Donald Trump

LGBT Pride Parade Turns Away Gay Trump Supporters

A community celebration is being turned into a "resistance" movement.

|

Pride flags
Darren Quinton/Mirrorpix/Newscom

Gay pride parades are generally celebratory affairs, but they've also almost always had a political side too. "I'm here and want to have fun!" had an inherent political edge to it when the right to be openly gay or transgender was still being litigated in courts of both law and public opinion.

The right to be gay is all but settled as a legal matter these days, and transgender acceptance has been dramatically increasing. One might expect, then, that the pride parades of summer might start to grow less political and more like other cultural celebrations.

Apparently not. LGBT leaders' opposition to President Donald Trump has made the parades more political. In at least one case, parade organizers have rejected a float. Even though Brian Talbert is gay, the organizers of Charlotte, North Carolina's pride event have told him he can't participate with a float touting his support for Trump.

Talbert's story is picking up national attention. From The Washington Post:

Reached by email, Charlotte Pride released a statement saying the organization "reserves the right to decline participation" at events to groups that do not reflect the mission and values of the organization.

The statement said that policy is acknowledged in its parade rules and regulations, and noted that in the past, organizers have made "similar decisions" to decline participation from "other organizations espousing anti-LGBTQ religious or public policy stances."

"Charlotte Pride envisions a world in which LGBTQ people are affirmed, respected, and included in the full social and civic life of their local communities, free from fear of any discrimination, rejection, and prejudice," the statement added.

But Trump has notably not espoused antigay policy stances and has, in fact, resisted efforts to do so within his administration. So far, Trump is probably the most LGBT-friendly Republican president we've had.

That doesn't mean that Trump supports the same policies that progressive LGBT leaders would like. That's really the crux of the problem: Trump's administration doesn't want to use the federal government to advance anti-discrimination policies that cover LGBT people. His Department of Justice has withdrawn federal guidance ordering public schools to accommodate transgender students' gender choices for bathrooms and other facilities.

Put in historical context, that's a relatively mild decision, though it must feel awful for transgender students who are affected (and ultimately it may be decided by the courts, not Trump's administration, anyway). Despite LGBT activists' fears, the administration is not scaling back executive orders forbidding government contractors from engaging in LGBT discrimination. Life is still improving for LGBT people.

The Los Angeles pride parade and festival is this weekend, but apparently it's no longer the same pride parade people are used to. It's been transformed into an anti-Trump "resistance" march, under the odd and incorrect assumption that being part of the LGBT community inherently requires you to embrace of a host of political positions. New York, Austin, Seattle, and D.C. are joining them. L.A. Weekly quotes one of the march organizers:

"#ResistMarch was built around the concept of standing in solidarity for all human rights," explains Brian Pendleton, a CSW board member. "The march is meant to be a celebration of humanity that is all part and parcel of the LGBTQ community. We are immigrants, we are women, we are seniors, we are communities of color, and on and on. Very few communities encompass so many different types of Americans."

That's true. But it also means the community encompasses Trump voters and other types of conservatives. Even here in the extremely liberal city of Los Angeles, I know at least one gay Trump supporter. What Pendleton is promoting isn't a celebration of humanity. It's a policing of political values. It's remarkable that parades that have revolved around an insistence that LGBT people should be allowed to participate in society and be public about who they are wants to excluding participant for their political affiliations.

This isn't ultimately about Trump himself; it's about the inability or unwillingness of people with highly different political interests to engage with each other. It's easier to cast gay Trump voters out of the movement than to engage with them over the fundamental philosophical differences that divide them. (My Trump-supporting gay acquaintance moved to L.A. from a Rust Belt state, and that no doubt influenced his vote.) There's nothing about being gay or transgender that requires support of unrelated policy positions on everything from immigration to abortion, and I say this as somebody who identifies more frequently with the left on those two issues. Making the parades into anti-Trump rallies tells tens of thousands of LGBT people that this festival that's supposed to be about them is actually deliberately excluding and opposing them.

Talbert has said he's going to sue Charlotte Pride for discrimination, which is also a terrible response. Charlotte Pride should be allowed to include or exclude any participants it wants. It's their parade. And there's already a Supreme Court decision that affirms that parade organizers have the right to exclude participants with messages they do not support.

But Charlotte Pride's organizers should remember something. That Supreme Court case was about a very long fight by LGBT groups to be included in St. Patrick's Day parades. And they're only just now, in this decade, convincing the Catholic organizers of those events to allow them in. To turn around and treat another group of gay people the same way is pretty terrible. Let them into the parade. Let the audience boo them, support them, or ignore them, and then move on. It shouldn't be a big deal.

NEXT: Listen to Matt Welch Interview Thomas Massie and Others on SiriusXM Insight from 2-4 pm ET!

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. Poor Mikey.

    1. He will be at the parade, standing off at the side holding a “God Made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” sign, while trying to hide his feeble erection.

      1. He will dare dudes to let him chug their hogs, call them “faggot” afterward, and then be confused when that doesn’t bother them.

        1. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

          This is what I do… http://www.webcash10.com

  2. I think the idea is that you can’t support the systematic expulsion of immigrants and the banning of all Muslims from entering the US and be invited to participate in our celebration of tolerance.

    1. invited to participate in our celebration of tolerance.

      1. Yep, Tony just posted that.

        1. Eh, so Tony doesn’t know what words mean and has only the shallowest possible understanding of broad concepts. That’s not news to anyone.

        2. I am reminded of my favorite quote from Peep Show:
          “If there isn’t room here for people who stand against everything you believe in, then what sort of a hippy free-for-all is this?”

            1. Free the peedos!

      2. It is okay not to invite horrible people to your party, you know. Why do I have to keep explaining freedom to you guys?

        1. If by design, my party is to celebrate tolerance and be open to people of varying beliefs and lifestyles and hopefully engage in a conversation with those people to find peaceful, celebratory common ground, then banning everyone that you disagree with on a subset of issues means that it’s just a party of your friends, not a celebration of tolerance. Why do we have to keep explaining the meaning of words to you?

          1. It’s not open to people of “varying beliefs.” It’s open to people who believe in tolerance and inclusion, i.e., the opposite of Trump’s principal political stance. A pride parade is indeed just a party of my friends. Without saying a pro-Trump group is as bad as Nazis, we’re not inviting Nazis either, and it’s because of what they believe.

            1. I take a significant amount of pleasure reading your lucid argument for the right to free association.

              1. Meaning that we both hold the same position, but I’m a hypocrite for having it and you’re not, because you don’t claim to be a decent person in the first place.

                1. No – you’re a hypocrite because you don’t see him as having the same rights you do.

                2. So you’re ok with the Boy Scouts deciding who they choose to allow as members?

                  1. @ last
                    *ouch* excellent hoisting on his own petard…
                    .
                    morals are *supposed* to work both ways, tone-deaf, otherwise:
                    YOU.
                    HAVE.
                    NO.
                    PRINCIPLES.
                    .
                    and how surprised am I he didn’t respond to your telling point…

                  2. You mean exactly as they currently operate, a right affirmed by the Supreme Court? They decided on their own to allow openly gay people in. If it was due in part to social pressure, welcome to freedom.

            2. tolerance and inclusion

              Through INtolerance and EXclusion!

              1. I used Nazis elsewhere so that it would be simple to understand. Is it intolerant not to invite Nazis to your tolerance party?

                Maybe in a literal sense. But you’re not clever for being unable to get from the literal to the conceptual.

                1. Meh. It’s unclear from this article what the overall tone of this specific parade is and what the tone of the float was. For example: I could see denying this guy from having a giant Trump face balloon with vote Trump all over it under the understanding that the parade has a general rule not to have floats endorsing specific candidates or political parties. The log cabin republicans have had a small presence in the NYC pride parade for years without issue, but they never had a float. IMO the devil is in the details on this.

                  1. It’s unclear from this article what the overall tone of this specific parade is and what the tone of the float was.

                    It is if you’re a fucking illiterate, I guess:

                    When he closes his eyes, Brian Talbert can see each detail of the float he had planned to build.

                    It was going to be 27 feet long, have “a bunch of American flags,” a replica of the Statue of Liberty, “female impersonators” and the “most patriotic music anyone has ever heard.”

                    The design would be so powerful, Talbert said, that nobody at the 2017 Charlotte Pride Parade would ever forget it.

                    “You were going to look at this float and be filled with pride for being an American,” Talbert told The Washington Post.

                    Talbert said that his application was denied because he’s an outspoken Trump supporter and that Charlotte Pride accused him of being “anti-gay,” a charge he forcefully rejects.

                    “I can’t wrap my head around that,” said Talbert, who has a Trump-Pence bumper sticker on his truck. “I’m gay, I’m proud, I’m open and I’m Republican. I don’t see how I was going to be anti-gay anything because that would be anti-me.”

                2. Is this parade by “invitation only”? Because if you have a party and have an open invitation to everyone, and someone shows up that you don’t like, is it really fair to say “Oh, but I didn’t mean YOU”.

                  1. It’s an organized parade. So no, it’s not “whoever shows up”. The organizers accept applications to march/have a float/whatever, accept or reject per their own criteria. They then make sure that they have security sufficient to the length of the parade and expected crowd size, secure a staging area large enough for the number of floats and groups, possibly arrange programs, advertisements and so-on.

                    I assume there are some modern parades that are a “whoever shows up” sort of thing. This is not one of those.

                3. But you’re not clever for being unable to get from the literal to the conceptual.

                  That’s not what you’re doing.

                  What you’re doing is reducing anyone who disagrees with you even a little bit into a cartoon villain so that you can justify being a dick to them.

            3. It’s not open to people of “varying beliefs.” It’s open to people who believe in tolerance and inclusion,

              You really don’t get the point here, do you?

          2. Dicks Who Love Dicks

        2. For the record, i actually agree with you that there exists no right to participate in a private organization’s parade – i just think you’re still and always a stupid and possibly psychopathic individual.

          1. Tony misses the obvious. He calls it a celebration of tolerance, then argues that it’s not a celebration of tolerance. OF COURSE he has a right to associate freely with people he agrees with.

            It’s too bad Tony doesn’t extend this respect for freedom to others.

            Yes, I’m dropping the fucking microphone.

            1. Whining about lefties being hypocrites because they don’t “tolerate the intolerant” is not a new idea you just had, it’s a lame bit of snowflake whining the right always does. “We know we’re bigoted assholes, but you guys claim to be better than us, so we require you to invite us to your party, even though we’d never in a hundred years invite you to ours.”

              It’s so stupid I want to cut myself. Yeah we claim to be more open and tolerant than conservatards. That doesn’t mean we have to invite Nazis over for tea.

              1. Yeah we claim to be more open and tolerant than conservatards. That doesn’t mean we have to invite Nazis over for tea.

                Are you even actually reading people’s responses? Or are you just talking to the voices in your head again?

              2. But then you really aren’t any better, are you?

                1. Yes, we are better in every conceivable way except cousin seduction.

                  1. Especially when it comes to humility, right?

              3. It is too bad that than when you google “Nazi tea party,” you don’t actually get any hits about Nazis sitting around and drinking tea.

              4. It’s so stupid I want to cut myself

                If only.

              5. Tony, someone who openly endorses “reverse” racism against white people and males, supports forced association with people like him at gunpoint, accuses those of us who say “lie and let live: of being bigoted assholes.

                Let that sink in Tony. We’re not the ones with a list of people we want the government to fuck over because we don’t like their ideas or think they’re great grandparents weren’t nice or who want.

                Even forgetting the distinction between libertarians and conservatives (I guess a Maoist might have trouble distinguishing a Classical Liberal from a Social Democrat) Republicans at least don’t want to require public universities to discriminate against white and Asian applicants, nor (to my knowledge) are they waging a bloody battle for Curves to let men into their gyms, so even the average Republican is less bigoted than you. Sorry it hurts to hear it Tony, but ‘hating the right groups of people’ isn’t the antithesis of bigotry.

              6. Yeah we claim to be more open and tolerant than conservatards. That doesn’t mean we have to invite Nazis over for tea.

                Where “Nazis” = a loud and proud gay man who voted for Donald J. Trump, who has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to gay rights groups and causes for over 30 years.

                1. Donald J. Trump, who has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to gay rights groups and causes for over 30 years.

                  Poor Don, clutching the stump of the arm the identitarian crocodile just bit off.

                  “But I fed you lots!”

