Fired HGTV hosts: We’re not anti-gay

posted at 4:01 pm on May 9, 2014 by Allahpundit

It’s a tale as old as time. Boy meets network, network falls in love with boy, left-wing blog publishes audio in which boy criticizes the gay agenda (among other things), network breaks up with boy because, let’s face it, after Phil Robertson and Brendan Eich they don’t need the BS that comes with being the next flashpoint in the culture war.

Obvious solution here: Give them the show but front-load it with “trigger warnings.” You’re welcome, America.

How close are we to a market solution to this culture-war problem? Given the number of Christian social conservatives in the U.S., you’d think there’d be no difficulty in building a network aimed at that audience to which people like the Benhams or the Robertsons could go if they didn’t want to keep their beliefs quiet to protect A&E or HGTV. The dilemma would be whether the network should be subscription only, which would maximize its content freedom but limit its audience, or basic cable, which would give it the new headache of not alienating its advertisers by hiring “controversial” hosts. Another way of framing that question is, are there enough Christian businesses who are willing and able to fund a network like this, even at the risk of being boycotted by gay-rights activists, to make it viable? Or would the network have to be pay-only? If so, that’s not a disaster: The Blaze has done just fine with its subscription TV model. “Christian TV,” featuring “Duck Dynasty,” surely would do okay too. In an age where it’s cheap to produce professional-quality television and directly target a niche audience, you don’t need 50 million viewers up front to guarantee your success. Take it from an atheist.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Marriage isn’t all about sexual intercourse all day long, but it implies building a family/baby making – something you and another man can never do together.

No, marriage doesn’t “imply” building a family by having biological kids. Adopted kids don’t count as a “real family” or something? You are absolutely saying marriage, at least at some point, is about biological processes to produce biological families.

Again…show me one marriage contract that says anything close to that, and I’ll say here and now I was wrong and you are right.

JetBoy on May 9, 2014 at 7:30 PM

So when you say “you gays are ______” to me, it only shows your inept incompetance and ignorance of who I am, and what I stand for (and against). I don’t throw “hissy fits” at the drop of a hat (although I’ve eaten one once…When I’m wrong, I pay my dues).
But you’re not JetBoy on May 9, 2014 at 7:24 PM

What you are is an incredibly dull, simple-minded commenter with poor comprehension skills. Your posts are always filled with self-regard, and you seem to (wrongly) think of yourself as oh-so-likable.

Other commenters like Iibfreeordie, while wrong on almost everything, at least aren’t stupid like you are.

bluegill on May 9, 2014 at 7:30 PM

So, you want a kind of retro-bizarro China police state, amirite?

crrr6 on May 9, 2014 at 7:27 PM

*facepalm*

Yeah, that’s exactly what I’ve been saying.

(psst, that’s sarcasm)

JetBoy on May 9, 2014 at 7:32 PM

No, marriage doesn’t “imply” building a family by having biological kids. Adopted kids don’t count as a “real family” or something? You are absolutely saying marriage, at least at some point, is about biological processes to produce biological families.

Again…show me one marriage contract that says anything close to that, and I’ll say here and now I was wrong and you are right.

JetBoy on May 9, 2014 at 7:30 PM

And……. on that related note, this will now be the fourth time I’ve posted this question to Jetboy because he refuses to respond:

I assume you’re in full support (in principle at least) of the validity of incestuous-gay “marriage” …. right?

Augustinian on May 9, 2014 at 7:33 PM

I assume you’re in full support (in principle at least) of the validity of incestuous-gay “marriage” …. right?

Augustinian on May 9, 2014 at 7:33 PM

Why would I support incestuous gay marriage?

No, I do not support any incestuous marriage…or incest in general.

JetBoy on May 9, 2014 at 7:36 PM

Why would I support incestuous gay marriage?

No, I do not support any incestuous marriage…or incest in general.

JetBoy on May 9, 2014 at 7:36 PM

But why?

Augustinian on May 9, 2014 at 7:37 PM

No, marriage doesn’t “imply” building a family by having biological kids. Adopted kids don’t count as a “real family” or something? You are absolutely saying marriage, at least at some point, is about biological processes to produce biological families.

It does imply it. That’s why we have Divorce Court and not Bad Breakup Court. A lawful marriage is intended to create a legal safety net for children most commonly born of married couples.

Again…show me one marriage contract that says anything close to that, and I’ll say here and now I was wrong and you are right.

JetBoy on May 9, 2014 at 7:30 PM

As I said to you, we don’t live in a police state. They are not going to mandate that you make babies when you could have medical or financial complications that could preclude you from doing that.

However, I’m fine with adding that impossibly enforceable proviso into marriage contracts to end the gay marriage debate, but something tells me you wouldn’t be satisfied with that.

crrr6 on May 9, 2014 at 7:40 PM

Why would I support incestuous gay marriage?

JetBoy on May 9, 2014 at 7:36 PM

Because you’ve been pleading the case that sexual unions should be validated on the basis of self-serving satisfaction alone. Just like gay “marriage”.

Right?

Augustinian on May 9, 2014 at 7:41 PM

Guilt sucks.

If people would just stop feeling guilty, this would all go away.

If you don’t support something, you’re made to feel guilty – and it works on a large number of people. What is the cause of this? Something in the water over the last 30 or 40 years?

There are a lot of things I don’t like or I don’t support, more than I can even list. So what? 90% of those things I won’t go out of my way to oppose, either.

I really wish I could go back in time and pursue degrees in sociology and psychology and then do some serious research and write a book about this phenomenon; people feeling guilty and surrendering their independence, free-will, wealth, and prosperity.

I really hate that in many cases this has been carefully orchestrated, and these guilt ridden sheep have never developed critical thinking and free thoughts that they don’t notice.

I’m supposed to feel guilty for being white, wealthy, straight, my carbon footprint, American… anything else?

Will the lefties (not that kind) of the country start a campaign against us right handed folks, and I’ll feel guilty for that?

How soon before I’m looked down upon for cracking my eggs the wrong way?

reaganaut on May 9, 2014 at 7:50 PM

I’ll feel guilty for that?

That should read “made to feel guilty”… because I won’t.

reaganaut on May 9, 2014 at 7:52 PM

Allah – The quote at the bottom of the picture is incorrect. They did not say they love Islam. Makes a big difference.

TfromV on May 9, 2014 at 7:55 PM

Why would I support incestuous gay marriage?

The same arguments to support gay marriage can be used to support incestual marriage.

