To Domer76: I had hoped no one would play the gay card since same sex marriages would also be covered by contracts.
If it makes you happy I did have some fun with the gay community on another board. Note that “queer” is their word.
The National LGBTQ Task Force announced Tuesday that “hundreds of LGBTQ advocates will take over Capitol Hill to bring queer voices on the Hill on Thursday.”
The queer crowd is after two things:
1. Special privileges legislated into extraordinary Rights for a minority.
2. Tell free Americans how they must behave.
“The Task Force is convening one of the largest LGBTQ advocacy days in recent history to say: enough is enough. In law and in practice, LGBTQ people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. We plan to tell our lawmakers exactly how to do so.”
Naturally, being treated with dignity and respect means take a queer to lunch after they get:
. . . “explicit” federal protections in housing, employment, public accommodations, jury service, public funding, credit and education.
. . . legislation that guarantees abortion is provided at public expense and requires employers and health plan sponsors to include it, legislation that stops racial and religious profiling in the federal government, and protections for “bodily autonomy” in nursing homes.
Congress gets urged to scrap religious rights
Posted By -NO AUTHOR- On 01/23/2018 @ 9:31 pm
http://www.wnd.com/2018/01/congress-gets-urged-to-scrap-religious-rights/
Remember that equal Rights, civil Rights, non-discrimination, quotas, affirmative action, and all of the other touchy-feely liberal causes can be summed up in one sentence: “You must associate with me.” It happened in the workplace, the schools, the military, in private clubs, and everywhere else; so there is every reason to believe that dignity and respect will evolve into forced associations. Never mind that everyone else’s dignity and respect is brushed aside. I offer this scenario to make my point:
I invite a dozen or so neighbors to a cookout. I specifically do not invite a homosexual couple who live down the street. They sue me for discrimination. I lose the case and money. The court orders me to associate with all of my neighbors. That is called protecting the individual while teaching me that I am part of the collective in all things.
Just to be clear on this. I simply do not want to associate with homosexuals. I do NOT wish bodily harm on anyone, nor would I take part in violence directed against homosexuals.
Queer free speech
Somewhere along the way free speech for everyone dropped out of the homosexual marriage debate. Nevertheless, public schools continue to attack free speech today as much as they did in 2006 when Phyllis Schlafly pointed out:
Public schools are a major battleground in the gays' efforts to censor any criticism of their goals or lifestyle. Every year, the National Education Association passes resolutions not only demanding that schools not discriminate against sexual orientation, but also insisting that classroom language be monitored to punish "homophobia" and to "promote 'acceptance' and/or 'respect' instead of 'tolerance'" of the gay lifestyle.
Gay agenda targets free speech
By Phyllis Schlafly
November 6, 2006
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PhyllisSchlafly/2006/11/06/gay_agenda_targets_free_speech
The sly transition that went from tolerance to acceptance reminded me of an old adage:
First we abhor; then we tolerate; then we embrace; then we legislate.
In recent years several states moved homosexual marriage into legislation leaving most of us behind in the tolerate stage. So I have to ask if liberals will lift their ban on free speech altogether?
I have another question because constitutionally protected free speech for everyone has been looking mighty bleak of late. When did gay become the politically correct word for homosexual at the expense of free speech?
I cannot say exactly when the homosexual community became the gay community, but here are synonyms for the word gay:
blithe
happy
light-hearted
lively
merry
vivacious
airy
bright
sunny
homophile
homosexual
effervescent
hilarious
I would be accused of homophobia were I to overwork the word homosexual. Aiming for savoir-faire I decided to risk an allegation of flippancy by substituting synonyms for gay wherever appropriate in the rest of this message.
Every time you examine any issue near and dear to liberal hearts you will find that free speech is always the first casualty. With that in mind I want to comment on a few blithe causes collectively referred to as the hilarious agenda.
The vivacious community is only one group. “Put a sock in it if you oppose me” is the bumper sticker for every liberal cause espousing this, that, or the other. It would all mean very little were it not for the judges, and employers who fear the judges. Neither of those two groups is noted for their love of free speech.
You would think that the First Amendment Rights of government employees are protected more than anyone else’s. You would be wrong in spite of powerful government employee unions. Schlafly’s article cited several incidents involving government employees who suffered at the hands of the light-hearted community.
You would be wrong again if you think that colleges and universities form the first line of defense against assaults on free speech Rights. In reality, sunny Rights always displace the First Amendment in institutions of higher agendas.
The happy community, the judges, and just about every liberal in the country forget that hate speech requires the most protection, or at least the same protection liberals enjoy when their hate speech is aimed at someone else’s lifestyle, personality, or beliefs. Example: When an airy entertainer tries to be funny by denigrating stereotypes who oppose effervescent marriages the attempted humor is usually rendered with thinly veiled hate speech.
The queer dance
Once upon a time I read somewhere how that dance craze, The Twist, got started. I do not know if the story is true, but it is worth repeating.
It seems that there was an ordinance in one of Southern California’s beach towns prohibiting same sex partners from dancing with one another in the local gin mills. However, same sex partners tripping the light fantastic had to touch each other in order to be in violation of the law. Homosexuals began to dance The Twist without touching one another just to tweak the noses of the local constabulary who were obviously commanded by Inspector Clouseau. The craze spread, as such things have a way of doing, and The Twist became part of the culture with a lot of help from Chubby Checker.
My first thoughts about same sex marriage cautioned that it might be just another bit of tweaking the establishment’s nose à la The Twist. If that was the merry community’s intent they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams thanks to judges.
I doubt if any of them ever thought their inside humor would go as far as it went. Now that they are being taken seriously they have no choice but to run with the Socialists to make it stick. I name the Socialists specifically because the same sex marriage issue is so easily turned into a “constitutional Right.” Socialists love the Constitution whenever they find a new way to tear it down.
Now that a few states are dispensing marriage licenses look for a constitutional amendment to resurface. Speaking for myself, I do not care one way or the other if there is a constitutional amendment to deal with the issue. It will not build discrimination into the Constitution as some claim, but it will trivialize the Constitution to some extent. An amendment specifically designed to address gay nonsense may not be what the light-hearted community expected, but they do have square apples from academe pontificating about same sex marriages as though it is not the silliest damned idea to ever come along. How the merry must be laughing at the straights.
Traditional art
Not many years ago color coordinated gays claimed that every creative artist that ever wrote a play, composed an opera, smeared paint on canvas, or chiseled away at a piece of marble was light-hearted. Michelangelo’s talent became the face of homosexuality.
Do not fret. There has been a make over. The new face is less artistic, but infinitely more monogamous than the old face. The latest story is that they all love their chosen partner, work hard at ordinary jobs, never part company, and would not dream of infidelity. All things considered, the merry crowd should have stayed with the artistic image.
There is one major problem with the new face: How did HIV/AIDS decimate the hilarious community with all of that monogamous love and devotion going around? I have no answer.
One possible result of casual liaisons that kill is that the blithe community stumbled upon fidelity out of fear of HIV/AIDS. That is a good thing for them if that is the case, but it does not mean that same sex marriage should be legislated by judges or by anybody else.
One final observation: Now that homosexuals admit they are stodgy they will have to relinquish the “gay” misnomer.
To kudzu: Get yourself a new lawyer. Breach of contract disputes are heard in civil courts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_Court
I studied civil litigation at the only ABA approved school. You are full of beans. Call your lawyer and ASK.
