In Texas Monthly, libertarian pundit Virginia Postrel writes of the residents of Plano, Texas, that:
These solidly conservative, mostly Christian families are not about to launch a pogrom against their gay neighbors. "I have yet to know somebody on finding out that an educator or volunteer was gay in to say, 'Oh, gosh, I can't have them working with my child,'" Kelly Hunter says. "I have known them to say that about the mom who drinks before she goes some place." By the standards of twenty years ago, and certainly by those of Peoria, Planoites are positively accepting....
Plano residents aren't "wildly exercised about sodomy," notes a gay friend who last year moved from Dallas to Los Angeles, "but most anti-gay people aren't. They are wildly concerned with making sure their kids never hear the word 'sodomy'; never ask, 'Mommy, what's a drag queen?'; and never have to deal with anything even remotely related to sex....
He exaggerates, of course. But Plano parents want to determine when and where they talk to their kids about sex, and they assume that explaining that some men fall in love with other men is "about sex."
"We don't have control over a whole lot in the world, but hopefully the education of our children is part of it," Hunter says.
Hat tip to Kausfiles, wherein Mickey Kaus uses the above to snipe (again) at Andrew Sullivan and argues:
Even in a highly Republican town like Plano, in other words, the religious objection to gay marriage isn't the crucial objection. Fear that moral entropy will envelop your family's children is the crucial objection. I don't see how that fear is addressed theologically. I would think it has to be addressed practically, over time, by repeat demonstration. But time is one thing a rights-oriented, judicial route to gay marriage doesn't allow.
And another hat tip to Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds), who adds: "As I've said before, I support gay marriage, but I think the move to accomplish gay marriage via judicial action is politically unwise and likely to be counterproductive."
These fears of "moral entropy" and even sexual anarchy may be without merit, yet they're heartfelt and must be addressed, not simply dismissed with disdain. That's why I generally concur that the judicial strategy is misguided. In fact, it wouldn't seem like such a bad idea if the Massachusetts legislature would follow the procedure set forth (as argued here) in that state's constitution and allow the voters to weigh in on keeping gay marriage. A "pro" vote could do wonders to actually advance the cause of marriage equality.
Update: A vote may, in fact, be coming.
Perhaps a decade from now, when gay unions are accepted by a nation that has witnessed that they strengthen rather than weaken the moral norms that bind families and societies together, a future Supreme Court will rule that the remaining state amendments that deny gays the benefits of marriage (and especially those that ban civil unions and other partnerships) are unconstitutional. And in that future era, the reactionaries won't be able to mobilize an effective backlash, for as with earlier civil rights movements they will no longer have a majoirty of the folks in places like Plano on their side.
More. B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest) writes that gay activists have missed the boat by demanding marriage equality in terms of rights denied, instead of (with few exceptions, mainly linked to this site) making a positive case for why marriage for gays is good in and of itself, for gay people and for society. He encourages activists to "make clear to the world at large that gay people who choose marriage are willing to live up to the obligations of this ancient institution. And to our own community, they need show the benefits that arise from meeting those obligations."
79 Comments for “Marriage: The Road Ahead.”
posted by Randy on
Or, we can have courts decide that a basic civil right has been denied to a group of people, as happened in Massachusetts, and then after there is a mild backlash, people realize that gay marriage doesn’t threaten them, and they loose their fears. And then, other states see this, and that helps open the doors to more states allowing gay marriage.
Which is exactly what is happening now.
Look, there will ALWAYS be people who hate gays, and hate gay marriage. There will ALWAYS be a backlash. You can’t avoid it. So you do what you believe is right and just. And a lot of people think that gay people deserve the same rights as others based on the constitution, not the votes of an electorate.
I’m not disagreeing that if people voted for gay marriage, that would be much more solid that having judges rule. But how many people would actually vote in favor of gay marriage where it not for the Mass Supreme Court’s ruling? Before that, gay marriage was merely a hypothetical, and you could argue that gay marriage would cause the sea levels to rise. But now that we have it, by judicial force, people see that most of their fears are baseless. That would NOT have happened if we waited around hoping that a majority of Americans would somehow come to our aid.
One last point: The only way we could avoid the courts is to deny litigants the right to petition the government. In other words, the ONLY way you could get your way would be deny gay couples their 1st Amendment righs, and their right to be heard in a court of law. I don’t think that you would restrict their rights to file a lawsuit, but how else would you have your way?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
“A ‘pro’ vote could do wonders to actually advance the cause of marriage equality.”
And a ‘no’ vote would kill civil marriage equality in the one toehold we have on it in this country. The procedural rules by which the Massachusetts ConCon recessed rather than voting on the anti-marriage state constitutional amendment have been used several times in the past. Our adversaries would not hesitate to use rules of procedure to their advantage, and there is no reason for our side not to do so. We have a republican, representative form of government. Instead of joining in the hand-wringing over the need for a direct plebiscite, we should be explaining to people why it is wrong to subject fundamental rights to a popular vote, as well as explaining why civil marriage is a fundamental right.
posted by Xeno on
“Even in a highly Republican town like Plano, in other words, the religious objection to gay marriage isn’t the crucial objection. Fear that moral entropy will envelop your family’s children is the crucial objection.”
In other words, their objection to marriage for same-sex couples is based on ill conceived notions about “nontraditional” families. So how exactly do you break these prejudices? By exposing them to legally married same-sex couples with families.
Also, even if the mob’s petition were to pass, it would only be symbolic, due to Article 48, Section 2 of the Massachusetts Constitution:
posted by Lee Harris on
Yikes…. the world is not changing so positively. I taught school for 20 years and had a great reputation… but it was a fellow teacher that wrote an anonymous letter to an activist parent urging her to lead the fight to get me fired. It was a not so subtle accusation that I should not be “in the classroom”. No, the world is not that rosey, yet.
I can’t properly relate the pain that the letter caused. The parent/recipient was extremely “gay friendly” and her only thought was that her child, now, loved school and constantly talked about me…. I was spared public humiliation…. but it certainly fucked me up………
Yes, progress…..
posted by Novaseeker on
First, the article’s ideas are neither new nor really undermining of what Andrew Sullivan has written about same sex marriage. I’ve long considered that the two main obstacles to acceptance of it in America are (1) theological ones from conservative and fundamentalist Christians (and in an age when James Dobson is consulted regarding Supreme Court appointments, sweeping the influence of this crowd under the rug is an act of near-criminal wishful thinking and (2) probably from a larger slice of the population, “NIMBYism” — that is, the lack of interest of the straight coupled world in having gay and lesbian couples in their midst, throwing birthday parties for their kids, showing up at the PTA, etc. Both groups are an issue. Group (1) we will probably *never* convince, and it may be a big enough group to throw elections as Karl Rove cleverly demonstrated in 2004, so it is not to be underestimated. As for Group (2), the main problem is that they do not want to even have gay couples *around*, because they feel that they require a special explanation for the kids … in other words, the mere presence of openly affectionate gay couples in the world of hetero-coupled suburbia is threatening to people because they think that mere presence raises the issues of sexuality, drag queens and the like.
How do we change the minds of group (2)? Well, the obvious answer is to be more present in such communities living a responsible lifestyle. And that’s where marital rights come in. Marital rights are the doorway and incentive for that. Sure, more gay and lesbian couples should be out there doing that now, but to be honest the main impact will happen when the relationships they share are recognized by the law, because this legal recognition gives them a legitimate place in the social fabric that they otherwise do not have.
I think that the notion that we will overcome these attitudes, being the tiny, fragmented, disparate minority that we are, in a relatively short period of time simply by trying to integrate into society absent legal recognitions is a colossal exercise in wishful thinking. If we look at the way civil rights happened in the 1960s, there’s no way that Southern attitudes about black people would have changed significantly over time unless you make the “time” window extremely long … inherited, deep-set discrimination is extremely hard to dislodge by extra-legal means, and expecting LGBT people, of all people, to make significant progress this way in much of the country is quite extraordinarily naive, in my view.
Fundamental rights are not up for a popular vote, and we shouldn’t be running around telling people that they are. That’s not the point of the Bill of Rights, and suggesting that it is only serves to undermine the entire enterprise of civil rights to begin with. The courts are there for a reason, and they should be used for that reason — namely to enforce the Constitution, if necessary, against the popular will. If it were a matter of simply appealing to the popular will, there would be no need at all for the Bill of Rights to begin with.
So at the end of the day, I advocate a “both/and” strategy. Yes, we need to build positive bridges in the communities in which we live and try to make social progress there, realizing, however, that this progress will be slow and incremental at best for another generation or two (I do think that younger generations will be less prejudiced, however). At the same time, we need to keep the fight going on the judicial and legislative fronts, because the full recognition of marital rights will likely only come as a result of constitutional determinations in all but a handful of the most progressive states. It’s a dual strategy. Pursuing one side without the other (ie, either judicial/legislative with no bridge-building or vice versa) is not going to be very effective for our long-term goals in this area, in my opinion.
posted by Jordan on
Is anyone else tired of hearing about what the gay movement should do “instead of” what we’re currently doing? Listen: either one of two things is occurring here. First, either the majority gay people actually want things to happen as they are, because they’re sending money and support to the groups like HRC and NGLTF that are making it happen. Or second, it’s working. Despite the two-steps forward, one-step-back mentality, progress continues to be made.
If Daniel Blatt and his friends think that gay activists have “missed the boat,” then he needs to do more than complain about it on his blog. Hindsight’s 20/20, and anyone can sit here and talk about the different strategies that we SHOULD have had 15 years ago and where we WOULD be now. Big f’in deal. The nuances that he, and others, are complaining about are not what would have made a sea-change in this fight. No matter which angle you attack it from, it’s always going to be an uphill battle. Commiserating about decisions that were basically made and set in stone years ago isn’t going to make any positive change, so what’s the point? Howabout we recommend some things that actually can make a difference? Or, here’s an idea, GET OUT THERE AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
posted by James on
It should come as no surprise to those who have followed my posts (and, really, who hasn’t?) that I totally agree with this article. I, too, hope that kids never have to learn about sodomy and drag queens. That’s not what being gay is. I think kids need to learn that some men fall in love and form lifelong, sexually exclusive partnerships–just like wolves and whales–and sometimes they have kids, too. We don’t really need to say anything else.
Also, maybe, just maybe, the obstacles to gay marriage don’t come solely from groups which oppose us. Maybe every criticism of the gay community is not rooted in homophobia. Maybe some of the obstacles to gay marriage actually come from the gay community itself–maybe, just maybe, there is a lack of a clear moral compass about sexual behavior. Maybe, just maybe, there is an unwillingness to make the sacrifices which a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship needs to work. Maybe the Pride parades and rallies and “10 Sexiest Gay Celebrities” are giving people the wrong impression about what being gay means.
