Monday, February 04, 2013

OMG! The religious right creates HORRENDOUS anti-gay Boy Scout video!

It's rare that I post more than three times a day, but this is one of the days in which I simply HAVE to make an exception to show you this monstrosity.

It is probably the worse anti-gay video of 2013, but not because it is offensive. It's because of how badly done it is.

Here are a couple of religious right characters talking about how wrong it would be for the Boy Scouts to do away with its "no gays allowed" policy. It simply boggles the mind how BAD this is.

From Janet Porter's attempt to hypnotize you with her eyes, to the awful muddled background voices, it's just terrible:

Editor's note - Someone please save this video because when the religious right sees how bad it is, they are going to either get rid of it or replace it. 

Hat tip to Right Wing Watch.

'Don't say gay' bill sponsor Stacey Campfield gets SCHOOLED on TMZ

Stacey Campfield, the Tennessee politician behind that awful "Don't Say Gay" bill in that state recently got schooled big time by the folks at (wait for it) TMZ. This is epically awesome:

Now allow me to throw out a couple of thoughts.

Campfield oozes with entitlement. He is quintessential anti-gay bigot in that he doesn't look at gays as normal people.  In his small mind, he doesn't see lgbts raising children, going to work, and leading normal productive lives. Instead, he has psychologically dissected us from our sexual orientation and then has transformed said orientation into a sex act (sodomy) which is both not totally indigenous to the gay community and not totally avoided to by the heterosexual community. To him, being gay does not exist, except for an act having to do with penises and rectums.

It's a sad way to dehumanize people and families by reducing them to sex acts thought up in one's fevered imagination. And what's worse, it's not enough for him to believe this way, he wants to codify that ignorant belief into law, which means he wants lgbts and our families to abide by his definition of who we are in spite of the fact that it's a vicious lie.

While Campfield whines about gays not leaving people alone and trying to allegedly shove our lifestyle down people's throats, he is the aggressor. No one asked him to push this law which would bar teachers from talking about gay issues with students and force schools to out gay students to their parents.

Campfield is pushing this law by his own volition. He is forcing his beliefs on gay families. He is doing the throat shoving.

Perhaps if Campfield doesnt' want to be bothered by THE GAYS, perhaps he should practice what he preaches and stop harassing them.

'FRC's Peter Sprigg blistered during CNN interview' and other Monday midday news briefs

This is what happens when a journalist does his/her homework. If this keeps up, the Family Research Council will be doing a "Sarah Palin" and only appear on Fox News: 

 In other news:  

Journalists Win Release of Documents Tracing Right-Wing Funding For Texas Gay Marriage Study - Looks like THIS story isn't dead yet.  

Delaware Bishop Attacks Marriage Equality: ‘Unrestrained Romanticism Damages Marriage’ - Cause apparently love has nothing to do with marriage.  

Santorum: Dropping Gay Ban Will 'Murder' the Boy Scouts - Oh the hyperbole, the hyperbole!

Bakery refuses services to lesbian couple - why the slippery slope argument applies

This situation happened recently involving a bakery in Oregon whose owner refused create a cake for a lesbian couple.

No doubt, if he is found to be violating the state's anti-discrimination law, he will definitely be NOM's newest martyr. Also, there will be - and they are already showing their faces - others who say that why should the lesbian couple worry about him. Why can't they just get their cake from another baker?

Be forewarned. This situation is about more than just a cake. It's a case where the slippery slope argument does apply.

The folks and groups who would defend this baker have never made it clear when they wouldn't defend anyone on the grounds of so-called religious liberty. They have never made a point as to say when they would stop using the religious liberty argument.

In other words, today it may be bakers refusing services to gays. What if tomorrow it's car dealerships or restaurants or apartment rentals?

Personally I hope he is found in violation of the law. It's not that I want him to be forced to bake a cake for a gay or lesbian couple.

A message should be sent this baker and others that their personal religious beliefs do not preclude them from treating every potential customer with the same amount of fairness and dignity.