                  1. Fuck off, troll.

                2. Thumbs up for nailing the central issue.. Dude was excluded because he doesn’t toe the line of logical fallacy.. Uninvited dude doesn’t reinforce the bigoted views of a bigoted group who embraces the evidence-free notion that Trump is Hitler, and anyone that voted for him must therefore be a Nazi.. That is the dictionary definition of bigoted, backed up by zero evidence; and, a whole lot of false association, cognitive dissonance, and downright intolerance from a group that claims to be open minded.. The hypocrisy is thick and steamy..

              7. It’s easy to be tolerant of whatever group pushes your political agenda, the difficult test is being somewhat tolerant of those who do not.
                The “left” fails this absolutely every time, all they do is go back to their base, cll them oppressed and that people are intolerant of their choices. The general “right” has come a long way in a short amount of time.

          2. i actually agree with you that there exists no right to participate in a private organization’s parade

            I miss the good old days when you had to land on the moon or kill Hitler in order to throw a day-long party on major public thoroughfares.

            Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have a lawn with kids on it that I need to address.

            1. More past that never happened. People without TV did all sorts of shit outside including parades. And they used to throw that ticket tape all over the place and clog the sewers. Parades have gotten thrown for such earth shattering events as municipal pumpkin festivals and d-list celebrities visiting smallish counties.

              1. More past that never happened.

                I think this is more of a POV issue. First, almost since inception, New York has reserved ticker tape parades for things like the dedication of the Statue of Liberty and Lindbergh crossing the Atlantic. Kinda specifically for the reason(s, read ‘mess’,) you mention. Moreover, I don’t exactly consider hyper-regional pumpkin festivals and smallish counties as synonymous with major public thoroughfares.

                Shutting down major parts of LA, Chicago, NYC, Houston, San Francisco, etc. for the same overtly political/cultural reason (aside from winning a war or the death of a President) is an exceedingly recent phenomenon. Also, obviously, the further you go back in history, the fewer federally-declared or nationally-recognized parade days and/or causes there were.

          3. For the record, i actually agree with you that there exists no right to participate in a private organization’s parade –

            Given that public employees are used and the public is forced to be inconvenienced by it, I vehemently disagree.

            The only truly “private” parade is one on private land (no roads) that you personally own with no public employees used, at all, for it.

        3. You are again demonstrating your aggressively heroic skill at missing the point.

          Yes you are free to not invite “horrible people” to your party.

          What you are doing that makes you an obnoxious elitist asshole is to immediately refuse to recognize what someone is actually saying and instead pretend that they’re saying something completely different so that you can then condemn them as “horrible people” and exclude them from your company.

          But Tony gonna Tony.

          Scott is not arguing these people should be forbidden from doing this. He’s saying they’re being hypocritical dicks.

          1. I will fight to the death for Tony’s right to be a hypocritical dick.

            1. And I will fight right along side you, snarking on what a hypocritical dick Tony is with my dying breath.

                1. Coward.

                2. I won’t fight for any of you.

                  Crusty will, however, throw glitter and orange slices at anyone for you for only $4.

          2. And I’m explaining why they’re not.

            But let’s do go on pretending this is something other than Drudge Report clickbait Trumpian snowflake crybaby horseshit meant to get the cousin-fuckers their daily 3 minutes hate fix toward the libturds.

            1. So –

              There’s people who agree with you right down to the comma placement in your policy manifesto and there’s Nazi cousin-fuckers, and there’s no ideological space in between.

              Is this part of your ongoing lecture on the limitation of binary libertarian thinking?

            2. So –

              There’s people who agree with you right down to the comma placement in your policy manifesto and there’s Nazi cousin-fuckers, and there’s no ideological space in between.

              Is this part of your ongoing lecture on the limitation of binary libertarian thinking?

              1. I said they’re not as bad as Nazis. But in truth a lot of them are actual Nazis.

                And a lot of them want to be as bad as Nazis if not for the cardio it requires.

                1. What you are doing that makes you an obnoxious elitist asshole is to immediately refuse to recognize what someone is actually saying and instead pretend that they’re saying something completely different so that you can then condemn them as “horrible people” and exclude them from your company.

                  let’s do go on pretending this is something other than Drudge Report clickbait Trumpian snowflake crybaby horseshit meant to get the cousin-fuckers their daily 3 minutes hate fix toward the libturds.

                  I’m not convinced you have any idea what the word “Nazi” actually means.

                  1. I get the impression Tony thinks anyone who opposes raising the capital gains tax is basically a Nazi. I also get the impression he supports barring anyone he’s describe as such (meaning anyone even an inkling to the right of Dennis Kucinich on any issue, meaning probably >95% of the population) from participating in “public life”, which means pretty much anything someone can make money doing.

                    1. “I also get the impression he supports barring anyone he’s describe as such […] from participating in “public life”, which means pretty much anything someone can make money doing.”
                      … and isn’t that acceptable so-long as it doesn’t use government action?

                      Please note, I used the word “acceptable”, not “good” or “right”.

                  2. ‘Nazi’ means the same thing as ‘racist’ to him. A way to attempt to put his opponent on the defensive without actually addressing the debate at hand, and a nonsensical hyperbolic smear.

                2. Tony|6.9.17 @ 2:25PM|#
                  “I said they’re not as bad as Nazis”

                  Strange they didn’t say the same about you, you fucking hypocrite.

                3. Tony, actual Nazi Party Nazis were socialists.

                  They held parades and did not invite anyone with varying beliefs.
                  They called people with varying beliefs derogatory names.
                  They rioted against freedom and Democracy.

                  The Nazis never had their guy elected as President.

                4. I said they’re not as bad as Nazis. But in truth a lot of them are actual Nazis.

                  Reminder once again that “they” in this sentence refers to a 1 gay guy who voted for Trump.

        4. Obviously, it is okay to invite who you want. And Scott covers that point. But the other point is that you’re clearing showing that your “celebration of tolerance” only extends as far as tolerating certain perspectives.

          Some people actually support Trump for reasons other than supporting the expulsion of immigrants and banning of muslims. I suspect that a large number of the people who are allowed to participate will do so as big supporters of Obama; despite their approval/ambivalence/ignorance of his systematic expulsion of immigrants.

          Maybe, despite the fact that they can say no to him, they should consider not doing that. Their “celebration of tolerance” could expand beyond just tolerance of LGBTQ identity. Maybe, they could even concede that being a Trump supporter alone does not equal being “horrible people”.

          1. Some people actually support Trump for reasons other than supporting the expulsion of immigrants and banning of muslims.

            Okay, but those are two biggies for Trump. Big enough that you shouldn’t support him if you don’t support those things; and if you do support him, it is to be assumed that you do support these things.

            Otherwise they can come as supporters of Republicans or a local Republican politician or whatever. Those people have always been welcome.

            1. “Okay, but those are two biggies for Trump.”

              I would argue that those are much bigger issues for the anti-Trump left. Largely because they fit into the standard Trump caricature and serve as points of distinction between Trump and the left (despite Obama’s history). To the left, those tend to be the main items on the Trumpian platform (along with pussy-grabbing). To the right, they’re probably top ten, but not #1 & 2.

              I would probably consider myself anti-Trump, non-left. I disagree with his position on both of those issues, but they’d probably be near the bottom of the top-ten issues I have with him. Different people have different priorities that influence their political position and votes. Seems shitty to exclude someone with full support of the cause you’re celebrating because he disagrees with you in other non-specific ways.

              1. I really don’t think immigration and Islam are minor issues to most Trump supporters. As “anti-Trump” why are you even speaking for them?

                1. Why are you speaking for them, Tony?

                  1. Because I’m, like, really smart.

                    1. “Because I’m, like, really smart.”-Tony. Now I know your mother told you that when you were a kid but it doesn’t make it so in the real world. What your are is a idiotic, little safe space bitch who pisses in his diapers when anybody stands up to his commie, control freak bull shit.

                2. Because I object to the portrayal of them as nazi, cousin-fuckers. I have plenty of friends/relatives/acquaintances who support Trump and I have plenty of disagreements with them. But, I don’t consider any to be nazi, cousin-fuckers. Most support him because he’s an outsider (at least in terms of Washington DC; not so much corporate cronyism). Someone who approach the role with a CEO mindset instead of a community organizer. Shit like that.

                  To the extent they support his muslim and immigrant positions, it’s based on genuine concerns about terrorism and drugs and such. Not hate. I think the concern is misplaced and the solutions are somewhere between doomed to failure and counterproductive. I tell them that. In the same way I argue against their unwavering support for law and order. In the same way I argue with liberal friends about things like gun control and climate.

                  1. In short, because all of these friends/relatives/acquaintances on both sides of the aisle are decent people with reasonable genuine beliefs (at least, *almost* all of them). And nearly all of them are convinced that their opponents on the other side of aisle are evil monsters hellbent on the destruction of the modern world. They’re nazi cousinfuckers or they’re spineless snowflakes who want to give our country to mexicans.

                    I think they’re all wrong! Obviously, my political beliefs are the correct ones and everyone else should agree with me.

                    But, especially in the areas where they see eye-to-eye, why the fuck should we find ways to amplify the differences? After all of the progress that’s been made in the area of LGBTQ, why not just get past the differences and celebrate the success together?

                    Kumbaya and shit!

                    1. Fair enough, but Trump supporters are largely bigots. I was just reading an article about how surveys of people find little expression of bigoted thoughts. Then they dive into the Google searches. Turns out lots and lots of people are horrible racists and lots and lots of people voted against Obama specifically because he was black.

                      I don’t think you can separate Trump from the white racial resentment politics that got him to where he is, and any of his supporters who genuinely don’t subscribe to it are lying to themselves in some way.

                    2. Fair enough, but Trump supporters are largely bigots

                      So are progressives, just against different groups of people.

                    3. Nope. It’s just the fresh dingleberries you call friends and peers are so fearful of hurting feelings you label all policies you disagree with “bigoted” or “unfair” so you can justify hiding from ever having to discuss them on merit, openly.

                      You’re too damn stupid to see your own cowardice.

                    4. Tony, you’re one of the most loathsome bigots I have encountered in some time. So it’s enormously offensive for you to even dare to impugn the decent of an actual human (non-progressive).

            2. You supported Obama and he deported immigrants and muslims.

              Obama even ordered the extra-judicial murder of people via drones.
              Obama invited to Gay Pride Parade

            3. “it is to be assumed that you do support these things.”
              No, no it isn’t.

              Look, I consider state-orchestrated racism a sine qua non. Democratic politicians who support state racism under the guise of the term “affirmative action” would never get my support. Can I assume anyone who supports such a politician is a racist? No, in fact I’d bet many, maybe even most registered Democrats aren’t fond of such policies.

              More over, the fact that Trump has not even tried to expel all immigrants (in fact he never said he wanted to; you made that up) or Muslims further diminishes the claim that anyone who supports him can be assumed to support such things.

              You should look in the mirror, Tony. I have a few friends who are Bernie lovers; I think Sanders is an abject piece of shit, but frankly political bullshit isn’t a big enough deal for disassociating with them to be remotely reasonable. It would be pretty asinine to assume these Bernie bros (all of the Bernie voters I know are women actually, and one is Asian, but I know you know they’re all white males, right?) are psychopathic, bigoted, deranged communists, just because their guy supports Castro? No, that’d be pretty dumb. Likely they don’t know about his position on Castro; maybe they shrug it off because they care about other things more. I don’t know, I don’t care. Nor would it be fair to dismiss them as retarded cousin-fuckers despite the stupidity of the person they vote for.

              Grow the fuck up.

              1. Grow the fuck up.

                Listen to Mark, Tony – he’s like 10 years younger than you.

              2. “Can I assume anyone who supports such a politician is a racist? No […]”
                True.

                But as I’ve put it to the many “I’m not like that” Republicans over the year that insist they’re not anti-gay: “That’s nice, but so long as you keep voting for politicians that are, then while you may not be anti-gay, you do consider anti-gay stuff to be acceptable collateral damage.”

            4. @ curt-
              bwa ha ha ha haaaaaaa
              .
              gee, funny tone-deaf didn’t address what is THE salient point of your post: it is double-plus ‘good’ to reject the gay trump guy for voting for him given -just WHAT has he done so far ? ? ?- disagreement with his POTENTIAL policies, etc; BUT, it is NOT even admissible to TALK ABOUT how the choco jesu ACTUALLY DID deport tons of illegal immigrants; ACTUALLY DID bomb/kill hundreds of thousands of innocents; ACTUALLY DID persecute whistleblowers/etc; ACTUALLY DID prosecute illegal wars and krimes against humanity; and ACTUALLY DID dismantle civil rights and further the police state…
              .
              but choco jesu can do no wrong, amirite, tone-deaf ? ? ?
              .
              WHY aren’t ANY/ALL obomber voters excluded from the parade on the same ‘principle’ that he directed Empire in a manner contrary to liberal/progressive principles ? ? ?
              .
              why, you ask ? ? ? because:
              YOU.
              HAVE.
              NO.
              PRINCIPLES.

