Hat Tip: Christopher Cantwell
The vast majority of teams from the four major professional sports leagues in the United States stayed curiously silent after Friday’s landmark same-sex marriage ruling.
Because it’s the job of the professional sports industry to cheer for gay rights, apparently.
The coupons are printed with the phrase “?Homo estas?” above a photo of a burrito. Below the burrito, there is text that reads, “Which way do you sway?” with arrows pointing to two buttons. One button reads “I eat tacos” and the other reads “I eat burritos.”
Chipotle spokesman Chris Arnold said the company has used the tagline in support of Pride events for several years “and it has always been very well received in the LGBT community.” “If there are some who find it insensitive, we certainly apologize for that,” he told Business Insider.
Call it a hunch, but if Rush Limbaugh made a joke like this, there would be protests and boycotts.
Some gay activists are whining that the end of the gay marriage struggle has left them… unsatisfied.
The more victories that accumulate for gay rights, the faster some gay institutions, rituals and markers are fading out. And so just as the gay marriage movement peaks, so does a debate about whether gay identity is dimming, overtaken by its own success.
“What do gay men have in common when they don’t have oppression?” asked Andrew Sullivan, one of the intellectual architects of the marriage movement. “I don’t know the answer to that yet.”
“The thing I miss is the specialness of being gay,” said Lisa Kron. “Because the traditional paths were closed, there was a consciousness to our lives, a necessary invention to the way we were going to celebrate and mark family and mark connection. That felt magical and beautiful.”
Oh, dear, what will they ever do now? What is next for the gay left. Reparations, perhaps?
The Media/Establishment consensus seems to be that losing two major issues at the Supreme Court (Obamacare and Gay Marriage) was actually *good* for Republicans. If the SCOTUS had held Obamacare to the actual language of the law and struck down the subsidies, Republicans would have quickly restored them; all the while trying to pretend that they weren’t really saving Obamacare. Gay marriage is now “off the table,” the “know-betters” tell us, and this is also good for Republicans.
No, it isn’t. Here’s why.
Imagine there were two restaurants in town, the Democrat Bistro and Cafe Republican. Imagine that the two restaurants were basically the same, except that Cafe Republican serves red meat and Democrat Bistro removed it from their menu back in the 90’s and has become increasingly vegetarian ever since. Cafe Republican has been told for years it needs to stop serving meat to be competitive with the Democrat Bistro. In fact, the Yelp reviews for Cafe Republican are filled with bad reviews, mostly from customers of the Democrat Bistro, most of them attacking Cafe Republican for serving red meat.
So, finally, Cafe Republican relents and takes meat (i.e. Social Conservatism) off the menu. And they won’t replace it with anything else, they’re just taking it off the menu.
If you were customer at Cafe Republican and meat was your main reason for eating there, why would you keep eating there?
And suppose Cafe Republican kept promising you that they would replace the meat on its menu with something you would like just as much, but instead they just copied stuff off the Democrat Bistro menu; claiming it was necessary to bring in Democrat Bistro customers.
If you were a customer at the Democrat Bistro, why would you switch to Cafe Republican?
Is the metaphor obvious enough?
The GOP has a very discouraged base because their Senate and House majorities have done little but advance the Democrat agenda; fully funding Obamacare, fully funding Executive Amnesty, confirming all of Obama’s appointments, and granting Obama unlimited trade authority. A Democrat Congress would have done exactly the same thing.
Further, the social conservative segment of the base may well decide “why bother?” It’s bad enough fighting for a lost cause; but when a former ally becomes neutral, there’s no point in being on their team.
So, social conservatives abandon the GOP. The GOP thinks this isn’t a problem because they’ll be replaced with moderates and maybe some Democrats. So far, in the northeast and California, it hasn’t worked out that way.
With last week’s decision imposing gay marriage on the entirety of the country despite lacking any legitimate Constitutional authority to do so, the Supreme Court has put the radical left within striking distance of one of its most ambitious objectives; the taxation (and regulation) of religious institutions and houses of worship.
US bishops have spent decades advocating liberal big government programs (ObamaCare, as long as they are exempted and amnesty spring to mind) all while enjoying an exemption from its effects or sharing in the burden of the costs via their tax exemption.
Well they are going to get a taste of what they’ve been building and they aren’t going to like it one bit.
While I will lament to loss of an important American value, it won’t be the first progressives have killed. But I will laugh as they and others like them are shocked that the government they are so happy to sic on others turns on them.
