Showing posts sorted by date for query chick-fil-A. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query chick-fil-A. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Monday, April 27, 2015

There Is a 'Real Case' Against Homosexual Marriage. But Nowadays Very Few Are Willing to Make It

I don't think anyone seriously doubts that the Supreme Court is on the verge of announcing a national constitutional right to homosexual marriage. Oral arguments begin this week, so there's a lot of new commentary coming out.

But as readers of this blog will recall, I've basically thrown in the towel on this fight --- at least in its current iteration.

The left's culture warriors have won on same-sex marriage. Perhaps there'll be a period of experimentation on the issue, and it's possible that the Court could craft a decision that includes some element of federalism, but mostly we're simply past the moral turning point. In the popular culture, and among the younger demographics, traditional values hold no sway. Frankly, a lot of ignorance and rank stupidity do hold sway, but most leftist arguments aren't intellectual, in any case. They're emotional. And with polls showing that Americans have warmed to the idea of expanding the definition of what's a "civil right," it's simply a fact that "marriage" as it's been understood for millennia will no longer exist. As long as people are programmed to do as they please, with allegedly no individual or social consequences, marriage as the biological regenerative basis of societal reproduction simply can't compete. Again, time will tell if the damaging effects of such change force a cultural reaction to literally save society as we know it, but either way, it ain't gonna be pretty.

In any case, Politico's got a piece up from far-left law professor John Culhane, "There's No Real Case Against Gay Marriage" (at Memeorandum). Culhane, who's a regular columnist at Slate, argues that conservatives are fighting a rear-guard action, designed to fear-monger the Court, warning against the epic damage to come if the justices grant a national right to homosexual licentiousness. Culhane flippantly brushes away these arguments, claiming them to be repudiated and "eviscerated." Actually, they have not been, because the left uniformly brings its own favorable research to bear while simultaneously ignoring or dismissing ideologically conflicting findings as "methodologically unsound." What Culhane does not mention, of course, is that the left's homosexual marriage steamroller has explicitly sought to destroy any and all opponents of the same-sex agenda by any means necessary. It's been an all-out cultural war since Proposition 8 passed in California, for sure. The left has used fascist intimidation, lies and deception, judicial misconduct, and simple political realpolitik opportunism to bring the debate to the critical mass of public approval of moral degeneracy.

Think back over the past few years of cultural conflict. In 2008, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton claimed that marriage was an historic institution embedded in the sacred union of one man and one woman for the moral rebirth of the family. Nowadays, not so much. And California's majority vote in 2008 to secure the traditional standing of marriage in the state constitution? Swept away by the federal courts and homosexual judges with massive conflicts of interest, ethics or standards be damned. Popular culture? "Duck Dynasty" is still going strong, having beaten back a vicious jihad by the left's culture warriors, and for what? The depraved Hollywood hedonist culture keeps marching on. Chick-fil-A? The company's stronger than ever. But the leftist Obama-enabling state media continues to demonize those who stand for old-fashioned values. The list goes on. In short, traditional culture has been affirmed again and again as the ugly fascist homosexual left revealed its true diabolical agenda. Screw families. If your kid is traditional he or she will be kicked out of school. Screw religion. Biblical teachings have been redefined as "hate speech." Screw science. You're not down with transgender "women" using public restrooms with your pre-teen little girl? Hater!

I've made the case against homosexual marriage for years. (Check the archives. Try various searches.) These days, I rarely see very many new arguments under the sun. The fact is America has abandoned God-given moral standards. The left has destroyed the fundamental idea of right and wrong in the name of touchy-feely political correctness that's turned the country into a barren wasteland of abomination. And that's just what the regressive left wants. Leftists seek to destroy traditional America and bring about the Gramscian Marxist collective of the wretched and deranged. They're succeeding. And society's becoming more polarized by the day. Regular Americans --- the silent majority --- will increasingly abandon statist conceptions of the public good and retreat into family and small communities to escape the tyranny of the leftist regime foisted by the Democrats and the Washington political class. We'll see a growing "Hunger Games" politics with increasing resistance in the states (the "districts"), and ultimately a revolution of values that will rend the country along lines so divisive the import will be tantamount to a new civil war. And even then, there'll be no guarantee of change or improvement. Perhaps enough traditionalists who decide to "go Galt" will force an apocalyptic moment on the political class. Maybe we'll see a constitutional revolution, with perpetual demands for an Article 5 convention. Perhaps we'll have a "double-dip" recession to make 2008-2010 look like the good old days. No doubt regular folks will proudly announce they're clinging to their guns and religion, and they'll proclaim they're willing to die for their God-given rights. Rioting will further become a permanent feature of Obama's America, and those of his Democrat Party successors. This is the future that's coming, thanks to the destructive politics of the radical left hordes and their take-no-prisoners social war that's now reached a head this week.

