kept a state religion well into the 19th century and when it was disestablished, it wasn’t for running afoul of the First Amendment (the Fourteenth Amendment would not come until later).

              1. Let’s not steal any bases. First we have to show how the First Amendment forbids religiously-influenced laws.

                1. What is a “religiously influenced” law?

                  The First Amendment forbids the establishment of religion. Outlawing murder because e.g. the Bible tells you murder is wrong is not a 1A violation unless the law or judges cite the holy text as authoritative.

                  1. Kind of my point.

                    When someone like zero sum game above starts talking about the First Amendment forbidding religious dominance, he’s usually talking about religious influence on behalf of laws he dislikes.

                    1. he’s usually talking about religious influence on behalf of laws he dislikes

                      The history is clear. America is not to be a theocracy. Many fled Europe to avoid theocracies, their bloodied swords, their full gibbets.

                      Revising it because you would prefer theocratic rule does not change that history. It does not change the clear intention of the First Amendment. I reject theocracy, and you should too. Should the United States be populated with Muslims instead who interpret the Constitution the way you do, your tune would quickly change. When the several Sharia states begin to form and begin to hold sway over the federal process, you’ll have wished that you listened, that your death-by-a-thousand-cuts revisionistic murder of the Constitution had never occurred.

                    2. “you would prefer theocratic rule”

                      Hold on, let’s clarify our terms.

                      This this started by my defense of laws saying marriage is the union of one (1) man and one (1) woman.

                      As I understand it, you say such laws are theocratic, but you haven’t shown that they are, even under your own (fairly loophole-ridden) definition of theocracy.

                    3. The Founders meant to keep the law from being turned against religious people as much as they meant to keep it from being wielded by them.

                      The First Amendment vis-a-vis religion has two protections, not just one. Against establishment and for free exercise.

                    4. “Should the United States be populated with Muslims instead who interpret the Constitution the way you do, your tune would quickly change.”

                      No, I will be relieved that we live under a constitution in which (contrary to Sharia) nobody can be forced to pay special taxes for not being Muslim, nor can his or her life be valued differently depending on whether they’re a Muslim or not. And where it’s deemed cruel and unusual to implement certain of the punishments specified in standard sharia codes.

                      On the other hand, you will wish you’d taken a less flexible approach to the Constitution, and you’ll wish you’d adhered to a more originalist concept, once the sharia supporters take advantage of modern legal theories making the constitution putty in the hands of the interpreter.

                  2. Outlawing murder because e.g. the Bible tells you murder is wrong is not a 1A violation unless the law or judges cite the holy text as authoritative.

                    This is a silly argument. There is a sufficient secular argument for abolishment of murder upon which we all agree: I give up the freedom to murder people because I do not wish to murder or be murdered. All of us agree to this, thus it is law.

                    When the entirety of support for a law comes from faith and no secular argument can be constructed, or a secular counter-argument appeals to the majority of the population then the secular argument prevails as a matter of law.

                    1. “or a secular counter-argument appeals to the majority of the population”

                      Wait, how did majoritarianism get smuggled into the First Amendment?

                      “I give up the freedom to murder people because I do not wish to murder or be murdered. All of us agree to this, thus it is law.”

                      Obviously, the murderers don’t agree.

                      Try enforcing the First section of the 14th Amendment in the Jim Crow South. Try even enforcing it against government-approved lynching.

                    2. The point is that it doesn’t matter why you believe murder should be illegal. As long as the government does not establish or prohibit religion, it is not a 1A violation.

                      There was no intention on the part of the founders to subject every law to a “secular justification” test. The law is what the people want it to be, for whatever reasons they want it, so long as it adheres to the limits established by the Constitution.

                    3. The law is what the people want it to be, for whatever reasons they want it

                      This is the exact problem. The founders did everything possible to create a democracy that wasn’t a democracy. The tyranny of the majority over the minority is a fearsome thing, so we got an electoral college. A singular state could be conquered, twisted against the will of those it was meant to represent. Thus, we got a republic. The interests of the people could be ignored by the state, so we got a house of representatives. The interests of the states could be perverted by the hot blood of the electorate, so we got a senate. The need to establish a fixture to speak for all the states to foreign powers gave us an executive branch. The interests of freedom and justice above all other concerns gave us a supreme court. All set at odds to gum up the works, to slow down tyranny in a mire that it could hopefully not escape.

                      They tried. They really did. Go knock on the door of your neighbor and ask if he can explain any of that to you.

                    4. Yeah, if you truncate a quote, it says something different than what was intended. Please don’t complain about logical fallacies while you commit one of the most egregious offenses against intellectual honesty yourself.

                    5. My entire point was that it was not at all intended to be a pure “will of the people” democracy. All to many focus on the first part of what you said, and the second is half is now a farce. It’s been cut off at the knees by revisionists and rendered impotent. We both know it.

              2. This is a problem more with the dichotomy presented by the design of the Constitution and its amendments. The Constitution itself was designed to trammel government. The amendments make it seem as if rights flow from government, which is directly contradictory. Several of the framers feared that exact problem, but several states wouldn’t ratify without the Bill of Rights as presented. It turns out that those fears were well-founded.

