Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   Rupert Murdoch urges boycott of Guinness for pulling out of the NYC St. Patrick's Day Parade due to ban on gays and lesbians   (salon.com ) divider line
    More: Stupid, St. Patrick's Day, Rupert Murdoch, Guinness, Irish American, industrialisations, Chris O'Dowd, gay bullying, Irish Central  
•       •       •

4885 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Mar 2014 at 4:30 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



313 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-03-17 05:50:26 PM  
Stop wagging the dog so hard, it's going to faint.
 
2014-03-17 05:51:05 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: [holyfamilyparishportola.org image 465x600]

A Christian saint, who  Christianized Ireland with  Christianbeliefs


Beliefs like getting shiat faced drunk and carrying 4-leaf clovers for good luck?
 
2014-03-17 05:51:39 PM  

mark12A: Nobody is being banned from the parade because they're gay.

The parade doesn't want organized Gay Groups in the parade advertising their sexuality. People accept gays, they're just getting very sick and tired of gay groups waving their dicks in everybody's faces and screaming "HEY WE'RE GAY, ARE WE AWESOME OR WHAT????" all the time now. Maybe parents don't want to have to explain what gays are to their six year olds at a freakin' parade.

Just give it a rest already. People don't go to parades to learn about other people's kinks, OK?


+ eleventy billion.

But common sense doesn't seem to have any impact on the retards who think if you don't completely 100% support every single thing a gay person does you're a dirty bigot.
 
2014-03-17 05:52:21 PM  
Téigh trasna ort féin, Murdoch.
 
2014-03-17 05:53:52 PM  

Sidecrab: LordJiro: Sidecrab: I don't have a problem with gays, but I think they hurt their own agenda by pushing gay pride. Win equality, gain acceptance, whatever, but taking part in a parade? That's just pushing it in peoples faces. And sex is not  'family friendly'.

Homosexuality is not all about sex. Just like heterosexual partnerships aren't all about sex. The fact that people whining about gay pride are so obsessed with the sexual aspect says more about the whiners than the actual gay people.


If it's not about sex it is called 'friendship'. No one has a problem with friendship.


No, it's about love. And even if you disagree, you presumably wouldn't give your kid the 'birds and the bees' talk if they asked why a man and woman were holding hands, why would you go into the details about homosexual sex if they asked why two men or two women were together? Why isn't 'Because they're in love' an acceptable answer for both?

Not that it matters. Bigots like you are rapidly losing your grip, and you'll be in the dustbin of history before too long. Like the people who opposed emancipation, miscegenation, and the right for women and minorities to vote, you'll be nothing more than a powerless embarrassment.
 
2014-03-17 05:54:24 PM  

SkinnyHead: you are a puppet: SkinnyHead: I read that the parade is not banning gays, they just don't want people carrying sex signs. That sounds reasonable.

So no "Kiss me (even though you're a guy and I'm a guy) I'm Irish!" signs?

I'm not sure that "Kiss me, I'm Irish" is sexual.  Guinness is demanding that the parade allow signs and banners proclaiming sexual diversity.  It's not a sexual diversity parade, it's a St. Patrick's Day Parade.  I think Guinness is being unreasonable about this.


How dare the firefighters carry banners. It's not a firefighter parade, it's a St Patrick's Day Parade.

How dare the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts carry banners. It's not for them, it's for St. Patrick.

How dare local schools and their bands carry signs. It's not about them, it's about St. Patrick.
 
2014-03-17 05:54:42 PM  

omgbears: Guiness just doesn't want organized religious groups in the parade advertising their bigotry. People accept Christians, they're just getting very sick and tired of religious groups waving their dicks in everybody's faces and screaming "HEY WE LOVE JESUS, ARE WE AWESOME OR WHAT????" all the time now. Maybe parents don't want to have to explain what bigots are to their six year olds at a freakin' parade.


Oh Snap!
 
2014-03-17 05:55:44 PM  
I would love to see what would happen if a group tried to march in the parade under a similar banner but instead of gay/lesbian it was straight/heterosexual...I would love to see the parade organizers defend this position to the onslaught of rage that would come as a result of that.
 
2014-03-17 06:05:25 PM  
I don't drink Guinness, and nothing about this story would make me change my drinking habits either way.

But I don't get it.  The article talks about gay people being banned from the parade, but I seriously doubt that's true.  What the parade wouldn't let them do is use the parade to promote it.   I can understand that.  It's an Irish celebration, not a gay celebration.  They are essentially saying "No, stay on topic".

I don't see that as gay bashing at all.  I'm think gay marriage should be allowed, I'm very open about rights.  But I also think they should be able to have the same parade they've had for all this time without it turning into a gay rights movement with leather chap boys waving their asses around on a float and such.  If the gays want a parade, they should organize their own.

