Gay IS the New Black

What I say is true. The sooner politicians and conservatives, in general, realize this, the better.

I’ve been told that blacks like me should be offended by this development. True enough, blacks don’t DO anything to qualify as black. It is an “accident of birth”. The nature/nurture mix of homosexuality is not settled science. So there is some logical truth to saying that the civil rights of black and gay are a false equivalency.

That said, so what?  Like blacks, gays don’t hurt anyone by being gay. Defenders of the original Indiana RFRA law present us with their own false equivalency. On Face the Nation former Senator and presidential candidate Rick Santorum asked should a gay printer be forced to publish flyers from the Westboro Baptist Church that declare “God hates fags”?

Here’s the problem with Rick’s logic. The Westboro Baptist Church is expressing hatred toward gays. A gay wedding does not express hatred for Christianity. In fact a good number of gays are as God fearing and God loving as their straight counterparts. So, the REAL truth is “Christians of conscience” CHOOSE to be offended by gay marriage. Being a baker, florist, photographer or caterer doesn’t mean YOU have to copulate with someone of your own gender.

What further bothers me about the debate is this notion of religious conscience and freedom of religion. Do you REALLY think there aren’t atheists who find homosexuality repulsive and disgusting? Do they get to refuse services related to a gay wedding? I suspect not. So let’s get this straight. If I find homosexuality an “abomination” I can only act on my “conscience” if I attend church on Sunday’s? Is that it? Only the religious have a conscience?

99% of commerce arrangements work out naturally. Most folks regardless of orientation don’t want to do business with folks who don’t like them. In the rare case where a consumer insists on doing business with a particular merchant, that merchant needs to realize times have changed and you don’t get to refuse service based on who the customer chooses to love.

WITH THAT SAID…

I find it ridiculous that an angry vindictive gay consumer can bring a small company to its knees over this. Penalties should be capped, perhaps with a small fine. If a gay wedding cake upsets you that much, cough up a $100.00 fine and put your money where your “conscience” is.

Second, there is a difference between a “gay wedding” cake and a “gay” wedding cake. A merchant should be able to refuse to put two copulating figurines on a wedding cake. One would hope the baker would have the same reaction to two straight figurines copulating on a wedding cake. A blanket refusal to serve a group of people is different from refusing to provide services that current mores dictate are indeed offensive.

That is really the crux of the debate. Gays embracing traditional marriage has largely gained acceptance in this country and our laws should reflect that. Our laws evolve to reflect societal values. If Adam and Steve ask for a tasteful cake for their wedding just like Adam and Eve do, bake the damn cake and get over yourself. Or pay a fine. But you don’t get to say no because your “conscience” aligns with some religion.

What do you think? The bar is open.

Advertisements

229 thoughts on “Gay IS the New Black

  1. What do you think? The bar is open.

    I think you’re sanctimonious, duplicitous and a blowhard trying to play both sides like your mentor Obama. But, it will drive traffic.

    Here’s the problem with Rick’s logic. The Westboro Baptist Church is expressing hatred toward gays.

    You mean to tell me you don’t think gays are expressing hatred? Really? I noticed you left out the big, fat pink elephant in the room too called “Islam.”

    Let me refresh your memory. This wasn’t yesterday, or even last week. This was over 25 years ago, mind you. And if you think it’s an isolated event, I’ll be glad to fill your board with link after link until it becomes unreadable. Just pass the word… NYTimes fair enough?

    http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/11/nyregion/111-held-in-st-patrick-s-aids-protest.html

  2. I just called a black baker and put in an order for a bars and stars cake. I’m also going to hire Rutherford to work on a web site that raises money for Klan.

    Good ol’ R. Always killing freedom.

  3. “A gay wedding does not express hatred for Christianity.”

    I cant believe pc assholes have gained so much power that a dude with a side business of video taping weddings is forced to take an active role in a gay wedding.

    If this ever comes to be true, at least I will be able to wreak havok with Rutherford’s conscious if he still has a side business (assuming R has a conscious). Get the popcorn because I will spend the money.

  4. Makes sense to me. There is intentional baiting going on on both sides of the argument to create a dialogue or to let supporters know how committed to the cause the individual is. I think that this is becoming just another battle in the social conservative war. A war that is being lost to intelligence and decency. It is time for people to grow up and mature but in the absence of that we will have to rely on the courts.

    BTW while the science may not be settled on homosexuality, one’s specific choice of religion is a matter of nurture. Tolerance can be learned and it is time for that form of education to take the lead.

  5. I’m also going to hire Rutherford to work on a web site that raises money for Klan.

    Read (and reread if you have to) the bit about false equivalencies.

    There is a distinct difference between forcing me to serve a man threatening and hostile to me and serving a man who bears me no ill will whose “lifestyle” I dislike.

    You can bounce around until your face turns blue. You will never be able to make the two cases identical.

  6. So Tex you’ve lost me so badly I almost have to call your comment incoherent.

    I’ll unravel the comment, piece it back together and address what appear to be two major points.

    1) But for one reference to “church on Sunday’s”, why do you think I’m singling out Christianity? Islam goes by my same rules. Serve the customer or pay a fine.

    2) You reached back 26 years to come up with an example of “gay hate” and you didn’t even pull that off. It’s O’Connor talking about sin and discouraging condom use. Do you have ANY notion how irresponsible it is to discourage condom use during an STD epidemic? The hate was from the Cardinal, my friend, not from the protesters.

  7. Rutherford, your ACT UP folks in the middle of a mass, marched down the aisles of St. Patrick’s cathedral, some dressed as the phallic symbol, and threw condoms at the congregation. I almost refrain from discussing issues with you as I find you increasingly stupid, profane and obtuse. I realized you and your pathetic site here a lost cause. Your buddy Ajax is equally ignorant.

    But if me reaching back troubles you much, I’ll throw one out even you can perhaps understand as you tell me they “hurt” no one. Preach to me brothas about your demands for “tolerance” again.

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2014/may/hgtv-cancels-show-starring-evangelical-brothers-after-anti.html?paging=off

  8. “There is a distinct difference between forcing me to serve a man threatening and hostile to me and serving a man who bears me no ill will whose “lifestyle” I dislike.” -R

    You really have no understanding of the 1st Amendment, do you.

  9. Christian bakers should be free to uphold their religious beliefs as long as they aren’t hurting anyone.

  10. “In a remarkably short time we have been asked to go from tolerating open homosexuality, which, since I’ve had homosexual friends and acquaintances since I was a young teenager, I have no problem with, to transforming the fundamental structures of our society in ways that will have implications for which no one can predict the effects. What was the position of the most progressive president of the United States in almost a century just a few years ago is now being lambasted as intolerant, homophobic, and primitive.

    What I think we’re seeing right now are some very intolerant and totalitarian impulses being expressed by what I hope is a fairly small segment of the population. If they are granted free rein, religious freedom will in fact be threatened.”

    -Dave Schultz (blogger) @ theglitteringeye

  11. This issue is about power as much as it is about tolerance. The left is wining the cultural war and now wants to destroy the wounded.

  12. Can you imagine? The hard working baker, a devout Christian, is now forced to bake cakes for rituals at the local Satanic Church.

    Rutherford and Ajax’s “tolerance”.

    How am I not supposed to hate liberals?

  13. On a more serious note Rutherford you haven’t written something in a while that has outraged me so.
    First off I hate when people take it upon themselves to define false equivalencies on subjective matters. Drives me right up the fucking wall man. I find it such an intellectually weak starting point.
    Second I find your retort of Santorums comment to fail your own lame ass measure. The statement “God hates fags” is not necessarily a personal attack upon any given homosexual printer or graphic artist. That it is undeniably unsavory is clear but now where in the punt field you offer in your later paragraph.
    Third EVERYONE misinterpreted the Indiana law and you are politically aligned with the worse offenders. A fucking wedding cake is not a public accommodation,unlike say a hall or banquet facility. The opportunity to engage in commerce has at its core an ability not to engage in a contract with anyone for any number of reasons. For example I was a minor partner in a photography business. Guess what? For safety reasons we didn’t do ghetto weddings. It didn’t matter the skin tone or faith of the ghetto bird,if you were ringing bells in a ‘hood you were getting other photographers.
    Back to Indiana. You go get your wedding cake. You are very clear that you want two grooms on the cake and “Mike” and John” “Love forever on it. You also want it delivered. The Indiana law de facto allowed the baker to say no. The law did not prevent the couple from pursuing a lawsuit. The law allowed the baker to claim a religious freedom defense. If the defense was found to be lacking the couple would’ve won. On a case by case basis the bakers and other service personnel of the state were going to be allowed to make choices,so were consumers.
    Rutherford America needs to feel some pain to move ahead and one big headache it needs is that people have the freedom to be free even when it makes others feel bad.

  14. The Gleanings article, more evidence? Yes more evidence I am right. Tex don’t bother to reread the essay. Just read the title. Gay IS the New Black. Every time you see gay, substitute black and you’ll know what’s coming. The HGTV twins were self described “anti-gay”. Now do the substitution. Anti-black. Would they get a series if they were anti-black? No.

    So they’re not gonna get one if they’re anti-gay. The worm has turned. It’s over. Being an anti-gay bigot don’t cut it no more.

    That’s the entire point of the post. Give up dude. It’s over.

  15. Here you go, hypocrite. From the website of love.

    You’re tone-deaf on this.

    Tex I swear you are the closest living human to Archie Bunker than I have ever encountered. And I say that without insult because Archie was loving and well loved. But God was he narrow-minded.

  16. Rutherford, save your breath. If you want the idiot to get the point then tell him to replace the word “gay” with “Jew”. Otherwise you’re wasting your time.

  17. The Oklahoma bigot sees gays and blacks with the same disdain anyway, so telling him to replace one with the other is pointless.

  18. The hard working baker, a devout Christian, is now forced to bake cakes for rituals at the local Satanic Church.

    Do I need to post a definition of false equivalency because obviously you don’t know what it is.

    I would assume the Satanic Church is hostile to Christianity.

    Let’s say it all together now one more time:

    Gays do NOT ipso facto hate Christians, Muslims or any other religious group.

    In fact, gays who embrace marriage probably are more religious than those who don’t.

  19. It doesn’t matter dumb ass. Its basic Constitutional shit, we are talking. Our country doesn’t work that way.

    Its not up to you to decide what is deemed hostile to others. And…more importantly….hostile isn’t against the law.