If I find a partner, say, a teacher who looks like Dominic Purcell and drives an F150, I would love to live and work in Plano, fighting for the same basic values as other mature, family-oriented couples. I would go to the PTA meetings and bake sales–but probably not the Pride rallies, because I am more like the community-oriented couples and parents than I am like Jake Shears.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Marital rights are the doorway and incentive for that. Sure, more gay and lesbian couples should be out there doing that now, but to be honest the main impact will happen when the relationships they share are recognized by the law, because this legal recognition gives them a legitimate place in the social fabric that they otherwise do not have.
Translation: give us marriage rights and we will stop acting like promiscuous idiots.
Meanwhile, as part of our argument, we will keep pointing out straight people who act like promiscuous idiots, despite their being able to marry.
I think most straight people are smart enough to realize that promiscuous idiots are promiscuous idiots, ragardless of whether they can marry or not.
The difference is that promiscuous idiots are mocked in the straight community as “sluts” and “whores”; they are idolized in the gay community.
posted by PCT on
Well said, Nova, and don’t pay any attention to the troll.
As we live our lives, and allow people to see that we’re not the stereotype that James and the troll keep talking about, things will improve. But we also shouldn’t disparage the hard work of people who were willing to fight the battles in court. You’re absolutely correct about the civil rights gains in the South – as people were forced to work together, gradually some of the fear and stereotypes dissipated. But it took non discrimination laws and court decisions to get the improvements started.
Both tactics are necessary. We should fight for our rights, but we also need to live open, transparent, and honorable lives.
posted by James on
OK, you say that most gays aren’t the stereoptype that I and ND30 keep bringing up–well, where’s the proof? I really, truly, have met many, many gays in my life, and over 90% fit into the stereotype. Most, not all, prize promiscuity. Most, not all, have drug and alcohol problems. Most, not all, hate religion. And most, not all, of those who are in couples are in open relationships. I am saying “most” because, yes, there are that few who have traditional values and orthodox faith. But you are in denial if you don’t think that most of the gay community conforms to the stereotype. You seem to think you have countered my argument by providing a few non-typical examples of mature, stable gays. Yes, I know that there are a few out there–my point is, and this seems undeniable, that MOST of the gay community is stereotypical in its flamboyant, exotic, and amoral behavior, and because MOST of the community is like that, those of us who live according to traditional values find our desire to marry and adopt children much more difficult.
You don’t have to wait until marriage is legal in all 50 states before you start forming lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships. You can form them now, right now, just because it’s the right and healthy thing to do. Frederick Douglass learned to read when it was illegal for slaves to go to school–you can form lifelong, monogamous partnerships while it’s still illegal to marry. Not only will you be making it easier for other gays to gain the right to marry, but you might discover that your life is better, healthier, and happier because you’ve opted out of the gay ghetto.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If we look at the way civil rights happened in the 1960s, there’s no way that Southern attitudes about black people would have changed significantly over time unless you make the “time” window extremely long … inherited, deep-set discrimination is extremely hard to dislodge by extra-legal means, and expecting LGBT people, of all people, to make significant progress this way in much of the country is quite extraordinarily naive, in my view.
Unfortunately, novaseeker, what you conveniently leave out is that, by the time the 1950s and 1960s rolled around, segregation was by no means widespread and, as these maps show, absent in the great majority of the country. That is why the court decisions stuck; had it been a widespread issue, you would have seen exactly what we have today relative to gays.
Furthermore, considering that the leftist mantra is that racism is still endemic, you might want to rethink your statement about how well “the court method” worked.
The courts are there for a reason, and they should be used for that reason — namely to enforce the Constitution, if necessary, against the popular will. If it were a matter of simply appealing to the popular will, there would be no need at all for the Bill of Rights to begin with.
The fact that the Bill of Rights is there in the first place is because the voters ratified it. That is their right, as is their right to change and shape the Constitution as they see fit. If the courts go against the will of the voters, the voters may with perfect right change the law, change the Constitution, and remove the justices who refuse to follow it. The Bill of Rights is, like all parts of the Constitution, subject to change by the voters.
But unfortunately, gay leftists insist on demonstrating that they would rather disenfranchise voters; thus, they insist that the right to marriage, nowhere outlined in the Constitution, justifies completely blocking any attempt by voters to vote on or change portions of the Constitution, which IS a protected and enumerated right.
The reason gay leftists do this and embrace the court system is because they are singularly incompetent to appeal to voters. And if you want to know why, consider the example of Minneapolis; gays throw hissy fits and demand the right to urinate and vomit on bus drivers who request reasonable accomodation on religious grounds, as they are legally allowed to do and are protected in doing, but have nothing to say about the lesbian leftist Democrat fire chief, who discriminated on the basis of gender and sexual orientation, damaged peoples’ careers because they refused to have sex with her or were her former “lifelong committed partners”, made advancement contingent on being lesbian and having sex with her, and deliberately damaged other peoples’ careers in an attempt to cover up her bad behavior.
Finally, PCT makes it obvious why this continues to happen; like any good gay leftist, instead of confronting the behavior, s/he whines that the people pointing it out are “trolls”.
posted by Randy on
“The Bill of Rights is, like all parts of the Constitution, subject to change by the voters.”
Not really. It is extraordinarily difficult to change ANY part of the Constiutition, and it was designed that way. Furthermore, ‘voters’ do not change the Constitution. To change any part of it, you would need to go through the amendment process, and at no time during that process is the change subject to the vote of the people. Rather, it has to pass 2/3 of each house of the congress, and then 3/4 of the states must ratify it. ‘Voters’ has involved only to the extent that they voted their representatives in office, but they at no point actually vote on the proposed change.
As a result, the Constitution has been changed only about 27 times, of which eight were merely procedural issues. There is not a single example of an Amendment succeding as a result of people angry with the interpretation of the Constitution, (with the possible exception of the Civil War amendments which gauranteed more liberties) nor has there been any Amendment which has restricted the rights of any group of people.
So really, your fears that the voters will change the Constitution without foundation.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Ah, but you see, Randy, it CAN be changed, and the voters are the final authority on that fact.
All that you’re doing is pointing out that the furor over the FMA from gay leftists was more than a bit misplaced, especially since it led them to endorse and support candidates who supported what they used to call stripping gays of rights on a state by state basis.
And actually, above, I think we see the crux of the debate here.
But how many people would actually vote in favor of gay marriage where it not for the Mass Supreme Court’s ruling?
Given that you’re so desperately attempting to prevent them from doing so AFTER the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling, apparently quite a few. If the gay leftist logic that the judiciary imposing its will on voters will change their minds worked so well, you’d think that gay leftists like yourself would welcome such a vote.
Perhaps they’re afraid of a repeat of what has happened in an enormous number of states since the ruling — people making it clear that, if the judiciary wants to impose something they oppose, they will remove the power from the judiciary to do it. And they are completely within their rights to do so.
And as far as gay leftists filing lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit, judge shopping and looking for a leftist judge who will be sympathetic to their cause, no, I’m not particularly interested in stopping that legally. But one would think that they would realize that all that it has done is made the situation far worse and stop.
posted by Carl on
I really don’t think much is going to convince Mickey Kaus of any pro-gay stance. He may feign civility, but I still remember how he spent day after day last year ranting about Brokeback Mountain.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
James said “OK, you say that most gays aren’t the stereoptype that I and ND30 keep bringing up–well, where’s the proof? I really, truly, have met many, many gays in my life, and over 90% fit into the stereotype. Most, not all, prize promiscuity. Most, not all, have drug and alcohol problems. Most, not all, hate religion”.
James, the idea that most gays prize promiscuity is ludicrous and obviously you can’t back that up with anything. You’ve been shown the proof that most gays are not promiscuous nor anti religious and you ignore that to push your own unproven bigotry. To quote Jeremy Townsly:
“a) 40-60% of gay men, and 45-80% of lesbians are in a steady relationship
J Harry-1983 in Contemporary Families and Alternative Lifestyles, ed by Macklin, Sage Publ.
L Peplau-1981, in Journal of Homosexuality 6(3):1-19
J Spada-1979, The Spada Report, New American Library Publ
b) Studies of older homosexual people show that gay relationships lasting over 20 years are not uncommon
D McWhirter-1984, The Male Couple, Prentice-Hall
S Raphael-1980, Alternative Lifestyles 3:207-230, “The Older Lesbian”
C Silverstein-1981, Man to Man: Gay Couples in America, William Morrow Publ.
c) In a large sample of couples followed for 18 months the following “break up” statistics were observed: lesbians=22%, gay=16%, cohabiting heterosexuals=17%, married heterosexuals=4%
Blumstein and Schwartz (1983) American Couples: Money, Work, Sex; Morrow Publ.
d) Homosexual and heterosexual couples matched on age, etc, tend not to differ in levels of love and satisfaction, nor in their scores on other standardized scales
M Cardell-1981, Psychology of Women Quarterly 5:488-94
D Dailey-1979, Journal of Sex Research 15:143-57
S Duffy-1986, Journal of Homosexuality 12(2):1-24
L Kurdek-1986, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51:711-720
L Peplau-1982, Journal of Homosexuality 8(2):23-35 (see L Peplau-1991, Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy, ed by J Gonsiorek).
In a study of sexual behavior in homosexuals and heterosexuals, the researchers found that of gay and bisexual men, 24% had one male partner in their lifetime, 45% had 2-4 male partners, 13% had 5-9 male partners, and 18% had 10 or more sexual partners, which produces a mean of less than 6 partners. (The statistics I did by myself using the data presented, which is presented as a percentage of total males interviewed, both gay and straight (p. 345)–they can be verified yourself by looking at the numbers given in the paper)(Fay; n=97 gay males of 1450 males total). In a parallel study, a random sample of primarily straight men (n=3111 males who had had vaginal intercourse; of the total sample of n=3224 males, only 2.3% had indicated having had sex with both men and women), the mean number of sexual partners was 7.3, with 28.2% having 1-3 partners, and 23.3% having greater than 19 partners (Billy). This data indicates that gay men may have fewer number of sexual partners than heterosexuals.“.
And Dalea showed you are mistaken about most gays being anti-religious:
“According to a survery done by marketers on gay religious by GLCensus Partner (www.glcensus.org) Study – A Syracuse University and OpusComm Group research Partnership, something is now known about gay religious practices and beliefs. Per the study, gay people break down pretty much the way Americans in general break down by religious affiliation. Here is something from the survey:
More than 6 out of 10 (63.7%) respondents say they are affiliated with a particular religion; 38 percent say they are practicing members. The largest segment is Catholics (17.2%), although only 29.5 percent of those members say they are practicing. Six percent of respondents say they are atheists and almost a third (30.3%) say they have no religious preference.
