Michele Bachmann says gays are the real bullies

Thumbnail image for bachmanncomicart.jpg

Michele Bachmann has discovered who the real bullies of our society are, and they are the gays.

SEE ALSO: Bachmann calls for "tolerance" of haters who want to oppress gays


Never mind that they have been systematically marginalized, that they face hate crimes simply for being themselves, that they couldn't even get married in Minnesota until recently.

No, the rich, white, straight underclass of our society is being intimidated by gay people.

"The gay community, they have so bullied the American people, and they've so intimidated politicians," Bachmann told radio host Lars Larson during a recent CPAC debate.

Bachmann was referring to the failed attempt by Arizona to allow business owners to discriminate against gay people by refusing to serve them. Basically, if you are a business that owns a water fountain, you are not allowed to hang a "Straights Only" sign on it.

Bachmann was offended that "the gay community decided to make this their measure" -- that is, they decided to advocate against the law that would deprive them of their civil rights. This, to Bachmann, is bullying.

This isn't the first time Bachmann has employed her patented reverse logic to argue that the discriminatory bill is actually a civil rights measure for religious people. She also called for "tolerance" of both sides of the debate.

"This isn't one side or another," Bachmann said. "What we're talking is tolerance on both sides and it is not tolerant to force people to violate their religious beliefs."

Yes, just like we should have been "tolerant" of both sides of the slavery debate. Bachmann is calling for us to be tolerant of her and her ilk's right to hate and oppress, which is the exact opposite of any conventional definition of tolerance.

This is the same woman who once hid in the bushes to spy on a gay rights rally. She is the same woman who resisted calls for action to combat gay bullying and suicide in her home school district, Anoka-Hennepin.

Don't worry, Michele. It gets better.

Hat-Tip: MinnPost
My Voice Nation Help
101 comments
Linda Geving Anderson
Linda Geving Anderson

Ewww, You're right, Bob. I want to know who voted for her? That's scary.....

Jeremy Peters
Jeremy Peters

Sucks she didn't leave Minnesota like she said she would if the marriage equality bill passed.....she is a shit stain on the state of Minnesota.....I think she would be better suited to represent one of the southern states.

MrGasso
MrGasso

But, I must add that I know several Conservative Gay people! You should hear the things THEY say!

MrGasso
MrGasso

Real Gay People just laugh at her!

jurt.00
jurt.00

November can't come soon enough. She's MN's embarrassment. I live in the Sixth District and I didn't vote for her, so don't blame me.

Dana Harmel
Dana Harmel

Disagreeing with someone's opinion or lifestyle is not 'hate.' Many people disagree with people of faith's lifestyles, they disagree with a hunter's lifestyle for killing animals...those people generally don't refer to their detractors as 'haters.' So when you equate an aversion to homosexuals' talking points as hate, you're just being irresponsibly dramatic. Those kinds of people get tuned out. I'm tuning you out.

Mary Burkinshaw
Mary Burkinshaw

I am not a homosexual and you should hear the things I have to say about dimwit Bachmann. Sadly, I am in her district and have listened to her disguised behind religion hate for over ten years. I was long ago one of her supporters, but after really listening to her, I got smart. I cannot stand the witch.

Cyndi A. Cherry
Cyndi A. Cherry

It's the other way around Gays get beaten up & bullied on a daily bases.

Jon P Ogden
Jon P Ogden

Wondering how often you call Obama, "Big Ears," or Michelle, "Balloon Butt." Turnabout should be fair play, don't you think?

Matthew Gramlich
Matthew Gramlich

Though I don't identify with the battles that David or Mrs. Bachmann have chosen to fight, ignoring information because of its source is not objective, socially-conscious, or a viable approach to achieving the culture we are, purportedly, trying to reach. It's very disheartening to me how quick people are to take sides. The reality is divisive issues are two-sided by nature. I think we are defined more by the way we approach the issue than by our relation to it. If your opinion is more important than resolution then the issue at hand is an ornament to your self-- exhibiting disrespectful, isolating, or even hateful behavior to accomplish your goal needs to be UNANIMOUSLY and CULTURALLY identified as what it is; self-defeating.

