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.

(The Daily Caller)   Christian brothers who want to limit the civil rights of gays have once again had their own rights violated as a private bank unconstitutionally decides to take its business elsewhere   (dailycaller.com) divider line 249
    More: Sad, SunTrust, tax cuts, private banks, civil rights, Benhams, Mike McCoy, HGTV, TheDC  
•       •       •

4516 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 May 2014 at 2:13 PM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-16 11:49:25 AM  
Not to break up your derp narrative, subby, but it doesn't say anything about their rights or constitutionality in the article.  Rather, it seems that they're acknowledging that this is a direct result of their personal decisions.

Honestly, I don't like witch hunts, and this is one.  If someone wants to legally campaign for something unpopular through protests, media, etc, I don't think that it should have as great an effect on your personal and professional life as what I see here.  I'm pretty sure a large number of people on Fark would say it's unreasonable if they were fired because it came out that they're pro-marijuana legalization
 
2014-05-16 11:54:55 AM  

bhcompy: Not to break up your derp narrative, subby, but it doesn't say anything about their rights or constitutionality in the article.  Rather, it seems that they're acknowledging that this is a direct result of their personal decisions.

Honestly, I don't like witch hunts, and this is one.  If someone wants to legally campaign for something unpopular through protests, media, etc, I don't think that it should have as great an effect on your personal and professional life as what I see here.  I'm pretty sure a large number of people on Fark would say it's unreasonable if they were fired because it came out that they're pro-marijuana legalization


Marijuana doesn't hurt anyone; hatred, suppression and discrimination do.
 
2014-05-16 11:56:40 AM  
According to the comments, there are lots of conservative tears being shed.  Time to drink up!
 
2014-05-16 11:59:05 AM  

bhcompy: Not to break up your derp narrative, subby, but it doesn't say anything about their rights or constitutionality in the article.  Rather, it seems that they're acknowledging that this is a direct result of their personal decisions.

Honestly, I don't like witch hunts, and this is one.  If someone wants to legally campaign for something unpopular through protests, media, etc, I don't think that it should have as great an effect on your personal and professional life as what I see here.  I'm pretty sure a large number of people on Fark would say it's unreasonable if they were fired because it came out that they're pro-marijuana legalization


Or say if they were against interracial marriage.
 
2014-05-16 12:06:38 PM  

bhcompy: Not to break up your derp narrative, subby, but it doesn't say anything about their rights or constitutionality in the article.  Rather, it seems that they're acknowledging that this is a direct result of their personal decisions.

Honestly, I don't like witch hunts, and this is one.  If someone wants to legally campaign for something unpopular through protests, media, etc, I don't think that it should have as great an effect on your personal and professional life as what I see here.  I'm pretty sure a large number of people on Fark would say it's unreasonable if they were fired because it came out that they're pro-marijuana legalization


No, but they do predictably claim persecution for being Christians, which is equally stupid.

Although in this case its bankers who are cutting ties with them. And YOU KNOW WHO RUNS THE BANKS.
 
2014-05-16 12:06:42 PM  

bhcompy: Not to break up your derp narrative, subby, but it doesn't say anything about their rights or constitutionality in the article.  Rather, it seems that they're acknowledging that this is a direct result of their personal decisions.

Honestly, I don't like witch hunts, and this is one.  If someone wants to legally campaign for something unpopular through protests, media, etc, I don't think that it should have as great an effect on your personal and professional life as what I see here.  I'm pretty sure a large number of people on Fark would say it's unreasonable if they were fired because it came out that they're pro-marijuana legalization


Ah.  So, if they decide to campaign to limit the rights of, say, black people, or Arabs, or Jewish people, and those campaigns resulted in the Southern Poverty Law Center or the Anti-Defamation League boycotting companies who do business with them and put their views out in the public eye, then it would be a witch hunt for them to be shunned by potential and present business partners?

Good to know.

Words and actions are public.  If businesses don't want to do business with them, then they can accept the consequences of their actions and words.
 
2014-05-16 12:08:12 PM  

JoieD'Zen: Marijuana doesn't hurt anyone; hatred, suppression and discrimination do.


Exercising speech through legal channels doesn't hurt anyone.  They aren't leading lynchmobs hanging homosexuals.  They're talking about what they believe in.  Debate is good and necessary for a healthy country.
 