                1. It turns out that those fears were well-founded.

                  Sort of. I think both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were right, but that’s because the issue leads to a Morton’s Fork.

                  Leave out the BoR, and what recourse does someone have against violation of his rights? Sure, he can say that such and such is not a power of the government; and then the courts will make it one.

                  Put in the BoR, and no matter how much you try to imply otherwise, individual rights will generally be winnowed to only those enumerated, and even then to the narrowest interpretation thereof.

                  1. You’ve got the gist. Scylla and Charybdis. How do we write a Constitution that unambiguously protects the rights of its people by constructing the strongest cage for the government it creates?

                    It’s not that I’m implying that the BoR was wrongheaded. It’s that it represented a fundamental confusion about the document that inspired it. Haste brought the albatross and hung it from our necks, and I’m not even sure it wasn’t the right thing to do. Unity in the face of annihilation isn’t something to scoff at. We should be impressed that it did as well as it did, given the circumstances.

                    Now we can do nothing about it. Tradition trumps all. A yellowed piece of paper with famous names upon. Jefferson will likely shown to be right again in fearing that too, once the tree of liberty demands a fresh watering.

                    1. My greatest fear in writing a new constitution is that we will do away with all that is great about the one we have. If you want to talk about a bulwark against democratic excesses, that yellowed piece of paper is the greatest anyone has yet seen.

                    2. It is possible. Permit peaceful secession of a reasonable chunk of territory under a new Constitution designed specifically to address the issues with the old one. Begin a ratification process of the new one and allow the states to decide which way to go. Give the process maybe ten years to occur to the satisfaction of two thirds of the states, or it is dissolved and the original Constitution retained. Create several milestones where the elections are held of various important parts of the edifice are constructed.

                      Trying such a thing is better than the blood looming on the horizon should we continue walking the path we’re on.

          2. “they laughed at Galileo!”

            …until he did the scientific thing and got a consensus!

            1. Pope Loretta to Galileo: “The science is settled, I’m afraid we have to investigate you under the RICO statute.”

        2. the sling that downed the thing Goliath


  8. Why is it so important that bakers and florists be punished if they don’t serve gay couples?

    Because progs are, above all, about wielding power over others. To even think differently from them sends them into a foaming rage.

    1. They are punished for the same reason they would be if they were refused service for being hetero. It’s something society as a whole decides to prosecute, like murder and jaywalking and other things. Different people, different lines drawn, and voting is where you decide common lines.

      1. society as a whole

        Do you know what the word “whole” means?

        voting is where you decide common lines

        Nothing says “common” like a decision made by less 50% of votes cast by less than 50% of the people.

      2. So if 50.1% of Americans voted to make murder laws apply only if the victim is part of 50.1%, thereby allowing summary execution of anyone within the 49.9%, according to your logic, this is A-OK.

        Not likely what you intended, but they don’t call pure democracy mob rule for nothing.

      3. So when society decided as a whole to murder Jews, that was alright? I get it. It’s only bad to kill Jews if you’re in the minority.

        Curious, how do you feel about society deciding to deport millions of illegal immigrants?

    2. I still want to know if a single Muslim baker has been forced to bake a gay wedding cake. Has it even been tried?

      1. Didn’t O’Keefe or someone like him try that stunt?

        1. Umm, I can’t remember, did … oh wait I, I do remember something like that from a long time ago and I think the guy just politely refused. Nothing about it afterwards, that I remember.

          1. I think it was Steven Crowder

        2. Actually, that was Steven Crowder.

        3. It was Steven Crowder, stupid.

      2. Muslim bakers baking gay cakes ?

        I think not.

        There are many more tubes to watch if one isn’t enough.

        Seems as though the MSM, nor local LE, just isn’t interested

      3. Islam is like 1% of the US. And in the last decade there have been what, a half-dozen “gay wedding cake” cases (including florists, photographers, and venues)?

        That result doesn’t take the conspiracy you imply.

    3. They are the Borg, with the personality of of an overtired 4 year old.

  9. If LGBT leaders are worried about federal authority being used to punish the community, don’t support laws and regulations that normalize federal punishment toward others.

    Or, alternately, push for the greatest federal influence over everyday lives the world has ever seen! And then workout step two later before profiting from universal correct thinking.

    1. Profit?!? Proggies never profit. They just accept donations, voluntary or not.

    2. “[…] push for the greatest federal influence over everyday lives the world has ever seen!”
      When have gay people pushed for anything in this country that wasn’t already in place for other people?

      Not having our periodicals labeled obscene? Kinda a thing before we fought those obscenity cases.
      Being able to co-habit without prosecution? Kinda a thing straight folks have been doing a long time.
      Not being prosecuted for having sex with a consenting adult? Again, kinda a thing straight folks enjoyed.
      Being able to serve in the armed forces? Already a thing for other folks.
      Non-discrimination laws? Been around at the federal level since 1964.
      Adoption? Again, kinda a thing everyone else has enjoyed.

      Really, the only place you have any room for LGBT folks pushing new, is trans* issues. And the heart of those isn’t more federal influence, it’s less. It’s finding ways to get the government to let trans folk live their lives without being harassed over their IDs, birth certificates, and so-on.