          2. “Maybe, despite the fact that they can say no to him, they should consider not doing that”

            This is also largely assuming that the Trump supporting float is simply that. If the proposed float actually was some kind of anti-tolerance, hate-based message, then it would be a very reasonable basis to exclude him. But, simply supporting Trump is a different story.

            As the organizers said, “the organization “reserves the right to decline participation” at events to groups that do not reflect the mission and values of the organization”. Trump support alone doesn’t violate that. Specific messages of hate and intolerance would.

          3. Not really (well, at least not without being called out as intolerant). It’s a Pride parade. Not an anti-Trump parade. While those two groups have significant overlap, they are not the same thing.

            Missing from that party will be the Log Cabin Republicans. Hell, Theodore Olsen can’t even make the grade. How can you claim to be representative of the gay community while barring homosexuals? The mind boggles.

            This seems to be little more than cashing in on one identity for another in an attempt for conformity. I hasten to add that that Democrats have been rather weak on gay rights, and the most significant gains have come from Republicans.

            Your move.

            1. “How can you claim to be representative of the gay community while barring homosexuals? The mind boggles.”
              St. Patrick’s Day parade had how long of excluding some Catholics because they were gay? Well, some gay parades exclude some gays because they’re Republican.
              For that matter, last year there was a lot of intra-Libertarian warfare over who really represented Libertarianism.

              So I expect you understand that claiming an identity doesn’t induct you into some sort of hive mind.

              1. “The other side does it too” is at best a weak argument. And Catholic and gay has only the barest association with being Irish (unless you a a priest, maybe). I’d also be curious how it was ascertained they were gay. The leprechaun float must have been pretty wild.

                And even then, I’d argue there is very little correlation with being Irish and hetero, so why are they banning gays? Guess what? It is still a dick move regardless of which side plays it.

                “claiming an identity doesn’t induct you into some sort of hive mind”

                You do see the irony in this statement, right?

                1. If I was trying to morally justify anything, then yes, “they do it too” would be a weak argument.

                  But I wasn’t trying to morally justify anything. I was pointing out that you really should know better then to think that anyone that claims to represent the community of X people really means all of X people.

                  And no, I don’t see the irony. I was pointing at a recent example that I could reasonably expect you to be familiar with in a second attempt to make you recognize that “I represent X, but not all X” is perfectly normal behavior (and thus, not worthy of mind boggling). That’s not assuming any sort of hive mind, that’s assuming basic observation skills.

                  1. Inasmuch as homosexuality is a state and not a lifestyle choice, you’re going to have a hard time picking and choosing which aspects to excluded without looking like your are pandering to an agenda. Failing to award a black only scholarship because the potential recipient is an “Uncle Tom” doesn’t mean you are serving the interest of blacks, but rather using blacks to fulfill an ulterior motive, and shouldn’t be surprised when people call you on it.

                    Much to the chagrin of other libertarians, left-libertarians exist, and while most are unwilling to embrace their Viking heritage, there are commonalities enough to have infighting.

                    This is essentially denying the sexual orientation of a group by voting preference or exploitation, take your pick.

              2. The Catholic Church (I’m sure you aware) has a set of *beliefs* it’s celebrating, rather than just some group of people; some of them contend you can’t be (“actively”) gay while in good standing with the church. I am not aware of a parallel Gay church that states that you can’t be gay and vote for Trump. In fact, I thought it was a pretty big tenet of the gay movement that no one (certainly not an institution) decided who was or wasn’t ‘really’ gay.

                Secondly, if you’re acknowledging that the criticism made against St. Patrick’s day parades over gay participation are equally valid with those against the gay rights parade for excluding Republicans, I assume you won’t be upset if mayors start refusing to give permits to gay parades that refuse participation by Republicans they way some did for St. Patrick’s day parades.

                1. You’re really missing the point. “I represent x, but not sub-group of x” is perfectly normal human behavior. Treating it as abnormal, Qsl did, demonstrates ignorance of human behavior. An ignorance I tried to correct.

                  Please note, I did not pass moral judgement on any of the relevant groups. The moral argument for whether something is right or wrong is an entirely different one then what I am taking about.

                  As to your second point…

                  Upset? No, I wouldn’t be upset. Informed? Yes. It’s nice to know where not to go.

                  1. You’re really missing the point

                    That you’re an equivocating double-talking hypocritical piece of subhuman shit who doesn’t give the faintest of fucks about principles or rights unless it has some direct bearing on you or people who think like you? No, we got it. Thanks.

              3. St. Patrick’s Day parade had how long of excluding some Catholics because they were gay?

                And you were right out there supporting the St. Patrick’s Day Parade organizers’ right to discriminate, weren’t you?

        5. Tony|6.9.17 @ 2:05PM|#
          It is okay not to invite horrible people to your party, you know.”

          Perfectly OK for dipshit losers to whine that they don’t want winners at their whine and cheese party.
          Perfectly hypocritical to claim it has anything to do with “tolerance”, you fucking hypocrite.

        6. Tell that to the Boy scouts and various St Patrick’s day parade organizers

        7. Tony, you’re a massive bigot. It’s sad you’re also to fucking stupid to understand that.

      3. That is so 1984.

    2. I commend your many years of simple-minded trolling.

      1. If it weren’t for simple-mindedness, Tony would have nothing that could be called “mind” at all!

        1. I hold on to my theory that Tony is just a Boltzmann brain that somehow was able to overcome quantum fluctuations and hold on to cohesive existence by continuing to post comments here.

    3. As someone looking from the outside, I’d say that makes some sense. Although the event may be focused on one particular community, it’s impossible not to look at the totality of what the president is doing. Whatever policies he has which I may agree with (I may find one someday, you never know), I can’t forget the rest of what he’s doing.

    4. the systematic expulsion of immigrants and the banning of all Muslims

      You misspelled “expulsion of illegal immigrants with criminal records” and “temporary delay to immigrants from countries whose governments have disintegrated and where terrorists and warlords are in charge.”

      I don’t agree with either of these policies, either, but oddly, you sound like a much bigger dick if you rephrase your statement to characterize them more accurately.

      1. He stated many times in many forums that he wanted to kick about 10 million immigrants out and build a wall to keep them out and then “ban all Muslims” from entering the United States. It was on his website until a few weeks ago. I am characterizing it exactly accurately.

        1. Again, you misspelled “illegal immigrants, and again left out the word “temporary.” So no, you are not “characterizing it exactly accurately” at all.

          But I can imagine that after decades of willfully distorting other people’s views you don’t actually recognize the difference anymore.

          1. Fine, 10 million illegal immigrants. I realize that this fact of paperwork converts humans into sub-humans in the minds of Trumpians, but, uh, that’s kind of the reason they weren’t invited.

            1. I assume that this fact of paperwork converts humans into sub-humans in the minds of Trumpians, but, uh, that’s kind of the reason they weren’t invited

              FTFY

              See – here’s the difference between you and I.

              We both disagree with this policy, but I realize that influencing people requires engaging the ideas they’re actually expressing instead of mischaracterizing them, dismissing them, and insulting them.

              Have you ever had the experience of having persuaded anybody of anything?

              1. Nobody every persuades anybody of anything. But if you think the primary motivation for anti-immigrant hullabaloo in this country isn’t bigotry plain and simple, you are a fucking idiot. No offense. At the very best these people are monumentally factually ill-informed on the issue. That they seem to always want to kick the Mexicans out regardless of the actual immigration stats, regardless of the decade or economic situation, is a bit suspicious at least, no?

                1. Tony, you have persuaded me that you are a useful idiot who vomits the lefty narrative and when people on Reason point out the flaws in your reasoning, you double down on the nonsense.

                  The other Reasonites pointed out why the Gay Pride parade is not about tolerance because they cannot tolerate anyone but people who think like them. They even excluded a gay person and its the GAY PRIDE PARADE not the “tolerance pride parade”.

                  1. They include plenty of people who don’t adhere to a single political worldview. They simply included a float in support of Trump, because he’s a giant orange-faced bigot. He is not appropriate subject-matter for a parade about inclusiveness and tolerance, any more than the Phelps family. But not only would the Trumptard be perfectly welcome to view the parade, the Phelps psychos are always there too, thanks to freedom. And nobody ever says they shouldn’t be allowed.

                    1. And nobody ever says they shouldn’t be allowed.

                      Except pieces of shit like you, of course.

                2. But if you think the primary motivation for anti-immigrant hullabaloo in this country isn’t bigotry plain and simple, you are a fucking idiot.

                  Burn that strawman!

                  That they seem to always want to kick the Mexicans out regardless of the actual immigration stats, regardless of the decade or economic situation, is a bit suspicious at least, no?

                  “They” are always super-terrible, aren’t “They,” oh Un-bigoted One!

                  But yes – if you didn’t have your head so far up your ass that you were entirely incapable of understanding what anyone around actually says about things, you would find that most people here agree with you on this.

                  We just don’t feel a need to be such dicks to people all the time. Because you’re completely wrong that “Nobody every persuades anybody of anything,” but I can see why in your individual experience this may be very true.

                3. Yea, because there’s no taxpayer drain providing for the welfare, healthcare, or education of 12 million plus illegal immigrants. California’s not going bankrupt or anything. Theres no risk of organized crime, human trafficking, or narcotics coming with an illegal. Mexico wasnt just found to be the 2nd deadliest conflict zone, only behind syria, last year or anything. There’s no risk of disease or invasive species coming with an illegal border crosser, swine flu didn’t originate in Mexico or anything. Nope, that’s all just figments of bigotry, none of its real, nope, none.

                  The tree huggers up here in PA get pissed if you move firewood from area to area cuz of the damn ash-boring Beatles, customs checks all your food and fruit for invasive species. But hey, let the illegals bring whatever the hell diseases or species they want piggybacking with them across the border. Makes sense.

            2. So, if someone were to crash this parade without permission, would they be subhuman in your mind? Does that ‘slip of paper’ constituting formal invitation render someone human?

              Because that’s what an opponent of illegal immigration would say an illegal immigrant is. Now, I don’t see it that way, because I believe in private property. But you don’t, so I’m not sure why you do. If someone needs a government permission slip to bake a cake, braid hair, buy or sell property, or take a shit, why not require one to get into the country too?

              1. Stop it. Your logic may induce erections with its brilliance.

            3. I realize that this fact of paperwork converts humans into sub-humans in the minds of Trumpians

              In much the same way that a person’s punched ballot converts humans into sub-humans in yours.

              Of course, you actually are a sub-human. It just doesn’t have anything to do with you being a faggot or having a birth certificate.

            4. It converts residents into trespassers, yes. You stupid, stupid piece of shit.

              1. And thus people who regardless of age or moral character you want to put on trains and dislocate and ruin their lives.

                The “subhuman” part is what’s salient here.

                1. No, they’re just trespassers. They dislocated themselves in the first place. We’re just putting them back.

                  By your standard, I should break into your home and just stay there as long as I like, right?

        2. He stated many times in many forums that he wanted to kick about 10 million immigrants out

          Yes, specifically 10 million illegal immigrants. As a legal immigrant, I approve.

          then “ban all Muslims” from entering the United States. It was on his website until a few weeks ago. I am characterizing it exactly accurately.

          That’s not even theoretically possible, so it should be obvious even to you that “all” can’t mean what you think it means.

    5. banning of all Muslims from entering the US

      Gays in many Muslim countries have much bigger problems to worry about, like getting thrown off a roof.

      1. No shit?!? Why it’s almost like I haven’t heard this exact talking point coming from Republican politicians in their infantile gambit of trying to score tolerance points via bashing Muslims.

        1. And it’s not uncommon to hear faggots like you excusing those deaths–

          Pride? While half of the community covers for people who want to slaughter them? Don’t make me laugh.

          People aren’t ‘tolerance points’, idiot.

          Any homosexual that isn’t supporting a REAL muslim ban is an ode to self-loathing–no matter how many glittery chaps filled parades he, she, or they dance in this month.

          1. Waiting on all the calm, just-want-to-talk libertarians to call out this asshole.

            But you’re not gonna, are you? Because he supports regressive taxation.

            I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that it’s not because you kind of agree with him that Muslims as a collective should be put in camps or whatever.

            1. Thanks Saint Tony, we are all literally sitting here waiting for your righteous approval of whom we choose to criticize.

              Oh, wait, fuckwit – if you (sorry for bringing this up again and again) paid any fucking attention to anything going on outside your fevered brain you would notice that Azathoth!! catches a fair amount of flack around here for frequently being a dick about things.

