I understand why they want to keep dialogue open. Besides the fact that it makes them money at the same time. However, how much of a ‘dialogue’ can it be if one side will never. ever. budge an inch from their position?
4 Likes
3 Likes
If they can continue to get the business of all the self-loathing closeted gays in the Republican party they will do fine.
4 Likes
At the risk of getting stoned by our neighbors to the north, could we please send Cruz back to his country of origin-- Canada? Wait. Or is that Cuba?
4 Likes
Canada has a Constitutional Queen. They have no room for one of the Drama variety
8 Likes
One more illustration of the defining characteristic of a Republican: lack of empathy. Unless it affects them and theirs, it’s not a problem.
3 Likes
smiles… ummm … yeah… dude relax… why are you assuming I’m a dude?
Rolling Stones… 'she goes running for the shelter of her mother’s i’til helper and it gets her thru her day…
or did you think she was talking about aspirin?
I’ve forgotten more about the Stones than you will ever know.
for instance, the lyrics: “…and it helps her on her way, gets her through her busy day” (Not what you posted)
3 Likes
Is it really helpful to assist Cruz in his fundraising efforts? I don’t mean just the hoteliers, but the boycotters. As I type this, I am sure his people are drafting a fundraising appeal off of the boycott.
2 Likes
I remember this a bit differently. To my recollection, right after his inauguration Clinton proposed or stated that he would order DOD to allow gays to serve openly in the military. “Analysts” said that he had made such a commitment to gay rights groups and wanted to act on it while his victory was fresh. The resultant firestorm resulted in the DADT and a heck of a lot of focus on homosexual soldiers. Now, I got the impression that Clinton had badly miscalculated/misunderstood the vast significance of this issue to conservatives and overestimated his political power and room for maneuver as a relatively liberal Democrat who unseated a GOP president with a plurality of the popular vote. I thought it reflected a bit of an insouciant attitude toward gay organizations who worked for him and toward his promise – that he didn’t really apply the thought and strategy that would be required. It’s a raw nerve, still, as you can see.
1 Like
Those that cannot accept gay marriage will die off soon enough and the majority of the up coming generation won’t give a damn who marries who.
4 Likes
doubtful… the song alludes to an over medicated gentry that get a ‘legitimate’ RX while the rest of us try other things…
oh yeah… this hasn’t anything to do with my original post…
which is railing against the double standard of condemning the pizza assholes for ‘not serving’ the gay but the also condemning the gay owners for hosting Ted Cruz…
What actions could she “show” as a candidate, other than what she has already done, which is to state that she is for marriage equality? What would be good enough for you? You seem to be profoundly bitter, and it can cloud your objectivity. Who, other than Hillary could you possibly support?
And if you are picking some unelectable person…to what end? You seem to me to have lost all perspective, and others’ remarks, above here - especially “Frankly My Dear” have explained very accurately what the situation once was and how it has evolved.
Do you hate George Washington and Thomas Jefferson because they had slaves? My thoughts about those two have been tested by that knowledge, but I realize, reluctantly, that we had to evolve, and so I hold them to a different standard than I hold people who now know better.
What exactly do you want? And is there anyone in the world who can deliver it?
4 Likes
You win the prize. This is the most absurd, stupid, and phony comment I have ever seen on any site…ever. Do you think anyone in their right mind could take you seriously?
Really? Let me offer you a pizza with a bride and bride on top. Shheeesh! I didn’t think anyone was so disingenuous…now I know! Hope no one wants to compete with you here.
5 Likes
It would be really fun if the right wing comes to their defense like they did with Chick-Fil-a. I’d love to see their hotel filling up with some bermuda shorts clad bubbas.
6 Likes
OK… what are you actually railing about? let me say it again… I think that trying to boycott a business because they choose to do business or offer their home for a fund raiser for Ted is equivalent to the dumbasses that don’t want to cater or provide provide service to gay marriages…
which part is disingenuous? I think everyone that owns a business to the public is required to service the customer… they aren’t being asked to approve of disapprove of any sort of marriage… just bring the flowers, bake the cake or take picture…
by the same token if some Log Cabin Republican chooses to service Ted Cruz that’s their business…
what part of this is unclear?
Actually (and this isn’t Clinton’s fault), the armed services became MORE aggressive in dismissing LGBT soldiers after DADT was implemented than they had been before, in part because “Tell” was interpreted VERY broadly, to include things like being seen at a gay event or going into a gay bar. Clinton didn’t, and couldn’t, have forseen that the military would twist the policy in the way it did
3 Likes
You should take a look at the rate of dismissals based on sexual orientation BEFORE DADT versus AFTER. It may alter your view of whether or not it represented genuine “progress.”
You do have a point about DOMA. And here is something else that people forget about DOMA: at the time, there were many calls by Republicans for a constitutional amendment limiting the definition of marriage to that of one man with one woman. And in the mid-90s, there was a genuine fear that such an amendment might actually have the votes to pass. If that had happened, we would be facing a far bigger – possibly insurmountable – hurdle in making gay marriage legal. Part of Clinton’s negotiations with Republicans at the time was that he would agree to sign DOMA if they would agree not to introduce a constitutional amendment. We all hated it, but at retrospect, he struck a wise bargain from a strategic standpoint.
3 Likes
What’s disingenuous is the way you keep conflating serving someone at a buisness with inviting them into the owner’s home. One is simply treating all members of the public equally. The other is hosting an event at a place where no member of the public has any right or expectation to be, and can only be there because the owner personally inviting them into their private space.
Its hard to believe you can’t see the difference, and even harder to believe you can’t tell the difference. So why are you trying to make these 2 very different acts be the same?
7 Likes