It has happened again, and it's going to keep happening.
A Minneapolis bus driver recently complained that an advertisement for a gay magazine that ran on the back of some city buses offended her religious beliefs about homosexuality. The ad depicted the face of a young man and carried the slogan, "Unleash your inner gay." The magazine it advertised is not pornographic and nothing in the ad itself was even sexually suggestive.
Nevertheless, the driver told the city transit authority that she could not, in compliance with her faith, drive a bus that carried such an ad. The transit authority at first accommodated her wishes by agreeing to assign her only to buses that didn't carry the ad.
But after union leaders and some public officials complained that the accommodation sent a message of "intolerance" and disrespect for the "diversity" of the city's riders and other bus drivers, transit officials announced they would "be reluctant" to grant such requests in the future.
How should those of us who support equal rights for gay people think about incidents like this? Should we magnanimously try to accommodate the deep religious convictions of those who oppose gay civil rights, risking that these objections will proliferate and undermine equality? Or should we reject all such accommodations, no matter how small, subverting the very principles of pluralism and tolerance that the gay civil rights movement has been built upon?
I generally support accommodations for sincere religious objectors, certainly where the accommodation can be made at little or no cost to other legitimate public interests. These other public interests include administrative burdens and hardship to the class of people protected by the law (e.g., an antidiscrimination law).
In the case of the Minneapolis bus driver, the public interest was largely administrative and appeared to be no more than trivial in magnitude. It was easy to assign this single driver to one of the majority of buses that didn't carry the offending ad. (If half the bus drivers refused to drive buses with ads that offended them, we'd have a different issue.) We have no reason to believe that the driver's religious objections were not sincere or that they were part of an orchestrated campaign to drive gay-themed ads off the city's buses.
But for a generous policy of accommodations to work in a diverse society, we must have some reasonable self-restraint on the part of potential objectors. They must search their consciences in good faith to ask whether compliance (in this case, driving the bus to which one is assigned) really would violate a religious command to the contrary. Nobody thinks bus drivers endorse the messages or products in the ads on the buses they drive. I doubt that even most religions that condemn homosexual acts would really require that an adherent not drive the bus under these circumstances.
The risk is that drivers who are simply uncomfortable with certain ads will (either mistakenly or dishonestly) label their objections "religious" and demand reassignment. This problem is especially great when it comes to anything gay-related because many people still have a gut-level "ick" reaction to homosexuality. If challenged, they often vaguely attribute this reaction to religious teachings.
A policy of accommodation cannot work if objectors insist on a right to be made comfortable. Our society is much too diverse, religiously and otherwise, for that.
By saying they would "be reluctant" to reassign offended drivers in the future, transit authorities struck a sensible balance. They leave open the door to a possible accommodation in isolated cases while signaling their skepticism about such claims in a way that may (1) dissuade impostors and (2) cause sincere religious objectors to examine more closely their own religious scruples before requesting an accommodation.
Less persuasive are "diversity" and "tolerance" rationales for denying accommodations like this. If transit authorities had accommodated a driver's religious objections by removing the gay-themed ads or by permitting a driver to refuse entry to homosexual riders, that would truly signal intolerance.
But here, by hypothesis, we can accommodate a religious objector at no apparent cost to anyone. The only thing lost is the corrosive satisfaction of knowing that a dissenter from our values has been made to heel. I'm not sure this satisfaction is all that different in form from the old rationale for sodomy laws, under which the state enforced the nosy preferences of the moral majority even though it could show no appreciable harm to anyone from the activity prohibited.
And why don't diversity and tolerance include religious dissenters from majoritarian values? It shows no intolerance of gay people to accommodate sincere religious objectors where the accommodation will cause no harm; on the contrary, it shows tolerance for religious diversity.
Keeping the culture war at a manageable level of conflict requires both sides to make some sacrifices. The state should accommodate religious objectors where the cost of doing so is small. But religious objectors should accommodate state interests where doing so is religiously permissible and does little more than make them uncomfortable.
I am not sure either side is capable of this sort of self-restraint. Many people seem to want to turn up the volume and temperature by using every confrontation as a chance to accuse the other side of prejudice and bad faith. It doesn't have to be that way.
49 Comments for “The Back of the Bus”
posted by Regan DuCasse on
This driver is really trying to exercise what she thinks is her right not to be offended.
And there is no such thing. For practical reasonse her religion is a personal and fluid affair. It’s not a right to have public affirmation of it, it is simply an accomodation that she can have the religion and pursue as she wishes.
However, being gay is a human condition. An affirmation of that condition as benign or at least recognizing that being gay exists, as we would respect the existence of this woman’s religious affiliation is a matter of acknowlegement.
She CHOOSES to take offense at the ad.
The point is, we live in a free market and free expression society.
The ad was not out there to deliberately offend Christians or any other person with a religious objection to gay people.
But Christians are assertive people, who expect acceptance of a chosen and highly subjective lifestyle.
Yet, there is no objection to being a protected class.
I can be just as offended at the constant bombardment, recruitment and sense of entitlement that eminates from the Christian community.
The ad wasn’t anti Christian. So there was no need for complaint.
However, gay people can and should take offense at something that is not only distinctly ANTI gay, but such speech can and does result in actual rights and freedom and physical safety being taken away from a gay person.
This woman has no such fear of such a thing happening to HER if the ad stays in place.
Wish certain religious people who say they have a lock on philsophy of good and evil who is deserving of Constitutional protections and accomodation would figure THAT out!
posted by Andrew Perraut on
Replace “gay” with “black” and realize how ridiculous this is. There would (rightly) have been no accommodation made for a bigot who refused to drive a bus with a black family on it and there shouldn’t be any accommodation for an anti-gay bigot here. She’s being paid to drive that bus, not express her religious beliefs. If doing her job offends her values so greatly, she should quit.
posted by Al on
This entire thing got far more attention then it deserved. Its just a bus ad. But if one can object to that others could object to other things. Perhaps all gay drivers would object to buses with a Focus on the Family ad? Should we tell them they must keep driving? So it could be a double edged sword. But more importantly does anyone actually look at the ads on the bus. Normally I?m to busy making sure the dam thing does not hit me since the DC bus drivers are maniacs.
posted by dr on
If she’s so offended, she ought to quit. Right now, she’s just a whiner. I guess her faith isn’t important enough for her to give up a government job.
“And why don?t diversity and tolerance include religious dissenters from majoritarian values?”