      Face it, you hipsters did it all before gay folk came along. You’re just upset we’re asking you to share.

      1. “When have gay people pushed for anything in this country that wasn’t already in place for other people?”
        You mean the federal government made it illegal for Curves to deny entry to men? Wow, I better get over there right away and get my membership.

  10. I don’t recall Trump ever saying a single negative thing about the gays.

    Was shocked recently to learn my younger gay brother voted for Trump.

    1. It’s been decided by right thinking people that Trump is anti-gay, no need for him to admit to it.

    2. He doesn’t like Rosie O’Donnell, ergo, he hates all gays. DUH!!!

      1. Doesn’t everyone hate Rosie O’Donnell? I thought that was one of those universal “we can all agree on…” things, like hating the Westboro Baptist Church.

    3. “I don’t recall Trump ever saying a single negative thing about the gays.”
      I suppose that depends on how narrowly you define “negative”. Me? Someone saying they’re going to choose judges to forcefully annul my marriage against my will? That’s pretty negative to me.

      That said, you’re right. Compared to most GOP folks, his personal animosity is so low key as to be non-existent. But he’s still fallen in line with every anti-gay Republican policy and plank that folks have asked him about. And frankly, we’ve had the “personally supportive, politically not” president before: that was George W. Bush. So I hope you understand that a person doesn’t have to think that Trump is personally against them to think that he’ll govern against them.

      1. In other words, he’s done nothing to suggest he’s anti-gay, but that R next to his name convinces you otherwise.

        Frankly I have more of a right to be concerned that Hillary hated men. Unlike Trump, she never said I could use any Curves Gym I want to.

  11. Have the located the mass-grave-site of the sucided trans-teens yet? This guy’s investigation doesn’t seem to be making headway

  12. The case, though, could end up really being about the process of federal rule-making and could avoid answering the actual question of whether the Obama administration’s interpretation of the law is correct.

    Obama doesn’t even understand the implications of the very rule he invented out of whole cloth.

  13. every conceivable possible position on gay and transgender issues


    1. +Rule 34

  14. LGBT groups, like all grievance mongers, would be freaking out no matter what happens. Had Trump lost there would be the same raft of fake hate crimes, the same rush to denigrate his supporters as irredeemable, backward troglodytes, the same plaintive cries of surging fascism which for some reason only ever manifests among their fellow progressives…

    1. Yeah, there’s a fair percentage who would’ve freaked if Jim Kolbe had been the R nom.

  15. Rumor is he might appoint Richard Grenell to the UN. My God it would be worth it just to see the gays’ reaction. Also, one of his main advisers who is helping him with the transition is an openly gay man, and is arguably the most powerful gay man in the world right now.
    The LGBTs freaking out are simply delusional and have been fed blind misinformation and hate no different than the kind that comes from the Christian right. I am in no fear of the government rounding me into a camp and electro-shocking the straight into me, yet people actually think that is going to happen.

    1. Also, one of his main advisers who is helping him with the transition is an openly gay man, and is arguably the most powerful gay man in the world right now.


      And you have to admit that not getting to see Hillary dancing around in her doulbe-wide pantsuit on the Ellen show is really depressing to almost everyone.

    2. I am in no fear of the government rounding me into a camp and electro-shocking the straight into me

      Enough of the euphemisms, sir.

    3. Of course not. You can’t electroshock the straight into someone. Everyone knows that successful de-gaying can only be done with hallucinogenic mushrooms and ice water immersion.

  16. The g?y and black panic over trump is just further proof anybody with an R or L next to their name will be called a homophobic racist. Not only is there zero evidence that trump hates gays, but the guy was running around stage holding up a gay pride flag a few days before the election, something the media, including reason, completely ignored. I wouldn’t even know about if I didn’t happen to catch while flipping channels.

    1. Exactly – Trump obviously has no firm beliefs in this area, but his New York City and lefty buddies have told him that gay marriage is the in thing, so he’s for it. Plus it’s only fair that after molding the institution of marriage to fit his own personal desires, he should support laws letting other people do the same.

      And he’s said that Obergefell is the law and should remain so because precedent.

      Which is the same position he has about Kelo v. New London.

    2. G?y? Is that some fancy European gay?

      1. Not quite. I think that’s Turkish bathhouse gay.

        1. It’s Liberace’s wardrobe gay.

        2. Turkish does use ? so you might be on to something…

  17. It’s pretty sad that the oragatun-elect is expected to be better at protecting the ‘religious clause’ of the First Amendment than the so-called Libertarian candidate.

    Maybe, if Johnson could have just sold out on a little more principle who could have reached five percent. Of course then he would be virtually indistinguishable from the Democratic nominee. Libertarian Moment!

    1. Perhaps if he was indistinguishable from the Democratic nominee, Weld would have endorsed him whole-heartedly.

  18. Holy god, that alt-text!

    1. Don’t act like you don’t know that Scott Schackleleford is the King of Alt-Text. It is known.

      1. Shackintosh has been the alt-text master since the passing of 2Chilly.

    2. Scott single-handedly made alt-text great again.

      1. We should get him a hat.

        1. Is that a euphemism for a …. you know ….. the thing which would have been mandated (!) by Proposition 60?

          1. Not a jimmy hat, a real hat. One that says “MAKE ALT-TEXT GREAT AGAIN.” I imagine he would wear it with pride.

            1. How about “MADE ALT-TEXT GREAT AGAIN”

              Maybe a crown instead of hat?

