Gay Patriot Header Image

Gays “Offended” By American Flag

(Hat tip: V the K).

This item from Slate (via The Corner) speaks for itself….

Dear Prudie,
My partner and I are having our condominium remodeled. We have worked well with one company and asked them to bid a second phase of the job. The person who showed up to bid the job wore a cap with an angry bald eagle on the front with multiple American flags sewn onto the rest of the cap. When I was obviously startled at the hat, he acknowledged, “Guess I should have worn my company hat.” I replied, “I would be more comfortable if you had because I can’t support much of what the country is doing right now.” This led to his reply, “Just so we all support America.” My partner and I are gay and feel assaulted by the right wing. We are also horrified by the war in Iraq and so many other issues that our patriotism is very low. That hat was a sickening reminder of my childhood in rural America. I feel that perhaps my money should be spent in a more socially conscious fashion, but I don’t relish starting my own campaign of reverse discrimination. Am I making too much of this incident? The company has done a good job for us so far. 
—Uneasy Remodeler

Dear Uneasy,
When did an American flag come to mean, “I want to assault gay people”? You know nothing about this man’s views except that he feels patriotic. Since you are the one who provoked the discussion, do you really want to require that the person building your breakfast nook pass your political litmus test? (And yes, if I were to get a letter saying, “I went to a potential construction job this morning and the owners of the condo were obviously gay. I think homosexuality is abnormal and I hate the idea of gay marriage. I don’t know whether I should go ahead and submit a bid,” I would find that letter just as objectionable.) We are lucky to live in a society in which one doesn’t have to belong to a government-sanctioned party or avow a list of beliefs in order to make a living. I know too many people who say they could never be friends with people who have different political views from theirs, and that’s unfortunate. But the economy will crash if every service person is required to agree with their client’s worldview. Do you know how lucky you are to find a remodeling company that does a good job? Let the guy with the American flag cap get to work.   
—Prudie

Once again, the Gay Borg strike again with their intolerance of the majority of American values.  It is an example of how ridiculous and irrelevant the American gay community has become in the overall debate of issues in our nation.

I guess the uppity-class gays would have been okay had a Muslim contractor shown up with a bomb vest strapped to himself.  THAT would have been tolerant, right?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

69 Comments

  1. Personally, were I Prudie, I would have said something to the effect of, “Go right ahead and do it. First, in your circles, it’s not wrong to discriminate against people based on their political beliefs, skin color, or religious beliefs; second, it’s your house, and if you want to get rid of a contractor who has already demonstrated his competence and ability in favor of an unknown one who meets your litmus test, more power to you.”

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 5, 2006 @ 11:11 am - September 5, 2006

  2. Gays?
    This is one person who has personal feelings about a symbol.
    Its an example of how a symbol can mean different things to different people based on experiences.
    It has nothing to do with gay thought…
    Jeez…
    By yours and NDT’s logic when one rightist supports the Westboro Baptist Church, all you rightists do, and therefore your school of thought is irrelevant.

    Comment by keogh — September 5, 2006 @ 11:54 am - September 5, 2006

  3. My partner and I are gay and feel assaulted by the right wing…………

    “When did an American flag come to mean, “I want to assault gay people”?”

    Considering that the majority of anti-gay rhetoric and activity has for the last 50 years comes from those that continually wrap themselves up in the American flag, its not exactly out of the blue that someone could make the association between the American flag and assaulting gay people.

    Its sad that the guy thinks that the American flag isn’t his flag too. And thats not the result of him becoming a communist, or a lefty, or a member of the “gay borg”. Its because the GOP has essentially copyrighted it as “their” symbol and theirs alone. Anyone that doesn’t go along with the GOP agenda lock, stock and barrel, gets branded as anti-American or unpatriotic, or even treasonous, AKA part of the “blame America crowd”.

    At least on the Left when they ostracize someone they call them fascist, rather than un-patriotic, which is a worse accusation in my mind.

    But its still my flag too, no matter what the GOP says. Oh, and its not the flag of Jesus Christ either, which is another little gem they try to sell you on. The party of God and all that.

    I guess the uppity-class gays would have been okay had a Muslim contractor shown up with a bomb vest strapped to himself. THAT would have been tolerant, right?

    The above is hilarious. Bruce the High Priest of the GOP is engaging in class warfare against “uppity-class gays”. Whats the matter Bruce? Do you have something against people who make a little money? That even get rich?. Whats wrong with that?

    If Ronald Reagan were here he would probably smack you upside the head for that one.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — September 5, 2006 @ 12:14 pm - September 5, 2006

  4. Patrick/Keogh-

    I’d like to add that first — THEY identified themselves as “gay”… I didn’t.

    Second, you’d think that rich uppity-class gays would adore the American flag since they have been able to acheive success despite what sounds like a crushing daily oppression by “the right wing.”

    Puh-leeeze.

    Comment by GayPatriot — September 5, 2006 @ 12:24 pm - September 5, 2006

  5. Patrick-

    Perhaps you can distance yourself from terms like unpatriotic and fascist if you distanced yourself from people and causes that embrace those terms and define those terms.

    Just a thought.

    Comment by GayPatriot — September 5, 2006 @ 12:26 pm - September 5, 2006

  6. GP,
    So what that they said they were gay? He did it so the reader would instantly know what type of hatred he experienced at the hands of rural flag wavers.
    It does not, mean that he is a representative of the gay community. He is a person who was horribly treated by folks who happened to wear flags…thus the contractor reminded him of that horrible time….

    Why do you attempt to trivialize his experience by linking his feelings to the gay community?
    It’s a terrible thing to do and you should be ashamed.

    Comment by keogh — September 5, 2006 @ 12:44 pm - September 5, 2006

  7. Why do you attempt to trivialize his experience by linking his feelings to the gay community?

    Because, as Gryph nicely pointed out above, that IS the belief of the gay community.