In any case, Culhane cites and dismisses the "amicus brief of 100 scholars of marriage," but it seems clear that should conservative forces lose this year, a cataclysmic moment will have been reached. Get in, sit down, and shut up. We're in for a ride.

And see the Public Discourse, "Redefining Marriage Would Put Kids of Heterosexuals at Risk":
The metamorphosis of marriage from a gendered to a genderless institution would send the message that society no longer needs men to bond to women to form well-functioning families or to raise happy, well-adjusted children. That would be bad news for children of heterosexuals on the margins: the poor, the relatively uneducated, the irreligious, and others who are susceptible to cultural messages promoting casual or uncommitted sex.

*****

Marriage is a complex social institution that, like all social institutions, regulates and encourages certain human behaviors. Without effective social institutions, no amount of law and law enforcement can make a society function properly. Marriage reinforces particular values and actions that benefit society, both broadly and individually. As Professor Amy Wax has observed: “Marriage’s long track record as a building block for families and a foundation for beneficial relations between the sexes suggests that ordinary people desperately need the anchor of clear expectations, and that they respond to them.” Or, as the Sixth Circuit put it, at least some citizens “may well need the government’s encouragement to create and maintain stable relationships within which children may flourish.”

That is why states have traditionally supported man-woman marriage, an institution that has historically and universally been linked to procreation, marking the boundaries where sexual reproduction is socially commended. This underlying message helps achieve a principal purpose of marriage: any children born will have a known mother and father who have the responsibility to care for them. Even ancient Greek and Roman societies understood this. Despite encouraging same-sex intimate relations, they limited marriage to man-woman unions.

Of course, marriage provides benefits to adults as well. But these are secondary to the main purpose of an institution that, in the words of revered psychologist Bronislaw Malinowski, is “primarily designed by the needs of offspring, by the dependence of the children upon their parents.” Indeed, as the religious skeptic Bertrand Russell candidly observed, “But for children, there would be no need for any institution concerned with sex.”

From this purpose—ensuring the care of any children born to man-woman unions—flow several specific secular norms, norms that are “taught” and reinforced by the man-woman definition and understanding of marriage:
1. Biological Bonding and Support: Where possible, every child has a right to be reared by and to bond with her biological father and mother. And every child has a right, whenever possible, to be supported financially by the man and woman who brought the child into the world.

2. Gender Diversity: Where possible, a child should be raised by a mother and a father who are committed to each other and to the child, even where he cannot be raised by both biological parents.

3. Postponement: Men and women should postpone procreation until they are within the committed, long-term relationship of marriage. This is alternatively called the “responsible creation” or “channeling” norm.

4. Valuing Procreation/Child-Rearing: Within the protection and stability of marriage, the creation and rearing of children are socially valuable.

5. Exclusivity: For the sake of their children, men and women should limit themselves to a single procreative partner.
All of these specific norms are grounded in and support the more general norm of child-centricity: Parents and prospective parents should give the interests of their children—present and future—equal if not higher priority than their own.

Common sense and social science show that these norms provide immense benefits to children, their parents and society. In short, children generally do best emotionally, socially, intellectually, and economically when reared in an intact home by both biological parents. More specifically, as the brief documents in detail, compared to any other family structure, children raised by their biological, married parents are less likely to commit crimes, experience teen pregnancy, have multiple abortions, engage in substance abuse, suffer from mental illness, or do poorly in school. They are also more likely to support themselves and their own children in the future. No other parenting arrangement comes close (on average) to that of a child’s biological, married mother and father.

This is true because of the power of the norms stemming from man-woman marriage. For instance, biological bonds between parents and their child deepen their investments in their relationships with each other and with the child. Further, having both a mother and a father provides crucial gender diversity for a child’s social and emotional development. As famed anthropologist (and atheist) Margaret Mead noted: “One of the most important learnings for every human child is how to be a full member of its own sex and at the same time fully relate to the opposite sex. This is not an easy learning; it requires the continuing presence of a father and a mother.”

Vibrant child-centricity and biological support norms lead to less physical and sexual abuse, neglect, and divorce. And parents who embrace the procreative exclusivity norm are unlikely to have children with multiple partners—a phenomenon that leads to social, emotional and financial difficulties for children and their mothers. Similarly, people who embrace the postponement norm are less likely to have children without a second, committed parent—another well-established predictor of psychological, emotional and financial heartache.

On the other hand, a culture that largely rejects the social value of creating and rearing children jeopardizes a society’s ability to reproduce itself. It is thus not surprising that some courts have deemed man-woman marriage “the fundamental unit of the political order … [for] the very survival of the political order depends upon the procreative potential embodied in traditional marriage.”
More at the link.

And check for updates at Memeorandum.

