View Full Version : Gay Lives Matter ? ? ?
Moose-Knuckle
07-04-15, 01:34
Well not in Chicago . . .
Black Lives Matter Protesters Disrupt Chicago Gay Pride Parade
Chicago’s 47th annual gay pride parade was disrupted several times by the usual city disruptions — gang activity, gunshots, and drunks — but the event was also disrupted by a car driving into a group of bystanders. Then there was an even larger interruption by “black lives matter” protesters.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/29/black-lives-matter-protesters-disrupt-chicago-gay-pride-parade/
Over the long hot July 4th weekend when Chicago murder rate spikes I wonder how many of these "black lives matter" folks will be protesting outside the crack houses of street gangs as the blood flows in the streets from black on black gang violence?
Mean while in New York City . . .
Orthodox Jews hire Hispanic men to protest the Gay Pride parade (:lol:)
A Jewish political action committee hired several Mexican day laborers to dress as Orthodox Jews and protest at the Gay Pride parade in New York City. After a reporter noticed that the men in Orthodox garb were clearly Hispanic, the Jewish Political Action Committee admitted it hired substitutes for its members "because of what they would see at the parade."
http://theweek.com/speedreads/564334/only-america-orthodox-jewshire-hispanic-men-toprotest-gay-pride-parade
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-04-15, 09:20
Wasn't that Chicago scene cut from The movie 'Idiocracy'? Or did I see it in a trailer for "Chiraq'?
Mexicans do jobs that Americans won't do themselves, oh vey.
SilverBullet432
07-04-15, 09:31
Mexicans do jobs that Americans won't do themselves.
Yes, we do.
What are they protesting?
Sodomy?
S & M?
Generalized perversion?
What exactly?
Richard Pryor set things straight back in 1977.
http://www.uhurusolidarity.org/2015/01/26/1977-richard-pryor-criticizes-white-gay-rights-activsts-for-failure-to-support-black-liberation/
Richard Pryor. In a 1977 performance at the Hollywood Bowl, he made a brave and cutting onstage criticism of white people that was roundly scorned by the audience, press and gay community at large. The star-studded show had been billed as a human rights benefit but unknown to Richard, was actually centered on gay rights. Tight restrictions were imposed on performers’ speech (including Lily Tomlin).
Before coming onstage, Pryor witnessed numerous incidents of disrespect and racism by white producers and crew toward the other African performers backstage – all amidst an atmosphere of moral superiority regarding gay rights. Fuming, he went onstage.
He paced the stage in silence for a few moments and then executed comedy and honest revelation to make his point. He first described a gay experience of his own. This was ground breaking for any celebrity at that time, especially in front of 20,000 people. Even Lily Tomlin did not go that far. He was cheered.
Having drawn them in, he launched his criticism of the mostly white, gay, male audience criticizing their silence during the Watts rebellions, twelve years earlier. He asked, “How can faggots be racists?” – earning him accusations of homophobia. He went further saying, ““I hope the police catch you mother****ers and shoot your ass accidentally, because you mother****ers ain’t helpin’ niggers at all.”
Always funny to see a couple of the liberal's "protected classes" going at it. I wonder if MSNBC will say the "Black Lives Matter" group is homophobic, or the "Gay Pride" people are racist?
BoringGuy45
07-04-15, 15:49
Always funny to see a couple of the liberal's "protected classes" going at it. I wonder if MSNBC will say the "Black Lives Matter" group is homophobic, or the "Gay Pride" people are racist?
No, they'll still blame white conservatives for this.
No, they'll still blame white conservatives for this.
LOL! And don't forget Bush!
morbidbattlecry
07-04-15, 16:48
Always funny to see a couple of the liberal's "protected classes" going at it. I wonder if MSNBC will say the "Black Lives Matter" group is homophobic, or the "Gay Pride" people are racist?
Gays are not a protected class. Sexual orientation in general isn't a protected class. Then again neither is being ugly. Its perfectly legal to fire someone that is gay or ugly.
Whiskey_Bravo
07-04-15, 16:53
Gays are not a protected class. Sexual orientation in general isn't a protected class. Then again neither is being ugly. Its perfectly legal to fire someone that is gay or ugly.
Let me know how that works out for you when you fire an ugly gay dude for being an ugly gay dude.
Gays are not a protected class. Sexual orientation in general isn't a protected class.
I know of a bakery, a florist, and a pizza joint that would disagree with you.
morbidbattlecry
07-04-15, 19:22
I know of a bakery, a florist, and a pizza joint that would disagree with you.
They can disagree all they want. Besides what legal action was brought against any of those establishments for refusing to serve them?
They can disagree all they want. Besides what legal action was brought against any of those establishments for refusing to serve them?
Read the news much?
morbidbattlecry
07-04-15, 20:54
Read the news much?
Two did one didn't. Oh well i guess they shouldn't have based business practice on faith instead of common sense. Why not discriminate against left handed people as well? That's also a major sin in the bible/
and quite a few photographers and catering halls and some city admin folks etc...
I know of a bakery, a florist, and a pizza joint that would disagree with you.
OH and do not forget the gag order you cant disagree with gay marriage in Oregon !
Two did one didn't. Oh well i guess they shouldn't have based business practice on faith instead of common sense. Why not discriminate against left handed people as well? That's also a major sin in the bible/
Maybe they should be able to own a business and not have to take part in festivities celebrating something against their beliefs. It's not that they won't serve gay people, they don't want to be involved with gay weddings. Should photographers be forced to photograph porn? It's descriminatory not to, right? Why should they be allowed to live out what they believe is a moral life? How dare them!
