Election 2020

Democratic Candidates Promise LGBT Voters They'll Punish All the Right People

A Department of Justice lawyer in every pot.

|

"This is going to be one forum where you're going to hear very little disagreement between the candidates," former Vice President Joe Biden observed. He was absolutely correct.

The event was a CNN town hall in Los Angeles Thursday night, where nine Democratic candidates were interviewed about their stances on LGBT issues. Those who tuned in for the four-and-a-half-hour show were treated, with few exceptions, to each candidate answering variations of the same questions in the same ways. What will they do about any continued discrimination against LGBT? They'll fight against it and support the Equality Act. What will they do about improving access to HIV drugs and preventative medication? They'll go after those greedy pharmaceutical companies, and all the drugs will be covered under their health care plans. What will they do about hate crimes? They'll unleash the Department of Justice against them, and hate crimes will definitely be exempted from any push to make federal sentencing less punitive. What will they do about other countries who treat arrest or execute LGBT people? They'll withhold aid and possibly even trade. What will they do about people who invoke their religious beliefs to justify discriminating against LGBT people? They won't let them, and they'll strip churches and nonprofits of their tax-exempt status if they try. What will they do about conversion therapy? Ban it. What will they do about bullying in schools and teen suicide? Get rid of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. (Seriously, her name was invoked more frequently than Donald Trump's.)

The too-long, didn't-watch version of last night's summit: Tell us who did you wrong and we'll go punish them.

The moment that's produced the biggest waves in the media is when candidate Beto O'Rourke promised to strip tax-exempt status from churches and religious schools not just for actually discriminating against LGBT people but for simply speaking in opposition to same-sex marriage. The audience applauded, and he added, "There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone, any institution, or any organization that denies the full human rights and full civil rights of every single one of us."

Here's the clip:

Needless to say, punishing churches for their positions, not just their actions, is thoroughly, unquestionably unconstitutional. It should be absolutely abhorrent to anyone concerned with freedom of speech or freedom of religion.

It shouldn't come as much of a surprise that the candidate who thinks he's somehow going to force Americans to turn in their guns also has little grasp that his tax-exemption plan will get him laughed out of court. If you care about LGBT rights, you should be glad O'Rourke doesn't have a shot: The backlash against him as a nominee would be massive. His response didn't go viral because it's worth praising; it went viral because it's a horrifyingly bad idea that will lead to terrible government abuses.

But this is what you get when the country is locked in a culture war driven by a desire to punish people you disagree with—and when millions of people believe that the president's role is to lead this war. Donald Trump is a symptom, not the cause, of the problem.

Almost every answer to every questioner featured a call for more federal involvement in people's lives. Thursday morning before the town hall, three candidates—Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.), Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.), and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg—all released lengthy plans offering not a chicken in every pot for LGBT Americans, but an entire chorus of federal bureaucrats, lawyers, and regulations overseeing every problem. No candidate even gently suggested that any LGBT issue would best be handled locally and not by the inhabitant of the White House. Indeed, when CNN's Chris Cuomo noted that the states, not the federal government, controlled many of these laws and regulations, Harris condescendingly explained that federal laws take precedence over state and local laws.

Of course, for Harris (or any of these candidates) to fulfill promises like passing the Equality Act (which every candidate onstage supported), they'll have to sway Congress. Biden and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D–Minn.) both called for voters to flip control of the Senate to the Democrats in order to make sure they can get these laws passed. Several candidates talked up the importance of controlling the next Supreme Court nominations. All the candidates promised to overturn Trump's executive orders pushing transgender troops out of military service and permitting some government contractors to discriminate against LGBT people, but nobody wanted to consider the possibility that Trump's ability to make such sweeping changes without oversight is an indication that the office of the president is itself too powerful.

Members of the LGBT community should know better than this. After decades of fighting to be treated as equal members of society, we shouldn't be trying to put the boot of the federal government on the neck of anybody who is not violating our individual liberty. Not getting a wedding cake, or not getting to teach at a Catholic school, is not enough to justify the boot.

Ultimately, the Democratic candidates offered LGBT voters whatever they wanted—so long as what they wanted was more meddling in people's lives. This is not a path to peace or an end to this bipartisan culture wars. It's an escalation. Those of us in the LGBT community who want less government involvement in our lives and want to be left alone to deal with cultural conflicts through voluntary engagement with our opponents—we're all out of luck. There was nobody at this town hall, either among the candidates or the carefully vetted questioners, to represent us.

NEXT: Everything Old Is New Again: Targeting Pro-Revolutionary Advocacy in 1952, Opposition to Gay Marriage in 2019

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. “Indeed, when CNN’s Chris Cuomo noted that the states, not the federal government, controlled many of these laws and regulations, Harris condescendingly explained that federal laws take precedence over state and local laws.”

    Even immigration? I don’t think she thought this out too well.

    1. That’s different.

      #OpenBorders
      #ImmigrationAboveAll

    2. Vox has an article up attacking technological progress. Too lazy to link to it, but it’s on the front page. Yep, a progressive is attacking the very idea of progress. And I just knew, right away, that no matter what point this fucking idiot is trying to make, his whole point will be to call for the government to come in and regulate what tech companies can and cannot do. Why is that people like the writers at Vox always default to the same thing? Never mind, I know why. It is their God, and they are worshipping. Ok, rant over.

      1. Why is that people like the writers at Vox always default to the same thing?

        These are the people who doubled down on Daenerys Targaryen representing Good Government after she destroyed King’s Landing and announced her intent to consume the world in fire and blood.

      2. The hilarious part is that vox’s attempt to take down conservatives on YouTube has led YouTube to demonetizing or banning more LBGT channels than conservative ones.

      3. This says it well:

        “The meaning of conservatism is not that it impedes movement forward and upward, but that it impedes movement backwards and downwards—to chaotic darkness and the return to a primitive state.”

        Nikolai Berdyaev

      4. “Too lazy to link to it, but it’s on the front page.”

        Man, you’re lazy.

    3. And not net neutrality. But fed law should win in everything else.

      1. Also gas mileage standards. But everything else…

    4. So they’ll punish any *church* that so much as criticizes gay marriage? Will they do the same to any *mosque*?

      1. NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    5. Why do religious organizations enjoy tax exempt status in the first place? They are some of the biggest money-raising operations in our country, I think, and their exemption from taxes is, in this agnostic’s opinion, basically a scam. Not that I am a fan of taxation, but fair is fair.

      1. Let’s go after big pharma so they don’t profit from illness and can’t afford the unimaginable time and effort to work through FDA regs to bring better HIV drugs to market. Always working at cross purposes.

      2. Why not drop taxes on everyone to make it fair? Why always punish through taxation and watch government leverage more revenue into more debt.

    6. I earned $5000 last month by working online just for 5 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. If You too want to earn such a big money tehn come and join us.

      CLICK HERE►►GoogleJobsCompany.com

  2. “Democratic Candidates Promise LGBT Voters They’ll Punish All the Right People”

    The clingers — bigots, in plain language — have been punished gays for decades and longer. Lately they have taken to cloaking their intolerance in claims of superstition, apparently thinking this improves their bigoted ways. Decent Americans should be proud of enabling gays to leave the closet and inclining the bigots to figure they should find closets and build more snowflake-coddling special havens.

    1. Hi, gecko!

    2. Arty, you k ow nothing of decent Americans. You are a traitor.

    3. “have been punished gays for decades and longer.”

      Want to try again in plain language?

      1. For millenia, actually. They controlled laws. They controlled cancel culture — no company dared offer same sex benefits in recent decades. Earlier it wasn’t even remotely a thing.

        Now the shoe is on the other foot. I can’t blame them.

        I do lament, though, that neither side learned just to live and let live. During how many centuries did people just want to live without active government opression, or winkingly look the other way under mob rule?

        1. Many companies offered same sex benefits decades ago and didnt need government to force them to. Why lie?

      2. Thanks for saving me the effort. It is hard for me to take seriously the beliefs or position of someone unable to do much as cogently articulate them.

    4. The clingers — bigots, in plain language — have been punished gays for decades and longer.

      Oh, as a gay man who has experienced plenty of discrimination, I agree: deplorable bigots like you, Kirkland, should crawl back into your basements and not show their faces among decent Americans again.

    5. Hey Rev. Asshole , when they ramp up the hate crime laws you’ll probably get the electric chair.

      1. You guys seem cranky. Finally figure which way the culture war has gone, and which way it is headed?

        1. You guys seem cranky

          Oh, believe me, as a gay man who’s experienced plenty of discrimination, I get cranky when I encounter a bigot like you.

        2. It’s cute. The Rev hasn’t figured out yet how hard the pendulum is swinging back in his face. Youth counterculture is mostly about making fun of woke cultists. Youth acceptance of the alphabet people has declined substantially in the last few years, because of shit like this.

          1. Don’t let the rev fool ya. He’s another parody account. Just a more hostile OBL.

            Dude would have to be a joke to come to a libertarian site and speak in terms of “permitting” “clingers” to “carry on” and hold their own opinions – for now. (As the rev reminds us, he and the other “betters” will rescind this courtesy just as soon as they finish winning this “culture war” and “replace” those who disagree with them).

            The rev is either a half decent attempt at comedy or sad, bitter and delusional. Not to be taken seriously either way.

            1. You sound like a genuine libertarian, EISTAU.

              A member of Libertarians For Tariffs And Protectionism.

              And Libertarians For Statist Womb Management.

              And Libertarians For Government Gay-Bashing.

              And Libertarians For Special Privileges For Superstitious Snowflakes.

              And Libertarians For Torture And Endless Detention Without Trial.

              And Libertarians For Bigoted, Authoritarian Immigration Policies.

              And Libertarians For Big-Government Micromanagement Of Ladyparts Clinics.

              And Libertarians For Trump. And Ted Cruz. And the Republican Party.

              And Libertarians For Race-Targeting Voter Suppression.

              Carry on, clinger.

              1. Haha. That’s the best ya got, rev? A bunch of silly assumptions about things I don’t even care about?

                Haha. Yup, comedy for sure, but scratch the part about half decent.

                Don’t change a thing, old man. Carry on.

    6. Gays are a threat to our freedom.

      I never thought this even last decade.

      But we know that the same political party that supports the gays also opposes the Second Amendment, the First Amendment, and possibly the Fourth Amendment.

      Either we punish the gays, or they and their anti-American allies punish us.

      Sadly, tolerance is no longer possible.

      1. Libertarianism in one lesson!

        1. I like how you stroll right past everyone here and declare this guy the Spokesman for Libertarians.

          Speaking of which, last time I saw you around here you were expressing your eagerness to share Reason’s “extensive” history of Holocaust denial, but claimed you had to run off before you had time.

          Do you have time for today, or do we need to wait longer?

          1. Given how often I read from other folks here that non-discrimination laws is why they didn’t support marriage equality, or how being anti-gay is good because “libruls”, “Michael” isn’t exactly far out here. He’s just more blunt.

            1. “Michael” isn’t exactly far out here. He’s just more blunt.

              What makes you think he speaks as a “libertarian?” Most of the anti-gay guys around here don’t even claim to be libertarians, and are here criticizing Reason and libertarians for being too gay-friendly.

              1. Most of those that “dont support gay marriage” here want government out of the marriage contract completely and want marriage upheld under contract laws only. There are almost zero anti gay folks here.

                1. Again, when asked if churches should lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage, Beto O’Rourke said yes.

                  Gays are not compatible with the United States of America.

                  They have become enemies of freedom.

                  1. I can pretty much guarantee you that your political position is a losing one, because when it comes down to it, Americans actually like their gay relatives, neighbors, and friends and won’t go back to criminalizing homosexuality.

                    Republicans and libertarians should make it clear to all minorities that they are better off with liberty than with progressivism and socialism; that’s the only way forward.

                    1. More likely we will have to dispose of our socialists if we want to survive as a republic. Many ways to do that. Both violent and non violent.

      2. But we know that the same political party that supports the gays also opposes the Second Amendment, the First Amendment, and possibly the Fourth Amendment.

        It’s not the fault of “the gays” that Democrats are trying to misuse their cause for political gain. Democrats have done sh*t for gay rights in the past.

        Either we punish the gays, or they and their anti-American allies punish us.

        Honey, dearest, “punishing the gays” is only going to give Democrats more power. And, by that logic, shouldn’t you also “punish the blacks”, because “the blacks” are in the same boat vis-a-vis the Democrats as “the gays”.

        The right answer is to show “the gays” and “the blacks” that they are better off on the Republican side because the Democrats are a bunch of authoritarian pricks who want to make minorities into their dependent slaves and throw them under the bus when convenient.

    7. Silliness is not a virtue.

    8. NEXT POST:
      The wrong reverend will bring forth the holy fire for cleansing the offenders. . .

    9. I can see the spittle spewing from your lips. Perhaps if you were to take a deep breath, gather your thoughts, and then post what you think, using standard English instead of a barrage of insults, you might be taken more seriously.

  3. Put ’em up against the wall.

  4. “The moment that’s produced the biggest waves in the media is when candidate Beto O’Rourke promised to strip tax-exempt status from churches and religious schools not just for actually discriminating against LGBT people but for simply speaking in opposition to same-sex marriage.”

    Didn’t I tell everyone what a rockstar this guy was in 2018? I suspect he really won his race against Cruz, and Republican cheating made the difference.

