Blog Archives
Concerned Women for America: Supporting gay rights will lead to discrimination towards heterosexuals
I don’t like Starbucks. I don’t like coffee, in general really. I don’t like the smell, the taste, nor the sight of coffee. Starbucks is like the epitome of everything I hate. Overpriced shit.
Concerned Women for America seems to agree with me. Yesterday, CWA’s Chelsen Vicari wrote on their blog about how Starbuck’s policy of non-discrimination towards LGBT people will lead to discrimination towards heterosexuals and conservatives.
What’s next, Starbucks? Two separate drinking fountains for liberals and conservatives or “now hiring” signs reading, “Heterosexuals Need Not Apply”?
She cites a Gallup poll that shows that 40% of Americans identify as conservatives while only 21% of Americans identify as liberals and less than 2% of Americans identify as gay. This is supposed to scare Starbucks, I guess, since they might lose business.
Well, good. Starbucks should lose business.
I fucking hate seeing Starbucks every-fucking-where I turn. I hate people and their pretentious behaviour while they hold a Starbucks cup, as if that somehow makes them sophisticated intellectuals with valuable opinions.
I’m not a homophobe (obviously), but I support Concerned Women for America and their campaign to end Starbucks!
Bring it down!
Black Pastor Thanks Civil Rights Movement Then Says Gays Don’t Deserve Same Equality
Rev. William Owens on Tuesday compared President Barack Obama to Judas, the Apostle of Jesus that betrayed him, because he supports marriage equality. Not only that, but Rev. Owens, who is the founder of the Coalition of African-Americans Pastors and also a liaison to black churches for the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), also said, “The President is in the White House because of the civil rights movement, and I was a leader in that movement, and I didn’t march one inch, one foot, one yard for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman.”
Basically, “I have my equal rights, so I’m going to fight against these people getting equal rights, because God said so.”
He then goes on rambling incoherently about equal rights and blood and Jesus, saying, “So the President has forgotten the price that was paid. People died or they suffered or they gave their blood to have equal rights in the United States. And for the homosexual community and for the President to bow to the money, as Judas did with Jesus Christ, is a disgrace and we are ashamed. We will not take it back. We will not back down. We are going to take action across this country to change the course that this President has us in.”
At first you think he’s starting to come to a point, then he just compares the president to Judas for some reason. Is he trying to say that LGBT people (the Romans) are giving him money for his campaign, therefore he’s betraying America (Jesus) by supporting gay rights, and that is a disgrace that they are ashamed of? I can’t tell. Rev. Owens has also launched a campaign urging black voters to not support President Obama’s bid for reelection because of his support for marriage equality.
I just find it funny that a black man, especially one who fought in the Civil Rights Movement, is trying to deny equal rights to another minority that is constantly stereotyped and discriminated against. It’s also disheartening though that people actually think this. Black support for gay rights is significantly low, and NOM has taken advantage of this. As documents that were uncovered during an investigation showed, NOM is apparently, but not surprisingly, trying to “drive a wedge between gays and blacks” in order to prevent the advancement of marriage equality.
First Congressman To Have Gay Marriage
Rep. Frank is known for his vocal support of gay rights and financial reform, as he was a key proponent in the Dodd-Frank bill that was signed by President Obama in 2010 and rejoiced when a federal appeals court in Boston ruled the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which makes it so that the federal government does not recognise same-sex unions of any kind, unconstitutional.
The ceremony was attended by many important politicians, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Rep. Al Green (D-TX), Senatorial Candidate Elizabeth Warren, who is campaigning against Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown, and was officiated by Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick.
The press were not allowed to view the ceremony.
Maybe there is some hope for America. Maybe we can move forward to a better world. A more tolerant world. A more loving world. Maybe just some more hopeless optimism from a bleeding heart liberal who likes it when people can be happy and show their love for one another.
Michelle Malkin: Bigoted Anti-Bigots?
Michelle Malkin is a conservative blogger and political commentator that often appears on Fox News and other media outlets to spout off conservative lies and propaganda, and she very recently published an op-ed article titled “Bigoted Anti-Bigots” for the National Review Online.
First off, the title. Now, she’s referring to the LGBT movement, calling it the “gay-marriage mob,” claiming that they are “guilty of the very ugly bigotry [they claim] to abhor.” It’s the common saying of, “It’s intolerant to be intolerant of the intolerant,” which is an unintelligible sentence, at best. It is not bigoted to be against the bigots who want to oppress you. If that were true, then blacks and women were being bigoted towards whites and men when they were fighting for their right to be treated equally. I am sure Martin Luther King Jr. and Susan B. Anthony were great big bigots in their times.
When saying that gays and liberals are being hypocritical bigots, Malkin is referring to the recent controversy over boxing champion Manny Pacquiao for “being true to his Catholic faith.” This is because in a recent interview with Examiner’s conservative contributor Granville Ampong, he supposedly mentioned Leviticus 20:13 when asked by Ampong about President Obama’s recent new stance on gay marriage. In his original post, Ampong made it highly suggestive that it was Pacquiao who brought up the Bible verse. It was presumed even more after an actual quote from the boxer where he said, “It should not be of the same sex so as to adulterate the altar of matrimony, like in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah of Old.”