Added: In the interest of interfaith comity I should note I’m looking forward to synagogues and mosques being taxed as well.
90-95% of your congregants vote for Democrats? Well, then I’m sure you’ll be happy to be subject to even more of what they impose on the rest of us.
A Gay Pride Parade in Chicago (cough, silly anachronism, cough) was disrupted by #BlackLivesMatter protesters; who are angry that teh gheys get what they want, but nobody’s agreed to disband the police or cough up slavery reparations yet.
— Sarah Cantaloupe (@SarahCantaloupe) June 28, 2015
On Friday my phone was blowing up with messages, asking if I’d seen the news. Some expressed disbelief at the headlines. Many said they were crying.
None of them were talking about the dozens of people gunned down in Sousse, Tunisia, by a man who, dressed as a tourist, had hidden his Kalashnikov inside a beach umbrella. Not one was crying over the beheading in a terrorist attack at a chemical factory near Lyon, France. The victim’s head was found on a pike near the factory, his body covered with Arabic inscriptions. And no Facebook friends mentioned the first suicide bombing in Kuwait in more than two decades, in which 27 people were murdered in one of the oldest Shiite mosques in the country.
They were talking about the only news that mattered: gay marriage.
Not all the gay lefties were high-fiving each other; some were being bitter and hateful. So, I guess, it was just another day to them.
… surprisingly, the winner is not Andrew Sullivan but Foreign Policy magazine, which asks Can Gay Marriage Defeat ISIS, and stupidly concludes that it can.
Do you want to fight the Islamic State and the forces of Islamic extremist terrorism? I’ll tell you the best way to send a message to those masked gunmen in Iraq and Syria and to everyone else who gains power by sowing violence and fear. Just keep posting that second set of images [of gay people celebrating the gay marriage order]. Post them on Facebook and Twitter and Reddit and in comments all over the Internet. Send them to your friends and your family. Send them to your pen pal in France and your old roommate in Tunisia. Send them to strangers.
That’s the lesson of history: Brutality and fear can keep people down for only so long. The Nazis learned this; the Soviets learned it; the Ku Klux Klan learned it; Pol Pot learned it; the Rwandan génocidaires learned it.
I had no idea that the Nazis and Soviets were defeated by hashtags and idiot transparent rainbows on facebook profile pics. This must be from the “Underwater Gay Sailor” school of strategic thinking.
Hat tip: Sooper Mexican
If you take all the white guys who are running for president as Republicans out of the mix, the quality of the field improves markedly.
Gay marriage is
legal mandatory now in all 50 states, so why not polygamy?
Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals?” he writes. “The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy—yet many of the same people who pressed for marriage equality for gay couples oppose it.”
DeBoer agrees with Chief Justice John Roberts that the reasoning in Obergefell v. Hodges could just as easily apply to polygamous marriages as gay marriages. He notes that now that child-rearing has been rejected as the rationale for marriage, traditional arguments against polygamy have been weakened.
It’s hard to find fault with his reasoning.
Was asked this morning if now that the gay rights special interests have what they want, they will be happy?
Of course they will not be happy. They cannot afford to be happy. Does anyone really expect the Professional Activist Class to fold their tents and look for jobs in the Obama economy just because five social justice warriors in black robes have usurped democracy to impose their preferred social policies on a nation of 330 Million?
Does anyone expect the gay left to be gracious toward their defeated opponents? If you were taught about American history in a pre-Common Core school, you know how the victors treated the defeated after the last civil war. If not, Google “Reconstruction.” (Spoiler alert: Not very well.) Or simply consider the recent experiences of Christian bakers and florists who did not wish to participate in gay weddings.
Does anyone expect the activist left to be satisfied with their political victory? If you’ve studied the history of the Civil Rights movement, you know they didn’t stop after the passage of the Civil Rights Act. There are plenty of new frontiers for the Lesbian Gay Bullying Totalitarians to pursue and keep the donations to the Sharptons and Jacksons of the HRC and other professional activist organizations rolling in:
No, this is not the end. This is nowhere near the end. This is just another milestone on the road to our social Pyongyang. The Supreme Court has rejected the rule of law twice in two days in favor of the whims of a Judiciary Politburo.
Here’s some irony for ya, though. In Justice Roberts’s dissent, he writes “Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. ” Which is exactly right, but in his Obamacare ruling yesterday, he was arguing the exact opposite.
