Hi there
I’m Lizzie. I have no idea who is still posting here, but I’m the owner of the site. Alan Fox drew my attention to a recent post by Erik about LGBTQ+ people. I read it with growing horror, culminating when I arrived at these words:
[LGBTQ+ people] exist sure enough and extermination is not the way to deal with them, but
“but”.
I set up this site as a venue in which people who wanted to discuss issues such as evolution, theism, and morality in good faith with people with who vehemently disagreed with them, could do so with minimal censorship. I have been absent from the site for many years now, though I continue to pay the hosting fees.
I could simply delete Erik’s post. He would consider it “cancel culture”. Yes, indeed I do wish to “cancel” those views from this blog. Committed as I am to uncensored discussion between people with radically opposing views (as exemplified in the original posting rules for the site) I will not provide a platform for articles that are Nazi-adjacent. I am deeply worried by the rise of right-wing fascism in the world, and I will not facilitate the propagation of such views.
No poster capable of considering, albeit rejecting, “extermination” as a “way to deal with” people like my own beloved daughter is welcome to post those views here. Every day I worry for her safety from people who want to exterminate her.
Alternatively, I could simply pull the plug on this site.
I will sleep on this. I would also welcome comments from any posters still active here. If there are hardly any left, I will probably do that last thing.
Fair enough. I do not believe that Erik seriously entertains the idea of extermination of LGBTQ+ people, but he definitely nuked every possibility of a calm and rational discussion with his hostile prose.
Yeah, and you claimed to be a “charitable” guy in the same comment where you casually accused “The Left” in America to be on a “quest for Total Power”. That may not have been the best choice of words either.
So you both blew it.
I must admit I do not understand the hostility toward people different from the majority in some ways but not others. Especially difference where the different people could be those you’ve known for years, and really like, and never knew that you were supposed to hate them until their difference actually showed up. Golly, do I know any Jews, or gays, or others whose differences are invisible? How would I know? Why would I care?
Flint:
Funnier still is when you learn that you’re supposed to hate yourself:
White nationalists are flocking to genetic ancestry tests. Some don’t like what they find
Erik:
OK, so you’re the empathy champion. Why then haven’t you shown any sign of understanding why Lizzie was so upset by your remark, or why we aren’t mollified by the fact that you weren’t actually advocating extermination?
To make it more historically accurate, I could have substituted a different word for “Negroes”.
I was mocking a certain breed of racist Southerner, to be sure, but I don’t see why that makes you think that I have no empathy for them. I despise their racism, of course, but as you pointed out, “Empathy does not mean agreement.”
Erik:
I wish more people would publicly urge him to get help, and I hope his friends and associates are doing so in private. His antisemitism fully deserves the condemnation it’s received, but he is still a fellow human undergoing what is obviously a severe mental health crisis.
One silver lining is that millions of people are seeing what bipolar disorder can look like, so they’ll be more likely to recognize it in loved ones and friends and more likely to sympathize with those who suffer from it.
Erik:
I see. So women past childbearing age are marginalized by nature, as is anyone else who is infertile. What shall we do about all these marginal people?
People can be marginalized on the basis of all sorts of criteria. Should we go on a marginalization spree?
For one, their kind of sexuality cannot bring forth children.
Uh, this is simply not true. Infertility means someone cannot bring forth children, but very very few of the LGBTQ community are infertile (or always were). I’ve seen quite a few case histories of such people deliberately having and raising children to prove to themselves that they are straight.
Of the gay couples I know well, at least three guys have kids from previous straight relationships.
And that’s the issue: As gays, they cannot have children. As straights, the can. But which ones are they, gays or straights? Can they ever make up their mind properly or do they have to keep trying all sorts of configurations and demand equal marriage rights for whatever they imagine themselves to be at the moment?
There’s a current US Supreme Court case about some web designer who apparently got sued by the state of Colorado for discrimination when she refused to design a webpage for a same-sex couple. What’s your honest opinion on that?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/supreme-court-hears-case-of-colorado-wedding-website-refusing-gay-marriage-work/ar-AA14VYL1
The situation applying to all three is that they married, had a child or children, divorced and are now living in settled long-term relationships with male partner.
In two cases, they got married (PACS) here. One couple both have children from previous heterosexual relationships and
the other, neither.