Tuesday, April 7, 2015

New Poll Shows Majority of Americans Support Religious Freedom

From Dana Loesch:
A new poll released by WPA Opinion Research on behalf of the Family Research Councill shows that the vast majority of Americans support religious liberty in the workplace. Last week saw Governor Mike Pence (R-IN) signing Indiana's "Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” infuriating liberals zealots whom alleged his legislation encouraged discrimination against gays. It's safe to assume these delusional liberal "activists" neglected to even read the bill before taking an extremist stance against it. Yes, these are very the same left wing activists whom accuse Republicans of intolerance.

Unsurprisingly the Obama administration, fueled by Democratic dissolution, is once again executing their big government agenda, stripping away freedoms -- the very same freedoms protected by the Constitution. Last week we witnessed a family restaurant in Indiana, Memories Pizza, threatened and forced into foreclosure after exercising their rights to freedom of religion. Memories Pizza, a family owned restaurant in Indiana, is just one example of several businesses publicly shamed for exercising their American rights. Accusing Memories Pizza employees as homophobic is as outrageous as it is inaccurate. Crystal O’Connor, owner of Memories Pizza attempted to clarify the misunderstanding of his business decisions:
“The news took it totally out of proportion. They lied about it. We said that we would serve anyone that walked in that door, even gays…”But we would not condone a wedding… That’s against our religious beliefs.”
The owners of Memories Pizza are not alone, other companies such as Hobby Lobby and Chick-Fil-A have been targeted by liberal media for discriminating against customers based on their sexual preference.

According to the latest research, these business owners don't stand alone. In a survey of 800 registered voters 81% "agree government should leave people free to follow their own beliefs about marriage as well as live their daily lives at work and the way they run their businesses." Furthermore, 80% of non-religious Americans strongly support freedom to practice one's beliefs.
More.

And see John Nolte, at Big Journalism, "Sorry, Media: Polls Show Majorities Side with Indiana's Christian Pizzeria."

Cited there is the Marist Poll, "Tolerance for Religious Rights."

Once again, here's the reviled Democrat left pushing unpopular mandates to crush the freedom and liberties of Americans in the mainstream. The left can only prevail with lies and coercion. That's it.

Friday, December 12, 2014

Non-employment: The Vanishing Male Worker

This is kinda sad.

At NYT, "The Vanishing Male Worker: How America Fell Behind":
ANNAPOLIS, Md. — Frank Walsh still pays dues to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, but more than four years have passed since his name was called at the union hall where the few available jobs are distributed. Mr. Walsh, his wife and two children live on her part-time income and a small inheritance from his mother, which is running out.

Sitting in the food court at a mall near his Maryland home, he sees that some of the restaurants are hiring. He says he can’t wait much longer to find a job. But he’s not ready yet.

“I’d work for them, but they’re only willing to pay $10 an hour,” he said, pointing at a Chick-fil-A that probably pays most of its workers less than that. “I’m 49 with two kids — $10 just isn’t going to cut it.”

Working, in America, is in decline. The share of prime-age men — those 25 to 54 years old — who are not working has more than tripled since the late 1960s, to 16 percent. More recently, since the turn of the century, the share of women without paying jobs has been rising, too. The United States, which had one of the highest employment rates among developed nations as recently as 2000, has fallen toward the bottom of the list.

As the economy slowly recovers from the Great Recession, many of those men and women are eager to find work and willing to make large sacrifices to do so. Many others, however, are choosing not to work, according to a New York Times/CBS News/Kaiser Family Foundation poll that provides a detailed look at the lives of the 30 million Americans 25 to 54 who are without jobs.

Many men, in particular, have decided that low-wage work will not improve their lives, in part because deep changes in American society have made it easier for them to live without working. These changes include the availability of federal disability benefits; the decline of marriage, which means fewer men provide for children; and the rise of the Internet, which has reduced the isolation of unemployment.

At the same time, it has become harder for men to find higher-paying jobs. Foreign competition and technological advances have eliminated many of the jobs in which high school graduates like Mr. Walsh once could earn $40 an hour, or more. The poll found that 85 percent of prime-age men without jobs do not have bachelor’s degrees. And 34 percent said they had criminal records, making it hard to find any work.

The resulting absence of millions of potential workers has serious consequences not just for the men and their families but for the nation as a whole. A smaller work force is likely to lead to a slower-growing economy, and will leave a smaller share of the population to cover the cost of government, even as a larger share seeks help.

“They’re not working, because it’s not paying them enough to work,” said Alan B. Krueger, a leading labor economist and a professor at Princeton. “And that means the economy is going to be smaller than it otherwise would be.”
Keep reading.

Saturday, August 24, 2013

Spending Billions, @ESPN Rules College Football Schedule

A big report at the New York Times, "College Football’s Most Dominant Player? It’s ESPN":
The nation’s annual rite of mayhem and pageantry known as the college football season begins this week, and Saturday will feature back-to-back-to-back marquee matchups.

At the Georgia Dome in Atlanta, last year’s national champions, the Alabama Crimson Tide, will battle the Virginia Tech Hokies in the Chick-fil-A Kickoff Classic.