        2. Hey, you know of a hat that might be in need of a new gig…

  19. And cmon, Scott, you know that they would have made Kasich their public enemy #1, too. This isn’t about gays, it’s about politics, which is why the gay establishment (or whatever you want to call it) has declared that Peter Thiel isn’t really gay, just as Clarence Thomas isn’t actually black according to the left.

    1. the gay establishment (or whatever you want to call it)

      “Big homo.”

      Good call on Thiel/Thomas.

      Yeah, had Kasich somehow won we’d be hearing about how terrible he was compared to you-know-who.

      1. And “big homo” is just another leftist outfit like BLM or hell any of these “identity” groups.

  20. How about you bake me a goddam cake?

  21. Oh, boy… buckle up! It’s going to be a bumpy ride.

    1. That’s what Winston’s mom said.

      1. She was referring to her genital corns.

        1. Which, as we now know, should not be available at Medieval Times yet are anyway

          1. EXACTLY!

  22. Growing up, I remember seeing these TV commercials for Chevy where they kept saying, “The heartbeat of America is today’s Chevrolet.”

    Even then, I realized it was just a slogan. If a nation even had a circulatory organ that pumped the equivalent of blood, it would NOT be any particular brand of car. So, even if Chevy ceased production, the country would not die from collective cardiac arrest.

    But I’ve noticed that gays, at least the ones I either know personally or whose posts I come across on Derpbook, have been fooled into believing the slogans they’ve heard!

    They seem legitimately fearful that Pres. Trump will come after them. Meanwhile, I’ve seen interviews where a pre-campaign Trump has clearly stated that he has “no problem with gays and lesbians” — hardly a big surprise for a person born and raised in New York City.

    Hell, even if the ticket were flipped and it was Pres. Pence about to take over, I STILL wouldn’t worry about gays. For one thing, most of them do well financially and pay taxes. That alone makes pols of every stripe love them. When have you ever seen a politician NOT want to keep raking in tax money?

  23. Trump is a disaster for LGBT. Forget bathrooms and wedding cakes, the real danger of Trumpkinism is that it justifies bullying and intimidation on the basis of ‘restoring law and order’ and any other excuse they can think up. Of course, other groups such as illegals and muslims are at far greater risk. As well, blacks and non-Israeli Jews.

    Having said that, I agree with the premise that this is in part a backlash against federal over-reach. But oh what a backlash.

    1. Doing your part to make President Trump seem less ridiculous by comparison, huh? I suggest taking your medications regularly. It’s gonna be okay.

      1. His plans to tout the greatness of Hillary for the next 8 years sort of fell apart.

        1. AM/dajjal doesn’t have what you or i would call “plans.” Schizophrenics seldom do.

          1. Oh honey. This will not go well for you.

            1. I can tell you’re pretty upset. You’ve already started copying and pasting replies. Is your caseworker drunk again?

      2. Sorry CX. This is not a game you can win.

        1. Yes, i should remember that there’s no victory in a battle of wits against an unarmed man.

    2. Have the Redhats laid siege to Dogdick yet, shreek?

      1. Only on Hit’n’Run would that sentence even come close to making sense. My thoughts and prayers are with us all.

      2. Doing your part to make President Trump seem less ridiculous by comparison, huh? I suggest taking your medications regularly. It’s gonna be okay.

        1. Out of material already, shreek?

        2. “I know you are, but what am I?”

  24. OT: Gwen Ifill died. I blame Trump.

    1. I don’t even know who that is and I blame Trump. I guess Boosh is finally going to get a break.

    2. That sounds like a porn name

      1. Gwen Youfill?

        1. Gwen Allfills?

            1. Alec Empire?

    3. David Bowie is still dead. I blame Trump.

      1. At least we’ve still got Lou Reed.

      2. I heard that if John Stewart was still the host of The Daily Show, David Bowie would still be alive.

        1. Bowie just left early because he heard the Cubs would win the World Series and unlock the final gate to Hell. Now our souls cannot even escape.

  25. Trump will undoubtedly be the most pro-gay Republican president ever, even if that’s mostly because the bar has been set so low by Bush. I

    I could see him signing ENDA if they put it in front of his desk because he doesn’t give two shits about the issue or the moral preening over it.

    1. I’m a little concerned that when he says ‘Make America Great Again’, he means like when Dubyah was president.

      1. I assumed he meant the 90s, when NSYNC and Backstreet Boys were still together. Sigh.

  26. They really thought they could sink Trump with stuff like this:

    1. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

      Those videos are even worse when it’s random people instead of celebrities.

      On the other hand, the chick with the crazy eyes isn’t bad looking.

    2. I wonder what they’re doing with all their unsold Trump vooodoo dolls.

      1. No microwave? Unimaginative losers.

    3. Jesus those people are annoying as all hell.

  27. OT: Brendan Dassey was just ordered released by a judge.

  28. The question is a bit more basic: why do you believe that these things should be punished?

    When you ask it either devolves into a circular arguments about the llaw being the law or an assertion of a positive right to a shopkeeper’s goods and labor without consent.

