Staver: Gay Marriage Will Cause Holocaust Against Christians

Mat Staver, the dumbest lawyer in America not named Larry Klayman, seems to be struggling a bit at coming up with new forms of hyperbole to scare the hell out of his followers about gay marriage. He’s repeating his Nazi analogies, saying this week that marriage equality is just like what the Nazis did to the Jews.

“We’re talking about the ghettoization of Christianity,” Staver said, “and this is what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany, they put the Jews in ghettos, they put other people in ghettos. They took away their ability to earn a living, then they isolated them to ghettos, they stigmatized them, they ultimately destroyed their humanity in the minds of others and then the next step was easy, in the sense that they had gone to the point where they had lost respect for humanity.”

“This is a serious manner because this ghettoizes Christianity,” he continued. “This stigmatizes those who have Christian beliefs. This ultimately punishes those and prohibits those individuals from earning a living or working in the marketplace. And this is the beginning of ultimately dehumanizing the person and when you dehumanize the person, terrible things can happen.”

Yeah, it’s Christians who are being dehumanized. It’s the people who continually demonize gay people as demon-possessed pedophiles out to rape your children and destroy the world who are the real victims here. Because that kind of rhetoric is not dehumanizing at all, amirite? You know, the Bible speaks about pointing out the sliver in someone else’s eye while ignoring the log in your own. It’s kind of incredible how they perceive mild criticism of themselves to be persecution while engaging in the most vile demonization and discrimination against gay people. Self-awareness is clearly not one of the “gifts of the spirit” (whatever the hell that is).

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • John Pieret

    This ultimately punishes those and prohibits those individuals from earning a living or working in the marketplace.

    Bake the bleeping cake! You don’t have to go to the ceremony (which is why I might cut wedding photographers some slack), you don’t even have to put the little figurines on top of it or spell out “Congratulation Jim and Bob” in icing if you provide the figurines and pastry bag of icing to the couple. You aren’t “participating in anything other than applying heat to flour, sugar and eggs. Bake the bleeping cake and take the couples’ money just as you would when adulterers get married!

  • Chiroptera

    I still say that the world would have been much better off if all the Nazis had done is only forced Jewish bakers to bake cakes and Jewish photographers to take pictures. But what do I know?

  • cptdoom

    This stigmatizes those who have Christian beliefs. This ultimately punishes those and prohibits those individuals from earning a living or working in the marketplace.

    These same laws prevent you from denying service to Jews, Mormons, Hindus, Buddists and all other non-Christians. Why is it OK for the government to force Christians to violate their beliefs and do business with those who deny the very foundation of your religion but not OK for the government to demand you serve those who only violate a couple of moral laws of your religion? I have never understood that.

  • blf

    Today is a xian holiday here in France (L’Ascension), so after hiring some local moolsins as bodyguards, I took a sightseeing walking through the local xian ghetto. I reasoned I’d be fairly safe, they are all cooped-up in the bombed-out remains of their cathedrals do whatever they do on Ascension Day (which, at least locally, hasn’t noticeably included any visits from the Inquisition or even bans on the sales of chocolate); plus, of course, the moolsin bodyguards, armed to the teeth with suicide similes.

    The cobbled streets lined with cafes and sex shops are covered in a sea of martyred bodies. The gutters, seemingly designed for the purpose, did a rather good job of draining away the blood. The most distressing thing, however, was the crosses everyone seemed to be wearing, and visible in the few unbroken windows. Some even had an almost-naked figurine of a jooish king / criminal nailed to them. Apparently, wearing / displaying an ancient torture device is mandatory for living in the xian ghetto.

    Most (or so it seemed) of the residents who made eye contact — I’ve never before seem people so desperate to run around corners (even leaving their crutches and begging pots behind) or turn their backs — glared at us, albeit one rather frightened looking young boy seemed confused, at least until a priest told him to loosen his belt and bend over.

    After a perfectly decent vin and discussion at one of the cafes, the guards and I decided it was all rather too creepy. Hence, we beat a fairly fast retreat to the safety of the outside world, blessedly free of xians, safely locked up in the ghettos.

  • Alverant

    They CHOOSE not to do their jobs and it’s not their fault? That doesn’t make a bit of sense. If you refuse do your job, why should you get paid?

  • theDukedog7 .

    Ed:

    You seriously misrepresent the mainstream Christian view on homosexuality. We don’t see gays as “demon-possessed pedophiles”. We see gays as sinners, like we see ourselves. We think that homosexual acts are significantly sinful, but there are many sinful acts and Jesus had particular mercy for sexual sinners (in the NT, he was hardest on hipocrites).

    And spare me the Westboro Baptist Church canard. They’re a few nuts, and don’t represent Christians.

    Gay people in America do not suffer significant oppression from mainstream society, and haven’t for a half century. Gays aren’t arrested for sodomy, or excluded from employment, etc. In fact, gays have higher educational levels and incomes than straights, and hold positions of great power in many industries including entertainment and in Silicon Valley.

    The most serious oppression gays have suffered in the past half century has been the AIDS epidemic, which has killed hundreds of thousands of gays. AIDS is not inflicted by Chrisitians. It is inflicted on gays by gays. It is a disease spread by promisucuous gay sex, which is precisely what Christians have been warning about.

    Chastity would end the AIDS epidemnic overnight.

    The danger that gay marriage poses to Christians is very real. It is not so much that it will devalue marriage (Christians have done that to themselves). The danger is that gay marriage can and will and is used as a cudgel to force Christians to choose between collaboration with sin and their livelihood. It is a very effective weapon against Christianity, and it will increasingly be used as such. It won’t end with bakers and wedding photographers. Christian teachers will be forced to endorse gay marriage in the classroom or be accused of illegal discrimination. Churches will be forced to conduct gay weddings or lose their tax exemptions.

    The hatred of Christianity and the willingness to use legal force to destroy Christians’ livelihoods is obvious (on this blog for example), and it’s going to get much worse. And no one believes your assurances of “hey we’ll never do that..” We’re not fools.

    Gay marriage is about ghettoization of Christians in America. Just like Staver said.

  • flex

    @theDukedog7 . says, slobbering in these comment threads.

    Hey, why don’t you replace every time you say “Gay marriage” with “inter-racial marriage” and see how it reads?

    Someone else can try to educate the canine with facts about AIDS, but I suspect you won’t be able to teach an old dog anything.

  • John Pieret

    Churches will be forced to conduct gay weddings or lose their tax exemptions.

    That is simply untrue and continues your unbroken streak of misunderstanding the Constitution.

    We’re not fools.

    Your posts here haven’t helped to support that contention.

  • Saad

    theDukedog7, #6

    We see gays as sinners, like we see ourselves. We think that homosexual acts are significantly sinful, but there are many sinful acts and Jesus had particular mercy for sexual sinners (in the NT, he was hardest on hipocrites).

    And I see your Christianity, Bible and Jesus as tyrannical, superstitious horseshit. And I will stand up for the rights of every single LGBT person against your despotic oppression. Every single time.

    Fuck you and your stupid religion.

  • bahrfeldt

    Didn’t the Nazi’s Nurenberg laws forbid the marriage between Jews and “Aryans”? A Jew defined as anyone with one quarter Jewish “blood”. Like the Nazis, the Faux Xtians of Teaturdistan work hard to keep others down. Staver- Who’s your Nazi? You’re your Nazi.

    A few weeks back, I read about some fundies citing the Bible to demand the reinstatement of anti miscegenation laws (they used the word, I presume most of their readers do not have a clue), including the statement that there is nowhere in the tomes contradicting this. I disagree. Aside from many instances of Jews in the OT marrying outside of the tribe(s), Cain and Seth reportedly married outside of their species. And Jesus is reported as saying (I am not quoting here, unless by accident) that there are no men nor women, Jews nor Gentiles, Greeks nor barbarians (obviously no other choice here to an early first century Palestinian Jew), we are all one in the eyes of the Lord. Who’s the fundie? Not the fundies.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @7:

    As i’ve pointed out before, interracial marriage supports my position, not yours. Interracial marriage and gay marriage are both attempts to impose unnatural definitions on marriage. Marriage is the lifelong union of a man and a woman. Race is irrelevant.

    Jim Crow was a progressive cause. It was a massive centrally organized social program, and was intimately linked to progressive politics. Support for defining marriage according to race, like support for gay marriage, is largely a project of progressive Democrats.

    The opposition to laws defining marriage according to race, like the opposition to laws defining marriage as between people of the same sex, was and is primarily Christian in nature. Surely you haven’t forgot the work of the Reverend Martin Luther King, the Reverend Ralph Abernathy, the Ebineezer Baptist Church, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the countless Catholics and Protestants who formed the core of the Civil Rights Movements. MLK’s speeches were basically sermons, with abundant reference to God, and his letter from the Birmingham Jail was an eloquent reflection on Thomas Aquinas and Christian morality.

    Help me out, if you will, with the atheist contribution to the Civil Rights movement.

  • dingojack

    Dog – you <really need to go walkies – you’re so full of shit.

    Firstly — if you think Christian churches don’t active discriminate against LBGT, you should probably get out more. There has been more than enough examples in the press (and since a majority never gets reported, double it and you’re coming within a conservative ball-park).

    Secondly — AIDS is a virus that spreads through blood contact, body to body. It doesn’t care if your a male homosexual*, a heterosexual, a intravenous drug user, a haemophilic, a diabetic, or anything else. The most effective way to stop AIDS is harm-minimisation. Clean condoms, clean needles & actual information. Chasity has never proved to be successful, ever.

    Thirdly — the only people who are fined are those who illegally discriminate. Don’t want to do business with the general public, then don’t. Open your bakery (or whatever) as a subscription-only private baking club).

    You are responsible for your own actions, not other people’s. Atone for your own sins and let others worry about their own relationships, with other people and with their own god(s).

    Dingo

    ———

    * nice to see you support lesbians though. Since they have an AIDS transmission rate lower than straights. Perhaps your god likes a bit of ‘girl-on-girl’ action, eh?

  • flex

    Interracial marriage and gay marriage are both attempts to impose unnatural definitions on marriage

    Your slip is showing.

  • dingojack

    bahrfeldt – “Aside from many instances of Jews in the OT marrying outside of the tribe(s), Cain and Seth reportedly married outside of their species.”

    Cats & Dogs, living together!!!

    😉 Dingo

  • Alverant

    Chastity would end the AIDS epidemnic overnight.

    Untrue. You can get AIDS from drug use, rape, a cheating spouse, and in rare cases a blood transfusion.

    The danger is that gay marriage can and will and is used as a cudgel to force Christians to choose between collaboration with sin and their livelihood.

    If they don’t want to do their jobs, that’s their problem and it’s not grounds to deny other people their civil rights. By your logic we should also see christians denying services to people who are divorced, wear mixed fabric, and eat shellfish but that’s not happening.

    We’re not fools.

    Your post disproves that claim.

  • John Pieret

    Jim Crow was a progressive cause. It was a massive centrally organized social program, and was intimately linked to progressive politics.

    Oh, bullshit! If it was linked to anything, it was born, raised in flourished in the Bible Belt, with overwhelming white Christian support.

  • Alverant

    Marriage is the lifelong union of a man and a woman.

    Says who? You really need to brush up on your history.

  • Scientismist

    I, for one, am glad to have been enlightened by theDukedog7 . — I am glad now to understand that the SCOTUS was just wasting its time on Lawrence vs. Texas 12 years ago (as was I in fighting CA Prop 6, in the summer of ’78), and that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act doesn’t ever need to be passed to protect gays from job discrimination.

    This dog seems to write quite articulately (except for an apparent lack of understanding of either the spelling or meaning of hypocrisy). I wonder how one does that with their own head so far up… Well, never mind.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @12:

    You misrepresent the issue with the Christian bakers. No Christian baker has refused to serve gays. Gays buy cupcakes and pies at Christian bakers everyday. The issue is asking a Christian baker to participate in an activity–gay marriage–that the Christian believes is immoral.

    That is not discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Christians do not refuse to serve gays (like progressive Democrats refused to serve blacks). Christians refuse to participate in gay marriages, which they believe to be sinful.

    The blissful gay newlyweds are welcome to buy all the cookies and cakes they want.

    It is quite analogous to suing a Jewish deli owner for declining to serve a Christian a ham sandwich. It’s not an anti-Christian act, it’s a refusal to violate one’s own religious belief,which is perfectly justifiable and is Constitutionally protected.

    @Saad:

    “Fuck you and your stupid religion”

    Thanks for helping with the Nazi analogy.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @16:

    http://www.aei.org/publication/progressives-jim-crow-and selective-amnesia/

    Learn something new today, ace.

  • theDukedog7 .
  • John Pieret

    It is quite analogous to suing a Jewish deli owner for declining to serve a Christian a ham sandwich. It’s not an anti-Christian act, it’s a refusal to violate one’s own religious belief,which is perfectly justifiable and is Constitutionally protected.

    What Jewish deli holds itself out to prepare ham dishes? If you open a bakery and just say “we bake wedding cakes” then you have to (in those relatively few jurisdiction that have ant-discrimination laws covering LGBT people) serve everyone. If a baker wants to put up a sign that says “we only bake wedding cakes for people we decide are Christian enough,” then your analogy might come close to being valid … but that might not be good for business.

  • dingojack

    Like I said: set yourself up as a private baking club – subscription only. Problem solved!

    Dingo

  • theDukedog7 .

    @22:

    The Jewish deli owner holds himself out to sell sandwiches. Of course he only sells sandwiches that don’t violate his religious belief.

    The Christian baker holds himself out to sell wedding cakes. Of course he only sells wedding cakes that don’t violate his religious belief.

    The analogy is straight forward.

  • theDukedog7 .

    “Bake me a gay wedding cake, Christian”

    “Make me a ham sandwich, Jew”

    Sorta sounds the same, huh? That Nazi analogy isn’t that far off.

  • http://healthvsmedicine.blogspot.com cervantes

    According to the Bible, marriage is a union between 1 man and 1, 2, 3, 4, or 200 women. And if a married man dies, his wives have to marry his brother. Also, there’s concubinage, which is essentially slaved owned for purposes of sex and reproduction. Not to mention the mass murder, enslavement and rape of people who happen to be in the ay of the Hebrews’ conquests. I could go on, but I’m not looking there for information about what is and is not sinful.

  • dingojack

    If you’re open to public, you don’t get to decide which of types of the public you’ll provide services to and which you won’t — it’s a ‘public accommodation’, look it up.

