Another Reason Why Sometimes the Gay Rights Movement is Wrongheaded

A pizzeria gets assaulted by a bunch of birdbrained activists simply because one of the owners gave the opinion to a "journalist" the business would serve any gay person who walked in the establishment but, because of religious beliefs, would not cater a gay wedding or a reception.

One can disagree with the opinion, but to do what these idiots did and close down the business just asks for a giant backlash. Besides, what wedding party, gay or no, would order pizza for a reception?

What the LGBT crowd can't get through their heads is they are such a tiny minority depending on the goodwill of something like 98 or 99 percent of the public, that they lose all common sense at times. They don't realize there are a lot more conservative Christians than there are of them, and many of these people are in positions of power.

Most of the time I support the LGB cause and have long before it was ever fashionable (dating back to when I was in high school in the early 1970s). The "T" part, of course, I have very strong views against because its existence annihilates the rights of women and the medical procedures to facilitate it are unethical. In any case, my criticism of the LGBs tends to center on their political stupidity and sometimes narcissism that prevents them from seeing the big picture. The world doesn't revolve around them or their sex lives (which, being honest, is the only thing that differentiates the LGBs from everybody else).

With that kind of flimsy difference, LGBs are very lucky they were ever considered a protected class but for the reality they suffered a lot of discrimination on the job and in housing because of their sex lives. The "Ts" are a completely different kettle of fish made up of people with psychiatric disorders who want everybody else to honor their delusions or cross-dressers and outright perverts who want public acceptance for their deviant behavior.

From the article:

The owners of Memories Pizza are, I think, mistaken in what their Christian faith demands of them. And I believe their position on gay marriage to be wrongheaded. But I also believe that the position I'll gladly serve any gay customers but I feel my faith compels me to refrain from catering a gay wedding is less hateful or intolerant than let's go burn that family's business to the ground.

And I believe that the subset of the gay-rights movement intent on destroying their business and livelihood has done more harm than good here—that they've shifted their focus from championing historic advances for justice to perpetrating small injustices against marginal folks on the other side of the culture war. "The pizzeria discriminated against nobody," Welch wrote, "merely said that it would choose not to serve a gay wedding if asked. Which it never, ever would be, because who asks a small-town pizzeria to cater a heterosexual wedding, let alone a gay one?" They were punished for "expressing a disfavored opinion to a reporter."

The LGBT crowd constantly invokes the civil rights struggles of the 1960s to make their point, but it is absurd on its face when you realize, as I said above, the ONLY thing distinguishing them from the rest of us is their sex lives, something that can't--or shouldn't, anyway--be seen. It isn't like true physical characteristics of women (the real ones, not men in dresses), older people, or racial minorities.

The potential for pushback against them is very great.

A fundraiser on behalf of the pizzeria owners raised some $842,000 in about two days before the fundraiser was closed.

That's a lot of support and just a drop in the bucket.

Score One for the LGBT Community

It looks like the LGBT community scored a big victory today when the USSC decided to overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and at the same time declined to rule on California's Proposition 8, thus clearing the way for same-sex marriages to resume.

It's a big story. Of course it was 5-4.

Cynically speaking, this should help the Republicans in the next election cycle.

Or perhaps not, if they decide they have had enough with this issue and will focus on shitting on women's rights as a diversion while joining forces with "Democrats" to allow more pilfering of taxpayer money to benefit their rich backers.

The ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act means that the federal government must recognize the gay marriages deemed legal by the states — 12 plus the District of Columbia, before the California case was decided.

The law helps determine who is covered by more than 1,100 federal laws, programs and benefits, including Social Security survivor benefits, immigration rights and family leave.

“DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others,” the ruling said. It added that the law was invalid because there was no legitimate purpose for disparaging those whom states “sought to protect in personhood and dignity.”

You can read the decision here.

This had to do with an estate tax issue. It seems to make a lot of sense as this couple was together for some 44 years.

This appears to be the case where it doesn't mean same-sex marriage is legal everywhere--that's never gonna happen--but that if it is legal in some states, the federal government must recognize it.

It's almost saying state law trumps federal law.

"It's a Chicken Sandwich."

Video of the day:



Of course gays and lesbians can't produce children through homosexual acts; a male and a female are required directly or indirectly (as in a lab or adoption) for reproduction. Pat's a bigot, and it is he who should shut his mouth.

Babies don't come out of people's asses, but many people talk out of them. Regardless, Pat has said far worse things, frankly.

News, Etc.

Stupid is as stupid does: The man--and he IS a man no matter if he claims otherwise--needs a BRAIN transplant, not sex reassignment surgery or continue to deceive others he is something he is not.

Private schools, as long as they don't receive public money, can kick somebody out for this.
_____

Proposition 8

Legal experts are now predicting what should have been obvious all along, and that is the California Supreme Court is likely to uphold Proposition 8, which defines marriage as only between one man and one woman. A court cannot overturn a constitutional amendment; that would twist the entire meaning of what a court is supposed to do.

Courts interpret constitutions; they don't veto amendments or legislate. They can, of course, overturn previous court decisions.

Prop 8 opponents simply have to put in another initiative for a vote to overturn it or expand the definition of marriage. Not that it will pass; I don't think it would, especially given the overreaction of Prop 8 by the GLBT community which pissed off a lot of people.

Snip:

Doug NeJaime, a gay fellow at the Williams Institute, a think-tank for sexual orientation law at the University of California in Los Angeles, said “a clear majority” of the court would rule in favor of Prop 8 because justices weren’t buying the argument that the measure was a qualitative revision to the constitution.

“I think justices were on the same page as to what the court would have to do to get to that point, and I think there’s a disagreement among them as to whether they’re willing to do that,” NeJaime said.

I think there is reason to believe the decision would be unanimous while at the same time validating those marriages having taken place between June and November of last year.

Miscellaneous News

The LGBT community is all up in arms over Michigan's Blue Cross Blue Shield declining to pay anymore for "sex reassignment surgery."

Well, no insurance company should be paying for it anyway since it is elective surgery.

I have long stated on this blog my objections to this kind of mutilation and believe any doctor who performs it is acting unethically.

Call me a reactionary, but tough shit.
_____

It's "cry me a river" time now that an executive who resigned AIG published a letter outlining his cruel fate.

Whatever DeSantis's role at AIG, there is a crucial difference between the work of the plumber and that of the finance executive—besides the enormous disparity in pay. The plumber performs a socially useful labor. The financiers have played a socially destructive role, as the collapse of AIG and the larger economic crisis have made clear. Their entire raison d'etre is to enrich themselves and their cronies.

The difference is plumbing is an honest profession while being a robber baron is not.

I like this response.
_____

Unfortunately for Lawrence B. Salander, there is no government bailout for him.
_____

I hope the planetarium doesn't close.
_____

Nadya Suleman doesn't care one bit about her kids, according to a nurse.
_____

The former DNC chair has a petition on health care reform for people to sign. The idea of dual health care systems is virtually identical to what John Edwards proposed in his last presidential campaign.
_____