In the other case, they have bought a holiday house here but don’t live here permanently and one partner has a daughter from a previous marriage.
In no case do I see any kind of doubt or regret.
Close, except no one actually asked her to design a web page for their wedding ,the State of Colorado didn’t sue her for something that didn’t happen and even more she has never designed a web page for anyone’s wedding, the case is she may want to expand her business sometime. It is a “what if” lawsuit. Sounds like the responses to oral arguments were hilarious, I believe something about Black Santas and kids dressed up in KKK sheets. , nothing funnier the little kids dressed up like cross burning racists. These are questions we need the Supreme Court to resolve. Who can we discriminate against and how much is okay?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/supreme-court-hears-case-of-colorado-wedding-website-refusing-gay-marriage-work/ar-AA14VYL1
Sorry to burst your bubble , but the same techniques open to straight couples who cannot conceive are open to gay couples, sperm donors , surrogacy, adoption .
To answer your second question , with or without children they remain a gay couple want who want the same legal rights afforded a straight couple. Are you as outraged by divorce, why can’t folks make up their minds , are they married or unmarried ? Things are so complicated and annoying , what is a fella to do?
.
Erik:
So if a gay man has sex with a woman he is actually straight, at least for the duration, since that act can produce children? That’s an odd definition.
Have you considered the possibility that the word gay is based on attraction, not on whomever you’re having sex with at the moment?
See the above.
I also listened to the whole thing and I kept wondering what the circumstances might have been that prompted the lawsuit. Where’s the crime? Did someone have to suffer hate speech or insults or lost money?
Now you taught me something new: There are “what if” lawsuits in America. Nothing happened, but courts have a slow season, so they pick some random nonsense to discuss.
In my honest opinion, the incident (it’s okay that the circumstances are a bit unclear because it seems to be a just-so lawsuit out of thin air) involves no discrimination worth the name whatsoever. Apparently nobody parted with money, so the business situation was a no-deal between a private individual and a sole proprietor. Customer complaints after purchase are worth some judicial time, but no-deals are worth literally nothing.
There was one point in the discussion that I found more valuable than all the other points combined: Suppose there’s an LGBTQ+ forum that publishes only same-sex marriage announcements. A straight couple wants their marriage announcement published too, but is refused. Discrimination or not? The correct conclusion: The straight couple should quietly understand that they are asking in the wrong place. It would be ludicrous of them to sue.
Another analogy: Suppose somebody is a translator. There are not too many languages he knows. The languages that he does not know he will not translate because he prefers to do his work on a good professional level. Are all those other languages discriminated against? Are people who come asking him to translate those other languages discriminated against? Maybe you think there is no discrimination, but did you count how many languages he is NOT translating? It is the overwhelming majority, so the discrimination must be huge here!! Moreover, in the languages he knows he is not translating everything, but only gadget instructions, that’s his area of expertise. So is he discriminating against all other topics and should be sued for that?
Admittedly, the defence of the poor little web designer was off base. There’s no “values”, “principles” or “free speech” to emphasise when you are doing your mundane little job. A no-deal can be effected easily and uncontroversially with some basic social skills.
This also applies to the earlier wedding cake lawsuit. Whoever sued that baker was keen on making an ideological point. It was not normal human behaviour.
The present Court is empowered by a 6-3 majority and is working hard to overturn precedent . The Supreme Court can choose the cases to hear.I expect there is a rush of getting conservative wish list cases before the present court. So far Roe is gone, this case could have repercussions on the legality of gay marriage.
True, but not sure the couple shopped around to find the anti gay baker. What about instead a gay couple was a black couple or interracial couple or a Catholic one who were told we do not serve your kind because of a “religious” belief? Is that okay?
Even so, this current case is strange, because contrary to long-standing legal policy, there is no case or controversy here. Which is to say, there is no injured party at all. We have Smith predicting how she might act if and when some same-sex couple wants her to do something she doesn’t like, and her lawsuit claims hypothetical future injury to her – not actual injury. And of course the possibility of injury to those refused a service available to most everyone else has not been mentioned even once by either side of this dispute. After all, potential customers denied service are as invisible as they are hypothetical.
So this is clearly an engineered, contrived case cobbled together as a deliberate test case, and then selected (granted cert) specifically to drive an ideological nail into the rule of law’s coffin. The Court majority consists entirely of devout Catholics creating a customized opportunity to ratify both their party and their religion.