With 8,831 respondents, the 2002-2003 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census is the largest and most comprehensive GLBT consumer study ever conducted. Prepared by GLCensus Partners (Syracuse University and OpusComm Group), the annual study fills the growing need among manufacturers and service providers for detailed information on consumer behavior and preferences of the Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender (GLBT) community.
The survey can be found here: http://glcensus.org/press/08062003.html”
It appears from this that about 2/3rds of us are at least nominally religious.”
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “The difference is that promiscuous idiots are mocked in the straight community as “sluts” and “whores”; they are idolized in the gay community”.
Northdallass can you even go one thread without telling an outrageous lie? You obviously have no proof that the gay community idolizes “promiscuous idiots”.
Northdallass lies again by saying “gays throw hissy fits and demand the right to urinate and vomit on bus drivers who request reasonable accomodation on religious grounds, as they are legally allowed to do and are protected in doing”. “Gays” did not say that, ONE person said that you chronic liar. You’d be the first to bitch and cry if a gay person ignored the minority who aren’t and said all Christians are anti-gay bigots and yet this is what you do with gays. Calling you a troll is to give you too much credit.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
For a good laugh ask ND30 about his theory that HIV/AIDS is spread because of homosexual Pagan orgies or ask him to explain his belief that African Americans should be grateful for slavery because it got them out of Africa. ND30 is priceless…really, much more funny then The Onion or The Daily Show.
posted by Randy on
“All that you’re doing is pointing out that the furor over the FMA from gay leftists was more than a bit misplaced, ”
And also that your furor over the Mass. situation is also misplaced.
“. If the gay leftist logic that the judiciary imposing its will on voters will change their minds worked so well, you’d think that gay leftists like yourself would welcome such a vote.”
I didn’t suggest anything of the kind. What I said was that once people see gay marriage, support for it rises, and opposition drops. Today, a majority of Mass citizens, according to the polls I read, do not want an amendment to ban gay marriage. Nonetheless, given that so few people actually vote, an amendment may actually pass.
So far, we have not seen any state vote to support gay marriage, nor is their any indication that any state will in the future. Therefore, relying upon the citizens to give us our rights is a dubious strategy at best. But hey, if you have a better strategy for getting gay marriage rights, let’s hear it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
In regards to Randi’s statistic, here’s the key:
In a study of sexual behavior in homosexuals and heterosexuals, the researchers found that of gay and bisexual men, 24% had one male partner in their lifetime, 45% had 2-4 male partners, 13% had 5-9 male partners, and 18% had 10 or more sexual partners, which produces a mean of less than 6 partners.
Now, who would you expect to have had less male sex partners…..gay men or bisexual men? By including bisexual men, the author is deliberately diluting the numbers — as he inadvertently demonstrates when he slips up and admits that he CAN separate them out, but didn’t when he was calculating his “statistics”.
And furthermore, the sheer absurdity of the numbers makes it even funnier; according to this analysis, 69% of gay men have had sex with no more than four different people in their entire lifetimes.
Right.
You obviously have no proof that the gay community idolizes “promiscuous idiots”.
Want to see the website idolizing a gay prostitute and meth dealer and asking people to send him money for supporting our community?
Northdallass lies again by saying “gays throw hissy fits and demand the right to urinate and vomit on bus drivers who request reasonable accomodation on religious grounds, as they are legally allowed to do and are protected in doing”. “Gays” did not say that, ONE person said that you chronic liar.
Obviously you didn’t read the associated thread, including the praises for dalea’s remark from commentors like “haggardrocks”.
And if we need proof that gays are antireligious, all we have to do is link back to you — and point out that nothing has been said as you systematically trashed and bashed the Bible, Christianity, and all other associated religions. Indeed, many gay leftists, like Raj, have actually cheered you onward.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
But hey, if you have a better strategy for getting gay marriage rights, let’s hear it.
Well, you could start by purging antireligious bigots like Randi and Raj, who namecall and bash Christianity and religion constantly.
Then you could go after bigots like dalea, who think Christians should be vomited and urinated upon for merely requesting reasonable accomodation based on their religious beliefs, as they are legally entitled to do.
Furthermore, you could use some harsh words for lesbians like Bonnie Bleskachek, who systematically used her “protected” position to discriminate and block peoples’ careers based on peoples’ gender, sexual orientation, willingness to have sex with her, and to help cover up the fact.
And finally, you could go after people like Richard, who can come up with all sorts of fancy rationalizations, but whose argument can basically be boiled down to disenfranchising people because they won’t vote your way.
Just doing that would do wonders for gay activism — because it would make it obvious that gays DO have a sense of right and wrong, DO respect peoples’ rights to their religious beliefs, and DO respect the rule of law.
But it would require you to criticize other gays, and that, more than anything else, is the cardinal sin in the gay world. It’s never our fault; always somebody else’s.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass I am bisexual myself and I’ve had fewer total sex partners than the mean of 7.3 of heterosexuals. In any event the presence a of a few bisexuals in the sample isn’t going to greatly affect the results. Not to mention that there were bisexuals in the calculations for the number of partners given for straight men.
You say “And furthermore, the sheer absurdity of the numbers makes it even funnier; according to this analysis, 69% of gay men have had sex with no more than four different people in their entire lifetimes.” Thats mere verbal flatulence on your part as you have no basis on which to question the numbers.
In response to my noting you have no proof the gay community idolizes “promiscuous idiots” you say “Want to see the website idolizing a gay prostitute and meth dealer and asking people to send him money for supporting our community?”.
You moron, one person does not equal the gay community. And as that’s likely support for the gay man that outed Ted Haggard then contrary to what James said and you affirmed he’s not idolizing him for his promiscuity, but for exposing a hypocritical anti-gay bigot.
And as to Dalea’s remark, he made several in that thread and there is noting in “haggardrocks” statment that would lead you to believe he was specifically referring to the vomit on or urinate on the bus driver comment.
You can prove some, or more accurately, ONE LGBT is anti-religious by linking to me, but you certainly can’t prove your lie that the “vast majority of gays are anti-religious bigots” which James concurred with. The study Dalea quoted clearly shows you both are completely wrong about that.
And speaking of bigots, the label fits you well given your “its a wonderful life” allusion to the idea that blacks should be grateful for slavery because it got them out of Africa.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “you could use some harsh words for lesbians like Bonnie Bleskachek, who systematically used her “protected” position to discriminate and block peoples’ careers based on peoples’ gender, sexual orientation, willingness to have sex with her, and to help cover up the fact”.
Yeah, its just like the bigot you are to rant on and on about the faults of gays but you never mention when gays are the victims of abuse like when Jean Rolland and Andrew Frost were beaten outside a Scottsdale restaurant. Of course you wouldn’t want to admit that gays are much more often the victims than the victimizers.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I hate to disappoint you, Randi, but it should be self-evident to anyone that I do NOT support abuse of gays — as I have talked about myself.
Unfortunately, though, for you to make the linkage to Bonnie Bleskachek’s actions as well, you need to find where these individuals were featured in a publication equivalent to The Advocate making statements about how awful it was to be discriminated against and how terrible people are who do such things, especially on a sexual basis.
Now what was that about “hypocrisy” and how you supposedly oppose it?
And speaking of bigots, the label fits you well given your “its a wonderful life” allusion to the idea that blacks should be grateful for slavery because it got them out of Africa.
(shrug) Say as you wish; I stand by what I wrote.
Thats mere verbal flatulence on your part as you have no basis on which to question the numbers.
Except a mountain of empirical evidence — and the knowledge, taken from years of working with HIV/AIDS groups, that people tend to….um, underestimate…..the number of sex partners they’ve had on these surveys. Plus the fact that the stated point of the author is to prove that gay men have fewer partners — which he does by conveniently citing study after study, but substituting his own statistical analysis for theirs.
You can prove some, or more accurately, ONE LGBT is anti-religious by linking to me, but you certainly can’t prove your lie that the “vast majority of gays are anti-religious bigots” which James concurred with.
I have yet to see one person other than James or I really disagree with you, Randi. Novaseeker made a sort of attempt, but that ended rather quickly. Indeed, the vast majority of statements made have been in support of your attitudes and ideas, as Raj showed.
posted by PCT on
Thanks for your stats Randi in your 3 pm post. They are helpful, and do of course prove your point. Most of us are already living the life that James and the troll would have us live – although of course they can’t admit that. If they did, what would they have to talk about?
posted by Lorenzo on
While, in practice, the fears of moral anarchy may be the most direct fear to be dealt with in claiming equal protection of the laws, it may not be as separable from religious concerns as suggested. After all, where does fear of moral anarchy come from? Centuries of religious preaching about the evils of sexuality and, particularly, same-sexuality. Just because the concern gets secularised does not mean there are not significant religous origins, nor than continuing relgious preaching does not keep the fear reinforced.
I agree that the political path is preferable, but the point of the US Bill of Rights is the constitutionally entrenched judgement that it is not to be always relied upon.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Thanks for your stats Randi in your 3 pm post. They are helpful, and do of course prove your point.
And thank you too, PCT, for demonstrating that you agree with and support Randi, especially given her history of saying things like this:
That only the insane or evil can say the punishment of the innocent is anything but evil. That only an evil god would torture and kill the innocent Jesus to unjustly overlook man’s incredibile inhumanity to man……
That your god demands that harmless women, children, and babies be murdered. That your god demands that they be utterly wiped out even if they seek to make peace…….Contrary to your lies your god does not consider human free will inviolable. His violating human free will to evilly cause human conflict for his own pleasure while failing to do so to prevent evil demonstrates his undeniable evil nature.
That’s also why it’s amusing to watch her quote said “statistics” to attempt to portray gays as reasonable, when her own words make it obvious that gays are nothing but hate-filled antireligious bigots.
Perhaps if you were able to speak out against such things, you could demonstrate the opposite; however, that would require you to criticize the actions of another gay person who shares your leftist hate and beliefs, and I don’t see it happening.
Gays like Randi, dalea, and Bonnie Bleskachek represent what the gay community believes. James and I intend to show differently.
posted by Novaseeker on
“I have yet to see one person other than James or I really disagree with you, Randi. Novaseeker made a sort of attempt, but that ended rather quickly.”