Earlier in the day in Houston, Oklahoma State will play Mississippi State in the Texas Kickoff Classic. And that night in Arlington, Tex., Louisiana State and Texas Christian will face off in the Cowboys Classic.

The games will not just be televised by ESPN. They are creations of ESPN — demonstrations of the sports network’s power over college football.

The teams were not even on each other’s schedules until ESPN, looking to orchestrate early-season excitement and ratings, went to work. The 2013 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Classic came together more than two years ago when one of the network’s programming czars noticed that Alabama was not scheduled to play this Labor Day weekend, brought the Tide on board and found a worthy opponent.

Far beyond televising games, ESPN has become the chief impresario of college football. By infusing the sport with billions of dollars it pays for television rights — more than $10 billion on college football in the last five years alone — ESPN has become both puppet-master and kingmaker, arranging games, setting schedules and bestowing the gift of nationwide exposure on its chosen universities, players and coaches.
A great piece.

Continue reading.

And it's a three-part series, so I'll probably update on Part II tomorrow, and so forth...

Added: The piece mentions ESPN's conflicts of interest, including backing out on a PBS documentary on concussions in the NFL. See LAT, "ESPN bows out of concussion project; NFL denies exerting pressure." And NYT, "N.F.L. Pressure Said to Lead ESPN to Quit Film Project."

Sunday, March 31, 2013

How to Fight the Left-Wing Hate Machine

From Conn Carroll, at the Washington Examiner:
Judging from the oral arguments in the two gay marriage cases before the Supreme Court this week, it appears the federal Defense of Marriage Act will be ruled unconstitutional on federalism grounds, and that the court will punt on California's same-sex marriage law, effectively allowing every state to define marriage as it wishes.

That is not good enough for the progressive movement. Progressives want marriage to be redefined in every state to include same-sex relationships. And they will not stop there, either. As the court was listening to oral arguments Wednesday, progressive blogger and former Pennsylvania State Democratic Committee member Chris Bowers wrote, "The step after victory in legal LGBT rights will be social ostricization of those who oppose it."

Don't think for a second that Bowers' desire to punish those who disagree with the progressive agenda is an isolated case. The Center for American Progress, or CAP, the nonprofit organization founded by President Clinton's Chief of Staff John Podesta, has also labeled anyone and everyone who opposed redefining marriage as a bigot.
Of course, the progressive stance against bigotry has nothing to do with principles and everything to do with politics. After all, less than a year ago, President Obama opposed redefining marriage. Neither CAP, nor Bowers nor any other major progressive entity was devoting resources to calling Obama a bigot. It was an election year, for Pete's sake.

CAP is not content with name-calling, either. The group has led progressive efforts to ostracize anyone who disagrees with it....
Continue reading.

Carroll cites the recent news of Chick-fil-A providing free food vouchers to homosexuals as a model, although I doubt that's going to be enough to fight the leftist hate, as I inferred with my earlier entry: "If You're Traditional, You'll Be Attacked as 'Bigoted' No Matter What."

It remains to be seen what happens. We may be in for a sustained period of reduced political liberty for opponents of SSM. But the tide could turn as public opinion shifted on abortion, so people of decency, integrity and faith ought never waiver from their core principles. Truth will win out in the end.

Monday, November 5, 2012

The Ground Glass Election

From Glenn Reynolds, at the Washington Examiner, "Sunday Reflection: The ground-glass election":

Broken Glass
Last week, I noticed this blog comment: "Romney was not my first, second, or third choice, but I will crawl over ground glass to vote for him."

A lot of Republicans -- and, judging from polls, a lot of independents -- feel this way. If there are enough of them, Romney will win, and win big.

Are there? Well, there are some signs. I've written here before that politics is all about showing up. And in recent months, people on the Right have been doing a lot of showing up. They've showed up at Romney-Ryan events in unprecedented numbers. They made Dinesh D'Souza's "2016: Obama's America" a huge hit despite a virtual blackout from traditional media. They stood in line for hours at Chick-fil-A restaurants to buy chicken sandwiches in response to politicians' bullying. They packed houses at the "Hating Breitbart" premiere.

Will they now pack the voting booths and vote for Romney, and against Obama, in similarly unprecedented numbers? If they do, Romney will win in a landslide.
Then a landslide it's going to be. All signs are pointing to an epic day for grassroots conservative turnout --- not just Republican turnout, but conservatives for whom Romney wasn't their first pick but who now see him as the bulwark against continued Obama-Democrat statism and political and economic decay.

It's going to be huge. More at that top link.

Saturday, October 6, 2012

GMA's Sam Champion Comes Out, Announces Engagement to Longtime Brazilian Fine-Arts Photographer Rubem Robierb

How gay.

Shoot, I had no idea Sam Champion was flaming. And that really spoils it! I have a hard enough time watching Good Morning America as it is!

See ABC News, "Sam Champion Engaged to Be Married."