Next week, the Court takes up another interesting case. The question there is, should the party getting the most votes in a Federal election be nonetheless defeated by the state legislature simply naming the winner of their choice? Specifically, the question before the court is whether state supreme courts and the state constitution have jurisdiction over the state legislature if the legislature violates state law. Expected in that case is another 6-3 decision holding that state constitutions and courts are powerless in states where Republicans have gerrymandered themselves into a permanent legislative majority. When that decision comes down, we can expect all or nearly all state legislatures to dive in and gerrymander the bejesus out of their states – checks and balances will have been removed.
And as we all know, Obergefell and even legal contraceptives are being targeted. It’s the McConnell principle – no reason to even pretend to be nonpartisan when you have the votes.
From what I have read about that case, yes, the couple was specifically shopping around to find the anti gay baker. Namely, this was a known proud card-carrying religious baker. So, if the couple was local, they knew. If the couple was not local, then they took the trouble to find trouble they were looking for. From the circumstances I would even deduce that it was ACLU who decided to target the bakery and the “couple” are incidental volunteers.
The baker continues to be open about what he represents. Currently his website says, “But like many cake artists, Jack cannot create all custom cakes. He cannot create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events that conflict with his religious beliefs.” http://masterpiececakes.com/
When this is stated up front and you go in to order a gay wedding cake, you are intentionally creating controversy.
What about an “artist” who specialises in pink figurines on top of the cake, one male-looking in black suit, another female-looking in white dress, and that’s all he sells? No black figurines, no threesomes, no matryoshkas, dogs or horses. Is that okay?
From my point of view, the defence of the baker was also off base. Beliefs are irrelevant. Your craft, expertise and specialisation are relevant. Don’t make an everyday business transaction into a declaration of free speech and freedom of religion, lest you become like a friggin pride parade. America is so-o-o queer! But then again, let’s understand, when you are hit with a discrimination lawsuit, which is a tough nut, you may have to hit back with something tougher.
Or you may realize that you are being a complete a-hole for no good reason at all and try to be a nicer person in the future.
No donuts for the gays kind of guy.
Not seeing the advantage for ACLU since the law already existed . Why find gay folks, ,planning a wedding , who are willing to go through the hassle and disruption and then spend the resources to go to court , to affirm the law that already existed? Then again , you deduced it , not me.
Cake artists are a cranky bunch ,it seems.
Seems right. As is the baker, the cake artist, by openly flaunting the law. Like I said, I wasn’t sure. Thanks for the clarification.
I have been unable to find support for this claim.
Charlie Craig himself stated
After a second attempt by his Mum, they filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Which was upheld through the Colorado courts. What the Supreme Court had a problem with was the anti-religious animus displayed by the CCRC, Justice Kennedy writing
And that’s why the test case chosen by the intolerant right is as specifically about speech (website design) as they could find. They’d lose if it was a cake that lacked lettering or symbols. Lorie Smith is looking for a dispute in a way that Craig and Mullins never were.
Not only that , you quoted his message he posted , he does not” celebrate events that conflict with his religious beliefs.”. He also stated during the trial that he believed creating a mixture of shortening ,flour , water ,sugar and artificial flavors for a gay wedding would displease His Version of God.
Since he does not specify which other groups his religious beliefs ,and his understanding of the whims of the Creator of All Things, require he discriminate against , just seeing your opinion which groups should or could be legally/ ethically allowed .
I do see your point, it might compromising the artist’s integrity to have anything but the standard cake topper . Curious , I read the Supreme Court decision and the Artist ,previously known as Jack , uses that defense as well. The old frosting as free speech defense .
Since he prevailed in the Supreme Court and created a precedent ,I would say his defense accomplished exactly what they wanted.
Not in the US ,many religious beliefs have constitutional protections under free exercise in First Amendment. It covers a lot of speech/ art.
I agree, those things are relevant , however in the US “Public accommodations, in the law of the United States, are generally defined as facilities, whether publicly or privately owned, that are used by the public at large.” And there are rules about discrimination on public accommodations that are also relevant.
I know it is annoying for you , what are you going to do? Once you let them out of the closet, the next thing you know they want all sort of equal treatment.