The reason for that is that I’m kind of sick of these discussions continually degenerating into religious debates. It gets tiresome after a while, and I don’t come to this forum to debate religious issues with people. So, yes I am a person of faith, with a perspective on that that differs from yours, NDT, and James’ as well it would appear, but I do not agree with the attacks on religion made by people like Randi and Raj either. I just can’t be bothered getting involved in every religious debate that takes place here, to be honest.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
The reason James and ND30 always fall back to the religious argument is because it is the only defense they have that doesn’t require proof of anything other than their own deluded self-righteousness. ND30 has proven HIMSELF to be the anti-religious bigot with his statements condemning any religion other than his precious hate-filled brand of Christianity. He calls out Buddhists, Pagans, B’hai and any other religion that is different from his for derision and attack, hardly the actions of someone who respects or understands the seriousness of faith. His continued use of invective and lies just go to prove that he is not worth the time it takes to argue…just laugh at him and move along, it is obvious he is not serious anyway. Just another idiotic troll trying to prove his self-worth on the internet. Sad Sad Sad, poor self-hating queer…always projecting on others that which he hates in himself.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
He calls out Buddhists, Pagans, B’hai and any other religion that is different from his for derision and attack, hardly the actions of someone who respects or understands the seriousness of faith.
LOL…..if it were really that obvious, CP, you’d just show people what I’ve said. But instead, you tell them your own bigoted version and demand that people ignore me.
Meanwhile, I’ll just take the time to point out your viewpoint here, here, here…..unfortunately, the best example seems to have vanished….of your objectivity, absence of derision, and lack of attack against other people.
You exemplify one of the biggest problems with gay leftists; they honestly don’t think what they’re doing is in any way hateful or wrong.
And novaseeker, while I understand your motivation, I would also point out that your silence on these matters is what allows dalea, Randi, ColoradoPatriot, Raj, and others to do the speaking for the gay community in regard to them.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
That’s funny Norhtdallass, you think your empty claims to have a mountain of evidence contradicting the numbers I posted suffices for actually providing any evidence. Given your chronic lying, your empty assurances are completely meaningless, much like most of the links you post.
And your claiming PCT agrees with all my viewpoints by explicitely agreeing with one of them is just another example of your pathetic lies. A rational person can understand that its possible to agree with one thing someone says without unconditionally agreeing with everything they say, of course rational definitely wouldn’t be you.
The advocate running a story on Bonnie Bleskachek prior to her allegedly committing these wrong doings certainly doesn’t show, as you’ve claimed, that gays support her doing wrong. And I got several paragraphs into you “talking about the abuse of gays” and lost interest because I didn’t see any condemnation of the actions. Certainly your talking about gay wrongs doesn’t even remotely begin to match the rare mentions you give to heterosexual wrongs. You had to go back two months to find an example of you allegedly criticizing heterosexuals while we see your gay bashing here several times a day.
And again you lie by saying I and Dalea represent what the gay community believes. The study Dalea quoted clearly shows 2/3 of the gay community is religious. But, hey, if your mouth is flapping that’s all the evidence you need to believe what you’re saying is the truth.
You’re in no position to criticize any gay for allegedly idolizing promiscuity when you idolize a sadistic baby killer. You don’t mind quoting me, but you’re too ashamed of your idol to acknowledge that my summary of the situation comes directly from the words of your idol. Deuteronomy 7: 1,2,16
“When the Lord your God delivers them over to you to be destroyed, do a complete job of it – don’t make any treaties or show them mercy; utterly wipe them out.”
By your own admission your god eternally tortures the vast majority of humanity merely for believing that which seems most likely, and you want to bitch about gays supposedly idolizing promiscuity. You pathetic, evil hypocrite.
Your hypocrisy is further highlighted by your belabouring the evil Christian bus driver in Minneapolis who refused to do her job just because of an ad for a gay magazine on the bus. You absurdly claim her “request” was a “reasonable accomodation on religious grounds, as they are legally allowed to do and are protected in doing.”.
If a racist bus driver refused to drive a bus because it had an ad for a magazine aimed at blacks on it I’m sure you wouldn’t be proudly standing up to defend that’ bigot’s right to a “reasonable accomodation as he is legally allowed to do and protected in doing”. And nor would anyone else, its not socially acceptable to be bogoted towards blacks, but it still is to be bigoted towards gays. Or if a gay bus driver refused to drive a bus with an ad for a Christian magazine on it, it you’d be screaming “Discrimination!” from the top of your lungs.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said of Colorado Patriot “You exemplify one of the biggest problems with gay leftists; they honestly don’t think what they’re doing is in any way hateful or wrong”.
You hypocritical bigot. In the following thread you lied by my estimate 55 to 80 times (not to mention the few times you’ve already lied in this thread) and you want to point the finger at someone else and say they don’t think what they’re doing is in any way hateful or wrong. You delusional psychopath.
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31138.html#6220
Your god commands you not to bear false witness, you’re a disgrace to every Christian. If I speak for all gays, you must speak for all Christians, and you make them look absolutely terrible. To summarize just a few of your lies from that thread:
At December 25, 2006, 1:40am, the alleged birthday of your supposed lord and savior, after I repeatedly expressed horror at the injustice of Afghanis skinning Christian aid workers alive you lied and said “Doubtless there are ones like you, which would claim that their actions were justified because the Christians “attacked them”.”. I said no such thing. While at first you condemn the idea that it was justfied on December 27, 2006, 4:28pm you do a one hundred and eighty degree turn and and condemn the idea that the attack WASN’T justified: “You weren’t there; how do you know that one of the aid workers didn’t try to kill one of the workers?…Why don’t the Afghans get the same benefit of the doubt from you and your fellow leftists?”.
Typical of your lying nature, you’ll claim polar opposites are true at different times in a vain attempt to make someone other than yourself look bad.
On December 27, 2006, 4:28pm you lied yet AGAIN by saying “YOU said that, if someone tries to murder you, it’s perfectly justifiable to kill and torture them.” I never said it was okay to torture any one for any reason. I said it was justifiable to kill someone if that’s what it takes to prevent them from killing you first.
On December 28, 2006, 4:59pm after I condemned YOUR god for wanting to overlook humanity’s evil by committing the evil act of killing the innocent Jesus, you lied AGAIN by saying “according to your leftist logic, people don’t have to be sent to prison for their crimes; after all, can’t the justice system just “overlook” the sins of individuals?”.
That’s YOUR god’s “logic” that says people don’t need to be punished for their crimes, not mine. I repeatedly condemned YOUR god’s trying to place responsbility for sins upon somone other than the person responsible for them.
At December 27, 2006, 3:44pm you lied AGAIN by saying “you again try to use human imperfectibility to disprove God — but refuse to apply said imperfectibility to your own leftist philosophy that humankind CAN be perfected.” I never said human imperfectability disproves your god and I never said humankind can be perfected. In fact I repeatedly emphasized the inevitability of humanities imperfection and that the only practical goal was to come as close as possible to living the perfect philosophy of “Do whatever you want, but hurt no one.” It was you who claimed and continue to claim mine and other’s imperfections invalidate that philosophy. What I’ve repeatedly emphasized is that a loving and just god that allows belief in him and his religion of preference to be debatable and who eternally tortures people for innocently believing otherwise cannot exist anymore than a square sphere exists.
On December 21, 2006, 5:27pm you lied AGAIN by saying “The temptation of modern-day Christians, in attempt to make the religion more palatable to bigots like Randi and Raj, is to downplay the whole thing because it doesn’t portray the “love, love, do whatever you want” of modern permissive theology.”. The philosophy I’ve repeatedly emphasized is “Do whatever you want, but hurt no one “. You left out the critical commandment over and over to falsely state that that is what is “palatable” to me.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I stand by what I have written, Randi. And like with ColoradoPatriot, I will simply point out that you yourself have admitted that you don’t read my links or references.
Meanwhile, I’ll deal with one interesting issue that you have brought up.
If a racist bus driver refused to drive a bus because it had an ad for a magazine aimed at blacks on it I’m sure you wouldn’t be proudly standing up to defend that’ bigot’s right to a “reasonable accomodation as he is legally allowed to do and protected in doing”. And nor would anyone else, its not socially acceptable to be bogoted towards blacks, but it still is to be bigoted towards gays. Or if a gay bus driver refused to drive a bus with an ad for a Christian magazine on it, it you’d be screaming “Discrimination!” from the top of your lungs.
Let us put the situation in exactly the same context as I did previously.
Buses in that area of the Minneapolis transit system are dispatched from a central garage. Drivers pick up their buses from that location and head out on their routes. There appears to be no specific limitations on which buses go out on which routes.
The advertisements in question are on 25 of the 150 buses (17% of the bus fleet). The employee has made a request on the basis of her whatever to not be assigned to any of those buses.
Based on that, I would still grant the accomodation for the driver, and especially for the gay driver who didn’t want to drive the bus with the ad for the Christian magazine on it.
Why?
Because I can say with all honesty the following:
1. There are far, far more buses that the driver can drive than the request would prevent her from driving.
2. There are no other specific circumstances that would limit the number of buses she could drive and result in a business hardship.
3. There is no material effect on passengers, customers, or other employees in granting this request.
Therefore, I can see no justifiable or legal reason to deny the request for accomodation.
To illustrate, let me contrast by putting out a situation in which I would not grant the accomodation.
In San Francisco, our bus fleet is divided into electric and diesel buses. You can only run electric buses on electric routes (which have overhead wires); you can run diesels on both, but they ordinarily won’t do so unless it’s on overnight shift. Buses are dispatched out of area garages (because the electrics have to have access to the wire grid).
Now, say the ad was on three-quarters of the electric buses at one area garage, and the driver made her request there to not be assigned to one of the buses with the ad.
My answer would be, “Sorry, but that’s not a reasonable solution. That would prevent you from driving 75% of the buses in the garage and would affect our ability to operate.”
Then I would offer alternate solutions; she could, for instance, transfer to another garage with a better ratio of buses without to buses with, change to the overnight shift and drive a diesel, etc., or go on reserve, meaning she would only drive when we could be certain we could meet her request. However, if she refuses any of those other solutions, I am perfectly justified in letting her go because she cannot do the job, even after having been offered reasonable accomodation.
Now, if I were to adopt the gay leftist solution, I would have to fire or reprimand the bus driver in any situation for even making the request, regardless of law, because it would be “irrational”. Instead, I prefer to adopt the intelligent and informed solution, which strikes a nice balance between acknowledging the needs and wants of the individual while ensuring we can still operate the business and serve customers. I can respect beliefs which with I do not agree while still effectively serving my clients.
But then again, I’m an atypical gay person; as Randi and dalea make clear, the thought that someone out there disagrees with them and that someone else is respecting that belief is tatamount to wanting to kill or banish all gays. And if one looks at the relevant comment thread, they’re not alone.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Umm, you lost me again…Please try to pay attention to what you are linking to.