    #LibertariansForBeto

    1. Also, apparently Elizabeth Warren now supports taxpayer-funded gender confirmation surgery for transgender prison inmates. With this bold stance, she may have broken her tie with Kamala Harris and emerged as my undisputed top choice for 2020.

      #LibertariansForWarren

      1. I think I preferred it when progressives like Warren didn’t use weasel words like “taxpayer-funded gender confirmation surgery” and simply said what they meant: “government-funded sterilization of the undesirable”.

      2. Shes showing her bigotry. She still refuses to fund amputations for those suffering from ableism.

    2. You’re quite the comedian. No true libertarian would ever support this petulant child.

  5. After decades of fighting to be treated as equal members of society, we shouldn’t be trying to put the boot of the federal government on the neck of anybody who is not violating our individual liberty.

    Nonsense. Making the other guys play by the rules they created is how it’s done now.

  6. >>stances on LGBT issues

    are there LGBT issues?

    1. The T’s have lots of issues.

      1. Tissues?

        1. Sometimes excess tissues.

      2. everyone has issues. weed likely easier stopgap than dressing like other gender

    2. Just wake up? It’s now 2SLGBTQQIA and growing. Were gonna need a bigger alphabet.

      1. The funny thing is that half the time, extra letters are added out of sarcasm, and half the time, the extra letters are added by people who are completely serious.

  7. It sounds to me like they spent a good amount of time shooting parts of Donald Trump’s re-election commercial.

    1. Bobby O’Rourke said he would remove tax exempt status from any religious institution that did not embrace LGBT.

      So they’re all really doubling down on this. All faggots, all the time.

      1. And someone makes a post for the Democrats’ commercials.

        Given how much pseudo-anonymous posting is trolls from large organizations or even nations astroturfing, beclowned posts “opposed” could be a secret strategy to discredit the other side by making them look idiotically mean.

        That’s a huge task to winnow out.

        1. Last of the Shitlords isn’t running for president. One of these clowns is.

          1. It would be funny to see a screenshot of shitlord writing faggot in a DNC add.

            1. I actually don’t give a shit one way or the other about homos. I’m just sick of the democrats trying to jam shit down our throats, and up our assholes.

          2. I’m also being extremely sarcastic with you phrasing. I’m paraphrasing something an old guy I know once said about the democrats…. “goddammit! What is it with these idiots? It’s all faggots all the time with them anymore! Next thing they’re gonna expect us to all start suckin’ cock!”

        2. Haha. Yeah, that describes the rev to a T! Committed to making progs look repugnant while pretending to be one. Good catch!

      2. Gay-bashing right-wingers are among my favorite culture war stompees.

        Open wider, clingers. More progress on the way. Your obsequious compliance is appreciated, and has been for 70-some years.

        1. You are the queer here.

          The only church you are a reverend of is the Church of Buggerology.

        2. For all this accusation of right-wingers as gay-bashers, there’s a funny little thing to keep in mind. Libertarian and conservative gays have a pretty much universal agreement that it’s far easier for them to come out as gay to conservatives (the response is usually “that’s icky, but meh, whatever floats your boat”) than it is to come out as conservative or libertarian to liberals (“What?!? How can you do that? You are DEAD to me!”)

          Just who are the bigots here?

        3. Gay-bashing right-wingers are among my favorite culture war stompees.

          I see little difference between you and them: you’re both equally bigoted and ignorant.

  8. From The Federalist:

    A transgender woman who was being introduced to ask a question of Castro criticized CNN anchor Nia Mikayla Henderson for mispronouncing her name.

    “I want to bring in ‘Shay Diamond,’ a singer-songwriter from Los Angeles. She currently supports Mayor Pete Buttigieg. Shay, what’s your question?” Henderson asked.

    “Uhm, it’s ‘Shia Diamond,’” an irritated Diamond clapped back. “Put that on the record… It’s violence to misgender, or to alter a name of, a trans person so let’s always get that right first.”

    1. Lighten up, Shay.

    2. Only if they provide phonetic spellings of their name.

      As someone with an eastern European surname somewhat heavy on consonants, that Shia needs to get over themself and have a bit of charity in spirit.

      1. I’d have a hard time not pronouncing the “t” in response to that.

      2. Do they think they are special? My family, both the German side and the Norwegian side changed the spelling of their names because no one except other Germans and Scandinavians could pronounce them correctly.

        1. Yes, they think they are extra special. All that pandering will do that to an identity group.

          Mispronunciation is violence? Haha. Wow.

    3. I would bet a lot of Trans people cringed when they heard this. Especially the ones that have actually experienced violence because of who they are.

      What a self-obsessed twat.

      1. That’s what I worry about. People see only people who appear to be bad parodies of the LBGT community, and they think everyone is like that.

        I’ll be frank, if that woman was a paid plant from an opposing political group, she could not have done more harm to her cause than in her actions.

      2. “Twat?” Ummmm, ok, you do know that’s violence, right?

        Haha.

    4. “Would you prefer ‘cunt’ or ‘bitch’?, Ms Diamond?”

      1. How about “dick” or “jerk”?

      2. I was leaning towards Mr. Potatohead.

    5. It’s violence to misgender, or to alter a name of, a trans person

      “And I’d like to put it on the record that no, it fucking isn’t.”

      1. I saw some cringeworthy clips such as that one above. So hard to watch.

        I have to say, every time they have one of these debates, especially with moments like this, I go…”trump isnt so bad”

        They are going to bury themselves in this election with this nonsense, and they will deserve it. They will be standing there, confused, as they lose the rust belt yet again as those voters look at this kind of stuff and just shake their heads.

        1. I truly could not have imagined that I would someday even CONSIDER casting a vote for Trump — and I still wouldn’t if a decent candidate were a factor in the POTUS race (e.g., John Delaney). But I am seriously thinking about casting a “paper bag over my head” Trump vote rather than jumping into bed with any of the lunatic left goofballs. It’s bizarre, but it IS what we seem to have become. A pox on both of the major political parties.

          1. One can easily observe that Trump has an excuse: he’s not a politician, so he’s not refined in the politician’s ways. I can’t help but wonder, what are the excuses for all these Democratic candidates?

    6. >>It’s violence to misgender

      dear lord wtf.

      1. My gender is “Better than everyone else, especially protetected classes”

        1. The very idea of “protected classes” embraces the idea that some of the animals are more equal than others. The only “protected class” under the Constitution is “citizen”.

        2. impossible to know whether i’m correct until after the police are called lol.

    7. It’s pronounced “Throatwobbler Mangrove.”

      Monty Python was so fucking far ahead of its time.

  9. Thou shalt not blaspheme against the great and powerful Cher.


  10. What will they do about hate crimes? They’ll unleash the Department of Justice against them, and hate crimes will definitely be exempted from any push to make federal sentencing less punitive.

    So reduce the sentences for crimes like murder and theft, then increase the punishments for thought crimes. Seems legit.


    What will they do about other countries who treat arrest or execute LGBT people? They’ll withhold aid and possibly even trade.

    So we won’t be trading with China or any Muslim majority nations, which by their own measure is a ‘Muslim ban’.

    Also I’ve been told for a few weeks now that withholding aid from foreign nations to influence domestic politics is impeachable.

    1. Also I’ve been told for a few weeks now that withholding aid from foreign nations to influence domestic politics is impeachable.

      My thoughts exactly.

    2. Also I’ve been told for a few weeks now that withholding aid from foreign nations to influence domestic politics is impeachable.

      For personal political gain.

      That’s a very important distinction.

      1. Instead using your power to punish people for thought crimes for personal gains seems totally legit.

      2. That’s the joke Escher. Anything can be viewed as influencing domestic American politics (or personal political gain even) if you squint hard enough.

    3. “Also I’ve been told for a few weeks now that withholding aid from foreign nations to influence domestic politics is impeachable.”

      I was on board until this. You know the two are not comparable. What Trump did is illegal and an obvious breach of public trust. Say it with me now:
      The president cannot use government funds for his own reelection campaign. He cannot use foreign policy for his own reelection campaign. He cannot solicit campaign contributions of any kind from a foreign government. The government works for the American people, not Trump 2020 LLC.

      1. And did he do any of that? Not according to the transcripts.

      2. “The president cannot use government funds for his own reelection campaign.”
        – He hasn’t.
        “He cannot use foreign policy for his own reelection campaign.”
        – Foreign policy is a cornerstone of any presidential campaign since the founding.
        “He cannot solicit campaign contributions of any kind from a foreign government.
        – Again, he hasn’t.
        Thanks for making me defend the idiot Trump with your even more idiotic post.

        1. Amen, D-Pizzle. When a badly flawed stage play is subsequently rewritten for casting of clowns in a circus … I’m out.

      3. Impeachment itself is being done for political gain you raging dumbfuck. Liberals arent even hiding it but saying it publicly.

  11. This sounds like an update of the arguments against the Civil Rights Acts, racism will end by itself. No need to protect civil rights.

    1. Free individuals don’t get the choice to freely associate or disassociate with one another?

      1. If that’s the argument you want to make, then gay rights are the least of your concern. You need to go after the CRA first.

    2. That argument was correct then and it’s correct now.

      The racism that still exists today in america is in SPITE of the CRA and the diminished racism (drastically diminished i may add) since the CRA was due to cultural change not law.

      1. I think a lot of whats perceived as racism today is really “culturism” if that’s a thing. And i think it’s more suburban vs urban, than white vs black. The gap in culture (arts, language, beliefs) between the majority of people raised in urban environments and the majority of those raised in suburban or rural areas is widening for a multitude of reasons.

        And this in my mind is illustrated in the images of my grandfathers youth. He grew up italian-american in the “Hill District” of Pittsburgh. The hill was a heavily italian and African American community, known as “little Harlem” in its heyday because of its great jazz clubs. And when i look back through his photos of these places, what you notice is that whether black or white, everyone is dresses the same. At the clubs and restaurants, Black and white men have on suits and ties. Black and white women have on nice dresses. And they all are at the same clubs listening to the same music. It was a common culture. But for numerous reasons that common ground has deteriorated. It’s an interesting study that ive looked into in Pittsburgh a pretty good deal.

        1. Dizzle — excellent! There’s a Pittsburgh-raised chef in Savannah GA who is tresured for who he is and is a joy to be with …. no matter who you are or where you’re from. Racial divides and differences just evaporate when you walk through his door for great food and fellowship. He, like I, is a devotee of Nancy Wilson’s music, which plays often in the background. Now that I think of it, she’s African-American but that has NOTHING AT ALL to do with our mutual admiration of her.http://africanamericanchefshalloffame.org/2017/01/07/chef-joe-randall-announces-work-on-the-african-american-chefs-hall-of-fame/

          1. If you can find it to order online, our local public tv network, WQED (also the home network of Mr. Rogers Neighborhood) did a fantastic documentary on the hill district entitled “Wiley Avenue Days”. Itd be a treat for you i bet. I actually lived in the area for a few years after college and its pretty rough now like many urban neighborhoods…but in its heyday it was glorious. Some quick hits..

            Gus greenlee became one of the richest black men in the country, bootlegging and number running, and eventually owned the Pittsburgh crawfords negro league team and financed construction of his own ballpark. Also owned the Crawford grill #1 and #2.

            The hill was called little Harlem because it was considered the best jazz scene between nyc and Chicago. All the big players performed here and people like Billy eckstine, Stanley Turrentine, and George Benson are from there.

            Sports teams there, specifically negro league ones, dominated their competition. Winning numerous baseball and basketball championships on teams that now feature multiple hall of famers in their respective sports. The crawfords at one point had satchel Paige, josh Gibson, Judy Johnson, cool papa bell, and Oscar Charleston all on the team. All 5 are mlb hall of famers.

      2. Correct. Pandering and appealing to guilt, grievance and victim hood is the biggest obstacle to better relations between races, genders, etc. All brought to us by angry woke progs. Divide and conquer.

  12. Beto is expressing, in clear terms, what the progressive agenda has wanted for a long time. The government punishing religious beliefs they do not approve of. He is the only one desperate enough to stop softening the rhetoric.

    O’Rourke’s rhetoric is a true threat to principles of separation of of church and state.

    1. Communists like him should be in prison. He is a poster man-child for criminalizing the practice of Marxism.

      1. Imprisoning political candidates for Crimethink. What could possibly go wrong?

        1. The PRACTICE of Marxism. Words have meanings.

      2. No need for prison. He’s the guy we can keep pointing to every time the left spouts nonsense like “no we don’t intend to take your guns” or “no we don’t intend to sic the IRS on our political opponents” or “no we aren’t a bunch of spoiled assholes.”

    2. Beto is really confused why no one gives a shit about him anymore. He thought he was, like, born for this, man.

  13. “What will they do about people who invoke their religious beliefs to justify discriminating against LGBT people? They won’t let them, and they’ll strip churches and nonprofits of their tax-exempt status if they try.”

    The idea that you can tax people based on their religious beliefs isn’t just unconstitutional. It’s chock full of evil.

    1. The idea that you can tax people based on their religious beliefs is already occurring. The state decides if your religion is ‘legitimate’ via tax policy right now today.

      1. The idea that you can tax people based on their religious beliefs is already occurring. The state decides if your religion is ‘legitimate’ via tax policy right now today.

        Are you agreeing with him or saying our current tax system isn’t evil and chock full of irrational holes?