TweetsAreYours
TweetsAreYours

She had been quiet lately. Too quiet. Good to know that she hasn't prayed the crazy away. #TweetsAreYours

J Martin Schlierman
J Martin Schlierman

I'm Mormon in LA, and yes, I've been belittle by gays and gay right supporters for not agreeing with, to the point of even having glass bottles thrown out out of moving cars for wearing my Boy Scout uniform. To say that some gays are not bullies is pure ignorance from the Left who wish to see themselves as 100% in the right. Sorry guys, you can be just as big of monsters as Conservatives can.

swmnguy
swmnguy topcommenter

There's a very unfortunate toddler stage of development many of us never get past.  It's that fear that somebody else might get a bigger cookie, or worse, a cookie they don't deserve.  Turned around, anything that might give me a smaller cookie or even a equally-sized cookie is unacceptable.

All kinds of excuses are attached to what are basically fights over cookies; religion is one of the most popular excuses.  Race is another, along with gender, socio-economic class, etc.  

The arguments are easily seen to be illogical, because once you strip away the excuses, they're all about somebody getting a bigger cookie, or one they don't deserve.

Discrimination is bad for business.  That's why we have laws (however ineffectual) against it. If some idiots are afraid somebody else might get a bigger cookie when their omnipotent invisible friend says that's not "fair," they need to be treated like the toddlers they are, and they need to be run out of business.  

In the right-wing fantasy world, the wedding-services industry is full of Fundamentalist Christian heterosexuals.  This is so weird to anyone who knows anyone in that world.  Where are all these hetero florists?  But anyway, suppose the bakery next door is run by religious fanatics.  The baker down the street will put them out of business if he has the gumption to advertise that he is an all-access baker who doesn't tolerate bigotry.  He's going to take the first baker's cookie (or "drink his milkshake").

People like Rep. Bachmann pander to people who are being put out of business and can't get ahead due to their own lack of ability and their toddler-fixation on who is getting the cookie they think should be theirs.

Sorry; most of us don't care what you say your invisible friend says you deserve.  Our society is set up to make business function.  With agonizing slowness we're getting the toddler mentality out of the way of making things work better.  Get on the right side of it, or be swept aside.  And we aren't interested in your excuses.

Stefanie Megan Brown
Stefanie Megan Brown

Her Retirement can't come soon enough. Her and the rest if these mindless drones need to go somewhere

Lee Roy A. Ponke
Lee Roy A. Ponke

Shes got it backward her party is working hard to take their rights away from the people she claims that are doing the bullying. The worst part is Conservatives use the Bible. They think their beliefs in the Bible aren more than their beliefs even tho the first amendment says NO laws shall be made according to any religion.

Bob B Bopp
Bob B Bopp

Being called out on your ignorance, hatred, and deceit isn't the same as being bullied, Dana. Nice try, though.

freeAsaBird
freeAsaBird

Private business should be able to deny their services to anyone they want.
Imagine an African-American baker, and two KKK members come in and ask him to make a cake for their wedding. The baker should be able to tell them to go find another baker and get out of his store, that they are not welcome there. It's called FREEDOM, and it doesn't matter if you agree with it or not, but you have to respect people's freedom.

State's/Government's employment/services/products is a different matter. It is not private business. The state cannot discriminate against any CITIZEN, since the state/government is composed of "The People", which includes all of us.

Forcing private business to do business with everyone is nothing short of a government take over of business.

tim.brackett
tim.brackett

SMH! Hunters and people of faith choose their lifestyle(s). They are not a protected class afforded protection by the Constitution under the Equal Protection Clause. I know many on the far right side of the aisle struggle to grasp nuance, but try to grasp the nuance here. Please!

If not, keep tuning the present/future out though. Just like the old Japanese soldiers who didn't know WWII had ended until decades later. Good luck.

freeAsaBird
freeAsaBird

You first need to understand what a "right" is.
When you force someone to do business with someone else, you are stealing their rights, as in their right to refuse service to anyone. You have the right as a market force to put them out of business by not patronizing it. You have no understanding of what government intervention does to the market. It only harms it, and keeps things alive that should die.
And btw, not a Bachmann fan. And not anti-gay. MmmmmK?

Just someone who loves his freedom and doesn't like people telling me what I have to do, like do business with you.

mingtran
mingtran topcommenter

@freeAsaBird  From a business standpoint it's obviously a bad idea. From a literal interpretation of the constitution, ie. how it's supposed to be interpreted, the business owner has every right to serve who they wish to serve for whatever reason...because it's theirs.

Dog Gone
Dog Gone topcommenter

@freeAsaBird   What a load of bull.

If you want to do business in this country, you have to be accessible to the entire community.  And yes, if a Klucker couple want to order a wedding cake, what groups they belong to, or their politics or their religion for that matter, or their ethnicity, or if they are differently abled, or their sexual orientation, is none of the baker's business.