Edymnion: Oh wait, you say that a man and a woman can be seen together in public and it isn't about sex? Well then, gay couples should be able to be able to be seen in public without sex coming up either.


The LGBT folks who are complaining would not be satisfied to be told "Sure, you can have a float" if they weren't allowed to make it about their sexuality.  If that would have satisfied them, we wouldn't be having this conversation.  They are demanding that the topic of sex *does* come up.
 
2014-03-17 06:05:40 PM  
Also, for all of the "How can I explain this to my child" nonsense, if you can't answer a question like that with a simple answer that is vague and short on details I wonder how you can possibly discuss some of the other things that are going to come up as a result of parenting...especially if one of those conversations involves your own kid coming out to you at some point.
The other part of this is that I can't really imagine that 5 year old kid is going to be paying close enough attention to a parade with a quarter of a million participants to pay attention to every detail about every group of people in the parade...they'll probably get caught up in the scale of it or get bored and tired halfway through as kids tend to do after being somewhere for a few hours.
 
2014-03-17 06:06:45 PM  

Iplaybass: mark12A: Nobody is being banned from the parade because they're gay.

The parade doesn't want organized Gay Groups in the parade advertising their sexuality. People accept gays, they're just getting very sick and tired of gay groups waving their dicks in everybody's faces and screaming "HEY WE'RE GAY, ARE WE AWESOME OR WHAT????" all the time now. Maybe parents don't want to have to explain what gays are to their six year olds at a freakin' parade.

Just give it a rest already. People don't go to parades to learn about other people's kinks, OK?

+ eleventy billion.

But common sense doesn't seem to have any impact on the retards who think if you don't completely 100% support every single thing a gay person does you're a dirty bigot.


If you think being gay is a kink, that's fine. It still makes you a bigot and an asshole, but that's your right.

However, if you think your bigotry means gay people should be specifically excluded from events that other groups are allowed to attend, that's where I have a problem. And if you think that a child asking why two men or two women are holding hands means you should explain how gay people f*ck, that's a problem with YOU, not with gay people.
 
2014-03-17 06:08:59 PM  

JuggleGeek: But I don't get it.  The article talks about gay people being banned from the parade, but I seriously doubt that's true.  What the parade wouldn't let them do is use the parade to promote it.   I can understand that.  It's an Irish celebration, not a gay celebration.  They are essentially saying "No, stay on topic".


Therefore, no group should be allowed to self identify as anything other than Irish. Right?
 
2014-03-17 06:12:08 PM  
I'm not sure about this BLTBBQ you people keep yapping about. Each on its own, BLT or BBQ, is fine and dandy, but a BLTBBQ sounds like it might be a bit nasty, perhaps an incongruous mix like tuna and peanut butter.
 
2014-03-17 06:14:06 PM  

grumpfuff: SkinnyHead: you are a puppet: SkinnyHead: I read that the parade is not banning gays, they just don't want people carrying sex signs. That sounds reasonable.

So no "Kiss me (even though you're a guy and I'm a guy) I'm Irish!" signs?

I'm not sure that "Kiss me, I'm Irish" is sexual.  Guinness is demanding that the parade allow signs and banners proclaiming sexual diversity.  It's not a sexual diversity parade, it's a St. Patrick's Day Parade.  I think Guinness is being unreasonable about this.

How dare the firefighters carry banners. It's not a firefighter parade, it's a St Patrick's Day Parade.

How dare the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts carry banners. It's not for them, it's for St. Patrick.

How dare local schools and their bands carry signs. It's not about them, it's about St. Patrick.


Can't you see a difference between firefighters, scouts and school bands marching under their signs and banners, and people who want to use the occasion to declare their sexual diversity?  Parade official want to keep things above the belt.  There are other venues for things like that; it's not unreasonable for parade officials to say that their parade isn't it.
 
2014-03-17 06:15:31 PM  

letrole: I'm not sure about this BLTBBQ you people keep yapping about. Each on its own, BLT or BBQ, is fine and dandy, but a BLTBBQ sounds like it might be a bit nasty, perhaps an incongruous mix like tuna and peanut butter.


Trolling is a religion.

/and a surname
 
2014-03-17 06:18:23 PM  

SkinnyHead: grumpfuff: SkinnyHead: you are a puppet: SkinnyHead: I read that the parade is not banning gays, they just don't want people carrying sex signs. That sounds reasonable.

So no "Kiss me (even though you're a guy and I'm a guy) I'm Irish!" signs?