        1. I said exactly what I meant. What you read into such a simple statement is a product of your own imagination.

          If I were in a debate on the subject I’d say the following:

          It’s already happened which sort of disproves that it’s considered unconstitutional by anyone who is empowered to judge constitutionality. I’d also point out evil is relative and subjective even while I happen to agree with him.

          Certainly I disagree with the state deciding the validity of religious beliefs, but the fact remains they already are and have been for quite some time. I also agree that’s a problem, but it’s also nothing new or different.

          1. ^ This. The problem is the way taxation happens in the first place. That some businesses are exempt because the product they sell is religion is just part of the general clusterfuck.

          2. What you read into such a simple statement is a product of your own imagination.

            I didn’t read anything in or imagine anything, I asked a question. You’re talking past each other, is it in opposition or do you have orthogonal messages?

      2. “The idea that you can tax people based on their religious beliefs is already occurring. The state decides if your religion is ‘legitimate’ via tax policy right now today.”

        Even if the state deciding that not taxing churches were not necessary in order to protect the sanctity of freedom of establishment and freedom of religion, injustices don’t become any better for being perpetrated openly and often. If anything, that makes the injustices even worse.

    2. I’m not even sure that he believes any of it either. I had assumed that all his extreme rhetoric was just a ploy to try to get back in the race

    3. Can we FINALLY label environmentalism and the entire tranny movement as the religion that they clearly are?

      I mean, they sure as hell aren’t science…

      1. There are other categories available besides religion and science.

        1. I’m not sure how else to describe a non-falsifiable theory based on something besides science.

          I can happily label Christianity as a religion. It has as much scientific rigor behind it as environmentalism and trannyism.

          1. Superstition, poorly thought out beliefs, ignorance, unfounded assumptions, politically corrupted science? Those are all good ones.
            Seems to me religions have something to do with the supernatural, by definition. Your definition seems unworkably broad. I don’t think it’s useful or in line with how words understood to include all non-evidence based belief systems as religious.
            Some environmentalists certainly take a religious stance on things, elevating nature to the status of a deity. But not all.

    4. I’m sure there are plenty of D voters right now who honestly believe that being a Catholic should disqualify anyone from serving on the Supreme Court.

      1. Huh. I thought it was a requirement that you be Catholic or Jewish to be on the supreme court.

      2. It is important to note that not all Catholics are stale-thinking, broadly intolerant people who believe schools should teach nonsense.

        1. Somebody thought your school should teach nonsense.

        2. Actually, in my experience, dealing with and knowing many Catholics, practicing and non-practicing, and having married two of them, “stale-thinking, broadly intolerant people who believe schools should teach nonsense” is actually the antithesis, the absolute opposite, of nearly every Catholic I have known. Most people I have known, no matter what their faith, like myself, have no problem separating religion from science, nor dogma from law.

          1. Most people I have known, no matter what their faith, like myself, have no problem separating religion from science, nor dogma from law.

            Yeah, that was actually tested, from the nineties into the early 2010s.

            Religious folk regularly failed to separate “dogma from law” when it came to government recognition of same-sex marriage. That most religious folk today make that distinction is because they lost their fights and had to learn to reconcile, not because they made that distinction initially.

            1. False premise. They didn’t need to seperate dogma from law since the law was similar to their dogma.

            2. You are correct in that there has been a shift in public opinion. But I think there is more to it than “resignation to reality.” But then again, what do I know? lol I can tell you one thing, excepting to protect the individuals getting married, I don’t think the government should have any role in defining “marriage” at all.

            3. As the well known catholic peter griffin once said, “hey, if gays wanna get married and be miserable like the rest of us, I say let em!”

              Proof that Catholics really don’t care about gay marriage. Haha.

    5. they’ll strip churches and nonprofits of their tax-exempt status if they try.

      I was told I was a crazy conspiracist when I said this was a goal of Progressives 30 years ago. Now it is a platform talking point.

      I take no comfort in being right.

      1. I remember that within days of the USSC decision that lawsuits were already being lodged against a Kansas church for not allowing gay marriage on it’s premises.

    6. A bigger question is why churches get tax exempt status in the first place?

      1. Most are nonprofits, which broadly speaking are also not taxed. Do you believe all nonprofits should be taxed?

        1. Actually, if that were why churches lost tax-exempt status, I’d be all for it.

          The government should not be using tax policy to attempt to shape social values or behaviors.

        2. Do you believe all nonprofits should be taxed?

          Income should not be taxed. If anything should be taxed, it should be spending.

        3. I think that tax exempt status should be based on a measurable value to society. So if you operate a soup kitchen or other type charity you can be tax exempt. If you are just saving souls I am a little less likely to think you get a tax deduction. I would apply this across the board. So if your organization physically works to clean the environment you get tax exemption. If you work to change or enact environmental laws you don’t get an exemption.

          1. So, in other words, you fully embrace the notion that tax exemption should be a tool to force people to behave in ways that you personally approve of and that work towards your personal agenda, and you would like the power to arbitrarily tax and suppress activities that you don’t approve of even if they don’t harm anyone.

            Gotcha.

            1. Close the italics after “agenda.”

              1. It works either way.

            2. What I said is I want quantifiable benefits. Such as we feed 100 people 3 times a weeks. Not we saved 500 souls from eternal damnation. If you can measurable show me you saved 500 souls from damnation, maybe a letter from St. Peter stating such, I will change my mind.


              1. What I said is I want quantifiable benefits.

                Would would, of course, be subjective. You can ‘quantify’ just about anything and in just about any way you want.

                1. How is 300 meals per week for people subjective? Seem pretty clear to me.

              2. You don’t understand the function of church in the Christian religion do you? The saving of souls is the individuals choice not the churches actions. The church is for education and fellowship. I doubt you will find many Christian Churches (very few in fact) that don’t do far more than religious services. They do a ton of charity work while also assisting in mental health, addiction, trauma, grief etc counseling. Many also work with suicide prevention programs, run/raise moneys for homeless shelters, food banks etc. Even our small rural church has addiction counseling, grief counseling etc and makes blankets for Lutheran Charities and raises money for Lutheran Social Services. Many of their functions are much more difficult to quantify. Church members cook dinners for funerals so the family doesn’t have to. They give money and rides for people in need assist other members in need. Charity isn’t always quantifiable.

              3. I don’t care about feeding 100 people any more than you care about saving 500 souls. “Benefit to society” is subjective bullshit.

            3. Of course he does. Progtards use government to control how people live their lives. And the more the better.

              They also believe their feelings should determine said policies.

          2. Who gets to decide what is good for the public?

          3. Some of the biggest charities in the world are churches retard.

      2. So politicians can hold it over their head to make them do what they want?

      3. Churches are not tax-exempt because of their religious beliefs: they are tax exempt because of their non-profit status. And, not all churches are classified as 501(c)3’s, and some churches have more than one non-profit status — for example, 501(c)4 — and not all parts of all churches which receive monies or donations are tax-exempt.

      4. “A bigger question is why churches get tax exempt status in the first place?”

        In principle, it goes all the way back to why Puritans didn’t want to be taxed to support the Anglican church or the state it served–people being taxed to pay for other people’s religious beliefs violated their right to choose their own religion and their right to freely exercise the religion of their choice.

        Individuals and churches shouldn’t be taxed to pay for things that violate their religious beliefs for the same reason that atheists shouldn’t be taxed to pay for things that violate their beliefs.

        1. I have a problem with the last part of this comment. People are taxed for many things that may violate their beliefs all the time. Quakers are taxed and support the military even though they are pacifist. Moslems and Jews are taxed for agricultural supports that may include pork subsidies or assistance to pork farmers. Mormons taxes may go for agricultural support for tobacco or alcohol. Jehovah’s Witnesses’ tax might support a hospital that performs blood transfusions. The fact is that some groups want special privileges and feel that they get a say in being taxed while other groups don’t get that privilege.

          Also remember that when same sex marriages were not legal, churches that did perform same sex marriages and individual that supported same sex marriage did not get to say they were taxed and their believes were not recognized.

      5. Because tax policy is regulation and you know 1st amendment

  14. So Democratic candidates are an expressed threat to multiple civil liberties – openly stating their intention to unleash the coercive powers of the state upon anyone who disagrees.

    Wow. I never saw that coming.

    I’m as shocked as the Reason Editorial Board.

  15. Members of the LGBT community should know better than this. After decades of fighting to be treated as equal members of society, we shouldn’t be trying to put the boot of the federal government on the neck of anybody who is not violating our individual liberty. Not getting a wedding cake, or not getting to teach at a Catholic school, is not enough to justify the boot.

    Yeah, they should know better, but they don’t. And frankly, that is what is even more frightening. It is not enough to adopt a ‘live and let live’ outlook on LGBT, which is toleration; now you must openly celebrate and revel in it. It smacks of an Animal Farm orientation – some animals have ‘more’ rights than others. That never works.

    Sorry, but the law says one must tolerate – not celebrate.

    1. Who is forcing you to celebrate?

      1. Well, arguably compelling a baker to cater your celebration is an example of forcing people to celebrate it.

        1. Yeah, I am not a fan of that.

          1. Cool that you think anyone cares what you’re a fan of, but he was answering your question.

      2. There are quite a number of gay pride parades that eat up a good number of tax dollars. Whether I celebrate or not, I get billed.

        1. It’s a pity that you’re not in the same league as you lord and savior Trump. Then you can get away with not paying your bills.

          1. Non sequitor much?
            That was about the worst case of Whataboutism I’ve ever read. Since he didn’t mention Trump at all, how was that even relevant?

          2. Tony, go drink to your a Drano. Adults are talking here. You probably need to get to your second job manning a glory hole at the local bath house and cleaning up the loads.

        2. Haha. Rainbow crosswalks are awesome. Only $12k each! A bargain in taxpayer funded pandering!

      3. Threatening punishment for not holding the correct views seems only a small step from forcing you to celebrate.

    2. It us an all too often occurence in history that formerly marginalized groups do not take the alleviation of their circumstances as a chance to live and let live, but a chance for revenge.

      1. How the sub 1% will get revenge on the more than 99% will be amusing.

        Tolerance isn’t infinite.

        1. This is a key point that LGBT groups are missing in their efforts to rub Evangelical noses in their santorum (see Urban Dictionary if you’re wondering).

          Any group that represents, at best, 3% of the population is completely dependent on the acceptance or acquiescence or apathy of the majority to maintain their status.

          Push hard enough, and the majority might push back. And it might not be pretty when they do.

          Exhibit A: President Donald Trump. Evangelicals put aside their distaste for his personal life and crude rhetoric and voted en masse for him in order to prevent President Lannister from pushing the gay agenda even further.

          O’Rourke with his over-the-top pandering has now put two albatrosses around the neck of the eventual Democrat nominee. If she (probably Warren) doesn’t walk them back in her acceptance speech at the convention then she will guarantee another Trump term.

      2. This has nothing to do with “formerly marginalized groups”. The people who claim to stand for “LGBT rights” today didn’t do shit for LGBT rights. Neither did the Democratic party.

        These are progressive political hacks and self-serving “non-profits” who are viewing homosexuals as another victim group they can use for gaining power and making money.

        There isn’t even much of a gay community or bar scene anymore because it’s not needed. Almost nobody in the US gives a f*ck anymore whether you are straight or gay. You’re more likely to be discriminated against for being a redhead than a homosexual.

        1. At least homosexuals have souls.

          1. Except for ginger homosexuals, of course.

            1. Wait so gay gingers can’t burn in hell?

              1. Soulless things go to purgatory when they are slain.

              2. Indeed! That’s why gay gingers are so much fun: no guilt and no fear!

        2. There isn’t even much of a gay community or bar scene anymore because it’s not needed. Almost nobody in the US gives a f*ck anymore whether you are straight or gay.

          NOYB2….Yes, exactly = nobody gives a shit

          In my own personal experience….years ago, in my youth, I was uneasy with LGBT. Back in the 70’s and 80’s, society was very different. But then I entered the workforce and in the 90’s and early 00’s; societal mores changed. LGBT went from taboo to tolerated, but just barely. As I interacted with more LGBT people over time, my unease sort of just went away. It is probably like that for many who have a similar background to mine.

          Just observing people around me in public, I feel we have moved past ‘barely tolerated’ to ‘irrelevant’. Meaning, I think most people just don’t care, and don’t see it as relevant anymore. In my line of business, it is completely irrelevant. When I attend services, it is completely irrelevant. When I go out to eat, it is completely irrelevant. When I am sick and need to see a doctor, it is completely irrelevant. When I hire people, I could care less whether your are gay, straight, black, brown, whatever. The criteria is: Can you do the job. The point I am trying to make? There just isn’t a part of my life where LGBT is even relevant. It just doesn’t matter. So it doesn’t even occur to me to think about it.

          To me, that is full toleration. I thought this was the goal.

          1. That’s what the left wanted in the 90s California I grew up in. Now if you don’t see color, you’re literally Hitler.

          2. To me, that is full toleration. I thought this was the goal.

            It is. And your own experiences to the contrary, majorities of LGBT folk still report being discriminated against in the workplace, particularly in the more socially conservative parts of the country.

            Or to put it another way… you don’t hear about any anti-Irish discrimination cases. Why? Because no one cares. But you do hear about anti-gay discrimination cases. And violence. Because people do care.

            Your experiences are not universal, but they should be. But we aren’t there yet.