              Pro tip: Domestic Dissident doesn’t speak for libertarians, either.

              But you know what else? Azathoth!! also doesn’t run around deliberately insulting everyone here thinking he’s the moral guiding light for all of us, so he catches significantly less shit than you.

              1. I think everyone here catches less shit than Tony. Deservedly so.

        2. So, tell me, is it bigoted to deny gay Muslims at the parade, on the basis that their religion is inherently bigoted? Or is it not ok to assume they’re bigots because they’re Muslim the way you assume someone’s a bigot because they voted for Trump?

        3. 95-99% of Muslims from majority Muslim countries consider homosexuality morally unacceptable. The majority of British (!) Muslims want homosexuality to be illegal.

          If you think that populations like that should simply be let into the US the same way we let populations from Western Europe immigrate, you’re a bloody fool.

    6. the banning of all Muslims from entering the US

      Oh, for fuck’s sake. Trump never called for banning all Muslims from entering the US. His travel restrictions only applied to countries that OBAMA had already determined were unable to maintain standards of pre-travel screening.

      As for tolerance, have you visited Iran lately? They’d love to show you the view from a tall building to the ground.

      -jcr

      1. “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”

        Direct quote. It was on the White House website until a couple weeks ago.

        1. No, it wasn’t.

          1. Reality is whatever that fat hedgehog tells you it is, isn’t it?

            He made that statement, in written form, during the campaign, then posted it on his website until just a couple weeks ago. It happened.

            1. “He made that statement, in written form, during the campaign, then posted it on his website until just a couple weeks ago. It happened.”

              So you’re ‘resisting’ a campaign statement?
              Fucking imbeciles will grasp at any straw they can find.

            2. Tony, you have no credibility. Most of us here consider ANY statement made by you to likely be a lie and/or wrong.

            3. He made that statement, in written form, during the campaign, then posted it on his website until just a couple weeks ago. It happened.

              Yes. And like all campaign statements, it’s a sound bite referring to a more complex policy: a policy you misrepresent.

              Trump was calling for a temporary ban on new visas for people from many majority-Muslim countries in order to develop better vetting mechanisms. That’s a sensible policy.

              And let me tell you as a former immigrant: waiting months for visa issuance based on your national is a common occurrence. Being arbitrarily denied entry because of some political issue is also common. It happened under Clinton, it happened under Obama, it happens in Europe all the time. Unless you are a citizen of a country, you have no legal right to enter that country. That’s international law as recognized by the UN and by all other nations.

              If you get hysterical over that, you’re just an ignorant fool, or a bigoted partisan.

        2. “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”

          That’s not a “complete ban”, that’s a temporary ban for new immigrant and non-immigrant visas. The reason is that current vetting for issuing visas to those populations is clearly insufficient.

    7. Um, wouldn’t inviting more Muslims in, especially from the countries that are currently banned, work against gay rights?

      1. No, because Muslims are not the treat to gay people in America. Christians are. If we’re going to pretend that gay rights is what this is about, how about kicking all the Christians out?

        1. Muslims like gay people?

          Hm. I wonder why muslims were throwing gay people off roofs recently?

          1. Responding to Trump talking points machines like you is annoying. I don’t like religious conservatives who hate gays of any stripe. I can be against gay bashing by both Muslims and Christians at the same time. A fuckton more Christians happen to live around me, so they might be my more immediate concern.

            All you’re doing is trying to pit people against each other as part of the ongoing cynical political bullshit that Republicans employ to get elected to office in order to fuck you and your family over. Your insistence on feeling icky about brown people makes you too fucking retarded to realize it, though.

            1. You call poor white people retarded cousin-fuckers. You’re not in a position to talk up solidarity. It’s not the Republicans in office that have made the kind of software I’m producing so over-regulated it takes nearly 20 years and millions of dollars completely beyond research and development to get it to market. Nor is it (primarily/only) the Republicans who want to force me to pay for entitlements for well-to-do morons who refuse to save a portion of their salary (or work at all) for medical and retirement expenses they could cover if they bothered to do so.

            2. Oddly, openly gay people exist in Christian countries.

              They seem to be FAR less open in Muslim states.

              Wonder why. since Christians are SO BAD for gays…

              1. Starting a global Christian-Muslim religious war isn’t in my interest, in my opinion. What do you want from me? Oh how large your penis is, Christian, you only hate gays a little unlike those brown savages.

                1. Starting a global Christian-Muslim religious war isn’t in my interest, in my opinion. What do you want from me?

                  Well, you sub-human fuckwit, you were the one who said No, because Muslims are not the treat to gay people in America. Christians are. If we’re going to pretend that gay rights is what this is about, how about kicking all the Christians out?

                  So, if YOU want to import a bunch more Muslims — don’t spend your time crying about how poorly Muslim communities treat them nor ask any conservative to spend any time or energy fighting it.

                  We warned you. You demanded it anyway. Live with your decision.

                  Well, you won’t have to for long, most likely. You will either die or closet yourself.

                  C’est la vie.

            3. I can be against gay bashing by both Muslims and Christians at the same time.

              You could, you just aren’t, because you’re a disingenuous piece of slimy shit.

            4. Responding to Trump talking points machines like you is annoying.

              Well, then take it from a gay immigrant: you’re a pampered, self-righteous, greedy, arrogant, ignorant prick. You have never experienced serious homophobia, discrimination, violence, or the struggles of immigrants. You should just STFU.

          2. All religions are equally cuntish about sexuality.

            1. Buddhists talk about self-control, but I don’t know if they spout off in the evils of it, or physically threaten anyone on it. Just sayin’

            2. Christianity, Buddhism, and several other religions simply tell you that excessive lust and sexual gratification are not good for you, and that sex in the context of a heterosexual marriage is in some sense the ideal. That’s a (debatable) moral and philosophical point of view. But those religions generally advocate leaving the actual choice to the individual.

              Islam is different because it demands the implementation of its religious views and rules through the state. (The Old Testament demanded that too, but Christianity made that irrelevant, and Judaism has found other accommodations.)

        2. “No, because Muslims are not the treat to gay people in America. Christians are.”
          Any comparison of the conditions of gay people in predominantly Christian countries with their conditions in predominantly Muslim countries demonstrates that to be clearly false.

          But yeah, the idea that some people don’t want to bake you a wedding cake is worse than some other people wanting your head on a spike.

        3. The false equivalencies and phony indignation here………staggering!

          Tony, were I a homosexual, I would be ENRAGED that some pissant mental midget disingenuous piece of offal, such as yourself, dared to speak on my behalf. But then, not being a progressive idiot, I don’t define my life based on where I like to stick my cock.

          You help make the world a worse place to live. Maybe you should just go drink the Drano under the kitchen sink.

          1. “Why don’t you be a bigot like me so I don’t feel so bad about my tiny cock. Whyyy!”

            1. Translation: Tony has no real response as he is once again caught dead to rights.

              Tony, deep down you know you’re worthless, even if you won’t admit it here.

        4. No, because Muslims are not the treat to gay people in America. Christians are.

          Take it from someone who lived under pretty homophobic Christian governments, and who has a number of gay (ex-)Muslim friends: that’s bullshit. Christian homophobia these days is a minority view and exhausts itself in a bit of lecturing. Muslims are overwhelmingly hostile to homosexuality and violence against homosexuals is common.

    8. At first, I thought your comment was a joke. But then, I realized you’re serious. That’s remarkable.

      You’ve completely removed any meaning from the word, “tolerance.”

    9. “I think the idea is that you can’t support the systematic expulsion of immigrants…”

      And you’d be absolutely wrong, because I guarantee you supporters of Obama, who deported more immigrants than any previous president won’t be barred from participating, or supporters of Hillary, who’s supported the horrifically racist war on drugs, and the sort of brutal foreign interventionism that’s resulted in half a million dead Arabs and left millions more displaced.

      The idea that either are somehow more tolerant is a sick, comic absurdity.

    10. Tony, I know you actually meant “you can’t support the expulsion of foreign criminals, who knowingly broke the law by illegally crossing the border into the US, and the banning of travel from countries where there is a high incidence of anti-US terrorist activities”. There, I fixed it for you – no thanks needed.

    11. Sometimes I wonder if fucktard “Tony” is a fake troll, spewing dumb, bull shit propaganda leftard talking points because everything he types is fucking stupid.

    12. I think the idea is that you can’t support the systematic expulsion of immigrants and the banning of all Muslims from entering the US

      I don’t know of anybody who is doing that. Trump is supporting the systematic expulsion of illegal migrants and the banning of certain Muslims from entering the US.

      and be invited to participate in our celebration of tolerance.

      Frankly, I don’t see why anybody would want to celebrate with a bunch of whiny, intolerant, sex-crazed, lying millennials. You’re not even fun to sleep with.

  3. I know at least one gay Trump supporter.

    NAME NAMES!

    1. He was looking in the mirror when he wrote that.

    2. It’s not Shackleton’s job to be your matchmaker, Crusty.

  4. You know how Condi Rice isn’t an authentic black woman, right?
    Well, these folk aren’t authentic gays: same way.

    1. Indeed. The “tolerance” progressives routinely condescend to people who don’t conform to what their prescribed attributes should be, based on ethnicity, gender, etc.

  5. To turn around and treat another group of gay people the same way is pretty terrible.

    It is such a sad thought process.

  6. Scott, was your alt-text a snub to the frumpy lesbians pushing strollers I’m told have taken over Pride parades?

    1. Some of my prog friends took their young kids to a pride parade last year. It turned out to be a lot of shiny, nearly-naked men making out in the street. I suppose it was an education for the kids.

      1. I think there was an R.E.M. song about that.

        1. “Everybody Hurts”?

          1. I thought it was “Everybody Spurts”?

    2. I forgot to mention I’m also anti-sunburn.

      I’m looking at you San Diego pride march of 2000.

  7. We’re here!
    *clap*
    We’re queer!
    *clap*
    We won’t associate with people who don’t conform to our political orthodoxies!

  8. Re the alt text: all parades should be banned.

    1. Seconded. If you want to have a parade, buy your own fucking roads. Some of us need those ones to go places and do things that are actually important.

  9. Christ, what well-lubricated assholes.

    1. That’s AFTER the parade.

  10. Well, that is some hypocrisy.

    Here in Boston there is always some to do about the St. Patrick’s parade and gay individuals that wish to participate just because they are gay (your average Joe can’t just join in, but if you are gay, then you have a God given right!)….WoW

    1. I think that soon there will be more gays living in Boston than Irish, if there aren’t already.

      1. I don’t know about that. There are still a whole lot of Irish in the Boston area.

        1. Irish can’t be gay? That’s racism, straight up.

  11. Christ, gays have become real bitchy. I’m sure that will win them a lot of supporters.

    At the same time, they can forbid anyone they want to from march with them. Even if they sound like complete idiots doing so.

    1. Who’s the one threatening a lawsuit here?

      1. The customers of the bakery.

        1. And the Trumptards who want to troll a pride parade–which is not a public accommodation.

          1. If there’s a true definition of a public accommodation, a Pride Parade would probably be near the top of the list.

            1. Sigh. I would say the parade organizers should have granted the Trumpians entry just to avoid the inevitable nationwide faux butthurt, but it’s always going to be something. They’ll find some Trumpian somewhere in the country who feels aggrieved at the hands of the gays or other libruls and it’ll be on Drudge the next day. There’s no appeasing people whose main motivation is to be aggrieved.

              1. Ummm….that could be said about gays that sue Catholic hospitals, bakeries, and wedding venues.

                Every time you comment you stop on a rake

              2. They’ll find some Trumpian somewhere in the country who feels aggrieved at the hands of the gays or other libruls and it’ll be on Drudge the next day. There’s no appeasing people whose main motivation is to be aggrieved.

                What have you done with the real Tony? Who’s this new libertarian Tony? I dare say I almost like him.

                1. I’m more libertarian than the average commenter here, at least since Trump ascended to power.

                  For some reason being for progressive taxation is the ultimate no-no, however, and so I’m left outside the gates (while redneck racist fucktards are practically invited for dinner).

                  1. Yes, because the progressive tax is the only thing you disagree with libertarians about

                  2. Your pro-slavery stance doesn’t do you any favors either.

                  3. being for progressive taxation is the ultimate no-no, however, and so I’m left outside the gates

                    No.

                    The reason you’re “not invited in,” so to speak, is that you make a point of being the biggest dick you can to everyone here on the principle that some people come here and say racist things.

                    If you could learn to simply have civilized conversations with people without feeling the need to be such an asshole all the time, people would probably stop being so rude to you.