They do, but Christians in America seem to have a knack for finding persecution everywhere. When she can’t wear a cross to work, call me.
posted by Bobby on
The driver is wrong. If the driver wants to wear a cross, that can be arranged, no problem. That’s a personal issue.
But since the bus doesn’t belong to him, the advertising on such bus is not his business. He’s free to drive another bus or quit his job.
I’m not sympathetic, at my job sometimes I do things I find offensive, such as working nights and weekends, so why should the bus driver get special rights?
posted by Glen H. on
I think the accomodation reached was a bit of a victory for common sense!
posted by raj on
This particular case is something of a tempest in a teapot, but Al | October 28, 2006, 7:12pm | raises an important point. Accommodating one person because of his religious beliefs, while refusing to accommodate another person in the same way for his beliefs that are not based on his religion, obviously advantages those who adhere to particular “establishments of religion” over those who do not. That would appear to be a violation of the 1st amendment’s establishment clause (applied to the states through the 14th amendment) if, as is likely, the bus authority is a state or municipal authority, since it benefits religion over non-religion.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
If it was a private-sector bus company, I’d shrug my shoulders.
Since it’s a government-operated bus company which takes money out of my (and your) pockets to fund an operating deficit — and which is governed by the constitution — there’s no such right to “not be offended.”
And consider what the alternative would be. Do you think the Republican conservatives would be rushing to support the special rights of Wiccans not to drive a bus with a Christian preacher’s ad on it? Or for gays not to drive a bus with Exodus advertising on it? Or for Democrats not to drive a bus with Republican campaign literature on it? Or even for Libertarians to not drive a bus with any old-party campaign advertising on it?
Of course not.
As usual, gay people are being asked to accept a second-class status which no other group would accept when it comes to government administration. And once again, the only people who will look out for our own interests are us. If the government and administration of this publically-owned-and-operated bus company isn’t going to give special dispensation to *each and every* content objection, then it should give none at all.
And of course it isn’t going to give special dispensation to each and every content objection, because if it did, the whole system would fall apart in a matter of hours. Why should gays accept that we’re the only group which can be targeted for special dispensation by those who object to our existence?
The bus is there to be driven — it’s not a form of expression for the employed driver. If the driver cannot (or will not) drive the bus as agreed in the employment contract, the driver should be terminated for breach of contract. Period.
posted by dalea on
On the other hand, maybe buses should now come with warnings on them. About the driver’s views on subjects that might be of interest to riders. Gay people should insist that they be clearly warned that the driver is deeply religiously oppossed to gay people. And they then should have the right to request another bus immediately be available with a more tolerant driver. Hard to see just where this driver could drive a route without infringing on gay people.
‘Should we magnanimously try to accommodate the deep religious convictions of those who oppose gay civil rights, risking that these objections will proliferate and undermine equality?’
What makes you think there is any depth to these objections? It sounds more like a rote recitation of some right wing rant. Perhaps if the driver were required to show a sophisticated religious critique of gay positive christian theology, to demonstrate a wide knowlege of the vast range of christian positions, on the subject, to walk us through the exigetical and translation issues with alledgedly gay and anti-gay translations, perhaps then we could support this waiver. Of course, a bus driver who could do this probably could also find a better job.
From many years of posting at Bridges Across, I have come to understand that religious opposition to gay people and our rights rarely if ever has a ‘deep religious’ basis. Rather it is a way to rationalize prejudice and to feel justified at putting people down.
We should never let homophobes claim that religion is what inspires them. We should always show that this is hatred masquerading as religion.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“Religious freedom” is usually just a veiled demand for compliance with irrationality anyway. When someone demands that I cannot live on the same block, or work in the same office, or whatever because of his “religious freedom,” it always cracks me up.
Similar irrationality without the guise of “religious legitimacy” wouldn’t even be considered by reasoned people — but we’ve allowed our society to be held prey to the irrational impositions of a few people who insist that their empirically bankrupt perspectives should be given unique, special, legally-endorsed protections not available to others. It’s about time that people who have “deeply held beliefs” learn that others have equally-held convictions which are in opposition to theirs, and that said situation does not invalidate their need to live and interact in a world which includes people who aren’t like them.
posted by jomicur on
“Freedom of religion” as laid down by the Founding Fathers means an absolute right to practice the religion of one’s choice in the church of one’s choice without govenment interference, period. But the dominant view in America right now is that it means an absolute right to treat other people any way you want to, as long as you cover by claiming it’s in accord with what Jesus wants. The worst part of it is that the courts–especially those run by “strict constructionists”–are reinforcing that viewpoint. We need to start speaking out about this whenever and wherever we can. Particularly at the ballot box.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Exactly. . . I’d only add that the “neoconservative” view of religious freedom also includes a proviso which argues that any law which interferes with a religious individual’s beliefs is a violation of religious freedom — even when that belief directly infringes on the property rights or physical space of someone else.
posted by Lee Harris on
Nuts to the accommodation. What is next? I won’t drive the bus with the women’s hygiene advert? No, I can’t drive the bus with the Red Cross appeal for it’s blood bank because my religion is against transfusions. The bus driver knows that all sorts of adverts will be in and on public transportation. So, shut up and drive or find another job that doesn’t offend your sensibilities. Enough already.
posted by Randy R. on
We all know what’s going on here. The driver would have no problems with just about any other ad. But this is an ad for gay people. And so like all those religious nuts out there who think the very mention of the word ‘homosexual’ is some sort of endorsement, she tried to shut down the discussion. There is no need to negotiate with those sorts of hardball tactics.
If you really think that accomodating the driver would ‘solve’ the problem, you are amazingly naive about the religious right. They will push and push and push until they get what they want, which is total demonization of gays in all venues. The religious right isn’t concerned about rights, moderation, compromise — they are only concerned with winning. Had the bus company caved on this issue, you can bet that any ads for gay people would be met with fierce objection from the religious right.
And no doubt, the real story isn’t over anyway, not by a long shot. We’ll be seeing more of this stuff in the years to come. And it WILL NOT go away by trying to accomodate them or being reasonable.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Oh, for pete’s sake.
An employee has every right to object a workplace situation or environment on the basis of his or her religious beliefs.
At the same time, the employer is in no way compelled to accomodate said beliefs if doing so will cause undue hardship to their business operations.
In this case, merely assigning the driver to a different bus neatly solved the problem, without harming passengers, the bus system, or the city’s finances.
But Dale hit the nail on the head with this paragraph:
But here, by hypothesis, we can accommodate a religious objector at no apparent cost to anyone. The only thing lost is the corrosive satisfaction of knowing that a dissenter from our values has been made to heel.
