Pride Commissars Try for Another Scalp

Pride Month has now become a reminder that you’d better march in lockstep with the progressive left and echo all of its many, many, many hates … or else.




NOT from a satire site:

23 Comments for “Pride Commissars Try for Another Scalp”

  1. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Should he wear a scarlet C on his T-shirt, or maybe walk on his knees to the gay community center?

    Nah. But we have Pride Commissars now? No wonder Trump is so gay-supportive of Putin. I’d be terrified of Pride Commissars, too.

    I think we should all follow Jack Dorsey’s advice and “Boost Chick-fil-A” during pride month. You know, show up in leather vests and chain collars with boaz feathers sticking our of our asses. Chick-fil-A would love it.

    Reply
    • posted by Jorge on

      I *would* if I could ever find the place.

      Maybe I’ll find dreamy skateboard hunks there?

      Reply
  2. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    BTW, in actual news, the Court did not act on Arlene’s Flowers Inc. v. Washington today, neither granting nor denying cert.

    Two conference days remain in the Term — June 14 and June 21. As of this evening, Arlene’s Flowers has not be distributed for the June 14 conference, but that could change tomorrow.

    If the Court is going to hear the case next Term, it would behoove the Court to get off their boaz-flowered butts.

    Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      Arlene’s Flowers has been distributed for the June 14 conference, which means that we might get a cert grant/denial on June 18.

      Reply
  3. posted by JohnInCA on

    This isn’t Europe dude. There is no “right to be forgotten” here. You fuck up publicly? Folks are going to remember that for the rest of your life. And that includes reminding other folks.

    Or to put it another way… that’s Freedom of Speech and Association dude.

    Reply
    • posted by Jorge on

      Or to put it another way… that’s Freedom of Speech and Association dude.

      In the twitterverse.

      I say the most demented things publicly–in person, on social media, in writing, probably the only thing I haven’t done is claim to be the Lord’s grandson, and… well actually I *have* been put under pressure to apologize, and almost always for the same reason: I spoke too loudly. Someone else heard half of what I said. But never before an entire audience.

      Mr. CEO did not merely do something that gave the impression he was anti-gay, he did it too loudly. Whether the moving-forward resolution is he ignore the issue and be excellent or make a minor adjustment to his behavior out of politeness, he has to come to terms with the fact that people attribute values to him that he does not intend. There is no agreed upon solution to this situation.

      I happen to think he should acknowledge the issue, refrain from apologizing, and just act excellent.

      Reply
  4. posted by MR Bill on

    Meanwhile, the Village Voice’s esteemed Roy Edroso curates a fine selection of Right wing whining about “Masterpiece” https://www.villagevoice.com/2018/06/11/conservatives-take-gay-couples-cake-gripe-they-cant-eat-it-too/

    Reply
  5. posted by Kosh III on

    Meanwhile, the conservative haters were AGAIN ignored by Miller & Co.
    https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/06/south-dakota-lawmaker-sorry-saying-businesses-can-refuse-race/676014002/

    Reply
    • posted by Lori Heine on

      So, these fools want the freedom to put themselves out of business by being publicly branded as racists? And yet you don’t want to let them. You want to protect them from themselves.

      Publicizing their position protects those whom they would snub. Miller is wrong about plenty of things, but he isn’t wrong about this.

      Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      So, these fools want the freedom to put themselves out of business by being publicly branded as racists?

      What makes you think that?

      Perhaps you recall Gary’s Chicaros Club in Enid, Oklahoma, which gained quite a bit of notoriety in 2014 for the owner’s refusal to serve blacks, gays/lesbians and disabled veterans. Four years later, Gary’s is still going strong.

      The market only works to discourage discrimination if potential customers don’t want to support racist, homophobic businesses. That’s a fact not in evidence in many areas of the country.

      Reply
      • posted by JohnInCA on

        I can think of three cases where the “free market” punished a business for anti-gay bad press. Brendan Eich, where enough of the independent developers threatened to quit that he resigned form his position, Sweet Cakes by Melissa where they discovered that being professional martyrs was more lucrative then being professional bakers, and that recent Indiana gym where employees and customers bailed on the guy after he went out of his way to insult gay folk.