    You get it, you follower motherfucker.

    Hostile isn’t against the law. And opinions aren’t judged by the state.

  20. No…you take a breath, Huck…and think.

    Do I need to give you one of those high school power points you once busted my balls about?

    Rutherford is talking about fundamentally changing the 1st amendment.

  21. I apologize for the following:
    Individuals must show that their religious liberty has been “substantially burdened,” and the government must demonstrate its actions represent the least restrictive means to achieve a “compelling” state interest. Indiana’s law adds a provision that offers a potential religious defense in private disputes, but then four federal appellate circuits have also interpreted the federal statute to apply to private disputes.

    If florists or wedding photographers don’t want to work a gay wedding based on their religious convictions, under the RFRA test,

    such a commercial vendor would still have to prove that his religious convictions were substantially burdened. And he would also come up against the reality that most courts have found that the government has a compelling interest in enforcing antidiscrimination laws. In all these states for two decades, no court we’re aware of has granted such a religious accommodation to an antidiscrimination law. Restaurants and hotels that refused to host gay marriage parties would have a particularly high burden in overcoming public accommodation laws.

    The RFRA law, then, is a careful, prudential law, attempting to balance competing claims and interests–and in any event, the type of cases we’re focused on involving florists and wedding photographers is extremely rare.
    and
    We saw it in the Mozilla case, in which the CEO, Brendan Eich, was forced out after having given money in support of a California referendum supporting traditional marriage, as well as in the effort to target (possibly through the denial of accreditation) Christian colleges like Gordon, whose Life and Conduct Policy limits students and employees to sexual activity in the context of marriage, defined as the union of one man and one woman. “Never mind that the policy allows any person of any sexual orientation to attend Gordon, teach at Gordon, or serve in its administration,” as David French of National Review writes. “The fact that its Life and Conduct Policy prohibits ‘sexual relations outside marriage’ and ‘homosexual practice’ (explained as ‘sexual intercourse’) was enough to take action, to declare it bigoted and not fit for inclusion in society.”

    This is a deeply illiberal impulse, aimed at the core of American freedom (religious liberty), and if it is not checked, it will do tremendous damage to our civil culture as well as to our basic freedoms. To be sure, this illiberal impulse isn’t characteristic of everyone who champions gays rights (Jonathan Rauch is an admirable example). And I’ve pointed out before where I think evangelical Christians have erred in their cultural engagement, in ways that I believe are both counterproductive and at times deeply at odds with the spirit of Christian faith.

    But that is only part of the story; and the case of Indiana is only the latest example of a crusading and authoritarian mindset on the left, which is both quite worrisome and potentially explosive. It is one thing to have differences over issues like gay marriage, which intelligent and honorable people can disagree on. It is quite another to try to force Christians to choose between progressive orthodoxy and their deeply held (and centuries-long) religious beliefs–and to punish them if they refuse not only to support gay marriage but actively participate in ceremonies. As my Ethics and Public Policy Center colleague Yuval Levin has written, if reasonably possible “people should not be compelled as the price of entry to the public square to honor as true what their understanding of their religious obligations compels them to judge false.”

    That is what some on the left seem determined to do–and if they keep doing it, this won’t end well.
    This is from Commentary Magazine,a source I could take or leave on any given day. I did find however that this captured the realities behind this topic very well.

  22. “The law allowed the baker to claim a religious freedom defense. If the defense was found to be lacking the couple would’ve won” -Alphie

    Exactly, in other words…is the denial of serivce due to a 1st amendment infringement.

    Rutherford, come on man….you are a Harvard grad….Why is my false equivalency false? Because you say it is?

  23. I told you this is leftist bigotry posing as a battle for human rights. I also wrote they are now trying to destroy the wounded. Lying about and trying to destroy a pizza business is merely a sample of what is happening.

    Other businesses are suffering too. A fund raiser has raised a lot of money to help the pizza restaurant and similar drives are aiding other businesses. Leftists are calling the fund raiser a scam and are trying to shut it down.

    The issue has little to do with denial of services or religious bigotry. It concerns band of fascists who want to change the nature of our government, and they are using this dispute to do it. Tolerant people fighting for their rights don’t behave as these bigots. Martin Luther King didn’t advocate or try to destroy his small business opponents.

  24. hostile isn’t against the law.

    You’re screwing your own argument. If hostile ain’t illegal and Christians view gays as hostile against them (as Tex would have you believe) then suck it up bible boy and bake the fucking cake.

    Either “feelings” matter or they don’t. Or are RELIGIOUS feelings the only ones that count? If you think so you are one arrogant motherfucker.

  25. Rutherford STILL doesn’t know what the law provides. And incredibly yells false equivalency based on his false interpretation.

    Just sad.

  26. Alfie in short, RFRA has never actually protected so called religious liberty in practice.

    I only mentioned RFRA to highlight Santorum’s cockeyed view. This post was about societal reality and the most sensible course for conservatives to take henceforth with an acknowledgment that consequences need to be sensible such that the photographer doesn’t lose his livelihood over sheer foolishness.

  27. Tigre, as I told Alfie, the post isn’t about RFRA. It’s about the society we are living in that allowed RFRA to be a thing. It’s about a societal change. Gays have gained a seat at the table on a par with blacks (and yes, Jews). Adjust or be adjusted.

  28. Hey Tigre, glad you showed up. You didn’t tell me that a few weeks ago Better Call Saul had its very own Tex Taylor … complete with dreams of secession and his own currency. 😆

  29. Tigre we’ve been through this in the last thread. I know what the law says and I know what it means. In fact it’s so toothless that, as Alfie noted, it has never successfully been used to protect “religious liberty”.

  30. “Tigre, as I told Alfie, the post isn’t about RFRA. It’s about the society we are living in that allowed RFRA to be a thing. ”

    Then by all means, continue to use it as a premise and misstate it.

    Duh.

  31. “Tigre we’ve been through this in the last thread. I know what the law says and I know what it means. In fact it’s so toothless that, as Alfie noted, it has never successfully been used to protect “religious liberty”.”

    Oh no you don’t. In fact, this post not only proves you don’t know what it provides, as with the last thread you proves why it is.

    You really don’t get it. It’s no longer frustrating, just amusing.

    Keep on believing otherwise. You make the point and don’t even know why.

  32. Tex I swear you are the closest living human to Archie Bunker than I have ever encountered. And I say that without insult because Archie was loving and well loved. But God was he narrow-minded.

    What you are instructing me in, Rutherford, is you are telling me that I will conform to your queer way of thinking, or I will be forced to by the state – the state being declared conscience over my God. Now if you are too stupid to understand that like Starbuck Huck and his inbred progeny of underachieving cowards with momma sharmoota waddling to the frig, and you are, then I can’t help you.

    That is the very definition of Caesar. It is the very definition of fascism. It is the very definition of intolerance. It is the very definition of stepping all over the very 1st Amendment. Secular, religious – doesn’t matter, you are not going to be allowed to be my conscience. It’s the worst form of tyranny and I promise you that would mean war.

    But here’s a promise. That is not going to happen. Ever. As to being narrow minded, since I hold your mindset in such low regard, it only reinforces to me in my “bigoted” mind I am absolutely right concerning this measure.

  33. Oh no you don’t. In fact, this post not only proves you don’t know what it provides, as with the last thread you proves why it is.
    You really don’t get it.

    So does Rick Santorum “get it”? My only explicit reference to RFRA concerned Santorum’s comment about it.

    I’ll tell you what you don’t GET. Rightly or wrongly RFRA became a lightning rod for a gay rights debate and quite frankly it no longer matters WTF the law provides. Hutchinson and Pence didn’t give a fuck what the law really meant. They just knew they better “fix” it pronto.

    THAT’s what you don’t get. Times have changed and even the scent of anti-gay bigotry ain’t gonna fly anymore.

  34. America. A place where we force people to express ideas against there will.

    Nah…..not buying in

    We’re getting closer to the Rubicon every year.

  35. Sure. Never did see it as a lightening rod. Never saw the truth didn’t matter, particularly to you, even though I said that.

    You got a bead on the times man. 😆

    Hands up don’t shoot!

  36. “Times have changed and even the scent of anti-gay bigotry ain’t gonna fly anymore.”

    Is that a threat? Or what…Constitution and 1st Amendment be damned?

    Millions of us, Rutherford. Millions of us.

  37. The argument offered in response to the fact that hostility isn’t against the law is based on a false premise (that Christians view gays as hostile to them). The fact remains. Hostility isn’t against the law.

    Feelings are irrelevant.

  38. You really have no understanding of the 1st Amendment, do you.

    It’s even worse than that, Rabbit. I know the intolerant, bigoted type well. For years, my wife and I shielded our children best we could from their filthy influence and spent a small fortune doing it. But it is getting to the point that will no longer be possible for my own children.

    Rutherford is not a great example of that which I speak because he thinks like a child, believes like a child, and carries the credibility of a child. This is a man that can’t think for himself, influenced by the confirmation bias of a soundbite, driven by the shallow emotions of the day like Hope & Change confusing sensitivity with love.

    However, the jackboots of which Rutherford associates are both ignorant and arrogant enough to believe themselves capable of moral arbitration and naive enough to believe they hold the keys to the party of enforcement. In another day, that observation could actually be of some humor but the ramifications of allowing this to proceed any further are of such consequence, it simply can no longer be tolerated. And there’s that word the “open-minded” cough cough like to throw around again, though the Left are the caricature of the intolerance as evident by their fiat, character assassination, personal destruction, and threat. Take a look at the Indiana restaurant owners as example.

    My brethren’s own tolerance of allowing this lawlessness, double standards, taking over of education, mendacity, insidious propaganda, and bullying has allowed it to get this far. I will say this. I have warned my Christian brothers and sisters this would happen; these naive folk who I was raised by and associate with actually were foolish enough to believe to all Americans, The Constitution was sacrosanct. They believed our “spirit” would tarry, that reason would win out, forgetting tyranny is one generation lost. We are not dealing with rational, reasonable creatures – these are fools unleashed from the gates of hell. They are demons, not much different than the head loppers.