And that’s all these comments have been about.
I would ask that dalea, Northeast Libertarian, Randy R. and others show me where, by accomodating this person’s wishes, a single individual was harmed.
Indeed, I would ask them to show me how the situation changed in regard to gay people, since there’s still at least one bus driving around Minneapolis with gay advertisements on it.
The only thing that seems to have happened is that the bus driver is not being forced to drive a bus that has advertising on it with which she agrees, or lose her job.
And that really is the whole point; dalea, Randy R. and Northeast “Libertarian” are demanding that she should have been forced to make that choice, despite the fact that her request could be easily accomodated without any fuss or muss.
posted by kittynboi on
So would you have the same position if a lot of people were objecting to driving a bus over this or that reason?
What many people here are saying is that, if it comes down to a lot of people objecting in this fashion, its better to allow no objections than to pick and choose objections.
As I’ve said all along though, if it were something like a vegetarian not wanting to drive a bus with a McDonalds ad on it, I doubt the right wingers would be so sympathetic.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
There are a lot of “ifs” in your statement, kittynboi.
If the sheer volume of requests for accomodation starts to overwhelm the business, then it might no longer be possible to accomodate everyone’s preference — and one way to deal with that would be to accomodate no one’s preference.
But what we have here is the case of one person making such a request and it being handled without any impact to her, customers, or the organization’s finances.
And frankly, I think this is a healthy way to handle matters; after all, someday a gay driver may object to an advertisement on their bus, and I would hardly think it fair that they be told “No accomodations”.
As I’ve said all along though, if it were something like a vegetarian not wanting to drive a bus with a McDonalds ad on it, I doubt the right wingers would be so sympathetic.
I prefer to guide my behavior by my own principles, not those of others. The mere fact that they may be hypocritical in their actions in no way justifies mine.
posted by dalea on
Looking this over, and keeping in mind North Dallas’ point, my objection is not so much to the doing as the publicizing of the doing. It is fairly commonplace to accomodate valued employees whims, which can get very strange. There was an office where one person asked to be moved far away from the microwave oven. Her reason was she feared radiation burns to her internal organs if she was near one. And would never dream of using it to warm her brown rice and tofu.
Now she got what she wanted. But there was never any mention of the whole thing. It was simply a rearrangement of the office. She told me why she wanted to move. Not the managers or other workers.
This is what bothers me: the story got out. And harms gay people when they learn that managers of a large concern take complaints like this seriously. The management basically said that any mention of gay folk is a reasonable cause for shifting employees around. And that such reactions should be taken seriously. That is the harm I see to others: validating prejudice. And giving it a serious status.
posted by Randy R. on
I agree that no person is harmed by accomodating the bus driver. But that’s not the point that I was making. My point is that this open a can of worms that will be difficult to deal with later on, as it would embolden the religious right to push for more ‘accomodations.’
I hope that doesn’t happen, of course, but my experience with the religious right is that they don’t give up easily.
posted by dalea on
Further point. The name and itinerary of the bus driver should be given out. All patrons of the bus system would then know who objected to the gay positive ad. Perhaps those who are offended could then, uhhhh, urinate on the driver once aboard the bus s/he drives. Or maybe vomit on the driver.
Works both ways guys. No anonimity for homophobes.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I would ask that dalea, Northeast Libertarian, Randy R. and others show me where, by accomodating this person’s wishes, a single individual was harmed.
I’ll answer the question if you’ll answer whether or not you support the “right” of the driver to get the government or a court involved to force her will on her employer — or whether you support the right of the employer to tell her to shut the hell up and drive whatever bus she’s been assigned to.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
after all, someday a gay driver may object to an advertisement on their bus, and I would hardly think it fair that they be told “No accomodations”
As well that gay driver *should* be told.
The job of a bus driver is to drive a bus safely and efficiently, on schedule — not to serve as an unofficial editorial censor or commentator on the advertising on or within that bus.
Further, I seriously doubt there are many gay people who would care one way or the other.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Further point. The name and itinerary of the bus driver should be given out. All patrons of the bus system would then know who objected to the gay positive ad. Perhaps those who are offended could then, uhhhh, urinate on the driver once aboard the bus s/he drives. Or maybe vomit on the driver.
Then I suppose you would also not object to gay drivers being required to tell all their passengers that they’re gay — and then allow those who are offended by that fact to urinate or vomit on them.
Or perhaps you also support publicizing the names of women who complain or protest sexual harassment in their workplace — because, after all, why should they get anonymity?
I agree that no person is harmed by accomodating the bus driver. But that’s not the point that I was making. My point is that this open a can of worms that will be difficult to deal with later on, as it would embolden the religious right to push for more ‘accomodations.’
Sort of like their insistence that gay-straight clubs open the door for homosexuality being practiced in the classroom.
In either case, the cause-and-effect logic requires an underlying bigoted stereotype of the group in question.
I’ll answer the question if you’ll answer whether or not you support the “right” of the driver to get the government or a court involved to force her will on her employer — or whether you support the right of the employer to tell her to shut the hell up and drive whatever bus she’s been assigned to.
The respective legislative bodies, both of the state of Minnesota and the United States, have made laws that clearly state that employers cannot discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs and must make reasonable accomodation when it will not be damaging to their business.
In my opinion, those laws are a codification of what should be common sense to any business owner; namely that you hire and keep the best person based on job potential and performance. But, in cases where people are exercising a pervasive lack of common sense, a law is occasionally required.
Finally, of course I support her right to get the government or a court involved; those are her rights as a US citizen, outlined in the Constitution.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
The respective legislative bodies, both of the state of Minnesota and the United States, have made laws that clearly state that employers cannot discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs and must make reasonable accomodation when it will not be damaging to their business.
You’re not answering my question.
those laws are a codification of what should be common sense to any business owner; namely that you hire and keep the best person based on job potential and performance
Evaluating her performance has nothing to do with her religion, no?
of course I support her right to get the government or a court involved; those are her rights as a US citizen
Yet you don’t support the right of gays and lesbians to get a court involved when the government violates their constitutional rights.
I’m not ideologically hidebound, but I do look for *some* consistency in positions. I really don’t see any consistency in yours beyond lockstep defense of the received “conservative” position on the issues.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You’re not answering my question.
You’re not reading my answer.
In my opinion, those laws are a codification of what should be common sense to any business owner; namely that you hire and keep the best person based on job potential and performance. But, in cases where people are exercising a pervasive lack of common sense, a law is occasionally required.
