The church is threatening to not only close hospital doors if the State tries to force them to offer services (abortion in particular) that are in direct violation of Catholic teaching, but to sit on the property so that it can't be used.  The church better be willing to pull that trigger, or the church will become a meaningless institution.  You can't lead the pro-life movement for that long, only to cave like that and expect to survive as an institution.  The health care system in the US would collapse without the church, so what would the Democrats do?  Do they seize the hospitals and expose themselves as the authoritarian thugs they are, or do they cave?  This is very high stakes game being played between the Catholic hierarchy and liberal leadership.

Posted by: doubleplusundead at 12:35 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 145 words, total size 1 kb.

Once again, some "victim group" feels left out because they aren't allowed to participate in literally fucking everything so they sue and now another private organization is forced to change their behavior to cater to the minority.

Sickening.

Before you* call me a homophobe** let me point out that this has absolutely nothing to do with who is fucking who and absolutely everything to do with private fucking property.  This company was created by a man who doesn't support homosexual relationships and it should be his right to exclude whoever he wants from his service for any reason he can think of.  Yes, I include bigotry in this.  It is his property.  He should be able to do with it as he pleases.

So, what can we do?  I know what I'm going to do if I can figure it out. 

I want to sue every "exclusionary" organization in America that doesn't allow White, Christian, Heterosexual Men as members.  All I need is a competent, obnoxious lawyer and time. 

Let's see how these fascists like being forced to include everyone in America into their special clubs.

P.S. You have no idea how many times I had to delete the word "fucking" from this post.  If there is one thing that gets under my skin it is forcing people to do something they don't want with their own property.  Smoking bans, trans fats, even the ADA fucking make me shake with rage. 

I just wish more people would embrace the following statement the way they embrace being turbodouches:  LIFE ISN'T FAIR.  SUCK IT UP.

Update: You have got to be fucking kidding me.  We should start suing Muslim-owned stores and restaurants for not serving pork and alcohol.  Yeah... I have to step away from the blog.   Urge..to kill.... rising.

* - I don't mean you as in, regular readers.  I mean you as in the convenient liberal strawman I generally argue with.

** This term needs to be replaced immediately.  It is so absurd it makes me physically angry.  Even if a person doesn't like gay people,  it is retarded to imply that they are afraid of them.  This is the kind of 1984 newspeak that slowly paints anyone who has legitimate (to them, and there are plenty non-bigoted, defensible ones) gripes with homosexuality into a frightened homo-hater.  It pisses me off, I say.

Posted by: Moron Pundit at 05:15 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 397 words, total size 3 kb.

Chill.  The Fuck.  Out.

You lost.  Sorry.  The people spoke and they didn't agree with you.  It sucks.  Trust us, we know.  We're about to have not only a President we don't like but a massive, unicorn-eyed cult of followers to contend with.

What you need to do is the same thing we're going to need to do.  Relax, regroup and retry.  Going into full-on psycho mode is only going to alienate you and your cause from the average voter.  Attacking minority and religious groups that are whole-sale against gay marriage isn't going to convince them you are right and it certainly isn't painting you as 'the victim' in this situation. 

What you need to do is preach freedom and convince these people that, while they are against it personally, they shouldn't be imposing their opinion legally.  You should try to find ways to prove that the homosexual community and lifestyle aren't hostile and damaging to religion.  It might be smart to attempt not being hostile and damaging to religion as a first step in this process.

In the end, I'm just a touch more on your side than on the "I completely don't give a shit at all" side so I hope you guys succeed.  But you need to succeed the same way movements have succeeded throughout American history.  By convincing your fellow Americans that you are correct. 

After all, what do Americans hate more than being told what to do?

Posted by: Moron Pundit at 12:44 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 247 words, total size 2 kb.

Like Malkin, I'm seeing a little too much, "What're we gonna do, what're we gonna do?"-type panicking.  Well,

Posted by: doubleplusundead at 10:18 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.

...and that'll never fucking happen unless some wild demographic shift turns it into Wingnutifornia, but I'd also vote no on Prop 8.  I don't think laws restricting behavior or actions of citizens should be made on a constitutional level, not that Californians can't do this, but I think it's much better to limit constitutional changes to restricting what government can do. 

If the goal of Prop 8 was to make a change on the California constitution barring the judiciary from making gay marriage into law, I'd vote hell yes for that, then oppose any actual attempt to ban gay marriage legislatively or in referendum.

Priority number one for me is restricting government power, or at least maintaining our traditional roles of government.  Constitutions should be used to restrict government power and the judiciary shouldn't be creating laws, which in large part got us into this Prop 8 mess. 

Frankly, I think socialism and out of control government growth is what is damaging to families and tradition, not if Tom and Ted can get married.  I'd actually like to see all government sanctions on marriages be civil contracts or unions, it would head off this slapfight off at the pass.

Oh, and before it's asked, any effort by the state to force a church to acknowledge or officiate a marriage it doesn't want to should be crushed mercilessly.  We have a First Amendment for a reason, and there's a reason we try and maintain separation between church and state.

Posted by: doubleplusundead at 10:23 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.