Sam Champion

Well, congratulations to the happy couple. And check out that link to ABC News. Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos can't contain themselves, they're so overcome with glee.

Actually, I'm reminded of the big gay marriage debate over the summer, and AWD's post, "HOMOSEXUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES ARE RUDE, CRUDE, IN-YOUR-FACE BRUTES!":
Homosexuals do not face discrimination. They just don’t get everything they want. They have become offensive bullies who have little decency or concern for how offensive their actions are. In this way, they are little different from the terrorists in the Occupy movement. If homosexuals don’t get their way (34 states have rejected gay marriage), they throw little angry, decadent tantrums designed to shock and nauseate decent people.

Homofascists are their own worst enemy. The buycott of Chick fil A by millions of decent Americans was a huge success. The homosexual kiss-in protest was a total failure. The American people are rising up against the bullying tactics of this small, loud groups of perverts. Why? No, it’s not hate and it’s not fear. IT’S BECAUSE NORMAL PEOPLE DON’T ACT LIKE THAT!

Thursday, August 16, 2012

Shooting at Family Research Council

The report from MyFoxDC, "Shooting at Family Research Council Headquarters."

And at Instapundit:

AMERICA’S WEIMAR MOMENT? Reader Kevin Hedges writes:
Many years ago in an undergrad World History course, the professor asserted that German democracy died not in 1933 with Hitler becoming Chancellor but years earlier. It died when roving bands of Brown Shirts beat up Jews in the streets, and the average respectable German citizen responded by looking the other way. I am reminded of that today with the FRC shooting and the MSM pretending it didn’t happen. Leftist shootings, vandalized Chick-fil-As, Black Panthers at voting stations, many, many churches burned and vandalized, media silence and the drumbeat of hate and demonization continues. I honestly wonder if democratic pluralism is dead. Some are openly saying it is. Your thoughts would be appreciated.
Fascism.

Professor Reynolds responds, at the link.

And see Gina Dalfonzo, at National Review, "Leo Johnson of the FRC and the Best and Worst of Human Nature":
When early eyewitness reports — not yet confirmed by the police or the FBI — suggested that the shooter had said disparaging things about FRC’s views, the rhetoric got even crazier. The narrative that has emerged among certain members of the Left goes something like this: When a right-winger shoots a left-winger, the right wing is at fault. And when a left-winger shoots a right-winger, the right wing is also at fault, because people with their views are just asking for it.

Have we really gotten to the point in this country where some of us are willing to legitimize violence this way?

We have to be honest when talking about the motives of any given criminal. There’s no point in trying to hide or ignore them. But can’t we also be honest about the fact that on both sides of the aisle, violence tends to come only from the marginalized and deranged? Pinning the blame for a crime on an entire mainstream movement or belief system is a highly dangerous exercise. It means that when a crime is committed by someone who agrees with you — as will inevitably happen, since criminals come from all backgrounds and belief systems — you then have to quickly twist things around and protect yourself from any possible guilt by association. And if that means blaming the victim, well, so be it.
Yes, but it's the left that almost always does the twisting. Personally, I've never seen such hatred in my entire life. And yes, progressives will blame and attempt to destroy the victim. That's what they do. They have no grace.

PREVIOUSLY:

* "CNN Waited 2 Hours and 45 Minutes to Report Shooting at Family Research Council."

* "SPLC Gives Cover to Hate."

* "Depraved Homosexuals Blame Family Research Council for 'Climate of Violence' After Leftist Attempts Massacre."

* "Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) Attacked Family Research Council as 'Hate Group' in 2010 Report."

* "Family Research Council Shooting at Washington, D.C., Headquarters."

SPLC Gives Cover to Hate

An outstanding essay from William Jacobson, at Legal Insurrection, "SPLC’s hatewatch gives cover to hate."

William notes that he was a big supporter of the SPLC when the organization's primary emphasis was exposing the KKK. But they've moved on to attack as "hate speech" any conservative speech with which the y disagree. Recently the organization moved to provide cover for the homosexual left on same-sex marriage. SPLC has provided creds to the "hate group" charge, and it's just taken off in recent weeks, with terrible consequences:
And so it came to pass, support for retaining the centuries old definition of marriage as one man, one woman, routinely now is labeled as “hate speech” on campuses and increasingly in the liberal-dominated media. Groups which support retaining the definition now are hate groups — with SPLC cited as the authority.

Chick-fil-A brought to the surface the hysteria. A company whose executives supported retaining the traditional definition of marriage was threatened by politicians with denial of business licenses, its products were called “hate chicken,” its employees were rudely confronted, and protesters outside its stores harassed and belittled those who disagreed. Now Chick-fil-A is being banned from campuses.

And in almost every instance, the justification is that support for retaining the traditional definition of marriage is hate speech, and often the SPLC is cited as the authority because it has designated groups like the Family Research Council as a hate group.