                  4. I’m more libertarian than the average commenter here

                    What’s your next guess?

                    being for progressive taxation is the ultimate no-no

                    Taxation is theft, dumbass.

                    -jcr

                  5. “I’m more libertarian than the average commenter here, at least since Trump ascended to power.”
                    Depending on how you define it, so am I, amusing enough.

                    I mean sure, I don’t identify as a libertarian or Libertarian, I think the non-aggression principle is na?ve and childish, I’m amused how libertarians expect other people to fight all their hard battles for them, and so-on.

                    But I also voted for every libertarian I could in 2012 and 2016, which based on all the “voting is pointless” posts last fall, is more then some can claim.

                    1. I mean sure, I don’t identify as a libertarian or Libertarian, I think the non-aggression principle is na?ve and childish, I’m amused how libertarians expect other people to fight all their hard battles for them, and so-on.

                      ^ Tony, take note.

                      EscherEnigma is another guy that a lot of people around here regard as a liberal who doesn’t “get” libertarianism.

                      I’ve disagreed with EE on many occasions, and we’ve even been somewhat snarky with one another on occasion.

                      But he also knows how to engage people without being a total jerk, and thus he doesn’t inspire quite the passionate aggravation that you do.

                      Do you see how that works? It’s not always about you being persecuted by bigots for no reason.

                    2. Clean this place of up the Trump loving trash and I promise I’ll be nicer.

                  6. Tony, I laughed and laughed that you consider yourself Libertarian.

                    Libertarians don’t tend to “be Libertarian” for certain politicians. You either are or not.

                    You are not.

                    1. Really? So it is a stupid, lame dogma?

              3. “There’s no appeasing people whose main motivation is to be aggrieved.”
                Ha. Evidently you’ve never listened to a speech at the DNC. Or been to a gay pride rally for that matter.

              4. There’s no appeasing people whose main motivation is to be aggrieved.

                Just ask anybody still desperately clinging to the Russia/Trump conspiracy theory.

            2. It is on public streets and requires government permits, unlike a bakery

              1. It is on public streets and requires government permits, unlike a bakery
                So non-discrimination laws are fine for food trucks, but not brick-and-mortar restaurants.

                What an odd distinction.

          2. Yeah Tony, gays can only express themselves when they believe what you and your shitbag commie friends tell them to believe, right. You fucking totalitarian piece of shit.

    2. Gays are just using the “victim” playbook used successfully by blacks for so long. And just like BLM, this gay group knows that their “special” status will allow them to discriminate without question.

  12. They stand for all human rights? Does that include the right to not bake cakes for their weddings?

    1. Who’s the one threatening a lawsuit here?

      1. The gay folks.

        They threatened the bakeries, the photographers, the chapels….and the parade.

        The people bringing the suit are gay Trump supporters, Tony.

        1. Well I guess you would be a hypocrite if you supported Trump and were against nuisance lawsuits.

          1. So, suing people about gay issues is a nuisance? Hm. I don’t remember you saying that when gay people were suing bakeries, wedding officiators and the people who said they don’t want to do “x” for gay people .

            1. I’m saying Trump is a sleazebucket of global proportions. Try to keep up.

              1. Tony, you’re for whatever is expedient for your agenda, no matter what. You have no ethics, principles, standards, or decency. You are an evil piece of shit.

            2. If you’re talking about the New Jersey venue, then that was 100% because the church sought out a specific public grant to renovate their outdoor pavilion that had “open to the public” as a condition. They then violated the condition of the public grant they willfully sought.

              If you’re talking about the Idaho venue, then that was all “fake news”. They claimed they were being sued, but no lawsuit was ever filed, they never managed to identify whoever was supposedly suing them, and it was pretty much just them lying for publiclity.

              There has not been a single wedding officiator that has been sued.

              As for the rest, you have a photographer, two bakers, and a florist.

              Since 2003.

              Meanwhile, there are literally hundreds of non-discrimination lawsuits, ever year that don’t include any gay people at all.

              So even if non-discrimination lawsuits are “nuisance” lawsuits… it’s not gay people that are the villains here. At best (worst?) we’re henchmen.

              1. Once even one lawsuit succeeds, the threat of lawsuit is usually enough to deter anyone from doing what provoked it.

              2. As for the rest, you have a photographer, two bakers, and a florist.

                Since 2003.

                There have been substantially more public accommodation lawsuits based on sexual orientation in that period of time, those are just the handful that set precedents and made national headlines. But then you know that, you’re just a disingenuous fuckwit. You and Tony should really consider butfucking each other.

              3. Maybe you forgot about the New York venue

                Or the Pennsylvania venue

                1. Or the Iowa venue

                  Or the other 698,000 results one gets from a Google search.

  13. It is amusing for a parade that’s intended to be about who you like to fuck kicking someone out for how they voted.

    Apparently the LGBQWTFBBQ movement consists almost entirely of non-sequitur.

    I kind of feel bad for the guy who thought that these festivals were about celebrating all gay people. This amounts to the same insanity that the community has regarding Muslims, especially after Pulse.

  14. LGBT = “Let’s Go Beat Trump”

  15. If a Christian Pride parade excluded a gay Christian group wanting to get in you people would be all over freedom of association. But it’s so fucking tribal around here you can hear the drums. So it boils down to “Libruls are supposed to be more tolerant than us, so we get to tell them how to behave! Mneh!”

    1. Wow. The libertarians in your mind are real assholes.

    2. Thank you for confirming that you did not, in fact, read any of the earlier comments.

      1. I’m referring specifically to the ones instructing liberals exactly who they’re supposed to associate with lest they be deemed hypocrites by the freedom-lovers.

        1. Ah. Protip: the phrases “you people” and “it’s so fucking tribal around here” do NOT in any way indicate specificity in your address. I wouldn’t expect you to know that, though, because you are so, so stupid.

          1. I remain amazed by the ability of posters here to be completely blind to 80% of the content of the posts.

            1. You not understanding words is not the fault of other posters.

              1. All the time it’s like 80% of the posts are “Rah Messicans rape our women. We’re libertarians, not anarchists, and that’s why it’s OK to kick all the Messicans out!” Then like three of you behave like semi-sane, reasonable libertarians. I comment on the bulk of the action, and you take offense that I’m not treating libertarianism as something that excludes most of the people speaking in its name.

                1. *sigh*

                  For the fucking millionth time, there’s not a hive-mind here. You think everyone here speaks with one collective voice and then you insult all of us collectively when anyone expresses an opinion you disagree with.

                  Have you ever noticed how many people here refer to John as “Red Tony?”

                  Do you know why they do that?

                  1. I didn’t say you’re all responsible for everything everyone says. I said I’m responding to the assholes. That you immediately take offense on their behalf seems like your problem rather than mine. If you don’t feel any kinship with the bigots and crazies, why do you care what I say about them?

                    And it’s hilarious that you’re still not seeing what you don’t want to see, namely the fact that you’re all assholes too.

                    1. Tony|6.9.17 @ 4:17PM|#
                      “I didn’t say you’re all responsible for everything everyone says. I said I’m responding to the assholes>

                      As are we, with the difference that we are responding to a hypocritical asshole, hypocritical asshole.

                    2. Tony, you lost the debate and then you do what lefties do- act like a child.

                      I am glad there are so many lefties like you because pointing out their insane logic is too easy.

                      Bravo Tony!

                    3. Tony, you lost the debate and then you do what lefties do- act like a child.

                      I am glad there are so many lefties like you because pointing out their insane logic is too easy.

                      Bravo Tony!

                    4. “I didn’t say you’re all responsible for everything everyone says.”
                      “namely the fact that you’re all assholes too.”
                      At the end of the day, you’re just a collectivist through and through. That seems to sum it up. You seem to be pathologically incapable of even comprehending any moral framework that regards moral rights and responsibilities as individual in nature.

                    5. ^ This.

                      It’s hilarious that he can’t even assert that he’s not insulting us all collectively without turning around and insulting us all collectively immediately.

                    6. I said I’m responding to the assholes. That you immediately take offense on their behalf seems like your problem rather than mine.

                      I don’t.

                      I’m an asshole to you in particular because you’ve been a raging asshole to me, specifically and personally, for years.

                      I’m a pretty liberal guy who came to libertarianism from the far left. When I first encountered you I was very nice to you for a long time, and felt like other people were unnecessarily rude to you.

                      Then you started into one of your fits where you just insult anyone who tries who to engage you and accuse everyone of being Nazi bible-thumping homophobes. Even then I decided you were just immature and in a few years you’d come around.

                      Well, it’s been more than a few years, and you’re still a raging indiscriminate dick.

                      You’re not just talking to the bigots and crazies – you’re deciding in advance that everyone is bigots and crazies so that you feel like you’re being righteous instead of just being a jerk. But actually you’re just being a jerk.

                      You want to just go pick on Azathoth!!, Domestic Dissident and John? No one here is going to have a problem with you. But that’s not what you do, and you should know that.

                2. All the time it’s like 80% of the posts are “Rah Messicans rape our women. We’re libertarians, not anarchists, and that’s why it’s OK to kick all the Messicans out!”

                  Can you point to a single post where even 50% of the comments are that?

                  1. 40% ? ? ?
                    30% ? ? ?
                    20% ? ? ?
                    .
                    oddly enough, tone-deaf’s gay histrionics only work against his feeble attempts at ratiocination…
                    .
                    flamboyant hyperbole gets eaten up with a spoon among the gay blades; but not so useful for rational argumentation…
                    .
                    which gets to one of the many nubs of the problems with my former libtard colleagues: they are taking intangible feels and verbal slights as being tantamount to ACTUAL, REAL, PHYSICAL assault…
                    .
                    yeah, they are NOTHING alike, and conflating the two is ONE HUGE CHASM you have between a couple percent of the population, AND EVERYONE ELSE WHO IS SANE…

        2. I’m referring specifically to the ones instructing liberals exactly who they’re supposed to associate with lest they be deemed hypocrites by the freedom-lovers.

          Oh dear. You want to put people in prison or have a gang of armed thugs steal their money for you for not accommodating you. Those awful libertarians are pointing out what a regarded hypocrite you are for holding mutually contradictory viewpoints depending on whose ox is being gored. Definitely exactly the same thing.

    3. Rentboy, you disingenuous slut.

      Nobody here has said that the pride parade can’t exclude whoever they want to exclude. Criticism isn’t the same thing as force.

      -jcr

      1. I would hope not. But you’re only criticizing because poor wittle Trumpie got his feewings hurt (by proxy). There is nothing unlibertarian about the action taken and nothing hypocritical about it either.

        1. It is the absolute height of hypocrisy for an organization that states the following:

          “Charlotte Pride envisions a world in which LGBTQ people are affirmed, respected, and included in the full social and civic life of their local communities, free from fear of any discrimination, rejection, and prejudice,”

          To then reject the application of a group of gay people from a gay pride parade for any non-violent reason. Yes, it should remain legal for them to do so, but nonetheless it’s completely hypocritical.

          1. Well thank you ever so much for the generosity of permitting private citizens to associate with whomever they want. I guess calling them hypocrites for practicing this basic liberty is the slap on the wrist we deserve for not doing freedom exactly as you command, massa.

            1. I guess calling them hypocrites for practicing this basic liberty is the slap on the wrist we deserve for not doing freedom exactly as you command, massa.

              Well, sure, we shouldn’t expect a proglydyte to grasp the irony of a group who claims to promote “freedom from fear of discrimination, rejection, or prejudice,” doing that very opposite to a group who supports a politician they don’t like.

              We certainly don’t have a problem on principle with the group being excluded because of political ideology; it’s too bad your type doesn’t share the same when it comes to wedding cakes or photographers. At least the latter can be claimed as more common and with more available venues to explore for service.

              1. Plenty of parade invitees support politicians most gays don’t support. As I said, Republicans are always there.

                It’s just that we might reasonably draw the line at Trump or any number of other walking representatives of the bigots of the world. He got elected because of the hate and intolerance in this country. Why would his followers be invited to a parade whose purpose is to counter that very thing?

                1. It’s just that we might reasonably draw the line at Trump or any number of other walking representatives of the bigots of the world.

                  You’re welcome to draw the line however you please. Just don’t pat yourself on the back about how inclusive you are when that line has been drawn.

                  1. They were disinvited because the event was about inclusivity. Is it that you can’t wrap your head around an apparent paradox that is actually perfectly sensible like anyone who’s graduated 6th grade, or what?

            2. Tony|6.9.17 @ 4:19PM|#
              “Well thank you ever so much for the generosity of permitting private citizens to associate with whomever they want.”