One of the Teabagger crackpot leaders, in TN, had a hissy fit that the vetoing of the AZ law was going to result in bakeries being forced to make penis cakes - presumably for gay weddings.  The hilarity of that is that there are already bakeries in all 50 states and DC that make those - and they charge around $125 to $150 for them.  I don't think Bakeries are really worried about making penis cakes; but if an individual bakery doesn't want to offer them, they do not have to do so.  But if they DO make them, then they should sell them to same sex purchasers the way they already sell them to heterosexual purchasers (mostly for bachelorette parties).

REAL liberty is keeping business owners as well as government from having veto power over what other people do or think or believe, not forcing your beliefs onto others.

AND NO, not even close, not in a million years is requiring fair business practice / accommodation even remotely anything like government take over of business.  You make an incredibly stupid claim.

You just want more freedom for the haters on the radical right.

midwestexplorer81
midwestexplorer81 topcommenter

@tim.brackett The equal protection clause has been misinterpreted by modern judges bowing to gay activists. Let me be clear I am in favor of gays being allowed to marry so don't come at me with your hater BS. The proper way to get gay marriage is through legislatures though, not courts.

 Think about this, no right to marriage is denied a gay person in a state that only allows man woman marriage. Every man can marry a woman and every woman can marry a man right? Yes. If I am gay I'm choosing not to have a wife, but I still could just like a straight guy, so my rights are not denied. Just because I don't like girls theoretically doesn't mean my rights were denied, I can still marry from the same pool as any other being with a penis.

Now you're going to say well what about interracial marriage...well that is like comparing apples and oranges because those people fought for their right to marry whoever they chose of the opposite sex, they wanted the same rights as whites. Marriage in the states of the U.S. have always been between a man and a woman until recently. The equal protection clause was never meant to allow for gay marriage and if it were then that opens another can of worms. 

Again I'm in favor of gay marriage but the judges ruling that the equal protection clause applies to gay marriage are idiots. 

SixHertz
SixHertz

@tim.brackett

So you're saying there should be special classes of people, then?  Sounds suspiciously bigoted to me, Tim.

Drewey
Drewey topcommenter

@freeAsaBird  if you don't understand the constitution and the supreme courts interpretation of it, then don't comment.  You have a right to open a business or to close your business.   once you have a business though, you are subject to the same antidiscrimination policies as all business.  If the state was forcing you to stay open against your will, that would be an infringement on your rights.  Its also your right to refuse service to anyone who walks through your businesses doors as long as you're ok with being sued.  Read more, talk less.   If you struggle with comprehension then have a more intelligent and informed person explain it to you.

tim.brackett
tim.brackett

@mingtran @freeAsaBirdIt simply is not true that, from a literal interpretation of the constitution, the business owner has every right to serve who they wish for whatever reason. The Supreme Court has continued to reject this premise, over many years and through different ideological court make-ups. It is a false premise that adds nothing to the conversation.

freeAsaBird
freeAsaBird

@Dog Gone @freeAsaBird  

"we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"
Sound familiar? It's been around a lot longer than the very aggressive LGBT lobby.

freeAsaBird
freeAsaBird

@Dog Gone @freeAsaBird 

You don't understand the distinction of "Private" and "Public".

This also goes with "Private Employers" and "Public Employers".
A private employer can fire or not hire you for any reason, that is their prerogative. As with a private business, they can refuse service to anyone for any reason, that is their prerogative.
Feel free to review the supreme court case about the communist who worked at the _private_ American flag company. He was fired for his political ideals, and there is nothing illegal about it. A private company could fire a person for the sole purpose of being homosexual because perhaps it harmed the synergy of the group. It is their prerogative. This is a can of worms you are opening. If you force people to do business with people they don't want to, then be prepared for that just as the KKK members will be able to buy a wedding cake from the African-American baker.
Your understanding of liberty is WRONG. You have to tolerate all people and practice the non-aggression principle, but you sure as hell don't have to do business with them. It's like saying women can join a club for men. They can't and they shouldn't be able to, unless that club is state sponsored. WAKE UP.

But you liberals love aggression via force of state. You think because a majority wants something that is should be that way. Well you live in a REPUBLIC, and a republic protects the individual from the aggressive force of the majority. Welcome to America. Figure out how we do things here please.

tim.brackett
tim.brackett

@SixHertz *yawns* I made no such admission and could care less if someone who supports the "freedom" to discriminate against people based on an inherent characteristic abhors every fiber of my being. Thankfully, you are the past. Get used to abhoring a lot of people, buddy. The future is bright (I have to wear shades).