    And, to Gryph’s remark, it is “uppity” class gays, not “upper” class gays. “Uppity” class has to do with the tendency to blame other people for all their problems; this tends to decline with income.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 5, 2006 @ 1:32 pm - September 5, 2006

  8. Of course the gay borg was offended by what? Nothing.
    They love to create drama and controversy where there was none. The american flag doesn’t belong to any party, but hey…that would take common sense of which the gay left has none. They are still trying to bait people by calling the right the “christian right” If the lefties wish to stop being called unpatriotic then they can agree not to call everyone who mostly agrees with the right, A christian! Duh!

    Comment by Brandon — September 5, 2006 @ 1:32 pm - September 5, 2006

  9. #3 – “Considering that the majority of anti-gay rhetoric and activity has for the last 50 years comes from those that continually wrap themselves up in the American flag, its not exactly out of the blue that someone could make the association between the American flag and assaulting gay people.”

    Yet another misinformed, surrealist comment from Gryph.

    No, Gryph: A clear majority of anti-gay rhetoric and activity in the last 50 years has come from those who despise and fight the American flag. – Islamo-fascists, Communist or Baathist dictators, and the like.

    Check the facts on which countries execute and imprison gays, Gryph:

    Castro’s Cuba imprisons gays and/or HIV patients by the tens of thousands. Iran executes gay youth. The Soviet Union used to systematically execute and/or imprison gays. While America puts gays on TV. al Qaeda, on occasion, cites American gay-friendliness as one of the reasons Americans deserve death.

    It is indeed well, well “out of the blue that someone could make the association between the American flag and assaulting gay people.” Way out.

    Now, if they associated gay-hating, gay-killing and gay-bashing with the Islamic crescent, or with the Communist hammer-and-sickle – that would make sense.

    Well Gryph, at least you made yourself transparent and laughable as always, by ending with your standard gratuitous insults on the man who pays the bills around here for you. (Hmm, a thought just struck me – Would you happen to have “father issues”, i.e., to hate your father?)

    Comment by Calarato — September 5, 2006 @ 1:37 pm - September 5, 2006

  10. Personally, I’d take a straight flag-waving American over an illegal immigrant or whiny gay decorator any day. At least you know the job would get done in time and under budget.

    These two drama queens in the letter and the ones who whined in the comments section above need to get a pair.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — September 5, 2006 @ 2:09 pm - September 5, 2006

  11. Patrick writes: “It’s sad that the guy thinks that the American flag isn’t his flag too.”

    I think that’s a sad commentary on the depth of his disaffection with America… he said it: “… our patriotism is very low. That hat was a sickening reminder of my childhood in rural America.” Hey, rural America is now in the targeting sights of the GayLeft… or is that the new code word for religious right centered rural values?

    I’m asking you Patrick ’cause you’re our resident ReligiousBigot; you’d know if anyone.

    I guess –as a likely liberal and part of the GayLeftBorg– that guy will always miss the point that the flag belongs to no single political enterprise… it is inherently national. The problem isn’t with the flag as a symbol –it’s how the symbol is used as a tool by some to advance their political agenda.

    For the Democrats, it can be replaced by Mexican flags at “Amnesty for Immigration Now” rallies.

    For GayDemocrats and the GayLeft, it can be replaced by rainbow (yuk) flags at buttless chap laden Pride Events populated with overweight, graying, hapless angry gay men and 20’something drugged out political innocents looking to score.

    For ACLU Democrats, it can be burned, spat upon, desecrated in order to demonstrate radical political ideology… heck, even toss some military medals over the fence for good measure if you can’t get the flag burning. Show your disgust for American institutions! The govt. The military. Society writ large.

    The real problem, Patrick, with that guy isn’t that he thinks the flag no longer is important to him… it is that the guy has allowed his patriotism to be bought-out by the ceaseless voices of the GayLeft and radical Democrats. “Giving the flag a finger” is a test of political correctness for many on the Left and certainly for most on the GayBorg.

    Of all the Pride Events I’ve been to in Michigan, DC, Charleston, NYC, Chicago, Atlanta, Denver and SF, I’ve never seen a single event begin with the Pledge, prominently display the flag, or engage in patriotic action –it usually begins with some indictment of the majority, hand made posters or t-shirts condemning religion or God or Bush and some very uncivil, unpatriotic sentiments about our country. It is self-absorbed and ego-centered like nothing else… well, except maybe a Democrat convention.

    Sorry, Patrick. You missed the real problem. That guy probably was never patriotic about America. He doesn’t share the values most Americans hold close –his party & community has pushed itself into a narrow, deserted corner of the radical fringe Left where hate of all things American is proof of political solidarity.

    The real problem is you & others don’t even see that the majority of Americans would think the real problem was his unpatriotic core. That is the problem correctly pointed out by GP here. And the GayLeft doesn’t even view that as a problem… Hell, it’s a badge of honor for them! BlameAmericaFirst! We’re all victims of the man!

    When victimhood trumps patriotism as a core value, it’s hard to get people back to sanity or the land of reason.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 5, 2006 @ 2:12 pm - September 5, 2006

  12. #9 – One more thought:

    Perhaps Gryph was attempting to think only of the American domestic scene, as if the rest of the world didn’t exist, when he said what he said.

    But – Can it even be argued that the Americans (Republicans) who, say, disagree with gay marriage openly, actually do more flag-waving than the Americans (Democrats) who disagree with gay marriage in a more secretive or shame-faced way?

    2004 Democratic convention, anyone? LOL. (The veritable orgy of flag-waving the Democrats engaged in there, easily topping the Republican convention the following month. And Kerry eventually came out against gay marriage.)