    @@

    Dingo

  • flex

    Of course, the Jewish deli owner doesn’t sell any ham. Which means he doesn’t serve ham sandwiches to anyone, including any Jewish people who want them.

    Now if the Christian wedding-cake baker doesn’t sell any wedding cakes, you might have a point.

    But they have a poor business model.

  • Alverant

    #25

    No it doesn’t because the Jewish deli doesn’t make ham sandwiches for anyone.

    Keep in mind the Nazis were anti-gay christians who used their religion as an excuse to persecute others.

  • whheydt

    All a “Christian” baker has to do is decline to make wedding cakes for anyone. That way, there is no discrimination on that particular issue. Of course, it also means violating the Biblical edict to do *more* for someone who asks you to do something…such a baker, when a cake for an SSM wedding is ordered and wishing to be Biblically correct, would bake and deliver *two* cakes.

    As for the contention of a lack of acts against LGBTs…go look up “Matthew Shepard”.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @29:

    “Keep in mind the Nazis were anti-gay christians who used their religion as an excuse to persecute others”

    The SA was the largest gay-run organization in world.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-strange-strange-story_b_136697.html

  • sugarfrosted

    You seriously misrepresent the mainstream Christian view on homosexuality.

    Then should have a lot to talk about having so much in common.

  • justsomeguy

    You guys are doing a good job of picking apart dukedog, but I feel compelled to add a bit to the dogpile.

    @6:

    “And spare me the Westboro Baptist Church canard. They’re a few nuts, and don’t represent Christians.” They say the same thing about you. How is anyone supposed to know who the “real” christians are?

    “Gay marriage is about ghettoization of Christians in America. Just like Staver said.” Hahahahahaha, that’s ridiculously paranoid. Do you really think that it’s about *you* and and your social club? It’s not. People want to get gay-married because *they want to get married*, not because they’re trying to spite you or anyone else. It’s not about you. Get over yourself.

  • Alverant

    #31

    That’s been debunked. Also remember the Nazis exterminated homosexuals along side those they considered inferior. In any case it doesn’t change the fact the Nazis were anti-gay christians.

  • kenn

    Perhaps someone needs a lesson on what constitutes “traditional marriage.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw

  • Chris J

    Put a gay-marriage cake and a straight-marriage cake side by side. Think you could tell the difference, theDukedog7, without the figurines or names? Now try it with a ham sandwich and a turkey sandwich.

    Are christian bakeries going to have to ask how their customers plan to use any of their goods, like cupcakes, to make sure they won’t be used as the desert in some celebration they don’t like? What makes wedding cakes any different?

  • dingojack

    Dog – Of course there’s been similar examples in America where Christians have been battered to death just because they’re Christian, right? You can give me an example of that occurring within, say, the last 20 years surely. Let’s have one example.

    Let’s start the list of attacks on homosexuals, simply for the (non) crime of being who they are, shall we? Matthew Shepard, Laramie WY (The Equality State), 12 Oct, 1998.

    Dingo

  • theDukedog7 .
  • dingojack

    Nope, debunked. Do your homework better. 3/10

    Gwen Araujo.

    Paul Brossard.

    Dingo

    ———

    Not seeing your list growing much. Could it be that it is imaginary?

  • theDukedog7 .

    Even if the MS story is true (it isn’t), the ratio of gays killed by straights to gays killed by gays in the past half-century is 1:400,000.

    And it’s not just AIDS. Gays are disproportionately the victims of violence, by other gays.

  • dingojack

    Still doesn’t explain why you think homosexuals aren’t being persecuted and Christians are. Where’s your list Doggie? Bring out your dead.

    Roxanne Ellis and Michelle Abdill.

    Steen Fenrich.

    Dingo

  • John Pieret

    As to your Heartland Institute drone, there was plenty of blame to go around for racial segregation (even the Marx Brothers … not Karl … made at least one horribly racist movie) but to claim that it was a “progressive” institution is simply delusional. It was much more a white Christian institution and advertised as such by, for example, the KKK.

    The Christian baker holds himself out to sell wedding cakes.

    Does he hold himself out as a “Christian baker” the way a Jewish deli specifies it is a Jewish or “Kosher” deli? If not, then he is offering all his services to all. If he advertised as a “Temperance baker,” he could refuse to bake a baba au rhum. Again, if he wants to advertise himself as a “Christian baker” who only provides wedding cakes for “Christian weddings” that would come closer to your analogy, but none of the bakers, florists or photographers so far caught up in anti-discrimination have so advertised themselves that way … for good business reasons.

  • dingojack

    Oh, and citations required.

    Saskia Gunn.

    Charlie Howard.

    Dingo

  • theDukedog7 .

    “Get me a beer, Muslim”

    “Cook me a steak, Hindu”

    “Make me a ham sandwich, Jew”

    “Bake me a gay wedding cake, Christian”

    “Sew me a Klan Hood, Nigger”

    Why do all of these things sound the same?

  • flex

    @theDukeDog at #21.

    Okay, I read your link, which in the last paragraph says progressives are to blame for Jim Crow.

    Now, have you read the book which John E. Calfee uses as his reference for his statements?

    No? How surprising.

    I haven’t either, but it sounds like Calfee needs to read that book again. Here is an except from one of the reviews on Amazon:

    Southern liberalism went nowhere with its arguments that all citizens must have equal rights in all social spheres. Conservative southerners took a position between liberals and radical racists, arguing that in every society there existed superior and inferior elements. Obviously, conservatives claimed, blacks occupied an inferior position to whites. This did not mean that blacks should be treated harshly or denied privileges. The conservatives were paternalists and used the goodwill they earned from blacks to capture elective offices from the Redeemers. The conservative political philosophy collapsed when widespread corruption swept its proponents from office. The Populists, the last southern political structure Woodward discusses, also attempted an alliance with blacks. The movement was short lived, and with external pressures of the 1880s and 1890s such as economic depression and northern indifference to blacks, southerners blamed blacks for their social ills. Moreover, southern politicians weary of the years of malicious infighting decided to seek a measure of unification, and they achieved this fusion by blaming black voters for economic and political discord. It is at this time, writes the author, when segregation laws blossomed across the South.

    It appears that Calfee miss-identified “populist” for “progressive”. That might be minor quibble except that people like you don’t do your homework.

    This review is not the only one which points out that Woodward’s book doesn’t as clearly condemn progressives or populists as much as Calfee indicates.

    Here’s an excerpt from another one:

    … it showed that race relations in the South were quite fluid after the Civil War, and that the move to disenfranchise blacks and separate the races at the end of the 19th century was a deliberate conservative response to the Populist movement.

    Your link does not provide the evidence you think it does. (How surprising.)

    (And I’m going to have to add another book to my reading list. Woodward’s book sounds fascinating.)

  • flex

    Why do all of these things sound the same?

    Because you’re the one saying them?

  • theDukedog7 .

    @42:

    On your hand-waving on wedding cakes and ham sandwiches: casuistry. As a product of a good Jesuit education, you should be familiar with the term. The analogy is obvious and as good as analogies get.

    On your denial of Progressivism-Jim Crow: the intimate link between Jim Crow and Progressivism is simply a matter of historical record. There is no debate. There are simply people who know the history, people who don’t know it, and people who lie about it. You just went from the second to the third group.

  • kylawyer

    “Gay people in America do not suffer significant oppression from mainstream society, and haven’t for a half century. ”

    Tell that to these victims doggy:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/02/anti-gay-hate-crimes-murders-national-coalition-of-anti-violence-programs_n_1564885.html

  • dingojack

    Since you were the one that brought it up, and keeps doing so, is it any wonder it sounds Jesuitical?

    Nireah Johnson.

    Lawence ‘Larry’ King.

    Dingo

  • theDukedog7 .

    @42:

    “there was plenty of blame to go around for racial segregation”

    How many segregation laws did Republicans pass?

  • John Pieret

    Why do all of these things sound the same?

    Because you are an idiot?

    Does the Muslim’s business sell beer? If it does it has to sell it to a fellow Muslims as well as Christians, even if he thinks Muslims drinking beer is sinful.

    Is the Hindu’s business specified to be a Hindu restaurant? Then he can sell Hindu food not including steaks but he cannot discriminate against Pakistani Muslims, even if he believes their religion is “sinful.”

    A deli specified to be Jewish or Kosher can limit itself to Jewish or Kosher food but cannot refuse to serve Muslims.

    Name me one bakery that advertises itself as a “Christian Bakery.”

  • John Pieret

    How many segregation laws did Republicans pass?

    Democrats aren’t necessarily “progressives” and are we talking about before or after all the Dixiecrats flocked to the Republican party?

  • John Pieret

    @ 47:

    I was taught about casuistry, you are practiced in it.

  • NitricAcid

    Baking a cake is not participating in a wedding. A wedding cake is a wedding cake, and isn’t going to be different for a heterogender or a homogender wedding, apart from the topper (which the couple could easily buy elsewhere and place on the cake themselves). If a Jewish or Muslim person doesn’t want to sell bacon, they don’t have to carry bacon in their store or deli; they cannot decide to sell bacon to some people but not others. If a Muslim store-owner carries yeast and sugar, they have to sell to all customers- they can’t refuse to sell them to me because I might use them for fermentation instead of baking.

  • Chris J

    @theDukedog7:

    “Get me a beer, Muslim”

    If that Muslim is working at an establishment that serves beer, this would just be a rude way of asking for one.

    “Cook me a steak, Hindu”

    If that Hindu is working at an establishment that serves steak, this would just be a rude way of asking for one.

    “Make me a ham sandwich, Jew”

    If that Jew is working at an establishment that serves ham sandwiches, this would just be a rude way of asking for one.

    “Bake me a gay wedding cake, Christian”

    Oh, so now you differentiate “gay wedding cake” as opposed to just “wedding cake.” Why not use the actual comparable statement “bake me a wedding cake, Christian?” To which I’d respond; “If that Christian is working at an establishment that serves wedding cakes, this would just be a rude way of asking for one.”

    “Sew me a Klan Hood, Nigger”

    If that…

    What the blazing fuck are you doing using a slur for this quote, which incorporates a bigotry not found in any of the other statements? Why are you specifying “Klan” hood, when most of the other statments are asking for inherently apolitical common products? What, you think asking a Christian baker to bake a cake has the same malice behind it as the racism of the n-word?

    Get the fuck over yourself.

  • flex

    Okay, a little more seriously.

    “Get me a beer, Muslim”

    When I served in the Air Force I spent 2 years in Turkey. Which has a couple breweries, several very nice wines, and a national distilled liqueur call raki (pretty much identical to ouzo, and a number of other aniseed-flavored liqueurs found in the middle-east) which just about every man drinks.

    Not all Muslims eschew alcohol.

    “Cook me a steak, Hindu”

    I know a number of Hindu co-workers who enjoy a burger or steak on occasion.

    “Make me a ham sandwich, Jew”

    I’ve been in a number of Jewish delis which will happily make you a ham sandwich.

    “Bake me a gay wedding cake, Christian”

    I suspect this happens all the time, and the bakers are more than willing to wish the happy couple their blessings. It’s only a few who have decided that their religious beliefs require hatred.

    Do you recognize what is the same in all these statements? These first four are all about religion, and large religions which have multitudes of sects, schisms, and interpretations of their beliefs.

    And for many practitioners of a religion, the religion is less important in day-to-day affairs than helping others, providing services others want, making a living, getting by, and enjoying life. Religion is the dessert, not the entree of their life.

    All of the above quotes are spoken from ignorance or hatred, but the population they are directed against is not uniform enough to necessarily care. Many Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Christians would simply know that you are an ignorant blow-hard.

    “Sew me a Klan Hood, Nigger”

    This one is the odd-ball. For there isn’t a large population of KKK members who have different interpretations of their beliefs. People who are members of the KKK already have adopted racist beliefs, whether they admit it or not. And anyone directing such a statement at a person of color would deserve the vituperation they would undoubtedly receive.

  • dingojack

    But, but, but didn’t Republicans vote for segregation? Aren’t they participating in sin? Doesn’t that make them sinful too. The PoG better watch out Dog’s god might smite — Kashmir!

    Hypocrisy & idiocy. A winning combination!

    Gary Matson & Winfield Mowder.

    Nizah Morris

    How that ‘little list’ getting on?

    Dingo

  • flex

    … the intimate link between Jim Crow and Progressivism is simply a matter of historical record.

    Then it should be easy for you to provide another link, because the one you originally tried doesn’t lead to the conclusion you wanted it to.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @52:

    “… after all the Dixiecrats flocked to the Republican party”

    The Dixiecrats were Democrat segregationists who split with the Democrat party at the Democratic convention in 1948. There were 26 Dixicrats (five governors and 21 senators). Only 3 ever became republicans–Helms, Thrumond and Godwind. The other 23 Dixiecrats returned to the Democrat Party and stayed Democrats until they died. The three Dixiecrats who became Republicans only became Republicans after they ceased to be segregationists (Republicans were the anti-segregation party).

    The Dixiecrats split from the Democrats in 1948 because the Democrats started adopting long-standing Republican policies on civil rights. That was the whole f*cking point of the Dixiecrat movement: they left the Democrats and became a separate party because the Democrats were adopting Republican civil rights positions. Otherwise, the Dixiecrats would have simply become Republicans, which they did not.

    Again, 23 of 26 Dixiecrats remained Democrats until they died (most in the 1970’s). Only 3 switched parties, and then only when the 3 ceased to support segregation.

    Get an education:

    http://www.freedomsjournal.net/2011/10/22/urban-legends-the-dixiecrats-and-the-gop/

    I should charge you guys for tutoring.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @55:

    Sorry for using the word “Nigger”. I should never speak like a Democrat.

    Next time I use Democrat language, I’ll preface it with a trigger warning and provide you with a safe space so you can avoid microagressions.

    Buttercup.

  • flex

    To continue your education,

    From Wiki,

    The term “Dixiecrat” is sometimes used by Northern Democrats to refer to conservative Southern Democrats from the 1940s to the 1990s, regardless of where they stood in 1948.

    I think the rest of us understood the term in the context John Pieret meant. Note that it talks about “conservative” southern democrats. Those of us who do know some history are aware that most southern democrats were not progressive, but highly conservative and racist.

    If you didn’t understand that the term is often used more generally than only referring to the States Rights Democratic Party, then I’m glad to be of service to you.

    Since you probably did know, you should also know that attempting to more narrowly define a term in order to win an argument is specious.