DevilishSoda on May 9, 2014 at 7:57 PM

JetBoy on May 9, 2014 at 7:24 PM

I don’t watch this show…I know jack-squat about these brothers, their beliefs, their show, I can’t effectively boycott a show I’ve never seen.

That’s the point here. NOBODY has seen the show because they were in the middle of filming the series. The gays got hold of stuff the brothers said about homosexuality and to make matters worse they are pro-life. The gay activists got to work to destroy this show because they didn’t like the hosts. In short, it has nothing to do with with the show and everything to do about a gay hissy fit.

So when you say “you gays are ______” to me, it only shows your inept incompetance and ignorance of who I am, and what I stand for (and against).

Society knows all they need to know about gays from gay pride events. If that doesn’t represent who you are and what you stand for, why do you tolerate those events? I’m playing devil’s advocate here. I know more than a few gays and they are hard-working professionals who are appalled about these orgies called gay pride parades. Yet…. It is a couple brothers espousing traditional Christian doctrine that draws the ire of the gay community and not a individual wearing only a thong painted from head to toe in rainbow colors. Think about it. The face of homosexuality is not committed couples living normal lives but those who go out and are lewd by anybody’s standards. Or to put it more simply, get your sexual orientation out of my face if you expect me to take you seriously.

But you’re not interested in truth and facts. You just want to feel like a “big boy” and get your jabs in from the protection of anonymity provided by internet blog comments.

Bull. The truth and facts are evident. HGTV jettisoned a show halfway through production because, God forbid, the gays were having a hissy fit.

Happy Nomad on May 9, 2014 at 7:57 PM

You are funding your own lynching/beheading by paying for cable/satelite TV.

Shut it off. Who gives a rip about the sports and stupid sitcoms.

Quit giving these deviant people money. Starve them.

Murphy9 on May 9, 2014 at 8:00 PM

I’ve watched several interviews with these brothers. They are genuine and do preach love. They talk about Jesus all the time and follow his example in their lives. I admire them for their biblical stand on sin. I know does too. He will bless them and even if he doesn’t he will not forget what they have done.

Once again the gay militant bullies have won. Hey have shut down Christians who only love them. It’s time to stand up to them now! Enough is enough!!!!

sadsushi on May 9, 2014 at 8:01 PM

But why?

Augustinian on May 9, 2014 at 7:37 PM

Probably for the same reasons you wouldn’t support incestuous marriage. Gay marriage is not equatable to incestuous marriage…no matter how many strawman arguments you can come up with.

Happy Nomad on May 9, 2014 at 7:57 PM

I want to address your post as thoroughly as I can…give me a few moments as I’m multitasking some stuff here.

Because you’ve been pleading the case that sexual unions should be validated on the basis of self-serving satisfaction alone. Just like gay “marriage”.

Right?

Augustinian on May 9, 2014 at 7:41 PM

Way to twist my words…that’s usually a quality of a Leftist liberal response. It’s expected from them…but not from a self-professed conservative.

You claimed marriage and “biological procreation” are inherent together, and you’re against SSM because of the inability to produce biological children/family…which, as you’ve said, is what marriage is about. That’s what you said. All I’ve said is that marriage does not in any way mandate procreation, or biological children. It’s not in any marriage contract I’ve ever seen…but again, show me one that does and I’ll tell you flat-out I was wrong and you are right.

JetBoy on May 9, 2014 at 8:12 PM

The same arguments to support gay marriage can be used to support incestual marriage.

DevilishSoda on May 9, 2014 at 7:57 PM

Strawmen must be on sale today.

JetBoy on May 9, 2014 at 8:15 PM

It is difficult to credit someone arguing against a group’s basic human and civil rights with not being a bigot. I wonder how you feel about firing gay teachers, denying them wedding cakes and so on.

urban elitist on May 9, 2014 at 5:37 PM

You apparently missed my comment on page 1 of the thread.

The topic isn’t what these two TV /carpenter host guys think about homosexuality – they can hold any opinion they want.

The problem is, we are living in an increasingly intolerant society – the intolerance being on the part of homosexual groups and their hetero fan clubs – who beat anyone into submission who does not share their view.

People are being punished for holding opinions, sometimes opinions stated in their private time, off the job, or years ago.

In the case of these two TV guys, their comments against homosexual marriage were in an interview that was broadcast about a year or more ago.

TigerPaw on May 9, 2014 at 8:15 PM

There are some homosexuals, or people with Same Sex Attraction, who are honest enough with others and themselves to admit that homosexuality is sinful, so they choose to remain single and celibate.

Some of them are Christians, and they started a web site.

The name of the site is called “Living Out” and you can read about it here
New website launched to help Christians experiencing same-sex attraction

Unmarried hetero single adults are also supposed to remain celibate, as the Bible says that sex is reserved for marriage only.

Further, marriage is understood in the Bible, at the creation of Adam and Eve – and later confirmed by Jesus Christ in the New Testament – as being between one man and one woman.

TigerPaw on May 9, 2014 at 8:21 PM

Not at all JetBoy: The argument for incest:

1) given that marriage is now only about the pleasure of the participants and their “love”
2) Given a brother and sister, both 18/19 who love each other and want to get married
3) Why should we, as a society, prevent them from marrying and getting state recognition?

Historically, incest has been prohibited on “Think of the children!” grounds. That’s been declared invalid by the gays. We can’t think of the children in marriage anymore. So why should incest be prohibited? Danger of genetic defaults in the children?

Okay, let’s assume that is the reason. Then why should Billy and Joe, brothers over 18, be forbidden to marry? No problem of genetic defaults.

If marriage isn’t about family but about love, then there is no rational reason to prevent incest marriages.

Vanceone on May 9, 2014 at 8:28 PM

Gay marriage is not equatable to incestuous marriage…no matter how many strawman arguments you can come up with.

JetBoy on May 9, 2014 at 8:12 PM

Really? How exactly is it morally different?

Augustinian on May 9, 2014 at 8:32 PM

You claimed marriage and “biological procreation” are inherent together, and you’re against SSM because of the inability to produce biological children/family…which, as you’ve said, is what marriage is about. That’s what you said. All I’ve said is that marriage does not in any way mandate procreation, or biological children. It’s not in any marriage contract I’ve ever seen…but again, show me one that does and I’ll tell you flat-out I was wrong and you are right.