SPLC gave cover to those who use the “hate speech’ and “hate group” labels to shut down political and religious speech, and now it has spiralled out of control.
PREVIOUSLY: "Depraved Homosexuals Blame Family Research Council for 'Climate of Violence' After Leftist Attempts Massacre."

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Depraved Homosexuals Blame Family Research Council for 'Climate of Violence' After Leftist Attempts Massacre

The Hill reports on the political reaction to today's attempted massacre at the Family Research Council, "Shooting spurs heated debate on gay rights, 'hate group' label" (via Memeorandum).

The left has been firing unhinged hatred all day, from some homosexual lowlife on Twitter, for example (via Twitchy):


Plus, here's Sally Kohn on Twitter:


And there is so much bottled hatred in this Jessica Naomi Twitter feed, it's shocking:



And Joe.My.God. unleashed a torrent of tweets condemning Tony Perkins, for example:


Epic hate-filled homosexual Dan Savage piles on:


And another epic hater, John Aravosis:


And Aravosis has a blog post justifying the violence, "Does the shooting at the Family Research Council exonerate the group's 20 years of hate?":
The information is still coming in, but someone apparently started shooting in the lobby of the religious right hate group Family Research council in Washington, DC today. A security guard was unfortunately wounded.

Conservatives, such as CNN's Erick Erickson, are already trying to tie Democrats to the attack. Why? Because people on the left had the audacity to challenge the Family Research Council's decades of hateful and bigoted attacks against gay and lesbian Americans. And other conservatives are calling for the Southern Poverty Law Center to no longer list the FRC as a hate group because of today's violence. That would be wrong.

Because of conservatives trying to take political advantage of the shooting I'm now forced to recap just how hateful and bigoted an organization the Family Research Council really is. I'd have preferred to have avoided that this so soon after the attack, but conservatives leave us no choice.
Continue reading.

I guess Aravosis doesn't get the satanic irony of defending the violence against FRC (because they "hate"), and then attempting to reject the shooting on the other hand (because violence is "never justified).

Unlike conservatives, the left has built up an industry attacking conservatives, and people with "traditional values," as "haters." After a while you reap what you sow.

Jonathan Tobin had a thoughtful piece earlier today, "Will the Left Pause After DC Shooting?":
...liberals who have often jumped to the conclusion that all Tea Partiers are violent racists because of stray comments from extremists need to remember that such tactics cut both ways. Those who have repeatedly cautioned conservatives to mind their tongues and be careful about using language that would delegitimize their opponents now must think about what they have been saying in recent weeks and months about the so-called “war on women” or supporters of Chick-fil-A. If they thought violent rhetoric emanating from the right was a problem that could be linked to violence, then they must understand that incitement against conservatives is just as noxious. That is all the more true because almost all of the accusations of right-wing involvement in violence have been proven false while the Washington gunman’s statements make it clear that he was motivated by left-wing politics.
Word.

And also from John Hinderaker, Power Line, "THOUGHTS ON THE FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL SHOOTING":
One of the most troubling aspects of contemporary public life is the frequency with which violent episodes take on a political coloration....

A wrong turn was taken in the Jared Loughner case. Loughner was a lunatic, so deranged that it remained doubtful for a long time whether he would even be competent to stand trial. There is no reason to think that his killing spree was politically motivated, and to the extent that he had a (crazy) political outlook, it was leftist; he listed The Communist Manifesto as one of his favorite books.

No matter. The Democratic Party and the media tried, incredibly, in retrospect, to blame Loughner’s shootings on Sarah Palin....

Then we had the absurdity of the Aurora, Colorado Batman shooter being identified breathlessly as a possible Tea Partier by ABC’s Brian Ross. No such luck. Another nut.

Today a public school teacher named Floyd Corkins II walked into the Washington, D.C. office of the Family Research Council, armed with a recently-purchased 9 mm pistol. He was stopped by the guard; news reports don’t clearly explain why. Perhaps he had already drawn his gun, or perhaps he just looked suspicious. Some reports say he was carrying a Chick-Fil-A bag. He shot the guard, who wrestled him to the ground. Along the way, Corkins made observations about the political positions of the FRC, and, when the guard pointed a gun at him–it is not clear, to me anyway, whether the guard was armed or he took Corkins’s gun away from him–Corkins begged him not to shoot, saying something to the effect that it was nothing personal, he just had a problem with the FRC’s politics....