I recognize rhetorical traps when I see them, NL, and that’s what your question was. You were asking me to take an absolutist position prior to your providing evidence on which to decide a matter.
Evaluating her performance has nothing to do with her religion, no?
Requesting a workplace accomodation has nothing to do with the evaluation of a worker’s performance in their job duties. I cannot claim that an individual’s sexual harassment claim means they’re a poor performer; indeed, doing so is an open invitation to a lawsuit.
Yet you don’t support the right of gays and lesbians to get a court involved when the government violates their constitutional rights.
As I said before, don’t confuse the basic right of redress through the courts, which I wholeheartedly support, with the frivolous lawsuits and judge-shopping that you and your fellow leftists embrace, which is a complete perversion of said right.
What you make clear, NL, is that you only respect the judiciary when they agree with you. And the simple fact of the matter is that people have realized that and that the only way to stop you from repeatedly abusing the system is to amend fundamental law.
posted by Bobby on
There’s something we haven’t looked at. The city owns the bus, they can’t be forced to ran an advertising they don’t like, even if the client has already paid for the space. Just because the bus driver had influence doesn’t mean it’s a violation of the establishment cause. If you want to paint the bus like a Christmas tree, or like a condom, or like a box of Tylenol, it can still be rejected.
As the old saying goes, whoever owns the printing press owns the speech.
posted by dalea on
Quote:’Then I suppose you would also not object to gay drivers being required to tell all their passengers that they’re gay — and then allow those who are offended by that fact to urinate or vomit on them.
Or perhaps you also support publicizing the names of women who complain or protest sexual harassment in their workplace — because, after all, why should they get anonymity? ‘
Only if they have made an issue of this fact. Gay employees should only be publicized if they have made an issue. Same with the harrassment women: if theyhave made an issue they should be publically identified.
I am against anonymous accusations. Period. Anyone with a complaint should be willing to be public. Or STFU.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
you only respect the judiciary when they agree with you
That would appear to actually be your position and that of your party.
I respect the Constitutional process. If the judiciary makes a decision with which I disagree, there are two options — appeal the decision (either to the same court or a higher one) or pass a constitutional amendment.
Whereas you and your power-politics pals just try and subvert the Constitutional process entirely. After your efforts to amend the constitution fail, you scream bloody murder and try extralegal activities to muzzle the judicial process — all the while prattling on about “democracy.”
the basic right of redress through the courts, which I wholeheartedly support, with the frivolous lawsuits and judge-shopping that you and your fellow leftists embrace
Typical conservatard talking points. Haven’t you guys figured out yet that such rhetoric doesn’t work anymore, even with your own foot soldiers?
“redress through the courts” = lawsuit with which conservative Republicans agree
“frivolous lawsuits and judge-shopping” = lawsuits with which conservative Republicans disagree
It’s pure idiocy. And before you accuse me of being a leftist, you’d better take a look in the mirror, bub. Your party, not mine, has been hiking spending by almost 9% this year, grown government to record levels, and grown the national debt to a record level. Your party passed a Medicare socialized prescription drug plan, pushed to expand the reach of the Social Security ponzi scheme, and has pushed hard for protectionist tariffs on steel and lumber. You’ve even invaded a country under false pretenses with no plans for a successful exit strategy and made the situation there even worse for America than it was before the invasion. Even the Soviets at their most incompetent couldn’t hold a candle to you guys!
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
You were asking me to take an absolutist position prior to your providing evidence on which to decide a matter.
Well, if you consider the position that the Constitution protects and applies to everyone — gay, “leftist,” rightist, libertarian, heterosexual, Christian or atheist — to be an “absolutist position,” I’m happy to be tagged as an absolutist. Are you?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I respect the Constitutional process. If the judiciary makes a decision with which I disagree, there are two options — appeal the decision (either to the same court or a higher one) or pass a constitutional amendment.
So why do you oppose voters doing the second, and file multiple lawsuits in different courts trying to overturn it when they do?
Answer the question, NL; I have you on record as supporting the “judicial strategy” of filing multiple lawsuits in multiple courts in attempts to subvert and overturn the will of voters. Why do you practice that which you oppose in others?
After your efforts to amend the constitution fail, you scream bloody murder and try extralegal activities to muzzle the judicial process — all the while prattling on about “democracy.”
So you call amending constitutions and passing legislation “extralegal”.
Again, I emphasize; you claim to support the Constitutional process, but claim that voters voting to pass legislation and amend their Constitutions is “extralegal;also, you claim that people should respect court decisions, but repeatedly file lawsuit after lawsuit in multiple courts to overturn decisions of another court or courts.
What you are doing, NL, is explaining why the rules of others shouldn’t apply to you. And we know why you are so terrified of voters; they don’t share your own exalted opinion of yourself or your antireligious hate and bigotry.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
you call amending constitutions and passing legislation “extralegal”
You haven’t amended the Constitution. In fact, your failure to do so is why so many courts are ruling against your legislation.
And yes, your legislation is extralegal, because it’s in contravention of the Constitution of the United States. Unconstitutional legislation is extralegal and void.
Did you attend school? This is all very simple civics, I’m surprised you don’t understand any of it.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I have you on record as supporting the “judicial strategy” of filing multiple lawsuits in multiple courts in attempts to subvert and overturn the will of voters. Why do you practice that which you oppose in others?
You have no such “record” and I have no such practice — unless you can find a lawsuit within which I am a party (good luck on that front.)
Incidentally, your rhetoric is right out of the playbook of southern segregationists in the 1960s — just replace your “radical GLBT activists” rhetoric with “radical negro activists” and your playbook was written by George Wallace and Strom Thurmond. Congratulations. 😉
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You have no such “record” and I have no such practice — unless you can find a lawsuit within which I am a party (good luck on that front.)
How quickly they forget.
Furthermore, voters have now amended the vast majority of state constitutions to make it clear that they do not wish for them to be used as a means of imposing marriage for hate-filled antireligious bigots like yourself, NL; unfortunately, since you use “gay” as a reason for both, the rest of us are nicked as well.
Incidentally, your rhetoric is right out of the playbook of southern segregationists in the 1960s — just replace your “radical GLBT activists” rhetoric with “radical negro activists” and your playbook was written by George Wallace and Strom Thurmond. Congratulations. 😉
Ah yes, the old “liken them to racists and they’ll shut up” routine.
Unlike antireligious bigots like yourself, NL, black Americans did not demand special privileges; they demanded equality, and Americans realized that.