              Would that hypocritical shitbags like you would do the same.

            3. There bust be an actual filter in your brain that prevents you from reading things as they are actually written. He didn’t purport to permit you to do anything, merely stated it as fact. More over, he has every right to disapprove of your actions and it in no way constitutes a slap on the wrist, a punishment, or an assertion of legal superiority. Me calling you an asshole is not a violation of your rights; don’t pretend it victimizes you in some way.

              Your failure to distinguish disapproval or criticism from legal punishment is really a frightening sentiment for how common it is. It’s like you actually think expressing dislike for you is some violation that needs to be prohibited. Get that through that lead fucking head of yours, you delirious asshole.

            4. Well thank you ever so much for the generosity of permitting private citizens to associate with whomever they want.

              You, hypocritically, oppose the same for others.

              Perhaps lawsuits should be filed.

              Force you to live under the rules you promote.

        2. you’re only criticizing because poor wittle Trumpie got his feewings hurt (by proxy).

          Guess again. I criticize hypocrisy wherever I see it. That’s why I keep poking holes in your bubbles.

          -jcr

          1. No, you’re almost literally coming to where they work and knocking the dicks out of their mouths. Mind your own business, how about? It’s not hypocritical to exclude Trumptards from a tolerance parade, because Trump is the single most visible and powerful advocate of intolerance in the Western world. Why is this so fucking difficult for you people?

            1. Tony|6.9.17 @ 4:46PM|#
              “No, you’re almost literally coming to where they work and knocking the dicks out of their mouths.”

              Those voices again! Those horrible voices!
              Fuck off, liar.

            2. Given his abject failure to implement intolerance (Muslim ban? Wall? Keeping Mexicans out? Anyone?), it would seem he’s either not that intolerant or not that powerful

            3. Mind your own business, how about?

              Calling you a retarded piece of shit because you are a retarded piece of shit is not interfering with your business, retarded piece of shit.

              Having gangs of armed men steal people’s money for you or force them to bake you cakes is interfering with someone else’s business, retarded piece of shit.

              See the difference now, retarded piece of shit?

            4. I think it’s hilarious the way you pretend to be some kind of beacon of tolerance.

              -jcr

    4. You know who else is suspicious of freedom of association?

      1. Rachel Dolezal?

    5. A Christian Pride Parade would be attacked by mobs of antifa before they ever got past the permitting stage. No gay Christian group would go near it after that started.

      1. I don’t know what “antifa” is supposed to be, but you do know that many places have “Christmas parades”, right?

    6. It’s amazing how convoluted your thinking is! Any true libertarian would support a Christian Pride parade excluding gay Christians. Any true libertarian would also support liberals being allowed to exclude Trump supporters who are gay.
      Libertarians are merely pointing out your hypocrisy when you support any form of exclusion. We have a bit of a problem in tolerating logical inconsistency.
      Tolerance is really not this hard. Let bakers discriminate. Buy your cake elsewhere. Let LGBT groups exclude Trump supporters. Just because you’re more tolerant of some types of people does not mean everyone has to be.

    7. No Tony, you fucking shitbag, it isn’t the same because you’ve spent your adult life fighting AGAINST freedom of association and for forcing yourself on others. So it rings hollow when you cry foul after the tables are turned.

      Your confusion stems from, besides your abject stupidity, your inherent hypocrisy. Because it’s really just about what you want and what you feel, and fuck everyone else.

      Which is the heart of progressivism.

    8. I don’t see theocrats and various extreme Christians wearing a badge of “tolerance”. They don’t seem to claim anything of the sort. One could argue that they are antithetical to the philosophy of Jesus, which is a contradiction of massive proportions, but “tolerance” was never the centerpiece of their rhetoric.

  16. So much for diversity.

    1. What does an old, old wooden ship used during the Civil War have anything to do with this article?

      1. Old wooden ship is my nickname at the retirement community.

  17. This isn’t ultimately about Trump himself

    I think it is. Even though Pride marches have always been leftist utopia, there was always at least one Republican or Libertarian float, at least in the few I attended over a decade ago… Trump is making them dial it up to 11, just like he’s turning some of my friends into screeching lunatics.

    1. he’s turning some of my friends into screeching lunatics.

      No, he’s not. Your friends are doing that all by themselves, just like they did over Reagan and the Bushes.

      -jcr

      1. just like they did over Reagan and the Bushes

        Actually, no they didn’t, nothing like this. Don’t you think the response to Trump has been like ten times more unhinged than anything we saw under those other guys?

        1. You mean they’ve behaved proportionally to the size of the disaster?

          1. You mean they’ve behaved proportionally to the size of the disaster?

            Being robbed of 4-8 years of YAAASSSSS QUEEN SLAY memes probably would be an Armageddon-like event for them.

          2. More like behaving like lunatics because Trump represents and is dialing back the Great Society and the Nanny-State.

            1. By building a wall along the entire southern border?

              1. How is that wall coming along, by the way?

            2. “More like behaving like lunatics because Trump represents and is dialing back the Great Society and the Nanny-State.”

              You can’t be serious. The appointment of Jeff Sessions alone is enough to make that statement absurd, never mind all the other actions that have been taken or are on the table.

              Nationalists see the state as a paternal figure. It doesn’t get more “nanny state” than that.

          3. Yeah Tony, keep up that shrill behavior. Eventually the public will cry out for you and your commie friends to be dealt with. So please, don’t ever stop Tony.

        2. Because he’s literally Hitler. Get with the right think

          1. It will certainly be a relieve when the next President shuts down all those concentration camps that sprang up in the past 6 months. /sarc

        3. You don’t remember the leftards with their “bushitler” signs?

          -jcr

          1. I remember the conservatards with their “Michelle Obama is a monkey” memes. Among many others that were equally charming.

            1. We all came from monkeys.

            2. Trump/Bush = monkey is fine; Obama (either one) = monkey, RAAAAACIST!!!
              And no, comparing someone to a monkey is not nearly as egregious as comparing them to Hitler.

              1. Tony is the worst of both words: less intelligent than a primate, more violent, psychotic and duplicitous than Hitler.

            3. Tony|6.9.17 @ 5:26PM|#
              “I remember the conservatards with their “Michelle Obama is a monkey” memes.”

              I remember the lefty imbeciles with their ‘cousin-fucker’ memes, lefty imbecile.

  18. It’s as if they’re trying to write the Trump 2020 campaign. These twits, the “Science” Marchers, and Kathy Griffin are doing their very best to reinforce every liberal caricature in Trumpworld.

  19. Is this a case of “Man bites dog”? Or perhaps “Christian bakery sues gay couple for not ordering wedding cake”?

    1. OutVets was “informed that our Code of Conduct prohibits ‘the advertisement or display of one’s sexual orientation,’ and that the ‘rainbow’ flag on its banners and logo was in violation of this rule.”

      One supposes that listing “OutVets” in the proceedings was not a violation.

      1. ONe also supposes that had I read through the last paragraph, I’d have realized Scott mentioned St. Paddy’s day.

  20. *didnt read the comments or the article

    Free association and the scumbag Republicans around my neck of the woods would like to throw gay people in prison so I can understand not wanting some delusional gay dude to provide cover for this party of bigotry.

    1. Republicans around my neck of the woods would like to throw gay people in prison

      Link?

      1. There are terrible people, but I would be surprised if they have any influence of any kind.

        1. Do you people all live on the coasts or what?

          Trump country is mostly terrible people who want to bash gays’ heads in. And Muslims. And Mexicans. And especially blacks. Seriously. Go to a flyover newspaper comments page when the cops kill another black guy. The general sentiment is “That’s a good start!”

          Is the reason so many of you are knee-jerk (R) team members because you don’t actually get what kind of people make up most of the team?

          1. Seriously.

            I do like how you seriously believe that. Seriously.

            1. Fine. Go to any article with comments that linked from the Drudge Report. See if you don’t need a shower after reading through a few.

              Things actually make a little more sense if you truly don’t see the vast sea of bigoted trash that is out there.

              1. When a gay or Muslim gets their head bashed in you let me know.

                1. Doesn’t count if it’s fellow Muslims doing the bashing – that’s just following the Koran.

              2. You’re a disturbed individual, Tony.

              3. I’ve seen crap posted to websites on both sides that’s pretty disgusting. What matters is the degree of influence that mindset has on the party, whether Republican or Democrat. In both cases, they cater to voters most decent people would not want to be too familiar with. However, it’s a necessary evil in politics. If one side denounces the bad elements, the other side gets an advantage, so both sides have to do this. Ultimately, what matters are the actual policies and legislation that get ‘s implemented, not the rhetoric. It’s foolish to get hysterical over what a politician *says*. What matters is what he/she *does*.

                1. Without the Supreme Court Trump would have banned all Muslims from entering the United States. The only reason he’s not doing all the bigoted things he said he was going to do (it’s the leader of the free world we’re talking about) is because there happens to be some checks on his power. And he’s not happy about it. Meanwhile Republicans don’t even pretend that they’re not suppressing the minority franchise with their electoral shenanigans. That’s doing stuff that harms people.

                  1. Without the Supreme Court Trump would have banned all Muslims from entering the United States.

                    :Cue Amadeus laugh:

                    1. You don’t get to pretend that this one didn’t happen since he put it in very simple English in a press release.

                    2. You don’t get to pretend that this one didn’t happen since he put it in very simple English in a press release.

                      We can say it didn’t actually happen because it didn’t actually happen though. SCOTUS didn’t rule on the EO, which didn’t bar all Muslims from entering the US in the first place.

                  2. Tony|6.9.17 @ 4:21PM|#
                    “Without the Supreme Court Trump would have banned all Muslims from entering the United States.”

                    Fucking liar.

                    1. “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”

                      How do I know more about your favorite president than you do?

                    2. Tony|6.9.17 @ 4:50PM|#
                      “”Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”
                      How do I know more about your favorite president than you do?”

                      1) He’s certainly not my fave, but if he keeps collect enemies like you, he might be.
                      2) That was a *campaign statement*, you fucking ignoramus; it was never proposed as a law, so it never got to the courts.
                      3) How come I know more about nearly everything than the editor of the ‘Dog Walker’s Weekly’ in the wonderful gated community of ‘We All Tolerate That Fucking Ignoramus Tony Anyhow”?

                2. It’s foolish to get hysterical over what a politician *says*. What matters is what he/she *does*.
                  Um, yeah. You guys tried that line last year.

                  “Don’t take him literally, take him seriously”.

                  That was a mistake then, and it’s a mistake now.

                  1. And now you can’t walk outside your house because Trump’s goons are ready to beat your ass, right snowflake? Poor snowflake.

              4. Tony|6.9.17 @ 3:24PM|#
                “…Things actually make a little more sense if you truly don’t see the vast sea of bigoted trash that is out there.”

                Oh, but we do, you bigoted pile of shit.
                You keep posting here.

              5. Yeah, you’re making stuff up again. I just went to Drudge and read through a few hundred comments on a couple posts. You’re just plain delusional, buddy.

              6. wow, you know, TRY to cut you some slack, tone-deaf, but you ARE like a bad libbot spouting nonsense libtard bullshit who will NOT be dissuaded by actual factuals and more reasonable, measured manners of thinking about EVERYONE, especially your ‘adversaries’…
                .
                (MANY of which you appear to make up simply based on your pwecious, pwecious feels…)
                .
                that you ACTUALLY believe that a literal/relative handful of hate-filled comments on a relative handful of fringe sites represents ANY/ALL t-rump supporters is truly a sad reflection on your ability to think…
                .
                that you are constitutionally UNABLE to see how making the EXACT SAME POINT about libtards if I went to fringe sites there and cherry-picked THEIR insane comments, is the major failure of your ability to both empathize and experience the lives/thoughts of others…
                .
                ironically, THE major failure YOU accuse fucking EVERYONE but your MINISCULE cohort of being guilty of… yeah, EVERYONE else is the asshole, not you…
                *snort*
                .
                seriously, it is a shame YOU personally are some sort of faux representative of progressivism here, because you are a HORRIBLE and hypocritical example of that… perhaps you ARE just a conservatard posting as a libtard to discredit them… if so, you are doing a great job at that…

          2. I live away from the coasts and I do not want to bash anyones head in. I do think illegals should be deported.

            Unlike the left, Libertarians and Republicans do not first resort to violence.

            1. And if the illegal refuses to come along voluntarily when the deporter guy nicely asks them to, you’re fine if the deporter guy gives up with a shrug and a “Well, I tried”?

          3. Ironically, I live in SC where blacks actually live.

            In blue states, blacks don’t tend to live very much.

            And in the places where they do live, they sure don’t live near Progs.