    Comment by Calarato — September 5, 2006 @ 2:19 pm - September 5, 2006

  13. I agree. What is always funny to me is how Gryph rails against people who would ban the Iowa from San Francisco — but then leaps to their defense when it becomes a question of “gay honor”.

    Recognize this, Gryph; your inability to call gay leftists like this person out for what they’re doing is precisely why the gay left feels perfectly justified in invoking your sexual orientation to spit on veterans and things that represent the military. You can try to blame Republicans for that all you want; in fact, the gay left encourages you to do it, because it keeps attention away from THEIR idiotic antics.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 5, 2006 @ 2:20 pm - September 5, 2006

  14. Keogh (#6)-

    What kind of “hatred” did this uppity gay and his partner have to endure by rural America? The letter to Slate is nothing more than Gay Leftist diatribes that are repeated over and over as part of their role as the “Blame America First” crowd.

    There is nothing for me to be ashamed about in my attempt to shine a light on the ridiculousness of the gay community.

    How about YOU apologize for their affront against this nation and its flag?

    Hmmmm?

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — September 5, 2006 @ 2:25 pm - September 5, 2006

  15. Hmmm. It struck me that the gay person’s objection was more to the “angry bald eagle” than the flags. After all, it is that “angry bald eagle” that represents Bushco’s incompetent warmongering. That said, I think the guy was a bit over-sensitive. The cap wouldn’t have bothered me.

    The only thing that causes me to avoid any type of workmen/contractors is if they have the fish symbol all over their advertising. For me that’s pretty much a non-starter since the odds are that the contractor is liable to be one of those in-your-face folks who pushes their religious beliefs. Typically they’re unlikely to be particularly gay-friendly and therefore not deserving of my hard-earned money.

    Comment by Ian — September 5, 2006 @ 2:48 pm - September 5, 2006

  16. “There is nothing for me to be ashamed about in my attempt to shine a light on the ridiculousness of the gay community.”

    You are purposefully avoiding the seriousness of your illogic.

    This is ONE MAN’S opinion. he is not a gay organization nor is he writing as one. he is a man writing as a man.
    How dare you ascribe one man’s opinion as a spokesperson.

    You trivialize his experience of AVUSE by flag wearers and wavers by attempting to link him to the whole community.
    You try to make it seem reasonable that someone wearing a flag would beat up a faggot because in your words “irreverent.”

    You are becoming an apologist for gay bashers.
    And I think that should scare you.

    Comment by keogh — September 5, 2006 @ 2:58 pm - September 5, 2006

  17. Thanks for the tip, Bruce. It’s also gratifying to see that this story has put ready-to-sting bees under a few choice bonnets… or tinfoil hats as the case may be.

    Comment by V the K — September 5, 2006 @ 3:06 pm - September 5, 2006

  18. Ian (#15) – I hate to throw cold water on your “All Christians Are Gay-Hating Devils” brainwashing. Actually, I relish being able to do it….

    As it turns out, I hired a landscape company in Charlotte owned by a husband and wife who proudly display a fish symbol on their website and company literature. I didn’t give it a second thought since I don’t have bigoted anti-Christian prejudices.

    I’m happy to report that Darin and Heather have been fantastic and much more friendly to John and I than any of the contractors I hired in the DC metro area.

    Comment by GayPatriot — September 5, 2006 @ 3:18 pm - September 5, 2006

  19. #18: Please don’t put words in my mouth Bruce. Especially with quotes around them suggesting I actually said/wrote them.

    I would add that if the workmen/contractors used the fish-with-legs-and-feet symbol, then I’d certainly consider hiring them. 😉

    Comment by Ian — September 5, 2006 @ 3:26 pm - September 5, 2006

  20. You are becoming an apologist for gay bashers.
    And I think that should scare you.

    The logic presumably being that anyone who wears an American-flag hat, salutes the flag, or does anything of the sort is a “gay basher”.

    That was this person’s claim, Keogh — that because the contractor wore an American-flag hat, that this person automatically hated gays; therefore, it wasn’t “socially conscious” to give him the bid.

    Nowhere in the statement did this contractor make antigay remarks. He was judged solely by what he was wearing, with the assumption being made that anyone who wears such attire is antigay.

    And you call GP’s objection to that attitude to be “apologizing for gay bashers”.

    Given that you, IanRaj, and Gryph have all made excuses for why it was OK for this person to do that, I think GP’s point is well-made.

    Why do you enable stereotyping and hate when gays do it, Keogh?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 5, 2006 @ 3:31 pm - September 5, 2006

  21. Unfortunately, IanRaj, this is what you wrote:

    The only thing that causes me to avoid any type of workmen/contractors is if they have the fish symbol all over their advertising. For me that’s pretty much a non-starter since the odds are that the contractor is liable to be one of those in-your-face folks who pushes their religious beliefs. Typically they’re unlikely to be particularly gay-friendly and therefore not deserving of my hard-earned money.

    Well, since you would never call them, you never get a chance to have those beliefs proven — or disproved.

    And this is how stereotypes work among gay leftists like IanRaj; they establish them, and then they never challenge them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 5, 2006 @ 3:36 pm - September 5, 2006

  22. #18: GP, you remind me of the adage that if you get a flat tire on a rainy night, it’s vastly more likely that someone with a Jesus fish on their car will stop and help you than someone with a “Visualize World Peace” bumper sticker.

    Comment by V the K — September 5, 2006 @ 3:45 pm - September 5, 2006

  23. This is just one man’s opinion. I disagree with him but most importantly he does not speak for the gay community or gay Democrats or whatever you want to call them. He’s only speaking for himself and his partner.

    Comment by Turk — September 5, 2006 @ 3:51 pm - September 5, 2006

  24. He’s only speaking for himself and his partner.

    And yet, he felt completely un-self-conscious about airing his complaint on a major internet forum, compelled to link it to the anti-war ennui that pervades the left, and obligated to throw in the typical gay-left victimhood whine about the oppression he felt in his youth because of insensitive red-state ruffians … and he links all of those things to the sight of an American flag, that apparently left him overcome with drama-queen vapors.