    So the question becomes for me, how much longer do I take a backward step before I draw a line in the sand, mean it, and be willing to demonstrate it without restraint or remorse even if it comes at personal sacrifice? Because until millions of us do this, I am sure these thugs are not going to stop until we have submitted to their every demand. Who would want to live under the boot of their tyranny after the freedom of association we all have enjoyed? Not me. I would rather be dead than submit to this filth. I mean that.

    One last thing. I think there is something to the Islamic approach that perhaps should be considered within reason – not carried out by the sacrifice of small children, stooges and dupes, but true soldiers motivated by their convictions and fed up.

    Perhaps the time has come to give consideration to another approach and grant these fools their wish in a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts?

  39. No,RFRA has protected people Rutherford it has.Sorry R but you’re moving goal posts here and hugely so. Your post not being about RFRA and the GOP.? Give me a break!
    As a last comment I’ll make on this thread. A person who thinks the RADICAL GAY AGENDA is not hostile towards Faith in general and Christianity specifically is a retard.

  40. Ha ha Rutherford! I read that too. I believe his son said “hey dad…”

    The way things are going, I should declare myself an Asian Finn or Sami since 13 % of my genes are Asian partly from Finland. I probably have more Asian genes than Warren has Indian or Jeb has Hispanic. I’m one percent European Jew. If I were also partly black and Native American, I would have made the trifecta.

  41. The current argument is as much about power and destruction of one ideology and religion against another. As I wrote before, the fascistic behavior of the protest reveals an agenda besides equal rights.

    Rutherford, your comment about Jeb and some of the other statements prompted me to have some fun with YouTube. Here is a Sami Lutheran wedding in Finland. The video shows why detractors still call them mongoloid mongrels.

    Sami were burned at the stake for their beliefs. Their singing was banned, and regulations dictated the size of their homes. When mineral wealth was discovered on their land, they were disposessed.Some were sent to boarding schools to educate the culture from them.Students in regular schools were taught that their culture and heritage was inferior and not worth mentioning.

    Sami in Norway protested for their rights. They sued. They contacted the news media, and they blocked city streets with reindeer. Over a thousand chained themselves to the gates of Parliament and engaged in hunger strikes. At one time, a tenth of Norway’s police force was trying to subdue the protests, and had an agreement not been reached, Norway was ready to deploy the Army.

    One difference between the protests and now beside the toughness of the protagonists was that Sami people were not vindictive. They didn’t try to destroy their enemies. They merely protested for what was theirs. Until I see more of the Martin Luther King spirit, I won’t be rooting for the ideological protesters we are watching now.

  42. Gay is the New Black! Interesting thought Rutherford. If you mean that the appearance of gays will incite “gayism” like the appearance of blacks incite “racism” then I might tend to agree with your title but not necessarily because of the reasons you state.

    There will always be prejudice directed against someone of a different race, creed or religion based on the belief that one’s own race, creed or religion is superior. That’s human nature and no law will change that belief.

    A good example is interracial marriage.”The most tenacious form of legal segregation, the banning of interracial marriage, was not fully lifted until the last anti-miscegenation laws were struck down in 1967 by the Supreme Court ruling in the landmark Loving v. Virginia case.”

    1967 wasn’t all that long ago if you think about it. I imagine that some people still exist who cannot condone interracial marriage but publicly do not express their feelings. I guess the bottom line is hopefully “gayism” and “racism” will be a moot point in another 30 or 40 years and laws like RFRA will not be needed.

  43. This video shows why reindeer herding Sami are some of the hardest working folks in Europe and why they would clean our current leftists clocks in a direct confrontation,

    Sofia Jannok who also owns reindeer has been described as a woman of steel. Her song, joik about hunting for and processing her Aunt Irene’s reindeer herd is the sound track.She is sharp and has strong opinions about the US, Sweden and indiginous people. I also think she still has a talk show. If she was an American, she could “pump you up” better than Ahrnold could..

    Comparable minorities in the US would be pathetic if they weren’t so dangerous.

  44. A place where we force people to express ideas against there will.

    You’re a pussy. No one is forcing anyone to “express ideas against their will”. It’s called business.

    I will elaborate later because I’ve been there.

  45. Hands up don’t shoot!

    You’re the most deliberately obtuse person I’ve ever encountered. Hands up don’t shoot was a lie that resonated. Ever ask yourself why?

    I’ll let you ponder that a bit.

  46. “Times have changed and even the scent of anti-gay bigotry ain’t gonna fly anymore.”
    Is that a threat? Or what…Constitution and 1st Amendment be damned?
    Millions of us, Rutherford. Millions of us.

    First sounds like you’re the one doing the threatening. Millions of us will do what? You gonna take up arms against guys ass-fucking? Really?

    Second, goddam, this is the easiest piece I’ve ever written. You don’t have to go beyond the title.

    “Times have changed and even the scent of anti-black bigotry ain’t gonna fly anymore.”

    Do you get THAT statement? My point is the basic respect and tolerance expected of you towards blacks, women, Jews and others not like you, now extends to gays.

    Capiche?

  47. “You’re the most deliberately obtuse person I’ve ever encountered. Hands up don’t shoot was a lie that resonated. Ever ask yourself why?”

    I know why. The same reason you don’t let the truth about (1) your own fucking piece, and (2) the law and what it represents, deter you: it doesn’t matter. Ever ask yourself why that it is?

    What’s still fascinating even after only periodically checking on my trip to Tehran is that you still don’t get the concept of who’s rights are affected and why they must be balanced for the good of all. You can only view things through the lens of oppressor-victim-social justice though legislation. It is truly fascinating watching you bow up more and more as your dumb premise and belief that you have seized on some distinction that validates your false premise.

    Again, no longer frustrating; only amusing. Like watching MSNBC.

  48. “My point is the basic respect and tolerance expected of you towards blacks, women, Jews and others not like you, now extends to gays.”

    The tenor and content all delivered without one iota of respect or tolerance extended to others not like him.

    You are a study in herd mentality. Raise your pitchforks and torches aggrieved one! It’s time to move on to another victim/oppressor framework impose your will.

  49. “It is truly fascinating watching you bow up more and more as your dumb premise and belief that you have seized on some distinction that validates your false premise torn apart.”

    Maybe yell louder?

    Hands up don’t shoot!

  50. I ran across this article and decided it should be an interesting read for you, Rutherford. If you think I am up on all things conspiratorial… The following conspiracy has shaped the public’s view of conspirators and their accusers.

    Most people will be shocked to learn the conspiracy theory label was popularised as a pejorative term by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in a global propaganda program initiated in 1967. This program was directed at criticisms of the Warren Commission Report. The propaganda campaign called on media corporations and journalists around the world to criticise conspiracy theorists and raise questions about their motives and judgments. The CIA informed its contacts that “parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by communist propagandists.” In the shadows of McCarthyism and the Cold War, this warning about communist influence was delivered simultaneously to hundreds of well-positioned members of the press in a global CIA propaganda network, infusing the conspiracy theory label with powerfully negative associations. In my book, I refer to this as the “conspiracy theory conspiracy.”

    http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles/who-is-afraid-of-conspiracy-theories

  51. Alfie, you know (or should know) that I respect you greatly but your view of domestic stuff is stunningly myopic when compared to your view of FP matters. Maybe you have difficulty achieving the same objectivity when matters are literally too close to home?

    I mentioned RFRA in one paragraph only. That was to demonstrate the illogical thinking of its advocates (who according to Tigre, also don’t know what the law says).

    My thrust was:
    1) Point out societal change.
    2) Bitch about religion thinking it has a monopoly on moral conscience.
    3) Suggest reasonable legal recourse and limits on what reasonable demands can be made on “expression”, governed by current societal norms.

    If you’re not reading the essay that way then I failed in getting the points across.

    No,RFRA has protected people Rutherford it has.

    Then you’re contradicting yourself as you wrote earlier in the thread something I had already heard elsewhere, namely that RFRA has rarely successfully defended religious freedom. What I heard elsewhere from a writer for Reason Magazine (might have been the editor) is that it has NEVER been used successfully to deny service to gays.

  52. A person who thinks the RADICAL GAY AGENDA is not hostile towards Faith in general and Christianity specifically is a retard.

    The radical gay agenda? See Alfie in talking about FP matters you’d never use such a melodramatic and ultimately meaningless phrase.

    What’s in that agenda? Do they want to convert all hetero’s to homo? Seriously.

    The hostility toward religion that Tex gave examples of were defensive, not offensive. The Catholic Church so abhorred these people as to discourage the one practice (condoms) that might keep them alive. Of course Catholics were so backward they didn’t even want hetero’s using them. Makes it clear why the number of lapsed Catholics is so huge.

    Sorry to hear you’re bailing on the thread Alfie. At the very least I’d like an elaboration on the radical gay agenda.

  53. Here’s what I suggest should the time come that bakers are forced to bake the cake to appease Rutherford’s demands for and by Caesar Obama. Grant the pretend king and wannabee dictator his wish, if necessary.

    The icing shall consist of dog shit and mix will consist of wet cardboard. Capiche?

    Wannabee tyrants like you Rutherford never win. Never. You cannot change people’s hearts and the people won’t stfu Rutherford by fiat or threat. In fact Rutherford, the reaction you most likely will get will be exactly the opposite of what you intended.

    Here’s some sage advice. Unless you are prepared for a real war where something besides your massive ego gets bruised, then I would tread very careful where angels fear too in your demands of how people will think. Because history has shown a wholly religious people who have known freedom and liberty have a tolerance and restraint which only bends so far, and when motivated carnage surely follows. You can take that anyway you wish but your confidence to control is miserably misplaced.

    One other little reminder. Your jackbooted President doesn’t rate well with the United States military. So it will be an interesting exercise when these military guys you Leftists have belittled for well over 40 years are now asked to do your dirty work in destroying us, including many of their moms and dads.

    You may find the gun not pointed at my head but yours, you may find the electricity for your respirator doesn’t work anymore, and you may find yourself very limited in travel for our troubles. 😐 Don’t think you won’t share in the sacrifice this time.

  54. I guess the bottom line is hopefully “gayism” and “racism” will be a moot point in another 30 or 40 years and laws like RFRA will not be needed.

    That’s an outcome the others here don’t want. They want gays treated as second class citizens, not allowed to pursue happiness in the very same way that non-gays do.

  55. Tex if I may paraphrase you, force is not the same as persuasion. I definitely agree. Honey more attractive than vinegar.