JetBoy on May 9, 2014 at 8:12 PM

Not quite. I’m against homosexuality because it is an intrinsically dysfunctional sexual desire that is against our natural design. And the fact that it is dead to procreation (and an evolutionary dead end unto itself) is further evidence that it is indeed unnatural by all counts.

Heterosexuality on the other hand (regardless of it’s ability or willingness to procreate) IS inherently natural – by all self evident realizations.

Augustinian on May 9, 2014 at 8:38 PM

Strawmen must be on sale today.

Not a strawman.

For example:
1. “Why should you care about an incestual couple’s sexuality, especially if they’re infertile? Get out of their bedroom!”
2. “What’s your problem with an incestual relationship if it’s consensual and they have adequate protection?
3. “Incestual couples can be/are loving, too.”
4. “What’s barring incestual couples from being good parents? Would you rather have the child/children raised in an abusive/neglectful home?
5. “But we’ll get more tax revenue if everyone recognizes incestual marriages!”
6. “Everybody should be equal under the law.”
7. “Incest is natural. It can also be found in primates.

DevilishSoda on May 9, 2014 at 8:40 PM

If marriage isn’t about family but about love, then there is no rational reason to prevent incest marriages.

Vanceone on May 9, 2014 at 8:28 PM

Yep.

Please feel free to refute that on a rational basis JetBoy.

Augustinian on May 9, 2014 at 8:42 PM

Gay marriage is not equatable to incestuous marriage…no matter how many strawman arguments you can come up with.

JetBoy on May 9, 2014 at 8:12 PM

^^^ That alone is worth booking-marking this thread for posterity.

You’re welcome ;-)

Augustinian on May 9, 2014 at 8:46 PM

Hang it on its own moral relativism.

Murphy9 on May 9, 2014 at 8:56 PM

How about we return to the real topic. What, in the business activities of these two brothers, is disturbing enough to cause them to lose a TV show?

I don’t care what the homosexuals think about what someone else thinks. I do care that there are those who believe, that what the homosexuals think about what someone else thinks, should drive operational policy, because that is bigotry and tyranny writ small.

Who cares what a Christian thinks? Every non-Christian sector of the world can express utter disdain for people whose lives are devoted to loving and honoring their Creator, and that seems to be fine by everyone. But nobody is permitted to feel an iota of disdain for the unconstitutional demands of a sector of society whose founding function is an anomalous dysfunction? That there is called hypocrisy.

Businesses and people are finding their futures held hostage to an agenda. That is not liberty. Be warned, an end to acceptance, an end to inaction, is not distant.

Freelancer on May 9, 2014 at 9:01 PM

That’s the point here. NOBODY has seen the show because they were in the middle of filming the series. The gays got hold of stuff the brothers said about homosexuality and to make matters worse they are pro-life. The gay activists got to work to destroy this show because they didn’t like the hosts. In short, it has nothing to do with with the show and everything to do about a gay hissy fit.

The “point” was that you said this:

Or to put it more clearly, the gays were going to hurt HGTV’s bottom line by boycotting if they went ahead with a series that, apparently, helped families in need. You gays are intolerant bullies but I wonder what the cost is going to be with the viewers who don’t throw a hissy fit the nanosecond they are offended.

Happy Nomad on May 9, 2014 at 7:09 PM

That was aimed at all gays, and at me personally. And frankly that bs ticks me off HUGE. The problem isn’t with all gays here…or with Christian beliefs (I’m Catholic, don’t forget) or with perceived discrimination…it’s with bullcrud like your comment above concerning blanket condemnation of any group as it were unquestionable fact. And it’s far, far from that.

Black conservatives get it from the Left. Gay conservatives get it from the Left. SOME Evangelicals/Fundamentalists do it, SOME gays do it. But don’t ever point a finger at me and claim that I’m somehow a part of the liberal Leftist gay agenda when I have repeatedly said otherwise.

I’ll tell you what I tell NorthDallasTroll…if you make an accusation of me, give me an example to back it up. If you can’t, then shut the heck up.

Society knows all they need to know about gays from gay pride events. If that doesn’t represent who you are and what you stand for, why do you tolerate those events? I’m playing devil’s advocate here. I know more than a few gays and they are hard-working professionals who are appalled about these orgies called gay pride parades. Yet…. It is a couple brothers espousing traditional Christian doctrine that draws the ire of the gay community and not a individual wearing only a thong painted from head to toe in rainbow colors. Think about it. The face of homosexuality is not committed couples living normal lives but those who go out and are lewd by anybody’s standards. Or to put it more simply, get your sexual orientation out of my face if you expect me to take you seriously.

“Society” is a very general term. “Society” is a conglomeration of everyone within it’s boundaries…much like a “community”, on a smaller scale. I hate those terms…”society” and “community”…like when someone says “the gay community blah blah…” What does that mean? There’s as much cohesion amongst gays as there is with heteros. We’re all individuals no matter who we are. Just because some liberal gay moron says something, doesn’t mean he or she speaks for all of us. It’s like judging Christianity by Westboro Baptist. It’s ridiculous.

This “face of homosexuality” as you call it is a myth. You see the “face of liberal Leftist militant gays” that claim they speak for all us gays…but they do not. I’ve heard some pretty ridiculous things from some heterosexuals about me being gay…but nothing, and I mean nothing, compares to the outright livid hate I’ve gotten from those aforementioned liberal Leftist gays…because I’m conservative, I’m registered Republican and vote that way, and even because of my faith as a Roman Catholic.

To those militant gays, I’m an “Uncle Tom”. And I “support people who hate me and want me dead”. What’s unpleasantly surprising tho…they’re doing exactly what you and some others are doing. They throw blanket condemnation at Christians and conservaitves/Republicans the very same way you and some others throw the same blanket of condemnation at gays.

There are all sorts of books, articles, videos, etc showing loving same-sex couples, with adopted children or a biological child of one of them. I’d be more than happy to look a few up and post you links. There are equally as many gay servicemen and women who, until DADT repeal, had to hide their sexual orientation…and their “significant other”, for fear of getting discharged…or worse. You won’t see them regularly in the mass media…good, stable gays don’t get the ratings, or “blog hits”, that the noisy troublemakers get. As with most things, good news is bad ratings.

So call out the morons…I’m all for it and I’m with you 100% on that. I’ve repeatedly called out baloney like the Chik-Fil-A crud and the Mozilla thing. And I’ve said I’ve been to exactly two gay pride parades…one in Wash, DC when i first “came out”…and another in NYC after I moved back to this area. That was a few years back, and I have no desire to attend another one. But you’re doing truth and justice wrong by making the sins of a few out to be the sins of us all. Again, my blood begins to do boil a little at times…if I’m coming off as an arsewipe tonight (or any night) I do apologize for it. Got a lot on my plate at the moment and it ain’t all prime rib and lobster tail IYKWIM. I try to keep it civil…but I’m human, and I do screw up at times.