    I mean, it’s not like his letter reiterated three or four major gay-left talking point cliches or anything.

    Comment by V the K — September 5, 2006 @ 4:05 pm - September 5, 2006

  25. I have never heard about any of these gay organiztions objecting to American Flag so I speak to that. This man apparently does and he has the right to say what he wants to I suppose but he does not speak for me or the gay population as a whole which was my point.

    Comment by Turk — September 5, 2006 @ 4:09 pm - September 5, 2006

  26. I meant to say in that first sentence that I have never heard any of these gay organizations or gay people I know objecting to the use of the American Flag.

    Comment by Turk — September 5, 2006 @ 4:12 pm - September 5, 2006

  27. V and the K wrote
    “obligated to throw in the typical gay-left victim hood whine about the oppression he felt in his youth because of insensitive red-state ruffians”

    Now do you get it Bruce?

    You have already started it.

    Its now OK to make irrelevant the people who were beaten, and yelled at and discriminated against because they are “typical gay-left victim” whiners.

    Its now OK to gay bash because the people who do it are just “red-state ruffians”

    People who beat gays are now just “insensitive”

    Apologize now.

    Comment by keogh — September 5, 2006 @ 4:33 pm - September 5, 2006

  28. Personally, I think that the fish with legs is incredibly insensitive considering that the fish symbol originates during a time when Christians faced imprisonment and death for their beliefs. How funny, ha ha, to mock the horrific deaths of men, women and children. It’s not *clever*, it’s ignorant.

    As for the letter… at least Prudie called it what it is.

    I don’t know how typical it is of the gay left but I do know that I’ve come across similar emotional reactions from the left in general. That University teacher who told her students to destroy a pro-life display on campus because she felt assaulted by it is one example. She *felt* as though it was a personal attack on her.

    In that case I believe absolutely that the “pro-life is really an attack on women” belief is entirely without any basis. It’s made up out of whole cloth. The gay man who wrote to Prudie at least as the excuse that he probably *did* have a horrible time, once. But also from the letter, it seems as much about political events and all the many things that the US is doing as it is about experiences related to being gay. Which may mean it’s much more like the person who has a severe emotional reaction to a “Viva Bush” bumpersticker or who couldn’t read this blog without getting a case of the vapours.

    And for what it’s worth, my dad takes great joy in wearing hats that are sure to get his sisters-in-law all hot under their liberal collars. He wouldn’t do it on purpose to someone he didn’t know or was working for, but he’d also play Rush Limbaugh loud enough to hear over the power tools with his hearing aid turned off, so probably the letter writer should be happy it was just a hat. 😉

    Comment by Synova — September 5, 2006 @ 4:42 pm - September 5, 2006

  29. #27 – Please point out where anyone on this board says it is OK to engage in gay-bashing. And frankly, nobody here owes you an apology for anything.

    401(k) plan, your name fits because you are both morally and intellectually BANKRUPT.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — September 5, 2006 @ 4:48 pm - September 5, 2006

  30. Have I mentioned lately that keogh is a silly person?

    Comment by V the K — September 5, 2006 @ 4:49 pm - September 5, 2006

  31. raj/Ian/blah sockpuppet writes: “The only thing that causes me to avoid any type of workmen/contractors is if they have the fish symbol all over their advertising.”

    And then rails against the cold, cruel but factual observation by GP that the sockpuppet raj/Ian/blah is (are?) a religious bigot.

    Not only that, raj/Ian/blah, you push the religious bigot button to an “insensitive mode” when you clarify by writing: “I would add that if the workmen/contractors used the fish-with-legs-and-feet symbol, then I’d certainly consider hiring them.”

    What an insenstive, politically incorrect, vicious little snipe-y thing to write. You should be ashamed of all your incarnations, sockpuppet. Of course, the GayLeftBorgies and the ACLU will send you some love, though.

    Then, if that isn’t outrageous enough with a capital “O”, the sockpuppet offers: “Please don’t put words in my mouth Bruce. Especially with quotes around them suggesting I actually said/wrote them.”

    I didn’t have the impression that Bruce was attributing those comments to you, raj/Ian/blah. I correctly gauged he was using the rubric within quotation marks to assign what is generally understood to be the mindset of GayLeftBorgies toward all religion… please see Patrick-the-resident-religious-bigot as an example.

    One thing most GayLeftBorgies agree on: a strong, visceral hatred of both organized religion and the GOP animate them. Animate. Like cartoons. How fitting, eh?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 5, 2006 @ 5:21 pm - September 5, 2006

  32. VandK:
    Silly?
    You call people who beat and verbally abuse gay people “insensitive red-state ruffians”
    You call people who hold a grudge against those homophobic assholes “whiners”
    Those are YOUR words.
    But its not your fault.
    You are just following the lead of Bruce who needs to apologize for saying that people who are upset about being discriminated against are simply “intolerant of the majority.
    That is unacceptable and he should be ashamed.

    Comment by keogh — September 5, 2006 @ 5:32 pm - September 5, 2006

  33. Its now OK to make irrelevant the people who were beaten, and yelled at and discriminated against because they are “typical gay-left victim” whiners.

    That’s quite an interpolation, Keogh.

    Here’s what the individual in question actually said:

    My partner and I are gay and feel assaulted by the right wing. We are also horrified by the war in Iraq and so many other issues that our patriotism is very low. That hat was a sickening reminder of my childhood in rural America.

    Now, nowhere does this person say that they were a) beaten, b) yelled at, or c) discriminated against.

    Not only that, they state the following about the company in question:

    We have worked well with one company and asked them to bid a second phase of the job.

    Plus later:

    The company has done a good job for us so far.