            1. I live in an extremely conservative area and most folks don’t give a fuck either.

            2. Yes, I’m sure all those claims of discrimination from people who just won’t stand for their diminishing victim status are valid.

    3. Nobody asking for rights you don’t already enjoy, and nobody’s really asking for your opinion, to be honest. If you’re as tolerant of and indifferent to LGBT people as you say you are, nothing they spend their free time doing should really affect you, n’est-ce pas? Whether that’s being politically active or having buttsex orgies.

      1. “Whether that’s being politically active”

        LOLOLO passing laws doesn’t affect people lolol Tony everyone.

    4. It is not enough to adopt a ‘live and let live’ outlook on LGBT […]

      When, precisely, have conservatives been on-board with “live and let live”?

      At the state level, conservatives/Republicans are still fighting same-sex marriage in weird and myriad ways, making it hard for trans folk to transition (both legally and medically), blocking such simple things as a GSA at a public high school, and so-on.

      Federal level is only marginally better, with Trump’s weird attacks on trans troops and the kids of gay couples, and other stuff.

      So c’mon. When have conservatives/Republicans actually been on-board with “live and let live”? They objected to Lawrence v. Texas, they objected to DADT repeal, they objected to Windsor v. United States, they objected to Obergefel v. Hodges.

      1. So your answer is to use the federal government to force people to like gays? To force churches to go against their dogma? How is that any more tolerant?

      2. Military service is about losing I individualism to support tour fellow troops. It is why they shave heads, go through boot, etc. Transgenderism is focused on the self and the expression of the self. It is counter to what boot camp attempts to teach. Likewise it is still a mental illness. You will also be sent home from combat of anorexic or attempting to cut off body parts because you are an ableist.

        This is backed by the largest study ever done on transgenderism by JHU that puts it down as a body dysmorphic issue just like ableism and anorexia. What other mental diseases do you want to force people to celebrate? We dont olay pretend with schitzos. We dont tell anorexics to eat less. We dont amputate legs from ableists.

      3. Escher…You ask a fair question; I shall answer. You asked, When, precisely, have conservatives been on-board with “live and let live”?

        Conservatives are no more a monolith than libertarians. Meaning, there is a continuum of attitude/belief with conservatives, just as with libertarians. Some hate LGBT, condemn them to hell for their lifestyle. Others truly do not care.

        But Escher, if you are talking about Team R in Washington DC for the last 30 years, I’d have to answer you this way (honestly). My perception is very few Team R politicians in the last three decades publicly professed a ‘live and let live’ attitude, let alone acted in a way politically that reflected a ‘live and let live’ orientation. When I say very few, I mean less than 20%.

  16. Those who tuned in for the four-and-a-half-hour show were treated

    LOL.

    1. Whose idea was it to devote four and a half hours to this? That’s 50% longer than the main debate that was supposed to cover all issues. Did any candidate dare decline to appear for that long?

      1. It’s so they don’t have to talk too much about gay issues at the real debates. Which is fine with me.

        1. The “real” debates is where they SHOULD be spending 90% of their time on gay issues.

        2. Nobody’s really asking for your opinion, to be honest.

        3. Haha. Yeah. Might as well get it out of the way. So much pandering to do, so little time.

      2. The SS Minnow was lost in considerably less time.

  17. What will they do about improving access to HIV drugs and preventative medication?

    So HIV IS a gay thing now?

    1. Given the incidence of it in the gay community versus the number of reported gay people in the population, yes.

      In fairness, lots of people don’t know this or can’t accept it as the truth. My wife argued with me about gay people being allowed to donate blood without question, and she honestly did not believe me about the incidence until I showed her studies on the subject.

      Notably, she works for Red Cross which is an organization that has an entire wing for blood donation. You’d think that would be knowledge one would gain in that profession, but then again she isn’t involved with the blood wing.

      Not that she didn’t have good points as well, they do test blood donations for various infectious diseases so really there isn’t as much point to restrict people based on lifestyle. HIV isn’t the only blood borne pathogen, it’s just one the really scary ones. It’s questionable how much utility we really get out of those restrictions, especially given that those exclusions are easily lied about.

      1. Some of those restrictions have been pretty stupid, like lifetime bar for donation if you have had a cancer that would have killed you inside of a year if it hadn’t been completely cured.

        They FINALLY let me donate a month ago, after having been treated for lymphoma nearly 10 years back. But only red blood cells, not whole blood. According to my oncologist, not only was I as unlikely to have lymphoma as any random person within a couple years, the chemo actually knocked back my chances of leukemia compared to the general population.

        But for life changing illnesses where the test isn’t guaranteed to be 100%, I can’t fault caution.

        1. Cancer in particular might be a good reason to bar someone from donation since cancer is generally considered ‘cured’ when the probability of it coming back exceeds the patients natural lifespan estimates. When putting that blood into another person, what is their natural lifespan estimate?

          Not that you’re necessarily wrong about the statistics of your own situation. On a long enough timeline, everyone will probably get cancer so it’s perhaps worth considering the specific probabilities.

          Either way, congrats on beating it. That’s a rough thing.

          1. Oh, and I should point out that a red blood cells lifespan is probably short enough not to cause significant long term risks for cancer in someone that receives that blood but I’m not a doctor so I can’t say for sure. I want to say they live for around 100 days or so which wouldn’t seem like a massive risk to me.

            1. Red blood cells have no nuclei. They do not reproduce themselves in the bloodstream (they are made in the bone marrow). Other types of blood cells may have cancer implications, but I am not aware of of any.

              1. Ha, a way better point. Thanks =P

        2. And I’ve been in a monogamous relationship with one guy for thirteen years, and we’re both negative. The odds of us contracting HIV are less then the odds of a random guy who picks up chicks in a bar.

          Which is to say, there’s “caution” and then there’s “we don’t actually care about the odds”.

          It would be trivially easy for the blood donation quiz to have a few follow-up questions to the gay question regarding recent sexual encounters that would separate folks who participate in actual risky behavior from those who are boring. The Red Cross is willing to do that, it’s the FDA that says no.

          1. Anecdote is not data. Also, there are plenty of relationships in which one partner is unaware of the other’s infidelity.

      2. Isn’t the issue that they test blood in batches to save money, so if one is tainted they have to throw the whole batch out? Or is that not correct?

        1. I couldn’t say, but it seems improbable that would be the case since I don’t know how you could test individual donations as a batch.

          1. I would guess by mixing samples from each together, and then testing that?

            1. Maybe, I’m not sure what all the relevant factors are so I won’t theorize.

              I don’t have a problem with them asking risk assessment questions personally since it will likely weed out some potentially infected supply. It definitely won’t weed out all infected supply though, I think we agree there.

              I’d suspect that certain blood types, say universal donors, are probably looser guidelines that get tested on a per unit basis but who knows. Not all blood types are equally valuable.

              1. I’d suspect that certain blood types, say universal donors, are probably looser guidelines that get tested on a per unit basis but who knows. Not all blood types are equally valuable.

                They aren’t all equally valuable, but you generally can’t freeze whole blood and after about 42 days, it’s all equally valueless. The time delay between typing and subsequently infectious disease testing is more costly than testing everything at once.

                Serum products can be frozen and tested later, but typing isn’t as broadly critical for them.


                1. The time delay between typing and subsequently infectious disease testing is more costly than testing everything at once.

                  I’m not sure I follow what you’re saying here.

                  1. I’m not sure I follow what you’re saying here.

                    Taking a day to type, decide if it’s worth pooling or not and then taking the next day to test pooled/individual samples is more costly/less efficient/less effective than just blindly testing everything for type and disease content all at once.

                    1. decide if it’s worth pooling or not

                      Literally pooling serum or figuratively pooling all the blood of a type not worthy of testing.

        2. I can’t believe they’re batch testing blood. Blood donations aren’t widgets produced on an assembly line.

          1. Whole blood, they generally don’t. Plasma and other blood products, it depends.

        3. Nope.

          They don’t accept openly gay donors because the FDA bans it. Cost isn’t a consideration.

          1. Last I checked, this isn’t actually true. Gay men can donate blood, with certain stipulations.

      3. Not that she didn’t have good points as well, they do test blood donations for various infectious diseases so really there isn’t as much point to restrict people based on lifestyle. HIV isn’t the only blood borne pathogen, it’s just one the really scary ones. It’s questionable how much utility we really get out of those restrictions, especially given that those exclusions are easily lied about.

        This is a pretty low brow conclusion. Ever bought life insurance? Asking someone not to donate is virtually always cheaper than going through the donation and testing process and discovering they were lying. Some people, apparently like your wife, aren’t aware of the prevalence of the disease and/or it’s implications in donation and collection.

        Moreover, somewhat ancillary to donation, if you ask and they lie and donate, the responsibility for the current and future infections is theirs, not yours.


        1. Asking someone not to donate is virtually always cheaper than going through the donation and testing process and discovering they were lying.

          Except, notably, they’re going to do the second step regardless so cost is a moot point. You’d be a damn fool to rely on honest personal assessments of risk factors by the person donating blood.

          1. Except, notably, they’re going to do the second step regardless so cost is a moot point.

            Unless the person opts not to donate. Then you’ve saved on collection, storage, and testing costs. It’s only a problem for high risk liars. As long as the overwhelming majority isn’t *both* at high risk *and* ignorant or liars, at least asking offers a potential savings of the collection materials, storage, and testing. The only way it wouldn’t is if the majority of the population were *both* high risk *and* knowingly or not, lying.


            1. Unless the person opts not to donate.

              If we’re honest it’s unclear what the specific savings would be given that some of the people who would be disqualified by the verbal screening won’t have any infection at all. Likely even most of them.

    2. Can we go back to calling it GIRD?

    3. A “gay thing” in that it’s an issue the community cares about? Um, always has been.

      A “gay thing” in that it’s something straights shouldn’t worry about? Um, never has been.

      1. None of the above should have been an option, and it’s the option I choose.

  18. They’ll unleash the Department of Justice against them, and hate crimes will definitely be exempted from any push to make federal sentencing less punitive. What will they do about other countries who treat arrest or execute LGBT people? They’ll withhold aid and possibly even trade. What will they do about people who invoke their religious beliefs to justify discriminating against LGBT people? They won’t let them, and they’ll strip churches and nonprofits of their tax-exempt status if they try. What will they do about conversion therapy? Ban it. What will they do about bullying in schools and teen suicide? Get rid of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. (Seriously, her name was invoked more frequently than Donald Trump’s.)

    Criminal justice reform- unless we don’t like your opinions! Interfering in a foreign nation’s political process? Totes ok. Conversion therapy, 100% fine as long as we’re injecting kids with hormones and performing life-altering surgery to make them not gay.

  19. If gay marriage opponents were smart, they’d have put people like this all over TV before the Obergefell decision. Nobody can ACTUALLY like people like this.

    1. If gay marriage opponents were smart, they’d have put people like this all over TV before the Obergefell decision

      If gay marriage opponents were smart, they would have adopted the libertarian position that marriage is a private and religious issue and that government should keep its grubby, corrupt hands off of it.

      Furthermore, there were no such people before Obergefell; these kinds of radical, idiotic political partisans came into existence after it was safe to speak out in favor of gay marriage.

      Heck, gays and lesbians never asked to be stuck together with a whole bunch of other letters. As a gay man, I have no more in common with a man who wants to cut off his wiener than any straight man does. “LGBTQ+” is itself a bizarre political construct and does not represent a single interest group.

      1. “they would have adopted the libertarian position that marriage is a private and religious issue”

        Some did. They were shouted down by the Quislings and appeasers.

      2. It’s always struck me as odd that transgender people are even in that basket in the first place. Unlike being gay or lesbian, being a transgender person is a demonstrable delusion which is almost certainly a mental health issue. By lumping them in with gay and lesbian people, it inadvertently says that being gay or lesbian is also a mental health issue which doesn’t seem true to me.

        As an example, I don’t know any gay or lesbian people who have beliefs that are contrary to objective reality unless they also have a mental health disorder entirely separate from their sexual preferences.

        1. Well, now they will claim that being trans isn’t a mental disorder either.
          Which just seems absurd to me. If being so unhappy about your body that you are willing to entertain radical physical modifications of your body isn’t a problem, I don’t know what is.
          I have plenty of sympathy for such people, and if they really think sex reassignment is the best way to go it’s none of my business. But I don’t think we do them any favors by encouraging them to reject other approaches to dealing with the problem.
          At some point we are going to see a lot of lawsuits about this stuff.

          1. I know they want to pretend like being trans-sexual isn’t a mental health issue, but again it is demonstrably a real delusion.

            Is it possible for a man to know what it ‘feels like’ to be a woman when they are demonstrably not a woman? What does being a woman ‘feel like’, exactly? Can it be described? Can it even be known to someone that isn’t the thing itself?

            One might just as well say that someone can not only know exactly what it’s like to be a horse, but that they can know with such precision to claim to be one. It’s absurd at face value.

            1. Good point. By the same token, no man or woman even knows what it feels like for anyone else to be a man or woman.

        2. It’s just politics to increase the numbers. Just wait til they add N for Nambla and you’ll be expected to defend Shreek.

          1. I can’t in good conscience compare pedophiles to any of the categories that fall under that umbrella given that pedophiles are having sex with people who are considered unable to consent to sex thus there is an actual victim. That can’t be said of the LGBTQBBQ folks.