I'm not sure that "Kiss me, I'm Irish" is sexual.  Guinness is demanding that the parade allow signs and banners proclaiming sexual diversity.  It's not a sexual diversity parade, it's a St. Patrick's Day Parade.  I think Guinness is being unreasonable about this.

How dare the firefighters carry banners. It's not a firefighter parade, it's a St Patrick's Day Parade.

How dare the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts carry banners. It's not for them, it's for St. Patrick.

How dare local schools and their bands carry signs. It's not about them, it's about St. Patrick.

Can't you see a difference between firefighters, scouts and school bands marching under their signs and banners, and people who want to use the occasion to declare their sexual diversity?  Parade official want to keep things above the belt.  There are other venues for things like that; it's not unreasonable for parade officials to say that their parade isn't it.


Explain to me how having a banner that says "Gay Veterans Association" or whatever is "below the belt". Explain to me how two men walking down the streets holding hands or even kissing is sexual, but if it's a heterosexual couple its totes fine.
 
2014-03-17 06:20:59 PM  

SkinnyHead: Can't you see a difference between firefighters, scouts and school bands marching under their signs and banners, and people who want to use the occasion to declare their sexual diversity? Parade official want to keep things above the belt. There are other venues for things like that; it's not unreasonable for parade officials to say that their parade isn't it.


Yes, but that sort of measured, reasonable tone doesn't play as well as the drama of "Help, help, we're being oppressed!".  Sexual freedom won't have truly arrived until there are animatronic robots on the Small World ride at Disney World fellating each other.
 
2014-03-17 06:23:10 PM  

jshine: SkinnyHead: Can't you see a difference between firefighters, scouts and school bands marching under their signs and banners, and people who want to use the occasion to declare their sexual diversity? Parade official want to keep things above the belt. There are other venues for things like that; it's not unreasonable for parade officials to say that their parade isn't it.

Yes, but that sort of measured, reasonable tone doesn't play as well as the drama of "Help, help, we're being oppressed!".  Sexual freedom won't have truly arrived until there are animatronic robots on the Small World ride at Disney World fellating each other.


Holy non-sequitor Batman!
 
2014-03-17 06:24:30 PM  

jshine: SkinnyHead: Can't you see a difference between firefighters, scouts and school bands marching under their signs and banners, and people who want to use the occasion to declare their sexual diversity? Parade official want to keep things above the belt. There are other venues for things like that; it's not unreasonable for parade officials to say that their parade isn't it.

Yes, but that sort of measured, reasonable tone doesn't play as well as the drama of "Help, help, we're being oppressed!".  Sexual freedom won't have truly arrived until there are animatronic robots on the Small World ride at Disney World fellating each other.


More of that obsession with gay sex. Quite telling, really.
 
2014-03-17 06:24:48 PM  

grumpfuff: Explain to me how having a banner that says "Gay Veterans Association" or whatever is "below the belt".


I dont think there are any "Heterosexual Swinging Veterans Association" banners either.  Or just "Heterosexual Veterans Association", for that matter.  There's no reason to conflate sexuality (in any form) with one's status as a Veteran or with St. Patrick.
 
2014-03-17 06:26:56 PM  

jshine: grumpfuff: Explain to me how having a banner that says "Gay Veterans Association" or whatever is "below the belt".

I dont think there are any "Heterosexual Swinging Veterans Association" banners either.  Or just "Heterosexual Veterans Association", for that matter.  There's no reason to conflate sexuality (in any form) with one's status as a Veteran or with St. Patrick.


I notice you avoided the second question.

Anyway, I think my previous answer to you applies just as well here.

grumpfuff: Holy non-sequitor Batman!

 
2014-03-17 06:27:08 PM  

LordJiro: jshine: SkinnyHead: Can't you see a difference between firefighters, scouts and school bands marching under their signs and banners, and people who want to use the occasion to declare their sexual diversity? Parade official want to keep things above the belt. There are other venues for things like that; it's not unreasonable for parade officials to say that their parade isn't it.

Yes, but that sort of measured, reasonable tone doesn't play as well as the drama of "Help, help, we're being oppressed!".  Sexual freedom won't have truly arrived until there are animatronic robots on the Small World ride at Disney World fellating each other.

More of that obsession with gay sex. Quite telling, really.



Indeed.  It tells one that this is an article that deals with sexual orientation issues.

/ yes, it was obviously hyperbolic
// that's intended as humor
 
2014-03-17 06:30:00 PM  

grumpfuff: jshine: grumpfuff: Explain to me how having a banner that says "Gay Veterans Association" or whatever is "below the belt".

I dont think there are any "Heterosexual Swinging Veterans Association" banners either.  Or just "Heterosexual Veterans Association", for that matter.  There's no reason to conflate sexuality (in any form) with one's status as a Veteran or with St. Patrick.