            Progs love minorities in theory or as chattel.

          4. And yet the only people actually bashing people’s heads in are the ones from your side. And you’d be leading the charge if you weren’t such a cowardly, ineffectual faggot. You aspire to be a fascist if you could ever find your balls.

          5. Tony, that comment so was full of retarded commie bullshit that it isn’t worth even tearing apart. All I know is that when your kind pushes hard enough to spark a civil war to put down your communism once and for all, shit is going to get very real, very fast.

            When that day comes, I dearly hope we meet.

            1. You seem balanced.

        2. … you do know that multiple states still have sodomy laws, right? It’s been almost 15 years since Lawrence v. Texas (2003) and they’re still going out of their way to make sure people know that they want to throw us in jail. And before you try it, every single one has considered repealing their un-constitutional and un-consciousable laws. And chose to keep them instead.

          Heck, Scott Lively was on trial for crimes against humanity for going to Uganda and trying to get them to reinstate the death penalty for gays.

          Just this week another preacher was in the news for being on trial for having her congression beat the shit out of a gay member.

          Wasn’t too many years ago some jackass sheriff was arresting guys for violating the state’s sodomy law. Didn’t care that his DA was dropping charges on every single one, he insisted on arresting them anyway.

          That’s off the top of my head. Remember after Orlando last year how multiple Christian preachers came out to cheer the guy on?

          And of course there’s that something like 40% of homeless teens are LGBT, even though they make up (at most) 5% of the population.

          But sure. No influence of any kind.

          1. It’s so weird that there aren’t any links to this stuff.

            Is it because the preachers were black and Hispanic?

            Or because, besides that pesky black/Latinx homophobia, it’s all bullshit?

            1. Mostly it’s because I have pattern recognition, and rigorously cited posts don’t matter.

              Folks that actually care will look things up themselves. Folks that don’t, such as yourself, would just ignore a carefully cited post and go looking for a softer target.

              1. Most of the people here have broken Googles. Sad.

                1. If I googled “black lesbian paraplegic assaults Episcopalian white man” I’d probably find something. What does that prove about “our society” or “our culture”? Nothing, nothing at all. That’s the problem with your “reasoning” from anecdotes (or “lived experience”).

                  1. Something? Only the hottest, nastiest porn out there!

              2. “Mostly it’s because I have pattern recognition, and rigorously cited posts don’t matter.”
                If that’s the case than uncited posts matter negatively.

                “That’s off the top of my head. Remember after Orlando last year how multiple Christian preachers came out to cheer the guy on?”
                Toni Morrison said she wants to see white kids murdered by cops on the street. Susan Sontag calls white people the cancer of the human race. Our last president’s pastor was openly anti-Semitic, and most Jews still voted for him twice. What of it?

                “And of course there’s that something like 40% of homeless teens are LGBT, even though they make up (at most) 5% of the population.”
                And 1 in 4 women are raped, and 1 in 3 men would rape, and 12 million women a year are beaten to death by their husbands on the superbowl. Yawn. The fact that you won’t cite your study doesn’t instill confidence in its credibility.

          2. Remember after Orlando last year how multiple Christian preachers came out to cheer the guy on?

            Actually, I don’t remember anything of the sort. I guess it *could* have happened because it’s a big country with all kinds of people.

            And if by “influence”, you “mean steadily being pushed to the margins of society”, well then OK. But not one of those things represents a mainstream position in America today.

            1. “And if by “influence”, you “mean steadily being pushed to the margins of society”, well then OK. But not one of those things represents a mainstream position in America today.”
              Hey, if you want to grab Crusty’s goalpost and try to move it, be my guest. But that’s between you and him, not you and me.

          3. … you do know that multiple states still have sodomy laws, right?

            Invalidated by the supreme court, genius.

            And before you try it, every single one has considered repealing their un-constitutional and un-consciousable laws. And chose to keep them instead.

            Every single one huh? No cite. No results on Google.

            That’s off the top of my head.

            I’m sure you could make up a dozen more complete fabrications you lying piece of fuck.

    2. Most bad things we deal with are because of people like you (and the fact that women got the right to vote): namely, policies based on irrational fears. Really. The government just takes advantage to grab power, but it wouldn’t be possible without so many voters being terrified of things (irrationally). The war on drugs and all the fine things stemming from it are due to the electorate’s irrational fear. Preemptive strikes. Same. Same goes for government overreach in health care (what do you want us to do, have people die in the streets?), occupational licensing, the police state and mass surveillance, protectionist laws, sexting laws ruining kids’ lives, unequal taxation yet equal representation, hate crimes and thought policing, minimum wage laws, obscenity laws, zoning laws to keep the poor away, job protection laws, and most laws (other than don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t rape) have the same origin. The weak and the afraid have been given exceptional power and they have used it to indirectly oppress those of us who prefer more freedom. And in most cases it does nothing except keep their neurosis at bay (temporarily).

  21. Hump away the Trump.

  22. You may think it’s clever alt-text, Scott, but all I can hear is that you’re a sweaty-crowd bigot! I’d welcome you to the club but, as I’m sure you can guess, groups and physical interaction aren’t exactly our thing.

  23. the organizers of Charlotte, North Carolina’s pride event have told him he can’t participate with a float touting his support for Trump

    Sounds to me like this guy was the one making it a political issue. There’s nothing really wrong or immoral I suppose with being a Trump supporter, but why can’t the guy just stay in the closet about it, why’s he gotta flaunt it in our faces? What you do in the privacy of the voting booth is nobody’s business but your own – as long as you keep it in the voting booth. If you’re going out in public swishing up and down the street in your MAGA hat and your extra-long ties and your outrageously orange spray tan, then you’re making your private business public and you’re not just asking for tolerance, you’re demanding acceptance and I just don’t swing that way.

    1. Yes, well done

    2. Hey, Tony, you slimy piece of shit, read THIS^

      1. Hey fuckface, I found it amusing that he probably thought he was making fun of gay people for supposedly being hypocrites instead of the Christian assholes they don’t want to hang around who actually believe that about gays. Or at least did as recently as a year ago until Trump instructed them to direct their energy at Muslims for now.

        1. Tony|6.9.17 @ 4:23PM|#
          “Hey fuckface, I found it amusing that he probably thought he was making fun of gay people for supposedly being hypocrites instead of the Christian assholes they don’t want to hang around who actually believe that about gays. Or at least did as recently as a year ago until Trump instructed them to direct their energy at Muslims for now.”

          Hey, turd-sucker, your reading comprehension is as pitiful as any claim you have to intelligence.
          Yes, he WAS making fun of intolerant assholes like you for acting exactly like those folks you don’t like, turd-sucker.

          1. I was starting to enjoy the flinging of faeces and recrimination between our Democlod and GO-Pee moles… until the incompetent faeces flingers got into the act.

            1. Oh fuck off you weirdo. Go rave about the ’32 election or something.

        2. So Trump is the boss of Christians now? That’s a pretty weird paranoid delusion, Tony. Maybe you should change your meds.

          1. You do know who else was boss of the Christians, right?

  24. Just as the wimmins march was not for all women, the lgbtqrstuv parade is not for all lgbt’s. So tolerant, these people.

    1. Says someone who undoubtedly doesn’t see tolerance as a virtue in the first place.

      1. We support tolerance, but you Tony, do not. You enforce acceptance and conformity.

        So if they are gay, that doesn’t actually matter because what really matters is they believe in 100% of what you believe. If they don’t hold all your positions they are not a real gay person, and they must be excommunicated from your cult

        1. It used to be liberals were all about “tolerance”. Now they’re about “conformity”. They’re fine with superficial surface diversity. This give them a sense of righteousness. When is comes to diversity of ideas and beliefs, they strongly #Resist.

          1. But diversity of beliefs is not something you actually value for your own self and the spaces around you, right? I mean, look at how liberals are treated on this website.

            You are just being a busybody and policing the behavior of liberals, whose only crime is being more decent than you, right?

            1. Tony|6.9.17 @ 4:28PM|#
              “But diversity of beliefs is not something you actually value for your own self and the spaces around you, right? I mean, look at how liberals are treated on this website.”
              Yes, look how they are prohibited from posting here, you fucking ignoramus.

              “You are just being a busybody and policing the behavior of liberals, whose only crime is being more decent than you, right?”
              No, we’re calling you on your hypocritical claim to tolerance, you fucking ignoramus

              1. First, I never made such a claim about myself. I do believe in the basic dignity of human beings and that they should be treated equally under the law and by their fellow humans decently and fairly. But nobody’s getting into my party unless they’re cool.

                Meanwhile you don’t give a shit about any of that stuff, and you don’t give a shit about excluding whomever from whatever. So your claim to ethical superiority is that you’re a monumental jackass in the first place.

                1. Tony|6.9.17 @ 4:58PM|#
                  “First, I never made such a claim about myself. I do believe in the basic dignity of human beings and that they should be treated equally under the law and by their fellow humans decently and fairly. But nobody’s getting into my party unless they’re cool.”

                  So, you fucking ignoramus, you just DID make the claim and then immediately contradicted it.

            2. But diversity of beliefs is not something you actually value for your own self and the spaces around you, right? I mean, look at how liberals are treated on this website.

              I suspect I have a far greater number of liberal friends and associates than you do conservative or libertarian ones. Hell, my own wife and in-laws are faithfully voting Democrats, although I give myself credit for convincing my wife to vote for Johnson.

              1. I suspect that’s the case because apparently you all live in the Bay area or whatever and never encounter any actual conservatives. You guys romantacize the shit out of them, but it would make your constant itch about liberals somewhat understandable. We can be insufferable in large numbers, no doubt about it.

                But my entire extended family are made up of Republicans and even a few probable cousin-fuckers. I actually live among them. They are everywhere around me.

                1. They are everywhere around me.

                  Under your bed, tormenting you like monsters, like the fucking 3 year old that you are you donkey fucking piece of shit.

                2. I suspect that’s the case because apparently you all live in the Bay area or whatever and never encounter any actual conservatives.

                  Lol, no. Various points of the Rocky Mountain West, which is a mix of libertarians, paleocons, limousine liberals, bobo leftists, and blue collar working-class types of both parties. Most of my friends and acquaintances were pretty conservative growing up, but the vast majority of them morphed into virtue-signaling liberals over the last 20 years. Says as much about Gen-Xs social malleability and the susceptibility of my class to social conformity as anything else.

            3. I mean, look at how liberals are treated on this website.

              Like adults expected to back up their arguments? Sounds rough.

              How many Prog sites just decide to BAN conservatives for being an annoying troll as you are here?

        2. The Log Cabin Republicans always show up to the parade and they are always treated with respect.

          You are butthurt because someone who likes Trump wasn’t invited to a party. And the reason he wasn’t invited was because Trump is an avatar for bigotry and everyone on the goddamn planet thinks so except his cretinous followers. It’s not hypocritical to exclude an avatar of bigotry from a parade about tolerance.

          But let’s just make sure we repeat the fact that you don’t think anyone should be compelled to do anything like this. You really think the big problem in this place right now is that some gays somewhere hurt the feelings of a Trumptard. It’s flipping ridiculous, but you rightwing nutjobs have doing this hypocrisy police routine for a long time.

          1. Tony|6.9.17 @ 4:26PM|#
            “The Log Cabin Republicans always show up to the parade and they are always treated with respect.”

            Oh, look! Tony is more than happy to show tolerance to *his* Jews.
            Let’s see, where have we heard slimy shitbags like this before?

            1. Yeah your argument is the Jews were being hypocrites for not tolerating the Nazis in their neighborhoods.

              1. Tony|6.9.17 @ 5:11PM|#
                “Yeah your argument is the Jews were being hypocrites for not tolerating the Nazis in their neighborhoods.”

                Wow, turd-sucker, it’s hard to believe even someone as abysmally stupid as you made that up.

          2. No Tony, it’s because you progtards are bigots raging against Trump.

      2. “Tolerance” of course excluding anyone with even the slightest disagreement with your political views (unless of course they disagree leftward) or are white or male and aren’t perpetually apologizing for it.

      3. Tony, you are the antithesis of tolerance. Tolerance isn’t supporting things you like, but you’re too fucking stupid to understand that.

  25. This is just proof that leftists don’t give a shit about identity, it’s all about politics. People like Tony could give a crap if you are women, gay, mexican, etc. Look at how they treat people who wander off their path and don’t support their ideology 100%. They arn’t “real” gays, blacks, etc.