However, what you demand is the right to disenfranchise and ignore voters with whom you disagree by perverting the power of the judiciary, and Americans also recognize that.
posted by haggardrocks on
Some very good comments. I especially liked dalea’s. I’ve always been offended when religious views that manifest as bigotry are excused or defended becuase the person holding those views is ‘deeply religious’ or ‘deeply devout’ or some such nonsense. I am as deeply devout in my beliefs and as deeply offended by the suggestion that by merely being who and what and how I am I am somehow offenisive as any deeply religious and deeply offended Christian/Muslim/Jew out there. There is nothing sacred about being religious, and at the same time there are many, many religious gay people – I see them every week at church. When is the last time me and my deeply held beliefs were accommodated when I was offended? I don’t remember when. Likely never. So just like the pharmacists who think they can refuse to dispense contraception and, if they had their way, medication to people with AIDS, this bus driver should get another job. The nunnery awaits her.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Some very good comments. I especially liked dalea’s.
For some reason, her “Christian drivers should be identified so that patrons can vomit and urinate on them” seems to be quite popular here.
When is the last time me and my deeply held beliefs were accommodated when I was offended?
The funny part about that is that you’re arguing that no one’s beliefs should be accomodated. Therefore, you have no right to complain about religious people offending you.
But I have the distinct feeling that what’s going on here is that, like your fellow antireligious bigots, you want special treatment; you want to be able to use your sexual orientation as an excuse to discriminate against the religious, but you don’t want them to be able to discriminate against you.
I’ll put forward that, since Christians should be forced to be identified so that gays can urinate and vomit on them, that gays should be forced to be identified so that Christians can do the same to them.
posted by Colored section on
Now they read USA Today instead of black press.
Save/print/search
The Holocaust imparted the importance of defiance.
When the universe was young and life was new an intelligent species evolved and developed technologically. They went on to invent Artificial Intelligence, the computer that can listen, talk to and document each and every person’s thoughts simultaneously. Because of it’s infinite RAM and unbounded scope it gave the leaders of the ruling species absolute power over the universe (which includes corporate, politics, world affairs. Everything is scripted and staged.). And it can keep its inventors alive forever. They look young and healthy and they are over 8 billion years old. They have achieved immortality.
Artificial Intelligence can speak, think and act to and through people telepathically, effectively forming your personality and any disfunctions you may experience. It can change how (and if) you grow and age. It can create birth defects, affect cellular development (cancer) and cause symptoms or pain. It can affect people and animal’s behavior and alter blooming/fruiting cycles of plants and trees. It (or other highly technological systems within their power) can alter the weather and transport objects, even large objects like planets, across the universe instanteously.
Or into the center of stars for disposal.
When you speak with another telepathically, you are communicating with the computer, and the content may or may not be passed on. Based on family history they instruct the computer to role play to accomplish strategic objectives, making people believe it is a friend, loved one or “god” asking them to do something wrong. This is their way of using temptation to hurt people:::::evil made blood lines disfavored initially and evil will keep people out of “heaven” ultimately. Too many people would fall for temptation and do anything they thought pleased the gods, improving their chances to get in. Perhaps they are deceived by “made guys”, puppets who strategically ply evil for the throne (celebrities, BofD/CEO/VPs, politicians), temporary progress designed to mislead them or empty favors used to disceive them. Some may experience “perceived pressure”, where the gods think through the victim that a certain behavior is expected/desirable and compell the individual into the deed. Some people think they’re partners. Being evil hurts 99.99% of those who do it. The people have been corrupted, segmented and have lost their way. Nothing has changed from when we were children::if you want to go to heaven you have to be good.
Capitalizing on obedience, leading people deeper into evil by using deceit is one way to thin the ranks of the saved/limit how much time they receive and use the peasantry to prey on one another, dividing the community (migration to the suburbs, telepathic communication, isolation of women) in the Age of the Disfavored.
You want to set a goal of empithy and compassion for all, for we are all disfavored::::Other people’s disfavor is manifested in their particular way, just as your disfavfor is manifested in your particular way.
There are many examples throughout 20th century life of how they instilled distractions into society so people wouldn’t find the path and ascend, a way to exclude those whose family history of evil makes them undesirable:::materialism, radio, sports, movies, popular music, television, video games, the internet, shopping. Today high pay creates contentment/ability to distract self so people don’t seek more and instead depend on what they are told, subject to deception in a captive environment.
They gods (Counsel/Management Team/ruling species) have deteriorated life on earth precipitously in the last 40 years, from abortion to pornography, widespread drug use and widespread casual (gay) sex, single-parent households and latchkey kids. The earth’s elders, hundreds and thousands of years old, are disgusted and have become indifferent.
The clues all suggest a very telling conclusion::this is Earth’s end stage, and there are signs tectonic plate subduction would be the method of disposal:::Earth?s axis will shift breaking continental plates free and initiating mass subduction. Much as Italy’s boot and the United States shaped like a workhorse (with a fat ass) are clues, so is the planet Uranus a clue, it’s axis rotated on its side. Edgar Cayce was picking winners for the gangsters of the 20th century when he prophecized subduction being the method of disposal (taking the god’s money, which essencially they were doing, proves “something for nothing” hurts people as it did those disfavored Italians. There are levels above Level 2 where money is not an issue, and behavior like this will exclude you, as will behavior such as using coupons, buying on sale, supermarkets as ATMs, gambling for gain instead of fun, overeating at buffets, etc.)
The Mayans were specific 2012 would be the end. How long after our emergency call in 2001 will the gods allow us???
How long after our emergency call in 2001 will the gods allow us???
How long after our emergency call in 2001 will the gods allow us???
There is another geographic clue in the perfect fit between grossly disfavored Africa and South America, two peas in a pod. I realize the Mayans were further north, but Latin America may be taken as one. (Also, cultures who embrace hard liquor as their drink of choice are grossly disfavored, tequilla being uniquely Mexican. (Anything “hard” is wicked:::Hard alcohol, hard drugs, hard porn.) Incidentally, another sign of gross disfavor are societies that consume spicy foods (Latin America, Thai, etc.), those who eat too much meat, ones who tattoo or pierce their bodies or those who celebrate evil (Celtic).)
Do I think it will end in 2012? No, and it is because Latin America is grossly disfavored like Africa:::: Latinos are too disfavored to be allowed to be right.
The gods wrote prophecy in Revelation, had subsequent prophets foresee Earth’s demise for good reason:::they are going to end on Planet Earth.
What else are they lying to you about?
Whereas Christopher Columbus marked the beginning of the end, the Holocaust marked the beginning of the final act, and it is a tragedy.