Bull. The truth and facts are evident. HGTV jettisoned a show halfway through production because, God forbid, the gays were having a hissy fit.

Happy Nomad on May 9, 2014 at 7:57 PM

The truth and facts are…the loud militant liberal Leftist gays had a “hissy fit”. HGTV didn’t search their collective souls to halt this TV show…those moron gays pitch a fit, and the suits at the network weighed the financial affects of both continuing on with production, or closing it down. And they went with the best cost-effective measure. They could have, and IMO should have, stuck to their guns and went ahead with the show…screw the dolts putting up a fuss. Rutgers didn’t back down and withdraw their invitation to Condi Rice because of an equally inane hissy-fit, Rice…as classy as she ever has been…gracefully declined.

Gotta run…God Bless.

JetBoy on May 9, 2014 at 9:07 PM

That was aimed at all gays, and at me personally. And frankly that bs ticks me off HUGE. The problem isn’t with all gays here…or with Christian beliefs (I’m Catholic, don’t forget)

JetBoy on May 9, 2014 at 9:07 PM

I’m Catholic too.

And Catholic theology has always recognized homosexual acts to be a “grave depravity” and “intrinsically disordered” and “contrary to the natural law”.

In fact, according to immutable Catholic Truth homosexual acts are Intrinsically Evil.

I actually surrender to the Truths of the Church.

When will you?

Augustinian on May 9, 2014 at 9:19 PM

Uhm JetBoy?

You keep ignoring my question on this for some reason:

Gay marriage is not equatable to incestuous marriage…no matter how many strawman arguments you can come up with.

JetBoy on May 9, 2014 at 8:12 PM

Really? How exactly is it morally different?

Augustinian on May 9, 2014 at 9:22 PM

There are all sorts of books, articles, videos, etc showing loving same-sex couples, with adopted children or a biological child of one of them.

JetBoy on May 9, 2014 at 9:07 PM

On the contrary, the most comprehensive research ever compiled on homosexual child rearing clearly found that kids of gay parents fare worse:

“When comparing children of homosexuals with children of married biological parents, the differences in sexuality–experiences of sexual abuse, number of sexual partners, and homosexual feelings and experiences among the children themselves–were among the most striking. While not all of the findings mentioned below have the same level of “statistical significance” as those mentioned above, they remain important.

At one time, defenders of homosexual parents not only argued that their children do fine on psychological and developmental measures, but they also said that children of homosexuals “are no more likely to be gay” than children of heterosexuals. That claim will be impossible to maintain in light of this study. It found that children of homosexual fathers are nearly 3 times as likely, and children of lesbian mothers are nearly 4 times as likely, to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual. Children of lesbian mothers are 75% more likely, and children of homosexual fathers are 3 times more likely, to be currently in a same-sex romantic relationship.

The same holds true with the number of sexual partners. Both males and females who were raised by both lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers have more opposite-sex (heterosexual) partners than children of married biological parents (daughters of homosexual fathers had twice as many). But the differences in homosexual conduct are even greater. The daughters of lesbians have 4 times as many female (that is, same-sex) sexual partners than the daughters of married biological parents, and the daughters of homosexual fathers have 6 times as many. Meanwhile, the sons of both lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers have 7 times as many male (same-sex) sexual partners as sons of married biological parents.

The most shocking and troubling outcomes, however, are those related to sexual abuse. Children raised by a lesbian mother were 10 times more likely to have been “touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver” (23% reported this, vs. only 2% for children of married biological parents), while those raised by a homosexual father were 3 times more likely (reported by 6%). In his text, but not in his charts, Regnerus breaks out these figures for only female victims, and the ratios remain similar (3% IBF; 31% LM; 10% GF). As to the question of whether you have “ever been physically forced” to have sex against your will (not necessarily in childhood), affirmative answers came from 8% of children of married biological parents, 31% of children of lesbian mothers (nearly 4 times as many), and 25% of the children of homosexual fathers (3 times as many). Again, when Regnerus breaks these figures out for females (who are more likely to be victims of sexual abuse in general), such abuse was reported by 14% of IBFs, but 3 times as many of the LMs (46%) and GFs (52%).”

Augustinian on May 9, 2014 at 9:31 PM

I thought there was this little thing called the law that actually made it illegal to discriminate against someone in employment based on their religion?

Like… that doesn’t exist anymore?

JellyToast on May 9, 2014 at 9:50 PM

7. “Incest is natural. It can also be found in primates.

DevilishSoda on May 9, 2014 at 8:40 PM

So, is devouring the young.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2003886/Mother-primates-kill-infants.html

avagreen on May 9, 2014 at 10:20 PM

One can act “appropriately” and still be bigot.

urban elitist on May 9, 2014 at 5:57 PM

.
Damned if you do and damned if you don’t… Thank you, Urban Effeteness!

ExpressoBold on May 9, 2014 at 10:41 PM

What you are is an incredibly dull, simple-minded commenter with poor comprehension skills. Your posts are always filled with self-regard, and you seem to (wrongly) think of yourself as oh-so-likable.

Other commenters like Iibfreeordie, while wrong on almost everything, at least aren’t stupid like you are.

bluegill on May 9, 2014 at 7:30 PM

I admit I somewhat agree with Jetboy, but I think I am capable of being objective at least more so than most people–which still might not be all that much objective. I think what you say is unfair and wrong. It may be best not to engage in such personal attacks even when they are true.

thuja on May 9, 2014 at 11:59 PM

So, is devouring the young.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2003886/Mother-primates-kill-infants.html

avagreen on May 9, 2014 at 10:20 PM

I am glad that you finally cleared up that abortion and infanticide is natural. Maybe we could get off the pro-life topic?

thuja on May 10, 2014 at 12:01 AM

On the contrary, the most comprehensive research ever compiled on homosexual child rearing clearly found that kids of gay parents fare worse:

Augustinian on May 9, 2014 at 9:31 PM

Wow. You don’t say that a homophobe doing research found that children of gays fare worse? Who ever could have guessed that outcome before the first statistic was compiled? It is shocking that the gay rights crowd doubts the study.

thuja on May 10, 2014 at 12:05 AM

In an age where it’s cheap to produce professional-quality television and directly target a niche audience, you don’t need 50 million viewers up front to guarantee your success. Take it from an atheist.