    Now, this company would have to be absolutely clueless to not realize that they are doing work for a gay couple. Yet, despite their being antigay and not “socially responsible”, as supposedly exemplified by the hat one of their employees is wearing, the company has “worked well” with them and “done a good job”.

    In short, despite CLEAR evidence that the company is not antigay, as shown by the fact that they have worked well and done a good job for an antigay couple, this individual is now screaming that they ARE antigay and not “socially responsible” because of one of their workers’ hats.

    Do you consider that rational?

    I call it putting one’s beliefs ahead of objective reality.

    Given that this person is already doing that, does that not call into question their recollections of their childhood?

    Furthermore, aren’t YOU making the assumption that this individual was assaulted and beaten?

    What you’re doing, keogh, is spinning excuses. The fact that gays have been assaulted does not, nor will it ever, justify a moonbat and bigoted hatred based on a worker’s hat of a company who has demonstrated that it does good work for gay couples.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 5, 2006 @ 5:46 pm - September 5, 2006

  34. You are just following the lead of Bruce who needs to apologize for saying that people who are upset about being discriminated against are simply “intolerant of the majority.
    That is unacceptable and he should be ashamed.

    Let me make this clear to you again, Keogh.

    You are calling antigay and not socially responsible a company that, according to the very person involved, has worked well with them and has done a good job — because the hat that one of their workers wore reminded the person of their childhood.

    In short, this company is being punished for things that it never did in the first place, despite its good record.

    And you say that anyone who criticizes that is supporting gay bashers.

    My answer: Find us the people who allegedly bashed this person in the first place and we will condemn them.

    But we will NOT condemn a company that has treated them well because this bigoted queer didn’t like one of their employees’ hats.

    You don’t get to generalize your hate to everyone.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 5, 2006 @ 5:52 pm - September 5, 2006

  35. Actually, keogh’s self-righteous little rant cracked me up. It’s hard to find good comedy now that Mind of Mencia is in reruns.

    Comment by V the K — September 5, 2006 @ 6:04 pm - September 5, 2006

  36. Keogh is a well-documented liberal moonbat commenter here. There’s no need to take his comments on this post any more seriously than his others on other posts.

    He and his ilk are part of the problem in how America views gay Americans. He just can’t admit it.

    Go away, you gnat.

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — September 5, 2006 @ 7:41 pm - September 5, 2006

  37. #31: “I didn’t have the impression that Bruce was attributing those comments to you”

    Well then, apparently you didn’t read his comment very carefully did you? Here’s what he wrote:

    “Ian (#15) – I hate to throw cold water on your “All Christians Are Gay-Hating Devils” brainwashing.”

    Nothing I said in my comment #15 or indeed in ANY comments here or any other place suggests I believe all Christians are gay-hating devils. Indeed I don’t believe any such thing and so would never have occasion to make the claim that I do believe it.

    Comment by Ian — September 5, 2006 @ 7:44 pm - September 5, 2006

  38. I think the real question is does a decent contractor want to do the work for these high strung ,out of touch left wing nut cases. Trust me, there is plenty of work out there for good contractors and they will RUN when they encounter these DNC nut jobs. I am hoping these guy get stuck with a clever crook that spout the left wing garbage back at these fools and then rips up the place and walks away with the deposit !

    Comment by rob — September 5, 2006 @ 8:53 pm - September 5, 2006

  39. [Comment deleted.]

    Comment by keogh — September 5, 2006 @ 10:33 pm - September 5, 2006

  40. Wow.
    You delete a comment that does not use offensive words but instead speaks the truth?
    Are you that afraid of criticism?
    If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen!

    Your 800,000 and climbing statement is truly a lie

    Comment by keogh16 — September 6, 2006 @ 12:18 am - September 6, 2006

  41. Actually, GP, given Keogh’s success today in demonstrating how he supports bigotry by gays based on clothing, I think it suits our cause better to leave his comments than to erase them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 6, 2006 @ 12:35 am - September 6, 2006

  42. And for once, Matt, I agree with IanRaj; GP WAS attributing those comments to him.

    And GP was dead right.

    Let’s modify the statement he made to demonstrate this:

    The only thing that causes me to avoid any type of workmen/contractors is if they display a rainbow flag. For me that’s pretty much a non-starter since the odds are that the contractor is liable to be one of those “gay activist” types who pushes what they do in the bedroom on everyone else. Typically they’re unlikely to be particularly family-friendly and therefore not deserving of my hard-earned money.

    If someone were to say THAT publicly, IanRaj would have an aneurysm.

    But if he/she/it does the same thing in reverse, it’s perfectly OK.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 6, 2006 @ 12:41 am - September 6, 2006

  43. I sincerely do not understand the theme of this post. That is, I do not understand the “moral” that the poster would like to be drawn from it.

    To the title of the post: “Gays “Offended” By American Flag” Well, I guess that it is grammatically correct. Yes there were two gays (allegedly) who suggest that they were offended by the fact that a representative of a service company wore a cap adorned by an American flag. So what? Are we supposed to infer from that and the rest of the post that all–or a significant majority of–gays would agree with them? If not, who cares? And why even bother with the post? If so, what is your evidence (a word that is foreign to many people here) for that proposition?

    To the response by Prudie: (I’m not even going to bother copying any of it). What Prudie should have said was that a properly trained representative of a service company knows that he (or she) should refrain from discussing religion, politics, or much of anything else, with a client–except, of course, what the direct request of the customer is. And they should also refrain from wearing any symbols that may be construed as indicating their religious or political views (or what might be taken as denouncing others’ religious or political views). That is one reason for uniforms–suits for so-called “professionals.” The reason is that the representative of the company is a blank slate, as it were, to the customer, so as not to possibly offend the customer. If they are not willing to do that, then the company would be well within its rights to terminate them, or to restrict their representation in various ways.