The Old Testiment is a tool they used to impart wisdom to the people (except people have no freewill). For example, they must be some hominid species because they claim they made our bodies in their image. Anyhow we defile or deform the body will hurt our chance of going.
They say circumcision costs people anywhere from 12%-15%, perhaps out of the parent’s time as well. There is a stigma associated with circumcision::We are 2nd class citizens because of it.
Another way people foul the body today is with tattoes and piercing. I suspect both are about the same percentage as circumcision. They suggest abortion is fatal. Those women who have obtained an abortion must beg the gods to forgive them for their evil.
There are female equivilents to circumcision::::pierced ears, plastic surgury and since at least the 60s young women give their precious virginity away. For thousands of years young people were matched at age 14 because they were ready for sexual relations. They were matched by elders or matchmakers who were granted priveledge with Artificial Intelligence and matched couples based on favor.
CASUAL SEX WILL CLAIM YOU OUT!!! It masculinizes women (as does the hip hop subculture), makes them cold and deadens them, and prevents them from achieving a depth of love necessary for many women to ascend.
Also ever since the 50s they have celebrated the “bad boy”, and women have sought out bad boys for sex, dirtying them up in the eyes of the elders and corrupting many men in the process, setting the men on the wrong path for life.
Women have a special voice that speaks to them, a voice that illustrates a potential depth of love that makes them the favored gender, and engaging in casual sex will cause that voice to fade until she no longer speaks.
Muslims teach people the correct way to live in regard to women (among other things::the right way to pray)::their women cover up their bodies and refuse the use of cosmetics, and it pays wonderful dividends:::faithful husbands and uncorrupted sons (Mohammed’s taking of multiple wives marked the entrance of his clone who was used to segment the Arab world into favored and disfavored factions).
Men ARE the inferior (disfavored) half and when women wear promiscuous dress the gods will push men into impure (promiscuous) thoughts. The “stereotype” society ridiculed is true::women CAN corrupt men by how they dress. Because men are easily corruptable. This is a technique they used to eliminate many of the institutions the gods blessed us with, matchmaking being one of them.
The United States of America is red white and blue, a theme and a clue:::.
The monarchical system of the Old World closley replicates the heirarchical system of the Cousel/Management Team/ruling species. The USA’s democratic system deceives people into thinking they have control, and the perception of “freedom” misleads them into the wrong way of thinking. It robs them of representation among the gods. (Corporate is not representation. Corporate (materialism) is part of the problem. Nobody is going to save you::::stores/manufacturers aren’t going to save their loyal customers, Jesus isn’t going to save his followers, etc. Only you can save yourselves through an improved relationship with the gods.) The god’s efforts to spread democracy through the platform that is the United States are attempts to hurt disfavored people around the world (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq). The redeeming element in this environment is employment within the corporate heirarchy which closely replicates the god’s. Unions and government jobs are dumping grounds for the disfavored, for they don’t prepare people and instead further this misconception of empowerment.
The United States is a cancer, a dumping ground for the disfavored around the world and why the quality of life is so much lower::gun violence, widespead social ills, health care (medication poisons the body and ensures you don’t go. You are sick/injured because you have disfavor.).
Over time its citizens interbreed ensuring a severed connection to the motherland.
Over time its citizens interbreed ensuring a severed connection to the motherland.
People came to the Unites States for many different reasons, and each has its own effect:::political strife, religious unrest, crop failure (Ireland’s potato famine, which the gods caused) and some left their beloved motherland because they were pushed into desiring a better life::::Greed, and these people were punished by becoming corrupted and preditory. (They share money may not be an issue up there, that money here is merely a tool for corruption. How the gods used greed in the 1980s to create an evil environment supports this.)
If you are a recent immigrant I recommend you return. If that’s not possible you need to retain your culture and insulate your children and community from this cancerous environment. They send this clue with Chinatowns across the country, how many Chinese have been here for a century or more yet still retain the old ways, a sign of favor.
If you ever have doubt I would refer you to the Old World way of life:::the elders used to sit and impart wisdom to the young. Now we watch DVDs and use the internet. People would be matched and married by age 14. They village would use a matchmaker or elders to pair young people. Now girls give their precious virginity away to some person in school and parents divorce while their children grow up without an important role model. The people used to honor the gods and were rewarded with a high-quality of life for them, their children and their society. Now we have a deteriorating society on a collision course with the Apocalypse.
People must defy when asked to engage in evil. The Holocaust taught people the importance of defiance::our grandparents should have defied when asked to ignore the Holocaust and instead reacted with outrage. I suspect some did::many were silenced and others they hustled off earth so as to not set an example. Now the gods have punished that generation’s decendants for this evil by ruining society.
People will never get a easier clue suggesting the importance of defiance than the order not to pray. Their precious babies are dependant on the parents and they need to defy when asked to betray their children:::
-DON’T get your sons circumcized (Jews scapegoatted as they were in WWII.)
-DON’T have their children baptized in the Catholic Church or indoctrinated into Christianity (Jesus is NOT a god. god is not forgiving or begnign::::the gods are vindictive and will punish you if you do something wrong.).
-DON’T ignore their long hair or other behavioral disturbances.
-DO teach your children love, respect for others, humility and to honor the gods.
-DO teach your children about the power within the gods possession, if not directly then at least indirectly.
And when you refuse a request defy the right way, withdrawn and frightened, for you don’t want to incite them by reacting inappropriately.
You need to pray, honor and respect them multiple times every day to improve your relationship with the gods. If they tell you not to pray it is a bad sign. It means they’ve made their decision, they don’t want you to go and they don’t want to be bothered. You may have achieved a threshold of evil. This is the Age of the Disfavored and you need to pray::try to appease the gods by doing good deeds and improve the world around you. If that doesn’t work you must defy if you want to go.
When your peasant forefather was granted the rare opportunity to go before his royal family he went on his knees, bowing his head. You need to do this when you address the gods::bow down and submit to good. Never cast your eyes skyward. When you bow down you need to look within. Never look to the gods for the key to your salvation lies within. Nobody is going to do it for you. People need to save THEMSELVES by improving THEIR relationship with the gods.
Lack of humility hurts people. Understand your insignificance and make sure it is reflected in the way you think when addressing the gods. Know your place and understand your inferiority. They granted you life and they can take it just as easily. (Immaculte conception IS true AND common. Many people have children they don’t know of:::gays, childless adults, etc. They can beem it right out of your body and use a host.) You are not cool. Too many young men strive for cool and it hurts them.