            1. Unless they change that perception. Doesn’t the whole 4-year old trans thing go a ways into declaring 4 year olds capable of consent?

              1. Those aren’t comparable things, it’s an apples and oranges situation. You’re talking about the agency of the parents not the child.

                And as far as changing the perception, I think you’ll find that even convicted murders and rapists look down on pedophiles and tend to stab them in prison. That doesn’t look much like social acceptance to me.

                1. “Those aren’t comparable things, it’s an apples and oranges situation. You’re talking about the agency of the parents not the child.”

                  So, a blanket, unsupported dismissal. And then an inaccurate observation, because we’re talking about the agency of both. Courts have ruled that parents, against their will, must provide for gender reassignment.

                  So no, it isn’t just the parent’s agency here.

                  1. I wasn’t aware of a court case affirming that in the United States. I’d be happy to read it if you could direct me to it, the one’s I’m finding are from Australia and the U.K.

                    1. Well, the was a case in Ohio with a 16 year old. Then there was this law.

                      https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/06/05/new-law-allows-government-to-take-children-away-if-parents-dont-accept-kids-gender-identity

                      All of which is beside the point. The question was “whole 4-year old trans thing go a ways into declaring 4 year olds capable of consent?”

                      I’m not sure how it being Australia or UK really does anything to dispute that. If the idea is becoming mainstreamed, that it happens first in other places doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.

                    2. So, Canada. Ok.


                      I’m not sure how it being Australia or UK really does anything to dispute that.

                      Really? So the law doesn’t vary between nations on age of consent? That’s news to me.

                2. There are locales that will take the child from a parent who will not go along with their child’s professed desire to change their gender.

                  I think neutering a child before they even hit puberty is horrifying, but to the Left, it seems a small price to pay.

                  …then again, the “scientist” behind the entire tranny movement was a deplorable lump of shit who could not have died painfully enough.

        3. It’s always struck me as odd that transgender people are even in that basket in the first place.

          Any more odd than classifying millions of blacks who immigrated long after slavery as victims of slavery? Any more odd than classifying white Americans as being responsible for slavery, despite most of their ancestors coming to the US after slavery was ended? Any more odd than the classification of women as a minority? Face it, intersectionality, victim status, and progressive classifications of people by race, gender, ethnicity, etc. make no sense.

          Here’s a simple explanatory table of progressive thinking:

          dark skin = victim of racism and slavery
          light skin = perpetrator of racism and slavery
          deviant sexual habits = “LGBTQ+”, victim of social conservatism
          non-Christian religious = victim of Christian discrimination
          Christian = perpetrator of discrimination and injustice based on social conservatism and religious discrimination

          1. I would indeed say that the transgender inclusion is actually more unusual since it’s utterly unlike any of the other things in the basket it’s in.

            There are specious arguments one could make for the things you list that are at least grounded in some version of reality, however distorted. In the case of transgender, there is no logical argument to be made other than it is a delusion. Delusions are typically mental health issues.

            There are non-harmful delusions (we never landed on the moon, green is lucky) and then there are harmful delusions (I need surgery to look like a sex I am not, I need to take drugs unrelated to a specific health issue.)

            I should also note I don’t believe every case of gender dysphoria IS a harmful delusion, but I’ll also mention I have never met someone with that disorder that wasn’t suffering from other mental health issues.

          2. Haha. If you can see all this, how can you say it makes no sense?

            If it can be exploited, it makes sense.

            1. If it can be exploited, it makes sense.

              I suppose conmen, fascists, socialists, and cult leaders just don’t exist in your universe.

              1. Not nearly as much as yours, for sure.

                EVERYTHING IS SO TERRIBLE AND UNFAIR!!!!!

                Haha.

      3. Gays and lesbians have never been asked to be stuck together either, from what I can gather. Not a lot of common community there. I can see some reason to it when gays were really being seriously discriminated against. But there is no reason to lump all the alphabet soup of it together now. Except annoying activists need something to keep their phony-baloney jobs going.
        I find it really annoying how LGBTQ has become the goto term. I can only imagine that if I were gay it would be even more aggravating. Sharing a single characteristic does not make a community.

        1. Well, being gay and being lesbian are essentially the same thing so it seems they have a hell of a lot more in common with each other than with transgender people. Or people who just like having sex with anything that breathes. I also don’t really understand what ‘queer’ is even supposed to mean.

          1. I’m baffled why more gay activists do not bitch more about the lumping of the “T” with them.

            A great many trannies, by and large, would grow up to be gay men/women if NOT pumped full of drugs.

            And the even sadder part is puberty blockers do little more than insure that the surgery would be impossible. The “doctors” need SOME material to craft fake genitals out of and, well, no puberty usually equates to having very little material to craft anything out of.

          2. I’m thinking more of actual community. Gay men and lesbians don’t hang out a lot, from what I hear. Pretty different subcultures.

            1. Ah, that makes a lot more sense. I didn’t realize what you meant.

        2. Gays and lesbians have never been asked to be stuck together either, from what I can gather. Not a lot of common community there.

          Homosexuality in men and women is actually conceptually, legally, morally, and socially quite similar, which is why gays and lesbians have traditionally often cooperated and do have common social organizations. But that was a voluntary, historical collaboration.

          These days, progressives stick “LGBTQ+” together as “all that icky deviant sexual stuff that social conservatives don’t like”.

        3. I can see some reason to it when gays were really being seriously discriminated against. But there is no reason to lump all the alphabet soup of it together now.

          You mean besides not being a craven mercenary who thinks “I got mine, you’re on your own” is an ethical and moral viewpoint?

          1. You mean besides not being a craven mercenary who thinks “I got mine, you’re on your own” is an ethical and moral viewpoint?

            Who do you think owes you something they’re not giving you?

            1. Anyone who owes something without giving it? A customer at a restaurant who doesn’t pay the bill. A person enjoying the costly benefits of civilization without paying their user fee.

              1. Anyone who owes something without giving it? A customer at a restaurant who doesn’t pay the bill.

                Yes. We all understand what those English words mean. Thank you.

                What do I owe you that you are not getting from me?

              2. The poor?

              3. A person enjoying the costly benefits of civilization without paying their user fee.

                The “costly benefits of civilization” can be had for at most 5% of US GDP; we know that because things used to work that way.

                The other 45% of GDP that the government forcibly extracts is corruption, corruption that you voice full throated support for.

            2. You, and an explanation on what part of my rebuttal was unclear.

              1. You, and an explanation on what part of my rebuttal was unclear.

                Oh, what you said was clear.

                What’s not clear is what I owe you that you are not getting from me.

                Can you clarify?

          2. Any gay person is free to support the transgender cause. What I object to is the desperation to keep playing the victim card as long as possible. The activists no longer represent the interests of the people they claim to represent. Among the reasons I dislike it is that I think it is likely to be ultimately counterproductive to the cause of increasing the already broad social acceptance that has come about in the last several decades.

            1. Gee, ya think?

              Now do race.

              Haha.

      4. I have a friend, mostly libertarian, who was against gay marriage because he thought government should be involved. He changed his opinion when I pointed out that freedom allows you to do what you want and it was government intervention that was preventing them from marrying.

        1. Government involvement is a minarchist position, which fits into libertarianism.

          The concept is that the nuclear family promotes a stable social unit that promotes ethics and social values while providing a natural social safety net. This inocculates society from pathologies that demand large government to take care of the mess.

          In so far as a stable family unit limits individuals’ dependence on government, minarchists can support government promotion of that family unit through marriage.

          1. I can’t tell, are you trying to argue against or for same-sex marriage?

            ’cause we’ve known for years and years before Obergefel that all the social goods from marriage your’e talking about accrue in same-sex marriages too.

            1. Do they? I question whether non-familial adoption and genetic donation are beneficial, but I know that pandora’s box is even a futile argument.

              Studies of the children of such unions have been all over the place on this, so I’m not certain the scientific data is there to support the jury’s conclusion, so my personal opinion will stick with the superiority of biological connections, where all the rest being equal.

            2. Actually, I lost site of the argument in my last comment.

              The place where non-familial adoption, genetic donation, and various formulations of same sex coupling family units is that they require MORE government to enforce, not less.

              There was a court case not to long ago where the biological father lost custody of his child to his gay partner after a divorce. That kind of mess requires more government to shift through the details and enforce it on naturally uncooperative citizens.

              1. I question whether non-familial adoption and genetic donation are beneficial

                So, are you saying adopting a child to whom you are not genetically related should be illegal? How do you feel about abortion? Because if that’s what you’re arguing, I’m seeing a weak spot.

                There was a court case not to long ago where the biological father lost custody of his child to his gay partner after a divorce. That kind of mess requires more government to shift through the details and enforce it on naturally uncooperative citizens.

                But if a biological father lost custody of his child to the child’s step-mother, would that be okay?

                I don’t understand how requesting that government not specifically forbid something is “requiring more government involvement,” nor do I understand in what universe you could call your argument for having the government restrict people’s personal choices “libertarian.”

              2. The place where non-familial adoption, genetic donation, and various formulations of same sex coupling family units is that they require MORE government to enforce, not less.

                Only if you compare them to mommy+daddy and their biological children.

                If you compare them to comparable het couples, there’s no difference.

                So unless you’re arguing against het couples doing that stuff, this entire argument is a red herring.

          2. In so far as a stable family unit limits individuals’ dependence on government, minarchists can support government promotion of that family unit through marriage.

            The Chinese government called – it likes the cut of your jib.

  20. This is one of the primary reasons I objected to Obergefel, aside from the “stop amending things from the bench!” objection.

    You KNEW they wouldn’t stop at merely permitting SSM, that they would HAVE to move on to punishing anybody opposed. No victory by the left is ever compete until they’ve crushed everybody who dissented from it. Winning is never enough.

    1. Social conservatives make the same assumption as progressives, namely that it is the job of government to impose values on the people. Of course that’s a zero sum game. In other words, social conservatives have gotten hoisted by their own petard.

      Don’t like government defining marriage one way or another? Take the libertarian view that government should get out of marriage. If you take any other view, you get what you deserve.

      1. The government wasn’t defining marriage. It was just rolling with the definition it had had throughout all of recorded history.

        You know when the government defined marriage? When the Supreme court ruled in Obergefel. When the Court decided they were going to change the meaning of a word the government had no role in defining to begin with.

        1. “The government wasn’t defining marriage. It was just rolling with the definition it had had throughout all of recorded history.”

          Exactly! There were no multiple wives in the Bible!

          1. Bible-approved marriages only!

            One or more wives, and some concubines!

            1. One man, and a pillar of salt!

          2. Our marriage laws (used to) best reflect Roman marriage laws, specifically those enacted in Caesar Augustus’ social reforms precipitating his Golden Age.

            They were never derived from the Old Testament examples of marriage.

            1. Our marriage laws (used to) best reflect Roman marriage laws, specifically those enacted in Caesar Augustus’ social reforms precipitating his Golden Age.

              And if they still reflected those laws, particularly about the legal rights and responsibilities of a man’s spouse, gays would have stayed so far away you couldn’t even see us with your horribly misogynistic marriages.

              Marriage had to become much more equal on it’s own before gays were interested in marriage equality.

              1. Roman marriage was more equal than you think. Rome was not a modification of Spartan culture, but Athenian and Etruscan. Both were far more liberal with their women than we give credit for.

                Etruscans were matriarchal.

                1. Etruscans were matriarchal.

                  Cite?

                2. Um…. Spartan society in regards to women was FAR more liberal than Athenian. Women were educated, were free to own property, in many cases had to conduct business because Spartiates were forbidden from doing any business other than being soldiers. Athenian women were little more than slaves.

            2. Our marriage laws (used to) best reflect Roman marriage laws, specifically those enacted in Caesar Augustus’ social reforms precipitating his Golden Age.

              Nope. Our marriage laws are Anglo-Saxon in origin, coming to us via English Common Law. Roman marriage laws were very different from ours.

        2. The government wasn’t defining marriage. It was just rolling with the definition it had had throughout all of recorded history.

          What the government’s definition derives from is irrelevant. The fact is that government has a legal concept of “marriage” peppered throughout various laws, and a gender-specific version of that arguably violates equal protection. Hence, after Obergefell, the legal term “marriage” now refers to something you might prefer to call “domestic partnership”. Other people called gay couples married long before Obergefell; my church, for example, has been marrying homosexual couples for a quarter of a century.

          It happens all the time that legal terms deviate from their colloquial meaning. Sorry about that. Welcome to the real world.

          (Let’s not even get into the fact that “throughout all of recorded history” is wrong.)

          1. Marriage existed before government glommed onto it so divorces would be easier. Government doesn’t sanctify it, so letting gays get married by government trashes nothing of your religious marriage.

            So many religious equate government marriage as a God-blessed union, for some reason.

            Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s and to God what is God’s

        3. Except that Obergefell didn’t update the definition of marriage to one that was sex-neutral. There are explicit call outs in the ruling to certain categories of sex-neutral marriages that Anthony Kennedy didn’t like, so felt free to exclude.

          It’s still an arbitrary judgement of the government over what religious ceremonies will or will not be rewarded.

  21. Robert Francis O’Rourke: “There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone, any institution, or any organization that denies the full human rights and full civil rights of every single one of us.”

    Also Robert Francis O’Rourke: “Damn right we’re going to take your guns!”

    If he doesn’t believe he should be President, why is he still running?