I notice you avoided the second question.

Anyway, I think my previous answer to you applies just as well here.

grumpfuff: Holy non-sequitor Batman!



Meh, I'm not a lawyer being paid to respond to each point that's raised.  This is just Fark.

If you feel "There's no reason to conflate sexuality (in any form) with one's status as a Veteran or with St. Patrick." is a non sequitur reply to the topic of TFA, then there's going to be no possible room for discussion.  That's about as direct a reply as one can get.
 
2014-03-17 06:31:35 PM  

jshine: grumpfuff: jshine: grumpfuff: Explain to me how having a banner that says "Gay Veterans Association" or whatever is "below the belt".

I dont think there are any "Heterosexual Swinging Veterans Association" banners either.  Or just "Heterosexual Veterans Association", for that matter.  There's no reason to conflate sexuality (in any form) with one's status as a Veteran or with St. Patrick.

I notice you avoided the second question.

Anyway, I think my previous answer to you applies just as well here.

grumpfuff: Holy non-sequitor Batman!


Meh, I'm not a lawyer being paid to respond to each point that's raised.  This is just Fark.

If you feel "There's no reason to conflate sexuality (in any form) with one's status as a Veteran or with St. Patrick." is a non sequitur reply to the topic of TFA, then there's going to be no possible room for discussion.  That's about as direct a reply as one can get.


I'm sorry that you think a marginalized group only gets to speak when you feel it is appropriate.
 
2014-03-17 06:31:38 PM  

grumpfuff: Explain to me how two men walking down the streets holding hands or even kissing


Well, I doubt, and I'm not alone, in thinking that is what the gay rights groups plan or want. Sorry, when a lot of folks think 'gay' and 'parade' they think assless chaps and transformers. It might be unfair, but not every parade is or needs to be a 'gay rights parade'. The ....let's say demonstrativeness of gay rights parades works against gay folk in these instances.
 
2014-03-17 06:32:21 PM  
Since Guinness has pulled out, the obvious replacement is a huge cauldron of stewed prunes. Not only would this provide a foul black substitute for revellers, it would also be challenge to march for anyone who had less than ideal sphincter tone.
 
2014-03-17 06:33:33 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: grumpfuff: Explain to me how two men walking down the streets holding hands or even kissing

Well, I doubt, and I'm not alone, in thinking that is what the gay rights groups plan or want. Sorry, when a lot of folks think 'gay' and 'parade' they think assless chaps and transformers. It might be unfair, but not every parade is or needs to be a 'gay rights parade'. The ....let's say demonstrativeness of gay rights parades works against gay folk in these instances.


Oh I highly doubt it too. I fully expect if they did march, it would be a bunch of boring looking people doing boring things like walking and waving.

However, that point aside, if you don't think a man and a woman holding hands in public or kissing or hugging or whatever is sexual, then you should think the same of two men or two women.
 
2014-03-17 06:34:52 PM  
Occam's Nailfile:

Like another farker said, maybe I don't want to explain to my 5 year old what "gay" is before he's even ready to learn about what sex is.

This is the awesomest argument ever. We should ban everything that's inappropriate to talk to little kids about.
 
2014-03-17 06:36:19 PM  

grumpfuff: jshine: grumpfuff: jshine: grumpfuff: Explain to me how having a banner that says "Gay Veterans Association" or whatever is "below the belt".

I dont think there are any "Heterosexual Swinging Veterans Association" banners either.  Or just "Heterosexual Veterans Association", for that matter.  There's no reason to conflate sexuality (in any form) with one's status as a Veteran or with St. Patrick.

I notice you avoided the second question.

Anyway, I think my previous answer to you applies just as well here.

grumpfuff: Holy non-sequitor Batman!


Meh, I'm not a lawyer being paid to respond to each point that's raised.  This is just Fark.

If you feel "There's no reason to conflate sexuality (in any form) with one's status as a Veteran or with St. Patrick." is a non sequitur reply to the topic of TFA, then there's going to be no possible room for discussion.  That's about as direct a reply as one can get.

I'm sorry that you think a marginalized group only gets to speak when you feel it is appropriate.


I'm not the one handing out parade permits or organizing the events. My opinion is really quite inconsequential.
 
2014-03-17 06:37:16 PM  

Hickory-smoked: Occam's Nailfile: BTW, as long as we're talking about bigotry, many of you who whine that OMG TEH GAYS HAVE NO VOICE are also the same farkers who relentlessly and openly make fun of gingers.  Ironic.

Nobody sincerely hates gingers.