After the USA Today, the LA Weekly, and the Village Voice all reported (in that order) about the original interview, saying that Pacquiao quoted Leviticus 20:13 because of Ampong’s suggestive writing, Ampong wrote another article titled “Biased writers grossly twisted Pacquiao’s view on same-sex marriage,” where in it he blamed the writers from the USA Today and the other news sources mentioned for his terrible writing style, all without correcting his initial post.
Manny Pacquiao has since apologised for the confusion, and has said that while he is against same-sex marriage, he does not think that they should be put to death as commanded by God in Leviticus 20:13, even though he also said that God’s law should always come before man’s. So yes, Granville Ampong is a terrible journalist, Examiner needs to have more oversight of what their writers post, and Manny Pacquiao is still (only partially) a bigot for being anti-gay marriage.
Michelle Malkin, being everyone’s favourite conservative, took the side of Ampong in all this nonsense in order to blame the “politically correct bloodhounds” that are, of course, “backed by George Soros,” the right’s least favourite billionaire. I do not know what it is about conservatives, but nearly every time there is something happening in the media that they disagree with, they always try somehow to blame George Soros for it. Just because he’s rich, is not a conservative, and funds progressive causes does not make him the Anti-Christ. Calm the fuck down, people.
It is interesting, or more so mind-boggling, how Malkin is blaming the “left wing media,” even though the USA Today is not liberal or left-leaning at all, the LA Weekly is most certainly not liberal, and the Village Voice…okay, that one is. It seems that anything to the left of Fox News is, of course, part of the giant leftist conspiracy to turn your kids gay and America into a socialist state (not that there is anything wrong with that).
Near the end of her article, she says that the “bigoted anti-bigot brigade” is targeting poor, defenseless people like Rush Limbaugh, Republican Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, and Catholic healthcare providers, among others, because they “refuse to conform to ‘progressive’ values.” Yeah, such a terrible thing progressive values are, like thinking that women should not have their healthcare denied to them because of someone else’s religion, that workers should have the right to unionise and not have their salaries slashed while giving tax breaks to millionaires, that gays should be treated equally for a change, and that bigots, actual bigots like Michelle Malkin, should be called for it.
My personal favourite part of the op-ed is when Malkin says that the “left wing media” is “shamelessly [demonizing] religion in the name of compassion.” So something that says gays should be put to death, along with many other people for completely arbitrary reasons, does not deserve to be demonised?
Update 19:56: A fan of my Facebook page commented on the link I posted of the original article by Michelle Malkin. They said something that I believe should be shared.
If one can actually consider intolerance of those opposed to the expansion of human rights to those that should already have them to be bigotry, particularly when those fighting against human rights have a habit of literally bullying, bashing, and beating those they oppose, then by Poseidon’s watery beard, I’ll wear THAT particular bigotry badge proudly.Of course, in my experience it is by far mostly the prejudiced, hateful, anti-human rights crowd that call their opposition bigots for opposing their bigotry, so forgive me it I can’t properly express the amount of fucks I don’t give regarding their opinion of people who do actually stand for things like equality.
President Obama Supports Gay Marriage, or Does He?
As most people are aware, President Barack Obama recently said this during an interview with ABC on Wednesday:
I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or Marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.
Gay rights activists and other supporters of gay marriage have been going completely insane over this. When the news first broke of this, I could not find anything in my feed on Facebook or Twitter for about two hours that was not about the president’s endorsement (or so it seemed) of gay marriage. The news was particularly shocking in light of North Carolina’s move on Tuesday to make a constitutional ban against same-sex marriage and Vice President Joe Biden’s recent interview on Meet the Press where he said that he is “absolutely comfortable” with same-sex couples receiving the same rights as straight couples.
The problem with this is that he has not actually said or promised to do really anything. Okay, he thinks that gays should be allowed to get married. Great. He has not said anything about trying to actively repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), although his administration says that they will not defend it in the courts, and he has not said anything about any new federal policy that would allow for gay marriage at the federal level. An aide to the president said that while President Obama feels that gays should have the right to be married, he also believes that the states should be the ones who ultimately decide if they want gay marriage or not.
The interview seemed to be carefully worded so that if he never does anything to repeal DOMA or try to bring a federal law recognising same-sex couples, he can say that he never promised such a thing. It all appears to be empty election politics so as to stir gay voters who may have been thinking of not voting for him come November (not that they would vote for Mitt Romney, who has stayed consistent, for once, on the issue of gay marriage and how he is against it).
Now despite this, President Obama’s words are encouraging. He has said that his position on the issue has been “evolving,” and maybe he will try to repeal DOMA someday. President Obama does not seem to realise this, but the position of the presidency does have a lot of influence with how the public feels and talks about certain issues, especially since he is a black man and black people and other minorities, while supportive of the Democratic Party, are not as supportive of gay rights as we would hope. Him coming out in favour of gay marriage by fully repealing DOMA and recognising same-sex couples would possibly put this issue in its dying days.
President Obama has done amazing things for gay rights, such as ending Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT), and although this does seem like nothing more than election rhetoric to get liberals to the voting booths, the idealist in me hopes that someday (soon hopefully) we can all look back on this like we look back today at the people who opposed women’s rights and black rights and think to ourselves, “Those people were fucking stupid.”