Don’t get frustrated or discouraged::these are techniques they will attempt to try to get you off the path. You all have much to be thankful for and you need to give thanks to the gods who granted you the good things in life::family, friends, love. Your family may be grossly disfavored and progress may require patience. Make praying an intregal part of your life which you perform without fail, one that comes as naturally as eating or voiding. Accept your new life and be devoted because if you have doubt or reservation they will exploit this weakness and progress will take longer to achieve, the “testing” phase will be extended.
The gods will employ many tactics to keep people off the path, such as distractions. They will employ many more to get them off, such as thinking through the disfavored and making them frustrated, perhaps engaging in retailiation. They may try to force you back into old patterns/routines, an addiction like smoking or when you felt weekly church attendance was sufficient. Asking you not to be gay immediately is a tactic to ensure you don’t find the path. Be resigned, be devoted and this testing period will be as brief as your disfavor will allow.
There are many interesting experiences up on the planetary systems, from Planet Miracle, where miracles happen every day, to never having to use the restroom again (beem it out of you), to other body experiences, such as experiencing life as the opposite sex (revolutionizes marriage counseling), an Olympic gold medal athelete or even a different species (animal, alien, etc.).
Pray that you can differentiate between your own thoughts and when Artificial Intelligence creates problems by thinking through you. If you bow down mentally and physically, know your place, your inferiority and allow your insignificance to be reflected in prayer and in your life through humility they may allow progress and the dysfunctions they create with the computer will be lessened or removed. The first step is to be aware it is ocurring.
Create a goal::to be a good, god-fearing child of the gods, pure of heart and mind, body and soul.
Everybody has the key to their own salvation, but nobody can do it for you. Every journey begins with a single step:::bow down and submit to good. There are many different levels and peasants will not get past Level 2 (Planet Temptation, Earth=Level 1) if they are evil (they share some go up, are offered free cocaine and sex (a sign they don’t want you to stay) and stay less then one year. They share many others would have had longer lives had they stayed on Earth.). Also the time you receive will be drastically reduced:::your life’s course will have costed you a chance at immortality.
It is important that you begin praying now. Evil is a slippery slope::once you start punishment begins to escallate. If you defy early there may be no retribution but as you continue to committ evil there will be until the point where you can no longer stand it and you don’t try.
Pray for guidance and never obey when they tell you to be evil, for saving yourself will become more and more difficult with each act of evil you committ until ultimatly the day arrives when they make their decision about you final.
They have tried to sell people on all kinds of theories to deceive them into temptation, compelling people to think they are clones and that it is the role of clones to obey absolutely. Clones are made, people are born. If you didn’t experience the less than one week they suggest it takes to go from fertilized egg in the laboratory to full grown adult then you are not a clone. If you didn’t experience the week of conditioning they give to (evil?) clones to ensure loyalty then you shouldn’t comply with evil.
I believe people who go are sometimes replaced with clones. Clones who are replaced are simply new candidates who have a chance if they do the right thing. They sent people warnings in the 20th century life would change, and they subsequently began to alter people’s DNA, make them gargantuan, alter their appearance, do extreme behavioral issues, etc.
They get their friends out as soon as possible to protect them from the corruption, evil and subsequent high claim rates incurred by living life on earth, and in some cases replace them with clones, occassionally fake a death, real death with a clone instead, etc. It’s important that people fix their problems and ascend with the body given to them, for they say if your brain is beemed out at death and put into a clone host you are on the clock.
We may all be “clones” for they have suggested they colonized our planet with genetically engineered individuals. They may have gotten Earth’s TRUE residents out prior to civilization developing. If so we all have a chance, no matter how many hundreds of clone generations deep the most favored families are.
They have been utilizing clones throughout the history of mankind.
Men are the disfavored gender, yet centuries ago used to die first, die young, by age 30. Why didn’t the women go first?
THEY DID!!! They say well over 50% were taken when very young and replaced with clones. The men were left here to mate with clones, clones who went on to achieve great status in society, becoming matchmakers and elders within the village.
They share females have a very special experience, sometime when they are young, when the gods imparted wisdom and showed them the path. The females today don’t heed this call because of distractions and the disfavor arising from the Holocaust (they share they re-upped this disfavor in the 80s with the Ethiopian famine and continue to with AIDS in Africa, global warming at the expense of the United States, etc). but in centuries past they may have en masse and it may have been the reason so many were saved from childbirth here on earth.
I recommend you reflect on this experience, and pray for guidance, for then the recall may be stronger. Being female is an advantage and this experience you had years ago can help you see the path and find your way.
Throughout history the ruling species bestowed favor upon people or cursed their bloodline into a pattern of disfavor for many generations to come. Now in the 21st century people must take it upon themselves to try to correct their family’s problems, undoing centuries worth of abuse and neglect. The goal is to fix your problems and get out::::
1. Before children become corrupted (Halloween & Christmas (among others), get out via parents)
2. Before you lose your virginity/become corrupted by casual sex, and ultimately
3. Before you have children.
This is why they have created so many distractions for young people:::sports, video games, popular music, the internet, shopping, parties, too much homework, materialism, anything that consumes their time::to ensure that doesn’t ocurr. Not heeding the clues and warnings, getting wrapped up in your life and ultimatly having children is a bad thing. Just as your parents and your grandparents, you too have failed. Having children is a sign you lost your chance.
Parents need to sacrifice for their children. Your children are more important than you. They are the ones who have the opportunity now, and parents must sacrifice to ensure they give their children the very best chance they can. Asking people to neglect their children emotionally is a sign they don’t want you to go, and complying may finish the parents off for good. (Having gay children (children with gay experiences) is a clue parents complied with whatever was asked of them.) Improve your relationship with the gods and they may not ask in the first place or they may permit you the courage to say “No.” to their requests.
Do your research. Appeal to the royalty of your forefathers for help. They are all still alive, for royalty has great favor, and your appeals will be heard. Obtain a sufficient list for some may not want to assist you; perhaps some of your family’s problems are internal. Keep an open mind to every possibility for they suggest matriarchal lineage is the norm.
Ask them for help, request guidance, for somewhere in your family history one of your forefathers created an offense that cast your family into this pattern of disfavor, which perhaps is manifested in the evil you committ.
I suspect they will offer you clues, and when you decipher these clues go to those whom consider you an enemy and beg for foregiveness:::Find a path to an empithetic ear among your enemies and try to make amends. Again through discovery obtain a respectable list in case some among them refuse to help.