NFA
2014-05-16 12:09:16 PM  

bhcompy: Rather, it seems that they're acknowledging that this is a direct result of their personal decisions.


No it pretty much says that Suntrust cut ties with them because of "liberal activists".   "SunTrust Banks is cutting ties with would-be reality stars David and Jason Benham after liberal activists attacked them for their conservative views"

So their discrimination had not thing to do with it, it was the liberal activists.
 
2014-05-16 12:09:37 PM  

bhcompy: I'm pretty sure a large number of people on Fark would say it's unreasonable if they were fired because it came out that they're pro-marijuana legalization


And actually you would be completely wrong about that. Banks have been notoriously reluctant to do business with legal marijuana growers out of fear that they could get caught up in a RICO prosecution by the DOJ. And I understand that decision 100%.
 
2014-05-16 12:10:27 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Ah. So, if they decide to campaign to limit the rights of, say, black people, or Arabs, or Jewish people, and those campaigns resulted in the Southern Poverty Law Center or the Anti-Defamation League boycotting companies who do business with them and put their views out in the public eye, then it would be a witch hunt for them to be shunned by potential and present business partners?

Good to know.

Words and actions are public. If businesses don't want to do business with them, then they can accept the consequences of their actions and words.


And they are accepting them.  Doesn't mean I don't think that it's overkill and that persecuting people for any speech this is not healthy for our nation.

There's a reason that the ACLU defends even neo-nazis
 
2014-05-16 12:12:13 PM  

bhcompy: JoieD'Zen: Marijuana doesn't hurt anyone; hatred, suppression and discrimination do.

Exercising speech through legal channels doesn't hurt anyone.  They aren't leading lynchmobs hanging homosexuals.  They're talking about what they believe in.  Debate is good and necessary for a healthy country.


As the Supreme Court is so fond of reminding us, money is speech.

SunTrust has entered the debate by speaking with their dollar.

Good and necessary for a healthy country, wouldn't you say?
 
2014-05-16 12:15:13 PM  

bhcompy: There's a reason that the ACLU defends even neo-nazis


And if these guys are ever denied the right to speak about their beliefs I will be the first donating to fund the lawsuit.

For now they are whining that their rights are being violated because they don't have a TV show. No sympathy.
 
2014-05-16 12:15:24 PM  

bhcompy: Benevolent Misanthrope: Ah. So, if they decide to campaign to limit the rights of, say, black people, or Arabs, or Jewish people, and those campaigns resulted in the Southern Poverty Law Center or the Anti-Defamation League boycotting companies who do business with them and put their views out in the public eye, then it would be a witch hunt for them to be shunned by potential and present business partners?

Good to know.

Words and actions are public. If businesses don't want to do business with them, then they can accept the consequences of their actions and words.

And they are accepting them.  Doesn't mean I don't think that it's overkill and that persecuting people for any speech this is not healthy for our nation.

There's a reason that the ACLU defends even neo-nazis


Who, exactly, is persecuting them?  SunTrust pulled their business.  That's their right.  The Internet at large has mocked them.  That's our right.  Persecution?  Please.
 
2014-05-16 12:17:56 PM  
www.explainxkcd.com

And

media.tumblr.com
 
2014-05-16 12:19:24 PM  

gilgigamesh: bhcompy: JoieD'Zen: Marijuana doesn't hurt anyone; hatred, suppression and discrimination do.

Exercising speech through legal channels doesn't hurt anyone.  They aren't leading lynchmobs hanging homosexuals.  They're talking about what they believe in.  Debate is good and necessary for a healthy country.

As the Supreme Court is so fond of reminding us, money is speech.

SunTrust has entered the debate by speaking with their dollar.

Good and necessary for a healthy country, wouldn't you say?


It's unlikely that the banks would have received any press at all from this because they're behind the scenes with a separate business.  The NBA strips Sterling of his team because he affects their bottom line.  That is reasonable, as were HGTVs actions, since they are out front on this.  Who knew or cared that SunTrust is bankrolling their flipping business?  That's where I find it unreasonable, as it turns into a witch hunt, and witch hunts are all bad.
 
2014-05-16 12:20:04 PM  

gilgigamesh: For now they are whining that their rights are being violated because they don't have a TV show. No sympathy.