  • flex

    I should never speak like a Democrat.

    That’s obvious.

    Because you haven’t yet.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @56:

    How about this:

    Gay person “Could you please bake me a wedding cake?”

    Christian: “You’re always welcome in my store, but because of my religious beliefs I really can’t participate in a gay wedding. I do wish you the best, and please come back to my store for anything else you need.”

    Gay person “I understand and respect your beliefs. Thanks anyway. I’ll go to the bakery down the street.”

    Wouldn’t that be a nice world–where people could see things differently, work out the differences politely and respectfully, and not ruin other people’s livelihoods just because they have a different moral system.

  • Chris J

    @theDukeDog7:

    How about this instead?

    Person: “Could you please bake me a wedding cake?”

    Christian: “Sure thing!”

    Person: “Thanks!”

    Just as easy, and doesn’t necessitate a bakery asking probing questions about how their product is going to be used.

  • http://flewellyn.livejournal.com Flewellyn

    “You’re always welcome in my store, but because of my religious beliefs I really can’t participate in a gay wedding. I do wish you the best, and please come back to my store for anything else you need.”

    If baking the cake makes the baker a participant in the wedding, does making the gun make the gunsmith a participant in the murder?

  • theguy

    Derpdog, it’s not our fault you’re ignorant of the difference in refusing a product to all customers, and refusing a product to some customers but offering it to other customers.

    “work out the differences politely and respectfully”

    Because blaming gay people for AIDS (exacerbated by homophobia) and their own murders is polite?

    “and not ruin other people’s livelihoods”

    Just hold your nose and bake the damn cake. I disapprove of the Christian lifestyle (and as opposed to homosexuality, a religion is a lifestyle) but I wouldn’t be allowed to refuse service to Christians.

    “just because they have a different moral system.”

    You don’t have a moral system; you think it’s okay to lie about gay people and about anti-discrimination laws.

  • http://flewellyn.livejournal.com Flewellyn

    Also, while theDukeDog7 is here, perhaps he should brush up on his Bible.

    I suggest a thorough contemplation of Proverbs 17:28.

  • Chris J

    Or do you think that the conversation should be more like this?

    Person: “Could you please bake me a wedding cake?”

    Christian: “Sure thing! Ahh, but, I have a couple questions first. Nothing too major.”

    Person: “Ok?”

    Christian: “Awesome! Ok, first off; are you Christian?”

    Person: “Yup!”

    Christian: “Great! Are you Catholic or Protestant?”

    Person: “Protestant.”

    Christian: “Awesome. Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?”

    Person: “Baptist?”

    Christian: “Great. Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?”

    Person: “Baptist Church of God.”

    Christian: “Excellent. Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?”

    Person: “Umm… Reformed Baptist Church of God?”

    Christian: “Wonderful. And are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?”

    Person: “Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915.”

    Christian: “… Get out.”

    Sorry, but when you’re offering a public service, why do you think it’s necessary to know how that product is being used (beyond legal matters like selling alcohol or cigarettes to minors)? If a straight couple wanted a cake so they could roll around naked on it for their nuptials, that has no relevance to the baker. A gay wedding cake is no different than a straight wedding cake.

  • dingojack

    Dog sez: “I should charge you guys for tutoring.

    [take this as being printed in yellow, Comic Sans].

    In order to be a tutor, dear, you have to actually be knowledgeable about a subject.

    Ronnie Paris (died due to his father’s homophobia).

    Guin Richie Phillips.

    Dingo

  • John Pieret

    Gay person “Could you please bake me a wedding cake?”

    Christian: “You’re always welcome in my store, but because of my religious beliefs I really can’t participate in a gay wedding. I do wish you the best, and please come back to my store for anything else you need.”

    Gay person “What makes you think you’ll be participating in my wedding? You’ll be, I assume, baking the cake in your store and then delivering it to the reception hall, miles away from where the ceremony will be held, long before any of our guests arrive for the reception.”

    Oh, thanks flex @ 61, that was precisely what I meant.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @61:

    “Dixiecrat” has a very specific meaning– the group of 26 southern Democrats who left the Democrat party in 1948 to start a new party because the Democrats had adopted century-old Republican policies on civil rights. The Dixiecrats nearly all returned to the Democrat party in short order. The three who eventually became Republicans did so only after they had ceased to be segregationists.

    The use of “Dixiecrat” to describe “conservative” southern Democrats is so imprecise as to be misleading. Nearly all southern Democrats who wanted to “conserve” segregation (which is what you mean by conservatives) remained Democrats. Why would segregationist Democrats leave the Democrat party to join the Republican party– which was the party that passed all of the civil rights acts of the 1950’s and 1960’s (both the Eisenhower civil rights laws and the Johnson civil rights laws were passed with Republican majorities–the opposition was almost entirely Democrat).

    Southern Democrat segregationists were a cornerstone of the New Deal coalition, assembled by FDR and embraced by every Democrat president through LBJ. The New Deal segregationists were the successors of the Progressives, who blended into the New Dealers in the 1930’s.

    As a sop to the New Deal progressives, FDR put one of their own–Hugo Black–on the Supreme Court. Black was rewarded for his fanatical support of New Deal Progressivism in the Senate. Black had a typical Progressive Democrat history– he was Kleagle for recruitment for the Alabama KKK, and made his political fame in Alabama by defending successfully a man who murdered a Catholic priest because the priest married the man’s daughter to a Puerto Rican. Black really hated Catholics. Black got the guy off on a “justifiable homicide” defense.

    When Black recruited new members to the Alabama KKK, he’s have them recite the Klan initiation oath, which included a promise to uphold “the wall of separation between church and state”, which was explicit Klan doctrine. The Klan hated Catholics as much as they hated blacks and Republicans, and the “wall of separation”, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution, was a tactic primarily intended to impede Catholic education.

    In 1947, Justice Black wrote the majority opinion in Everson, which was the landmark Establishment decision of the 20th century. Black inserted the Klan oath phrase “wall of separation between church and state” into constitutional law.

    http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2011/10/hugo-black-and-real-history-of-wall-of.html

    Listening to Progressive race-baiting and anti-Catholic hate today, it’s amazing how little has really changed.

  • dingojack

    Wow who knew Epicureans, St. Augustine, Martin Luther*, Pierre Bayle, John Locke, Denis Diderot — and most notably Thomas Jefferson, were all members of the KKK.

    I blame Obama and his Time Machine!!

    <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Sandy"Michael Sandy.

    Allen R. Schindler Jnr..

    Speaking of Schindlers …

    Dingo

    ———

    * although in this case, he’d fit in seamlessly I’d suspect.

  • theDukedog7 .

    “A gay wedding cake is no different than a straight wedding cake.”

    So why ask for a gay wedding cake? A gay person could just walk in and ask for a wedding cake, without indicating it was for a gay wedding. There wouldn’t be a problem.

    It is the fact that the customer identifies it to the baker as a gay wedding cake that is the problem.

    So the baker isn’t discriminating against the gay person–he’d sell the wedding cake to the gay person if it was not identified as a cake for a gay wedding.

    It is the activity–the gay wedding–not the gay person– to which the baker objects.

    Thus the KKK analogy–“sew me a KKK hood, nigger” (trigger warning!), is apt. If the black tailor declined, he wouldn’t be declining because the customer was white, he’d be declining because of the meaning of the activity he was asked to perform.

    And for those of you who insist that baking a gay wedding cake is not un-Christian, that is a judgement each Christian baker has a right to make for himself. That’s what “Free Exercise” means.

  • flex

    The use of “Dixiecrat” to describe “conservative” southern Democrats is so imprecise as to be misleading.

    In that case, we should never call the Republican party “the party of Lincoln” because that is “so imprecise as to be misleading”.

    For most of my life the term “Dixiecrat” has meant conservative southern democrat, and I’m no longer a young man.

    Try to keep up.

    Oh, and BTW,

    Nearly all southern Democrats who wanted to “conserve” segregation (which is what you mean by conservatives) [I’ll write my own words thank you very much, conservative means more than just segregation.] remained Democrats.

    First, you have flipped between two definitions here. Are you trying to use your 26 political leaders who were democrats and largely remained democrats as evidence that all conservative southern democrats remained democrats into the present day? For the evidence for one does not prove the latter claim.

    Second, nearly all southern republicans who wanted to supported segregation remained republicans.

    Which shows that political party had little to do with it.

  • dingojack
  • theDukedog7 .

    Flex:

    “nearly all southern republicans who wanted to supported segregation remained republicans. ”

    Southern segrationist Republicans? Name them.

  • dingojack

    You’re seriously telling us you think people go into bakeries and say:

    ‘I’d like a big, fat, GAY WEDDING CAKE, you motherfucking Christian scum?!?’

    Seriously?

    More likely would be:

    ‘I’d like you to bake me a wedding cake please. And could you ice it with the names Steve and Adam [or whatever]?’

    Show me the part in the Bible where it prohibits the baking of wedding cakes for people you don’t like. [I’d direction your attention to Luke 10:26-37].

    Ryan Skipper.

    Brandon Teena.

    Dingo

  • theDukedog7 .

    Flex:

    For most of my life the term “Dixiecrat” has meant conservative southern democrat, and I’m no longer a young man.

    You’re not young, but you’re quite uninformed.

    Dixiecrat refers to a Democrat politician who broke with the Democrat party over segregation in 1948. There were 26 Dixiecrats. 23 returned to the Democrat party.

    You don’t say what you mean by conservative in this context. If you mean “wanted to conserve segregation”, then it’s true.

    If you mean “conservative like modern conservatives like Reagan etc”, then you’re wrong. “Conservative (segregationist) southern Democrats were almost all members of FDR’s progressive New Deal coalition (FDR actively courted them), and were the opposite of what we mean by conservative today.

    If you were to apply the term “Dixiecrat” accurately in a wider context than the 26 actual Dixiecrats, you would have to mean southern segregationist Democrats who were really pissed off because the Democrat Party was adopting some of the traditional Republican civil rights platform.

    Another term for those Dixiecrats broadly defined would be “progressive New Deal segregationists”, which describes basically the entire (white) Democrat south until they stopped supporting segregation and progressivism, at which time they came to be called “Republicans”.

  • flex

    Oh, and about that civil rights bill of 1964.

    From Wiki:

    Final version votes:

    Senate

    Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)

    Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

    House

    Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)

    Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

    The breakdowns by region are poorly written, but it looks like 107 of those (combined) democratic votes against were from southern democrats and 8 (combined) votes were in favor. But then 11 of the (combined) republican votes against were from southern republicans, and none were in favor.

    If you want to say that the civil rights act of 1964 needed republican support to pass, that’s fine. No one will argue that. But that does not mean that the southern republicans supported that civil rights bill, because none of them did.

    The racist south crossed party lines.

  • John Pieret

    The 1925 Klansman’s Manual does include a pledge to uphold the separation of church and state, a phrase famously used, if not coined, by Thomas Jefferson. It also said “The movement accepts the full Christian program of unselfish helpfulness, and will seek to carry it on in the manner commanded by the one Master of Men, Christ Jesus.” I guess by the “logic” of your argument, that makes Christianity a Klan religion.

    http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/227kkkmanual.html

    The fact that some group who is not approved of by (most) people uses a phrase doesn’t make it theirs or taint the phrase somehow. Just practicing your casuistry again?

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Flex:

    You haven’t named a single southern segregationist Republican.

    I’m not aware of any. Please help me learn. Who were they? Names…

  • dingojack

    And you’re no long young either Dog, and wireless means radio.

    @@

    Phillip Walsted.

    Scotty Joe Weaver.

    Dingo

  • dingojack

    ooh looky, Puppy-Dog demandsa list.

    You first.

    Rebecca Wight.

    Barry Winchell.

    Dingo

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Pieret:

    “The 1925 Klansman’s Manual does include a pledge to uphold the separation of church and state, a phrase famously used,”

    Actually, the phrase wasn’t “famous” at all. It was an obscure phrase written by a man who had nothing to do with the Constitution in a private latter. Jefferson, ironically, was a passionate opponent of judicial review, which of course is the legal doctrine by which this phrase came to hold sway over our law.

    “Separation of church and state” was probably first used by Roger Williams, but it was little invoked in the 18th century and appears nowhere in the minutes of the debate and deliberation on the First Amendment. Through the 19th and first half of the 20th century, it is never used in Supreme Court case law (except brief mention in Reynold’s in 1870) until Everson in 1947.

    The phrase was basically unheard-of in jurisprudence until Black dusted off his old Klan oath and pasted it into his Supreme Court decision in 1947.

    But “separation of church and state” was famous in a different venue. It was hallowed words to the KKK, who used it as to hammer Catholics. It was a fond phrase for the assorted nativists and know-nothings who were terrified of new immigrants with their papist and other non-protestant heresies.

    “Separation of church and state” was the currency of bigots, and only bigots, up to Everson. After Everson, it remains the currency of bigots.

  • flex

    Southern segrationist Republicans? Name them.

    Well the easiest would be John Tower, the Senate republican who voted against the civil rights act of 1964 and remained a republican all his life.

    Oh, and here is an interesting quote from Tower,

    Tower blamed Ford’s defeat in Texas on “Dixiecrats… the Reagan organization, aided by former Wallace leaders, made a concerted and obviously successful effort to get the Wallace vote in the Republican primary. In addition, some section of Ford’s defense and foreign policy alienated some voters who may otherwise have cast their ballot for the president.”

    And in what sense is Tower using the term “Dixiecrats” in 1976? I’m pretty certain he isn’t referring specifically to the 1948 election.

    Some other names:

    Barry Goldwater

    Joel Broyhill

    Richard Harding

    Howard “Bo” Callaway

    James D. Martin

    Rubel Phillips

    Again, racism was not aligned with party affiliation.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Pieret:

    http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2013/08/steven-novella-on-separation-of-church.html

    More that you can learn about the law, legal eagle.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Flex:

    Goldwater wasn’t a segregationist, and he wasn’t a southerner, unless you consider Arizona part of the Confederacy. Goldwater was a co-founder of the Arizona NAACP, and he voted against the 1964 Act because he believed it violated the 10th Amendment. He was a passionate supporter of integration.

    I’m not aware of Tower’s support for segregation. Voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not automatically make someone a segregationist–as with Goldwater, there were those who believed that it violated the constitutional constraints on the federal government, although it was well-intentioned.