    LGBTQ has become an anti-liberty movement that brooks no practical disapproval. Just as feminism brooks no practical disapproval of abortion or contraception.

    1. Yup. Every last gay one of them thinks exactly the same.

      1. It would be helpful if everyone differentiated between LGBT+ as individuals versus LGBTetc. as the identity politics groups that universard-left.

        1. Yikes. Edit fail.

        2. The collapsing of the two happens way too often to be a slip or an oversight.

        3. I put in the word “movement”for that reason. I apologize if Sugarfree was too judgemental for it to register.

          1. I caught that and figured as much.

        4. Some of them, I assume, are good people.

      2. That is as dishonest a reading of what I wrote as can be.

    2. Take it up with the people who wrote the first antidiscrimination laws in the 60s. Gays ask for sexual orientation to be added to the list of qualities that can’t be singled out for discrimination, and suddenly capitalism is going to fail. Businesses have already been under the yoke of being prohibited from refusing service to people based on race, disability status, etc. Why are gays the last straw?

      Regardless of the law, don’t you think it’s better if people are treated equally and we don’t conspicuously leave out one subgroup? Does doing so tacitly endorse the notion that gays are in fact second-class citizens?

      1. “Gays ask for sexual orientation to be added to the list of qualities that can’t be singled out for discrimination, and suddenly capitalism is going to fail.”

        Because capitalism is all about turning away paying customers. Right.

        Any business owner with an ounce of sense will tell you the only “orientation” that matters in their customers is whether or not they can pay the bill.

        1. Such laws would never have been necessary in the first place if we could count on business owners, particularly in certain regions of the country, to have such sense.

          1. They are unnecessary, or at least 99.99% of the time. And the other .01% of the time isn’t sufficient to justify state coercion. The fraction of gyms I can’t join because I’m a male is higher than the fraction of bakers that won’t bake you a wedding cake. For all intents and purposes, forcing gay bakers to bake wedding cakes for gay weddings is as stupid and gratuitous as requiring film studios to cast a certain number of black people in films set in medieval Europe or punishing Theme Parks for not having enough rides that midgets can safely ride.

            And no one argued “capitalism is going to fail.” You just made that up. People are arguing, as ever, if you’d actually pay attention, that it’s wrong to coerce people do do things they don’t want to.

            “don’t you think it’s better if people are treated equally”
            Sure. It’s better if people are polite and courteous to each other; and it’s nice of people to help their friends move; and to give decent tips, and not be an ass to the waitress because the chef overspiced chicken. But that doesn’t mean people should be prosecuted, fined, or expropriated for not doing any of these things.

        2. Also, if you’re black, is pretty easy to tell. If you’re gay nobody knows unless you advertise it. Of course, if a business wants to discriminate against black people, or anybody else, that should be legal. You idiot liberals think that someone going into business means that they give up their first amendment freedom of association. Well, just like all your other opinions, you’re wrong about that as well.

          1. No, it’s just that we think that given the choice we’d prefer not to have armed government goons kicking people out of restaurants for being black.

            Either said goons are protecting business owners’ right to discriminate, or they’re protecting customers’ right to be free to engage in commerce without the disadvantage of discrimination. If people hadn’t been racist assholes in the first place, we’d never have needed to force the issue.

            But it’s government goons enforcing one way or the other.

            1. Why does a customer have a positive right to the owner’s goods and labor without the owner’s consent? Where does this supposed right come from?

              1. Why does the owner have a positive right to have armed government goons eject patrons because of the color of their skin?

                It’s a rights conflict–one created by bigots. I say it’s on them if you think property rights are infringed by such laws.

                1. There is no rights conflict, as the potential customer has no rights to the owner’s goods and labor without consent.

                  In other words, the potential customer has no right to become a customer.

                2. Are you willing to grant the owner the right to evict people by force himself without fear of reprisal? Something tells me you’d prefer a third party – like the police – do the evicting, as opposed to the owner itself.

                  Moreover, you’re (as I understand it) not merely opposed to the right of someone to determine ho can and cannot have access to their property, you also oppose the right to decide who to provide a good or service to, correct? In other words, you’re willing to have government goons come and shut down a store owner because he refused to make someone a cake. But you’re not the statist here?

            2. I know people have explained the to you before, Tony, but I’ma try one last time: businesses discriminated against black people during Jim Crow because the government forced them to. It’s no more the government’s job to force me to sell things to black people than it is to prevent me from selling to black people.

              1. And what government forced “Ax Handle Sunday”?

                1. “Ax Handle Saturday.” And yeah, supporting private property rights basically basically entails supporting the right to beat up random people on the street. Great analogy.

      2. This is not about capitalism per se, but freedom of thought.

        Applying the CRA to private organizations was something that should not have been done. Expanding something that should have not existed in first place as “we have gone this far, why not farther” is the strangest application of the slippery slope I have seen.

        In any case, what the bakers and florists and photographers are being punished for is not refusing to do business with homisexuaka, vut refusing to be involved in an event which celwbrates an ideological premise they think is fundamentally wrong. It is an attempt by the government to outlaw thought it disapproves of.