North Dallas Thirty | January 3, 2007, 11:15am | #
That’s real interesting ND30…care to point out how the quotes you provided links to have anything to do with this discussion? From those links all a person could gather is that you make a habit of lying about others and not providing ANY documentation to “prove” the ridiculous assertations you make. I never said I was a nice person ND30, just that I don’t make a habit of lying about others (like you do daily). For someone inclined to throw around the terms “bigot” and “anti-religious” like rice at a wedding you sure are very sensitive to what others say back to you. I’ll say this though, if I were ever to come face-to-face with you, you sniveling and lying little piece of dirt, I would make sure that you would never forget my anger at being slandered and lied about by such an insignificant turd like you. You are safe there behind your keyboard so please feel free to keep spreading lies about other people, I’m sure Jesus would be proud…so take some solace in that, you insipid little self-hating queer…
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
And Northdallass, I forgot this whopper of a lie you started with in attacking me:
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31136.html#commentform
at December 18, 2006, 12:30pm you lied and said I “tear down married and normal couples as “Stepford wives””.
If you “stand by” what you’ve written then post one of your infamous links to demonstrate I said those things you accuse me of. You can’t because you’re a chronic liar and you don’t have the honour to admit your wrongs and make good on them by apologizing. You just try to cover your lies with more lies. You lied dozens and dozens of times in the Church of Hate thread and several times in this one alone. What you accuse “gay leftists” of is what you are guilty of yourself. You lie and claim not to believe that any of what you’re doing is harmful or wrong.
The actions of that Christian bus driver are just as evil as a racist refusing to drive a bus because it had an ad on it for a magazine that appealed to blacks. Its wrong to promote the idea that gays are to be banished as second class citizens and eternally tortured for having loving monogamous relationships, and that is at the heart of what your Christian bus driver believes and acts on.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I’ll say this though, if I were ever to come face-to-face with you, you sniveling and lying little piece of dirt, I would make sure that you would never forget my anger at being slandered and lied about by such an insignificant turd like you.
I’ll file that with your previous threat about having to “tussle”, which unfortunately seems to have disappeared except here.
And then I’ll merely smile at the irony of one gay leftist making threats of assault in the same thread as another shrieking about assaults on other gays.
Or at you saying I’m “sensitive”, when you yourself admit that your statements are not in any way nice.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
And of course Northdallass lies yet again by saying ” Randi and dalea make clear, the thought that someone out there disagrees with them and that someone else is respecting that belief is tatamount to wanting to kill or banish all gays.”
Those were my posts you linked to, Dalea had nothing to do with them. And I never said that any disagreement with me is tantamount to wanting to kill or banish all gays. What I said is that the Christian bus driver’s refusal to drive a bus with an ad for a gay magazine on it was motivated by the common Christian belief that gays should be banished as sinners and eternally tortured for having loving monogamous same sex relationships. Don’t forget, its YOUR’S and HER buy-bull that says “Its an abomination for a man to lie with another man as with a woman, they must be put to death.”. That’s where your “reasonable” Christian beliefs come from.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If you “stand by” what you’ve written then post one of your infamous links to demonstrate I said those things you accuse me of.
I believe we’ve already gone over the “Stepford wives” thing.
What I would also like to point out, Randi, is that you demand links from me, but that you’ve already said you don’t read them.
And finally to this point:
Its wrong to promote the idea that gays are to be banished as second class citizens and eternally tortured for having loving monogamous relationships, and that is at the heart of what your Christian bus driver believes and acts on.
Really? How do you know her thoughts?
I’m a businessperson, Randi, not a gay leftist; I don’t have the time or the inclination to read minds. People are entitled to believe what they believe; the law says that I should make an honest effort to accomodate their beliefs, regardless of what I think of them, if I can do so without compromising my business.
Now, what I want you to answer is this; would I be justified in firing a gay leftist like yourself, who requested not to drive a bus with an advertisement for a Christian magazine on the side, on the grounds that hate of Christianity and demand that Christians be urinated and vomited upon by gays is what was at the root of your request?
Or would you demand that I do the right thing, which is to evaluate it relative to my business needs, make a decision and accomodation based on that, and leave trying to read minds or motivations out of it?
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “And then I’ll merely smile at the irony of one gay leftist making threats of assault in the same thread as another shrieking about assaults on other gays.”
I don’t think you know the definition of irony (just add it to the LONG list of things you are hopelessly wrong about). These are not threats, f*ckface. These are what happens to cowards who lie and slander others.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, the problem is you claimed I said something I didn’t and never would say. You lied. At December 18, 2006, 12:30pm in that thread you said “she and her fellow leftists tear down married and normal couples as “Stepford wives”.”. I never said that and the link you posted shows I didn’t. If you stand by what you’ve written you must demonstrate where I tore “down married and normal couples as “Stepford wives””. You have failed to do so because it was a lie, just like all the other lies of yours I posted where you couldn’t demonstrate I said what you claimed I did, and the dozens and dozens of your lies I documented post by post in the “Church of Hate” thread.
The idea that gays are sinners and should be eternally tortured even for being in loving committed relationships is at the heart of your buy-bull and most Christine doctrine. When a Christian makes a statement that they won’t even tolerate an ad depicting gays in her presence its a reasonable assumption it is because of that hateful Christian doctrine and buy-bull that dominates Christianity.
The idea that one Christian bus driver might be urinated and vomited on is one person’s idea. Gays don’t worship and uncritically follow Dalea like Christians uncritically worship and follow YOUR buy-bull and “god”.
Most certainly, if I was a bus driver and refused to do my job because a bus had a Christian ad on it I should be reprimanded and then fired if I continued to refuse to do my job. The exact same goes for a racist who refuses to drive a bus with an ad for a black magazine on it, or a Christian who refuses to drive a bus with a gay magazine ad on it.
I notice you aren’t explicitely standing up for the idea that a racist should be able to refuse to drive a bus with an ad for a magazine that appeals to blacks. I’m sure the law wouldn’t either.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I never said that and the link you posted shows I didn’t.
First, Randi, how would you know, since you proudly proclaimed that you don’t read my links?
Second, what that link actually shows is how you keep changing your story in regards to the “Stepford wife” thing.
When a Christian makes a statement that they won’t even tolerate an ad depicting gays in her presence its a reasonable assumption it is because of that hateful Christian doctrine and buy-bull that dominates Christianity.
Therefore, it’s a reasonable assumption that, when a gay person objects to any sort of religious display, it’s because they are antireligious bigots who think religious people should be urinated and vomited upon in public. After all, I can show a clear example of a gay person saying that, so I can automatically assume that that’s the reason gays might request reasonable accomodation.
If you were familiar with law and business practice, you would note that the law does not allow you to discriminate or deny employee requests for accomodation based on what you think people are thinking; you must have a clear, defensible, and observable business reason for doing so.
I notice you aren’t explicitely standing up for the idea that a racist should be able to refuse to drive a bus with an ad for a magazine that appeals to blacks. I’m sure the law wouldn’t either.
Actually, the law would, again on the grounds that you are not to assume that you know the reasoning behind another person’s request for accomodation. Just as I’m not supposed to assume that you’re an antireligious bigot just because you refuse to drive a bus with a Christian ad on it.
Where I would be justified in doing something is when you or dalea refused service to Christians or urinated and vomited on them, or if the “racist” driver did the same thing to individuals of color, and then tried to request accomodation. That is a direct harm to my business, and I am fully justified in getting rid of all of you, regardless of your protected status.
posted by PCT on
Andres Sullivan’s correspondent probably said it best. http://www.andrewsullivan.com
>First, do you believe that Jesus Christ ordained the US Constitution, and that there is no true understanding of that document except that one first believes in him? Second, do you believe it is America’s Christian destiny to save the world from the false religion of Mohammed?< If not, you're a "leftist", in the fever swamp that passes for ND30's brain.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Wrong again, Northdallass. What I said was that I don’t read ALL of your links, not that I don’t read your links – again you try to deceive. I did read that link and contrary to your lie nowhere in that link did I “tear down married and normal couples as “Stepford wives”.”. You LIED. And you don’t have the decency to admit it when your own link shows you lied. And nor did my “story” change. Just like other lies you commonly make, if one person says something it is a lie to say ALL LGBTS said it. You lie when you say “gays want to urinate and vomit on the Christian bus driver” when it is only one gay that said that. You lied when you said “Gays insult Christianity by referring to the bible as the buy-bull” and that was solely my comment alone. This is the most common type of lie you make. You take one person’s comment or action and blame the whole gay community, or “gays” for it. You repeat that form of lie over and over and over. You are a disgrace to Christianity and to its commandment that thou shalt not bear false witness.
I said “When a Christian makes a statement that they won’t even tolerate an ad depicting gays in her presence its a reasonable assumption it is because of that hateful Christian doctrine and buy-bull that dominates Christianity.”.
Northdallass responded “Therefore, it’s a reasonable assumption that, when a gay person objects to any sort of religious display, it’s because they are antireligious bigots who think religious people should be urinated and vomited upon in public. After all, I can show a clear example of a gay person saying that, so I can automatically assume that that’s the reason gays might request reasonable accomodation.”.
Bzzzz, wrong answer. Its a reasonable assumption that most Christians have heard of the buy-bull and follow it. It is not a reasonable assumption that most gays have heard of dalea, or that whether or not they follow him as lord in the way Christians follow your hateful god. Your response is pathetic, stupid, and unreasonable and you know it but you think somehow your going to score some points by saying it anyway – wrong again.
Northdallass said “Just as I’m not supposed to assume that you’re an antireligious bigot just because you refuse to drive a bus with a Christian ad on it.”.
For starters, I wouldn’t refuse to drive a bus just because it had a Christian ad on it. Secondly, you make assumptions like that over and over and over.
At December 25, 2006, 1:40am on the thread
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31138.html#6220
after I repeatedly expressed horror at the injustice of Afghanis skinning Christian aid workers alive you lied and said “Doubtless there are ones like you, which would claim that their actions were justified because the Christians “attacked them”.”.
You assumed something I would never have said. You lied and said it was “Doubtless”. While you claim in this thread you’re not supposed to assume that was but one of many, many times I’ve seen you assume the worst of LGBTS when a decent and honest person never would have.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
While you claim in this thread you’re not supposed to assume that was but one of many, many times I’ve seen you assume the worst of LGBTS when a decent and honest person never would have.
Perhaps, Randi, if it was made clear by other gays that they disagreed with you or Dalea, or that they were appalled by ColoradoPatriot’s bald threat to physically assault me, or that they considered Bonnie Bleskachek a hypocritical liar, or numerous other things, that would make more sense.
But, as PCT shows, gays can’t do that.
You are a prime example, Randi; you can’t even say that it was wrong, absolutely wrong, for dalea for publicly advocating that gays urinate and vomit on Christians. Instead, you made up excuses for why it was right or should be overlooked, like “she started it”. I have no doubt that you can make excuses for ColoradoPatriot’s threat to physically assault me, like “you started it”, or something else similar.
That’s because 1) they’re gay, and 2) you don’t like their target.