In the US we also have a long history on how to keep uppity folks in line .
DNA_Jock,
Thanks for the background, was too lazy to look it up.
Exercising my free speech ,my favorite quote about assholes ( it is art so using unabridged version) from my favorite series.
Raylan : You ever hear of the saying “If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you’re the asshole.”
― Raylan Givens “Justified” season Four
But prior to the Supreme Court he lost, so some other legal tactic may or may not have served better. Probably not because both sides were out for blood all the way.
Making a mundane no-deal business transaction a case for all levels of court is a loss to everyone involved, except the lawyers. It was a wrong decision to sue the baker in the first place. Whoever sued him has no clue what actual discrimination looks like. Discrimination worth suing is something somebody does, such as hate speech, insulting public prank or pogrom. When somebody does nothing to you, it is not meaningful discrimination.
Both sides tried their best to make a crucifix example of the other, when nothing had happened in the first place. Both sides were fighting for their right to pride-parade their values and principles and lifestyle. Nothing good could have come of it and nothing good did. The result makes both sides more trigger-happy in the future to claim discrimination and oppression wherever they imagine it.
I find this position fascinating. According to Erik, a plain refusal to serve someone, or employ someone, is not “meaningful” discrimination.
Not meaningful discrimination:
Clifford Roberts, Founder, Augusta National Golf Club
Uh-huh.
Wow. I had never seen that quote before.
How about refusing to provide medical care, or emergency help, or a job when the applicant is fully qualified?
An interesting note also: Lee Elder was the first black competitor at the Masters in 1975. Clifford Roberts shot himself to death in 1977. A white caddy was first permitted at the Masters in 1982. Augusta National’s first black member joined in 1990 – after the PGA made this a requirement to hold the Masters there rather than move it somewhere else.
Here’s again a “discrimination” case https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/metzger-restaurant-cancels-reservation-for-christian-family-foundation/
Apparently it’s a proud card-carrying LGBTQ+ restaurant, so a deliberate stunt on the part of the Christian gang, obviously. In my view, the root cause is that anybody can claim discrimination too easily. The tricky part is that the Christians managed to get a booking through to the restaurant and then it was cancelled, so it is not as nothing as the other cases. Still a small thing though and should be insufficient to claim discrimination.
I was once transferred to a tinier room in a hotel where I had booked the most expensive suite a month ahead. The reason was that there was some international VIP conference in the city and a VIP took the suite. I was offered some other perks in compensation. Should I have claimed discrimination?
Here’s the situation with employment. In the modern world, unless you got inheritance from your rich parents, everybody needs a job, but no business is forced to employ anyone. Unemployed people cannot (and generally don’t) claim discrimination, even though their life may depend on employment.
When you simply do not employ anyone, there is no refusal. A refusal to employ in the meaningful sense only occurs when there are multiple candidates and somebody else is picked over the most qualified candidate, so there’s a process that the employer DOES.
Ah, I know what is going on: According to you, when the most qualified candidate gets picked, all the less-qualified candidates got discriminated against, because they were refused employment. Sorry it took me a while to get your point. Well, that’s quite a viewpoint you have there.
I don’t now whether it’s meaningful, but there is actually a word for it: institutional discrimination.
And there have actually been studies demonstrating it’s a genuine thing: recently I read about a study where application letters from internship students fielded applicants with for example foreign names significantly fewer invitations than that identical letter signed with a solid Dutch name (in my country discrimination is predominantly aimed at people with Surinam, Antillian, Moroccan and Turkish backgrounds).
There have been similar studies demonstrating the same effect for job applications. The other grounds for excluding people appear to be gender, handicaps, chronic illnesses and age.
I agree it may or may not . We could speculate or we could observe the fact that the defense decided to attack the behavior of the Colorado Civil Right Commission rather than the law itself and this strategy resulted in a overwhelming victory with even one liberal judge siding with the the conservatives.
People do not like to be discriminated against, court system allows these folks to legally fight the perceived injustice. That is the purpose of courts , adjudication of legal disputes. This dispute was significant enough to end up before the Supreme Court.
That was the point of talking baker to court ,to have a legally trained person or jury determine what occurred ,and whether the action meets the definition of discrimination under the law. Your opinion is just that , your opinion.