SixHertz
SixHertz

A straw man is a rhetorical device utilized by those with weak arguments; a logical fallacy. But you did implicitly admit you support authoritarianism, so at least that point is settled; I admire your honesty there, though I abhor every fiber of your being for trying to infringe on the liberty of others. Of course, the other alternative is abject stupidity. I'm however willing to spot you that you're at least above average intelligence.

tim.brackett
tim.brackett

@midwestexplorer81 LOL. None of that made any sense at all. I eat apples and oranges. They are mildly delicious and very healthy. Judges telling us we cannot discriminate against people is also very healthy. 


tim.brackett
tim.brackett

@SixHertz  I use strawman when arguing with those who clearly are out of their depth. It is my way of giving back to the community. You are welcome. 

I am advocating using the force of government to compel others to act in a way which I deem appropriate. It is inappropriate to discriminate against someone for something they did not choose to be. In the interest of fairness, I desire my government to step in and make sure these people are not discriminated against. I do so because clearly my fellow citizens are not capable of doing this on their own. 

Again, I am not creating a special class. I am acknowledging science that tells me homosexuals did not choose their sexual preference and seeking to update our laws to reflect this scientific evidence.

SixHertz
SixHertz

@tim.brackett @SixHertz@swmnguy 


Strawman, much?


Let me remind you that it was government that made the laws that allowed discrimination. Individuals discriminate all the time, for which I couldn't care less if they do; it is MY freedom to choose whether I want to interact with those who may choose to discriminate. That's freedom of association. Someone who professes to understand nuance should try to understand the nuance here.


What you are advocating is using the force of government to compel others to act in a way which only you deem appropriate. And in that way, you're just as bad as the ones who were pro-slavery.

tim.brackett
tim.brackett

@SixHertz @swmnguyI'm starting to see what you are saying though...when we created a protected class (African-Americans) with the 14th Amendment we clearly relegated white people to non-special status. Our nation has fallen off of the rails every since. We can't own slaves (or have sexual relations with them, without fear of prosecution--am I right President Jefferson?). African-Americans can *gasp* vote! Equally as apalling, women can vote. They even let black kids go to the same school as white kids now! The whole country has gone to hell in a hand basket every since the 14th Amendment, and extending the equal protections of that amendment to another group (gays) who were born the way they are is a slippery slope straight to the fiery pit of hell! Our nation would never recover. Men would marry dogs. Women would marry trees. Cakes would be decorated with rainbow icing! 

I pray to my white, heterosexual god every day to keep the gays at bay!  

***sarcasm disclaimer***

SixHertz
SixHertz

@swmnguy

That is what he is saying. By creating a special class, you're implicitly relegating the remainder not in that class to a non-special status. Doesn't take any amount of contortion to see that. I don't see why you can't see everyone as equal; no one should be afforded "special class" status, whether they are black, white, straight, gay, yellow or whatever. You're just as bad as the religious bigot who's trying to pass more legislation forcing government to tell other people what to do. I refuse to live in your Orwellian world.

And by the way, it's a misunderstanding on BOTH sides that this has anything to do with religious rights. This is all about property rights and whether you have the right to dictate what a free person does with his or her own property.

swmnguy
swmnguy topcommenter

@SixHertz  BS, SixHertz.  That's obviously not what tim.brackett is saying and you had to contort yourself to pretend that is what you thought.

A lot of people think their inability to mind their own business should be enshrined in law.  When their personal prejudices are not made the rule of the land, they cry that their religious rights are being infringed, because apparently their invisible friend says they have the right to dictate what other people whom they don't even know do in the privacy of their own homes and lives.

This is an ongoing problem among humans, because some of us never learn to distinguish between what is and is not any of our business, and what does and does not actually affect us personally.  So we have to make rules to stop undeveloped people treat other people like shit to justify their own fears and prejudices.  This is necessary, but it makes bullies whine even more when they aren't allowed to bully other people all the time.  They even claim they are being bullied by being prevented from bullying.

The next argument of bigoted bullies is to claim that anyone who even mentions bigotry and bullying is in fact the bigoted bully.  It's the "PeeWee Herman" gambit; "I know you are, but what am I?", coupled with the old stand-by, "I'm rubber and you're glue; whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you."

Because, really, why is it such a damn problem to you that two other people are happy?  Is that such a blow to you and what you believe in?  If I had a friend, imaginary or not, who kept telling me I had to make sure other people who never did a thing to me had to be miserable or my friend would get mad, I'd be getting myself another friend pronto; preferably not another psychopath.