    Sadly this country is very much as Churchill characterized it. We try every wrong way until we get it right and some folks are tired of waiting for us to get it right.

  56. SAY WHAT!!!!?? “…the others here don’t want They want gays treated as second class citizens, not allowed to pursue happiness the very same way that non-gays do.”

    Are you not paying attention? This is an attempt to usurp legitimate rights of religion guaranteed in the Constitution by making it culturally impossible to openly practice one’s religious beliefs, or even a conservative ideology. We are watching fascists and fools attempt to destroy a culture which is native to the United States. This is less about discrimination against gays and more about forcing a large segment of this country to be “treated as second class citizens, not allowed to pursue happiness in the very same way that (gays and leftists) do.”

    If you weren’t referring to the loyal contributors of your blog, “never mind.”

  57. “That was to demonstrate the illogical thinking of its advocates (who according to Tigre, also don’t know what the law says).”

    That is indeed true. Like virtually all of its detractors that don’t bother understanding the law before freaking out reducing themselves to inapplicable platitudes (you being a classic example), many advocates don’t know or understand what the law provides either. I doubt me, Alfie, Muffy or anyone lese here disputes that. However, while making you more smug and senseless with each comment you post, it does nothing to make your case. Quite the opposite.

    And here’s the crux:

    “So, the REAL truth is “Christians of conscience” CHOOSE to be offended by gay marriage. Being a baker, florist, photographer or caterer doesn’t mean YOU have to copulate with someone of your own gender.”

    Why you repeat this over, and over, and over without tying it to the understand the issue is really no surprise. It’s how you approach all of these issues: ignorance. The objections are more than “being offended by gays” or offended by “gay marriage.” To many, it is a rightly and deeply held belief as to what constitutes marriage and what denigrates it. It is not just being forced to recognize it, it is being forced to participate. Which should but doesn’t raise two questions for you: 1) why should they be “forced” to violate their deeply held religious beliefs and 2) how does recognizing their right to be left alone take away from any of the social forces you deem inevitable. Gay wedding don’t stop, the law recognizing unions or marriage will be enacted, institutions without objection will perform ceremonies. . .

    Should Catholic Churches, Jewish Synagogues, Muslim mosques be forced to conduct gay weddings? If not, then why should their members be forced to participate in them? Do you really think this is just about being grossed out by gay sex?

    Incidentally, my son asked who is raised Catholic (mom) said he didn’t know of anything that prevented him from catering a gay wedding, and I think he’s right. In fact, the first wedding he ever attended was a lesbian civil union in Vermont. But that ain’t all churches and beliefs. I hope unlike you he hopes to respect others’ religious beliefs rather than thinking it is his job to use the instrumentality of the state to force him to participate in others’ non-religious social agendas no matter the impact to his faith.

  58. “A person who thinks the RADICAL GAY AGENDA is not hostile towards Faith in general and Christianity specifically is a retard.”

    With regards to the RADICAL GAY AGENDA, I agree.

  59. Well James, you seem a bit more moderate on the subject so I’m not sure I’d include you in the “others here”. But Tex, Tigre, DR and sadly even Alfie don’t believe gays have the constitutional right to marry. So pursuit of happiness only applies to straight folks.

    I’m telling them that the most dramatic change in the status of a minority ever has occurred with gays. Time to get ones head out of the sand.

  60. “That’s an outcome the others here don’t want. They want gays treated as second class citizens, not allowed to pursue happiness in the very same way that non-gays do.”

    And to make the point, another tidbit of unrivaled stupidity from our blog host.

    So idiotic and childish, I am embarrassed for you.

  61. We are still trying it the wrong way from this Indiana debacle to hands up don’t shoot.News Busters tells us USA Today wonders why so many white students play on Wisconsin’s basketball teams. Surely this is a racist ploy and not pure stupidity.

    The comments section is instructive. Whites and Asians are still in the majority. These false accusations of racism are losing their effect. Comments included “everything is about race now. “as far as they are concerned one white guy is a hundred too many.”. “I love being white.” “white power!” My skin is my uniform.” “Viva La White Raza!” “Couldn’t whites make the argument that there needs to be more white people in the NBA and NFL. Don’t we need white quotas. Where is the affirmative action in the NFL and NBA?” “Only Obama’s cabinet has fewer black people.,” “And underpaid women.” “Oh and USA Today to you; racists.” “Just wait. Next year they will be catching heat because they have only 4 gay players.”

    An undercurrent of mutual hostility and resentment is bad for the counrtry.

  62. “But Tex, Tigre, DR and sadly even Alfie don’t believe gays have the constitutional right to marry. So pursuit of happiness only applies to straight folks.”

    Hey dumb fuck, I told you litigated AGAINST state constitutional restrictions directed at prohibiting gay union. I explained I great detail what the issues were and how I felt about them.

    You really are a retard.

  63. Should Catholic Churches, Jewish Synagogues, Muslim mosques be forced to conduct gay weddings?

    Thank you for asking!!! No no no no no!!! THAT is separation of church and state. The state cannot dictate what goes on in a church (unless we’ve got clear violation of statutes – like no ritual murders please). The state CAN influence the conduct of commerce. Big huge difference!

  64. Rutherford, my wife and I attended the first gay marriage in western Iowa and maybe the state after the court decision. I took pictures for them but failed to get around to giving them any. One of the women proved herself to be a jerk and a parasite. They divorced. When the friendly half couldn’t afford to pay her car repair bills, we loaned her our Escort for nearly two months. My wife and I aren’t perfect, but we have nothing against gay marriage. We do oppose compulsion to violate moral and religious beliefs as long as they don’t impose widespread bigotry on others. We oppose an attack on freedoms posing as a civil rights movement.

  65. Cimerelli are six home schooled girls from Sacramento They turned themselves into world YouTube stars with a cover of One Direction, The short girl on the left at the very beginning and a featured singer has an intersex condition called Turners Syndrome.,

    Now, that we have such public concern for gay people, what about another tiny minority, intersex people suffer physically and are often derided. When will they force us to feel guilty about them? Shouldn’t we have affirmative action and quotas for them? Some suffer from legal ambiguity. Their marriages might not be legal in places though they had no choice over how their bodies developed.

    What about little people. Don’t they deserve more consideration than we give them.

  66. But Tex, Tigre, DR and sadly even Alfie don’t believe gays have the constitutional right to marry.

    I said nothing of the sort. Gays have the same rights as you and I to marry. And that is the biggest lie of them all as advertised by fools like you.

    The real issue is not rights or constitutional rights. This is something way beyond the constitutional rights. It is the attempt to redefine what constitutes marriage. You believe it wise to redefine the most basic institution of civilization and render it meaningless. Frankly, you’re a stupid, weak, rudderless man preaching to many of us to pull our heads out of the sand, when your own head has never seen light. And you’re no different than those 42 years ago mumbling abortion on demand would assure every child wanted. All of this is based on a pack of lies. All of it.

    I can trace every problem in America back to the breakdown of the basic family unit – and especially the demographic you belong to. What a fool you are, too ignorant to even see the country crumbling. No wonder you were so smitten by a charlatan mouthing platitudes.

  67. LOL James even I was struck by how white the Badgers were. My wife told me “everyone in Wisconsin is white” half in jest of course.

    There’s a difference between racism and simple demographics.

    On a side note, Wisconsin has nothing to be ashamed of – they fought a good fight last night. Duke had to EARN it.

  68. Hey dumb fuck, I told you litigated AGAINST state constitutional restrictions directed at prohibiting gay union.

    Then talk it like you walked it homeboy … or did you do that litigation contrary to your moral conscience? 🙂

  69. “Yup, so bake the damn cake and stfu. :-)”

    No. I’ll call your threat and raise.

    You can’t make people take part in religious ceromonies if they don’t want to. Separation of Church and State.

    No, Rutherford…in America you can’t make people STFU.

    Stfu?

    I’ll beat your ass if you ever alter my God given rights. I’ll tar and feather you if you ever shut me the fuck up. I’ll rip your face off if you ever shut me the fuck up. Yes, I will beat a handicapped person’s ass so bad most of what remains of you will be found in a mop bucket if you ever shut me the fuck up..

    I’ll take it a step farther. Not only can you not force me to take part in religious ceremonies, you can’t make me express ideals that go against my beliefs.

    I don’t care if I design cakes, design websites, act, write books, dance, sing, or give speeches for a living.

    You can’t claim because I do it for money the state can now decide what my voice says. You can’t and if you ever have the state behind you its war.

    And you know what?

    I can’t do it to you, either.

    Piss on Christ and sell it to the highest bidder. Refuse to piss on Christ and sell it to the highest bidder. Its your choice.

    You can even express the notion that people don’t have the right to express themselves, as you are now.

    You are not bestowed with the power to pick and choose what people have to say or what they refuse to say. Not you or the government.

    The more I think about this, the more I realize its my duty to go out on my shield to protect my kids from your tyranny.

    You are playing with fire over the dumbest shit.

    Hell…if I was a baker I would bake the damn cake. And then I’d fight in the streets to defend my competitor if you ever male him bake cakes in a fashion that compromises his 1st amendment rights.

  70. Thank you for asking!!! No no no no no!!! THAT is separation of church and state. The state cannot dictate what goes on in a church (unless we’ve got clear violation of statutes – like no ritual murders please). The state CAN influence the conduct of commerce. Big huge difference!

    Anyone notice the transparent ploy? First privatize your worship. It’s easier to marginalize, then eliminate that way. Real evil works best when it doesn’t see the light of day. Where did Jesus tell us NOT TO WITNESS the good news, Pontius Rutherford? When did Jesus tell us to privatize our worship, Caiaphas Rutherford? Has the mob formed yet to crucify us?

    Think about what Rutherford is really saying here. Government will control the way you think, the way live, the way you do business, and will most importantly, who you will associate with. Government is the highest order of conscience in this universe. There is no free will but what government dictates.

    Do you gay marriage proponents have confidence that men like Obama wise enough to determine how you should think? Have they earned your confidence in they know best? Does their record lend them credibility of wisdom? And isn’t this perfect?

    You don’t think that our beloved Rutherford doesn’t worship a god? 😛 Think again. Rutherford is the most zealous in his faith on this board – in fact, consumed by his faith. This man is wholly religious –

    The god of state shall rule. All Hail Caesar!