Maybe even the KKK channel could turn a profit these days?

thuja on May 10, 2014 at 12:19 AM

I don’t think I’ve ever once seen you post something “happy” or intentionally funny. You’re miserable…and that’s all you bring to these threads…your misery and lies.

You must be one unhappy person all the time. In a way, I truly feel sorry for you.

It’s always entertaining to watch gays like yourself who scream night and day about how awful it is that they can’t get married, how terrible it is that a florist or a wedding-cake baker turned them down, how the mere presence of a cross or hearing hymns sung incites them to riot, and how little old ladies going to church and praying drives them to the brink of suicide every evening…..saying that other people are always unhappy and miserable.

Projection on the level of a 24-screen IMAX theater.

You’re still in my prayers, as are everyone here at HotAir, no matter what I think of you personally…we’re all God’s children, and we’re taught to love one another, even our enemies.

You forgot, “I keep two fast days a week, and give to the temple a full tenth of all my earnings.”

Don’t worry. I’m sure God gives your prayers far more attention than you give Him, especially when it’s a matter of explaining why the gays who riot whenever they see a Christian anything are good and the Christians are always bad.

Somehow you think I’m some Obama-loving liberal. You can’t prove that, because I’m not one. I’m pro-life, pro gun, pro-personal responsibility, anti-big government, Roman Catholic, and I’m no supporter of the Leftist gay organizations and how they act. But hey, keep inventing your own narrative if it gives you so much as a fleeting moment of self-satisfaction.

It appears that’s all you have.

JetBoy on May 9, 2014 at 6:56 PM

Naah.

I can just point to your innumerable quotes on this board calling pro-life, pro-gun, pro-personal responsibility, anti-big government, Roman Catholic people homophobes and bigots.

What you are, JetBoy, is gay. Everything else is subordinate to that. You have no moral values beyond gay, no sense of right and wrong beyond gay, no way to look at the world other than through the prism of gay. You have no identity beyond gay, and worst of all, you believe sincerely you have no worth beyond gay.

That last explains most of your behavior. This is why you come here and rant at Christians and blame them for gays rioting and throwing these types of temper tantrums, rather than the gays rioting and throwing the tantrums that you affect to disdain. Were you to acknowledge the bad behavior of other gays, you believe you would be condemning yourself. Thus you defend other gays even for the most imbecilic actions rather than admit that these people who you have spent so much time enabling are toxic fools.

And also, you chose to enable them because you’re selfish. You wanted to force the church to marry you, you wanted to force people to accept you, so you turned a blind eye to the utter stupidity of the gay left and worse, began browbeating and berating as homophobes and bigots those people here who saw CLEARLY that the gay and lesbian community is saturated with hatemongering fascists.

I’m sure you believe you are “conservative”. But what the vast and overwhelming majority of people here see is that, given the choice between supporting conservative ideas and the rancid gay left, you choose to berate the conservative idea as “homophobic” every single time.

Every. Single. Time.

northdallasthirty on May 10, 2014 at 12:22 AM

Black conservatives get it from the Left. Gay conservatives get it from the Left. SOME Evangelicals/Fundamentalists do it, SOME gays do it. But don’t ever point a finger at me and claim that I’m somehow a part of the liberal Leftist gay agenda when I have repeatedly said otherwise.

Perhaps if you didn’t come here and try to blame Christians for the fact that gays and lesbians rioted, we might actually believe what you “say”.

But the simple fact of the matter is, JetBoy, when a gay issue comes up, everyone on Hot Air knows that you will be here pushing your two points that you repeat ad nauseam:

1) Everything bad that gays do is Christians’ and conservatives’ fault.

2) If you criticize anything bad that gays do, you are a homophobe and a bigot.

Case in point:

“Society” is a very general term. “Society” is a conglomeration of everyone within it’s boundaries…much like a “community”, on a smaller scale. I hate those terms…”society” and “community”…like when someone says “the gay community blah blah…” What does that mean? There’s as much cohesion amongst gays as there is with heteros. We’re all individuals no matter who we are. Just because some liberal gay moron says something, doesn’t mean he or she speaks for all of us. It’s like judging Christianity by Westboro Baptist. It’s ridiculous.

Note how nowhere in this mess do you a) call out the gays that make fools of themselves at the Pride parades or b) acknowledge that the gay and lesbian community overwhelmingly judges Christianity by Westboro Baptist and demands constant piety dances from Christians for their behavior.

You are blaming Christians for what gays do. You are insisting that Christians and conservatives who criticize people at Pride parades are bigots and homophobes.

And this was the ultimate example of your cognitive dissonance:

I’ve heard some pretty ridiculous things from some heterosexuals about me being gay…but nothing, and I mean nothing, compares to the outright livid hate I’ve gotten from those aforementioned liberal Leftist gays…because I’m conservative, I’m registered Republican and vote that way, and even because of my faith as a Roman Catholic.

And yet, who do you come here and equivocate for and attack Christians over?

The very liberal leftist gays who supposedly are showering you with outright livid hate.

Idiot. Conservatives for YEARS have been saying that the gay and lesbian movement was led by liberal leftist gays who were nothing but hatemongers, and what was your response?

To call conservatives and Christians bigots and homophobes.

Now that your little fascist friends are making their plans known, what do you do?

Call conservatives and Christians bigots and homophobes and demand that we not provoke these fascists and that we roll over to them.

You are NOT on the side of conservativism. You are equivocating and spinning to protect your own obvious stupidity now that the fascists you enabled for years and that you berated and damned others into supporting have ripped off their masks and shown their true faces.

You poisoned the well, JetBoy. You lied to people about what gays and lesbians supported because you didn’t have the balls to call out your leftist fascists. You gave the fascist gays this power, and now you’re screaming and finger-pointing at the people who warned you not to do it in the first place.

Be a man and admit you were a fool to ever support these fascists and their organizations. Then we might have some respect for you.

northdallasthirty on May 10, 2014 at 12:35 AM

Wow. You don’t say that a homophobe doing research found that children of gays fare worse? Who ever could have guessed that outcome before the first statistic was compiled? It is shocking that the gay rights crowd doubts the study.

thuja on May 10, 2014 at 12:05 AM

So we can disregard all the studies you cite because they come from “pro-gay” scientists?