        I can think of far more where after a news cycle or so, things went back to normal. Elane Photography, Mastperice Cakeshop, Arlene’s Flowers, all those venues, that random Pizza shop, Chik-Fil-A, every “Christiany” school out there, that Philadelphia bridal shop, the random Ohio bakery that cancelled a birthday cake, etc. and so-on.

        So argue from a “principled stance” if that’s what you believe. But don’t argue that the “Free Market will take care of it”, because it probably won’t.

        Reply
        • posted by Jorge on

          I never realized how bereft we were of fast food chicken.

          Reply
  6. posted by Kosh III on

    Miller also missed these conservative. probably avowed Christian haters
    https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/06/05/police-say-man-attacked-by-mob-after-utah-gay-pride-festival/

    Reply
  7. posted by David Bauler on

    Some drag queens did a great musical riff of chick filet some years back.

    Reply
  8. posted by Kosh III on

    “ut don’t argue that the “Free Market will take care of it”, because it probably won’t.”
    The “free-market” will take care of it once capitalism has eliminated Jim Crow.

    Reply
    • posted by Lori Heine on

      No, aggression will make everything turn up roses. We’ve just seen that happen SO often.

      Reply
      • posted by JohnInCA on

        All I ask is for the right to be just as agressive as those who would be aggressive with me.

        Either we all get to sue and be “aggressive”, or we all get to be “aggressive” in the free market and drive gyms out of business.

        Reply
        • posted by Lori Heine on

          And you need to be aggressive because someone ate a chicken sandwich?

          Really and truly, get a grip.

          Reply
          • posted by JohnInCA on

            And you need [the right] to be aggressive because someone ate a chicken sandwich?
            Fixed it for you.

            The right to boycott is implicit in the Freedoms of Speech and Association. So either we all have that right, including the right to tell others that we’re boycotting and why, or none of us do.

            So again: all I ask for is the right to be just as aggressive as everyone else.

  9. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    No, aggression will make everything turn up roses. We’ve just seen that happen SO often.

    If by “aggression” you are referring to (1) laws prohibiting discrimination against protected classes in employment, housing and businesses serving the general public; (2) complaints filed by members of protected classes under those laws, and (3) decision/enforcement by government agencies charged with that responsibility, then I would suggest that “aggression” has worked reasonably well over the years since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted, followed on by non-discrimination laws in the states.

    The laws and enforcement of those laws has not, as you note, “ma[d]e everything turn up roses” (women are still paid less for doing the same job as men, for example), but the laws and enforcement of those laws effectively ended segregation, improved the employment situation for women and minorities, and so on. It is a case of progress, not perfection.

    If nothing else, the laws have, over time, played a significant role in creating a cultural expectation that overt discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender and so on are unacceptable business practices, and that cultural expectation has helped shape the market.

    Reply
    • posted by Lori Heine on

      I am a better employee than most of the men I’ve ever worked with. I’m more honest and I work harder. If I’m paid less, I go elsewhere.

      In most of the places I’ve ever worked, the men wouldn’t be able to find their way to the crapper if some woman wasn’t around to point the way. I’m confident that if we start our own companies, we can overcome any residual sexism.

      For women sick of being underpaid, self-employment (and the employment of other women) is the best ticket. If more of us did that — and government at various levels setting up so many roadblocks to entrepreneurial success — we’d own this country.

      I have gone the self-employment route for precisely that reason. No aggression required.

      Reply
      • posted by Lori Heine on

        Correction: If government at various levels would STOP setting up so many roadblocks to entrepreneurial success.

        I don’t want government to help me. I want it to stay the hell out of my way.

        Reply
      • posted by JohnInCA on

        To be clear, do you think that those “roadblocks” don’t apply to men, or just that men are better at negotiating them?

        If the former, doesn’t that undermine your whole argument that the only thing stopping women is their own complacency?

        If the later, is the problem really the roadblocks or some intrinsic difference in women?

        That said, while this is a very standard libertarian argument, it runs into the same essential pitfall as most libertarian arguments. Namely, it ignores human nature. Which is to say that sure, if everyone was a perfectly rational fully-informed actor, things would probably work out how libertarians want them to. But people aren’t fully informed or perfectly rational, and libertarians say “that’s your own fault”.

        And that said, you think a tweet reminding someone about an ongoing boycott is too much “aggression”, but quitting your job and starting a competing company isn’t “aggressive” at all?

        Reply

Leave a Comment