    1. That’s the beauty of Ayn’s non-aggression pledge. Even the trying of National Socialist genocidal exterminators at Nuremberg was seriously hampered by European and Russian resistance (bovine incomprehension? cognitive-dissonance shock?) to the idea that there was anything wrong with the initiation of force. To this day the concept is completely alien and Amerikaner, but difficult to dismiss so long as nuclear retaliation exists as a potential enforcement mechanism.

      1. WTF are you babbling about? You just insert some obscure bullshit that doesn’t really have a goddamn thing to with the discussion or comment to which you respond.

        It doesn’t make you sound learned or clever. At best it makes you sound like a pretentious douchebag. At worst, it makes you sound like a gibbering mental patient who somehow got hold of an internet connected computer.

  26. So, these LGBT “leaders” are hypocrites and what they stand for is just more politicization of society. They’re fine with discrimination as long as they are the ones dishing it out. Why am I not surprised.

    1. As you people say all the time, discrimination is not automatically a bad thing (actually you guys are cool with it in any context, right?). It’s OK to exclude Nazis from my tolerance party. Do you disagree?

      (Again, not calling Trump supporters Nazis, but the concept remains the same, and I’m exaggerating so that you can wrap your mind around it.)

      1. Tony|6.9.17 @ 4:32PM|#
        “As you people say all the time, discrimination is not automatically a bad thing (actually you guys are cool with it in any context, right?). It’s OK to exclude Nazis from my tolerance party. Do you disagree?”
        Not so long as you claim “tolerance”, shitbag.

        1. Then you’re a moron who doesn’t understand the subject.

          1. Tony|6.9.17 @ 5:11PM|#
            “Then you’re a moron who doesn’t understand the subject.”

            Special pleading, turd-sucker.

      2. Is it ok to exclude socialists from my ‘sane people party?’ How about excluding Al Sharpton and Barack Obama from my ‘non-racist party?’

        1. Sure.

      3. Tony, you either believe in the freedom of association or you don’t. There is no picking and choosing. However, you are a massive hypocrite that wants it both ways, so you just don’t grasp the fucking concept.

        If you believe in the freedom of association, then it has to include the right of others to exclude people on a basis with which you disagree. As a self-absorbed progtard, you’re not capable of that.

        1. Tony, you either believe in the freedom of association or you don’t. There is no picking and choosing.

          This is unintentionally quite funny. Worthy of Mel Brooks.

          Both ways? All I’ve argued for is the right of the parade organizers to choose who they want to associate with, a concept that has all of your buttholes in a flaming rage because it happens to be about a Trump supporter (Trump being the most ridiculous human being on the planet give or take a Kim Jong-Un.)

          1. Yeah shitbag, both ways. You will support the parade organizers ‘rights’ as long their politics are what you approve of. That isn’t freedom of association. You’re the first one out there forcing bakers to make gay cakes for homosexuals, with the alternative being the loss of their business.

            This makes you a hypocrite and a piece of shit.

  27. Call me when you guys are done concern trolling.

    1. Why would anyone call you?

      1. As the saying goes, “take me seriously, not literally”.

        1. Then again, comparing the “untouchable” Republican platform with the equally untouchable NSDAP platform penned in 1920 or the 1933 speech announcing the Enabling Act to the Reichstag is an interesting exercise in comparative religious fundamentalism and applied collectivist altruism–seriously, literally, or both.

          1. You’re a historically illiterate fuckstain, literally, and need to get on some seriously strong meds, seriously.

            1. Notice how he always makes references to some bullshit from circa 1932 or so? It’s like he took a class on politics from that era once and spent the rest of his life foisting it on everyone in a pretentious effort to sound informed.

    2. I assume you’re upset because concern trolling is your turf.

      1. Nah. My opinions are just such that self-identified libertarians, or at least those that comment here at reason, find me annoying for my opinions regardless of my intentions.

        1. Makes sense since even your honest opinions are mostly totalitarian Marxism, but you’ve demonstrated that your intentions are always, without exception, disingenuous as well.

        2. EscherEnigma|6.9.17 @ 6:58PM|#
          “Nah. My opinions are just such that self-identified libertarians, or at least those that comment here at reason, find me annoying for my opinions regardless of my intentions.”

          WIH does that mean?
          Oh, don’t bother; baffle-gab is not worth reading.

  28. They said if we elected Trump, gays would be oppressed and forced back into the closet like second-class citizens.

    And they were right!

    1. Really? How so?

  29. In point of fact, political platforms are the precursor chemicals governments inject into policy veins to violate or ratify individual rights solely on the basis of political expediency, jobs for the boys and nose counts. In 1972 only the Libertarian Party had clear platform language promising to enforce the rights of all persons born–even women. With a single electoral vote, the Hospers-Nathan ticket shocked La Suprema Corte into enforcing those rights somewhat. The Libertarian platform also promised to repeal laws demonizing consensual sex and some drugs. Republicans just before the last election produced “my hands are tied” jurisprudence to stop troopers from rolling and robbing queers via asset forfeiture, out of fear of libertarian spoiler votes from gay sympathizers costing them the jobs and hand in the till. If any politician in the race is LGBT friendly and GOT RESULTS, that politician is Gary Johnson.

    1. Yeah the GOP was quaking in their boots that Johnson might lose in a landslide with less than 1% of the vote for the third consecutive time while proclaiming that Jews should be forced to bake cakes for Nazis and not being able to find a major middle eastern city on a globe.

      I’ll say this for Johnson though, he’s at least not a deranged fucking retard like his followers.

  30. Like a St Patrick’s Day parade rejecting a gay float?

    1. Two wrongs make a right?

  31. First, they came* for the pro-Trump gays, and I said nothing because I was not a pro-Trump gay.
    *No pun intended

  32. …under the odd and incorrect assumption that being part of the LGBT community inherently requires you to embrace of a host of political positions.

    It gives life meaning, and reasserts that there are many plantations from which one should not attempt escape.

    Perusing the comments, I see why this puppy went to over 300.

  33. As usual the left is discriminate in everything, They certainly don’t believe in freedom of thought.

  34. All Leftist identity movements are simply rationalizations for Leftist power.

    Try *not* supporting Leftist power, and you are kicked out of the identity club.

  35. The LGBTQWERTYWTFBBQIDDQD “movement” was always about pushing the hardest-left position possible and browbeating the public into actively celebrating them (because just everyone leaving each other the fuck alone isn’t sufficient to the positional Borg).

    Charlotte Pride make the critical error of thinking it was about gays being able to make statements in public without danger. The sillies.

  36. In my experience I’ve noticed that the right wants to debate you, it’s the left that wants to censor you. John Stossel is proof of this, he’s been welcomed with open arms at Fox News, Townhall, Fox Business Network, etc. He’s persona non grata everywhere else.

    But maybe this a good things. Maybe young gays will realize there’s more to life to identity, and if the gay community won’t welcome them, perhaps they’ll find other communities that will.

  37. I’ve a hunch that even if the Trump admin. supported that policy that’s the ostensible sticking point, they’d find some other way to ostracize the Trump supporters, because, in log-rolling tradition, they’re “on the opposing team”. I mean, if you’re Gay & Proud, you simply must also be, uh…against some kind of stuff those people are for, because friends of friends of friends of them are anti-Gay. Strange bedfellows indeed.

  38. It will certainly be a relieve when the next President shuts down all those concentration camps that sprang up in the past 6 months. /sarc

    “In Other News, President The Rock has abandoned his campaign promise to shut down the Trump Grand Concentration Camp Royale after learning that it doesn’t exist, another disappointing example of why Hillary should be President.”

  39. I’m way late to this discussion, and despite all the inane trolling above, I’m going to add my experience.

    This phenomenon is nothing new. This is part and parcel of the Democrat/progressive strategy. When I was in college in the 80’s I had a lot of gay friends and helped fight for respect and acceptance for them and their community. My friends helped form some of the first LGB organizations, as they were called at the time.

    And even then, people with political team oriented ideologies tried to hijack the movement, obtaining leadership positions in the organizations and then excluding people like the log cabin republicans. At least at that time there was some element of logic to it, as the Republican party was home to what became the “Moral Majority” crowd and had lots of anti-gay positions.

    But I was also in an interracial marriage throughout the 80’s and into the turn of the century. So I traveled in that community and was often the only white person at family events, community gatherings and even national Freemason’s conventions. Ideologically, a large chunk of the people I was associated with in that community were very conservative. Much more conservative than I was, or than the Republican party. But there were no Republicans – at least not that ever admitted it publicly.

    From the leadership down there was a very strong political alignment, with unbending social pressure to be a loyal democrat, despite ideological differences.

    1. The same was true of women’s rights groups. My sister was active in the pro-choice movement during the 80’s but quit associating with them because the leadership was dedicated to Democrat party loyalty,using social pressure and outright ostracism to ensure that party loyalty was enforced throughout the group. She largely discovered her libertarian streak by dealing with those people.

      Everywhere you turn, progressives take minority group advocacy organizations and attempt to co-opt them for Democrat party purposes. It is far too pervasive to be happenstance. Or even a natural evolution because of the inclusive and tolerant nature of the Democrat party.

      Since we entered the 90’s, there hasn’t been much distance between the Democrat and Republican parties on LGBTQ issues. It isn’t as if the Democrat party was on the “pro” side in the gay marriage debate. The only explicitly LGBTQ friendly politics I saw pre-Obergefell v. Hodges was on the city council level in some progressive cities. Yet somehow this has translated into lockstep enforcement of political party identity.

      Interestingly, all of these groups are even more hostile to Libertarian identification than Republicans. Probably because they stand a real chance of peeling off a chunk of loyal Democrat supporters who are otherwise conservative. I met a democrat party activist at a party last week who was a straight libertarian on the issues. When I pointed that out, she couldn’t have been more insulted.

      1. There are only two entities that are capable of accomplishing change at the government level, the Republican and Democratic party. Any interest group would be idiotic to refuse to associate with one of them. Plenty of interests (mostly cancers on society) align with Republicans. Democrats get the liberal interest groups because they do more to court them and actually work for their interests. You don’y even realize how much you’re simply whining.

  40. This is the curse of making your vote unattainable.

    Trump is more gay-friendly heading into the WH than Obama was.

    Does him no good.

    So, Tony et al — can you explain WHY a conservative should do a fucking thing for the gay community? It won’t get them a single vote. Just as black concerns are utterly ignored (Democrats do not have to work to get their vote and Republicans cannot possibly get them anyway), so will gay concerns.

    And it’s all the community’s fault.

    1. Did you seriously just ask why conservatives should bother trying to attain the sheer baseline of manners and decency since it might not do any good for their ambitions to power?

      1. Yes. Why should a Republican expend a moment of effort to help the gay community.

        Not a hard concept.

        Again, Trump is more gay friendly than Obama. He supported gay marriage openly before Obama did. Yet, the gay community hates him and will never vote for him. So, seriously, fuck the lot of them.

        If your actions will do nothing to help you but will end up helping your foes, it makes zero sense to take the action. If gays want to oppose conservatives, even those who don’t actually oppose them…then it’s exceptionally hard to argue that the GOP needs to become more gay-friendly.

        I don’t see you bending over to help gun owners or to oppose tax hikes…even though not hiking taxes would help your “side” way more than it helps mine.

      2. Did you seriously just ask why conservatives should bother trying to attain the sheer baseline of manners and decency since it might not do any good for their ambitions to power?

        And by “sheer baseline of manners and decency” you mean Hillary Clinton going around preaching for a decade that marriage is between one man and one woman, and then asking for votes from the gay community? It’s by fabulously wealthy, straight, white men and women saying that the only way in which us minorities can every achieve anything is through voting for them? That’s the kind of “decency” you advocate, and only a fool wants that.

  41. The “lgbtq” Nazis are just as hard core in their totalitarianism as “isis”. This is NOT a freedom and liberty crowd. Never has been and never will be.

    Toxic “marxism” gets them excited every time.

  42. Charlotte Pride is a homophobic organization.

  43. They aren’t “the right type” of gays.

  44. I found a great site that focuses on stay at home mom’s complete guide to gaining a serious amount of money in very little time. While being able to earn an passive income staying home with your kids. If you are someone who needs more money and has some spare time, this site is perfect for you. Take a look at…

    follow this link?..????????????

    Trump”s New Opprunuties See Here

  45. I found a great site that focuses on stay at home mom’s complete guide to gaining a serious amount of money in very little time. While being able to earn an passive income staying home with your kids. If you are someone who needs more money and has some spare time, this site is perfect for you. Take a look at…

    follow this link?..????????????

    Trump”s New Opprunuties See Here

  46. My roomate’s mom makes 95 an hour from home, she has been without work for twelve months… the previous month her pay was 12460 just working from home a few hours a day. Go to this page for more info… http://www.ezycash5.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.