Also, since you seem to believe that a person’s so-called “pro” or “anti” gay status slants their research, would you care to state for the record that pro-gay scientists already have made their conclusions before any statistics are compiled?

Come, thuja. Show us that your objections are principled, in which case you shot a hole in your entire body of research, or that you’re a total hypocrite.

I have money on the latter.

northdallasthirty on May 10, 2014 at 12:43 AM

I think there’s a gay mafia. If you cross them you get whacked.

And just being a self-respecting straight white male with healthy conservative values is crossing them, as they see it.

David Blue on May 10, 2014 at 12:59 AM

So, is devouring the young.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2003886/Mother-primates-kill-infants.html

Which also highlights how dumb the “it’s natural” argument is.

DevilishSoda on May 10, 2014 at 1:08 AM

Calling homosexuality a “mental disorder” is not “in the realm of truth and facts”. What qualifies you to be able to call it one? Are you a psychologist? Yes…the biological purpose of sex is to produce children. But sex isn’t always done with the intention of producing a child, even amongst heterosexuals in most cases. It’s extremely pleasurable. Gays don’t have the market cornered on non-biological sex for pleasure, that’s for sure.

JetBoy on May 9, 2014 at 5:11 PM

We are male and female. There are no other sexes. It is quite literally part of our DNA.

Homosexuality is unquestionably a disorder, and it’s certainly not a physical one. Whether it’s a mental disorder, an emotional disorder, a moral disorder, or a spiritual disorder is debatable.

But homosexuality is a case of something going wrong. To then try to insist that it be treated as if it is perfectly normal and healthy is the extremist view.

Tolerance, yes. Remembering that homosexuals are human beings, and deserve to be treated like such, yes. Demanding that homosexuality be considered normal, no.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 10, 2014 at 1:36 AM

The same arguments to support gay marriage can be used to support incestual marriage.

DevilishSoda on May 9, 2014 at 7:57 PM

Strawmen must be on sale today.

JetBoy on May 9, 2014 at 8:15 PM

The arguments to support SSM support incestual marriage. So either:
a) the arguments to support SSM are just as true when they are used to support incestual marriage, or
b) the arguments to support SSM aren’t really true at all, or
c) you’d better find some arguments to support SSM that actually work.

The challenge: Give me a definition of marriage that includes same-sex couples but excludes polygamy and incest. Then show me how that definition is not more arbitrary than defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

I haven’t seen anyone do it yet. The reason for the new definition of marriage being better than the original is ALWAYS “because we said so.”

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 10, 2014 at 2:12 AM

Bow or you will be destroyed by the Gay Mafia.

hawkdriver on May 10, 2014 at 7:28 AM

Really, done with the lot of them. I have zero compassion for a single freaking complaint form the entire gay population. You collectively let this happen through your activism or your silence.

Screw the lot of you.

hawkdriver on May 10, 2014 at 7:36 AM

So, is devouring the young.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2003886/Mother-primates-kill-infants.html

Which also highlights how dumb the “it’s natural” argument is.

DevilishSoda on May 10, 2014 at 1:08 AM

Correct.

What’s the use of evolving if we still act like……..animals? It’s and has always been a lame case of reasoning.

I guess we can all go back to pooping on the ground……since that’s ” au naturel“, too. Louis Pasteur be damned.

I wonder if these arguers refuse to wash their hands before eating…….animals don’t.

avagreen on May 10, 2014 at 8:21 AM

Really, done with the lot of them. I have zero compassion for a single freaking complaint form the entire gay population. You collectively let this happen through your activism or your silence.

Screw the lot of you.

hawkdriver on May 10, 2014 at 7:36 AM

That’s big news, Jim. Your opinions carry a lot of weight.

Louey on May 10, 2014 at 9:41 AM

Really, done with the lot of them. I have zero compassion for a single freaking complaint form the entire gay population. You collectively let this happen through your activism or your silence.

Screw the lot of you.

hawkdriver on May 10, 2014 at 7:36 AM

That’s big news, Jim. Your opinions carry a lot of weight.

Louey on May 10, 2014 at 9:41 AM

Obvious Slippage.

Bmore on May 10, 2014 at 9:51 AM

The two in this posts cover photo should just come out already. There is nothing wrong with being gay guys.

Bmore on May 10, 2014 at 9:56 AM

hawkdriver on May 10, 2014 at 7:36 AM

That’s big news, Jim. Your opinions carry a lot of weight.

Louey on May 10, 2014 at 9:41 AM

Implied threat. It’s what they do.

Jimmie this.

hawkdriver on May 10, 2014 at 11:06 AM

Louey on May 10, 2014 at 9:41 AM

Implied threat. It’s what they do.

Jimmie this.

hawkdriver on May 10, 2014 at 11:06 AM

And frankly I don’t care. That you’ve taken a sock to provide a bit of cover for more direct personal attacks, who didn’t see that coming?

hawkdriver on May 10, 2014 at 11:08 AM

I am glad that you finally cleared up that abortion and infanticide is natural. Maybe we could get off the pro-life topic?

thuja on May 10, 2014 at 12:01 AM

Natural? Yes. To lower species without consciences or Moral Discernment.

Shall we all consume our own feces as well? Oh do you prefer selective “natural” standards?

Give me counsel.

Augustinian on May 10, 2014 at 11:48 AM

Wow. You don’t say that a homophobe doing research found that children of gays fare worse? Who ever could have guessed that outcome before the first statistic was compiled? It is shocking that the gay rights crowd doubts the study.

thuja on May 10, 2014 at 12:05 AM

On the contrary it is predictable that any study (no matter how well conducted) by anyone other than gay advocates, would be dismissed out of hand as “bigoted”. Reality is now “bigoted”.

Apparently your “scientism” is unbiased in its preconceptions, and “evidence” is purely in the eye of the beholder. You’re not looking for evidence – you’re simply looking validation. Anything else is conveniently dismissed as bias. So goes the constructs of your delusional “reality”.

But let’s talk tangibles: when did the body magically redesign itself for sodomy?

Augustinian on May 10, 2014 at 11:57 AM

Find a producer to put the programming on LiveStream TV, available online or by Roku app. If you’re worth watching people will find you. You don’t need any stinking cable TV.

Willys on May 10, 2014 at 12:00 PM

What you are, JetBoy, is gay. Everything else is subordinate to that.

northdallasthirty on May 10, 2014 at 12:22 AM

And that is the awful slavery of the desire.

Everything is dominated by that particular preconception of self. Everything must eventually serve that ever-consuming facet of self.