All things you name are depriving someone of their rights, in this case The State of Colorado says sexual orientation is a protected class , just like religion , race . And if you run a public business in Colorado you can’t deprive people of their rights because of those reasons under public accommodation laws.
“Nothing” ,in your opinion , is not relevant. That is for the courts to decide. If it is determined to be a frivolous lawsuit , penalties can be assessed.
Not what court found, the Supreme Court Found the baker had suffered religious discrimination by the Colorado Civl Rights Commission. They did not speak to whether the gay couple had suffered discrimination.
.
In the US ,that is called freedom of expression. Your discomfort is not a good reason the suppress a minorities rights , of either religious or sexual orientation. Of course in practice ,it does not always work that way.
A government entity , Colorado Civil Rights Commission was found guilty of religious discrimination in their official actions. Even though I disagree with the baker’s version of God , he deserves to be dealt with fairly. That is a good thing to uphold.
If discrimination and oppression occurs , it is not imagined.
Yes , you were discriminated against , it was more profitable for the business to give the room to the VIP probably. But if you had refused the company’s offer of compensation for your inconvenience, depending on the local laws , it is up to you. However in US not all discrimination is illegal. Private clubs like Augusta National do not fall under public accommodation laws. Businesses can refuse service for health reasons or because you have no money.
Well it is not that simple according to US laws
“Under the laws enforced by EEOC, it is illegal to discriminate against someone (applicant or employee) because of that person’s race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to retaliate against a person because he or she complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.”
Of course the system can be and is abused, companies sometime pay off when they are not guilty , it is cheaper. The problem is actual discrimination has and does occur. That is the dilemma, and that is why there is need for the courts and investigations .
But you got there eventually, good for you.
In the past 18 months, I have hired three recent college grads. Of course I discriminated against the less-qualified candidates — that’s my job. I ended up with a mix of genders, races, and religions. Given such a small n, it could easily have been otherwise, but the thing that matters, legally and ethically, is that I discriminated against the unsuccessful candidates based on their ability to do the job. The issue is not discrimination per se, but discriminating against someone based on their membership of a protected class.
Gotta get myself one o’ them cards 😉
I don’t think it was ‘obviously’ a deliberate stunt on the part of the Family Foundation, although they did turn it into a fund-raising campaign.
Well, I fail to see the tricky part: in my book it is discrimination whether the booking was initially accepted or not. Damages would differ, of course.
If the booking was cancelled (or refused) based on their membership of a protected class (Christians, Muslims, gays, the French) then they have a cause of action.
Apropos of nothing, homophobic bigots are not a protected class, yet.
The Supreme Court decided in the two discussed cases that the oppression of religious folks is real and they need their rights protected, whereas the gay side is dreaming it up. My preference would have been to throw out the case as frivolous, whichever form it may have taken, whichever side initiated it. Nothing happened, so both sides should stop whining about their allegedly hurt feelings. Feelings and values and principles and rights and whatnot do not enter the picture when nothing happened.
But you must be absolutely loving it the way it is. We’ll see what will be decided in the third clearly contrived case, the Christian gang versus the LGBTQ+ restaurant. Place your bets and enjoy. Let the flag of neurotic victimhood complex fly high on both sides.
The LGBTQ+ have been touchy drama queens all along, so this is no news. But Christians are a sad shadow of what they once were. Under Roman Empire they used to face deadly persecution bravely and without complaint, but now all they do is demand their “constitution”, i.e. rights without any obligation. Their personality is nowadays indistinguishable from their LGBTQ+ counterparts.
It was obviously a deliberate stunt.
Also, suing the baker was obviously a deliberate stunt. It’s in the quote you found:
If “reception restaurant” means the restaurant for the gay couple’s wedding, then they are saying that they are local. If they are local, then they likely knew that the cakeshop was not gay-friendly – the baker was not some closet Christian. Also, the gay couple is saying that they had a person helping them who had been to the baker earlier – this makes it certain that they knew. They went to the baker maybe to order a cake, but certainly to score a point. Their surprise and disappointment are feigned. They start with “The only reason…” but everything that follows speaks against “only”.
If I understood correctly, Lizzy’s daughter is a lesbian, right? While my views are not important in this matter, I would never hate anyone who opposes my views. Extermination? Why??? Who appointed me the judge?
What a sad, twisted world that you seem to inhabit.