And yes, I'm bigoted against psychopaths, after unfortunate experience.

SixHertz
SixHertz

Once again...Government cannot discriminate. Individuals can and do discriminate all the time, which, however stupid you may think that individual may be, is a right that should be protected. Freedom of association; it is in the constitution.

Drewey
Drewey topcommenter

So you couldn't find anywhere in the constitution that allows for discrimination of citizens then?

SixHertz
SixHertz

@Drewey  

Spoken like a person with a lot of time on her hands as a "top commenter" in an echo-chamber forum. Must feel pretty good feebly trying to insult people who don't hold the same opinion as you do. Enjoy your time here, little girl.

Drewey
Drewey topcommenter

The fact that you failed to correctly read and/or comprehend the first part if my comment is telling. The fact that you then went on to incorrectly read and/or understand the rest of my comment reminds us all that thinking isn't for everyone. Perhaps you've had a hard day. You best sit the rest of this one out for fear of over exertion

SixHertz
SixHertz

@Drewey @freeAsaBird

Wow, really, Drewey? You just said, "because freeAsaBird doesn't interpret the constitution in the same was as I do, he shouldn't have the right to speak". Tell me, do you sport a Brownshirt at night?

And by the way, you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You just agreed with him that a property owner has the right to refuse service to anyone. To which you're right. And you're right that the property owner may get sued; whether THAT is justified is another question. You are, however, completely wrong in that someone should be compelled to do business with anyone as part of a free society. That is freedom of association.

mingtran
mingtran topcommenter

@Dog Gone  You are projecting, small fry. Nowhere did they say they were ok with that behavior, but rather that as rule of law stands it is perfectly legal for a business owner to serve who they wish.

tim.brackett
tim.brackett

@UhHUH Good fucking God! KKK membership does not, in any way, fall under race. While it may be "all white", a member of the KKK still CHOOSES to become a member. As for the rest of your post, I have no idea what you are talking about. I doubt you really do, either.

UhHUH
UhHUH

@kingbozo


Actually, KKK membership does fall under race (the KKK is an all-white organization, in case you haven't heard) and if Dog Gone is correct, it may even involve religion. But because the KKK is a hate group (just like the New Black Panthers are classified as a hate group) they both are allowed to spread their hatred toward one another. And if each group were to open a business and not serve the people that they do not "like", guess which business would be fined and/or shut out of business, especially in a liberal state like Minnesota? And guess which one would be given a pass? 

tim.brackett
tim.brackett

@freeAsaBird @kingbozo@Dog Gone@UhHUH LOL! You conservatives and your "slippery slope" arguments. SMH (I'm still waiting on laws allowing us to marry animals or inanimate objects because of the "slippery slope" of gay marriage.) Relationship status and political affiliation are a choice! (Although, I'm certain for some the "choice" of relationship status poses more difficulties than it does for others.)

tim.brackett
tim.brackett

@freeAsaBird I'm pretty sure I speak for most when I say groups "deserve" rights based on who they are, not what choices they make. This is covered under the equal protection clause--I thought you right-wingers carried around a copy of the constitution.

Now, I understand we are a Republic that has evolved over time to more resemble Democracy (i.e. Direct election of Senators, etc.). I am also a political independent who leans towards socialism economically but also ascribe to the Consistent Life Ethic (basically, I'm pro-life). 

Let's see your feeble mind put me into your either/or box now...

kingbozo
kingbozo

@freeAsaBird @kingbozo @Dog Gone @UhHUH  I am not sliding down a slippery slop.  I am stating facts. You made a claim that you can do something.  I pointed out the fact that you cannot legally do what you claimed.

The laws granting these protections were legally passed by democratically elected governments and repeatedly upheld in courts of law.  Just because you do not like it does not mean you do not have to abide by those laws.

kingbozo
kingbozo

@freeAsaBird @Dog Gone @UhHUH  "I have the right to not do business with someone that I don't want to, and I don't have to hire someone that I don't want to hire"

 If it is shown that you are basing those decisions on the color of their skin, where they do or do not worship or, in this state, their sexual preference you DO NOT have that right.  And those laws have been UPHELD by the USSC

kingbozo
kingbozo

@UhHUH  Its not bullshit-it is fact.  And the logic in your hypothetical situation fails completely.  KKK membership does not fall under race, religion, or sexual preference so they would not have a case.  Now, if that "black bakery guy" refused service to ALL white people they would probably prevail in court.  

freeAsaBird
freeAsaBird

@Dog Gone @UhHUH
The problem is your "political correctness".
You think one group deserves rights, while another does not, because of what is popular in regards to political correctness.