    1. To say things that other candidates don’t dare say, and to make their far-Left positions appear more moderate.

      That, and he’s an entitled, narcissistic prick who likes attention.

  22. Beto: Church doctrine must align with State doctrine, or else. Where have I heard that before?

    1. The Vatican?

  23. It is clear and obvious now.

    Gay people are a threat to civil rights.

    to remain free, we must persecute them hard.

  24. There’s a video on YouTube with Gilbert Gottfried roasting George Takei at a Friar’s roast. It would make liberal heads explode.

    1. Thanks for the tip. It’s getting more and more difficult to find some good old-fashioned gay-bashing when you are looking for laughs.

      1. George Takei is a self-righteous prick who stayed in the closet for most of his career and now tries to pretend that he’s been some great defender of gay rights throughout his life.

        Takei is a hypocrite. Just like you, Kirkland.

      2. Haha. Yeah, we know you’re always looking for virtue signaling opportunities. So genuine!

        Carry on, old man. You and your ilk are setting back tolerance for the benefit of being able to pat yourselves on the back. Well done!

        Don’t change a thing.

  25. Ultimately, the Democratic candidates offered LGBT voters whatever they wanted

    No, Democratic candidates offered “LGBT voters” what Democrats offer all identifiable minority groups: a victim identity, identity, and special handouts. I doubt most “LGB” voters give a damn.

    1. Oh my god, can we have the rocking chair and the pipe smoking but you stop making mouth noises, grandpa?

      1. Oh my god, can we have the rocking chair and the pipe smoking but you stop making mouth noises, grandpa?

        Oh, Tony, Tony dear, your dementia is really getting to you. It’s you, Tony, grandpa, who’s sitting in the rocking chair and smoking a pipe, and it’s you who is making those disgusting mouth noises.

        1. Meh, I do have my problems with the way gay activism has transformed since my day. Used to be about thick skin, sticks and stones, humor. Now it’s all about whining and demanding.

          Or it could be that’s just a caricature spread by the forces of evil. Who can really say? Is there data on this?

          1. CNN and the Democrats running for president are the forces of evil?

            Sounds right, actually.

    2. That a typo, or are you trying to argue that most LGB folks would happily jettison trans folk?

      If so, that’s… not supported. At all. Republican LGB voters are pretty anti-trans, but the community as a whole is fine with trans folk.

      1. Don’t see why they would be. Gay men/women have literally nothing in common with trannies.

        1. It’s worse than having nothing in common. The concept of transgenderism is directly opposed to the goal of sexual freedom that homosexuals have long been fighting for. Transgenderism holds that, where sex differences are concerned, ones thoughts and feelings must comport with ones physical form and outward appearance, and that it’s natural to feel extreme distress about any perceived mismatch. That belief is sexism itself. Transsexual “transitioning” is the most extreme expression of sexism possible.

        2. And I don’t see why someone would be sexually interested in women. So what? You don’t have to understand someone to respect their decisions.

          1. I’m also not obligated to humor them.

            Victorians had less rigid gender rules than trannies have, The concept of a tomboy doesn’t exist in the tranny community.

            1. In fairness, I’ve never seen any evidence that the current crop of “trans concerns” that have been adopted by Progressives actually have a source in the “Trans Community,” if there is, indeed, such a thing (which I’m also not convinced there is).

      2. are you trying to argue that most LGB folks would happily jettison trans folk?

        Most LGB folks would happily jettison trans folk.

      3. Have you completely missed the L vs T GLBT civil war?

        Go look up “TERF”.

        1. There are also rising voices among the Gs that genderism erases the concept of homosexuality by denying the physical reality of the sexes, and that encouraging male-to-female “transitioning” of boys amounts to a genocide against Gay men. They’re not yet easy to find yet, though. If you search you’ll more easily find those speaking out to condemn them.

          https://medium.com/@Phaylen/why-are-more-gay-men-turning-on-transgender-people-14612aa2d831

  26. Eliminate tax exempt status for ALL churches. Problem solved.

    1. Do you also eliminate it for secular charities?

      1. That would certainly eliminate a lot of the corruption by “non-profits”.

    2. Exempting churches entangles government and religion. Not exempting them entangles it more.

      A church behind on its taxes might get its building seized. At that point, a law, taxes, is “interfering with the free exercise thereof”.

      That’s basically the shot across the bow of government on taxation of churches in one of the few relevant court cases. Politicians pretend it’s tax exemption by their good graces, but it’s not.

      1. Exempting churches puts the government in the position of decided what is or is not a religion. That’s “entangled” as hell.

        A church behind on its taxes might get its building seized.

        Just like anyone else who owns a building for any other purpose. Like, a newspaper that doesn’t pay its taxes. Or, someone whose firearms are auctioned off due to bankruptcy. Equal treatment, regardless of whether the government has decided that your activities constitute “religion”.

      2. And churches that fall behind on their rent get kicked out.

        What’s the issue?

        1. It removes the temptation for abuse of tax law to punish views of a religious group a government official dislikes. It is preemptive.

          Kind of like how a religious test is not to be used as a reason to deny someone a position in government service is a provision in the main body of the constitution.

  27. Needless to say, punishing churches for their positions, not just their actions, is thoroughly, unquestionably unconstitutional.

    This is false since “unconstitutional” means whatever 5 of our robed priests says it means regardless of the text or meaning.

    1. I can’t see the Roberts court going along with it. This policy, if enacted, would probably get a 9-0 smackdown.

      After 8 years of a President O’Rourke or Buttigieg, that might change.

  28. It’s not punishing churches to rescind tax exemption. It’s fairness, regardless of their position on gay rights. If you can tax people for selling widgets, you can damn well tax them for selling bullshit.


    1. It’s not punishing churches to rescind tax exemption.

      When you selectively rescind tax exemption, it is.

      1. Who said anything about being selective?

        1. Beto. You know, the person the article mentions specifically?

          1. He should go back to his guitar and saying fuck.

            1. It’s always funny how you assholes ask stupid questions, get an answer that makes you look dumb, and then just stumble on like it never happened.

    2. If selling bullshit were taxable, we could eliminate the national debt by taxing the IPCC.

      1. Denying science is embarrassing.

        1. It sure is. If a narrowly selected set of high priests who’ve been plied by billions in research grants say something is true, then science demands you don’t question it… ever!

          1. Whatever you say. *Pats your head*

            Because there’s definitely no money in climate change denial. Not like the most profitable enterprises in the history of earth, pshh.

            1. Because there’s definitely no money in climate change denial.

              Please look up how much is spent by the global energy sector vs. how much is spent by global governments on climate change research and propaganda.

              Please.

              1. Hey! Heartland Institute had several hundred thousand dollars of income for their Climate Change Denial ™ program!

                That’s way more than the billions spent of climate and green energy research every year (mostly by “Big Oil”).

                1. Not sure if you’re being sarcastic (Poe’s Law, and all), but if you actually look at the numbers you’ll find that the “Climate Change Denial Complex” at most is like two or three full-time employees.

                  Government spending is in the billions annually.

                2. Ask him why he thinks Big Oil is spending money to fix a problem that’s a hoax.

                  1. Same reason companies pretend that trannies are a real thing.

                    PC, babee!

                    1. Uh huh.

                      You are the only people on planet earth, oil companies included, that buy into blogger climate denial horseshit. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

                    2. You are the only people on planet earth, oil companies included, that buy into blogger climate denial horseshit.

                      Let’s see, last time I asked you this I think it was the 932nd time.

                      So I’ll ask you for the 933rd time:

                      What is it you feel ‘we’ are ‘denying?’

                      And instead of just saying “consensus,” why don’t you make an attempt to show that you know something about the science that I’m unaware of.

                    3. You tell me what you believe that differs from what current science says, then I’ll be able to tell you back.

                  2. Ask him why he thinks Big Oil is spending money to fix a problem that’s a hoax.

                    Why don’t you ask me yourself?

                    Is it because I wind up making you look like an ignoramus every time you attempt to discuss this with me directly?

                    1. And as an added bonus, please be specific about how much you believe “Big Oil” is spending to “fix a problem” and please detail what specific actions they have determined need to be taken to “fix a problem” with all the science-ing they’ve been doing.

                    2. It may well be the most impressive conceit in world history that changing weather is not only caused by man, but can be predicted and legislated into submission.

            2. “Because there’s definitely no money in climate change denial. Not like the most profitable enterprises in the history of earth, pshh.”

              Do you REALLY want to compare the money in skepticism as opposed to acceptance of environmentalism?

              1. A pittance got Trump elected with the help of Facebook. Propaganda is not that expensive. The internet is where deniers get all their stupid fucked-up nonsense, and all they have to do is make sure to select only the random blogs that confirm their denialism. Blogs are cheap. Science is not, and neither will fixing this problem, especially the longer we wait to do it.

                1. Tell me more about “hiding the decline”. Please. Or why FOIA requests should be needed to get DATA FOR “SCIENCE”. I’m dying to hear about it.

                  I know when Einstein proposed relativity, he used an autistic child to sell it and certainly didn’t provide means of disproving it.

                  1. Tony doesnt know jack shit about the science. The most he can repeat is the Oreskes or Cook claim of 95% he doesnt know how either study was done or that both have been largely debunked. Tony’s whole climate change belief is backed by those 2 social scientists.

                  2. Your talking points are like 15 goddamn years old.

                    Just read something. Anything that’s credible. One fucking article. Wikipedia even. Jesus Christ, you have to try really really fucking hard to be this dumb.

                2. Propaganda is not that expensive.

                  Good. You’re starting to take your first steps.

                  Now look up who spends more on propagandizing between governments and ‘Big Oil.’

        2. How many genders are there?

          1. Depends on which language you’re talking about.

          2. In which language?

        3. Is there where tony pretends the science in the IPCC report is found in the political report and not the other reports? Because what most of tony thinks is contradicted by the IPCC report itself.

    3. Do you believe in taxing all nonprofits? If not, then yes, it is punishing churches.

      1. Churches are not nonprofits, is the point.

        1. Most nonprofits are not nonprofits.

        2. No, you’re a bigot looking for an excuse is the point.

            1. You’re a towel!

              Haha.

  29. Anyways, the only lasting effect this forum will have is Elizabeth Warren winning yet again with the help of a good zinger and Biden talking about “gay, gay bath houses. Round the clock sex.”

    1. “It’s her turn!”

      1. I don’t see how that’s not a sexist comment.

        1. You say that as if I gave a f*ck about being called “sexist” by you or anybody else. I no doubt hold lots of beliefs that you would consider sexist and racist.

          Why don’t you take your pearl clutching to someone who might care, like the Clinton campaign staffers who wanted to use that phrase as a Clinton campaign slogan.

          1. The question is why it’s relevant to Senator Warren. It’s hardly “her turn” in terms of insipid punditry. So what gives?

            1. No, the question is why you called a Hillary campaign slogan “sexist”.

              The reason it applies to Warren is because Warren has the same dumb sense of entitlement as Hillary; her genitalia have nothing to do with it.

    2. Warren — Hillary without the charm?
      Warren — who seems fundamentally opposed to basic truth?

      Her?

    3. The zinger that was set up by one of her supporters? And they claim media isnt in the bag for democrats. Cox, the person asking that question, is a max donor and coordinated with Warren’s office.

  30. “Not getting a wedding cake, or not getting to teach at a Catholic school, is not enough to justify the boot.”

    Say it about black people and see if it still sounds cool.

    1. Not getting a MAGA cake from the lesbian cupcake shop or the white supremacist not getting to teach at the black college is not enough to justify the boot.

      1. There is always a boot. You just want to put it on gay people’s throats instead of shop owners’. You think that makes you morally superior. What it makes you is equally statist only douchier.

        Or else you explain to me what happens when an undesirable shows up and demands normal service against the owner’s strong objection?

        1. There is always a boot. You just want to put it on gay people’s throats instead of shop owners’.

          No, hun, a shop owner refusing to do business with a nasty little homosexual like you is not “putting the boot on you”, it’s just a shop owner exercising his freedom of association and his property rights. And I say that as a gay man myself.

          You whining like a stuck pick and calling for the Democratic Socialist Party to send in the big men with big guns, however, is asking to “put the boot on someone’s throat”.

          1. Okay, but the shop owner gets to call the cops and have them drag me out for “trespassing,” right? That’s actual cops with actual guns, unlike the metaphorical ones you say I’m wanting to impose.

            1. Only if, for some reason, you refuse to leave when asked one might think.

              1. And the customer won’t bring a lawsuit if he’s not discriminated against. If we’re just doing the honors system, why does only the customer have to be honorable?

                1. Non-sequitur, I pointed out no one was threatening guns for someone being gay. Even in your scenario, they’re beating threatened for refusing to leave private property.

                  1. Tony is never honest with this debate.

                  2. Yeah we dealt with this in the 60s. A store open to the public may be private property, but even in your own home you aren’t permitted to break the law. That’s a non sequitur.

                    1. We could see it was a non sequitur. You didn’t need to label it.

                    2. If you can’t see the difference between ending government mandated segregation and doing away with freedom of association entirely, I don’t think there’s anything I can say to make you think.

                    3. But you want to bring back government mandated segregation. That’s specifically what you’re arguing in favor of.

                      You can’t weasel your way out of that reality by saying it’ll all happen by the honors system.