As Confederate Flag hysteria reaches new heights, some have begun to wonder if the television series ‘The Dukes of Hazzard’ will be memory-holed from our culture. Beyond featuring a car with the Confederate Battle Emblem on the roof named the ‘General Lee,’ the Dukes of Hazzard was a celebration of rural southern culture. Back when the southern states were solidly Democrat, the national culture was a lot more supportive of southern culture. Only since the south has turned red has the media culture turned against them.
There was another show in the 1970’s that was iconically liberal; M*A*S*H. M*A*S*H was steeped in the left-wing ideology of the time. War was never the answer. Patriots were buffoons. The communists were the good guys. Women were strong and empowered. All of the pieties of the 1970’s Hollywood left were on full display.
Nowadays, M*A*S*H would run afoul of the PC Police.
One generation’s liberal pieties are the next generation’s abominations. It demonstrates what a fickle, emotion-driven beast modern liberalism is. It’s not based on a set of proven values, but on whatever is trendy at the time.
One can foresee a time when all pre-Obama television shows and movies (except maybe for scifi shows and things set in “alternate realities”) are simply banned lest people be reminded how free and prosperous America was before Obama.
In the fantasy world inhabited by the radical left, it is apparently possible for men to menstruate. (And to claim that men cannot have periods marks you as an “anti-science” bigot or something.
Having recently entered a public high school, (my sister) has come to enjoy informing me about some of her more eccentric peers. Near the end of the school year, she told me fewer and fewer of her friends were merely normal boys who liked normal girls, or normal girls who liked normal boys. Rather, they identify as a slew of peculiarly novel “sexual orientations.”
Some were, of course, the usual “gay” or “lesbian,” but in addition to these were “demisexuals,” “androsexuals,” and “therians” (which, she explained, are people who are only attracted to individuals who commune with the same spirit animal). One identified as a “panromantic polyamorous asexual non-binary space god.”
Are these actual “genders” (a word that has been maliciously maimed of its original meaning) or just young, insecure and rather boring people trying desperately to make themselves seem interesting; like the middle-aged women you see at the supermarket with tramp stamps and oddly-colored hair.
Instead of making up new sexualities to show how very, very clever, tolerant and shallow we are, perhaps there is more richness to be gained in appreciating the innate and natural sexuality of men and women as it has evolved over thousands of years.
For myself, I happen to think real, masculine “cisgendered” men are pretty awesome on their own; I’ve always found athletes, soldiers and hunters far more interesting than drag queens or pajama boys.
The pair claimed that they had suffered persecution and abuse from family and locals in the home in Kamchatka region in the extreme east of Russia.
They hoped they would be welcomed if they went to Syria after watching an ISIS recruitment video online.
The source on this seems pretty dubious; not Chinese newspaper dubious, but enough to advise caution. Still, it’s not completely implausible. After all, Queers for Palestine is a thing.
There is a danger in making concessions to insane radicals.
The idea of banning the Confederate flag in response to a shooting that had absolutely nothing to do with the Confederate Flag began with dim, soft-bellied Republican politicians like Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush who thought consigning the Confederate Battle Emblem to museums would be a nice, feelgood concession to the left which would heal wounds and bring us all together. Others said, “This isn’t about banning the flag, it’s about taking it off Government buildings and you’re silly (and racist) to think it will go any further than that.” Others said, “I’m not a southerner, so I don’t care about that flag. Let’s just concede the argument so we can put this all behind us and move on.”
It didn’t quite work out that way. Instead, companies like WalMart, eBay, and Amazon upped the ante by banning sales of Confederate Battle Emblems entirely; the National Park Service joined in, too. Apple has reportedly removed Civil War Games from their app store because they use the CBE.
So much for those who insisted this wasn’t really a ban.
Sensing weakness, the crazies of the left immediately pounced and began demanding more concessions; and nothing short of an ISIS-style erasure of American cultural history and icons will satisfy them now.
In dealing with the left, one must remember that they are a selfish and irrational people. Political Correctness is the outward expression of their piety in their progressive socialist religion. They demonstrate their moral purity to one another through one-upmanship, no demand is so crazy that it cannot be topped be an even crazier demand. It’s a game no one can ever win.
Put another way, if you give a monster a cookie, he’s only going to demand more cookies.
John Nolte has a point, if you’re on the wrong side of gay marriage or any other agenda items, then this is the flag of your oppressor. This is the flag they waved as they took away your business, made you lose your job, or vandalized your church.
This Confederate Battle Emblem business isn’t really about sparing people’s feelings, or ending discrimination. It’s about showing who has political power, and who doesn’t. And I have proof for this proposition.