Myth: Gingers have no souls.
Fact: They have one freckle for each soul they've devoured.

cdn.images.express.co.uk
 
2014-03-17 06:37:28 PM  

jshine: grumpfuff: jshine: grumpfuff: jshine: grumpfuff: Explain to me how having a banner that says "Gay Veterans Association" or whatever is "below the belt".

I dont think there are any "Heterosexual Swinging Veterans Association" banners either.  Or just "Heterosexual Veterans Association", for that matter.  There's no reason to conflate sexuality (in any form) with one's status as a Veteran or with St. Patrick.

I notice you avoided the second question.

Anyway, I think my previous answer to you applies just as well here.

grumpfuff: Holy non-sequitor Batman!


Meh, I'm not a lawyer being paid to respond to each point that's raised.  This is just Fark.

If you feel "There's no reason to conflate sexuality (in any form) with one's status as a Veteran or with St. Patrick." is a non sequitur reply to the topic of TFA, then there's going to be no possible room for discussion.  That's about as direct a reply as one can get.

I'm sorry that you think a marginalized group only gets to speak when you feel it is appropriate.

I'm not the one handing out parade permits or organizing the events. My opinion is really quite inconsequential.


Yet you are attempting to argue in support of them.
 
2014-03-17 06:39:02 PM  

grumpfuff: Ow! That was my feelings!: grumpfuff: Explain to me how two men walking down the streets holding hands or even kissing

Well, I doubt, and I'm not alone, in thinking that is what the gay rights groups plan or want. Sorry, when a lot of folks think 'gay' and 'parade' they think assless chaps and transformers. It might be unfair, but not every parade is or needs to be a 'gay rights parade'. The ....let's say demonstrativeness of gay rights parades works against gay folk in these instances.

Oh I highly doubt it too. I fully expect if they did march, it would be a bunch of boring looking people doing boring things like walking and waving.

However, that point aside, if you don't think a man and a woman holding hands in public or kissing or hugging or whatever is sexual, then you should think the same of two men or two women.


Unless said couple is 'super hot', all PDAs should be banned. ALL OF THEM.
 
2014-03-17 06:39:23 PM  

grumpfuff: Explain to me how having a banner that says "Gay Veterans Association" or whatever is "below the belt". Explain to me how two men walking down the streets holding hands or even kissing is sexual, but if it's a heterosexual couple its totes fine.


The parade wants to keep things above the belt, meaning that they don't want the parade to be about sexuality.  A group that wants to march under a banner proclaiming their homosexuality or any other sexual diversity should find a different venue.
 
2014-03-17 06:41:37 PM  
JudgeMuttonChops:

Myth: Gingers have no souls.

Most gingers have souls...in fact the successful ones have quite a few.  The ones who don't have souls are just lazy.
 
2014-03-17 06:41:44 PM  

SkinnyHead: grumpfuff: Explain to me how having a banner that says "Gay Veterans Association" or whatever is "below the belt". Explain to me how two men walking down the streets holding hands or even kissing is sexual, but if it's a heterosexual couple its totes fine.

The parade wants to keep things above the belt, meaning that they don't want the parade to be about sexuality.  A group that wants to march under a banner proclaiming their homosexuality or any other sexual diversity should find a different venue.


I see you too are in favor of preventing marginalized groups from speaking except when you find it acceptable.
 
2014-03-17 06:42:59 PM  

papatex: If I'm a Christian and my opinion is that being gay doesn't make sense, I'm a bigot...


I suspect that if you are being called a bigot, it's probably got more to do with the "why" of why you don't think being gay "makes sense".

Care to share?
 
2014-03-17 06:43:44 PM  

SkinnyHead: The parade wants to keep things above the belt, meaning that they don't want the parade to be about sexuality.  A group that wants to march under a banner proclaiming their homosexuality or any other sexual diversity should find a different venue.


The fact that you automatically equate gayness and "sexuality" is pretty telling. By your standards, all the "straight" groups should be banned from the parade too, because they blatantly promote heterosexual sex just by their very existence. Right?
 
2014-03-17 06:52:56 PM  

JuggleGeek: But I don't get it.  The article talks about gay people being banned from the parade, but I seriously doubt that's true.  What the parade wouldn't let them do is use the parade to promote it.   I can understand that.  It's an Irish celebration, not a gay celebration.  They are essentially saying "No, stay on topic".


Have you looked at the list of organizations that are in the parade!? In addition to numerous firefighters, police and various civic organizations, you also have all branches of the military, a huge variety of professional organizations, equestrian groups, political groups such as The Friends of Irish Freedom, a group of  telephone operators,and so forth and so on.

The only common denominator is being Irish. So the notion that having gay Irishmen marching in the parade would be "off topic" is ludicrous. No, let me amend that: it's farking ludicrous.