It’s the same reason that people didn’t speak up as Mike Nifong systematically broke every prosecutorial rule in the book over the Duke rape case; Nifong cleverly appealed to class resentment and the belief that the minority is always right.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Sorry, link close.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
See, now you’re lying again Northdallas, I did say of Dalea that “two wrongs don’t make a right” and that the problem with his response was that it wasn’t measured – I never “made up excuses for why it was right”, I never said it was right. I also did say that if Bonnie Blekachek was guilty that I condemn her – if you were being consistent in your approach you’d say that “gays” condemn Bonnie Blekachek for her wrongs. You blame one person’s comment on all gays when you don’t like that comment, but when that one comment shows the morality of an LGBT you don’t similarly assign it to all gays. If one gay does something wrong its “gays” fault, but if one gay does something right, “gays” aren’t responsible, in fact it isn’t even mentioned.
Now how do you expect anyone to condemn ColoradoPatriot for wronging you when you won’t acknowledge and repent of your repeated wronging of others? You’re not that ignorant of human nature. Its always wrong to respond to a verbal attack with a physical attack. ColoradoPatriot was wrong to threaten to physically attack you, but your behavior is a mitigating circumstance, just as the behavior of the Christian bus driver was a mitigating factor in the wrongness of Dalea’s vomit/urinate comment. If you think you or the bus driver are owed an unconditional condemnation of those who’ve wronged you, you’re dead wrong. The fact that you both started the incidents with a wrong of your own is a critical mitigating factor. Neither of you gets to have a blanket condemnation of the others without admitting and repenting of your own wrongs first. You come here and gay bash day after day with wild distortions and repeatedly blame “gays” for acts of individuals – you can’t be too surprised when no one is eager to jump up to your defense.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL….the problem with Dalea’s response, Randi, was that he wanted to urinate and vomit on a person. The problem with ColoradoPatriot’s response was that he threatened someone with physical assault.
What you continue to demonstrate is that you are incapable of condemning bad behavior in gay people. You always blame someone else or something else for them doing it.
As a result, Randi, what you make of gays is that they are helpless children who are unable to control themselves. Instead of rebuking Dalea for overreacting, you whine that it’s the the Christian’s fault for making them do it. Instead of rebuking ColoradoPatriot for overreacting, you whine that I made him do it.
You do an excellent imitation of a permissive and indulgent parent. If their child flunks, the teacher is incompetent. If they steal from a store, it’s because the store made it too easy. If they break a neighbor’s window, it’s because he yelled at them yesterday not to trample his flowerbed. And then, amusingly enough, they wonder why they end up with a spoiled, uncontrollable brat.
The reason parents do this sort of thing is their own insecurity. They are scared to death that their child will not love them, that the child will resent them punishing them, and that the best thing to do is to avoid the matter entirely.
Just as you are terrified at the thought of criticizing another gay person, lest they stop liking you.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “the problem with Dalea’s response, Randi, was that he wanted to urinate and vomit on a person. The problem with ColoradoPatriot’s response was that he threatened someone with physical assault”.
And I pointed that out just as I pointed out the problem of your repeated lying. You lie when you say I didn’t rebuke them and suggest that I assigned sole responsibility for their actions to you. You’re not in any position to be criticizing others without acknowledging and repenting of the wrongs you’ve committed. The justice system takes into account mitigating circumstances and so do I. It is not uncommon for legal rulings to assign part of the blame to both parties. If you think you can provoke people and be blameless when they overreact you’re dead wrong.
ColoradoPatriot never did physically attack you and is conceivably incapable of doing so, given the persistent unapologetic lying provocations of yours I’m not convinced he wronged you any more than you wronged him and all LGBTS. If you think anyone owes it to you to condemn them without acknowledging your role in it you’re delusional.
At January 4, 2007, 1:01pm you whined that I hadn’t said their actions were absolutely wrong. That’s because they weren’t. Absolute means without condition or boundary. They were wrong but the mitigating circumstance of your’s and the bus driver’s provocation has to be taken into account. Don’t whine to mean if you can’t accept the fact that your wrongs mitigate theirs.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
That last sentence should have said “Don’t whine to me if you can’t accept the fact that your wrongs mitigate theirs.”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If you think you can provoke people and be blameless when they overreact you’re dead wrong.
Except in this case, for example, the “provocation” was an employee making a request for accomodation which she was completely and legally protected in doing.
Now, Randi, what you’re claiming is that the justice system would say, when Dalea assaulted this person, that dalea was justified because the person dalea assaulted was exercising their legal rights and that was provocative.
More likely the courts would find that dalea was a hateful bigot and place the blame squarely on him, pointing out that it was that person’s legally-protected right to request reasonable accomodation. And you would whine and cry and throw a hissy fit because you didn’t get your way.
What you make patently obvious, Randi, is that gays don’t want equality; they want the right to hurt others. Just like Bonnie Bleskachek claimed that since she was discriminated against, she had the legal right to retaliate by discriminating against others.
And next, let’s demonstrate something else:
ColoradoPatriot never did physically attack you and is conceivably incapable of doing so, given the persistent unapologetic lying provocations of yours I’m not convinced he wronged you any more than you wronged him and all LGBTS.
But here’s what you were saying previously:
For me to respond to your verbal assault with a physical assault would be excessive and wrong.
So I get it….it’s perfectly OK for ColoradoPatriot to respond to what you claim is my “verbal assault” with a physical assault, because you think I deserve it.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
I know it is hard for you ND30, but don’t be a complete idiot. Your repeated lies and slanderous comments would get you into serious trouble if you attempted them anywhere other than behind the anonymity of the internet. Don’t act all bent out of shape by my “threats” as I would never act on them…you aren’t worth the time or effort. But, I’ll repeat, if you were to attempt in public what you do here, you and I would have major issues. Since you are WAY too much of a coward to ever attempt such a thing, you are safe. Now go cry to mama about the mean people who threaten you on the internets….waaa, waaa, waaa. Grow up you idiot.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, said “what you’re claiming is that the justice system would say, when Dalea assaulted this person, that dalea was justified because the person dalea assaulted was exercising their legal rights and that was provocative.”.
You pathetic sleazy evil liar. I never claimed anything of the sort. Dalea never assaulted anyone. He merely SAID maybe someone might urinate or vomit on this bus driver. That was wrong but it was mitigated by the hateful provocation of the bus driver.
You lied again by saying “So I get it….it’s perfectly OK for ColoradoPatriot to respond to what you claim is my “verbal assault” with a physical assault, because you think I deserve it.”. I never said any such thing. I clearly said at January 4, 2007, 1:58pm “ColoradoPatriot was wrong to threaten to physically attack you.”. That wrong was mitigated by your incessant lying provocations. You got exactly what you’ve been whining for, I stated those actions are wrong, but that’s not good enough for you, we’re all supposed to overlook the wrong of your neverending lies and criticize everyone but you. You’re a pathetic evil liar. You just never stop. You haven’t learned a damn thing, you’re a disgrace to Christianity and its commandment that you not bear false witness. Jesus Christ, you talk about gays making the gay community look bad, for Christ’s sake look how evil you make Christians look.
Just what makes you think everyone’s wrongs should be condemned but yours?! If you’re too f*cking stupid to know what mitigation means look it up in the goddamn dictionary.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I never said any such thing. I clearly said at January 4, 2007, 1:58pm “ColoradoPatriot was wrong to threaten to physically attack you.”.
Actually, you left out a part (emphasis mine).
ColoradoPatriot was wrong to threaten to physically attack you, but your behavior is a mitigating circumstance, just as the behavior of the Christian bus driver was a mitigating factor in the wrongness of Dalea’s vomit/urinate comment.
In short, Randi, there’s always a “but” for you when it comes to saying the behavior of other gays is wrong, and always a “mitigating factor” that explains why it’s really OK for them to do that.
Or, more bluntly put, there’s always an excuse for gays’ bad behavior, and always someone else you can blame.
And as for making Christianity look bad, for example, I don’t recall ever physically threatening a single one of you, no matter how much we disagreed; however, not only has one of your fellow leftists done so, you’re arguing that “mitigating circumstances” actually makes it justifiable and less wrong for him to do so. I unequivocally condemn gaybashings; you go on and on about how assault against people is “mitigated” if you think someone was provoked first.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “you go on and on about how assault against people is “mitigated” if you think someone was provoked first.”.
You lie AGAIN. There was no assault. I never said an actual assault was mitigated, I never said mitigation makes any action justifiable. I said the verbal response of ColoradoPatriot and Dalea was mitigated by your incessant lying and the Christian bus driver’s hateful expression. What makes you think anyone else’s wrongs should be criticized when not only do you fail to admit and apologize for your own wrongs, but you keep committing them?!
Who the hell do you think you are that your lie upon lie shouldn’t be condemned?!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL….you really don’t see this, do you, Randi?
You make this statement:
I never said mitigation makes any action justifiable.
then follow it with this one:
I said the verbal response of ColoradoPatriot and Dalea was mitigated by your incessant lying and the Christian bus driver’s hateful expression.
Like I said before, Randi, wherever you’re concerned, there’s always a “but” for you when it comes to saying the behavior of other gays is wrong, and always a “mitigating factor” that explains why it’s really OK for them to do that.
What is really funny is that, if a Christian opined that gays ought to be assaulted or urinated/vomited upon, I can say with almost absolute certainty that you wouldn’t apply your “mitigating factor” that it should be treated differently because they didn’t actually assault or urinate/vomit upon a gay person. But, like the good hypocrite you are, when a gay person says that, you come up with all sorts of reasons for why it really wasn’t wrong and how it wasn’t their fault they said it.
Again, Randi, I think it’s fairly obvious; you are terrified of criticizing another gay person, lest they stop liking you.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, you moron, mitigation is not justification. Read your dictionary you idiot. The distinction is clear and obvious and its yet again another lie for you to say they are the same thing.
You call me a hypocrite?! You who lie in virtually every post, you who insist other’s wrongs be condemned but who fail to acknowledge, repent of, and stop committing wrongs of your own?! You’re clearly a psychopath. You truly don’t understand right and wrong. You think following the rules is for suckers. Your morality is subjective – what would be wrong for others to do magically is not wrong when you do it. You’re not even a true Christian, that’s just a veil to cover your true goal – you come here to antagonize because it brings you pleasure. You don’t give a rat’s ass about right and wrong, if you did you wouldn’t be such a habitual liar. Your total insincerity is obvious to everyone here and I suspect you know it – you’re happy to sacrifice your credibility for the opportunity to antagonize someone. Dalea and ColoradoPatriot can be forgiven for making occaisional mistakes, but your non-stop lying and antagonization is unforgivable. Your not in any position to criticize others until you repent of and cease the voluminous wrongs of your own.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, in this thread http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31136.html#commentform
you lied At December 18, 2006, 12:30pm. You said “she and her fellow leftists tear down married and normal couples as “Stepford wives”.”. I never said that and the link you posted shows I didn’t. That is just one of the dozens and dozens of times you’ve lied in the few short weeks I’ve been holding you accountable. In the following thread I picked out a handful of your lies:
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31138.html#6220
Your god commands you not to bear false witness, you’re a disgrace to every Christian. If I speak for all gays, you must speak for all Christians, and you make them look absolutely terrible.