...denouncing proponents of traditional marriage as “haters” isn’t the only instance of over-the-top liberal rhetoric; on the contrary, hysteria is their stock in trade. Thus, we see Barack Obama claiming that Mitt Romney causes cancer, and Joe Biden asserting bizarrely that Republicans want to put someone–African-Americans, I guess, by a process of elimination–”back in chains.” Liberals should take a deep breath and re-think how they talk about public policy issues. If they are looking for haters, it would seem that the mirror is a good place to start.
I've followed the homosexual left on almost a day-by-day basis since Proposition 8 passed on November 5th. 2008. It's been almost four years of non-stop intimidation, thuggery, crime, and violence. Today's attempted massacre was only the logical outcome of the left's long campaign of hatred. I think Moonbattery nailed it here, "Armed Moonbat Attacks Family Research Council":
Imagine if it turns out that Obama’s disgraceful election was the high water mark of moonbattery, and that faith, family, and freedom are the future. Libs aren’t going to get any less angry.
No, they're not. And that reminds my of some thoughts I wrote in 2008, "Shattering Myths on Domestic Radicals: 'The Baader Meinhof Complex'." There will indeed come a day in America when the radical left, the homosexual extremists, the Occupy Wall Street criminals, and the assorted enablers in the fever swamps of the Democrat (Socialist) Party finally get fed up with mainstream politics and take to the banner of revolutionary murder and violence.

Today's attempted massacre was indeed the culmination of left-wing hate and agitation. The seething anger is so palpable, it's bleeding from your screen. Someone's going to get killed one of these times, and the perp will be a radical leftist. The MSM's Obama-enablers are going to be shocked to have to report that the same people they've been pumping up for decades are in fact simply fanatical murderers who reject debate and won't take no for an answer.

RELATED: At The Other McCain, "I Blame Rachel Maddow!"

Family Research Council Shooting at Washington, D.C., Headquarters

Thank God no one was killed.

The Wall Street Journal reports, "Guard Shot at Family Research Council Headquarters."

And at the Washington Examiner, "FRC was attacked as a ‘hate group’."

And at Instapundit, "I BLAME THE HATE-FILLED ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AND ITS SUPPORTERS..."

No doubt.

More at Memeorandum. And Hot Air has updates. Turns out a second person was shot as well.

UPDATE: At Twitchy, "Crosshairs: Left calls Family Research Council ‘hate group,’ reacts to shooting; Shooter yelled about FRC’s ‘values’; Update: Left offers fake sympathy for FRC shooting; qualifies with ‘totally had it coming, haters’." And, "Unconfirmed reports: Family Research Council shooter carried Chick-fil-A bag, posed as intern; Update: NBC confirming."

Apparently the suspect, reportedly seen at this picture, was carrying Chick-fil-A promotional materials, attempting to look sympathetic to FRC's policy agenda. In contrast to recent shootings like Aurora and Tuscon, the FRC suspects's a vicious, hate-addled left-wing criminal perp. More at JWF, "Suspect Identified in FRC Shooting." Plus video reports at Associated Press and The Right Scoop.

The big story coming up will be the Obama-media's reporting. That Chick-fil-A angle is especially devastating to the radical left's bullshit "tolerance" agenda.

More, from ExJon on Twitter:


JWF updates, "Suspect Identified in FRC Shooting; Update: Was Volunteer at LGBT Clinic."

Thursday, August 9, 2012

'Starbucks Appreciation Day' Goes Bust

Bust, and no one's talking about it.

From Da Tech Guy, "Anyone notice what was missing from Memeorandum today?"

And previously, at the Los Angeles Times, "Starbucks appreciation: Will retort to Chick-fil-A day succeed?"

Obviously not, or else the Democrat-Media-Complex would be rubbing it in conservative faces.

Monday, August 6, 2012

Walter James Casper III, Hate-Blogger and Internet Stalker, Harasses Gay-Politics Activist Evan Hurst on Twitter

This is why hate-blogger Walter James Casper III, a.k.a. Repsac3, is blocked from my blog --- and this is why the evil "Hatesac" has been exposed, repudiated, and blocked all over the right wing blogosphere. When Zilla put up a huge "roll call" of conservatives supporting me against workplace intimidation, Hatesac3 infiltrated her comments and was promptly banned. As I wrote at the time: "RACIST = REPSAC's a nut case. A raving hatemonger and lunatic."

So now it turns out that Hatesac3 is an equal-opportunity predator. There's this guy, Evan Hurst, who is the Director of Social Media at Truth Wins Out, an extreme far-left blog pushing homosexual rights. He seems like a reasonable guy. But right on cue, Hatesac3 launched a Twitter campaign stalking him after looking to leach a copy of an article Hurst posted on Chick-fil-A:


The entry at Truth Wins Out has been taken down, as perhaps not defending the left's hateful fascist attacks on Chick-fil-A. But Hatesac3 wants it anyways, to fuel his deranged Internet predations, no doubt. After Hurst basically blew off Hatesac3 as a nuisance, our infamous progressive stalker started berating the dude:












Mr. Hurst has not dropped out of sight, as indicated by his Twitter feed. So perhaps he's just trying to be polite in the hopes that deranged obsessive Hatesac3 will just let it got. Mr. Hurst explained that he'd just been swamped, and as it's a fresh week, maybe he'll still forward that piece to the despicable Hatesac3. Seriously, after that much harassment, I'd just send it to the f-king criminal Hatesac3 just to get him off my back. Either that, or I'd notify the authorities. Look at that deranged Internet harassment. For crying out loud, Hatesac3, get a life motherf-ker!

