See More Fascinating Stats at Unskewed Polls Website
See More Fascinating Stats at Unskewed Polls Website
You must log in to post a comment.
Future historians will likely be flummoxed by the moment we’re living in. In what amounts to less than a blink of an eye in the history of Western civilization, homosexuality has gone from a diagnosed mental disorder to something to be celebrated — or else.
Indeed, the rush to mandatory celebration is so intense, refusal is now considered tantamount to a crime. And, in some rare instances, an actual crime if the right constable or bureaucrat concludes that you have uttered “hate speech.”
Or, if you refuse to bake a gay couple a cake for their wedding. That was the horror story that sparked much of this foofaraw.
In 2012, there were more black babies killed by abortion (31,328) in New York City than were born there (24,758), and the black children killed comprised 42.4% of the total number of abortions in the Big Apple, according to a report by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.
The report is entitled, Summary of Vital Statistics 2012 The City of New York, Pregnancy Outcomes, and was prepared by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of Vital Statistics. (See Pregnancy Outcomes NYC Health 2012.pdf)
In New Mexico, a photographer declined to take pictures of a lesbian couple’s commitment ceremony. In Washington State, a florist would not provide flowers for a same-sex wedding. And in Colorado, a baker refused to make a cake for a party celebrating the wedding of two men.
The business owners cited religious beliefs in declining to provide services celebrating same-sex relationships. And in each case, they were sued.
Now, as states around the nation weigh how to balance the rights of same-sex couples with those of conservative religious business owners, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona must decide whether to sign legislation that would allow business owners to cite religious beliefs as a legal justification for denying service to same-sex couples.
The legislation, approved by lawmakers on Thursday, immediately attracted national attention, with conservative religious groups welcoming it as a necessary form of protection for objectors to same-sex marriage, and gay rights groups denouncing it as a license for discrimination. The measure comes at a time when the courts are grappling with how to define the religious rights of private businesses: The Supreme Court is to hear two cases next month in which businesses are seeking exemptions from providing insurance coverage for contraception to their employees, citing the religious beliefs of the companies’ owners.
Using the 14th amendment as the basis for asserting the right for gays to marry is a bit of a stretch. In Hernandez v. Texas (1954) the U.S. Supreme Court held that the 14th amendment protects those beyond the racial classes of white or “Negro” and extends to other racial, ethnic and other historically disadvantaged groups, i.e. women.
So, please tell me which of the above groups would gay marriage come under? The 14th Amendment does not apply to them. They are asking the courts to create a special class of rights for them based on s****l preference, which is their ultimate goal.
Gays do not deserve special protection based on their s****l preferences, but they do deserve equal protection based on their humanity.
In a 2005 speech, the NAACP’s former chairman, Julian Bond said, “…s****l disposition parallels race. I [a gay person] was born this way. I have no choice. I wouldn’t change it if I could. Sexuality is unchangeable. I guess Bond never heard of anyone having their s*x changed surgically?
So, let me make sure I understand this. If I choose to exercise my right to oppose gay marriage, I am hateful and believe in discrimination? So, while the Black community is sinking in alarming pathologies with Black on Black crime, runaway teenage pregnancy, high unemployment, the NAACP is taking up the cause that has absolutely no legal basis and is outside the mandate of their own charter. Are you kidding me?
Weak people (and groups), take strong positions on weak issues. The modern day Civil Rights movement has done more harm to Blacks than any man in a white hood!
Calling Obamacare a “Rube Goldberg-like contraption” that has caused more people to lose their health insurance than those who are enrolled in the exchanges, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) revised his previous assessment that once the government subsidies kicked in, it would be “ impossible to repeal Obamacare” because Americans would become “addicted to the sugar.”
“We are seeing the fruits of the battle that so many millions of Americans engaged in last fall to stop Obamacare, and I think the direct result of that fight was to elevate the national debate over the harms that Obamacare has caused,” Cruz said during a Wednesday conference call with reporters and bloggers. “And as a consequence, I think the terrain has changed and I believe we will repeal Obamacare.”
Two heads are better than one, as the old saying goes. That surely means that three heads are even better.
If there’s any truth to that saying, the establishment in Washington and progressives everywhere are likely none too pleased to hear that conservative personalities Glenn Beck, Mark Levin and Sean Hannity are on the same page and joining forces to help the country get back on what they feel is the right path.
After previously allowing themselves to be caught up in a “stupid” competitive feud in talk radio, Beck revealed on his radio show Thursday that he has spoken with Levin and Hannity and they are all ready to start to “move together.”
Although some liberal observers criticized Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson’s remarks about homosexual behavior as “disgusting” and “vile and extreme stereotypes,” the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), one of the federal government’s leading health voices, uses nearly identical and even more graphic language in describing some of the sexual practices of male homosexuals.
“Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet they are the population most severely affected by HIV,” says the CDC. “Most HIV infections in men are transmitted through sexual contact, especially anal sex.”
In an interview with GQ magazine, which sparked a national controversy and his indefinite suspension from the hugely popular A&E reality-TV show, “Duck Dynasty,” head-of-household Phil Robertson, a self-described Bible-thumping Christian said, “It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”
Several recent court cases have resulted in small business owners, who create the wares and services that they sell, being ordered by a judge to sell their custom-made products (e.g., wedding cakes and floral arrangements) or services (e.g., wedding photography) to gay couples despite the small business owners’ refusal to do so based on their religious principles.
If the business in question sold standard, mass-produced items, such as rings, then denying gay couples the right to purchase such things would be clearly discriminatory in the same way that a realtor would be discriminating if they refused to show a house that was for sale to any and all interested potential buyers. The sexual orientation of the buyers should not be an issue in that sort of transaction.
However, the sensitivities of gay couples who claim to feel slighted is not the real issue. The plaintiff in a recent wedding cake related suit, one David Mullins, is reported to have said:
Being denied service by Masterpiece Cakeshop [the defendant] was offensive and dehumanizing especially in the midst of arranging what should be a joyful family celebration.
While vigorously defending the plaintiffs’ claims that they have a right not to be offended, the judge, the ACLU, and others in the LGBT community seem to be ignoring (in this particular case) the rights of the baker who chose not to fulfill the plaintiffs’ request. Most people would immediately think of the 1st Amendment’s protection of freedom of religion, but in truth that is not the most relevant part of the Constitution here. It is the 13th Amendment, Section 1, which should be the controlling part of the legal debate in this situation.
In addition, The People’s Cube was blocked from posting on Facebook for the next 12 hours.
What standard did the image violate? At first we thought it triggered their “Graphic Content” standard with the shockingly disturbing, graphic depiction of Rosie O’Donnell with a beard. Or was it the sinister and painful visual of Rachel Maddow blowing her dyke call?
Upon consideration, however, given the connection to the Duck Dynasty controversy, we figured it had something to do with their Hate Speech standard: “Facebook does not permit hate speech, but distinguishes between serious and humorous speech.”