    I’ll merely give a simple example. Suppose the letter to Prudie had come regarding an representative of a service company in South Carolina who had showed up at the home of a Negro (term used intentionally) family wearing a cap that was adorned by the flag of South Carolina–the one with the (or a) Confederate battle flag. If the Negro family asked the same question of Prudie, would he/she/or_it give the same advice to the question writer here–that the letter writer should lighten up because “the economy will crash if every service person is required to agree with their client’s worldview? Doubtful.

    Prudie is an idiot.

    On a possibly more significant note, it has been reported that the Barzani, president of the Kurdistan region of Iraq, has banned the flying of the Iraqi flag in the Kurdistan region of Iraq–in favor of the Kurd flag, of course. (Note the flag reference.) In addition, the president of Iraq (whose name I don’t recall), who is a Kurd, has supported Barzani’s ban. So, let’s see once again. The Kurdistan region of Iraq is effectively–step by step–separating itself from Iraq. George “I’m a divider, not a uniter” Bush doesn’t seem to be putting up much of an objection to it. Iraqi Kurdistanians have been reported shooting rockets into southeast Turkey (a Nato ally, by the way) to try to get the Turks to give up the portion of Turkey currently inhabited by Kurds. It is interesting what Shrub has unleashed. And that is the more interesting story. Not what a couple of gay people write to the idiot (or maybe humorist) Purdie columnist at Slate.

    (NB: Does your PissPoorMedia company pay you by the post?)

    Comment by raj — September 6, 2006 @ 4:44 am - September 6, 2006

  44. Ian at #37 writes: “Well then, apparently you (Michigan-Matt) didn’t read his (GP’s) comment very carefully did you?”

    To answer your question: Yes, I did. I read it as attributing a worldview to you –putting it in quotes as if it were a known, classic condition.

    Bruce wasn’t attributing that as a quote to you, per se. Thin skin is not a valid reason for being wrong, raj/Ian/blah. But it sure works well to sidestep the main issue… as you tried to demonstrate.

    I read it as Bruce attributing a world view –in this case, one of the leading GayLeftBorg tenets– that all Christians are anti-gay and hate us (gays) because the Bible tells ’em so. Phooey.

    There are lots of Christian groups who don’t. The GayLeftBorg rarely takes note of those groups like the Unitarians for instance. Heck, the Catholic Church even makes gays Cardinals and Bishops and imprisoned felons. And they aren’t alone.

    The bigger issue isn’t whether you misunderstood a simple use of attribution, it’s that you harbor strong anti-religious sentiments and would willingly use inflamatory, insensitive symbols to underscore your bitter, unjustified hatred.

    Religious bigots populate the GayLeft world and are a dime-a-dozen. You sirs (raj/Ian/blah) are a religious bigot. In fact, I think much of your personal philosophy arises from hatred and scorn of others… it’s time for some counseling, eh?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 6, 2006 @ 7:24 am - September 6, 2006

  45. I sincerely do not understand the theme of this post.

    raj not understanding is new? lol, Well maybe admitting it is.

    Comment by anon — September 6, 2006 @ 9:18 am - September 6, 2006

  46. Bruce says:

    Second, you’d think that rich uppity-class gays would adore the American flag since they have been able to achieve success despite what sounds like a crushing daily oppression by “the right wing……….”

    Bruce you claim that this person has bought into a “Leftist Agenda” of hating American and all it stands for.

    I’m just pointing out that they could have just as easily bought into the Far Right agenda that portrays anyone who does not agree with their increasingly narrow set of ideologies of being un-American. For politicians such as the recently nominated Kathrine Harris in FL, its unlikely that “my fellow American” is a phrase she would gladly apply to gay and lesbian people.

    ________________________________

    Perhaps you can distance yourself from terms like unpatriotic and fascist if you distanced yourself from people and causes that embrace those terms and define those terms.

    Just a thought.

    As a registered Independent, I have already done that. I disavow and despise both Parties for the most part. I think there are good individuals in both, but as a whole neither have the best interests of the country at heart.

    I will point out that the terms “fascist” or “un-patriotic” as used by either the Right or the Left, do not have much in common with the dictionary definition of the terms.

    Instead they are primarily just used as epithets to bludgeon an opponent or someone that doesn’t agree with you. In the context in which they are usually used their meaning is closer to “You are an A******!” rather than trying to describe someone practicing actual fascism or treason.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — September 6, 2006 @ 11:05 am - September 6, 2006

  47. #44: “one of the leading GayLeftBorg tenets– that all Christians are anti-gay and hate us (gays) because the Bible tells ‘em so.”

    Nonsense. Andrew Sullivan whom many here deride as a liberal is quite clearly a Christian and not anti-gay. Here’s another example of a GLBT Church that is clearly leftist in its views http://www.mccsf.org/justice/index.html

    “The GayLeftBorg rarely takes note of those groups like the Unitarians for instance.”

    Are the Unitarians even considered Christian? I’m not even sure they require a belief in God? That aside, the UU congregations that I’m aware of have many gay members and are quite leftist in their beliefs about social justice and the like.

    “Heck, the Catholic Church even makes gays Cardinals and Bishops and imprisoned felons.”

    Huh? This makes no sense.

    Comment by Ian — September 6, 2006 @ 12:04 pm - September 6, 2006

  48. I do hate having to explain the same thing over and over again to leftists like RajIan.

    The reason is that the representative of the company is a blank slate, as it were, to the customer, so as not to possibly offend the customer.

    However, this situation was NOT a blank slate, as evinced by these two statements from the gay person:

    We have worked well with one company and asked them to bid a second phase of the job.

    Plus later:

    The company has done a good job for us so far.

    Thus, the company knows these individuals are gay and has done good work for them — and yet is still smeared by the gay people as being antigay and not socially responsible because of a hat worn by one of its workers.