        1. This has been litigated in detail. I believe the prevailing opinion is that baking a cake for someone does not constitute endorsing any idea or worldview, which would not be the case for, say, forcing them to write a particular message on the cake.

          1. All of sudden, non verbal expression, like, say, burning a flag, or nude dancing is unprotected by freedom of speech?

            How convenient.

            1. No. But we’d have to believe that every time the baker makes a cake they are endorsing the customer’s life choices.

              1. By that logic, there should be no objection to making someone write out a particular message, as they should not be considered to be endorsing the message. The distinction being made here made between a written message and an abstract one is absurd, and not one that would be accepted in other free speech cases.

              2. Oh, come now with all this LGBT business.

                I want you to sing me another paean for democracy, and how it’s the only alternative to tyranny.

                We don’t get to have our own president, you know.

                1. Democracy went for Clinton. The electoral college failed to follow suit.

                  1. Leave it to you to care about details that don’t matter.

                    But, we have a democratic system, and an amendable constitution, and it says electoral college, not popular vote.

                    Democrats haven’t even tried to amend it. That’s reality.

                    Its kinda pathetic, watching a “we have system!” guy try to find a victory in the most significant election defeat of your generation, for the oldest and most powerful political party in he country, outspending it’s opponent 2 to 1 (including superpacs).

              3. It doesn’t matter whether they’re endorsing it or not. It’s their fucking hands, their fucking dough, and their fucking shop. They can bake or not bake whenever or for whoever they want for whatever reason they want. It’s their fucking property. If I want to knit sweaters for all the redheads I know but none for the brunettes and blondes, am I being mean to my brunette and blonde friends? Maybe. Am I violating someone’s rights? No. I can knit sweaters for any fucking person for any fucking reason I want. My labor, my property, my choice. End. Of. Story.

      3. Tony:

        Why are gays the last straw?

        Because democracy, democracy, yeah yeah yeah!

        Go get congress’ attention and the president, too.

        And have a vote to see if it’s really a good idea!

        Otherwise, tyranny!

        Democracy, democracy, yeah yeah yeah!

        Blizz blop boo hoo derpy derpy derp!

    3. The status quo is that if I walk into any given butcher, baker or candle-stick maker’s store, they can throw me out on my ear because of their God’s grudge against gays.

      They can then follow me into my store, and I am prohibited from throwing them out because of their God’s grudge against gays.

      So either repeal the CRA (1964) and let me throw them out their ear, or add sexual orientation/gender identity so they can’t throw me out, but the status quo has got to go.

  29. If McCrory loses the governor’s race in NC, it won’t be because of HB2. The Republicans maintained their veto-proof majority in the legislature, and the Republicans won every other statewide race, including the Lt. Governor who was an outspoken proponent of HB2. If McCrory loses, it will be because he pissed off residents of a Republican-dominated area of Charlotte when he supported the I-77 toll lanes project. (Long story, but basically the toll lanes project was already underway when a bunch of residents in the affected area started protesting it.)

  30. Meet Canada’s anti-Trump protesters:

    Or maybe not. They’re infuriatingly stupid.

  31. I’m very much taking a wait-and-see approach. Holding up a hastily be-sloganned rainbow flag at a campaign event is nice and all, but there have been flipflops. I am concerned about Pence, particularly if he ends up as president. As pointed out elsewhere I don’t see SCOTUS doing a flip on gay marriage.

    1. I can’t imagine anything actually* negative happening to the LGBT community unless you consider federal interference in bathrooms negative.

      *Actually is in: there may be some sort of stronger “religious freedom” for business owners, or less interference in bathroom segregation, but those aren’t really negatives.

      1. The government ratchet only turns one way.

  32. The cold facts are that the LGBT political types (as opposed to people who merely belong to those groups) overreached pretty far during the Obama administration. They took on a Crusading aspect, and completely ignored that one of the major freedoms under our Constitution is the freedom to be a sonofabitch. Sure, call attention to the local Baker being an anti-Gay bigot. But let’s not pretend hie/she doesn’t have a right to be.

    Now there’s almost sure to be a significant backlash, which they will blame on Trump … and thereby learning zip.

    1. Yes, and it will be important to distinguish between the actions of government, and the actions of individuals and non-government groups. I expect to see a lot of harassment, but hopefully stopping short of violence.

      Of course for progs any expression of non-goodthink is conflated with actual violence. I’m hoping that the good that will come out of this is the death of the snowflake mindset.

      1. Death, huh. Nice violent rhetoric you got there… be a shame if something were to… happen to it.

        1. Melting away? You know, global warming…

          1. I thought I heard somebody say Trump’s victory had ended global warming. Or was the end of something to do with climate change, anyway. But, maybe I’m thinking of Obama.

  33. Nice debunking of lie that Trump won because of massive white turnout:

    1. It really burns their ass that any women, blacks or latinos voted for him.

      1. Not just “any”, but “more” than Romney.

        I will repeat this a million times = but the election wasn’t about ‘who voted for Trump’. It was about who *didn’t* vote for Clinton.

        1. They are larger percentages of the vote , but I think it is more a large swath of Obama voters stayed home and did not vote, than Trump made any real gains in those demographics.