And I do think it's telling that you can't even conceive of gays marching in the parade without the assless chaps coming out. You are aware that gays can dress and march just like any other group of people. If the parade owners are concerned about  decorum, then they can simply enforce a common set of rules on how you can present yourself when you're marching.
 
2014-03-17 06:54:55 PM  

MyRandomName: If liberals couldn't work in hyperbole they would have nothing left.


Literally NOTHING!
 
2014-03-17 06:58:15 PM  

Loadmaster: Occam's Nailfile: Oh, so if I don't REALLY hate gay people, but ridicule them, it's OK?
Depends.
It's okay to ridicule people for their fashion preferences.
It's okay to ridicule people for their smoking preferences.
It's okay to ridicule people for their political preferences.
It's okay to ridicule people for their religious preferences.
It's okay to ridicule people for their moral preferences.
But it's not okay to ridicule people for their sexual preferences. Right?


You can ridicule anyone for any reason you like. You just can't exempt yourself from being judged and ridiculed in return.

Part of the compact of being able to say whatever the hell you like is that it applies to other people, too. You don't get to cry foul when people say mean things about you in response to the mean things you say about them.

Put on your big girl panties and deal with the fact that people don't have to like your opinions.
 
2014-03-17 07:07:50 PM  
If it's OK to say you don't like gays, then it's OK for the rest of us to say you're a bigoted asshat.
You're free to hate whoever you want for whatever reasons you want, I'm free to say you're a vile, petty little person because of it. I'll still defend your right to be as vile, bigoted, and petty as you wish. That's your bad decision to make, and I have no right to use force (legal or otherwise) to stop you so long as you are not using force.
That's how Free Speech works. Just because you can say what you want doesn't mean there are no consequences, just that there are no legal consequences.

You're not free to pass laws discriminating for or against people, because that changes the issue from one of free speech/free thought and into actual harm.
 
2014-03-17 07:09:37 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: JuggleGeek: But I don't get it.  The article talks about gay people being banned from the parade, but I seriously doubt that's true.  What the parade wouldn't let them do is use the parade to promote it.   I can understand that.  It's an Irish celebration, not a gay celebration.  They are essentially saying "No, stay on topic".

Have you looked at the list of organizations that are in the parade!? In addition to numerous firefighters, police and various civic organizations, you also have all branches of the military, a huge variety of professional organizations, equestrian groups, political groups such as The Friends of Irish Freedom, a group of  telephone operators,and so forth and so on.

The only common denominator is being Irish. So the notion that having gay Irishmen marching in the parade would be "off topic" is ludicrous. No, let me amend that: it's farking ludicrous.

And I do think it's telling that you can't even conceive of gays marching in the parade without the assless chaps coming out. You are aware that gays can dress and march just like any other group of people. If the parade owners are concerned about  decorum, then they can simply enforce a common set of rules on how you can present yourself when you're marching.


It's essentially saying, "No, there are no gay Irish." You know, other than Oscar Wilde, Graham Norton, Anna Nolan, Colm Toibin, Tonie Walsh, Stephen Gately, Kelly McGillis, Sean Hayes, Tennessee Williams, Boy George, Pat Kenny, Brian Dowley, Louise Walsh, Emma Donahughe, Frank McGuinness and a damn sight more.
 
2014-03-17 07:20:24 PM  

Sidecrab: I don't have a problem with gays, but I think they hurt their own agenda by pushing gay pride. Win equality, gain acceptance, whatever, but taking part in a parade? That's just pushing it in peoples faces. And sex is not  'family friendly'.


"Kiss me I'm Irish" and "start drinking at 9am" are clearly family-friendly concepts.

TFA doesn't even describe what was explicitly banned.  Was it dancing in thongs and dry-humping each other while shooting glitter guns?  Or was it wearing a shirt that says "Kiss me I'm LGBT"?  Or maybe just a rainbow?  Where else will the leprechauns hide their gold???

Anyway, what's the point of hiding the world from your kids?  Until being LGBT is accepted in society, every parent is going to have to explain this crap to their kids.  Once it's in, they'll learn it like they learn the rest of our culture.  From TV.
 
2014-03-17 07:26:37 PM  

ambassador_ahab: kronicfeld: Didn't the entire GOP just get done telling us that we don't NEED anti-discrimination laws, because those who discriminate against gays will feel retribution from the free market and go out of business

Yep.  It's so hypocritical it often seems like satire.