    You’re right about Broyhill, who was a southern segregationist Republican. He was one of only two Republicans who signed the 1956 Southern Manifest, in opposition to Brown vs Board of Education. The other 99 segregationists were all Democrats.

    Sort of makes my point, not yours. Segregationist Republicans were rare as hen’s teeth, and segregationist Democrats (in the South) were the rule.

    Segregation was part of the Democratic Party platform for a century, and opposition to segregation has been a part of the Republican Party platform for ever.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Flex:

    “Again, racism was not aligned with party affiliation.”

    I don’t think I’ve ever read a more stupid comment on the internet. There should be some kind of recognition for this.

  • dingojack

    Bwhahahaha!

    Nice to see your creditable sources there, dimwit!

    Angie Zapata.

    James Zappalorti

    These are just the murders that were well-known enough to get onto Wikipedia. A more through search would find all those that stayed curled up next to the sport-sections of local rags, those where the victim disappeared without trace, those where the family didn’t report it (or nobody reported it), those where there weren’t suspects and those where the motive is never known. Then there are the rapes, sexual assaults, assaults, robberies and etc.

    Let’s say, low-balling little, about 400 murders and several thousand assaults…

    So – where’s your comparable list?

    Dingo

  • flex

    Actually, the phrase wasn’t “famous” at all. It was an obscure phrase written by a man who had nothing to do with the Constitution in a private latter (sic)

    And the goalposts have caught fire from the heat generated by receding so rapidly.

    “Separation of church and state” was the currency of bigots, and only bigots, up to Everson. After Everson, it remains the currency of bigots.

    Wow. Just wow. A principle which, even if it was used poorly in the past, which is currently understood to mean that the state must avoid promoting or degrading any religious belief compared to another (in as far as those beliefs are compatible with laws which apply to everyone) is the “currency of bigots”.

    Look idiot, we have ample historical evidence about what happens to people in states which force a particular religion on a population which has a variety of religions. It has never ended well for those people of the wrong faith. All religions have been oppressed at some point, and most religions have been oppressors at some point. The Catholics have been both at various times.

    If a protestant church tries to hide behind the idea of separation of church and state to oppress Catholics, I’ve got your back. I’ll fight against it right along side of you. But don’t claim that Catholics have the right to make the state impose their religion on anyone else. We all abide by the same laws, and the law about public accommodation is settled.

    If you provide service to the public, you can’t pick and choose which public you serve. If your religious beliefs prevent you from serving all of the public, then you have a choice to not provide the service or restrict your service to non-public.

  • Lady Mondegreen

    DukeDog, give up on your sophistry. Nobody here is buying it. Yes, once upon a time, the Republican party was the liberal, progressive one. Everyone here knows that. Then it stopped being that. History is clear on the subject.

    As the twentieth century came to a close, most white voters in the South had shifted to the Republican Party. It began to try to appeal again to black voters and rebuild the political relationship that had lasted through the 1920s, though with little success.[5] In 2005, Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman formally apologized to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), a national civil rights organization, for exploiting racial polarization to win elections and ignoring the black vote.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

  • flex

    and segregationist Democrats (in the South) were the rule

    I have never denied that the segregationist democrats were in the majority, but you claimed that no segregationist republicans existed. I can probably find more if I dig for more than a couple minutes on google. But it really isn’t important. The lesson to be learned is that racism was part of Southern culture, influencing members of all political parties.

    The Democratic party has, in the present day, moved beyond 1948. The Democratic party even acknowledges the problems it had with racism in the past. Today it doesn’t tolerate overt racism and encourages it’s members to think about institutional racism, even in the south. This can’t be said for the Republican party today.

    So while it’s been fun watching you foam at the mouth today, I’m going to go home and play with building some more bookshelves, than have a nice whisky and soda.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Flex:

    “Again, racism was not aligned with party affiliation.”

    Sorry, I can’t let this go.

    One party (starts with “D”) was the slave-owning party, caused a war to defend slavery, founded the KKK, authored all Jim Crow laws, built segregation, lynched blacks by the thousands, opposed all civil rights legislation for 150 years as a matter of party platform and fought maniacally against recognition of the dignity and rights of blacks until it was no longer politically advantageous to do so.

    Another party (starts with “R”) was founded as the anti-slavery party. It fought a war to free slaves, granted broad rights (13th and 14th Amendment and Reconstruction) to black Americans for the first time in American history, and fought for 150 years for civil rights and desegregation and for anti-lynching laws and instituted Affirmative Action and desegregated Southern schools (Nixon) after appointing a member of the (R) party as chief justice of the supreme court (Warren) who wrote the Brown decision and passed the first civil rights legislation since (it’s previous civil rights legislation) Reconstruction in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1966.

    So racism was “not aligned with party affiliation”? This is Nobel Prize for Stupidity-level commenting.

    Ed, surely you have some kind of award for this!

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Flex:

    “Today [the Democrat party] doesn’t tolerate overt racism”

    http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2013/03/26/25-examples-of-liberal-racism-in-quotes-n1549044/page/full#!

    Another Nobel for Stupidity Flex.

    Democrats don’t tolerate racism. They extol it.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Flex:

    The cup is bottomless:

    “If you provide service to the public, you can’t pick and choose which public you serve.”

    Hence:

    “Get me a beer, Muslim”

    “Cook me a steak, Hindu”

    “Make me a ham sandwich, Jew”

    “Bake me a gay wedding cake, Christian”

    “Sew me a Klan hood, Nigger”

    Why is this so damn easy?

  • John Pieret

    More that you can learn about the law, legal eagle.

    The only thing I could learn from you is how to make a dishonest argument, like the ones you’ve been making here.

    Historians generally consider Black’s membership in the Klan, beginning in 1923, was only to further his political career and lasted only 2 years. In the 1920s the Klan elected officials all across the country and respectable middle class people joined it.

    As to the exact phrase, Black was known to have widely read Jefferson and may well have known about the letter to the Danbury Baptists. Also, James Madison used a similar phrase: “Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together …”

    It’s nothing but your speculation that he took the phrase from the Klan Manual, which he had not been a member of for almost two and a half decades when he wrote Everson, instead of from Jefferson.

  • John Pieret

    Why is this so damn easy?

    Because you ignore the difference between a business selling a particular service to every one and one that sells a service to some people but not to others based on a criteria that, in some places, has been deemed to be discriminatory. In short you think it’s easy because you are stupid or dishonest or likely both.

  • Chris J

    theDukedog7:

    So why ask for a gay wedding cake? A gay person could just walk in and ask for a wedding cake, without indicating it was for a gay wedding. There wouldn’t be a problem.

    It is the fact that the customer identifies it to the baker as a gay wedding cake that is the problem.

    Ah, wonderful. So you admit that baking a cake for a wedding between gay folks is in no way taking part in that wedding. Because if it was, then there would be a problem even if the baker didn’t know the cake was for a wedding between gay folks.

    And so, therefore, identifying it to the baker shouldn’t make the slightest bit of difference.

    Please, explain how this is wrong. And please stay away from analogies in the process; you’re bad at them.

  • John Pieret

    Continuing on with what I said in 96, even if Black took the phrase from the Klan oath, so what? Do you think all the Justices in Everson were Klan members? Do you think that the phrase gave them all Klan cooties? Do you think that proves that everyone who supports church/state separation is a member of the Klan? Do you check under your bed every night for Klansmen?

    It’s bullshit argument all around.

  • Chris J

    Dukedog is, in fact, advocating a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy towards cake baking. Which totally reinforces the notion that this whole matter is really truly honestly about Christians standing up for their principles, and not about those Christian’s particular icks.

    There is no issue with grocery stores selling phallic-shaped produce, even if that produce doesn’t end up being used for food. Asking, or refusing to sell that produce even if you somehow hear about what it is going to be used for, would be wrong (and not allowed in some form, either by law or store policy). If you’re a christian with a bakery that sells wedding cakes, even if you come to know that it will be used for a wedding you don’t approve of, you don’t get to discriminate.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Legal Eagle:

    “Historians generally consider Black’s membership in the Klan, beginning in 1923, was only to further his political career and lasted only 2 years.”

    Well, that’s certainly exculpatory. “I only joined a murderous racist hate group for 2 years to further my political career “. I see the nobility in it.

    “In the 1920s the Klan elected officials all across the country and respectable middle class people joined it.”

    So joining the Klan and becoming the Kleagle for recruiting for the entire state to further your political career is what “respectable middle class people” do.

    But if you decline politely to bake a gay wedding cake because you’re a devout Christian, that labels you a moral reprobate and heinous criminal who deserves to be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars and lose your livelihood.

    Perhaps if a Christian baker is asked to bake a gay wedding cake, she should say “I’d like to but I can’t. I’m a respectable middle class lady so I have to join the KKK today.”

    “As to the exact phrase, Black was known to have widely read Jefferson and may well have known about the letter to the Danbury Baptists.”

    Right. Black would have the words of Jefferson’s private letters ringing in his soul, but he really had no memory of the KKK initiation oath he administered hundreds of times.

    “It’s nothing but your speculation that he took the phrase from the Klan Manual, which he had not been a member of for almost two and a half decades when he wrote Everson, instead of from Jefferson.”

    Yea. It’s not like Alabama senator lack had a lot of contact with KKKers and racists during the decade he was in the Senate. All of those stories about Black using KKK rallies in his reelection campaigns are just hear-say. And Jefferson was Black’s inspiration for getting an acquittal of the guy who killed the priest in cold blood because he married someone to a Puerto Rican. Jefferson’s distaste for Puerto Ricans had a big influnce on Black.

    You’re really a piece of shit, Pieret.

  • Alverant

    Duke, all you’ve done is repeat the same, worn out and disproved memes while denying the fact that things have changed. You’re still comparing christians who might have to serve customers they don’t like to being rounded up and put in ghettos.

    But if you decline politely to bake a gay wedding cake because you’re a devout Christian, that labels you a moral reprobate and heinous criminal who deserves to be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars and lose your livelihood.

    Where do you get this “heinous criminal” BS? This is the kind of persecution complex we’re talking about. You can’t discriminate against others ergo YOU are the victim. And yes, refusing to do your job because of your opinions DOES make you a moral reprobate. You can have opinions, but using them as justification to violate another’s right is morally wrong.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @ Legal Eagle who considers Klan membership for political advancement respectable:

    “Continuing on with what I said in 96, even if Black took the phrase from the Klan oath, so what?”

    There’s no “if” Sherlock.

    “Do you think all the Justices in Everson were Klan members?”

    No. I think a Klan member (is there any evidence that Black ever handed in his membership card?) put in words the regnant bigotry on the court. Furthermore, as you ought to know, Black’s decision found in favor of the taxpayer funding for school transportation, while he inserted the “separation” phrase to incorporate the Establishment Clause (for the first time) and thus established precedent. It was a brilliant legal move–he appeared to uphold the funding for religious education, but set a precedent that would ultimately destroy it.

    Black was bigoted scum wearing a hood, but he was no fool

    “Do you think that proves that everyone who supports church/state separation is a member of the Klan?”

    People who support “separation” are wrong about the Constitution, either by mistake or culpably. The phrase has a provenance, and the concept has a provenance. The provenance has a lot less to do with Jefferson than it does with Nathan Bedford Forrest. Honest people would admit that.

    “Do you check under your bed every night for Klansmen?”

    No but I check blogs occassionally for people who carry their water for them.

  • blf

    [AIDS] is inflicted on gays by gays.

    Not in Africa.

  • John Pieret

    acquittal of the guy who killed the priest

    You sort of leave out the part that the accused was Rev. Edwin R. Stephenson, a Methodist minister and the woman he married to the Puerto Rican was Stephenson’s daughter, which, of course, is no excuse but is a bit more than just generalized bigotry. So, yes, otherwise respectable people like ministers joined the Klan. And defending a Klan member who had killed a Catholic in those days would hardly have taken any effort. The bigotry of the people in the south against Catholics was, indeed, horrible … which is a very good reason to keep church and state separate.

    As to politicking at Klan rallies in Alabama and Ohio and Tennessee and many other states was just going where the voters were. Does that reduce my respect for him as a person? Yeah? Again, so what? His work as a Supreme Court Justice was exemplary.

    So joining the Klan and becoming the Kleagle for recruiting for the entire state to further your political career is what “respectable middle class people” do.

    But if you decline politely to bake a gay wedding cake because you’re a devout Christian, that labels you a moral reprobate and heinous criminal who deserves to be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars and lose your livelihood.

    Joining the Klan wasn’t illegal; discriminating against gays was, in that case, a violation of the law. Incidentally, he hasn’t been fined hundreds of thousands, that was a recommendation by an administrative judge to the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries. I would be very surprised if that large amount will be approved. All the other cases have, I believe, involved relatively small fines that threaten no one’s business or livelihood.

    You’re really a piece of shit, Pieret.

    Why, thank you! Coming from you, I consider that a wonderful compliment!

  • John Pieret

    People who support “separation” are wrong about the Constitution, either by mistake or culpably. The phrase has a provenance, and the concept has a provenance.

    Really? Words are material things that are “born”? And everyone who supports the concept turns into Klan members out to murder priests?

    It’s just a shame that a brilliant legal scholar like you, who knows better than all those judges and law school professors and the like, was never named to the Supreme Court.

    Damn! I’m good! I said that with a straight face!

  • sharonb

    What cracks me up is that sophisticated like Duke dog think their precious little “history lesson” somehow proves that today’s Democratic Party is the racist regressive reactionary party, while his beloved Republican party of today is not the other-hating, antiwoman, Christianist, Muslim fearing, gay bashing, poor shaming, victim blaming, minority suppressing organization that it is. His argument is risible on its face.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Legal Beagle:

    “Words are material things that are “born”? And everyone who supports the concept turns into Klan members out to murder priests?”

    I think the concept of “separation…” is vapid and ought to be of no legal relevance. You and yours have endowed it with transcendent importance, placing at the cornerstone of Establishment Clause law. I merely insist that if you embrace the concept, you have to account for it’s real origin and salience. It is a throw-away comment made by a man who had nothing to do with the Constitution and who detested judicial review that has been adopted by cultured and not-so-cultured despisers of religion.

    And I am debating a lawyer who argues this topic in public to whom this provenance is news. Disgusting.

    “It’s just a shame that a brilliant legal scholar like you, who knows better than all those judges and law school professors and the like, was never named to the Supreme Court.”