        2. What apparently has been missed is that this election seems to demonstrate that Republicans are basically right not to reach out to minority voters. Clarence Thomas I think said that this was the reason Republicans gave during the Reagan admin for why they didn’t seem to try to get black votes, and that he was skeptical at the time, but this seems to suggest pretty clearly that the GOP share of the minority vote is bottomed out. Romney wasn’t a racist, and didn’t say the mean things Trump did, and did no better than Trump. Trump brazenly insults Mexicans twice, and does better than Romney among latinos. It would seem that no matter how nice or mean the GOP is to some demographic groups makes no discernible difference in how they vote.

  34. RE: Let’s Not Have an LGBT Panic over Trump’s Election

    On the contrary.
    We must have an LGBT panic over Trump the Grump’s election.
    This way the LGBT can protest over nothing and have people finally pay attention to them.
    They didn’t get enough parental attention when they were children, so protesting finally satisfies their need for it.

  35. Ay yo, I heard Trump is going to Ban Glitter.

    1. Good. Shit gets everywhere.

    2. Ban Glitter.

      I assumed that was a person’s name. It probably is. And I bet they’re fabulous, and look like this.

      1. “Yoohoo,” Glitter says.

    3. I read that as ban Glee for some reason and got all excited.

      1. “The libertarian in me is furious, but the my inner critic is hailing him as the best President ever. Hmmm.”

        1. best President ever

          Too definitive for both Trump and the people who thrive on labels like that. Most Historic President In Modern History.

        2. If we ca add Pitch Perfect and High School Musical to the list of banned things, I might just be on board.

  36. Yeah, this is pissing me off on facebook right now.

    The people who should be scared are the DACA and DAPA protected aliens. People who came out of the shadows who now have a registered address with the government and are vulnerable to deportation.

    But the idiots on facebooks are all like “NO! Let’s worry about ABORTION! Let’s worry about transgendered bathroom usage! OMG as an LGBTQ woman rape survivor I am so terrified of the hate!”

    Like “Hey look over here! My totally unfounded fear is so much more important! Pay attention to ME!”

    1. Oh, i think i see where you went wrong: you went on facebook.

    2. Like the folks who got suckered into signing up for Deblasio’s “I’m an illegal alien in NYC” identity card? Psych!

    3. First, if you aren’t gay, how do you know if the fear is unfounded, never having experienced harassment or violence for your sexual orientation?

      Second, you’re probably right that gays don’t have much to worry about relative to the groups you mentioned. The Trumpites might declare it open season on all minorities, but hopefully the cops won’t go along with that. As for gays, we had the wonderful privilege of being used as a prop for Trump in order to attack Muslims, so shit we might even end up allies.

      1. Fair enough. However, I would think that as a gay man you would start your line of defense at the first group that Trump is going to go after – illegal aliens. Following the whole “First they came for the ….” line of reasoning.

        1. I agree. I come from an older school of gay activism where whining and demanding weren’t the beginning and end of the strategy. As a liberal I’m hoping some of the successful methods of yore will get taught to the special snowflake generation, who’d apparently rather fall in love with boutique socialists and go on the Internet and cry than engage in an actual political movement.

        2. I have fears too… how do you know they’re unfounded? What about my fears?

          1. Everyone’s fears are founded now, even the unfounded ones. Trump will likely screw us in ways we didn’t even imagine.

      2. Whether a fear is founded is objective, not subjective. A person who was attacked by a dog as a child and now has an irrational fear of all dogs has an unfounded fear. The fear may be a subjective feeling, but whether the fear is founded is not.

        “The Trumpites might declare it open season on all minorities”
        And Hillary Clinton might have ordered all men to be castrated immediately. If only ‘might’ actually meant something.

      3. First, if you aren’t gay, how do you know if the fear is unfounded, never having experienced harassment or violence for your sexual orientation?

        Well, I am gay and grew up in a homophobic country before moving to the US. No, as a gay person, you do not have to live in fear in the US anymore. Furthermore, the only things government can do, it has done: decriminalized homosexuality and ended government discrimination based on sexual orientation.

    4. People like to virtue-signal about everything, and I suspect there will be more than a fair share of it directed at my fellow brown-colored immigrants over the next stretch. But it is striking how they instinctively go in another direction, even when the situation so clearly does not call for it.
      For the people in the actual historically oppressed groups, it’s been a fun experience for those who enjoy their victim status. My white gay male friends are having a lot of fun going on about how “scared” they are right now of a man who motorboated “Rudia” Giuliani’s tits on camera. They were quickly being rushed off the victimhood-pageant stage, and this was a nice reprieve. For the newest oppression celebrities, the transgender, it is of course a time to continue their spectacular ascent. Trump has not spoken a word against them or the gays, of course, but his mere lack of interest is enough to thwart the ambitions of a movement whose agenda now consists in getting government to interfere in the private lives of its citizens.

      1. The thing it seems to me that the desire to be the oppressed victim group is what is blinding them to the fact that there are ACTUAL oppressed victim groups who have legitimate reasons to be scared of a Trump presidency. Like, no shit goons-in-jackboots coming to take you away shit were talking about.