Because that particular desire is so blatantly misaligned with all of creation and all of reality that the inherent latent guilt MUST be overridden with an adaptive alternative view of life. Thus the unnatural desire becomes the entire life of self.

Self is entirely defined by the desire.

Where as the heterosexual’s desire is easily defined by the intention and fullness of his/her natural design. The heterosexual does not need to become his/her sexual desire, but rather, his/her sexual desire serves a specific purpose in the greater whole of life by its very design. But it does not have to define life.

I say all of this, not out of a morally superior condemnation and personal righteousness, but rather, out of sympathy, empathy, and sadness for brothers and sisters who carry with them a horrible burden that enslaves their very souls.

Augustinian on May 10, 2014 at 12:20 PM

Implied threat. It’s what they do.

Jimmie this.

hawkdriver on May 10, 2014 at 11:06 AM

And frankly I don’t care. That you’ve taken a sock to provide a bit of cover for more direct personal attacks, who didn’t see that coming?

hawkdriver on May 10, 2014 at 11:08 AM

Heaven’s Jim, you’re responding to yourself now?! You’re quite a character!

Louey on May 10, 2014 at 12:30 PM

Heaven’s Jim, you’re responding to yourself now?! You’re quite a character!

Louey on May 10, 2014 at 12:30 PM

It’s called “an addendum”. I’ve done the same thing myself, but from reading your comments I’m sure you’d just rather use any excuse for ridicule (sign of a {weak} poster who can do little else).

avagreen on May 10, 2014 at 1:08 PM

It’s called “an addendum”. I’ve done the same thing myself, but from reading your comments I’m sure you’d just rather use any excuse for ridicule (sign of a {weak} poster who can do little else).

avagreen on May 10, 2014 at 1:08 PM

Thanks for the explanation. You’re as quirky as ole Jim!

Louey on May 10, 2014 at 1:16 PM

If they really do “love Islam” then I’m happy they are off the air.

Dollayo on May 10, 2014 at 1:33 PM

Let’s face it. The next step is to attack Christians for considering premarital sex to be a sin. While it’s possible that straight couples can forgo sex before marriage, it’s absolutely laughable that a homosexual couple would.

Anything that doesn’t apply to homosexuals couples has to be driven from our society, so say our betters in the liberal elite.

CaliforniaRefugee on May 10, 2014 at 2:35 PM

…denying them wedding cakes and so on.
 
urban elitist on May 9, 2014 at 5:37 PM

 
Black restaurant owners are required to cater KKK events if asked, correct?

rogerb on May 10, 2014 at 2:40 PM

Black restaurant owners are required to cater KKK events if asked, correct?

rogerb on May 10, 2014 at 2:40 PM

To be fair, though, the KKK would not be considered a protected class. What’s clear is that sexual orientation is now to be considered a specially protected category, along with race, ethnicity and sex and any criticism in that direction will be considered impermissible. Conservative Christians who flout this new rule will be increasingly penalized. Criticism of same sex marriage will be absolutely beyond the pale. The Europeanization of this country is fast on!

BushyGreen on May 10, 2014 at 3:04 PM

Rationalized dysfunction always views normalcy as an insult.

Augustinian on May 9, 2014 at 4:05 PM

+1000

#gheythread

Nutstuyu on May 10, 2014 at 3:45 PM

I’m not saying all of this to be mean – it’s just because that’s the way nature works.

crrr6 on May 9, 2014 at 4:45 PM

Just skimmed the comments and saw crrr6′s. Not sure about the nature part as nature gives us a lot of things, and then humans judge as good or bad or something. Nature gives us wasps and fire ants. Hey, you know what I mean by wasps in this comment!

Nature zapped me and I woke up liking chicks. If your point is that gay men choose to like men instead of women, then I guess I understand your point.

If I was bi…..then I could increase my odds. Hmmm, maybe you gots a point after all. Chuckle!

HonestLib on May 10, 2014 at 4:12 PM

Marriage isn’t a “right”…straight or gay.

JetBoy on May 9, 2014 at 4:45 PM

The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.

We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights — older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.
Griswold v. CT
381 US 479

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival.
Loving v. VA
388 US 1

Thanks for playing.

irishgladiator63 on May 10, 2014 at 4:25 PM

“Sexual Orientation”

The correct term for homosexuality should be “Sexual Disorientation”

Our sexuality is “oriented” in our DNA. And reflected and completed in our physical design.

We are either male or female.

Anything contrary to this self-evident reality is in fact a psychological dysfunction.

If this salient reality offends you – then it is you who are bigoted against your own design and against reality itself. All of which further reveals the neurotic pathology of your dysfunction.

Augustinian on May 10, 2014 at 5:11 PM

Thanks for playing.

irishgladiator63 on May 10, 2014 at 4:25 PM

Funny, Baker v. Nelson, decided by the same court who decided Loving four years earlier, dismissed challenges to a law defining marriage as between a male and a female as not being relevant.

So if you want to quote Loving’s “basic civil rights of man”, explain why the same justices four years later refused to apply it to gay-sex marriage — and why it’s not been applied to incestuous, plural, or other forms of marriage (yet).

Thanks for playing.

northdallasthirty on May 10, 2014 at 5:20 PM

What’s that, boy?

And how about this, boy?

Looks like we caught you lying and being a hypocrite again, boy.

northdallasthirty on May 9, 2014 at 5:24 PM

What are you playing at with this “boy” stuff? I’ve not seen you address anyone else that way.

libfreeordie on May 10, 2014 at 5:24 PM

Is your anxiety about being labelled so profound that you truly only can read that phrase?
>

rogerb on May 10, 2014 at 5:28 PM

BYU channel has excellent programming.

Granite Flats has been getting a lot of good reviews…

The Ugly American on May 10, 2014 at 6:05 PM

Sam’s a Ram today. Showed him on ESPN getting the call, bawling like a little girl, hugging and kissing his boyfriend.

slickwillie2001 on May 10, 2014 at 7:38 PM

Thanks for playing.

northdallasthirty on May 10, 2014 at 5:20 PM

You misunderstand.
I am firmly against gay marriage.
Just showing Jetboy he was wrong about marriage being a right.
Marriage IS a right, and it seems the court has always considered it to be a right between a man and a woman.