    Apparently they didn’t teach you this in law school: we the people are sovereign, not lawyers and judges. Every citizen is a legal scholar, or at least should aspire to be. We decide what the Constitution means. You are our employees, and we have let you scumbags get away with too much. You gave us Dred Scott, Plessy vrs Ferguson, Buck vrs Bell, Everson, Vitale, Lawrence, and Roe. you have a lot to account for.

    No one who endorses “separation of church and state” should have a law license.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @sharonb:

    A cut and paste SJW!

    How’s the weather in Madison?

  • flex

    Democrats don’t tolerate racism. They extol it.

    Let’s look at those 25 quote, why don’t we…

    1. Yeap, racism against black people.

    2. Possibly racism against white people, but talking about accomplishments from quite a long time ago.

    3. Bigotry against Jews

    4. Potentially racist, but also potentially an accurate observation about the changes in American society and expectations.

    5. I suspect Nader would have used that phrase against any sitting president, black or not.

    6. Mentions race, but negative only in the sense of the implication that other Americans are quite racist.

    7. Not racist. An insult suggesting someone else was racist.

    8. The statement is incorrect, civil rights laws protect all people. I would agree that this quote it suggests a degree of racism against whites. It is not proven, however, and it is certainly the case that the civil rights legislation was primarily aimed at reducing discrimination against blacks and not whites. However, that doesn’t mean that whites don’t get benefits from them too. I tried looking up the context and the first 10 pages of results are all by conservatives and white-pride pages repeating the quote with indignation or as evidence of a conspiracy.

    9. Not racist. An accurate depiction of a political strategy. Money quote; “There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans…”

    10. Anti-Muslim bigotry.

    11. Not racist. It suggests that those who are against abortion are racist. There is a difference.

    12. Calling someone (or lots of someone’s) a bigot is not racism.

    13. Antisemitism.

    14. Racist. I’ll mention here that most liberals have distanced themselves from J. Wright. He has been said some bigoted things, and the party repudiates them.

    15. Racist.

    16. Inflammatory, but appears to have been said for comedic affect rather than seriously.

    17. Angry yes, racist, possibly, to little to tell.

    18. Antisemitism

    19. Stupid attempt to make a joke. Racist.

    20. Implication that other people are racist. Not racist in itself.

    21. Mean and possibly racist.

    22. Not necessarily racist. Certainly frustrated about disparate treatment of people.

    23. Racist, but what do you expect from Marion Berry?

    24. Not obviously racist. But certainly generalizing more than is appropriate.

    25. Not necessarily racist. Describing generalized experiences does not necessarily equate to racism.

    However, this entire list is outside of the main point. The point wasn’t that liberals don’t occasionally say things which are racist, but that the Democratic party has made it clear that racism is not what the party stands for.

    Here are some statements from the Democratic Party:

    including marriage equality in the party platform in 2012, Democrats have fought to end discrimination in all forms—including discrimination based on race, sex, ethnicity or national origin, language, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, or disability.

    Racial and religious profiling is wrong and we will work to stamp it out.

    We need to end the unjust practice of racial profiling in America.

    Our commitment to civil rights is ironclad.

    I acknowledge that the Republican party does not overtly promote racism, but it doesn’t really address it either.

    Republican party planks:

    We reaffirm our support for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman

    homosexuality is incompatible with military service.

    Because we are opposed to discrimination, we reject preferences, quotas, and set-asides based on skin color, ethnicity, or gender,…

    Well, here is a statement which says that any affirmative action is bad.

    We support the public display of the Ten Commandments as a reflection of our history and of our country’s Judeo-Christian heritage

    Old Glory should be given legal protection against desecration

    There are only a couple mentions of civil rights or liberties in the Republican party platform. Once in a statement about education saying that ” Getting those youngsters into decent learning environments and helping them to realize their full potential is the greatest civil rights challenge of our time.” Way to ignore current problems.

    The second one is in praise of a Senate resolution against Iran which says, in part, “a representative and responsive

    democratic government that respects human rights, civil liberties, and the rule of law.” I suppose what we can’t have here, we should promote over there.

    As I wrote earlier, the Democratic party has recognized that racism is a problem in America. The Democratic party is aware of it’s past, and doesn’t hide from it.

    The Republican party hardly acknowledges that racism exists in America, and the only platform plank which hints at it directly is to eliminate any affirmative action.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @sharonb:

    What exactly is it that makes us conservative Catholic Republicans “anti-woman”?

    Is it that we didn’t elect a serial sex offender to the presidency in 1992 and 1996?

    Or that we never elected a senator who let a young woman drown in his car while he slept off his blood alcohol level and planned his political future in a hotel room?

    Or is it because we don’t think that nuns should be forced to pay for your contraception?

    Or is it because we think that all women have a right to life, even the little disposable ones?

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Flex:

    The Democrat Party feeds off racial fear and hate. If there were racial harmony, Democrats would never win another national election. That’s why Sharpton is so valuable to the Democrat coalition. Gotta keep it stirred up.

    The Republican Party believes the law should be colorblind (ya know, like what MLK said). It does not stir up racial strife, it tries to heal racial fears. It insists that we look at content of character, not color of skin.

    And it’s bizarre that you would identify opposition to affirmative action as racist. Affirmative action is legally-mandated racism.

    As Chief Justice Roberts said: “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. “

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Flex:

    “The Republican party hardly acknowledges that racism exists in America… ”

    Of course racism exists in America. Whites are racist against blacks. Blacks are racist against whites. Light-skinned blacks are racist against dark-skinned blacks. Vietnamese don’t really like Chinese people. Chinese people are still pissed off at the Japanese. Guatemalans aren’t too fond of Peruvians. and on and on and on…

    People move in groups. We’ve always been racist and always will be.

    Two worthwhile goals:

    1) Try to be as little racist as we can. Christianity is rather good at fostering this: Galatians 3:28.

    2) Government and law should be color-blind, and political parties should not race-bait and play off racial fear for racial gain.

    I should note, however, that I do support reparations for slavery and segregation. Democrats should reimburse blacks for all of the horrors that have inflicted, and still inflict (in the municipalities they misgovern).

  • http://kamakanui.zenfolio.com Kamaka

    @ John Pieret

    OK, you know as well as I do Catholic culture is abusive. Perhaps the Jezzies not so much, but I don’t know.

    Dukie dog is the personification of catholic cruelty, he delights in abusive verbiage. His know-it-all game tells us all we-need-to-know about him. He is a hamster wheel of verbal abuse.

  • sharonb

    SJW is a strawman created so MRAs can feel righteous about themselves.

  • sharonb

    @111

    No, because they don’t trust women to make autonomous sexual or healthcare choices for themselves, and try to use the power of big government to coerce non-Catholic and Catholic women into having and making only the choices that their Catholic Religion approves (Sharia, if the Islamists did it). Oh, and coincidentally shutting down healthcare centers for poor women under bogus “safety” as part of the process. A Feature, not a bug, I imagine.

  • flex

    Let me place these two comments side by side:

    If there were racial harmony, Democrats would never win another national election

    We’ve always been racist and always will be.

    So we are always racist, and so there is never going to be racial harmony, so the Democrats will always be around.

    You have some weird logic patterns.

    But, if I was to point out that a century of slavery and a century of segregation has marginalized and impoverished black people in America, and that affirmative action programs are a means of trying to correct for millions of lost opportunities over the last two centuries, to in a small way counter the forces of wealth and privilege which have denied them (and continue to deny them) equal status as among peers. You say that this is unacceptably racist. How very Christian of you.

    And if I was to point out the startling differences in the racial proportions of prison populations, is this evidence that government and the law are acting in a color-blind fashion?

    Democrats should reimburse blacks for all of the horrors that have inflicted, and still inflict (in the municipalities they misgovern).

    Wow. You’ve certainly got a hard-on against democrats. You seem to think they are to blame for everything. Can I get some money for my hair-loss? That must be because of democrats!

    Or maybe, maybe policies which are have been shown to work, like the EITC, Medicare, Medicade, Social Security, unemployment benefits, and yes, even the ACA, policies which have helped people escape poverty should funded and expanded.

    Maybe policies which provide oversight to policing, Policies to reform our judicial system, like funding it properly so it doesn’t have to impose rolling fines on people. Fund the IRS properly so it can catch tax-dodgers, although a better tax code would help that as well. Regulate the slum lords better so they maintain the property they are renting to poor people, black or white.

    Maybe these things should be done. And since the Republicans have majorities in both houses of congress, they could do them. What a great opportunity for the Republican leadership to show how they can improve America!

    Or they could continue to blame everything on democrats.

    Now that’s a winning strategy. With you at least.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @116 MRA-hating SJW:

    “No, because they don’t trust women to make autonomous sexual or healthcare choices for themselves”

    Forcing Catholics to pay for your contraception is your definition of autonomy? We’re trying to get out of your bedroom as fast as we can.

    “and try to use the power of big government to coerce non-Catholic and Catholic women into having and making only the choices that their Catholic Religion approves”

    If you mean contraception, I assure that we’re trying to have as little to do with your “choices” as possible.

    “(Sharia, if the Islamists did it).”

    That sounds Islamaphobic. Is there a central SJW reporting center I can call to get you some retraining?

    “Oh, and coincidentally shutting down healthcare centers for poor women under bogus “safety” as part of the process.”

    Good point. Don’t want to go snoopin’ around and interferin’ with the killin’. Planned Parenthood’s got their quotas.

    “A Feature, not a bug, I imagine.”

    Yea. Saves a few babies and a few moms and assures good medical care.

    Funny that abortion abattoirs are about the only thing you don’t want to regulate.

    I’m sure if it was a bakery and somebody didn’t want to bake a cake, you’d call the cake SWAT team.

    But Gosnell’s abortion clinic: hey why get the gover’ment involved?

  • theDukedog7 .

    @sharonb:

    Hey, why is it a choice to kill a baby, but not a choice to bake a cake?

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Flex:

    “But, if I was to point out that a century of slavery and a century of segregation has marginalized and impoverished black people in America, and that affirmative action programs are a means of trying to correct for millions of lost opportunities over the last two centuries, to in a small way counter the forces of wealth and privilege which have denied them (and continue to deny them) equal status as among peers.”

    Democrat reparations to blacks. Nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come. The Clintons can start first–they seem to have some extra cash on hand.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Flex:

    “Maybe policies which provide oversight to policing, Policies to reform our judicial system, like funding it properly so it doesn’t have to impose rolling fines on people. Fund the IRS properly so it can catch tax-dodgers, although a better tax code would help that as well. Regulate the slum lords better so they maintain the property they are renting to poor people, black or white.”

    Interesting ideas.

    How about an idea that has been tried and works well every time: how about electing people to run your municipality who aren’t fools or gangsters?

    We tried it in NYC with Giuliani and Bloomberg, and it transformed the city.

    Stop pullin’ that “D” lever. It’s amazing what a little honesty and competence can do.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Flex:

    “And if I was to point out the startling differences in the racial proportions of prison populations, is this evidence that government and the law are acting in a color-blind fashion?”

    What could you possible mean by that?

    Do you want affirmative action for prison?

    “We sent one black guy to jail, so we gotta find a white guy to lock up”? Hell, why not make it gender neutral: every man who goes arrested, gotta arrest a woman too!

    How about affirmative action for criminal trials. Judges instruction to the jury: “Consider only the evidence, and of course the race of the accused so as to assure racial balance in conviction rates…”

    More blacks are in jail because more blacks commit crimes. Why that is is the interesting question. The evaporation of the two parent family in black communities, the crappy schools, the pervasive presence of gangs are all factors.

    The really cool thing Flex is that your ideological liberal comrades govern all of the cities in which these problems are festering. How about you guys fixing your own cities before you pontificate to the rest of us how to do it.

    Turn Detroit and Baltimore around. Then tell us how you did it.

  • John Pieret

    @ 108:

    It is a throw-away comment made by a man who had nothing to do with the Constitution and who detested judicial review

    Wait a minute! If Jefferson had nothing to do with the Constitution and his opinion as to separation of church and state is worthless, why would his opinion have any value as to judicial review? Can’t reason your way out of a paper bag, can you?

    Apparently they didn’t teach you this in law school: we the people are sovereign, not lawyers and judges. Every citizen is a legal scholar, or at least should aspire to be. We decide what the Constitution means.

    Then why did that selfsame Constitution say, at Article III, Section 2:

    “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority … ?”

    It doesn’t say the “The individual citizen’s power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made …” And, BTW, your aspirations have gone badly awry.

    The extent that citizens have to decide what the Constitution is comes from the amendment process. Given the present public support for gay marriage and gay rights in general, we’ll await your attempts in that regard with bated breath.

    No one who endorses “separation of church and state” should have a law license.

    [Shrug] And, in my opinion, no one as stupid and/or as dishonest as you should have a medical license. I’m sure you’ll lose as much sleep over my opinion as I and the rest of the legal profession will lose over yours.

  • flex

    Democrat reparations to blacks.

    Very strange. Apparently only democrats were involved in the slave trade, or Jim Crow, and all democrats opposed the civil rights acts (even the ones who voted for it).

    And all democrats breed true, They are a separate species. The only democrats today were born of earlier generations of democrats. (They must breed like rabbits. [And we like it!])

    Democrats are a separate society, a fifth-column buried in American culture, with a mission to wrest control from the patriotic republicans and sell true American patriots/republicans to be used for medical experimentation in Tangiers. (And we would have gotten away with it if it wasn’t for those pesky…..”

    And people who are republican today could never have been democrats in the past. Purity of Essence!

    And people who are democrats today could never have been republicans in the past.

    Everything is unchanging and eternal.

    You know, there is a difference in philosophy that I generally see between modern democrats and republicans. Although I should probably say between modern conservatives and modern progressives (the categories do not fully overlap). The difference is the difference between YOYO and WITT. YOYO stands for You’re On Your Own, while WITT is for We’re all In This Together.

    If we were all treated fairly under the law, and had an equality of opportunities, YOYO may not be a bad philosophy. Of course, it would require that no one inherits any wealth. It would require that all admissions to schools were blinded, the acceptance boards couldn’t even see names or any activities which would relate to location (among other things). It would mean people would get a guaranteed living wage, although by your talents you could earn more. It would ensure equal access to transportation, information, and enough free time for everyone to be able to keep track of all the important things going on in their lives. In other words, YOYO would work if many of the necessities of life were taken care of. It’s no surprise that rich and successful people are more likely to be YOYOs.

    Clearly we aren’t there.