    5. I heard Trump is planning on banning mammograms.

  37. Lead us to revolution, Katy Perry: celebrities shocked and outraged

  38. The best thing by far that President Trump could do for the LGBT community would be to follow through on his campaign promise to keep more Islamonazis from coming into America until further notice; preferably until they finally decide that they’re tired of murdering infidels in the name of Allah and are ready to try to learn how to peacefully “coexist” with others, like that favorite liberal blue bumper sticker says.

    As an awesome side benefit, this would be good not just for the LGBTs, but for all Americans, so I really hope that he and the Congress can make this happen.

    1. The only possible way Trump could alter terrorist screening policies is to fuck it up through sheer incompetence, much like the last Republican who held the job. There are no terrorists coming to America through the refugee program. It would take way too long.

      Don’t you know when you’re being fed a pile of fearmongering bullshit?

      1. I’m not particularly worried about the refugees, but perhaps their second generation offspring.
        This seems to be a pattern in domestic terrorism. It’s not the Muslim immigrants themselves, it’s their kids who get radicalized.

        This is also partly why I think people are retarded to fear Hispanic immigration. They’re a bunch of Western Christians. They even speak a latin-based language. Culturally they are as close relatives as Italians. Closer than Russians or Greeks. We should be overjoyed that we’re getting immigrants from a Western Christian cultural heritage rather than a bunch of Arab Muslims.

        1. Of course, the surest way to grow a generation of radicalized Muslims is to treat them as objects of fear and disgust instead of normal, equal Americans.

          1. Hey, my family’s Latin-based language keeps us immune to such fear- and disgust-induced alienation. It’s that nominative-accusative pronoun case marking. Just don’t let any more of those filthy Finns into this country. They aren’t even Indo-Europeans!

          2. The fact that Muslims keep brutally killing one’s countrymen everywhere they go might have something to do with why they get treated as objects of fear and disgust. Just a thought.

          3. Right. Muslims, being an “oppressed group” are incapable of agency. Every bad thing they do may (indeed, must) be explained in terms of what was done to them. Someone hates Muslims because they have a relative who was killed in an act of terorism, bad, Islamophobia, they need to be exorcised of their hatred. A Muslim decides to kill dozens of people because some Americans were mean to him; oh, what a victim, we need to exorcize those American bullies of their hatred.

            Mind you, I’m of the opinion that a vanishingly small proportion of Muslims are dangerous, comparable to any group, but this nonsense about how only does bad things because the oppressor drove them to it is both inane and not conducive to responsible behavior.

          4. Of course, the surest way to grow a generation of radicalized Muslims is to treat them as objects of fear and disgust instead of normal, equal Americans.

            That’s why we have generations of radicalized Irish and Italians, right? After all, they used to be objects of “fear and disgust” as well.

      2. Call me crazy, but it seems as though this gentleman’s dislike of Muslims (a group that includes Circassians, Albanians/Kosovars, Azeris, Kurds, Galilean Bedouin, and other Israel-sympathetic groups) goes well beyond a rejection of bullshit kneejerk PC “tolerance” of “Islam” broadly conceived, in favor of a demand that one’s personal religious practice (regardless of what one might label it) be consonant with liberal political values.
        So, no, the answer would be.

  39. complaining about Trumps authoritarianism is a laugh while talking about LGBT’s since they are using authoritarianism against everyone else.

  40. “Let’s Not Have an LGBT Panic over Trump’s Election”

    I think the Democrats should have a panic over Trump’s election–on the behalf of LGBTQI everywhere.

    I think the Democratic party should make like . . .

    1) Forcing nuns to pay for birth control,

    2) Forcing Christians to cater gay weddings,

    3) Forcing people to accept the transgendered into any bathroom they want

    . . . are the three most important issues facing America today.

  41. But the bill is actually much broader than that, drastically expanding the federal government’s….

    But the important thing is that it has “Equality” in the name.

  42. Organized LGBT groups will go on refusing to concede any legitimate role for religious exemptions in discrimination law, even in the operation of, say, church-affiliated colleges

    So, if, as an atheist, I find Catholicism or Mormonism immoral, I can fire/refuse to serve Catholics and Mormons as well, right?

    1. Who on here would possibly say otherwise?

      I think it’s pretty clear that folks here, in both the articles and the comments, only make a big thing about religious exemptions as a second-best policy to simply not having such laws in the first place. And like it or not, yes, “freedom of religion” is a protected concept in our society distinct from and going beyond mere “freedom of belief.” For most Americans, the idea of forcing a religious person to violate her conscience when she is not threatening the rights of others adds a particular odiousness to the intrusion on her rights.

      It’s worth remembering, too, that the mainstream LGBT movement does not limit its demands to being served or hired without discrimination, which virtually no businesses are interested in doing even where it’s legal. What they seek, without exception, is to force Christians to participate in the celebration of gay sex.

  43. All forms of discrimination should be legal. Then we’d know where everyone stands.

  44. Pence’s views are troublesome to say the least. Considering Trump’s supposed overtures to Kasich to be in charge of “foreign and domestic policy” while Trump “makes America great again”, it seems somewhat reasonable to be concerned about Pence having negative influence on social issues.

  45. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.