At December 25, 2006, 1:40am, the alleged birthday of your supposed lord and savior, after I repeatedly expressed horror at the injustice of Afghanis skinning Christian aid workers alive you lied and said “Doubtless there are ones like you, which would claim that their actions were justified because the Christians “attacked them”.”. I said no such thing. While at first you condemn the idea that it was justfied on December 27, 2006, 4:28pm you do a one hundred and eighty degree turn and and condemn the idea that the attack WASN’T justified: “You weren’t there; how do you know that one of the aid workers didn’t try to kill one of the workers?…Why don’t the Afghans get the same benefit of the doubt from you and your fellow leftists?”.
Typical of your lying nature, you’ll claim polar opposites are true at different times in a vain attempt to make someone other than yourself look bad.
On December 27, 2006, 4:28pm you lied yet AGAIN by saying “YOU said that, if someone tries to murder you, it’s perfectly justifiable to kill and torture them.” I never said it was okay to torture any one for any reason. I said it was justifiable to kill someone if that’s what it takes to prevent them from killing you first.
On December 28, 2006, 4:59pm after I condemned YOUR god for wanting to overlook humanity’s evil by committing the evil act of killing the innocent Jesus, you lied AGAIN by saying “according to your leftist logic, people don’t have to be sent to prison for their crimes; after all, can’t the justice system just “overlook” the sins of individuals?”.
That’s YOUR god’s “logic” that says people don’t need to be punished for their crimes, not mine. I repeatedly condemned YOUR god’s trying to place responsbility for sins upon somone other than the person responsible for them.
At December 27, 2006, 3:44pm you lied AGAIN by saying “you again try to use human imperfectibility to disprove God — but refuse to apply said imperfectibility to your own leftist philosophy that humankind CAN be perfected.” I never said human imperfectability disproves your god and I never said humankind can be perfected. In fact I repeatedly emphasized the inevitability of humanities imperfection and that the only practical goal was to come as close as possible to living the perfect philosophy of “Do whatever you want, but hurt no one.” It was you who claimed and continue to claim mine and other’s imperfections invalidate that philosophy. What I’ve repeatedly emphasized is that a loving and just god that allows belief in him and his religion of preference to be debatable and who eternally tortures people for innocently believing otherwise cannot exist anymore than a square sphere exists.
On December 21, 2006, 5:27pm you lied AGAIN by saying “The temptation of modern-day Christians, in attempt to make the religion more palatable to bigots like Randi and Raj, is to downplay the whole thing because it doesn’t portray the “love, love, do whatever you want” of modern permissive theology.”. The philosophy I’ve repeatedly emphasized is “Do whatever you want, but hurt no one “. You left out the critical commandment over and over to falsely state that that is what is “palatable” to me.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
a future Supreme Court will rule that the remaining state amendments that deny gays the benefits of marriage (and especially those that ban civil unions and other partnerships) are unconstitutional
But isn’t that (gasp) judicial activism?
The reality is that this argument is going nowhere because both sides accept the premise that we should have to get permission from the government in order to plan our family lives and have them “recognized.” Until gays on the right and left give up their love of big government licensing our every relationship, expenditure, purchase, breath and bowel movement, this entire debate will continue to go nowhere.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Northdallass, you moron, mitigation is not justification. Read your dictionary you idiot. The distinction is clear and obvious and its yet again another lie for you to say they are the same thing.
Not quite, Randi.
The legal definition of justify is to show a satisfactory reason or excuse for something done; to mitigate is to lessen or try to lesson the seriousness of based on a reason or excuse for something done.
Put simply, there is no legal basis for mitigation if there is no justification for the actions.
Therefore, it is perfectly correct to say that you are trying to justify dalea’s and ColoradoPatriot’s actions to mitigate the punishment — or, more precisely, to explain why you shouldn’t have to act towards them as you would towards someone who didn’t share your ideological viewpoint.
We’d get a lot farther, Randi, if you would just say that antireligious and other gays that share your ideology should be treated differently; it’s quite obvious in your actions.
But that would neatly blow a hole in your claims that you only want “equality”; it would make obvious that you want equality of protection, but not of consequences.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, you are a fool as well as a liar.
Justify: 1. to show to be just or right. 2. to uphold as warrented or well grounded.
Mitigate: to make or become less severe or painful.
An act that is justified is by definition NOT A WRONG. A wrong that is mitigated is STILL A WRONG, albeit a lesser wrong. That is how the law deals with it and how I deal with it. The justice system is precise about definitions and certainly doesn’t conflate the two terms as your mangled definition attempts to. Obviously your word salad didn’t come directly from any legal document.
In any event your dozens and dozens of lies are neither justified nor mitigated. You said “she and her fellow leftists tear down married and normal couples as “Stepford wives”.”. You have failed to demonstrate where I said that because it was a lie. No matter how you point the finger at others for their wrongs it can never absolve you of guilt for your own.
For Christ’s sake be a man and admit the obvious – you lied and it was wrong even by your own buy-bulls insistence that thou shalt not bear false witness.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Unfortunately, Randi, you have claimed that ColoradoPatriot’s threats against me are warranted by my actions, and that dalea’s threats and hate actions against Christians are warranted by their actions.
Thus, you have justified the actions of ColoradoPatriot and dalea by claiming they were warranted.
And now you are trying to argue that they should be let off, or mitigated, because of that.
What you ignore, Randi, is this; dalea didn’t HAVE to threaten to urinate and vomit on Christians for exercising their legally protected rights. ColoradoPatriot didn’t HAVE to threaten to physically assault me for what he alleges I said about him. Indeed, despite all the nasty things each of you has said about me, I’ve never once threatened to physically assault any of you — and indeed, have spoken out AGAINST physical assaults.
What you continue to prove, leftist bigot Randi, is that you cannot unequivocally say that what dalea and ColoradoPatriot was wrong. Furthermore, what you have made clear is that you would NEVER allow anyone who wasn’t gay to claim that threatening assault against a gay person was “mitigated” because they didn’t actually do it, or because the gay person provoked them.
And again, the Stepford wives thing has been long since answered; as I pointed out, you keep changing what you’re claiming.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
You just never stop lying, do you. I never said Coloradopatriot’s or Dalea’s comments were warranted, I said they were wrong and that that was mitigated by the provocations of you and the Christian bus driver.
You said “she and her fellow leftists tear down married and normal couples as “Stepford wives”.”. I never said that. You failed to demonstrate that I did because you LIED and your too small a person and don’t have the decency to admit it and apologize. That lie was just one compared to the dozens and dozens of your lies I docmented in the thread
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31138.html#6220
You are an unmitigated liar. No matter how you point the finger at other’s wrongs it can never absolve you of the guilt for your own. The fact that you didn’t threaten to physically assault anyone does nothing to excuse your chronic lies and antagonism towards all LGBTS.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I never said Coloradopatriot’s or Dalea’s comments were warranted, I said they were wrong and that that was mitigated by the provocations of you and the Christian bus driver.
And again, Randi, what you keep doing over and over and over again is claiming that something was “wrong”, but that it was really OK because someone else provoked it.
So, if a gay person says or does something that another person considers provocative, when the other person threatens to assault them, that is “mitigated” by the provocation.
What you can’t do, Randi, is admit that dalea and ColoradoPatriot were just plain wrong. Just as you keep claiming that Bonnie Bleskachek was only “allegedly” guilty, even though every single review has found that she indeed WAS guilty.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, saying a wrong was mitigated by your provocation is not saying it was OK. OK, justified, right, are not the same thing as mitigated and its a lie for you to keep suggesting they are. Go back to my post at January 5, 2007, 2:29pm and read the dictionary definitions I posted there. If you don’t like it go argue with the publishers of the dictionary, not me. You’re in no position to condemn the wrongs of others when you won’t acknowledge, repent of, and cease committing wrongs yourself. You’ve lied by my estimate close to 100 times in the few short weeks I’ve been holding you accountable for your statements.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Northdallass, saying a wrong was mitigated by your provocation is not saying it was OK.
LOL…..if that was the case, then, why do you have to keep whining that dalea and ColoradoPatriot shouldn’t be punished because they were provoked?
Again, Randi, you scream bloody murder if someone claims provocation as “mitigation” for threatening gay people, but yourself claim it when gay people threaten others. You accept no excuses for actions from others, but spin them left and right when people who agree with you make them.
People realize this fact. They recognize that your version of “equality” is to have all the protections without any of the consequences. Regardless of what you do, you can always find an excuse to blame someone else for it — like when you claimed it was my fault that you didn’t read my links.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
You’re a wicked bastard Northdallass, you just lie and lie and lie. I never said Dalea and ColoradoPatriot shouldn’t be punished. And no where did I “scream bloody murder” to anyone’s valid “claim of provocation as “mitigation” for threatening gay people”, you lying scum. And if anyone expects to have all the protections without the consequences, its you – you ranted on and on about how the murder of the innocent Jesus takes away the consequences of guilty people’s actions. I said repeatedly it did not, that only the person committing the act is responsible.
You lie non-stop, you’re not in any position to criticize the wrongs of others when you fail to acknowledge, repent of, and cease committing your own wrongs. Here’s a thought, let’s see if you can go two posts in a row without telling a lie, then maybe we’ll get somewhere.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So you now say that what dalea and ColoradoPatriot did was wrong and they should be punished.
Go ahead and say that directly.
But if you try your usual spin of “but they were provoked, so…” you’ll continue to make it obvious that you don’t really MEAN it.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Listen, you acknowledge you lied in your January 5, 2007, 6:32pm post and that you lied when you said “she and her fellow leftists tear down married and normal couples as “Stepford wives”.” as well as in the statements of yours I documented at January 5, 2007, 12:49pm, apologize for those lies and promise to stop telling further lies and then we’ll get to Dalea and Colorado patriot.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And again, Randi, you make excuses for why you can’t do it.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, what makes you think others should be punished for their wrongs, but not you? Unlike Dalea and Colorado patriot you’ve offended again and again and again – roughly 100 times in my estimation. That you’re unrepentant and continue to commit wrong after wrong is much more serious.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Northdallass, what makes you think others should be punished for their wrongs, but not you?
LOL….have you not by now spent upwards of fifty posts screaming at me about how awful of a person I am? It’s not like you haven’t been trying to punish me.