    But we can be WITT’s. We do rely on each other an awful lot. A collapse of civilization would kill most of us. Even most of the survivalists would perish. So we are all in this together. So we might as well make the best of it. Which means lending a helping hand to those who need it, and maybe even though who simply want it. How can we easily tell? Which means working to provide opportunities to others. Which means putting limits on our freedoms voluntarily because if we don’t, we won’t leave a world worth living in to our children.

    Oh, I don’t expect everyone to get along. But we don’t need to oppose efforts to make the world better simply because we are in different political parties. We should be more willing to call out the harmful behavior in our own parties, and be less tolerant of harmful behavior when it reflects on us.

    Of course, an objective look at the world suggests it doesn’t work like that.

    Which shouldn’t stop us from working toward it.

  • theDukedog7 .

    Your comment about my medical license is revealing. You know absolutely nothing about my medical skills. I could be a genius or a hack.

    Yet you don’t think I should be licensed because I disagree with you politically.

    You guys really are thugs.

  • John Pieret

    Oh, I forgot to add to 123:

    I previously gave you the quote from James Madison, who had everything to do with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. expressing the same understanding of church/state separation as Jefferson … which is hardly surprising, since they were close friends and often discussed such issues and were, almost entirely, in agreement. Jefferson might have been away as ambassador to France during the Constitutional Convention but Madison had his friend’s thinking in mind throughout.

  • sharonb

    Duke, you excel at putting words in people’s mouths they never said and defeating arguments they never made, and painting others with labels they do not hold. Really easy to win these arguments you have with imaginary enemies of your fantastic intelligence. However, at the end of the day you are the winner crowned in an empty room, deafened by the applause from voices in your head. All you reinforce is, as gandhi said, “I like your Christ; I do not like your christians, they are so unlike your Christ.”

  • John Pieret

    Yet you don’t think I should be licensed because I disagree with you politically.

    You don’t think I should be licensed as a lawyer because I disagree with you about the law and Constitution. I’m glad, at least, that you got my point!

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Flex:

    Ya know, your syrupy paean to liberal governance would have had me tearing up a few decades ago. Hey, why can’t we all just get along.

    I’m old enough now to see the YOYO/WITT rhetoric for what it is.

    I don’t give a sh*t about what you say. I’m done with liberal a**holes rhapsodizing about how much better the world would be if we just listened more to liberals.

    You run things. You run towns and cities and states. Compared to towns and cities and states that conservatives run, you suck. Every sh*thole crime-infested slum in the US is run by you.

    Shove your WITT up you know where.

    Fix Baltimore. Show us. We are sick of your idiot talk.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @sharonb:

    Stop defending the killing of children in the womb, and I’ll take your moral exhortations seriously.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @128:

    We’ve been discussing law. You have no business practicing it.

    We have not been discussing medicine. If I said that the brain was located in the knee, which is analogous to your views on law, you would be right to insist that I should not be licensed.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Perry Mason:

    Your point about Madison makes my case, not yours. Madison is indeed a more credible source of constitutional interpretation than Jefferson (in a personal letter, no less).

    So why did Black quote Jefferson?

    Because it was Jefferson’s phrase, not Madison’s, that was recited in the Klan oath.

  • flex

    More blacks are in jail because more blacks commit crimes. Why that is is the interesting question.

    Yes, that is an interesting question. I suggest you go do some reading on it. It might surprise you. How about you start here: http://newjimcrow.com/

    I live near Detroit. It’s not so bad. What it needs is jobs, and there is some growth there.

    There are plenty of reasons why Detroit had problems. And certainly some of them were caused by a politician who was so loved by the populace that they never paid attention to the corruption. But big city politicians are not the only one’s who succumb to hero worship. Sheriff Joe shouldn’t be holding a job right now, but he has fans. And wasn’t there a town recently where a black woman was elected mayor and most of the police force quit?

    However, there are other reasons for Detroit’s problems. One of them was caused by the increase in rental properties. I tend to agree with Henry George that an excessive amount of rental properties in a town will lead to lower property values as landlords have little interest to maintain the property, just maximize profits.

    Then as the suburbs were built, people who could afford to move away from Detroit did so. There were sunset communities and there is still a good about of racism among residents of SE Michigan.

    A lot of manufacturing jobs moving south or overseas has helped keep Detroit broken, most of the Detroit jobs were in manufacturing and as that sector of the economy dried up, the jobs did too.

    One of the problems is that Detroit is a rather large city, with two or three civic centers, but the square miles it covers is huge. So providing services to all the homes on a declining tax base is difficult. Now that many parts of Detroit are being re-forested the amount of services necessary is declining.

    And of course, the feeling of the rest of the state is that Detroit is a sink-hole of poor, black people so the willingness to help the city recover is limited. I have a friend who won’t visit my house because I live south of eight-mile and they would never get that close to Detroit out of fear. I feel sorry for him, he’s missing out on a great art gallery, the DIA, concerts by the DSO, opera at the MOT, plays at the Fisher, Tigers games, Lions games, Greenfield Village and Henry Ford Museum (Dearborn but adjacent), Greek-town, Mexican-town, and even casinos if that’s your idea of fun.

    Does Detroit have it’s bad points? Sure. But it isn’t Mos Eisley.

  • John Pieret

    We’ve been discussing law. You have no business practicing it.

    Which is based on nothing more than your uninformed opinion about the law, the Constitution and me. We have also seen, all too many times, your stupid and dishonest arguments. I and everyone here have every bit as much information about your stupidity and dishonesty as you have about my ability to practice law. Admittedly, you might think that stupidity and dishonesty are good traits for a doctor to have but, then, others may disagree.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Flex:

    You liberals have been applying your wisdom to Detroit for generations. No Republican YOYO’s to slow you down.

    Yet inner city Detroit looks like Hiroshima a couple of days after. Did a bomb hit it?

    http://rightturnforever.com/2013/05/lala-land/

    “It’s better to be nuked than controlled by liberals.”

  • theDukedog7 .

    @unemployed lawyer:

    You find that “gay marriage” clause and that “separation…” clause in the Constitution, and I’ll give you your license back.

    I don’t like lawyers who make sh*t up.

  • flex

    how much better the world would be if we just listened more to liberals

    Strange. I didn’t think I said that. Did I say that? Let me look. Nope. I didn’t say that.

    What I did say is that things can be done. You can help too.

    Every sh*thole crime-infested slum in the US is run by you.

    Only because your crowd doesn’t see any value in them.

    Once the profits are taken from them, your kind flee.

    Leaving the democrats to clean up your mess.

    You’re blaming the plumber for your shit.

    Fix Baltimore

    Help us get the tools to do so.

    Which means eliminating institutional racism in the police department and establishing oversight.

    Stopping the war on drugs.

    Eliminating confiscatory laws before trial.

    Creating and enforcing landlord accountability.

    Repairing infrastructure.

    Provide more open space/parks.

    Improve public transportation.

    Offering incentives for business to locate there, and hire local people.

    Offer free training in skilled trades with the opportunity for higher education.

    These things work. It’s worked in the past and will work again.

    But you have to be willing to help out, because it’s not going to happen without tax money.

  • John Pieret

    Because it was Jefferson’s phrase, not Madison’s, that was recited in the Klan oath.

    Ah, so you admit that it wasn’t the Klan’s phrase but it was simply quoting Jefferson. They also talked about upholding Christianity. Does that make Christianity’s “provenance” also suspect?

    You know you are not very good at this. Maybe you should consult the Dunning–Kruger effect.

  • flex

    “It’s better to be nuked than controlled by liberals.”

    More jingoism presented as facts.

    I could probably find pictures of a few building in Hiroshima which are due for demolition and compare it with the new buildings being put up in Detroit. But why?

    Nor did I say that Detroit was a city without problems, and I listed a number of the reasons why Detroit has problems.

    Did you respond to that list?

    No.

    You have a narrative in your head which is immune to reasoned discourse.

  • John Pieret

    @ 136:

    You find that “gay marriage” clause and that “separation…” clause in the Constitution, and I’ll give you your license back.

    We’ve been through this before but your “invincible ignorance” will not let you acknowledge it! One last time:

    The Fourteenth Amendment says:

    No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Unless you are claiming that LGBT people aren’t persons, they are entitled to the same rights, privileges and responsibilities that the law bestows on married straight people. Yeah, the people at the time didn’t think it all the way through, just as SCOTUS didn’t think the Fourteenth Amendment all the way through when it decided Plessy. Then it came back to it and corrected its error in Brown v. Board of Education. Hopefully, it will do the same now.

    The Separation Clause is even easier to find in the First Amendment:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

    The Fourteenth Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states and local governments: “No state shall make or enforce any law … ” (local governments, in case you didn’t know … as certainly you didn’t … are created by and are “creatures of the state”).

    How can I have free exercise of my religion or lack thereof if the state uses my tax money to promote or denigrate any particular religion or religion in general. I’m relatively sure, if you weren’t so stupid and/or dishonest, that you wouldn’t be happy if your tax money was used to promote, oh, say, the Baptist faith … maybe by using your tax money to put up a monument to the Protestant version of the Ten Commandments on public property, implicitly denigrating the Douay-Rheims Bible.

    Thus, government, in order to avoid impeding my free exercise of my religion, which can be the choice not to exercise any religion, has to stay neutral in the whole question of religion … hence, separation of church and state.

  • whheydt

    Re: John Pieret @ #140…

    You points about the derivation of separation of church and state are probably a bit too complex for theDukeDog7 to follow. Perhaps he should be reminded of past anti-Catholic discrimination in the US and the recent survey showing that Catholics are down to just over 20% of the US adult population…and declining. Thus, he should be in favor of separation, lest he find himself and his co-religionists on the outside looking in.

  • sharonb

    Wait till duke dog’s RWA fellow travelers turn on him. They are already calling his pope a communist, and his church, the biblical wore of Babylon . And reading comp fail, dog. I am not a sjw, and have never defended the killing of children in the womb. Your making stuff up.you think you can slap dash a label on someone and then you have them all figured out after 5 sentences? You know little, and know not how little you know. You are just a lazy and angry bully and troll. 9th and 14th Ammendment, btw.

  • StevoR

    @129 (& others) compared and contrasted with #95 theDukedog7 . : Anyone else find it interesting that our bad doggy here that keeps shitting and pissing on these threads is too squeamish to spell out ‘shit’and ‘ass’ but is quite happy to say the N-word in full without asterisks?

  • StevoR

    @‘TheDukeDog7’ believed by several commenters here to be the vaguely known~ish Kreationist IDiot ‘Egnorance’ :

    Two days ago I challenged you on the ‘A New Atheist Gathering Over the 4th of July’ thread (comment #4 May 13, 2015 at 10:35 am) to respond to this comment I made earlier :

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2015/05/12/the-taste-of-gina-millers-tears/#comment-423010

    Seems have you have done a “brave Sir Robin” and boldly chickened out and runaway tail tucked between your shit covered legs.

    So I’ll ask again from there :

    @21. theDukedog7 . :

    “We predicted that electing a far left community organizer in 2008 would lead to incompetence and abuse of power in the White House and foreign policy disaster. We repeated the prediction in 2012.”- TDD7

    Which would be a wrong prediction as well as using wrong premises too.

    In fact, Obama has NOT been incompetent or abused his power nor is he realistically describable as “far left” at all. (Faintly left leaning at most, moderate centrist prob’ly really describes him best.) Many folks here (not me) actually consider Obama to be right wing instead. Many here (not me) hate and vehemently criticise Obama on many points because he isn’t left wing *enough* for them – e.g. over his drone campaign against Jihadist terrorists which has, in fairness, been known to cause a lot of innocent “collateral damage” i.e. dead kids and women and civilians who were NOT terrorists.

    Obama was the one who got Osama bin Laden whereas Bush Jr gave up on even chasing that mass murdering evil sack of shit. Obama ended the occupation of Iraq and, whilst not an unqualified success, also got rid of Gaddafi’s dictatorship in Libya among other notable foreign policy accomplishments. Obama has been far more competent and successful both overseas and domestically with, say, the economy than the previous Repub incumbent. Barack Hussein (yeah, Hussein how did he get to be President with that middle name? Oh well, suck it up, guess most folks just don’t care!) Obama has been a remarkable and inspirational – albeit somewhat hamstrung by circumstance (*cough, Obstructionist bigoted Congress, cough*) and at times somewhat disappointing POTUS.

    (.. Snip ..)

    I challenge you to finish the following sentences for me :

    1) I, DukeDog7, believe loving same sex couples should be denied equal rights and ability to have the wedding cakes of their choice at any bakery because _________???

    2) This is different from denying people who are divorced and eat shellfish and rebellious children (who somehow escaped being stoned to death) and others who also broke Levitical Law their marriage cakes because ______ ???

    3) The differences between my position here and that of the Westboro homophobes cult are ________ ???

    Oh & hey Egnorance / Dukedog7, y’might wanna reread a few bits of the bible like the parable of the Samaritan* and try to grasp what it really means and implies.

    * As Isaac Asimov – a Humanist Jewish-Russian-American – wrote :

    “The trouble is that the one word that is NOT translated in the Book of Ruth is the key word “Moabite,” and as long as it is not translated, the point is lost, it is lost in non-translation.

    The word Moabite [from Ruth’s tale – it also applies for the word Samaritan -ed.] really means “someone of a group that receives from us and deserves from us nothing but hatred and contempt.” How should this word be translated into a single word that means the same thing to, say, many modern Greeks? Why, “Turk.” And to many modern Turks? Why, “Greek.”

    … We forget the point of the parable is entirely vitiated by the common phrase “good” Samaritan for that has cast a false light on who the Samaritans were. . . To the Jews [of Jesus’ time – ed.] the Samaritans were not good. They were hated, despised, contemptible heretics with whom no good Jew would have anything to do. Again, the whole point is lost through non-translation.

    …The Parable of the Good Samaritan clearly teaches that there is nothing parochial in the concept “neighbor,” that you cannot confine your decency to your own group and your own kind. All mankind, right down to those those you most despise are your neighbours.”

    Source : Pages 266-270 Isaac Asimov, “Lost in Non-translation” in ‘Magic’ anthology Harper-Collins, 1996.

    Seems like so often the case, atheists and humanists and leftists know and are a lot more true to the notions of the ole Rabbi Yeshua (Jesus) than you are, no surprise. But maybe think on that some eh?

    So here’s your second, third really, chance to actually answer and respond to this or are you unable and /or unwilling to do so?