    Are we supposed to infer from that and the rest of the post that all–or a significant majority of–gays would agree with them?

    Yes.

    If so, what is your evidence (a word that is foreign to many people here) for that proposition?

    The fact that puppets like you, RajIan, who claim to speak for the entire gay community and represent the “real” gay point of view, are defending and spinning for these bigoted and hate-filled individuals, who are claiming that a contractor is antigay and not socially responsible despite the fact that the contractor knows that they are gay and has done demonstrably good work — which completely contradicts their claim.

    And your representative spin is a hoot. Gay leftists like yourself are infamous for demanding the right to wear, display, or do whatever they want at work and claiming they’re being “discriminated against” if a company will not let them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 6, 2006 @ 12:20 pm - September 6, 2006

  49. I do hate having to explain the same thing over and over again to leftists like RajIan.

    I think he’s simply too old, too comfortable in his bigotry, too closed-off in his prejudices, too uninterested in the real world to bother with.

    Comment by V the K — September 6, 2006 @ 12:28 pm - September 6, 2006

  50. raj/Ian/blah writes: “Nonsense… blah, blah”

    You’ve again missed the trees, the forest, the little squirrels and all manner of fauna, Ian… to keep it simple for you: You missed the main point, again. And we can skip my crack about the Catholic Church and its history of elevating gays to prominent positions in the Church.

    The point is that most GayLeftists believe that Christianity is a force of evil in the world, that it is the primary force oppressing gay civil rights and that organized religion and all it’s evidence in our culture should be sequestered, repressed, eliminated (ala the ACLU).

    To argue that a motivating force on the GayLeft is NOT a hatred and bigotry of Christianity is to ask readers here to suspend all sanity and reason.

    Of course, anyone can identify highprofile GayLeftists (like Sullivan) as “Christian” –actually, he’s Catholic and that’s a whole other kettle of fish– but it misses the fact that most GayLeftists are anti-religion and closeted-religious bigots… despite some mainline Christian Churches actively supporting gays, gay clergy, civil unions, etc. A fact most often skipped by GayLeftists in their effort to indict Christianity.

    I can’t admit you’ll ever “get the message” even with good sports like NDXXX, Calarato, VdaK and others repeatedly explaining things to you… but if I were you, I’d begin with a community college course on “Reading4Comprehension”. It might be the fix. That, and leaving the Democrat Plantation.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 6, 2006 @ 1:56 pm - September 6, 2006

  51. #50: I don’t think Sully is a Christian any more than he is a conservative. First and foremost, Sully is a hedonist, who dons a costume of Catholicism when it suits his purposes.

    Sully insists that the Roman Catholic Church accept circuit parties, ecstasy use, and sex with multiple anonymous partners as ‘true’ Catholicism because he wants the church to bend to his lifestyle, instead of accepting the church’s direction in those matters; much as he demands that tax increases, court-imposed same sex marriage, and consitutional rights for terrorists be accepted as ‘true’ conservatism.

    Comment by V the K — September 6, 2006 @ 2:15 pm - September 6, 2006

  52. I agree with the first paragraph of Ian’s #15 comment above. That said, I do think that this guy/couple overreacted. If I were looking for a contractor (especially one who had done good work for me before), I wouldn’t care which symbol they used in their advertising, much less wore on their ballcaps (especially the american flag–c’mon, get a grip). Living in the dc area, I’d be happy with one who understood/spoke passible English (a rare find in this area these days).

    Comment by ndtovent — September 6, 2006 @ 6:01 pm - September 6, 2006

  53. #50: “To argue that a motivating force on the GayLeft is NOT a hatred and bigotry of Christianity is to ask readers here to suspend all sanity and reason.”

    [yawn] I provide clear counterpoints while you simply repeat wingnut talking points.

    “anyone can identify highprofile GayLeftists (like Sullivan) as “Christian” –actually, he’s Catholic and that’s a whole other kettle of fish”

    I’ll let others dispute your characterization of Catholics as something other than Christian except to say that all the Catholics I know most certainly consider themselves Christian.

    Comment by Ian — September 6, 2006 @ 9:39 pm - September 6, 2006

  54. Gays should just die and get the hell out of this land of freedom.

    Comment by sean — September 6, 2006 @ 10:11 pm - September 6, 2006

  55. #7. LOL!!! No, it doesn’t decline with income. Some just blame ‘the American gay community’ and ‘The Left’ and ‘liberals’.

    Comment by sean — September 6, 2006 @ 10:16 pm - September 6, 2006

  56. #18. Of course they were. And they pray for your perverted deviant soul, too.

    Comment by sean — September 6, 2006 @ 10:19 pm - September 6, 2006

  57. Finally, I wonder if the GP posse would claim something along these lines–“second, it’s your house, and if you want to get rid of a contractor who has already demonstrated his competence and ability in favor of an unknown one who meets your litmus test, more power to you”–if a hat or t-shirt was protesting the war, said god hates fags, or something they disagreed with. That would be fun to watch.

    I’m still stuck on the “conventional wisdom that gays and lesbians are expected to think in only one dimension.” Where’s the handbook that imparts this way of thinking? Who does the expecting? What dimension are we talking about? And how much of this is a convenient fantasy?

    Comment by sean — September 6, 2006 @ 10:26 pm - September 6, 2006

  58. Finally, I wonder if the GP posse would claim something along these lines–”second, it’s your house, and if you want to get rid of a contractor who has already demonstrated his competence and ability in favor of an unknown one who meets your litmus test, more power to you”–if a hat or t-shirt was protesting the war, said god hates fags, or something they disagreed with.

    I can’t speak for the others, but I certainly would.

    That is, as long as you’re being honest that the reason you’re getting rid of a good contractor is that you don’t like their clothes. Personally, I think it’s a rather moonbat and foolish reason, regardless of who’s practicing it.