They think this:
Laws Banning Discrimination Against Homosexuals = Bad and unnecessary because the free market will dictate which businesses succeed or fail.
Laws Banning Discrimination Against any other Minority Group = Bad and unnecessary (see above.)
Laws Banning Discrimination Against Conservative Christians = Good, because this particular group is getting bullied by (insert minority here.)  Without these laws, people can't practice their sincerely-held beliefs, blah blah blah.


How is this hypocritical?  You guys are so intent on seeing these guys as the bad guys... I mean, they are the bad guys, I guess, but you're so intent on seeing them that way, that you immediately imagine all of their actions to be wrong.  It's fascinating.  It's its own form of bigotry, right there.
If they say it's fine to have no laws banning discrimination because the free market will take care of it, they're talking about stuff exactly like this:  people will protest and boycotts will happen.
So now they're being bigoted and boycotting something on the other side, that goes against their beliefs.  There's no request for laws preventing bullying of Christians.  Not here, anyway (yeah, I know, you get them saying they need legislation to prevent bullying of Christians in schools, etc., but that's not what this is).

This whole thread:  Seriously, what the hell?  You guys are the ones either being idiots, being hypocritical, or both.  They're just being honest in their bigotry and intents.  You guys deceive yourselves.  Good job, pat yourselves on the back.
 
2014-03-17 07:35:20 PM  

Keith Dudemeister: SkinnyHead: The parade wants to keep things above the belt, meaning that they don't want the parade to be about sexuality.  A group that wants to march under a banner proclaiming their homosexuality or any other sexual diversity should find a different venue.

The fact that you automatically equate gayness and "sexuality" is pretty telling. By your standards, all the "straight" groups should be banned from the parade too, because they blatantly promote heterosexual sex just by their very existence. Right?


"Gayness" refers to "homosexuality," no?  Homosexuality is a form of "sexuality."  That's actually part of the term.  And what kind of "straight" groups are you talking about?  I don't think I've ever seen a group marching around under a "heterosexual" banner.  I wouldn't want to see that in the parade either.
 
2014-03-17 07:50:56 PM  
Two people who could use punches to the face.  Not because of their stance on gays, but because they look like they need it.
 
2014-03-17 08:00:11 PM  
  Occam's Nailfile: Oh, so if I don't REALLY hate gay people, but ridicule them, it's OK?

  Loadmaster: Depends.
  It's okay to ridicule people for their fashion preferences.
  It's okay to ridicule people for their smoking preferences.
  It's okay to ridicule people for their political preferences.
  It's okay to ridicule people for their religious preferences.
  It's okay to ridicule people for their moral preferences.
  But it's not okay to ridicule people for their sexual preferences. Right?

  Some 'Splainin' To Do: You can ridicule anyone for any reason you like.
 You just can't exempt yourself from being judged and ridiculed in return.


Does that ridicule include people accusing you of hate crimes?
 
2014-03-17 08:27:28 PM  

nymersic: ambassador_ahab: kronicfeld: Didn't the entire GOP just get done telling us that we don't NEED anti-discrimination laws, because those who discriminate against gays will feel retribution from the free market and go out of business

Yep.  It's so hypocritical it often seems like satire.

They think this:
Laws Banning Discrimination Against Homosexuals = Bad and unnecessary because the free market will dictate which businesses succeed or fail.
Laws Banning Discrimination Against any other Minority Group = Bad and unnecessary (see above.)
Laws Banning Discrimination Against Conservative Christians = Good, because this particular group is getting bullied by (insert minority here.)  Without these laws, people can't practice their sincerely-held beliefs, blah blah blah.

How is this hypocritical?  You guys are so intent on seeing these guys as the bad guys... I mean, they are the bad guys, I guess, but you're so intent on seeing them that way, that you immediately imagine all of their actions to be wrong.  It's fascinating.  It's its own form of bigotry, right there.
If they say it's fine to have no laws banning discrimination because the free market will take care of it, they're talking about stuff exactly like this:  people will protest and boycotts will happen.
So now they're being bigoted and boycotting something on the other side, that goes against their beliefs.  There's no request for laws preventing bullying of Christians.  Not here, anyway (yeah, I know, you get them saying they need legislation to prevent bullying of Christians in schools, etc., but that's not what this is).

This whole thread:  Seriously, what the hell?  You guys are the ones either being idiots, being hypocritical, or both.  They're just being honest in their bigotry and intents.  You guys deceive yourselves.  Good job, pat yourselves on the back.


It's its own form of bigotry, right there.

It's its own form of bigotry, right there.

It's its own form of bigotry, right there.


I... I may be too drunk to wrap my head around that.
 
2014-03-17 08:42:28 PM  

Loadmaster: Occam's Nailfile: Oh, so if I don't REALLY hate gay people, but ridicule them, it's OK?