I don’t see how they would have known that the cakeshop was not gay-friendly — was this, historically, a point of emphasis in their marketing materials? I do agree with you that the baker was not some closet Christian: I don’t think he’s Christian at all. He clearly missed the bit where they covered the Gospels.
Most the Christians I know would have baked a cake for this couple, and as to the political prejudices of the different local bakeshops, I have no clue.
DNA_Jock,
DNA_Jock
Are you still standing by the vaccine narrative??? Yes, or No?
Do you need details?
If any of my statements reg. the so-called vaccines were wrong, I will take responsibility for them. However, if some of the so-called expert’s claims were wrong, or meant to deliberately mislead, I will use every penny I have to bring them to justice. I mean it.
This is not a joke.
Erik:
Like Jock, I don’t see how you reached this conclusion. I’ve lived in my neighborhood for 20+ years and I still have no idea which of the bakeries in my area are gay-friendly and which aren’t. The homophobes don’t hang signs outside or post notices in the store. They don’t interrogate people at the door. I’d have to go in and ask, or order a cake for a gay wedding, if I wanted to find out.
You might argue that it’s only because I’m not LGBTQ+ that I’m unaware, but think about it. Let’s say a gay man walks into the bakery and asks for a dozen cupcakes. The owners have no idea he’s gay, and even if they did, they might be fine with selling cupcakes to LGBTQ+ people but not with baking wedding cakes for them. The man walks out of the bakery with a box of 12 cupcakes. He has no idea that the owners are gay-unfriendly unless they tell him.
If the gay man ordered a wedding cake instead, he still wouldn’t know that the bakery was gay-unfriendly unless the cake design gave some indication that it was intended for a gay wedding, or the man told them it was. Last, if the cake did give such an indication and the bakers refused the order on those grounds, there’s no guarantee that the news would spread through the LGBTQ+ community. The couple in question might never hear about it. Your reasoning doesn’t hold water.
No, it doesn’t. Here are some possibilities you are neglecting:
1. The person might have been straight and ordered cupcakes.
2. The person might have been straight and ordered a wedding cake whose design didn’t reveal that it was intended for a gay wedding.
3. The person might have been LGBTQ+, but the owners didn’t know.
4. The person might have been LGBTQ+, and the owners knew that, but they were OK with that because the order was for cupcakes, not a wedding cake.
5. The person might have been LGBTQ+, and the owners knew that, and the person ordered a wedding cake, but there was nothing about the cake that indicated it was for a non-straight wedding, so the owners didn’t balk and the person didn’t learn of their gay-unfriendly attitude.
The only way for this person to have learned of the bakery’s gay-unfriendly stance would be for someone to tell them, or for them to order a wedding cake whose design showed that it was intended for a gay wedding.
Bad logic, Erik.
Well, I think this makes perfect sense.
When my to-be-wife and me were planning the happiest day of our lives we were also seeking out as many entrepeneurs that would act like complete jerks to us as we could possibly find.
I mean, who wouldn’t?
A balanced and nuanced view
https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/
Michael is none other than Mike Gene who some may remember from Telic Thoughts.
Well ,in some cases , one’s family fulfills the role for free.
Thanks for sharing,
The baker, and whatever conservative group that was bankrolling him , sued the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. You are correct they found the behaviors of the commission violated his chosen religious rights . It did not overturn the law, in fact Colorado has strengthened it protections for its citizens.
Right, but in that case the baker wins by default, he discriminates against the couple ,does not provide the service . Something happens . His principles are intact, the couples are dismissed .
Yet multiple courts disagree with your assertion in this case.
This philosophy has a long tradition. So long as the negroes sit in the back of the bus and don’t get uppity, nothing happens. So if they complain, the complaint is ipso facto frivolous, and should be thrown out. Folks like negroes, queers, Jews and others should know their place, and not go causing frivolous trouble. Bigots have rights too, you know.
Very nicely put, Flint.
Fox News cracks me up. A headline I just saw:
The headline writer felt it important for some reason to mention that Brinton is nonbinary.
To show just how ridiculous that is, imagine the following headline:
It reminds me of another Fox News headline from a couple of months ago:
The story had nothing to do with the party affiliation of the killer, but the headline writer felt compelled to mention it.
This is Fox News, after all.