And that alone tells me you have no idea what a "right" is.
I have the right to not do business with someone that I don't want to, and I don't have to hire someone that I don't want to hire. And that is stated clearly in many supreme court cases.

Just because a bunch of alternative-lifestyle people think we have a "Democracy" for a form of government, does not mean it is true, even if they decide to put it in a dictionary. I am not a subject of the majority, I am an individual, and I have my individual human right (the only kind that exists).

I consent to be governed, and should you modify that contract radically without using the constitutional process, then I will remove my consent to be governed. And then you're on the brink of civil war. You people just keep fracturing our country, and see where it gets ya. Because all us money making employers _will_ go Galt at one point. Most already left this country which is why there are no jobs. It will only get worse and as your emperors of your democracy keep devaluing our currency, things will only get worse until we are 3rd world.

Carry on smarty pants, carry on. Gray area indeed.

Dog Gone
Dog Gone topcommenter

@UhHUH   I don't know if a baker could refuse someone service because of their politics or beliefs.

There is a weird sort of white supremacist religous belief that is part of the KKK - I would refer you to some of the documentaries on the topic that feature them.

In Skokie, the town was unable to refuse to allow neo-Nazis a permit to hold a parade in spite of the disapproval of a large number of Jewish residents.

Being unpleasant or holding an offensive view point is not necessarily grounds for denial of accommodation.

I suspect this is more of a gray area than we think, similar to some aspects of free speech and freedom of assembly.

UhHUH
UhHUH

If I owned any type of business, and 2 KKK members came walking in wearing their white uniforms (or whatever they're called), I have every right to refuse them service as their ideology goes against my beliefs AND I do not want my other customers to see me offering services to them.  

Dog Gone
Dog Gone topcommenter

freeAsaBird, you cannot refuse service.

Or did you conveniently forget the outcome of segregated lunch counters in the deep south.

NOT legal.  You seem to suffer from both selective memory and selective understanding.

I applaudd the LGBT demographic - it is much more than a lobby.  They deserve equality, liberty and their civil rights.

Only bigots seem to have a problem with that, and only bigots seem to want or need to impose their narrow and ugly world view on others so as to limit those things.

UhHUH
UhHUH

@kingbozo


That's bullshit. Using the black bakery guy example, do you think any judge would rule in favor of 2 KKK members who were refused service by the baker if they had took him to court? I. Don't. Think. So.

kingbozo
kingbozo

@freeAsaBird @Dog Gone  Except that statement isn't entirely accurate no matter how long it has been around.  You cannot refuse service because of race religion etc and in many states, including MN, those caveats include sexual orientation.

freeAsaBird
freeAsaBird

@Dog Gone @freeAsaBird
OMG... our form of government is not democracy.
Our form of government is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC that has some democratic processes in it.

I think the liberal college you went to put a bunch of junk in your head...


Remember elementary school?
"... and to the REPUBLIC, for which it stands ..."
I suppose that is next on the liberal agenda? Change some dictionary definitions and change some more history books to suit your neo-think?

freeAsaBird
freeAsaBird

@Dog Gone @freeAsaBird 

The fact that you think in political duality shows how controlled your mind is. No point in arguing with stupid, never is.

Dog Gone
Dog Gone topcommenter

@freeAsaBird   I understand private and public perfectly.


You can have whomever you want into your home, and exclude who you wish.

You cannot do so in a business, and properly so.

I have no problem with a Klucker couple buying a cake from an African American baker - if you can show me that they are a group that deserves that treatment - as is the case with sexual orientation.

Yes, we liberals love the rule of law....or what your side calls the force of state.  I see plenty of that force of state on the right in voter suppression and the trampling of women's rights.

We live in a democracy.  I'm really fed up with the ignorance of the right that does not understand what that is.

From the dictionary:

de·moc·ra·cy [dih-mok-ruh-see] plural de·moc·ra·cies.
1.
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy?s=t


And before you give me the standard right wing nut Republican assertion that somehow a Republic is rule of law and a Democracy is rule of rabble, there is no greater protection for minorities under a Republic than there is under a Democracy.

Ah - conservatives,consistently believing in things which are not true.



kingbozo
kingbozo

@freeAsaBird @Dog Gone  Actually in the state of Minnesota a private employer cannot fire or not hire you on the basis of race, religion or sexual orientation.

Now Trending

Minnesota Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...