See: "Intent to Annoy and the Fascist Hate-Blogging Campaign of Walter James Casper III."

Previously: "Repsac3, Hate-Addled Internet Predator, Screams 'Liar' at Virtually Entire World on Politicization of Colorado Shooting." Plus, "When Even Sick Left-Wing Sites Like 'Wonkette' Want Brian Ross Fired, Despicable Hate-Blogger Repsac3 Attacks Michelle Malkin as 'Whiney Wingnut Victim'."

Extra: "Repsac3, Apologist for Homosexual Criminals, Remorselessly Defends Left's Hateful Intimidation and Vandalism on 'National Kiss-In Day'."

Case File: Check the special search for "Repsac3 OR Walter James Capser III" at Google.

Sunday, August 5, 2012

Homosexual Fascists

At Angry White Dude, "HOMOSEXUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES ARE RUDE, CRUDE, IN-YOUR-FACE BRUTES!":
Homofascists are their own worst enemy. The buycott of Chick fil A by millions of decent Americans was a huge success. The homosexual kiss-in protest was a total failure. The American people are rising up against the bullying tactics of this small, loud groups of perverts. Why? No, it’s not hate and it’s not fear. IT’S BECAUSE NORMAL PEOPLE DON’T ACT LIKE THAT!
Speaking of "homofascists," via The Looking Spoon:

Homofascist

PREVIOUSLY: "Obama's Gay Nightmare: Still Waiting for Barry's Backside Boogie Pics!"

BONUS: "Repsac3, Apologist for Homosexual Criminals, Remorselessly Defends Left's Hateful Intimidation and Vandalism on 'National Kiss-In Day'."

The Ladies Do It Right on 'National Kiss-In Day'!

Via Doug Mataconis on Twitter.

Chick-fil-A Kissing Day

Saturday, August 4, 2012

'Tolerant' Homosexuals Berate Black Man Reading Bible Nearby 'Kiss In' at Chick-fil-A Chicago

Chicago values.

For the life of me, I can't understand how homosexuals think they're building support for their agenda.

From Anne Sorock, at Legal Insurrection, "Chicago Chick-fil-A Kiss-In protesters “chalk” homeless street preacher."

Hollywood Homosexual Takes Credit for 'Tastes Like Hate' Vandalism in Torrance, California

As I've mentioned previously, these are homosexual criminal values.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Chick-fil-A vandalism investigated by police in Torrance":

Chick-fil-A Kissing Day
Huge crowds turned out Wednesday in a show of support for company President Dan Cathy, who ignited a national debate by publicly expressing his opposition to same-sex marriage. Critics have also said the company supports causes harmful to gays and lesbians.

Denise Spencer, who visited the Torrance restaurant Friday, said that she was sad to see the vandalism and that it hurt the message of tolerance that gay marriage proponents are pushing.

"The president of the company has the right to say what he feels, just like gays and lesbians do, but when you destroy someone's property ... it only creates negativity," Spencer said.

A gay artist took responsibility for the graffiti in an interview with the Huffington Post on Friday. "Everybody is entitled to free speech, but it seems like for the gay tribe, this is more of an issue of equal rights -- human rights," Manny Castro told the site. "I'm against what these people stand for, what this company stands for. They're trying to take away what little rights we already have."
Also at CNS News, "'Gaga Christ' Artist Claims Credit For Chick-fil-A 'Tastes Like Hate' Vandalism."

PREVIOUSLY: "'Tastes Like Hate' — Classy Homosexuals Vandalize Chick-fil-A for National 'Kiss In' Day."

RELATED: "'Tolerant' Homosexuals Graffiti 'Don't Hate' at Chick-fil-A in Des Peres, Missouri."

'Tolerant' Homosexuals Graffiti 'Don't Hate' at Chick-fil-A in Des Peres, Missouri

"Don't hate."

Right.

At Twitchy, "Second Chick-fil-A vandalized by ‘no hate’ crowd in Missouri."

And see KSDK 5 St. Louis, "'Don't Hate' Spraypainted on Des Peres Chick-fil-A."

Gay Chick-fil-A

BONUS: A roundup at Theo's: "Classy Homosexuals Defile Themselves on Chick-fil-A 'National Kiss-In Day'."

Hateful Chick-fil-A Drive-Up Guy Posts 'Apologies and Clarifications' to YouTube

Following-up my earlier entry, "Adam Smith, Hateful Chick-fil-A Drive-Up Guy Who Made Videotape, Fired From His Position as Executive at Vante Corporation."

William Jacobson has the dude's new video, "Adam Smith video – “Apologies and Clarifications”."

I watched it last night. I'm not embedding it --- the guy's an asshole.

Actually, I much prefer Antoine Dodson instead:


More at the DC, "Antoine Dodson: ‘The gay community — we have went from being bullied to becoming bullies’."