                      No, armed government thugs will drag black people from lunch counters. That is the “freedom” you are unequivocally endorsing bringing back to this country.

                    4. No, Tony, we’re arguing for freedom of association.

                      You’re arguing for forced, race-based association.

                2. The shop owner has a right to discriminate against you and not serve you.

                  You do not have a right to be on his property. You do not have a right to his services.

                  1. I do if the government says I do.

                    1. I do if the government says I do.

                      Tony, please try to keep up. Obviously, the government can give you a legal right to demand service from a shopkeeper. That’s so obvious that it doesn’t even need stating. The government can likewise also give concentration camp guards the legal right to gas homosexuals, as they did in Germany. Obviously, we’re not talking about legal rights here, we’re talking about intrinsic human or moral rights. And, no, you do not have an intrinsic human or moral right to the service or property of other people. When legal rights and moral/human rights contradict each other, we have an injustice. And that’s what we have with anti-discrimination laws.

                      But apart from moral issues, the more fundamental problem with anti-discrimination laws is that they don’t work, and, in fact, harm the groups they are ostensibly helping. Anti-discrimination laws are a political gimmick and a form of rent seeking by big corporations.

                    2. Intrinsic rights are things tyrants say I have. I prefer putting pen to paper, thank you very much.

                3. Again, there is nothing “dishonorable” about refusing to serve gays, straights, Christians, atheists, Jews, Palestinians, blacks, whites, Greeks, Swedes, conservatives, Republicans, progressives, socialists, Democracts, fascists (well, that’s included in progressives, I suppose), or anybody else. People have a right not to serve people for any reason or no reason at all.

        2. You tend to make emotional arguments more than anything else. Let’s put your ideology into practice:
          Black-owned cake shop
          Black customer orders “black power” cake
          If they make it have white customer order “white power” cake
          If they refuse it looks like a lawsuit to me.
          If I was a lawyer I would set this up myself for the payday.
          See what doors you open up? You’re an idealist in a world that isn’t ideal.

          1. Yeah, that’s already been tested.

            You can refuse specific wording and messages. You can not categorically refuse the customer based on a protected class.

            That bit of precedent, that they can refuse a “message”, is why Phillip’s lawyers pushed the whole “the cake is a message” line so hard. Because if the cake is a message regardless of decoration, then you can claim you’re not refusing the class of customer, you’re refusing the specific message. If the cake is, in and of itself, not a message, then you’re refusing the customer based on protected class, not “message”.

            Compare with Azucar Bakery, where the baker was willing to bake the cake, but kept fighting with the customer over the exact text and symbols to put on the cake.

            All of which is to say… any baker can refuse “white power” or “black power”, and their decision to do one but not the other is not a legal problem. For that matter, even if “the cake is the message”, refusing a white supremacist, but not other whites, is permissible, because “white supremacist” is not a protected class.

            1. “That bit of precedent, that they can refuse a “message”, is why Phillip’s lawyers pushed the whole “the cake is a message” line so hard. Because if the cake is a message regardless of decoration, then you can claim you’re not refusing the class of customer, you’re refusing the specific message. If the cake is, in and of itself, not a message, then you’re refusing the customer based on protected class, not “message”.”

              Do I need to remind you that Phillips never denied them business. He SOLD THEM CAKES in the past. He turned down a special cake request based on his moral and religious beliefs.

              He never, not once, said “I won’t sell to a gay person”. This is something that really isn’t even in dispute.

            2. Well, you should be able to refuse any customer for any reason.

              These nondiscrimination laws are b.s. They are an attempt by progressives to distract from the fact that it was progressive legislation, not private discrimination, that denied minorities the ability to live normal and equal lives.

            3. Phillip’s served gays for over a decade dumbfuck. He did not serve gay weddings. Marriage is a sacrament in his religion. He also turned down satanists and others due to religion. Why do you always lie about the issue?

            4. “You can not categorically refuse the customer based on a protected class.”

              White people are a protected class just the same as blacks are. By providing a cake celebrating race to one and not the other could be argued as discrimination based on race. Black supremacists exist in the same manner as white supremacists. Imagine a baker providing “white power” cakes to white customers and refusing “black power” cakes to black customers. He’ll gladly sell them a “white power” cake though.

            5. “Protected class”.

              Haha. Isn’t that the real problem? Different rules for different folks? Far more than cakes.

              But “protecting classes” is far more important than equality. Too funny.

          2. Better scenario. The infamous racist Candice Owen’s orders a trump 2020 cake…

            1. She’s hot.

        3. No, I want gay shop owners to be able to refuse business to people they find distasteful. The fact that you can’t seem to be able to view that many moves ahead in a game that’s essentially dumbed-down version of checkers makes me wonder how you function during the day, let alone earn a living wage.

          1. Seeing as there’s no serious effort, anywhere, to repeal any part of the CRA, I think it’s a bit disingenuous to claim that “move” is anywhere ahead.

            1. There are, however, movements to constantly redefine what the CRA actually says and applies to without corresponding efforts to actually change the law.

    2. Not everything that doesn’t “sound cool” needs to be punished by Government Almighty. If I stand in my own front yard, practicing “booger beam” (blowing snot with one nostril) onto my own grass, but in the sight of passing strangers, that’s not cool.

      Should I be punished by Government Almighty for that?

      When Government Almighty gets done outlawing all supposedly “not cool” things and mandating all “cool” things, I will have NO personal freedom left!

      1. It the simplest of thought experiments, so try to keep up.

        “Interracial couples not getting a wedding cake, or black people not being allowed to teach at catholic schools, is not enough to justify the boot.”

        You have to agree with that if you agree with the original sentiment. That would make you a good libertarian, probably. Don’t go wobbly on me.

        1. ANY unwarranted discrimination against gays and blacks (if it is irrational, based on WHO THEY ARE as opposed to specific personal bad behavior on their part) is BAD, not good!

          I will personally “punish” discrimators by not buying from them, and not socially interacting with them if I can avoid it… AND by talking badly about them to my friends! But I object to my taxes being used to punish them! We have TOO MUCH of that sort of thing going on already! We need to EXPAND, not CONTRACT, the category of that which sensible people will say about it, this: “That’s not right, it’s not ethical or moral. But it’s not government’s business.” Example: Divorce is bad. Shall we outlaw it?

          Me personally, I approve of laws (for now at least) mandating non-discrimination at hotels and eateries… And FOR SURE, at the emergency room! For gays and blacks alike. But not gay cake-baking. Just in the name of peace, let’s carve out exceptions for support of gay weddings… Peace is precious! Less fighting, more compromises! I will personally not shop at the cake-baker-refusers, and talk bad about them… And then I quit! Enough fighting, how about some more peace through compromises?

          1. But I can’t put aside the fact that the implication of your position is that gay people are dragged out of shops for being gay, which is something that current law won’t permit for races, religions, sex, disability status, and what have you. You want to single gay people out. If you want to vastly scale back civil rights for everyone else, that’s certainly a libertarian position, but as I have explained, it requires no less the use of state force than my position does, so I guess may the best man win.

            1. “But I can’t put aside the fact that the implication of your position is that gay people are dragged out of shops for being gay,”

              You can pretty much get fired for anything. So, if they want to fire you for being gay they will just fire you for doing a bad job. It may take them an extra 2 months of watching over you and documenting everything. It’s incredibly simple to get around. Two managers can claim you told them to “fuck off”. You say you didn’t do any such thing. Their lawyer claims you’re just saying that to keep your job.
              Think about it. It solves nothing and makes you a liability. Laws don’t make people change. It just makes them change their strategies.

              1. This would be more persuassive if there was any serious effort, anywhere, to repeal non-discrimination in employment laws.

                The fact that there isn’t makes it obvious that despite this being a common claim, it is not a sincere one, as it works equally against the status quo as it does to expanding the status quo.

                1. I like how your defense of limited protections is Democrats passing limited protections in the past. Do you think the argument “it was done before” is libertarian or something?

            2. No, Tony, gay people are being dragged out of shops for the same reason straight people are: if they are told to leave and refuse.

              And I have zero problem with a shopkeeper telling me to leave because I’m gay. What reason in the world would I have to want to support a shopkeeper who is homophobic? Why do you want to force me, a gay man, to support anti-gay shopkeepers?

              1. I just think sexual orientation should be treated under the law the same way race, religion, and disability status are. But I’m not a utopian fucktard, and I like many of the advancements of freedom and civilization that we have manifested in this world.

                1. I just think sexual orientation should be treated under the law the same way race, religion, and disability status are

                  Well, I do too, in the sense that non-discrimination policies should be abolished for all those categories.

                  But I’m not willing to fall on my sword as a gay man and have civil rights legislation do to gays and lesbians what it did to blacks, religious organizations, and the disabled.

                  Civil rights legislation is bad news. It’s harmful. It’s destructive of communities, individuals, and work and business relations. Do. Not. Want.

                  1. So what evidence have you examined that demonstrates this harm? I’m honestly willing to be informed.

                    1. Well, for one, look for the social progress of minority communities before and after the CRA.

                      There are also plenty of studies that show that after the institution of affirmative action, people started assuming that minorities are less capable than non-minorities and were hired because institutions need to fill their quotas.

                      You can also think this through. If a homophobic employer wants to fire me for being gay, without anti-discrimination laws they’re simply going to tell me. With anti-discrimination laws they are going to make up a reason or keep me back in my career while I keep working for them. Just firing me so that I can go work for a non-homophobic employer is far preferable for me.

                      If I am out at work, with anti-discrimination policies, my employer will work on eggshells figuring out whether any particular action might violate some law. It’s poison to a working relationship.

                      Furthermore, I don’t know whether you even have a job, but if you work in a competitive professional field, suing for violation of anti-discrimination policies is the end of one’s career: most places will simply not hire you afterwards. It’s not worth it.

                      The main people who benefit from anti-discrimination policies are underperforming employees and ambulance chasers.

                2. “I just think sexual orientation should be treated under the law the same way race, religion, and disability status are.”

                  You can’t really prove sexual orientation. Same with trans and think of the uproar if in order to be protected as a trans person it requires a doctor to state you have gender dysphoria. Disabled have to do that.

                  It’s like being a Baltimore Raven’s fan or a Juggalo. People have to take your word on it. You can provide the court with a picture of you having a dick in your mouth giving a thumbs up and it doesn’t prove that you’re gay. (Just that you’ve had a dick in your mouth.) What if I’m sexually-attracted to cardboard? People are like that with balloons. It’s all subjective and it can change at the drop of a hat. Disability, sex, and race aren’t like that. Religion? Yeah, but that’s a constitution thingy-do.
                  Giving protections is just a way for politicians to grandstand about how good they are and meanwhile the public just continues to discriminate less openly so now it’s harder to prove.

                  1. But you can prove your religion? My mom gets a disability placard because of a heart ailment. How does she prove that?

                    You are worried about some really stupid shit.

                3. You want special status. We get it. Being a victim is a badge of honor.

                  One day, maybe you’ll be an individual. Doubtful. Grievance is intoxicating.

                  Haha.

                  1. You right-wing morons are absolutely nothing but grievance. Except you whine, constantly, about the stupidest crap imaginable.

          2. Gay wedding support is typically “creative” and-or “religious”. Forcing the gay-cake-baker is much like forcing the ghost-writer to support a customer wanting a pro-NAZI book written… Or if I do art-paintings contractually for customers, should I NOT be able to refuse to do an obviously adoring painting of Hitler? I don’t agree with anti-gay sentiments, but let’s just make some peace here, is what I am saying. Give peace a chance!

            The below is a repeat of earlier comments of mine, but I think it is VERY highly relevant!
            (Short version up top).
            Ralph Waldo Emerson, who said, ‘The State must follow, and not lead, the character and progress of the citizen.’

            Here is the full-blown quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson:
            ‘Republics abound in young civilians who believe that the laws make the city, that grave modifications of the policy and modes of living and employments of the population, that commerce, education and religion may be voted in or out; and that any measure, though it were absurd, may be imposed on a people if only you can get sufficient voices to make it a law. But the wise know that foolish legislation is a rope of sand which perishes in the twisting; that the State must follow and not lead the character and progress of the citizen; that the form of government which prevails is the expression of what cultivation exists in the population which permits it. The law is only a memorandum.’

            Another relevant Emerson quote:
            “All men plume themselves on the improvement of society, and no man improves.”

            So anyway, suppose that Government Almighty goes too far, and mandates no-meat diets, which many people disagree with, just like the War on Drugs today…
            Then there will be underground, makeshift, amateurish animal-killing-and-butchering shops, where the animals will be treated far less humanely than they are today! (Thank You Do-Gooders!!!)

            You will not be able to let your cat or dog wander through the bushes in your own back yard, for fear of meat-hungry lawbreaking pet-snatchers!
            (But, Meat-Hungry Lawbreaking Pet-Snatchers would make an MOST EXCELLENT name for a garage band!)

        2. “It the simplest of thought experiments, so try to keep up.”
          I’m sure it is, coming from a simpleton such as you.

          ““Interracial couples not getting a wedding cake, or black people not being allowed to teach at catholic schools, is not enough to justify the boot.”
          You have to agree with that if you agree with the original sentiment. That would make you a good libertarian, probably.”
          OK, simpleton, try it again in English this time.
          If you are asking whether Catholic schools can not hire gays because they are gay, I absolutely agree that choice is theirs to make.