Where?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-05-16 12:28:35 PM  
bhcompy:

Honestly, I don't like witch hunts, and this is one.  If someone wants to legally campaign for something unpopular through protests, media, etc, I don't think that it should have as great an effect on your personal and professional life as what I see here.  I'm pretty sure a large number of people on Fark would say it's unreasonable if they were fired because it came out that they're pro-marijuana legalization

The mental gymnastics you right wingers is pretty impressive really.  They are basically demanding a witch hunt for people who don't follow their silly little cult and you are upset because a private business not wanting their hate to cost them money by soiling the banks public image is a witch hunt.

Those poor little victims.
 
2014-05-16 12:39:11 PM  
I wish they would stop using the term conservative to describe extremist minority views.  The Benham brothers are free to have whatever ideals they want but should be labeled as extremists for promoting ideas and actions that are nearly identical to Islamic extremists.
 
2014-05-16 12:39:15 PM  

vpb: bhcompy:

Honestly, I don't like witch hunts, and this is one.  If someone wants to legally campaign for something unpopular through protests, media, etc, I don't think that it should have as great an effect on your personal and professional life as what I see here.  I'm pretty sure a large number of people on Fark would say it's unreasonable if they were fired because it came out that they're pro-marijuana legalization

The mental gymnastics you right wingers is pretty impressive really.  They are basically demanding a witch hunt for people who don't follow their silly little cult and you are upset because a private business not wanting their hate to cost them money by soiling the banks public image is a witch hunt.

Those poor little victims.


Yes, because I don't like people having their lives ruined over some speech I am a right wing member of a silly little cult.  Is the ACLU a silly little cult?  Because that's the only related group that I belong to.  I am not a member of a political party.  I value speech and its benefits.  I think it's unreasonable to harshly punish someone over an unrelated exercise of speech that would have no negative impact if no action was taken. That is a witch hunt by definition.
 
2014-05-16 12:46:13 PM  

bhcompy: vpb: bhcompy:

Honestly, I don't like witch hunts, and this is one.  If someone wants to legally campaign for something unpopular through protests, media, etc, I don't think that it should have as great an effect on your personal and professional life as what I see here.  I'm pretty sure a large number of people on Fark would say it's unreasonable if they were fired because it came out that they're pro-marijuana legalization

The mental gymnastics you right wingers is pretty impressive really.  They are basically demanding a witch hunt for people who don't follow their silly little cult and you are upset because a private business not wanting their hate to cost them money by soiling the banks public image is a witch hunt.

Those poor little victims.

Yes, because I don't like people having their lives ruined over some speech I am a right wing member of a silly little cult.  Is the ACLU a silly little cult?  Because that's the only related group that I belong to.  I am not a member of a political party. I value speech and its benefits.  I think it's unreasonable to harshly punish someone over an unrelated exercise of speech that would have no negative impact if no action was taken. That is a witch hunt by definition.


An independent, one might say.
 
2014-05-16 12:46:34 PM  

bhcompy: JoieD'Zen: Marijuana doesn't hurt anyone; hatred, suppression and discrimination do.

Exercising speech through legal channels doesn't hurt anyone.  They aren't leading lynchmobs hanging homosexuals.  They're talking about what they believe in.  Debate is good and necessary for a healthy country.


How did that work out for the Dixie Chicks?
 
2014-05-16 12:48:03 PM  

bhcompy: JoieD'Zen: Marijuana doesn't hurt anyone; hatred, suppression and discrimination do.

Exercising speech through legal channels doesn't hurt anyone.  They aren't leading lynchmobs hanging homosexuals.  They're talking about what they believe in.  Debate is good and necessary for a healthy country.


Are you saying the bank should be forced to do business with these guys?

The brothers are free to express their beliefs, and people are free to say "We don't care to do business with you."
 
2014-05-16 01:10:10 PM  

clancifer: bhcompy: JoieD'Zen: Marijuana doesn't hurt anyone; hatred, suppression and discrimination do.

Exercising speech through legal channels doesn't hurt anyone.  They aren't leading lynchmobs hanging homosexuals.  They're talking about what they believe in.  Debate is good and necessary for a healthy country.

How did that work out for the Dixie Chicks?


What happened was wrong then.  Two wrongs don't make a right
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-05-16 02:07:07 PM  
bhcompy:

Yes, because I don't like people having their lives ruined over some speech I am a right wing member of a silly little cult.  Is the ACLU a silly little cult?  Because that's the only related group that I belong to.  I am not a member of a political party.  I value speech and its benefits.