  Loadmaster: Depends.
  It's okay to ridicule people for their fashion preferences.
  It's okay to ridicule people for their smoking preferences.
  It's okay to ridicule people for their political preferences.
  It's okay to ridicule people for their religious preferences.
  It's okay to ridicule people for their moral preferences.
  But it's not okay to ridicule people for their sexual preferences. Right?

  Some 'Splainin' To Do: You can ridicule anyone for any reason you like.
 You just can't exempt yourself from being judged and ridiculed in return.

Does that ridicule include people accusing you of hate crimes?


That is one consequence. Actions have consequences. You want around and NOT be held up for actions, it's entirely possible to keep your gob shut. Even when faced with those icky people that you dislike so much.

Me? I really have a problem with pedophiles. I accuse someone falsely of this, yeah, I fully expect some repercussions from that. That's not exactly analogous, since simply being gay isn't against the law. Not in the US at any rate--though, some folks would certainly like to see it made so. If you don't want to be accused of a hate crime, then perhaps it's a good idea to actually think about what you say in public BEFORE saying it. Simple ridicule isn't a hate crime. Urging others to commit bodily harm, that's getting into some incitement territory, and that kinda IS a crime. You don't want to be accused of a crime? Don't commit one. Maybe think before you open your gob, and expect OTHERS to clean up after you.

You're responsible for your own actions. You might want to think on those actions BEFORE. Or at least be mindful of the possible consequences. You don't like being called a racist? Then maybe you should think BEFORE opening your gob. You don't want to be called a sexist? Then you maybe you should think BEFORE opening your gob. You don't want to be called a bigot? Then maybe you should think BEFORE you open your gob. I know the thinking part is often hard for folks, but at some point folks might want to at least try it.

Here's the thing: I'm NOT a fan of hate crime legislation. I think it adds an unnecessary layer to prosecution. The Angie Zapata case comes to mind. Trans woman is murdered, skull bashed in, by a man who Angie took home, and had a LOT of sessy time with. Her partner then bashed her skull in and robbed her home blind, and then was caught. The crime of murder itself is horrible enough in my mind. Absolutely asinine use of the "gay rage" defense, since the gentleman had spent nearly two days in Angie's home, with DNA evidence all over the place. DNA evidence that suggested that our murderer had been catching as well as pitching if you get the drift. The murder itself is more than horrifying enough, and more than brutal enough. A human was murdered, brutally. That's more than enough for me.

Classifying the case as a "hate crime" was even more ridiculous, since the DNA evidence shredded his "gay rage" defense all to shreds. He didn't murder Angie because he "suddenly" found out that the sessy little thing he'd been buggering wildly for two days had a penis, he murdered someone, stole their sh*t, and got caught, and then tried to pass off murder as justified. THAT particular portion of the show, might  qualify, because it only added insult to injury to a woman who was murdered. The thing is, the insult came long after she was dead. It wasn't the cause of her death, and it wasn't the reason he murdered her. He was just an ebbil sack of sh*t who robbed Angie's home AFTER he bashed her skull in with a fire extinguisher. The hate crime portion of the charges muddied the waters a fair amount, when the REAL crime, and that is more than horrible enough for me, is that he murdered Angie Zapata after two days of sessy time, and then after he'd had his fun, killed her and ran off with her stuff. The murder is more than horrible enough. Especially since the "gay rage" defense was the best they could come up, and it didn't work. And I don't think that the hate crime portion of the show was necessary, because the crime itself was more than horrible enough for a jury.

Going out and lynching someone, and tossing them from Chuck-a-Homo bridge? Yeah, that might be considered good use of the charges. Tying folks up and dragging them a few miles because you found some dark folks out where decent white folks live near? Yeah, that's a better use. The problem is, a lot of the time the hate crime portion of the show is just added to a laundry list of charges, that are damn horrible in their own right. And yes, it says something that we look at the motive, but likewise, they complicate cases a bit more. The murder, the assaults, the arson, those are more than horrible enough, but I can get why folks want to make a statement that "these are more terrible than most of these crimes, because the victims were chosen for just who they are."

I don't like the laws, myself. Because they add a layer that complicates cases that are damn horrible enough. But I understand them.

Ridicule isn't a hate crime. Incitement to violence is a whole different story though. And if you think you might get charged with a hate crime for some "ridicule" then you are either really f*cking stoopid, or you're definition of "ridicule" is enormously screwed up...
 
2014-03-17 08:46:31 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: I know what I'll be drinking tonight : )

[img1.targetimg1.com image 410x410]

Good job Guinness!


I believe I'll join you!  Metaphorically speaking, that is.

Fark off, Rupert.
 
Displayed 50 of 313 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report