          “Don’t go wobbly on me.”
          Try to get at least IQ=50 on us.

          1. No, he’s pretty clearly asking how you feel about race-based discrimination. He isn’t being subtle.

        3. It was primarily progressives and leftists that used the power of government to deny interracial couple, minorities, and homosexuals equal rights.

          Now that we finally have managed to overcome this legacy, the American left is pretending that they are our savior, instead of being the perpetrators of injustice.

          1. Let me guess, you think because racist Southerners once had (D)s after their names, that means that progressives were behind all the slavery and Jim Crow and oppression, despite the completely nonsensical nature of that claim. Stunning historical analysis. Conservative white Southerners are as pure as white snow, just as long as they had that (R). Still are. The (R) means good. Trump good. Orange man good.

            1. Not at all. I believe that progressives were responsible for segregation, racism, and eugenics because I actually read the primary literature. Not only is that a historical fact, it also makes sense: progressives even today advocate dividing people up by race and treat them differently, while conservatives and classical liberals want simple equality under the law.

    3. Being black is not really the same thing as enjoying odd sex acts.

  31. “Democratic Candidates Promise LGBT Voters They’ll Punish All the Right People”

    Democrats want to punish me for not baking cakes that I don’t want to bake, and for not wanting Government Almighty making my charity choices for me, and wanting to burn petrol instead of getting my power from windmills that kill birds and bats, and cause local ground-level heating via air-mixing from high-level, hotter air, thereby contributing to global warming… But it is CORRECT global warming! AND they want to punish me for defending myself, if need be, with a gun!

    Republicans want to punish me for buying stuff made in China, or giving a bite of food to illegal sub-humans, w/o asking for “papers please” first, ’cause that’s aiding and abetting horrible law-breakers. And, of course, Republicans want to punish me for killing fertilized egg cells, even if they belong to me… But only the politically correct ones, meaning the human ones.

    If we do NOT want to be punished for stupid things, we need to vote LIBERTARIAN!!!

    1. Are you under some impression that Republicans don’t support non-discrimination laws?

      1. HUGE numbers of Republicans want to force me to discriminate against immigrants, and especially against the so-called illegal sub-humans! They want to punish me for buying Chinese-made goods, and MANY of them frankly don’t like immigration, legal or illegal! Recent Reason.com articles have clearly shown this, over the last few years. It has gotten to the point that we need to look over our shoulders, to see if any ICE police are present, before opening a door or pressing an elevator button for a stranger, w/o asking fort “papers please”, first, lest we get busted for “aiding and abetting” an illegal sub-human! Xenophobia rules the days, for MANY Republicans!

        1. That’s nice and all, but I’m specifically reacting to how you listed “Democrats want to punish me for not baking cakes that I don’t want to bake, […]” in your compare/contrast, thus implying that you think Republicans don’t want to do the same.

          Fact is, Republicans are fine with non-discrimination laws, even as they apply to bakers. They just don’t want gay people covered. But you shouldn’t confuse their anti-gay bias with them not wanting bakers covered by non-discrimination laws.

          1. Your point is well taken. Anti-gay bias belongs to Republicans far more so than to Democrats.

            I would split hairs with you, though, and claim that in general, Democrats are more kindly disposed towards 492,072,103-page laws, precisely dictating who can or must do what for whom! With the obvious fore-mentioned exceptions like abortion… Also Republicans are knuckle-draggers about getting rid of the stupid war on drugs, which I forgot about…

            1. Anti-gay bias belongs to Republicans far more so than to Democrats.

              True, but not my point.

              My point is, and remains: there is no major political party that doesn’t want to punish you for refusing to make cakes. The only question is which groups are protected. And there’s actually very little disagreement between the two parties.

              1. there is no major political party that doesn’t want to punish you for refusing to make cakes. . . . And there’s actually very little disagreement between the two parties.

                That’s why many of us here are libertarians, and don’t support either major party.

            2. Well, somewhat. Democrats seem quite fond of Muslims and Islam’s view on gays is…well, problematic.

              1. Actually Islam’s views on sex overlap quite a bit with those of contemporary feminists.

  32. “Democrats want to punish me for not baking cakes that I don’t want to bake”

    If you refuse you’re going to get tons of shit for it. So just take the job and totally fuck up the cake. Have peanut butter and jelly on the inside. The most you’ll get is a bad yelp review.

  33. “”This is going to be one forum where you’re going to hear very little disagreement between the candidates,” former Vice President Joe Biden observed. He was absolutely correct.”

    ‘This is going to be one forum where you’re going to hear all of us pander to the same voting bloc’, former Vice President Joe Biden observed’

  34. Yeah, it was probably boring.

    But on the flip-side, we have a Republican President actively arguing against LGBT rights at every opportunity, from re-instating DADT for trans soldiers, to giving exemptions on non-discrimination policies for religious charities to discriminate, to randomly denying that gay couples are married for the purpose of their foreign-born children, and so-on.

    You know, all those anti-gay actions that you, Shackford, continues to ignore when they happen?

    1. What about the rights of schizophrenics to serve in the U.S. armed forces? Honestly curious, since it seems that it’s claimed to be a civil right to join the military. Should there be medical exemptions?

      1. In reality, there already are (has been for a long time) medical reasons why one cannot join the military. Enlisted troops also get “aptitude tests”, which are essentially IQ tests. IQ tests are forbidden for civilian employers, period! It is the usual case of Government Almighty having one set of rules for themselves, and a totally different set of rules for themselves. Some of it makes sense… Government “monopoly on violence” is still needed, IMHO. Stringent tests for government employment, OK… We are probably not doing enough of that as is! Much of the rest, makes little sense… When “it” (general category of whatever) is forbidden to private employers, that is.

        1. And it took laborious effort before the armed forces could conclude with their studies that gay members don’t harm military effectiveness. And they made sure to make it look laborious lest the knuckledraggers get their knuckles stuck in the whiny bitch mud.

      2. BYODB, I really don’t need the reminders for why I am not, and will never, a libertarian.

        But thank you for demonstrating all the same. I’d hate to think my bias is irrational.

        1. If .03% of the population, over half of which will kill themselves, but only after they’ve consumed millions of dollars worth of medical services, can’t join the armed forces then we’re living in anti-gay tyranny here people!

          I’m sure a big strong faggot like yourself was all set to go sign up too. Shucks huh?

        2. I’d hate to think my bias is irrational.

          No, your bias is still bias, and it’s still irrational.

          1. Escher has to ignore the fact that gender dysphoria is, at least for the moment, considered a mental health issue. Basically they want to steal a base and skip over that issue, just like basically everyone else when talking about this issue.

            I do notice that my question regarding ‘are there medical exemptions to the right to join the military’ wasn’t answered. Why anyone would think that sending people with mental health issues into murder-training that leaves even fairly stable people in shambles is anyone’s guess.

    2. But on the flip-side, we have a Republican President actively arguing against LGBT rights at every opportunity, from re-instating DADT for trans soldiers,

      This is more in line with banning diabetics and anorexics than banning gays.

      o giving exemptions on non-discrimination policies for religious charities to discriminate,

      Charities are not a public accommodation.

      to randomly denying that gay couples are married for the purpose of their foreign-born children, and so-on.

      Why is that wrong?

    3. We have a Republican president who wants to treat LGBT people as equals, rather than treating us as fragile little creatures who need the benevolent special protection of government.

      I think the progressives policies vis-a-vis LGBT folks are reprehensible. I don’t need or want anti-discrimination legislation.

    4. I should also add that I find it offensive for you to lump together gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender rights to begin with.

      Transgender individuals have a medical problem, as the fact that they require surgery to correct it shows you.

      Gays and lesbians are generally happy with who they are, don’t require and don’t want medical treatment, and just want to be left alone.

  35. In case anyone doesn’t understand what we are saying here… “We” being me & the Ralph Waldo Emerson in my pocket…

    If I passed a law saying that one may no longer burn witches for killing our calves and babies, and making our crops fail, just because they are witches using witchcraft… People would laugh at me. We got over witch-burning a LONG time ago, so those laws aren’t needed any more!

    We’ve gotten over totally overt anti-black-people bias, to the point where we might start ditching those laws as well. In their place, enforce “truth in adverting” laws… Do NOT put up a sign in your shop, saying “all races welcome here”, and then act to the contrary to your sign! For lack of a non-discrimination sign, and for bad behavior, MOST people today, would punish such a shop, enough! Boycotts work!

    More tolerance for gays is newer than more tolerance for blacks. Give it time… In due time, cake-baking laws will be as un-needed as witch-protection laws are today! Ralph Waldo Emerson was right! Let the state follow the progress of the citizens, and not vice versa! Vice versa causes WAAAY too much fighting, and WAAAY too much stupid!

    1. If the laws are unnecessary then nobody’s freedom is being infringed by them remaining in place. Just doing a bit of statutory tidying up?

      1. Yes, pretty much so! Too many laws = too much confusion!

        Carry on, Bro!

        1. I somehow feel that petitioners whose interest is to boot gay people from shops will have more political influence than the legislative Maria Kondo lobby.

          1. If you can refrain from sucking cock for a few minutes while you’re in somebody else’s place of business you should be all good Tony, you poor AIDS-ridden faggot.

          2. Tony, I’m a gay man. I strongly oppose anti-discrimination laws “protecting” me because they are harmful. Just look at what they have done to African Americans.

            People oppose these laws because they are bad laws, not because they want to “boot gay people from shops”.

            1. What have they done to African Americans? Let them shop at the same places white people can without being dragged out and beaten? Changed a few white hearts and minds in the process? Oh dear, the humanity.

          3. God you’re still here and still dumb as shit

        2. https://konmari.com/ … I had to look it up!

          Japan is crowded… They live in little rabbit hutches by American standards! I am glad to live in America, in a low-real-estate area at that! I can afford to be a slob about scattering my belongings about, almost randomly, w/o regard to tidy organization!

          OK, I finally get it… What you were saying. Less is more, laws-wise, but axe-grinders gotta grind axes…

      2. No, Tony, that’s incorrect. Anti-discrimination laws infringe my rights as a gay man to engage in free contracting with my employer and with businesses. Anti-discrimination laws harm me as a gay man. Anti-discrimination laws harm small businesses because they cause massive risks of lawsuits and compliance costs even if the business doesn’t violate them.

        Anti-discrimination laws are morally wrong and economically harmful, and as a gay man, I do not want to be covered by them at all. Claiming that they “protect” me as a gay man is either ignorant or dishonest.

  36. And when a Democrat gets into office and implements all of these policies and begins actually jailing religious objectors we can look forward to another big “Welp, that’s unfortunate, but what are ya gonna do?” from Shackford and Reason.

  37. Trump’s a conman, a crook and a grifter who only believes (if we can assign to him any thoughts) in himself. These, on the other hand, are true blue ideologues who want to use the state to impose their vision of the “good society.”
    Both are dangerous but when the conman is gone his damage is mostly done. The ideologue’s damaging acts – laws and statutes – survive far after they are gone.

    1. For all his faults, tweet convulsions, and self-aggrandizing, Trump generally has a fairly straightforward, traditional, middle-of-the road political vision of America: business-friendly, low taxes, equality under the law, good national security and secure borders. I don’t see him doing a lot of damage to the US, unlike Obama, whose destructive legacy will take decades to reverse.

    2. Yea let’s elect one of the psychopath Dems

  38. “It should be absolutely abhorrent to anyone concerned with freedom of speech or freedom of religion.”

    Well, that would exclude all the candidates. Abhor all you want, the current zeitgeist is severely anti-freedom. I don’t think any of these candidates, or their supporters, want to live in a free society.

  39. All churches should lose tax exempt status. If my C corp has to pay taxes, then so should pedophile rings with funny hats.

    1. Ok let’s then just get rid of tax exempt period
      You’re cherry picking your special interest groups
      Fuck off just get rid of them all

    2. Catholics are not Christians!!!! And don’t get me started about one of your former leaders of HRC…, Terry Bean!!!

  40. Fuck LGBT
    What rights don’t they have?
    Really these special protected classes are stupid and unconstitutional see 14A

    1. Yepppp!!!! Sodomites are going down!!! A federal judge just struck down Tampa’s ‘ban’ on conversion therapy for minors!!! : ))) This means any statewide ban can be challenged and won!!! Thousands of EX-gays!!! Many hundreds on youtube giving their testimonies!!!

  41. Let’s go after big pharma so they don’t profit from illness and can’t afford the unimaginable time and effort to work through FDA regs to bring better HIV drugs to market. Always working at cross purposes.

  42. Bring it bitches!!!!

  43. “Love your neighbor as yourself” reads a sign above. . .

    Strangely the motto of NAMBLA, the North American Man Boy Lovers Association.

  44. I think people forget that Biden’s criminal justice record destroyed lives. I believe I read about that here.

  45. I earned $5000 last month by working online just for 5 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. If You too want to earn such a big money tehn come and join us.

    CLICK HERE►► TheProcoin.com

  46. I think what you can expect from this is pretty much an all out war against Christianity from the Democrat Party. From their dialogue I don’t know how you could come to any other conclusion.

  47. “Not getting a wedding cake, or not getting to teach at a Catholic school, is not enough to justify the boot.”

    But they love boots.

  48. I earned $5000 last month by working online just for 5 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. If You too want to earn such a big money tehn come and join us.

    CLICK HERE►► Aprocoin.com

Please to post comments