    Now, what I’d like to see is a gay leftist like yourself admit that it’s moonbat and foolish.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 6, 2006 @ 11:20 pm - September 6, 2006

  59. #48 North Dallas Thirty — September 6, 2006 @ 12:20 pm – September 6, 2006

    More silliness from the dissembler. Apparently you are unable to distinguish between the company that the gays had earlier worked with and a representative that the company had sent out. They are not necessarily one in the same.

    I’m not really surprised that you are unable to make that distinction. Over at IndeGayForum a few months ago, you weren’t even able to reconcile figures from a report from the Wall Street Journal with the survey that it was supposedly based on.

    Comment by raj — September 7, 2006 @ 12:40 am - September 7, 2006

  60. #47 Ian — September 6, 2006 @ 12:04 pm – September 6, 2006

    Nonsense. Andrew Sullivan whom many here deride as a liberal is quite clearly a Christian…

    Nonsense back to you. You don’t really understand the mindset of conservative Protestantism. Sully is a Roman Catholic. To more than a few conservative Protestants, Roman Catholicism is a cult, and their Vatican is the “Harlot Vatican,” the “Whore of Babylon.”

    I learned that a few years ago while posting on the MightyRighty’s FreieRepublikaner website (also known as FreeRepublic.com, Rush Lamebrain’s favorite website).

    NB: Munich is bracing for Der Besuch der Alten Dame on Sunday. Der Nazi Feigling kommt. Since it is unlikely that Matty will translate it for you, I will. “Nazi Feigling” is the pope. “Kommt” means that the Nazi Feigling is coming to Munich–fortunately on the other side of town. “Der Besuch der Alten Dame” means “the visit of the old lady.”

    Actually, Der Besuch der Alten Dame was the name of a play by Durrenmatt. It’s quite interesting in German. It was done–in translation, of course–in NYC as “The Visit, and I’ve seen mention that it was made into a movie by Hollywood–das Land des HappyEnds. I have not seen the movie, so I don’t know whether it retained the viciousness of the play.

    Comment by raj — September 7, 2006 @ 12:41 am - September 7, 2006

  61. Finally, I will merely take notice of the fact that Bruce has not seen fit to address the questions regarding the vacuousness of the post. I’m not holding my breath waiting for him to do so.

    Comment by raj — September 7, 2006 @ 12:42 am - September 7, 2006

  62. Apparently you are unable to distinguish between the company that the gays had earlier worked with and a representative that the company had sent out. They are not necessarily one in the same.

    Unfortunately, puppet RajIan, you and these gay bigots were claiming that the company was antigay and not socially responsible.

    Furthermore, you made that determination about the company all on the fact that one of its representatives was wearing an American-flag hat.

    Now you want to deny that linkage — because your making it proves how irrational and bigoted gay leftists like yourself are.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 7, 2006 @ 1:47 am - September 7, 2006

  63. And finally, as to the vacuousness of this post, your constant spinning and dissembling does an excellent job of proving GP’s point — namely, that gay leftists like yourselves are intolerant, bigoted hypocrites who claim people and companies are antigay based on the clothes that they’re wearing.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 7, 2006 @ 1:50 am - September 7, 2006

  64. Hold a mirror up to bigoted gay lefties. Watch them recoil from their own reflection. Repeat.

    Comment by V the K — September 7, 2006 @ 8:16 am - September 7, 2006

  65. Perhaps someone with more time than me would like to go to a lefty gayblog and count how many anti-Christian and anti-American slams come up in the comments and posts?

    I don’t personally need to be convinced. I’ve seen enough smirking references to “imaginary magical sky-god” and other expressions of contempt to know how the gay left regard people-of-faith. And we already know that facts and evidence will never persuade those who are already comfortable and secure in their navel-gazing bigotry.

    Comment by V the K — September 7, 2006 @ 8:25 am - September 7, 2006

  66. Did anyone notice that raj at #60 is debating Ian at #47?

    It’s the penultimate stroke of a twisted sockpuppet mind to feel the need to appear separate –to all who know better.

    I think the burden of being a GayLeftist is finally impacting reality for the sockpuppet.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 7, 2006 @ 9:12 am - September 7, 2006

  67. M-Matt, I think the magic word is “schizophrenia” in this case. Which, not coincidentally, describes the RAT party at this time.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — September 7, 2006 @ 2:36 pm - September 7, 2006

  68. Ahh, that explains a lot, Peter. Thanks.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 8, 2006 @ 8:57 am - September 8, 2006

  69. No matter how I try to distance myself from the gays who seem to be offended by anything and everything I say, somehow the gays I know come up with new things that I did to offend them. If someone wore a rainbow gay flag, I wouldn’t care a bit one way or anther, yet someone wears anangry eagle american flag, and somehow it is translated into the rightwing hate of gays. It’s not hatred, it’s sickness. I’m sick of the cry baby attitudes. Oh, your feelings are hurt, welcome to earth. The world is bigger than just you. Get out of my face with your gay comments. You are the ones who have to tell the world every day your gay. I don’t tell the world everyday I’m not gay. I don’t cry and blame all my physoligical issues on the rightwing. It’s your life, take charge for once. Nobody really cares if you are gay or not, all they care about is if you are in their face about it and accusing them of being haters and homophobes. You are the fracken hetrophobes, anything that has to do with nature being in balance, you seem to freak out about. Man + women = child. Same sex plus same sex = no child or adoption or borrow some sperm find egg … it’s doesn’t work nature. That’s why people like me don’t understand and never will understand you, doesn’t mean we hate you, just means we will never understand why people do unnatural things. be gay. don’t really care, your life, just get your gayness out of my face and stay away from my kids.

    Comment by Non gay guy — December 21, 2006 @ 11:04 pm - December 21, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.