Also, Nelson is not at all in conflict with Loving. In Supreme Ct jurisprudence, all rights can be limited, given the state’s interest and the law at issue’s role in achieving that interest. Part of the reason that the law at issue in Loving was struck down was because it limited marriages between whites and other races, but not between, say, an Asian and an African-American. The court really didn’t like that, as it went to the heart of what the 14th Amendment was trying to prevent. It has been theorized that if the law had been applied equally to all races, it may have survived the 14th Amendment challenge.

However, also note that Nelson was dismissed for “lack of a substantial federal question.” The court used to leave such things up to the states, since family law was until recently almost universally state law, unless a suspect/protected class was implicated (i.e. racial disparities). I don’t believe gays were a protected class back then, and it’s not particularly clear now whether they are or not.

As to why it doesn’t apply to incest, polygamy, etc., the state has always claimed it has a strong policy interest in preventing those practices. And courts have agreed. Somewhat troubling, in my family law textbook, the authors made cases for legalizing ALL of those practices, claiming the state really has no interests in preventing them. Of course, the book was 90% propaganda and 10% poorly edited cases, so take it as you will.

irishgladiator63 on May 10, 2014 at 7:42 PM

Heaven’s Jim, you’re responding to yourself now?! You’re quite a character!

Louey on May 10, 2014 at 12:30 PM

Didn’t you go by another name a while back?

hawkdriver on May 10, 2014 at 8:12 PM

avagreen on May 10, 2014 at 1:08 PM

Thanks for the explanation. You’re as quirky as ole Jim!

Louey on May 10, 2014 at 1:16 PM

lol, quirky admonition coming from your community. Funny. Can you only troll now.

hawkdriver on May 10, 2014 at 8:17 PM

What are you playing at with this “boy” stuff? I’ve not seen you address anyone else that way.

libfreeordie on May 10, 2014 at 5:24 PM

Libster, good to see you and I like the way you asked that question. You did not accuse and gave the benefit of doubt. HT to you.

HonestLib on May 10, 2014 at 8:20 PM

avagreen on May 10, 2014 at 1:08 PM

Thanks for the explanation. You’re as quirky as ole Jim!

Louey on May 10, 2014 at 1:16 PM

lol, quirky admonition coming from your community. Funny. Can you only troll now.

hawkdriver on May 10, 2014 at 8:17 PM

Quirky? That is being nice to a once sane man who puts around in an egg beater. Quirky? You are being nice loo. Chuckle.

HonestLib on May 10, 2014 at 8:22 PM

If you refer to gays as “vile” and “controlled by demonic forces,” you are, in fact, “anti gay.”

beverlyfreaks on May 10, 2014 at 8:26 PM

hawkdriver on May 10, 2014 at 8:17 PM

Quirky? That is being nice to a once sane man who puts around in an egg beater. Quirky? You are being nice loo. Chuckle.

HonestLib on May 10, 2014 at 8:22 PM

Not every pilot can pick up 23500 lbs with just their left arm.

We are authorized this with this loaded on it now for use in the cockpit.

Technically, you still have to have it in the airplane mode before you take off. On Fore Flight, my moving map has a little airplane. I consider that a safer “airplane” mode :-)

And you can’t hover a 172 either.

hawkdriver on May 10, 2014 at 8:30 PM

hawkdriver on May 10, 2014 at 8:30 PM

Technology has changed quickly. I remember flying with a Garmin 400 or 500 something or other on a three inch screen and being amazed.

I will forgive you for the 172 reference, since I did call your bird an egg beater. It is still an eggbeater!

HonestLib on May 10, 2014 at 8:45 PM

I will forgive you for the 172 reference, since I did call your bird an egg beater. It is still an eggbeater!

HonestLib on May 10, 2014 at 8:45 PM

Try to imagine me saying 172, 172, 172 while I stick my tongue out at my computer screen.

hawkdriver on May 10, 2014 at 8:51 PM

HonestLib on May 10, 2014 at 8:45 PM

Try to imagine me saying 172, 172, 172 while I stick my tongue out at my computer screen.

hawkdriver on May 10, 2014 at 8:51 PM

And actually, I linked to a Wi-Fi only. Not much good unless it’s an Air. Got a fracking GPS in it it does. Driving back from GA yesterday even before I took it to the store to get on line, I was tracking up 95 with Fore Flight.

hawkdriver on May 10, 2014 at 8:54 PM

Lets keep pretending there is no law that protects people from religious discrimination.
Lets keep pretending that it’s perfectly acceptable to fire people because of their religious convictions.

JellyToast on May 10, 2014 at 9:59 PM

avagreen on May 10, 2014 at 1:08 PM

Thanks for the explanation. You’re as quirky as ole Jim!

Louey on May 10, 2014 at 1:16 PM

lol, quirky admonition coming from your community. Funny. Can you only troll now.

hawkdriver on May 10, 2014 at 8:17 PM

Heh! Someone fired off an arrow and guess I wasn’t around to receive the insult. Missed its mark, it did. Tiny little thing hanging there on the wall.

avagreen on May 10, 2014 at 10:11 PM

Lets keep pretending there is no law that protects people from religious discrimination.
Lets keep pretending that it’s perfectly acceptable to fire people because of their religious convictions.

JellyToast on May 10, 2014 at 9:59 PM

Write ‘um/call ‘um…..addresses below >>>>>>

avagreen on May 9, 2014 at 7:28 PM

Note to all: Surely we can do as much as the LBGT community did to Mozilla.

avagreen on May 10, 2014 at 10:15 PM

I want a show.
I pretty much dislike everyone therefore no particular group, special interest, or cabal of “victims” should complain since I would be an equal opportunity offender.

I’d have all the victim groups watching the show and the larger audience would be those who hate the victim groups. It would be ratings gold.

Heck we can make it a sitcom. The main character would be named Sperling Robertson Bundy and he runs multiple businesses – a photography studio, bakery, and a chicken sandwich franchise. He’s a cantankerous old codger who has black neighbors named the Jeffersons and a son-in-law he calls meat head………..oh wait.

StubbornGreenBurros on May 10, 2014 at 11:46 PM

Discrimination is actually a good thing. Most people make discrimination decisions every day. i.e. What’s your favorite color?… is an act of discriminating for something as opposed to other choices. People who don’t discriminate are lying.

Dasher on May 11, 2014 at 12:30 AM

Gay marriage is not equatable to incestuous marriage…no matter how many strawman arguments you can come up with.

JetBoy on May 9, 2014 at 8:12 PM

Ironically, I get vilified for thinking the same thing about Traditional versus Gay marriage .

socalcon on May 12, 2014 at 8:58 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3