I like how the whole gay movement is about "freedom" but they politically and financially try to sodomize anyone who wants to stay out of it.
But yes, definately a protected class.
Moose-Knuckle
07-05-15, 00:34
Always funny to see a couple of the liberal's "protected classes" going at it. I wonder if MSNBC will say the "Black Lives Matter" group is homophobic, or the "Gay Pride" people are racist?
Yeah when dealing with more than one "special" interest group one has to wonder which one is more "special".
Two did one didn't. Oh well i guess they shouldn't have based business practice on faith instead of common sense. Why not discriminate against left handed people as well? That's also a major sin in the bible/
True, two did, and the one that didn't was forced out because of "death threats". Well done. And what on earth are you talking about "left handed" being a "major" sin? Yes, the Bible refers to the right hand/arm/side as being a place of honor or power, but that's cultural phrasing as much as being somebody's "right hand man".
and quite a few photographers and catering halls and some city admin folks etc...
Thanks. Knew I was forgetting a few.
I like how the whole gay movement is about "freedom" but they politically and financially try to sodomize anyone who wants to stay out of it.
That's a great way to put it.
BoringGuy45
07-05-15, 08:01
This is all about socialism. Businesses are not allowed to make their own decisions. The way it should work is that a business that refuses to serve you is punished by the loss of money as the person you turned away finds another business. Also, it's not like these businesses said they won't serve gay people. They said they won't take part in a gay activity that contradicts their beliefs. Huge difference.
Ready.Fire.Aim
07-05-15, 08:08
This caught my attention in the article
"Just about every Chicago parade these days features gunfire in the perimeters as gangs clash with police"
Moose-Knuckle
07-05-15, 08:31
This caught my attention in the article
"Just about every Chicago parade these days features gunfire in the perimeters as gangs clash with police"
Perform a Google search with the words "Chicago National Guard", there are stories from MSM sites spanning the last five years of talk about calling in the National Guard to Chicago's South Side due to the crime/violence. Every long holiday weekend murders skyrocket.
Gays are not a protected class.
What you have to understand is that homosexuality is simply not an ontology, as the unhinged lunatic left would have everyone believe, but instead a behaviour/lifestyle choice that for reasons unknown to researchers about 1-2% of the population either actually engage in or want to engage in. Again, researches have really no idea what causes the attraction. The left however has been very successful in brainwashing an insensate populace into believing that choosing to engage in a homosexual lifestyle is the moral equivalent of being black. What they don't tell anyone is that the majority of blacks reject this absurd comparison.
"Alasdair MacIntyre once quipped that “facts, like telescopes and wigs for gentlemen, were a seventeenth-century invention.” Something similar can be said about sexual orientation: Heterosexuals, like typewriters and urinals (also, obviously, for gentlemen), were an invention of the 1860s. Contrary to our cultural preconceptions and the lies of what has come to be called “orientation essentialism,” “straight” and “gay” are not ageless absolutes. Sexual orientation is a conceptual scheme with a history, and a dark one at that. It is a history that began far more recently than most people know, and it is one that will likely end much sooner than most people think."
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2014/03/against-heterosexuality
I can't wait to see the movie poster for Roots Redux 2016 starring Andy Dick or some crap.
So I read the article Belloc but am sick so comprehension is lacking. Some Catholics are now implying the whole "I am Alpha and Omega" is subject to change and really sexual orientation has no place in a religious framework?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So I read the article Belloc but am sick so comprehension is lacking. Some Catholics are now implying the whole "I am Alpha and Omega" is subject to change and really sexual orientation has no place in a religious framework?
Uh, pardon? :confused:
Sorry that was vague. I missed the authors overall point he was trying to convey in the article. Is he stating sexual orientation has no place in the new framework of Catholicism? Again, I've been up since 4am sick so I'm not all here.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sorry that was vague. I missed the authors overall point he was trying to convey in the article. Is he stating sexual orientation has no place in the new framework of Catholicism? Again, I've been up since 4am sick so I'm not all here.
Perhaps these few lines from the article sum it up best.
Contrary to our cultural preconceptions and the lies of what has come to be called “orientation essentialism,” “straight” and “gay” are not ageless absolutes. Sexual orientation is a conceptual scheme with a history, and a dark one at that. It is a history that began far more recently than most people know, and it is one that will likely end much sooner than most people think.
Over the course of several centuries, the West had progressively abandoned Christianity’s marital architecture for human sexuality. Then, about one hundred and fifty years ago, it began to replace that longstanding teleological tradition with a brand new creation: the absolutist but absurd taxonomy of sexual orientations. Heterosexuality was made to serve as this fanciful framework’s regulating ideal, preserving the social prohibitions against sodomy and other sexual debaucheries without requiring recourse to the procreative nature of human sexuality.
Basically, "homosexuality" is no more than 'the other side of the coin' from heterosexually as pedophilia is, or necrophilia, or even adultery. All of the terminology is simply descriptive of behaviour, not of an ontology, i.e. a "state of being", or to use the phrase from the article "orientation essentialism". Like all other behaviour, even murder, or rape, or stealing, it is just that, and nothing more. One can say "he is a thief", but they mean because he steals things, not because there is some sort of ontological "essence" that is "thief".
On the other hand there is, we believe, an essence, an ontological state, (or ontology) of being a man, and another of being a woman. And Bruce Jenner cutting bits of himself off, or having bits implanted, do not, can not, alter his ontological reality of actually 'being' man.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.