  • dingojack

    Stevo – poor ol’ puppy-dog doesn’t do lists, or challenges, it means he have to think.

    Some time earlier I challenged him to provide a list of those killed in America simply for being Christian*. I provided a list of at least 20 people murdered because they were gay (or, in one case, because their murder thought so). No response yet (not that I seriously expected there ever would be).

    You could be waiting some time as well.

    Dingo

    ———

    * as proof that Christian were as, or more, persecuted than homosexuals.

  • dingojack

    Oh and puppy-dog — how long was St. Augustine a member of the Klan? He wrote two books about separating the holy from the political.

    Dingo

    ——–

    PS: Words aren’t magic

  • sugarfrosted

    Thread in a nutshell. Bigot accuses Ed of misrepresentation of mainstream Christianity, for a quoting a Christian leader comparing gay people to Nazis. Then proceeds to compare gay weddings to KKK rallies, ostensibly comparing gay people to KKK members and misrepresents mainstream Christianity.

    Seriously, what is wrong with this shitzu7 fellow?

  • StevoR

    @145. dingojack : Yes, I saw that. Well done & seconded by me. No, I’m not expecting much – but then that refusal to actually answer speaks for itself too and intend to keep reminding DukeDogshit of it too.

    PS. ^ Sugarfrosted you forgot to mention bigot pretends not to be bigot then repeatedly uses the n-word uncensored whilst being all stupidly precious about asterisking ‘shit’ and ‘ass’.

  • John Pieret

    whheydt @ 141:

    Perhaps he should be reminded of past anti-Catholic discrimination in the US

    Oh, I reminded him of that before (see 105). In a previous thread, when I pointed out a recent anti-Catholic article by a religious right author in Charisma magazine, he stomped off in a huff, saying he didn’t need our help. An actual example of the otherwise abused concept of “cognitive dissonance.”

  • John Pieret

    Re 149″

    And the beat goes on:

    This decision gives credence to the theory of many evangelicals that the [Roman Catholic] church is foretold in Revelation as the Harlot and will be given over to apostasy

    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/end-times-pundits-pope-francis-turning-church-whore-babylon#sthash.1KF68DYG.dpuf

  • dingojack

    Ol’ puppy-dog might also like to read The March of Folly by Barbara Tuchman. With particular reference to the Catholic Popes and the Protestant reaction.

    Dingo

  • theDukedog7 .

    @ Constitutional fabulist:

    “Unless you are claiming that LGBT people aren’t persons, they are entitled to the same rights, privileges and responsibilities that the law bestows on married straight people.”

    Neither straights nor gays may marry same sex. That law is applied equally. For it to be a denial of equal protection to gays, the marriage law would have to read: “a citizen may marry anyone he wishes”. But that is not what marriage law says. So it is not a violation of equal protection.

    Drivers license is analogous to marriage license. A blind person may not demand a drivers license based on 14th amendment equal protection guarantee, because the law does not say that just anyone may drive. As with all licensure, the licensee must meet certain criteria. In marriage law, the criteria is opposite sex. It is not a denial of equal protection. It is simply the application of standards which are inherent to the licensure process.

    Now you may disagree that the opposite sex criteria is appropriate for marriage licensure. Your recourse is then to lobby the legislature to change the law. Nothing wrong with that–that’s how licensure laws come to be. But you may not lie about the Constitution by saying that it guarantees gay marriage, which it does not.

    “The Separation Clause is even easier to find in the First Amendment:…

    How can I have free exercise of my religion or lack thereof if the state uses my tax money to promote or denigrate any particular religion or religion in general.”

    The First Amendment proscribes only one religious act: Establishment. It proscribes nothing else. No Establishment means no official federal church. It is fair to extend the No Establishment clause to include any mandatory Religion by federal government, because mandatory is what Establishment means. The federals may not MANDATE worship, or abstention from worship, or prayer, or confession, etc. Mandatory school prayer is unconstitutional. Voluntary school prayer is constitutionally protected (the government cannot mandate abstention from prayer, and free exercise is guaranteed, even in classrooms).

    “I’m relatively sure, if you weren’t so stupid and/or dishonest, that you wouldn’t be happy if your tax money was used to promote, oh, say, the Baptist faith … maybe by using your tax money to put up a monument to the Protestant version of the Ten Commandments on public property, implicitly denigrating the Douay-Rheims Bible.”

    Ever been to Washington, a**hole? It’s loaded with countless Deist/vaguely Protestant inscriptions on monuments, buildings, etc. Ever been in the Lincoln Memorial? On the walls are Lincoln quotes from the King James Bible. That’s my tax money, but I have no objection. I would prefer that there be some kind references to the Blessed Virgin or to the Pope, but my rights aren’t infringed if there aren’t, because neither the Establishment clause nor the Free Exercise clause are violated by government-sponsored religious expression, as long as my participation or assent is not mandatory.

    In school, my kids read the Declaration of Indepenence. It includes a Deist reference to the “Creator”: I would have preferred a reference to Jesus Christ with appropriate hat tip to His Blessed Mother who is Mediator of All Graces. But the Deist “Creator” doesn’t violate my Constitutional rights as a Catholic. Assent in Deism is not mandated.

    The Establishment/Free Exercise clauses are analogous to the Freedom of Speech clause. The fact that my taxpayer money is used to fund speech by government officials does not mean that my freedom of speech right is violated. Obama says things I disagree with every time he speaks– doing so does not deprive me of constitutional free speech rights. I am not requried to agree.

    “Thus, government, in order to avoid impeding my free exercise of my religion, which can be the choice not to exercise any religion, has to stay neutral in the whole question of religion … hence, separation of church and state.”

    Why do you restrict your fabricated “neutrality” requirement (nowhere is it in the Constitution) to religion? Why not extend it to speech? Do you believe that the government has to stay neutral on the expression of political speech, lest my First Amendment rights are violated?

    I point out that the Establishment/Exercise clauses themselves violate the Lemon test: the First Amendment advances religion by guaranteeing free exercise. Is the First Amendment unconstitutional?

    And the Establishment clause can’t be “incorporated” to the states anyway. The Establishment clause is an anti-incorporation clause. It prevents the federal government from establishing national religious policy. So it is self-contradictory to assert that it is a national religious policy to proscribe national religious policy in the states.

    Your legal education continues. I’m revoking your law school diploma as well as your law license.

  • Chris J

    @theDukedog7:

    Hi again!

    Neither straights nor gays may marry same sex. That law is applied equally. For it to be a denial of equal protection to gays, the marriage law would have to read: “a citizen may marry anyone he wishes”. But that is not what marriage law says. So it is not a violation of equal protection.

    Let’s ignore the law for a second, because laws can and do change due to things being constitutional or not, and that’s the whole point of the supreme court case coming up.

    So, what you are saying is that “neither straights nor gays may marry same sex,” is a constitutionally satisfactory version of marriage law. (I know you said “equal protection” clause specifically, but let’s face it; you think more broadly than that)

    So, let’s change the law up a bit. “Neither blacks nor whites (nor any other race) may marry inter-race.” Boom, equal-protection clause satisfied. But wait… banning interracial marriage has been unconstitutional for quite some time. What’s the difference? And remember, we’re talking about constitutional law specifically, not the law that’s currently on the books. You don’t get to appeal to current marriage law as written when the discussion is whether or not that as-written law is constitutional.

    I await your reply.

  • John Pieret

    Neither straights nor gays may marry same sex. That law is applied equally. For it to be a denial of equal protection to gays, the marriage law would have to read: “a citizen may marry anyone he wishes”.

    Here we go again. : “Negroes and white people have the law against interracial marriage applied equally. For it to be a denial of equal protection the marriage law would have to read: “a citizen may marry anyone he wishes,” including people of a different race.”

    As with all licensure, the licensee must meet certain criteria. In marriage law, the criteria is opposite sex. It is not a denial of equal protection. It is simply the application of standards which are inherent to the licensure process.

    What is “inherent” about opposite sex marriage other than your ipse dixit? You have also “declared” that interracial marriage isn’t “inherent” to marriage, despite the broad consensus against you throughout American history. What are you, the dictator of what the law should be?

    Now you may disagree that the opposite sex criteria is appropriate for marriage licensure. Your recourse is then to lobby the legislature to change the law. Nothing wrong with that–that’s how licensure laws come to be. But you may not lie about the Constitution by saying that it guarantees gay marriage, which it does not.

    The Constitution was designed to protect individuals against the tyranny of the majority, especially from ignoramuses like you who play mindless word games to support their bigotry. Are LGBT people “persons” with the right to equal protection under the law?

    The First Amendment proscribes only one religious act: Establishment.

    Um … numbnutz … it also proscribes:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

    It’s loaded with countless Deist/vaguely Protestant inscriptions on monuments, buildings, etc.

    Yeah, and? Are we to believe you are a “ceremonial deist” who is being supported by the government?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceremonial_deism

    I would prefer that there be some kind references to the Blessed Virgin or to the Pope, but my rights aren’t infringed if there aren’t

    Ah, but would they be if the the Religious Right people, whose articles I’ve referenced recently, who are virulently anti-Catholic, were the majority in some place and in charge of a majority government? That’s why the Constitution forbade the tyranny of the majority.

    And the Establishment clause can’t be “incorporated” to the states anyway. The Establishment clause is an anti-incorporation clause. It prevents the federal government from establishing national religious policy. So it is self-contradictory to assert that it is a national religious policy to proscribe national religious policy in the states.

    Wow … I didn’t believe it was possible but you turned your casuistry level up to an 11!!!

    While the Establishment Clause originally applied only to the Federal government, those “citizens” you so revere changed the Constitution with the Fourteenth Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the states and local governments.

    Are you going for the pathetic clown persona now?

  • StevoR

    @152 DukeDogshit : Running away eh?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYFefppqEtE

    (Monty Python brave sir, DukeDog, Egnorance Robin.)

    Your failure to address my challenge to you (three times at that) has been noted.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @ my Loving interlocutors:

    First this: my support for interracial marriage, and detestation of anti-miscegenation laws, is passionate. It is a horrendously ugly and cruel thing to deny a loving mixed race heterosexual couple the opportunity to marry because of their race. Such laws are a big part of my hatred of the Democrat party. There are places in hell reserved for the Democrats (they were all Democrats) who imposed anti-miscegenation laws.

    Next question: was Loving correctly decided. The outcome was certainly the right thing. The constitutional rationale was marginal–there is nothing in the black letter of a law prohibiting mixed race marriage that denies equal protection. It applies to all. In the sense, Pace v. Alabama was logically very defensible, although the outcome was reprehensible. Sometimes adherence to the Constitution does not produce the most morally right outcome. But judges are bound to the Constitution, and their only legitimate rulings must comply with it.

    Justice Warren did make an excellent point that Loving was correctly decided Constitutionally:

    “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.”

    To deny marriage on the basis of race is unsupportable. Period. This is because marriage is colorblind–no coherent definition of marriage includes race. It is not true, as some uninformed commentors have claimed, that anti-miscegenation laws were ubiquitous in the US. Only 17 states had them–all Democrat controlled states. Anti-miscegenation laws were central to Democrat public policy, not to American public policy.

    Anti-miscegenation laws were the imposition of an unsupportable definition of marriage on the law. Laws permitting gay marriage similarly impose an unsupportable definition on the law.

    Anti-miscegenation laws and gay marriage laws are peas in a pod. Neither has Constitutional warrant.

    And the motives are surprisingly analogous. Anti-miscegenation activists were motivated by racial hate. Gay marriage activists are motivated by anti-Christian hate, as the events in Indiana and elsewhere demononstate so clearly.

  • sharonb

    So, to daviddukesdog, having to bake cakes for couples his religion dissaproves of, and pay taxes that might cover someone seeking medical care that his religious laws prohibit = holocaust.

    Got it.

  • sharonb

    I am a Christian and my church (pc-usa) allows for marriage equality. Your uncontitutional anti marriage equality laws prohibit our free exercise of religion in addition to violation of equal protection. All ya got is animus, dude.

  • sharonb

    And your continued attempt to portray the Democratic Party of our generation as the party of intolerance is specious and beyond pathetic – an argument fashioned to convince the ignorant and uncritical.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Constitutional moron:

    “The Constitution was designed to protect individuals against the tyranny of the majority”

    What a stupid thing to say. It belongs in the Stupid Hall of Fame– a very crowded place judging from this thread.

    The Constitution is the charter of Democracy, which is majority rule. Majority rule is no tyranny. The Constitution and its Amendments were ratified by the American people–a majority working through the democratic process. No tyranny in sight.

    The Constitution was designed to protect the rights endowed by our Creator–the Constitution specifically references the Declaration as our founding document:

    “Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.”

    Ratification was done twelve years after the Declaration, which is here referred to as marking our beginning as an independent nation.

    Our rights in our founding document–the D of I– are endowed by our Creator, not “designed to protect from tyranny of majority”.

    If the framers had wanted to protect from “tyranny of majority” they would have done two things:

    1) They would have not founded a democracy

    2) They would have not made the Constitution amendable by a… super-majority.

    Why would people who were defending us from majority tyranny require a supermajority to Amend the Constitution?

    The Constitution protects our God-given rights, by thoughtfully enshrining majority rule.

    The “tyranny” we face today is not of the majority– it is a tryanny of a small coterie of unelected judges and secular liberals who have hijacked American democracy.

    Your “tyranny of the majority” claim about a document that enshrines democracy as our form of government, attributes our rights to God, and relies on supermajority to amend the Constitution is stupid on a level that is hard to believe.

    I am rescinding your college diploma, along with your law school diploma and you law license. Soon I’ll be taking away your kindergarten moving-up ceremony certificate.

  • Chris J

    @theDukedog7:

    Next question: was Loving correctly decided. The outcome was certainly the right thing. The constitutional rationale was marginal–there is nothing in the black letter of a law prohibiting mixed race marriage that denies equal protection. It applies to all. In the sense, Pace v. Alabama was logically very defensible, although the outcome was reprehensible. Sometimes adherence to the Constitution does not produce the most morally right outcome. But judges are bound to the Constitution, and their only legitimate rulings must comply with it.

    Justice Warren did make an excellent point that Loving was correctly decided Constitutionally:

    “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.”

    So, on the one hand, you think that anti-miscegenation laws were constitutionally viable, but on the other hand you think that the SCOTUS decision that labeled anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional was correct. See the contradiction there? And the Pace v. Alabama ruling you label as logically defensible but reprehensible is the exact same argument you used earlier:

    The Supreme Court ruled that the Alabama anti-miscegenation statute did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. According to the court, both races were treated equally, because whites and blacks were punished in equal measure for breaking the law against interracial marriage and interracial sex.