  71. Rabbit my STFU was in response to the bogus claim by you and Muffy that this is not about feelings. IT’S ALL ABOUT FEELINGS. If it weren’t, you COULD just bake the damn cake.

    You can’t have your gay cake and eat it too. You can’t claim some objectivity here and in the next breath talk about “beliefs.”

  72. My take on gay marriage.

    As it stands, nobody is being discriminated against for the reason Tex has given.

    So….the judicial branch shouldn’t be the rout gays take. (If said judicial branch had an ounce of integrity)

    This is a legislative issue. Change the definition of marriage and gays can marry. Should be up to the state to decide if collective cultural suicide is the track they want to take.

    We are free to commit suicide as we have been for sometime.

  73. Evidently Rutherford is just going to keep repeating the inanity of his original post, occasionally unleashing the caps lock to sharpen his spoon. I’d rather have dental surgery than have to watch him spike the cultural football, and in the 3rd quarter no less.

    Rutherford IS the new waterboarding.

  74. “IT’S ALL ABOUT FEELINGS. If it weren’t, you COULD just bake the damn cake.”

    Its not about feelings. Its about expression. And you want to control expression because of other people’s hurt feelings.

    1st amendment has nothing to do with feelings and has everything to do with the most important pillar of freedom that I can imagine: self expression. The essence of being free.

    Baking a generic cake is not expressing a belief in any reasonable way. No gay should be thrown out of a bakery for requesting a cake for cake’s sake.

    Forcing a baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding (the cake is often a center piece to the ritual) is wrong.

    Even worse, forcing the baker to communicate anything on that cake (perhaps two male figurines) means war.

  75. “IT’S ALL ABOUT FEELINGS. If it weren’t, you COULD just bake the damn cake.”

    No, it isn’t. It’s about forcing people to set aside their religious beliefs, without a compelling reason.

  76. “That would make you a masochist, wouldn’t it?”

    I can still appreciate what the others are saying on the matter. Very much so.

    Make no mistake, people like me who are Christians and who don’t balk at same sex marriage are the ones treading on thin ice.

    You’re winning no converts here to your religion of government replacing God as moral conscience.

  77. Muffy dress it up however you please. Your “religious beliefs” are your feelings. If you want to get technical, they’re Gods feelings to which you adhere without question. Does that work better for you?

  78. I find your God as moral conscience offensive. As I said in the piece, there are atheists who find homosexuality immoral. Where are the laws to “protect” them?

  79. I think I only saw excerpts of Ted Cruz’s announcement but I just watched all of Rand Paul and he blew Cruz away.

    Concrete policy statements and few empty Pollyannish declarations. He will be interesting to watch as he goes forward.

  80. I find your God as moral conscience offensive

    When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    I find your disbelief in the God of this country’s forefathers offensive and un-American. The same God that every founding father of America signed their name to who grants us these rights you speak. And read it closely – the Founding Fathers of the country you are entitled to live within in security and peace, freedom and liberty.

    And you will note, Caesar Rutherford, these Founders whose sacrifices you benefit substantial from from works not of you’re doing, made it abundantly clear that the same God who grants us these rights is the same God who reigns above natural laws. Everyone of them signed their name to that. Not a militant, atheist queer or irreligious zealot like you amongst them.

    It is you flouting your demands. It is you forcing this issue when it doesn’t need to be. It is you that characterizes intolerance. It is you that denies millions of us of freedom of conscience. It is you that is opposed to the very fabric of this country’s foundations. It is you that is attempting playing god. It is you that that is dishonest. It is you that is wrong and looking for a fight.

    You and your feckless friends like Starbuck Huck can go to hell if you think for one minute you’re going to force your immoral fascism down my throat, jackboot.

  81. I talk it just like I walk it, you dumb fuck. Why don’t you go back and read what I wrote, then read it again without moving your lips.

    I honestly cannot conceive of anybody more incapable of recognizing the irony of there own statements than you.

    Now Mr. tolerant and inclusive, why don’t you go walk it like you talk it. You are too full of shit and ignorant to offer an honest or meaningful response to any of this. All you seem to be able to do is to continue to repeat the same childish blather without ever addressing any of the substantive points made by others. So, I am done with it. I’ll wait to discuss these matters with adults.

  82. Tex your lecture can go on and on but you don’t touch the question. Why does RFRA (with “religion” in the title) not protect the conscience of an atheist? Why do we assume conscience is the domain of the God-fearing? THAT is what offends me.

    An atheist who refused to service a gay wedding would be called a bigot and you and yours would leave him flapping in the breeze. But let him wrap his conscience in God and suddenly he’s a hero.

    I call bullshit!

  83. On a lighter note, I am having a fabulous time learning that unlike the original excuse that the ASSHOLE SENATOR (and former boxer {snicker}) Harry Reid was injured by “exercise equipment failure”, it now appears that it wasn’t exercise equipment at all but a pair of meaty fists in a drunken stupor that pulverized that piece of shit’s ugly mug.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/04/capitol_police_stonewalling_release_of_information_on_harry_reids_injuries.html

    ** GUFFAW ** Who apparently did it makes the revelation even more delicious. 😈 That excuse never did pass the smell test. And why would a thug like Reid not be suing for extensive damages the company that manufactured the equipment?

    I want to buy that drunk a trophy and wash his feet, begging for a repeat performance. That ladies and gentleman, is the proper way to treat a Lib. When these bastards get in your face and run their pitiful mouths, knock their sorry asses into next week.

  84. LOL you’re so full of shit Tigre. I haven’t seen substantive questions. I’ve seen declarations of war.

    Questions would suggest you WANT to understand an opposing opinion and we both know better, don’t we?

  85. “Muffy dress it up however you please. Your “religious beliefs” are your feelings. If you want to get technical, they’re Gods feelings to which you adhere without question. Does that work better for you?”

    Not even if you use all caps.

  86. Tex your lecture can go on and on but you don’t touch the question. Why does RFRA (with “religion” in the title) not protect the conscience of an atheist?

    It protects the individual rights of everybody. It’s the clearest, dearest form of freedom. Free will to determine what is moral – and with millions of us, something most basic. The submission of moral absolutes determined by our God. My Gawd man, you’re ISIS without the balls to carry a scimitar and don’t even realize it. You march lockstep blindly to the drum of that theocracy you fear. Goosestep, in fact.

    Don’t give me this horseshit that anybody is trying to impede upon your conscience. I have told you a million times right here, you’re free to choose and associate with anybody you wish, especially with respect to individual faith.

    Listen up bub and read well. If you’re so brave and deathly concerned about these rights, why don’t you lift your buns down to Dearborn, MI, walk into a devout Islamic bakery and loudly state your demands that you insist upon a Wedding Cake for Bruce and Jimmy? Better yet, why don’t all your limp-wristed friends float into a Compton, CA bakery of homies and demand they bake you a wedding Cake for Maddow and Bunny? You bunch of cowardly fucks. You can harass the Mormon Church and vandalize the buildings, but you won’t even make mention that Black America is even more adamant in their opposition to gay marriage.

    Rutherford, Rabbit is right. You have no moral foundation whatsoever besides a political ideology while you whip it to your sentimental god Baracka . Besides the closet Starbuck Muslim, you are the emptiest, most soulless man I converse with on this board. You’re so easily manipulated by “feelings”, you’re virtually useless. I don’t think you even understand rights, Rutherford. Your most evil component may be the inability to even understand the question at hand – your inability to even reason obvious.

    Who exactly is it that is making these demands? The baker, the florist, the candlestick maker are asking to be left alone and abide by their conscience – we allow that all the time. Quakers are not ask to participate in battle for religious reasons. Those rights were and are respected. You militants are the ones forcing your demands on these perfectly innocent folk you have threatened, you have demonized, you have hassled, you have ruined. One day, you assholes are going to run into the wrong person and some of you bastards are going to learn the Harry Reid lesson or worse.

    Here’s a real easy solution. Get your nasty asses to a baker that will service you and get the fuck out and stay the fuck out of our lives. Real simple.

  87. Ok now that we’ve had fun cussing at each other this is what is ideal.

    Dude asks for gay wedding cake.
    Baker says “I’m happy for you and I wish you all the best but the way I grew up, I just can’t lend my services to your wedding. Bob’s Bakery down on Main Street just catered a gay wedding two weeks ago. He’s real good. I can even get him on the phone for you if you want a price quote before going down there.”

    Gay dude appreciates the honesty COMBINED with respect and compassion and willingness to offer an alternative. He heads down to Bob’s not feeling like shit. Everyone is happy.

    You guys think I’m a fascist. What I just described is how it should be.

    So we have to ask ourselves does it usually go down this way? If so, then the media and political spin doctors have created a mountain out of a molehill.

    If not, what can we do to “help” folks respect each other? At the end of the day, all anyone should want is for their humanity (baker and customer) to be respected without malice.

  88. Rutherford the RFRA has not been successfully used in a case that was found to be discrimination towards gays primarily due to cases having occurred being tied to public accommodation issues. It has supported multiple faiths dress and allowed Native Americans to use peyote. Why has the handful of individual vs individual not used RFRA at all is not as important as the absolute right that they should be able too.
    What is your right to degrade others faith principles? I’d like to think I could handle a service person refusal to serve me in most cases . For example if I had to wait for a clerk to sell me pork chops the bother is understandable.

  89. Now, my reality. First a caveat that I didn’t land either of the customers I’m about to describe but that’s why I take phone center calls for a living. I suck at landing customers.

    A few years ago I had a prospective customer who wanted to run webinars pitching some snake oil he was selling. The only bright side was he truly believed in his product. But I knew the product was bogus and the pitch was hype. I didn’t get on my high horse and refuse service. The guy ended up only getting consulting advice from me instead of full blown webinars but if he paid my fee, he got the service.

    Another fellow kicked the tires with me a year or two ago. He was a “spiritual leader” who wanted to run webinars teaching his hybrid of Christianity, Judaism, and Eastern religions. I researched him and came to the conclusion he was a highly motivated, well meaning nutjob. I didn’t stop to say “oh my, his belief system doesn’t align with mine!” Had he done more than just kick the tires he would have been my customer.

    When it comes to commerce my bar for refusal is VERY high. Advocating hate and violence would cross the line. Otherwise I’d just shake my head, chuckle a bit internally and then “bake the damn cake”.