What you keep making obvious is that, to you, whether or not a person should be punished depends not on their action, but their ideology. You continue to demonstrate over and over again that gays can make threats of physical assault against people without punishment or vitriol and with numerous excuses from you, but anyone who you don’t like is constantly accused of crimes.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
The problem Northdallass is that while Dalea and Coloradopatriot have made rare offenses, your wrongs take place post after post and thread after thread. You are unrepentent and continue to offend, even now lying yet again and saying I “constantly accuse anyone I don’t like of crimes”. It is you who wants to hold everyone responsbible for their wrongs, except yourself. It is you who believes punishment shouldn’t be dependent on actions but ideology – you said yourself it is less of a sin to be a murderer than it is to reject your religious ideology. Your lies and blatant and obvious and if you don’t want me berating you the solution is simple, stop lying and apologize. Acknowledge you lied in your January 5, 2007, 6:32pm post and that you lied when you said “she and her fellow leftists tear down married and normal couples as “Stepford wives”.” as well as in the statements of yours I documented at January 5, 2007, 12:49pm, apologize for those lies and promise to stop telling further lies and then I’ll be happy to reward you with further discussion about Dalea and Colorado patriot.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The problem Northdallass is that while Dalea and Coloradopatriot have made rare offenses, your wrongs take place post after post and thread after thread.
Actually, your berating me, Randi, serves a very useful purpose; we can compare very easily the level and frequency of vitriol you throw against those who you don’t like versus your complete absence of it toward, even making excuses for, your fellow ideologues who threaten people with physical assault.
Your lies and blatant and obvious and if you don’t want me berating you the solution is simple, stop lying and apologize.
LOL….that would be, to say the least, hopelessly naive. It would require me to assume that a person who claims to not read my posts and my links, but then accuses me of lying in them, cannot concoct new and exciting fictional reasons to avoid dealing with the clear and blatant threats of physical assault made by her leftist friends.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Again Northdallass, you won’t accept the consequences of your actions but you expect others to do so.
The level and frequency with which I berate you compared to Dalea and Coloradopatriot is directly related to the frequency with which you offend. They have made rare lapses in judgement mitigated by your antagonization, while you offend day in and day out. Of course you’re going to be berated more often when you offend with dizzying repetition. That you are not only unrepentant, but continue to offend is much more serious.
In my previous post I said “Your lies and blatant and obvious and if you don’t want me berating you the solution is simple, stop lying and apologize.”
Nothdallass replied “LOL….that would be, to say the least, hopelessly naive. It would require me to assume that a person who claims to not read my posts and my links, but then accuses me of lying in them, cannot concoct new and exciting fictional reasons to avoid dealing with the clear and blatant threats of physical assault made by her leftist friends.”
You see Northdallass, unlike yourself, I have been completely truthful and my past behavior shows I can be trusted not to concoct fiction.
Secondly, you lied yet again. I said I don’t read all of your links I never said I don’t read your posts and have in fact read all of them. Thirdly, contrary to your most common form of lie, my “friends” didn’t threaten to physically assault you, one person did. You repeatedly blame the actions of one person on many or all gays, you are despicable.
As you’re too childish to deal with the whole volume of your wrongs, let’s just focus on your first offense against me. You said “she and her fellow leftists tear down married and normal couples as “Stepford wives”.”. I didn’t say that. The link you posted to supposedly show I did actually showed I didn’t. You have been unable to demonstrate that I said that because it was a lie. Now be an adult and admit your wrong – that you lied. Stop trying to cover up your lie with further lies and just apologize. The truth is obvious and if you think your repeated denial of it somehow makes you look good or less bad you are hopelessly naive.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I said I don’t read all of your links I never said I don’t read your posts and have in fact read all of them.
Mhm. And yet you missed so many of the links in them.
Contrary to popular belief, Randi, I do consider what it means when I offend people.
But, in your case, what you make obvious is that you consider it “offensive” for a person to exercise their legally-protected right to request reasonable accomodation without retaliation, but not for that person to be threatened with public assault by one of your fellow ideologues.
You consider it “offensive” for me to point out that this person’s actions are perfectly legal, but again, not for one of your fellow ideologues to threaten me with public assault.
You repeatedly blame the actions of one person on many or all gays, you are despicable.
That is because, Randi, I’m the only person I’ve seen here who has condemned ColoradoPatriot’s and dalea’s actions, made it clear that what they did was wrong, and made it even clearer that their actions are completely unjustified.
You’ve done nothing but make PR-spin excuses.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Contrary to popular belief, Randi, I do consider what it means when I offend people.“.
That’s hilarious. So you do consider that you’re lying, you just don’t care that you do so and erroneously think you shouldn’t be berated for it. Everyone should be punhished for their wrongs but you.
Its highly offensive when you lie and claim people say things they haven’t yet you do it over and over. You started offending against me with the lie “she and her fellow leftists tear down married and normal couples as “Stepford wives”.”. Instead of acknowledging your mistake and apologizing you continue to try to hide from the obvious. You can’t go a single post without lying. You lied twice when you said “You consider it “offensive” for me to point out that this person’s actions are perfectly legal, but again, not for one of your fellow ideologues to threaten me with public assault.“. Again, I never said any such thing, you just make it up as you go because you can’t defend all your other lies.
In your January 9, 2007, 2:41am post you lied by saying threats of physical assault were made by my “friends” (plural) when it was only one person who threatened to assault you.
You tried to justify that lie by saying “That is because, Randi, I’m the only person I’ve seen here who has condemned ColoradoPatriot’s and dalea’s actions”. Not only was that also a lie, but even if it were true it certainly wouldn’t justify your previous lie where you try to blame many gays for the wrong of one.
Just because only you and I have stated that Dalea’s and Coloradopatriot’s actions were wrong doesn’t give you license to lie.
Then you’ve got the audacity to say “You’ve done nothing but make PR-spin excuses.” when you lied THREE TIMES IN YOUR LAST POST ALONE.
Just how stupid do you think people are?! Let me clue you in, you’re not fooling anyone by ranting about other’s wrongs to draw attention away from your own.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Actually, Northdallass, that was FOUR lies in your last post alone.
You said “But, in your case, what you make obvious is that you consider it “offensive” for a person to exercise their legally-protected right to request reasonable accomodation without retaliation, but not for that person to be threatened with public assault by one of your fellow ideologues. “.
I only said the bus driver’s actions were offensive.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I only said the bus driver’s actions were offensive.
Unfortunately for you, though, Randi, that’s what the bus driver did; she exercised her legally-protected right to request reasonable accomodation without retaliation.
So you do consider that you’re lying, you just don’t care that you do so and erroneously think you shouldn’t be berated for it.
What I consider is who’s making the accusation and who’s doing the berating.
As I’ve pointed out, you have nothing of the sort to say when it comes to threatening physical assaults against people, but consider it “offensive” and worthy of attack when a person exercises their legally-protected right to request reasonable accomodation without retaliation.
Furthermore, you not only make statements that are flagrantly false, i.e. your statement that Minnesota law does not protect sexual orientation, you give the excuse that the reason you made false statements was because my links, wherein the facts could have been revealed to you, weren’t exciting enough.
In short, over the course of these weeks, you’ve proven that, not only do you have vastly-different standards for different people, but that you regularly will make statements that are not factual, and do so without checking the facts.
By now, it should be obvious that my behavior has no relevance to your dislike for me, and that regardless of what I do, you will accuse me.
Thus, I’m not too worried.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Where did I say the bus driver’s actions were worthy of a physical attack?!
Unlike you I acknowledge I was wrong about Minnesota law, I was unaware the event took place in Minnesota for that matter. Yet you lie by saying “you regularly will make statements that are not factual, and do so without checking the facts”. That happened ONCE which most certainly isn’t regularly. Contrary to my single error I can list several times you lied.
you lied At December 18, 2006, 12:30pm. You said “she and her fellow leftists tear down married and normal couples as “Stepford wives”.”. I never said that and the link you posted shows I didn’t.
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31138.html#6220
At December 25, 2006, 1:40am, the alleged birthday of your supposed lord and savior, after I repeatedly expressed horror at the injustice of Afghanis skinning Christian aid workers alive you lied and said “Doubtless there are ones like you, which would claim that their actions were justified because the Christians “attacked them”.”. I said no such thing. While at first you condemn the idea that it was justfied on December 27, 2006, 4:28pm you do a one hundred and eighty degree turn and and condemn the idea that the attack WASN’T justified: “You weren’t there; how do you know that one of the aid workers didn’t try to kill one of the workers?…Why don’t the Afghans get the same benefit of the doubt from you and your fellow leftists?”.
Typical of your lying nature, you’ll claim polar opposites are true at different times in a vain attempt to make someone other than yourself look bad.
On December 27, 2006, 4:28pm you lied yet AGAIN by saying “YOU said that, if someone tries to murder you, it’s perfectly justifiable to kill and torture them.” I never said it was okay to torture any one for any reason. I said it was justifiable to kill someone if that’s what it takes to prevent them from killing you first.
On December 28, 2006, 4:59pm after I condemned YOUR god for wanting to overlook humanity’s evil by committing the evil act of killing the innocent Jesus, you lied AGAIN by saying “according to your leftist logic, people don’t have to be sent to prison for their crimes; after all, can’t the justice system just “overlook” the sins of individuals?”.
That’s YOUR god’s “logic” that says people don’t need to be punished for their crimes, not mine. I repeatedly condemned YOUR god’s trying to place responsbility for sins upon somone other than the person responsible for them.
At December 27, 2006, 3:44pm you lied AGAIN by saying “you again try to use human imperfectibility to disprove God — but refuse to apply said imperfectibility to your own leftist philosophy that humankind CAN be perfected.” I never said human imperfectability disproves your god and I never said humankind can be perfected. In fact I repeatedly emphasized the inevitability of humanities imperfection and that the only practical goal was to come as close as possible to living the perfect philosophy of “Do whatever you want, but hurt no one.” It was you who claimed and continue to claim mine and other’s imperfections invalidate that philosophy. What I’ve repeatedly emphasized is that a loving and just god that allows belief in him and his religion of preference to be debatable and who eternally tortures people for innocently believing otherwise cannot exist anymore than a square sphere exists.
That’s not including the 4 times you lied in your previous post and the lies you made in your last post, not to mention the many lies of your I’ve pointed out throughout this thread.
And then you go and say “By now, it should be obvious that my behavior has no relevance to your dislike for me, and that regardless of what I do, you will accuse me.”!
If there’s any truth to that you can show several times where I’ve falsely accused you. You can’t because I haven’t.
Your lies are the main reason I abhor you! You lie post after post and its obvious yet you try to say its an “accusation”. Stop lying for a couple of posts and you’ll see I don’t accuse you of lies you haven’t made.
You’re not too worried because you are to immoral to care about telling the truth.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If there’s any truth to that you can show several times where I’ve falsely accused you. You can’t because I haven’t.
Gladly.