Discussion for article #228555
setting aside the peculiar notion that slavery is just like allowing adults to choose whom they wish to marry…
funny how they loooove democracy when it works in their favor, the rest of the time it’s illegitimate mob rule that was never intended by the Founding Fathers.
14 Likes
Yeah, because taking away someone’s right to freedom is exactly the same as allowing someone’s right to freedom.
Only in the GOPTp . . .
11 Likes
so I take it that the National Review also believes it’s a false idea that people can own any kind of firearm and ammo they wish, and democratic peoples cannot say otherwise?
9 Likes
I dunno, My gaydar’s going off like a Geiger Counter at Fukushima.
14 Likes
Broken analogy is broken. Dude didn’t even follow up with the correct explanation, proving he’s just talking out of his angry bigot asshole. See, here’s how it works…
The articel said this:
“In Dred Scott v. Sandford, the Supreme Court ruled that blacks had no rights which the white man was bound to respect,”
To draw the correct analogy and highlight the parallel, he should have said this:
“In this new ruling, the SCOTUS ruled that Christians have no beliefs which the non-Christians are bound to respect.”
The reason he didn’t is because when you say that, you speak the truth. I don’t have to like, respect, believe, live by or behave according to your fucking religion and can tell you to shove it in your dickhole all day long.
8 Likes
And btw, if the bowtie isn’t a giant self-loather alert, I don’t know what is.
8 Likes
Witherspoon Institute.
Bow tie.
Obsessed with gay marriage.
Is comical lack of self-awareness an actual requirement for right-wing nutjobs these days?
7 Likes
First, Franck protesteth way the hell too much----which usually means there’s a revolving door on his closet.
Second, the jerk writes for The National Review, so we know up front that he’s none too bright.
6 Likes
Another Fright-Wing whack job gets it entirely wrong, and in no small way. Had the court taken up and ruled against ending gender discrimination in marriage law, it might have been loosely analgious to the Dred Scott decision. The Dred decision did, and if the court ruled against recognition of same-gender marriage would have, denied equal protection under the law based on race and gender respectively.
This assclown got it 180 degrees backwards. But par for the course for “conservatives” in the 21st century.
4 Likes
I would also add that these idiots trying to make a religious freedom argument are barking up the wrong tree. Any church can refuse to perform or recognize any marriage they reject due to the religious beliefs. Just like the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t perform or recognize marriages of divorced people, or those of differing faiths, etc. that does not, nor should it have, any impact on our laws.
The bigoted folks who back legal opposition to ending gender discrimination in marriage law simply don’t get it. As the courts have already held, there is zero legitimate argument or interest in maintaining codified gender discrimination in marriage laws. None.
They only have lunatic whaling wailing and gnashing of teeth left, as they sputter in their collective impotent rage.
4 Likes
This guy would have defended the Dred Scott decision if he had lived back then because slavery was a time-honored tradition.
5 Likes
Ah, yes. The idea that human beings being should be able to own other human beings and the idea that two people can get married are both false ideas and totally equivalent in their falsities.
It might even be fair to say that there is a false equivalence between these ideas.
3 Likes
And one with a fine biblical tradition and underpinning. (wry grin)
Exactly. I believe the argument would go “For thousand of years, capitalism has been between one Master and his chattel. I support traditional capitalism as is clearly defined by the Bible.”
2 Likes
This year’s Dread Scott decision will be if the Florida governor gets re-elected.
6 Likes
$10 says this dude is another of those self-hating gays.
He’ll probably come out of the closet in five years.
1 Like
Any idea I don’t like is a false idea, and is just like Benghazi, er, Dred Scott, er, something.
Dan
3 Likes
If you felt the need to make a comparison to a famous Supreme Court decision, wouldn’t you automatically reach for Loving v. Virginia?
Or maybe Loving v. Virginia was also comparable to the Dred Scott decision because it was the “false” idea that certain people could marry other people, and that democratic peoples could not say otherwise because our Constitution enforces equal protection of the laws.
Seriously though, why does the National Review compensate people that so clearly oppose American and our constitution?
5 Likes
This is the same crap Mark Levin was pushing last night, saying, “The Supreme Court gets it wrong a lot! It was wrong on Dred Scott, it was wrong on internment camps…”
Yup, that’s how you win hearts & minds: Compare same-sex marriage to slavery and wrongful imprisonment. That’s the ticket…
5 Likes