  90. R you’re killing me with your respect scenario. Do you think the sprinkle of folks who were sued by queers had yelled at ,proselytized or chased folks from the places of business?

  91. Do you think the sprinkle of folks who were sued by queers had yelled at ,proselytized or chased folks from the places of business?

    Actually I doubt it. And I acknowledged in the post that a vindictive (read that “radical” if you like) gay should not have the power to ruin someone’s business over this.

  92. Radical gay agenda types are the look at me respect or else types. They fight for the sake of the fight not a true goal. There is a difference between those who are gay and want some social justice and those who want social discord. Trust me they are out there just like any demographics pain in the ass nut jobs. (No puns intended there btw)

  93. That you think the world works in a way in which the guy who supposedly violates a gays rights can get a small fine and not “have his business ruined”.

  94. I was repairing my shed today when a thought struck me and a thought occurred to me. I had to share it (besides I was tired of repairing rotted wood).

    Rutherford? You and Pfesser have accused me and my lady friend Muffy of being so tied at the hip that we might be one and the same; an alter ego I believe was your last definition. That has always amused and confused me for some reason, though I know you’re half teasing about the same people since you’ve seen the same picture Muffy has of my family and Muffy wasn’t the woman in that picture.

    But here is where Muffy and I differ. The issue of gay marriage. I’m adamantly against it. And if I understood, Muffy is resigned to being for it. Do you have any idea how different that really makes us between two people who themselves Christian?

    Now, I am sure your follow up will be then why aren’t you ripping Muffy like you rip me? And here’s the reasons. First, Muffy isn’t forcing me to believe like she believes – live and let live. Second, Muffy and I can reason and on at least one occasion here, have discussed this very issue. You either missed that or forgot that.

    So, having said that, I’m sure you think me a gay basher. But I’ll have you know that I have worked with gays without problem or complaint for years, never had a problem with a gay woman or man except for one time when this “woman partner – the masculine one” blew up at me in an office for reasons having nothing to do with preference, but the fact I told her “lover” she was a pain in the ass which made her cry. Oops. This very troubled woman who until that minute liked me, literally threatened me (she had some real anger issues and I would guess somewhere down the line, perhaps had been abused). I reminded her that threats of my well being weren’t going to work but the minute she threw a punch or got physical, I would be forced to defend myself like she was a man. Never got mad or angry and nothing ever came of it after that as the feminine partner soon quit the company – in fact, I think they “divorced” or whatever you call it. 🙂 Lisa moved back to Dallas; Kristi moved on to greener pastures last I heard. That was 20 years ago.

    For all I know being Muffy more private than most, might be gay. Wouldn’t change my fondness for Muffy as I don’t hate gay people for being gay. I do loathe many gays for the way they act, just as you have legitimacy for disliking Christians for the way they can act.

    But I can assure you there are some of your homosexual friends who would hate me for not conforming to their desires.

  95. That you think the world works in a way in which the guy who supposedly violates a gays rights can get a small fine and not “have his business ruined”.

    I don’t think it’s a matter of how I think the world works. It’s a matter of how I think it should work.

  96. Tex outdoors work does your mind good. That was one of the most sane thoughtful comments you’ve made in a while – and contemplating that Muffy might be gay … dag that fresh air opens up your head to all possibilities. 🙂

  97. Well, on a personal note, doc late last year ordered me to get a 24 hour holter monitor. Took me so long to get round to it that when I was ready the order was already expired.

    Anyway, I put the damn thing on yesterday at 10am, took it off today at 10am and returned it.

    Now I don’t want to know the results. I’ve had a busload of things wrong with me over the years but the only thing I’ve ever really FEARED is heart trouble.

    We’ll know when we know and we’ll do what we have to do. 😦

  98. Good luck Rutherford. I’m glad you liked the chuckle. I read the Wisconsin coaching staff recruits heavily from Wisconsin.

  99. American Renaissance says new studies show Europeans have as much as three times more Neanderthal lipid catabolism than Asians or Africans. Scientists don’t yet know how they influence the Europeans’ brains, though they do.
    Comments. “I am proud of my Neanderthal heritage, How about a European Neanderthal Heritage Day?”

    “The powers that be will only allow that if you have a gay Neanderthal Heritage Day.”

  100. contemplating that Muffy might be gay

    {Snicker}. I think you misunderstood. I wasn’t contemplating whether Muffy “gay” or not. I simply used it as a reference because of the subject material. My point was, it wouldn’t matter if Muffy were and I used her as example because she’s private, you called her my sister/my wife/my girlfriend/me, and she’s a peach whose wit I most respect.

  101. “I don’t think it’s a matter of how I think the world works. It’s a matter of how I think it should work.”

    I think I should be able to dunk a basket balk.

    Yeah….so I’m back to the 15 year old bit.

    You aren’t being serious. A small fine for the dude who doesn’t want play a role in a gay wedding….its so fucking unfeasible…. I’m almost embarrassed I responded so many times on how it would thrash the 1st amendment.
    …I’m sure you see yourself a dreamer though…

    You are over 50 years old…….

  102. “The powers that be will only allow that if you have a gay Neanderthal Heritage Day.”

    Well….the Neanderthal did go extinct.

  103. Keep your eye on the lib pushback on Rand Paul. The more pushback the more of a threat he may be. Twitter is already slamming him rather than ignoring him.

  104. I’ve always thought it was hypocritical of Rutherford to say me and Tex must be related or the same person since R seems to have such strong opinions about when people make similar remarks about other commenters. In this case he repeats it often enough that I find it tiresome and a wee ill-humored, but not particularly insulting.

  105. McCain declaring he was running again in 2016 about made me fall out of my chair until I heard the rest of the announcement.

  106. Thomas Jefferson also bedded his unwilling black female slave, impregnating her, then lying about it. Is he the role model you want me to follow?

    Thomas Paine had six people at his funeral, two of which were the diggers of his grave.

    “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people”. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams

    Apparently, America ain’t for you, Rutherford, according to John Adams himself.

    And James Madison just made our point that Government has no place in deciding men’s conscience.

    But do you really want to argue the personalized nature of our Founding Fathers?

    All a matter of public record. The denominational affiliations of the men were a matter of public record. Among the delegates were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and only 3 deists–Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin–this at a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith.

    70% of those were Calvinists, Rutherford. Since you have no idea what that means, let me only say that is strictest Christian dogma of its day. And you want me to believe at its foundings, this was a secular nation. I’m laughing at you.

    Do you see a black liberal theologian amongst the bunch? How about an atheist, Rutherford? Where’s that? And as to Franklin the Deist? Here’s what the “deist” Franklin said when the debate during the construction of The Constitution stalled in 1787.

    Have we forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, sir, a long time and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings that ‘except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel. Franklin was 81 years old when he said this and near the end of his life. [Quoted by James Madison in Notes on Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1966, 1985), p. 209.]

    Study them, oh atheist Rutherford. Four quotes directly from the scripture known as ‘The Bible’ by the senior member of the Founding Council of our country.

    Rutherford, you are product of a failed upbringing, education be damned. Whoever it is that did your bidding as a child, they lied to you. They deceived you. They cheated you. They hid things from you. And it shows..

    That holter monitor? I don’t mean to be the bearer of bad news as I wore one 28 years ago. But it goes without sayin, “Your chickens are near coming home to roossssssttttt…”

  107. 😈 Headline: RUSSIANS HACK WHITE HOUSE; ACCESS OBAMA INFO 😈

    And the first thought that went through my mind? That must have been the fastest hack in the history of the computer – the consummate irrelevant, empty file.

    Barack_Obama.dat – 0 bytes. 😆

  108. but not particularly insulting.

    I get your hypocrisy accusation Muffy. In fact it never occurred to me before.

    Shouldn’t be insulting since you like Tex. Even if my motives are less than pure.

    Ever occur to you that I’m jealous? I’m pretty much alone here.

  109. McCain declaring he was running again in 2016 about made me fall out of my chair until I heard the rest of the announcement.

    By “the rest” do you mean his comments on the longevity of his family?

  110. Do you see a black liberal theologian amongst the bunch?

    I nearly did a spit take picturing Reverend Wright at the Constitutional Convention.

    As for the holter monitor, my daughter was hitting me up for a Heart Assoc donation today and said something to the effect “it’ll keep people from dying”, to which I replied “we’re all dying. Get in line.”

  111. If so, then the media and political spin doctors have created a mountain out of a molehill.

    DING! DING! DING! WINNER!!! DING! DING! DING! WINNER!!!

    The media IS THE PROBLEM!!! I’ve been saying that for an awful long time now.

  112. When it comes to commerce my bar for refusal is VERY high. Advocating hate and violence would cross the line. Otherwise I’d just shake my head, chuckle a bit internally and then “bake the damn cake”.

    Rutherford, you should be happy to know over the course of my pool career I have built a few pools for gays. I didn’t criticize the statue of the little boy pissing as the primary water feature either. As long as I don’t have to clean the filter or be there during their sexcapades, I’m good with it. 😉

  113. Hey Tigre I’m watching a TiVo’d Daily Show that was broadcast after my blog post. Jon Stewart not only quotes Rick Santorum but makes my precise point about Santorum (better than I did).

    I guess I’m just a Comedy Central parrot.

  114. I didn’t criticize the statue of the little boy pissing as the primary water feature either.

    I guess rock sucker could be the new cocksucker…a clear case of pedophilia psychosis. 😛

  115. I was executor of my parents’ estates, Rutherford. After my father died, our lawyer said. “You now occupy a lonely position. You have moved closer to the head of the line.”

    My doctor told me to wind up my affairs in 1992, so I told people I might die and needed someone to farm our land. I never knew how many best friends I had before that couple of months. Vultures smell carrion from fantastic distances.

  116. When we lived in England my wife and I saw several little statues with fountains containing small boys watering the pools. We only saw them in London.

  117. Scientists discovered a Neanderthal skeleton with an arrow point imbedded in his ribs. The man had survived his attack because, and he lived long enough for the bones to heal. The arrow point was similar to a Cro-Magnon design. Our ancestors may have helped Neanderthal along.

    Yes, you are more or less alone here, Rutherford. Maybe your allies are like Neanderthals, strong and formitable but less intellectually nimble than conservatives. Not that conservatives are superior. It is easy because truth usually supports conservatives.