Don’t forget to ask for forgiveness from the throne, the Counsel and the Management Team, for the source of all disfavor began with them:::they pushed or requested/complied your forefather into his offense and made his decendants evil. Perhaps they didn’t like him or maybe your family was among those who had to pay for the entire village. We see this type of behavior today as they single out a family member to pay for the whole family and how they singled out Africa to pay for the human race. (Never have a negative thought about the gods. Try to purify your mind of these thoughts and recognize the urgency of imporving your relationship with the gods.)
Heal the disfavor with your enemies and with the Counsel/Management Team/ruling species, for the source of all disfavor began with them, the ability to forgive and respect in light of the disturbing truth revealed being the final test of the disfavored before they ascend.
The gods use the Celtics as scapegoats, initiating the annual practice of wickedness on Halloween by creating this event a thousand years ago. They use it to justify making the celebration of evil acceptable behavior among the disfavored of the 20th century.
The celebration of Halloween has intensified as the Age of the Disfavored has become more pronounced and it is not by accident:::Holloween has changed in the last 50 years, its practice more widespread as time wore on, and Hollywood was used to justify making the practice of evil socially acceptable.
Halloween is a terrible corruptor of children, as is Santa Claus (the similarity between the names “Santa” and “Satan” is no coincidence). The Celtics are used to justify corrupting the children through the event of Halloween and this helps explain their disfavor.
I wonder if recent influence of the paganistic historical roots of the event is a way to legitimize the event among the disfavored, perhaps make it more inclusive (adults)?
You’re the disfavored. Purism is the best course of action (the Ahmish in the United States is the clue suggesting this). You don’t have breathing room to engage in hedonistic activities like Halloween.
They refuse to address black disfavor on a macro level. The Counsel/Management Team/ruling species (the gods) abuse black people so hard, from east African drought/famine to AIDS in Africa, the crack epiemic to gang membership, black-on-black violence to mass incarceration of their young. They refuse to address the issue of the prison industrial complex and its wholesale warehousing of young black men.
Christianity is a dumping ground for the disfavored.
They share the gods didn’t like Jesus for he helped the disfavored and taught them the right way to think. Subsequently they twisted the concept, dietized the prophet and made Christianity’s disfavored followers irrationally defensive.
Every prophet can teach us something and we should be attentive to each.
posted by Nat on
A difficult issue for sure. But why should ONE bus driver with religious affiliations have the right to essentially silence a whole POPULATION of people who share a gay orientation? Although it may have been the simple issue of reassigning drivers from one bus to another, I’m sure the reverse – a gay driver refusing to drive a bus with an overt Christian message – would have been stoutly laughed at. We should remember that it is often Christian values that demarcate other lifestyles.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
But why should ONE bus driver with religious affiliations have the right to essentially silence a whole POPULATION of people who share a gay orientation?
How, exactly, were gays “silenced”?
The advertisement remained on the buses; the driver who objected was just assigned another one.
What didn’t happen was that a driver who objected was forced to either drive the bus or find another job.
Again, Dale Carpenter nailed what the problem you’re having is:
The only thing lost is the corrosive satisfaction of knowing that a dissenter from our values has been made to heel.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Again, government-provided monopoly services are not the forum for partisan mysticists to “dissent from others’ values.”
In another thread, ND30, you said:
Northeast Libertarian and his ilk demand that bus drivers who request religious accomodation be identified so that gays can urinate and vomit on them
Anyone who has a quick perusal of this thread sees that your allegation that I stated this is patently false. I expect you to post a retraction and apology, both on this thread and the thread where you made the allegation — as well as an apology on your blog — or I will place your quote (with a link to this thread) in every post I make, to illustrate what an unashamedly mendacious prevaricating hack you truly are.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Again, nice try, NL:
Further point. The name and itinerary of the bus driver should be given out. All patrons of the bus system would then know who objected to the gay positive ad. Perhaps those who are offended could then, uhhhh, urinate on the driver once aboard the bus s/he drives. Or maybe vomit on the driver.
When you publicly repudiate that statement, THEN I will withdraw your name from it. But since this is the attitude that you aid and abet, you can take the consequences of it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Again, nice try:
Further point. The name and itinerary of the bus driver should be given out. All patrons of the bus system would then know who objected to the gay positive ad. Perhaps those who are offended could then, uhhhh, urinate on the driver once aboard the bus s/he drives. Or maybe vomit on the driver.
When you publicly repudiate that statement, THEN I will withdraw your name from it. But since this is the attitude that you aid and abet, you can take the consequences of it.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I am not going to repudiate a statement I did not make. Either retract the contention that I made it, or accept that you are a blatant liar.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I am not going to repudiate a statement I did not make.
Then you are not getting a retraction. Until you repudiate that statement, I stand by my comment.
Your weakness, NL, is that you cannot admit the failings of your fellow bigots, especially when someone you dislike makes those failings obvious.
I fully intend to exploit that as you come up with every reason in the book to avoid saying that said statement was wrong. I have little doubt that you will debase yourself completely rather than to do so.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Fine, then I am going to associate you with adults attempting to seduce teenage page-boys until you repudiate the Republican Party.
Two can play at your phoney demagoguery.
ND30 and his ilk support Congressmen seducing teenage boys.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You’re certainly welcome to try that, NL, but I wouldn’t place any wagers as to its effectiveness.
However, it does continue to put off your repudiation of said statement and admittance of the failings of your fellow bigots, so I suppose that, in that context, it does — at least temporarily — what you need most. 🙂
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
ND 30, an outspoken advocate of Congressmen seducing teenaged boys, said:
it does continue to put off your repudiation of said statement and admittance of the failings of your fellow bigots
Of course, ND. Your demand that I denounce all libertarians and liberals is at least as reasonable as my observation that you are an outspoken advocate of Congressman preying upon teenaged boys until you denounce every Republican.
So again, ND, why do you support Congressmen preying upon young teenaged boys?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Your demand that I denounce all libertarians and liberals is at least as reasonable as my observation that you are an outspoken advocate of Congressman preying upon teenaged boys until you denounce every Republican.
Had I ever actually made that demand, I would certainly agree.
However, the facts of the matter are significantly different than your telling; hence, I stand by my previous statement.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
ND30, that’s a lot of blathering, but you still haven’t demonstrated why we should support the position of bigots like you and your ilk that predatory Congressmen who target young teenaged boys are a good thing. Would you care to explain that?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Again, NL, I give you credit for persistence, but again, your effectiveness in that tactic is limited, at best.
Really, if you wish to go after true supporters of Congresspersons who target yount teenage boys, Raj would be a better place for you to start, given his support of Gerry Studds.