    So what makes your argument against gay marriage, the exact same construct, non-reprehensible?

    To deny marriage on the basis of race is unsupportable. Period. This is because marriage is colorblind–no coherent definition of marriage includes race.

    So you assert. But why is the definition “A marriage is between a man and a woman of the same race” incoherent, but the definition “A marriage is between a man and a woman” coherent? What makes those two so different?

    “To deny marriage on the basis of gender is unsupportable. Period. That is because marriage is genderblind-no coherent definition of marriage includes gender.”

    Why is gender so different than race to you?

    Anti-miscegenation laws were the imposition of an unsupportable definition of marriage on the law. Laws permitting gay marriage similarly impose an unsupportable definition on the law.

    Anti-miscegenation laws and gay marriage laws are peas in a pod. Neither has Constitutional warrant.

    Wow. So you don’t just believe that the constitution does not demand gay marriage through the 14th ammendment; you believe that the constitution actually forbids gay marriage the same way the constitution forbids anti-miscegenation laws? Oh for god’s sake; listen to yourself. No respectable person in the entire US believes this. There is no question that states are allowed to legalize gay marriage. If you think otherwise, that’s a big red flag that your argument and beliefs are faulty.

    And the motives are surprisingly analogous. Anti-miscegenation activists were motivated by racial hate. Gay marriage activists are motivated by anti-Christian hate, as the events in Indiana and elsewhere demononstate so clearly.

    Anti-miscegenation laws forbid behavior of the races that were despised. Gay marriage laws do not. Your analogy is hopeless.

  • Chris J

    Oof, messed up the blockquotes. Hopefully it’s clear what my things are and what dogduke’s are.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @SJW 158:

    “I am a Christian and my church (pc-usa) allows for marriage equality”

    I should have guessed you were a pc-usa-er. Baby-killing, making Catholics pay for your contraception, denying “male and female He made them”.

    Ever thought of converting to Christianity?

  • dingojack

    Anti-miscegenation laws were the imposition of an unsupportable definition of marriage on the law.” [Take it as being in yellow Comic Sans].

    What, like that marriage must include two adults with differing sexes, you mean?

    Is there any actual compelling reason this must be so? Can you give any such compelling reason(s)?

    I suspect you won’t be able to answer this question any more than my earlier one, or Stevo’s.

    Face it Dog, you’ve lost. You don’t even get a copy of our lousy board game. Game over.

    Dingo

  • sharonb

    “Majority rule is no tyranny.”

    Hahaha. Fail on so many levels. Just remember that when your RWA friends turn on you.

    Remember that when marriage equality support goes over 51%. Oops! So what is your problem? Get bakin’!!

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Chris J:

    “Why is gender so different than race to you?”

    Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, irrespective of race.

    That has been the definition of marriage since creation 6000 years ago (or whatever).

    No prior civilization has ever–ever–defined marriage as homosexual (although Nero gave it a passing try when he dressed up his boyfriend and claimed to marry him/her).

    Defining marriage by race is exceedingly rare, and peculiar to Democrats and their fellow-travellers (South Africa).

    You Democrat vermin twisted marriage with your anti-miscegenation laws, then you use your own policies to push gay marriage. Bastards.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @165 faux-Christian:

    “Remember that when marriage equality support goes over 51%. Oops! So what is your problem? Get bakin’!!”

    When legislatures pass gay marriage laws, then gay marriage is law. I disagree with such laws, but the process is completely valid.

    When courts lie about the Constitution to circumvent the legislature and impose gay marriage on the American people, that is tyranny.

  • StevoR

    @ ^ Duke’sdog’s shit7 . : “Democrat vermin twisted marriage with your anti-miscegenation laws,.. “

    & “Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, irrespective of race.”

    Your naked blatant racism is showing there dogshit as well as the rest of your bigotry. Oh & no answer to my challenge still I’m not surprised to see.

  • John Pieret

    Only 17 states had them [anti-miscegenation laws]

    That was as of 1967 (a shockingly late date) when Loving was decided:

    Between 1913 and 1948, 30 out of the then 48 states enforced anti-miscegenation laws.

    Anti-miscegenation activists were motivated by racial hate. Gay marriage activists are motivated by anti-Christian hate

    Oh, right! The people who have brought the cases against anti-gay laws, seeking to have themselves listed on their legally married partner’s death certificate, to adopt their partner’s children, have the right to visit their spouses in hospital and make medical decisions for them when they are incapacitated, etc. are just oozing hatred for Christians!

    as the events in Indiana and elsewhere demononstate so clearly.

    Indiana proves the opposite. The people who supported the law and were with the governor in the private signing ceremony all said that the intent was to allow Christians to discriminate against gays, not just in wedding services but in housing, employment and every thing else. That’s why the Indiana law was not written like the Federal RFRA, that was limited to the protecting religious people from the government deeming their religious practices illegal but, instead, made it illegal for the government to prevent religious people from discriminating against others. You have the right to think that gays are sinners and exclude them from your church and life (if you can) but you have no right, once your enter into public commerce to discriminate them because of your bigotry.

    What happened in Indiana was that good ol’ capitalist big business has known for a long time that bigotry is bad for business and many ordinary Americans who are not “Gay marriage activists” saw how unfair that law was and expressed their opinion.

    What happened in Indiana was that bigots like you have lost the fight, no matter how many times you assert that marriage is what you say it is, as if you are the dictator of the United States.

  • StevoR

    PS. Also, dogshit, why do you find the N-word more acceptable than ass and shit pray tell? Haven’t forgotten that either.

  • sharonb

    163 – conspicuous failure to deal with issue. Resort to name calling, judging, lying.

    Ever consider converting to Christianity? I suggest you read up on what it means, though. It actually has some behavioral, and interpersonal imperatives. It’s not just a tribal affiliation. You know, the greatest of these is love, kind of thing. You seem I’ll acquainted with the actual faith.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @sharonb:

    “And your continued attempt to portray the Democratic Party of our generation as the party of intolerance is specious and beyond pathetic – an argument fashioned to convince the ignorant and uncritical.”

    Is the Democrat Party of our generation the party of intolerance? Hmmm… try this: ask to give a speech supporting the right to life at the Democratic National Convention. Or mention Jerusalem and God and get booed.

    Can you name the prominent Democrat officials who support traditional marriage?

    Oh, and about you guys still being bigots. Would you care to discuss the rising anti-Semitism in the Democrat party–such as the refusal of scores of Democrat lawmakers to attend the Israeli Prime Minister’s address to congress?

    And we could discuss that little anti-Semitism problem you have with your pc-usa “church”.

    Don’t throw away your old sheets. They are again becoming Democrat attire.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @StevoR:

    PS. Also, dogshit, why do you find the N-word more acceptable than ass and shit pray tell? Haven’t forgotten that either

    I feel so guilty. I forgot to give you a trigger warning about the microagression so you could seek a safe space.

  • dingojack

    Well fine doggy-style — if the constitution is designed to allow a majority rule, looks like you lose (AGAIN) – Catholics make up only 20.8% of American adults. Hard luck, looks like you’re gonna have to come to terms with being ordered around, a lot!

    Oh wait — The Constitution isn’t actually written that way!

    Con Law expert you surely are not!

    Dingo

  • Chris J

    @theDukedog7:

    Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, irrespective of race.

    That has been the definition of marriage since creation 6000 years ago (or whatever).

    No prior civilization has ever–ever–defined marriage as homosexual (although Nero gave it a passing try when he dressed up his boyfriend and claimed to marry him/her).

    That is completely irrelevant. What is constitutional and what is not in the modern US has no relation to what was or was not traditional in other countries at other times.

    Stay on track, will you?

    Why is the marriage definition of “one man and one woman” coherent, but the definition of “one man and one woman of the same race” not? What makes gender so markedly different constitutionally speaking from race, especially when you use the exact same argument that was used to promote anti-miscegenation laws (that both men and women are equally forbidden from marrying the same gender) but claim that the race argument lead to reprehensible conclusions? Why is it that you think Loving was decided appropriately constitutionally speaking but a hypothetical ruling that anti-gay-marriage laws would not be constitutional? In fact, how could you think that while the constitution requires interracial marriage to be legal, it also forbids homosexual marriage in the same way?

  • StevoR

    BTW Dogshit – what are your thoughts on King David and Prince Jonathan’s gay (& also polyamorous plus bisexual) marriage, sorry “covenant” and the following set of Bible verses? :

    1 Samuel 18:1

    When David had finished speaking with Saul, Jonathan become deeply attached to David, and loved him with his whole being.

    1 Samuel 18:4

    Jonathan stripped himself of the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with all the clothes he was wearing, even his sword, his bow, and his belt.

    1 Samuel 18:3

    Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as he loved himself.

    1 Samuel 20:17

    Jonathan made David swear again by his love for him, for he loved him with his whole being.

    1 Samuel 20:41

    They (David & Jonathan – ed) kissed each other.

    1 Samuel 20:42

    Jonathan said to David, ‘Go in peace, for we have sworn in the name of Yahweh that Yahweh will bond you and me and your descendants and my descendants forever.’

    &

    2 Samuel 1:26

    ‘I grieve over you, my brother Jonathan. Your love was more dear to me than the love of a woman!’

    See :

    http://www.bricktestament.com/king_saul/jonathans_feelings_for_david/1s18_04.html

    And, oh yes, that Bible book I gather you are a fan of too or so you say!

    Hmm … Hey if its the Bible it must be true, yeah Dogshit or should I call you Dr Egnor and Pam Gellers no.1 fan?

  • Chris J

    *a hypothetical ruling striking down anti-gay-marriage laws would not be constitutional

  • theDukedog7 .

    @SteveoR:

    “Your naked blatant racism is showing there dogshit”

    ?. Do elaborate.

  • StevoR

    @137. theDukedog7 . : That’s alright shithead, I forgot to give you one for saying shit and arse! Now how about you finally show the courage to actually answer my challenge to you @ #144 here? Fuck, I’ll even make it easier for you (yet again) :

    I challenge you to finish the following sentences for me :

    1) I, DukeDog7, believe loving same sex couples should be denied equal rights and ability to have the wedding cakes of their choice at any bakery because _________???

    2) This is different from denying people who are divorced and eat shellfish and rebellious children (who somehow escaped being stoned to death) and others who also broke Levitical Law their marriage cakes because ______ ???

    3) The differences between my position here and that of the Westboro homophobes cult are ________ ???

  • dingojack

    Here Doggy — Fetch!

    Dingo

  • StevoR

    @178 TheDukedog7 .:

    Really? You don’t get that saying “Democrat vermin twisted marriage with your anti-miscegenation laws,.. “ contradicts what you said in your exact same comment (#166) about marriage “irrespective of race” Seriously/ Please tell us you are doing an elaborate Poe!

    Or do you actually not know what miscegenation means? Hint : same as interracial marriage.

  • sharonb

    Lol divestment of Israel investments = anti semitism? I guess only to the level of fake equivalence that RCCI is a criminal racketeering organization that specializes in pedophilia and obstruction of justice.

  • dingojack

    ‘Actually marriage has been defined in many different ways, in many different places over different times in history’.

    Show me concrete evidence that the statement above is universally incorrect.

    Go!

    Dingo

  • sharonb

    Prominent Democrats who support traditional marriage. How about all of them? Allowing gay couples to marry will leave heterosexual couples who wish to marry unaffected.

  • sharonb

    Lol, not attending bibi”s speech = anti-Semite. Lol. Pathetic.

  • John Pieret

    @ 160:

    “The Constitution was designed to protect individuals against the tyranny of the majority”

    What a stupid thing to say. …

    The Constitution is the charter of Democracy, which is majority rule. Majority rule is no tyranny.

    Technically, you’re right … it was the Bill of Rights that was designed to protect against the tyranny of the majority:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

    But since the Constitution was ratified based on a promise to produce a Bill of Rights, it can be said that it was part of the constitutional design.

    The Constitution was designed to protect the rights endowed by our Creator–the Constitution specifically references the Declaration as our founding document:

    And the very First Amendment protected you from some majority that decided their god didn’t grant you any rights and vice versa.

    Why would people who were defending us from majority tyranny require a supermajority to Amend the Constitution?

    To make it harder for a mere majority to deny a minority of their rights.

    The Constitution protects our God-given rights, by thoughtfully enshrining majority rule.

    Right! Because majorities always grant God-given rights, like the rights of black people to be slaves!

    The “tyranny” we face today is not of the majority– it is a tryanny of a small coterie of unelected judges and secular liberals who have hijacked American democracy.

    Damn, those same judges the Constitution (designed to protect the rights endowed by our Creator and adopted by a supermajority) gave them exactly that power? Democracy fail, I guess!

    As the Federal Papers make clear, such courts are essential to the working of a democracy:

    The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.

  • dingojack

    Doggy – Quick! Pull those priests outta your pups’ arses and flee — it looks like your brothers-in-Christ are planning a bit of a barbeque – and guess who are gonna be the faggots?

    Dingo

  • dingojack

    Oops there goes your infallible boss (quoting your god) supporting a Palestinian State. Guess they’re both ‘anti-Semitic’ too, amiright?

    Dingo

  • sharonb

    Dingo, I think you just induced a cognitive dissonance fail overload condition on the dogster.

  • theDukedog7 .

    Well, lemmings, it’s been a fun thread.

    I know you’ve got a lot to do, so on to other things. Night is coming, and there are many Christian shops and businesses, and so many rocks to gather.

  • StevoR

    Running away again eh Duke Dogshit?

    Your utter and complete failure is again noted along with your racism, homophobia and general repellent character. You really are a sad and evil excuse for a human being and a pitiful troll into the bargain.

    Oh & your side is the one throwing stones not ours.

    Soon, I think, we’ll live in a world where equal marriage is accepted globe wide – certainly in the US of A and all the Western First World nations – and nothing bad comes of it. I hope you’ll think back in a decade or so and realise you disgusting you were, how unchristian and wrong and feel deeply ashamed. However, given your evident lack of shame at racism that’s currently reviled by all I guess that’s unlikely – but you will face seeing the total failure of your homophobia and plenty of happy gay married couples. That pleases me.

  • dingojack

    One man and one woman equals ‘biblical marriage’? Seems that’s not what the bible says according to some biblical experts.

    Dingo