  118. I KNEW the mention of the boy pissing would get a rise out of Tex

    You never knew I was such a prude… 😛 Always did find those types of statuaries rather odd – and the people who liked them.

  119. I never knew how many best friends I had before that couple of months.

    I noticed that too when my grandfather died. Family members who never lifted a finger to help suddenly had become such close associates – just wanting something “sentimental.” Like my grandfather’s boat. 😈

  120. A therapist who works for our daughter was fired at 7PM. Our daughter will probably start interviews for a replacement soon. That woman’s day really did go to pot.

  121. 😆 That’s totally gay, Rutherford. Going for more colorful clientele? You’re gonna need a blender and some miniature umbrellas. 😛

  122. Recent murders of seven transgender “women of color,” Alfie.

    That’s really 14 murders using the prog counting method.

  123. A study in how to make an otherwise remarkably tolerant physically/ethnically/culturally mixed culture and turn it against itself.

  124. At some point, the exceeding inanity caused me to just scroll faster.

    I’ll keep it simple, while understanding that this will do NOTHING to help Rutherford’s understanding of the issue he’s working with.

    These are artisans hired to bring something of themselves in a creative element. That means these are neither fungible goods nor public accomodations.
    The law doesn’t provide specific performance as a remedy when dealing with arists.
    The creative element and the fact that this will rarely involve someone stopping by to pick up the goods because the artisans will have to go there, to deliver the cake, to place the flowers and make last minute adjustments, and in the case of photagraphers, they have to be present before, during, and after to capture candid moments. All three require a degree of participation that is distinguishable from other goods and services.
    Believe it or not, you can be friends with gays, you can work with them for years, and you can have a long term business relationship with them, and still believe that marriage is a sacrement, and that participating in a gay marriage is dishonoring that belief.
    Being FORCED to participate in such an event when you believe that it violates your religious principals would be a GROSS violation of your First, Ninth, and Thirteenth Amendment rights. Period.

  125. BiC it saddens me you wouldn’t extend the same conscientious objection to an atheist who is offended by “gayness”. No one yet has told me why conscience only matters if one is religious.

  126. Atheists shouldn’t be offended by gayness, since no one can prove gayness exists. It can’t be measured or tested for. What reality would they base their offense upon?

  127. “By 14 I assume you mean 7 women and 7 former men?”

    Holy shit. The number just leaped to 21.

    Thanks for the correction.

  128. BiC it saddens me you wouldn’t extend the same conscientious objection to an atheist who is offended by “gayness”. No one yet has told me why conscience only matters if one is religious.<<<

    Idiot.

    WHY. DO. YOU. THINK. I. INCLUDED. THE. NINTH. AMENDMENT. AND. THE. THIRTEENTH? WHY. DO. YOU. THINK. I. DISCUSSED. WHAT. DISTINGUISHES. IT. FROM. FUNGIBLE. GOODS. AND. PUBLIC. ACCOMMODATIONS?

    The religious objection is obvious; and as has been pointed out, provides the “easy” defense based on conscience, but it doesn’t mean it’s the only one. However, it doesn’t constitute a “slam dunk”, and without a means to tie your objection to a consitutionally protected basis, you’re going to have a harder time making that case.

    Seriously, maybe you should try staying at a Holiday Inn tonight.

    Maybe it will make it easier to bullshit your way through things you don’t understand.

  129. Seriously, maybe you should try staying at a Holiday Inn tonight.
    Maybe it will make it easier to bullshit your way through things you don’t understand.

    Historically, I’ve had a hard time bullshitting at Holiday Inn’s.

  130. BiC WTF is wrong with you? You expect me to know the ninth and thirteenth amendment?

    I know this much:
    The first amendment gives me the right to SAY I’m gonna shoot you.
    The second amendment gives me the right to SHOOT you and
    The fifth amendment gives me the right not talk about it afterwards. 🙂

    BTW How’d you and Tigre like Rand Paul’s assertion that as POTUS he would hold the Constitution in one hand and the Bill of Rights in the other? Can I start calling him President Redundant yet?

  131. Rutherford, I can no longer attribute it to obtuseness – back to my original theory; the inability to think clearly caused by the acute malady of MSNBC overdose. Is that question something you gleaned from one of your blind squirrels?

    Is there anybody here who has said anything that an atheist is not afforded the same privileges of the 1st Amendment? The conversation has been predominated by the Christians and other people of faith because the act was titled “religious.” Atheists have every right to hold to their sacred beliefs of conscience as well.

    But to the best of my knowledge, I haven’t read of a case where an atheist was forced out of business by the Gaystapo. If I am wrong and owe atheists an apology about conscientious objection, so noted and offered.

    By the way, while Rutherford obviously didn’t bother to make the attempt to understand BIC’s explanation, I learned something I did not give consideration to or know, and I appreciate BIC taking the time to further explain the legality.

  132. “Talk about a thread going to pot”

    Yeah, this thread aint worth piss.

    I can’t believe this is still being discussed. It’s worse than the great cuhnt debate

  133. A GOP strategist was on tv the other day wondering if Rand Paul could “nuke a Muslim country” if he had to. Wow, that’s a great litmus test.

    Yes the circus has come to town. Grab your cotton candy, sit back and enjoy watching the elephants.

  134. Rutherford, enjoy while you can as the elephants you are referring to may go the way of those at Ringling Brothers.

    I know I’m not the brightest bulb on the blog but please tell me what the Holiday Inn has to do with the subject being discussed and try not to be “pissy” in your answer ?!?

  135. First they came for the blacks then they came after the gays. Now, you come after the blonds? How dare you!?

    I was blond for my first two years of life, my daughter is dishwater blond with red hair. Our grand daughter is a red head with spots of blond. My cousins are blond. The only dumb one has brown hair. Lay off the blonds.

    In case you wonder, I am joking about the culture of victimization.

  136. You may think the nuclear attack reference to Paul is crazy, but it is no more crazy than the Democrats’ military strategy and tactics since the Vietnam War. Obama has brought the philosophy to a new high. Countries can sense when an opponent is behaving like a sniveling little coward.

    We will pay for our fecklessness. Maybe not today, but some time when the alternative is the unthinkable attack or the unthinkable surrender.

  137. Don’t get too cocky about the media and the GOP POTUS candidates. What you’re really applauding has more to do with the arrogance and selfishness of the media than the candidates.
    I am especially put off by the obvious “war on women” opening salvo against Rand Paul. He stands up for himself against the media and because two interviewers were females he is somehow a misogynist p.o.s.
    I saw a piece by a guy in WaPo that berated Paul and expounded the virtue of saying no comment as opposed to berating the parlor tricks of an interviewer. I say good for any candidate who wants to make it a point that they and their viewsare the story,the news, not the smiling talking head.

  138. “That’s really 14 murders using the prog counting method.” T

    Check your privilege, brah. 3 were left handed and one walked with a cane. I count 18.

  139. BiC needs to learn what I finnaly realised on this blog entry.

    This might be the only blog where the blogger is the troll.

    This blog was a half thought out piece of trollology.

    Rutherford is being a punk. Outside a few MSNBC bumper stickers…. He has nothing to offer.

    He wants a small 100 dollar fine for the baker because they are being meanies but kind of sort of have the 1st amendment on their side. School boy shit.

  140. Death to the patsy they found with a supposed written confession? Lol. That would tie up some of those nasty loose ends. I surprised they didn’t murder him like they did

    Ibragim Todashev.

    Fuckin’ goon mentality.

  141. I second the Gorilla. In fact, I would nominate the death sentence would be with Tsarnaev standing right next to a stuffed backpack with ammonium nitrate, diesel, about five boxes of 2 1/2″ deck screws I just used, one blasting cap with Huck’s happy face gravatar, and the the clock ticking. If it only shreds him in a thousand pieces, he bleeds out to wild applause.

  142. I say general pop. That dude isn’t converting anyone to his jihadi ways and will be force fed shlong for the rest of his life.

  143. This might be the only blog where the blogger is the troll. This blog was a half thought out piece of trollology.

    😆 That was a historic observation, almost divine insight and beautiful in its content. 😆

  144. They don’t even have the proof they claimed they did. Supposedly a video showing him putting the backpack down they said they had and would reveal, but since has been conveniently lost and forgotten. The investigation proving it a false flag event is still ongoing. The fact that so many people recorded ‘the drill’ has been a bit inconvenient going forward.

  145. Alfie, I think it’s wrong to tie Paul’s behavior to misogyny, although tempting (I can’t swear I’ve seen him behave this way with a male reporter) BUT Paul cannot go on this way. Campaigning means dealing with the press and being antagonistic just makes him look … antagonistic.

    I know it’s cathartic to see someone challenge a smart-ass reporter but it’s a bad long term strategy for Paul.

  146. Outside a few MSNBC bumper stickers…. He has nothing to offer.

    Then please stay the fuck away and go read something that stimulates you … like Guns and Ammo.

  147. “Then please stay the fuck away and go read something that stimulates you … like Guns and Ammo.”

    Speak to the hand, troll-friend.

  148. I say general pop.

    Since at first I had no idea WTF you’re talking about, I’ll translate for the others.

    General population in prison as opposed to solitary. And from what I’ve heard he would be mostly in isolation. I don’t know if that’s for more severe punishment or his safety.

    I fully understand all those calling for his execution. Honestly I’m on a fence but I have a hard time with the state killing a man for a crime committed at 19 with an older brother who did him wrong by leading him astray.

  149. I know it’s cathartic to see someone challenge a smart-ass reporter but it’s a bad long term strategy for Paul.

    This is the last man on earth who has Rand Paul and the Republican Party’s best interests at heart. Whatever Rutherford suggests as path for Republicans from this day forward, the real truth is Leftists fear just the opposite approach.

    Always remember these weak-kneed weasels like Rutherford hint at what they fear. Republicans should start treating the MSM with the respect they deserve. None. In fact, I would go hostile and make the media the enemy immediately by name. Take the battle to these traitorous hacks.

    Too many avenues anymore where Republicans can move their message. Play offense this time.

    In fact Alfie, I would say Rand Paul stumbled badly already for two reasons. Why even give thesehacks an interview? Second, Paul wasn’t nearly forceful enough. In fact, I can absolutely assure you that 90% of Republicans want somebody, anybody to treat the corrupt media with their Democratic bylines like Newt Gingrich did in 2012 – go right after them; make it personal – man or woman, no matter. This shit has got to stop. And Chuck Todd? A worthless weasel and snake? Easy.

    I would have looked at Chuck Todd and said, “All I want to know from you is who the hell cuts your hair? Is that a bowl cut?”

    When they start this war on women bullshit, ask these bastards loudly why these Leftist female shills should be treated as some hothouse flower? I thought this nags were the equals of men? I would have cut her off loudly and said, “At least have the courtesy to take off your Hillary Shirt first before you mischaracterize my positions, liar.”

  150. Sorry Tex you proved in 2012 that your political instincts are no better than mine.

    Your attitude will keep Republicans out of the WH for a generation. The next GOP candidate needs mass appeal to win. There aren’t enough of “you” anymore to win a national.

    Interestingly different personalities can pull this pushback thing off. Christie could have done the same thing to Guthrie and it would not have been as off putting.

    And Paul MAY have a problem. I think it’s fair to say, unlike his father, he has watered down his libertarian opinions over the past 6 or so years.

  151. I fully understand all those calling for his execution. Honestly I’m on a fence but I have a hard time with the state killing a man for a crime committed at 19 with an older brother who did him wrong by leading him astray.

    “My brother made me do it.”???

    Really?

    All aboard the SS Tidy Bowl, people!

  152. I have a feeling that 90% of those in prison would say “the devil made me do it”. My theory is if punishment matched the crime we might have fewer criminals. Since that scenario isn’t going to happen then the best we can do is to give him the death penalty.

    I’m surprised no one has brought up the shooting in SC.

  153. Rutherford an expert on campaigning now because of 2012. Ha ha Ha ha ha.

    We all read your dumb piece on why you just couldn’t vote for Romney. An Obama shill’s perspective.

    MSNBC parroting. Insightful.

  154. My mind says the government shouldn’t have the power to take a life.

    My heart knows that I would be the executioner if someone killed or raped someone in my family. If my family member was killed in that blast, I would have suitcased a wooden shank in my buthole and stabbed his throat 15 times in the court room before I was tazed or shot.

    I’m torn like R.

  155. Your attitude will keep Republicans out of the WH for a generation. The next GOP candidate needs mass appeal to win. There aren’t enough of “you” anymore to win a national.

    Actually, I was so wrong, I said the election would “tight”, one way or another. And you are welcome to look that up. 800,000 votes would have swung the Presidential election to Romney. What I was really wrong about was the motivation of people to even care anymore, to get involved, that with the world ablaze, apathy would no longer rule. If I am to be judged about inaccuracy, let me be judged on overestimating the American citizenry’s engagement in world affairs and intelligence. About that, you are absolutely right – I gave far more credit to American’s very survival than I should. You got me there.

    I am now completely convinced your suggestion to abide by the rules of one-sided engagement is exactly why far fewer people failed to even bother to vote in the last Presidential election – they have grown weary of mealy-mouthed Republican candidates who are not much different than the failed liar Obama, both weak and ineffectual. And I am beginning to understand their point.

    As to your relativism and degree? I have never said a thing in my life that remotely approaches in arrogance or misconception that the Republican Party would go the way of the Whigs – a little over six year ago on this very blog, mind you. You think yourself credible to judge political instincts? I have never met anybody so out of touch with respect to a multitude of subjects than you, bartender – so much so, your very suggestions and naivety have become the predictable running joke here.

    I would remind you that since you made that comment, the Republican Congress now holds a number of House Seats not seen since shortly after WWII, holds a political power in State Houses not seen since Reconstruction, and has moved from a Democratic supermajority in the Senate to a Republican majority position. Six years. And during that time, you have grown even more bold in your assessments. That’s not simply wrong – that’s delusional without shame.

    You, the man of Hope & Change, once convinced the magnetism of Beloved Barack’s magical persuasion would usher in world peace? I would say you are a more fitting representative of a clueless buffoon with a blog, Mr. Rutherford.

  156. I honestly don’t remember Rutherford calling the 2012 race for Obama. Not that it matters anyway, as guesses as to the results of elections are settled by chance as opposed to prescience.

  157. I don’t recall Rutherfod’s predictions being any more or less accurate than Tex’s either, Muffy.

    How did he call the midterms? Oh yeah, even MSNBC knew the dems had to run away from R’s messiah and it was looking bad. How were they going ti warm up the undecideds? Blah.

    Out of touch Rutherford the bubble boy always cracks me up with his universally wrong assesments.

    Hillary 2016!!!!

  158. That’s right, rabbit. A dirty old man. Being a dirty young man was fun too.

    I generally oppose the death penalty, but in this case, I lean toward frying the poor misguided young man. If he really wants to die a martyr instead of as a bored old man, I could accept life. Kill him.

    I agree with Rutherford to a point. The Republicans have to engage with the media fascists and their calling them on their biased reporting. Rand Paul handled the situations well. However, if he makes a habit of it, he will become a troglalite All of the candidates should treat the press with the respect they deserve which is nil.

    They should be more subtle and maybe compare their treatment with specific examples of earlier media malpractice.

  159. Tigre your man lost in 2012 so suck on it.

    As to Muffy, as we got closer to election day I became less cocksure that Obama would win but I still thought he would. I NEVER, unlike my friend Gorilla, called for a landslide for Romney. And if memory serves post-election there was gnashing of teeth from Mr. Taylor to the tune of “I guess I really don’t know this country anymore!!!”

    Back to the one with the bouncy tail for a minute — I will only yell Hillary 2016 if your side is stupid enough to run Ted Cruz against her. Let me repeat — and pin your eyelids open and stare at this for a while till it sinks in — I DO NOT WANT HILLARY CLINTON TO BE THE NEXT POTUS.

  160. “My mind says the government shouldn’t have the power to take a life.”

    Finally.

    And yes to the rest of your statement about personal retribution, rabbit.

    I vote general pop. It’s going to be hard for the jury to hear (again) the story of little Martin Richards body nearly obliterated and his father having to leave his dying son to rush his daughter to the hospital, knowing the moment was one of his son’s last on earth.

    Imagine having to choose to act to try and save the life of your daughter as she tries unsuccessfully to stand on a leg that is no longer whole while your son breathes his last breaths and not being able to remain at his side. It’s so against what makes us human and so opposite the nature of animals.

    My brother made me do it? Pfft. He (Tsarnaev) was also heavily influenced by that piece of shit monster Anwar Al Awlaki and preached the same doctrine himself, little social media moth that he was.

    This grotesque beast deserves to die every day and it’s too bad he didn’t get killed along with his savage brother. But I’d give him life in prison if I were on the jury – which wouldn’t have happened anyway since I wouldn’t have gotten through the selection process.

    Sucks.

  161. One other thing — I don’t recall making any congressional predictions in 2014. It is true that on a local/state scale there are enough Tex Taylor’s to keep Congress mostly red.That is not what I addressed earlier in the thread. I’m talking national. For that you need a big coalition.

  162. Your whole damn party lost last November. So suck on it and bend over and give it a tug.

    So what was your prediction in 2012 Carmack?

  163. “As to Muffy, as we got closer to election day I became less cocksure that Obama would win but I still thought he would. I NEVER, unlike my friend Gorilla, called for a landslide for Romney. And if memory serves post-election there was gnashing of teeth from Mr. Taylor to the tune of “I guess I really don’t know this country anymore!!!” “

    Oh, I wasn’t talking about your thoughts. Just your commentary here. I wasn’t talking about G & Tex either when I wrote that I didn’t remember you calling the 2012 race for Obama.

  164. Rabbit, sorry. But everyone should understand that rock star radical Islam boyfriend placed the backpack containing the bomb on the ground right behind that little boy.

  165. Thanks BIC. Really adept commentary, as usual.

    I’m not sure Rutherford has any more burning questions or last straws here. Do you, R?

    Just STFU then?

  166. “I’m surprised no one has brought up the shooting in SC.”

    There’s no doubt as to what happened. And murder charges already filed against the officer. Kind of resolved for the moment, isn’t it?

  167. How could I forget to make my prediction on the sentence? I nearly missed the opportunity to rock. What are the odds I’ll get a fifty fifty guess correct? Oh, duh.

    Unless I’m mistaken, and I could be, each juror has already said that they would give the death penalty if the case warranted it. In that case I can’t see them not giving the little prick death.

    Come to think of it Jodi Arias’ penalty phase thingy is coming up too. Or else I’ve already forgotten the result.

  168. But everyone should understand that rock star radical Islam boyfriend placed the backpack containing the bomb on the ground right behind that little boy.

    There was a time in America when real proof was needed to convict people of crime instead of media spell casting and grand schemes of illusion. Now fakery and lying are common tools goons use to convict anyone they so choose. Alas, the times they have a’changed.

  169. Come to think of it Jodi Arias’ penalty phase thingy is coming up too. Or else I’ve already forgotten the result.

    What a circus that was/is! That IS one manipulative, evil woman. She’s playing them.

  170. No BIC I meant your April 8, 2015 at 10:56 pm and the follow up @ 11:16 pm. Excellent as usual.

    OMFG!!!! What do you have against copy/pasting WORDS and not times and dates. Is it some childhood trauma? Were you harassed by a computer nerd for difficulty using a mouse? BiC would have had no confusion if you’d just QUOTED him.

    I’ve noticed you almost always quote me. Is this because I’ve told you I don’t get time stamps on my iPhone app? If so, please extend your act of kindness to others here.

  171. Rutherford I was referring to everything BIC wrote in a lengthy comment and a robust follow up. It’s easy to quote moronic quips from you along with pithy works of art from DR and Tigre, but Tex and BIC have me at hello and quite a few words beyond.

    FWIW, how about you keep thread lengths to x<300 at which point you open a new thread ready or not. I’ll cut/past commentary just to say “excellent commentary” in return.

    I’m about done with you and your troll hole anyway.

  172. Oh and Snarky Spice let me give you a style tip. When I am responding to a long comment, I quote the first sentence or so and follow up with an ellipsis to note there was more after that. Example:

    Rutherford I was referring to everything BIC wrote in a lengthy comment …

    Now that ain’t too hard is it? It beats the crap out of your obscure date/time shit.

  173. A style tip from you? That’s the first funny thing you’ve said in ages, maybe ever.

    Are you really making an issue out if this? How about you just scroll past the commentary that bugs the shit out of you like the rest of us do?

What's on your mind?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s