That's what we call a "Fark Independent" around here.

I think it's unreasonable to harshly punish someone over an unrelated exercise of speech that would have no negative impact if no action was taken. That is a witch hunt by definition.

That would be, but no honest person would claim that they are being punished.  (Maybe an honest idiot would)

People just don't want to do business with them.

I guess you and the ACLU (which you pretty obviously don't belong to or know much about)  want a court order prohibiting competition by compelling the bank to do business with them?  Maybe no gay should be allowed to buy a house unless they buy in from these guys.

I mean, it's unconstitutional for gays to punish these guys by not buying a house from them, right?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-05-16 02:12:50 PM  

eurotrader: I wish they would stop using the term conservative to describe extremist minority views.  The Benham brothers are free to have whatever ideals they want but should be labeled as extremists for promoting ideas and actions that are nearly identical to Islamic extremists.


Or using a term for an intellectual philosophy for people who are completely non-intellectual?

It used to mean something other than angry ignorant crazy man, but I think it's too late to salvage the word.
 
2014-05-16 02:15:17 PM  
It's a tragedy, because they could make a fortune selling ma-on-man twincest dvds.
 
2014-05-16 02:17:44 PM  

gilgigamesh: bhcompy: There's a reason that the ACLU defends even neo-nazis

And if these guys are ever denied the right to speak about their beliefs I will be the first donating to fund the lawsuit.

For now they are whining that their rights are being violated because they don't have a TV show. No sympathy.


This; guess what, you have a right to free speech.  That, however, does not absolve you from the consequences of said speech.
 
2014-05-16 02:18:56 PM  
If the bank feels they stand to improve their position economically be divesting itself from these two, who's to say they can't.  Do you hate the free-market?
 
2014-05-16 02:19:12 PM  

bhcompy: If someone wants to legally campaign for something unpopular through protests, media, etc, I don't think that it should have as great an effect on your personal and professional life as what I see here.


Why do you believe that "freedom of speech" is equivalent to "freedom from consequences"? Why do you believe that people should be forced to do business with someone they have no desire to do business with?
 
2014-05-16 02:19:31 PM  
SunTrust Banks is cutting ties with would-be reality stars David and Jason Benham after liberal activists attacked them for their conservative views on abortion and gay marriage, The Daily Caller has learned.

Journalistic Bias? What Journalistic Bias.

I bet the writer was the same guy who labeled the pictures of the Civil Rights Movement as "N*ggers brutally attacking innocent police trying to keep them cool with waterhoses."
 
2014-05-16 02:19:42 PM  

bhcompy: Not to break up your derp narrative, subby, but it doesn't say anything about their rights or constitutionality in the article.  Rather, it seems that they're acknowledging that this is a direct result of their personal decisions.

Honestly, I don't like witch hunts, and this is one.  If someone wants to legally campaign for something unpopular through protests, media, etc, I don't think that it should have as great an effect on your personal and professional life as what I see here.  I'm pretty sure a large number of people on Fark would say it's unreasonable if they were fired because it came out that they're pro-marijuana legalization


Free speech works both ways. Man up Nancy-boy!
 
2014-05-16 02:20:02 PM  

bhcompy: Not to break up your derp narrative, subby, but it doesn't say anything about their rights or constitutionality in the article.  Rather, it seems that they're acknowledging that this is a direct result of their personal decisions.

Honestly, I don't like witch hunts, and this is one.  If someone wants to legally campaign for something unpopular through protests, media, etc, I don't think that it should have as great an effect on your personal and professional life as what I see here.  I'm pretty sure a large number of people on Fark would say it's unreasonable if they were fired because it came out that they're pro-marijuana legalization


Your concern is duly noted.  These douchebags can go to Mississippi with the AFA and all circle-jerk each others' businesses.  Apparently, the real world wants nothing to do with them and their hatred.
 
2014-05-16 02:20:06 PM  
Even a 125 year-old Atlanta bank is out to get these TruChristians.  If bigotry can't survive in the South... how can we expect it to survive any where else?

Somewhere, an eagle is crying on a Constitution made out of gay pornography... or something.
 
2014-05-16 02:20:13 PM  
"Keeping us off television wasn't enough, now this agenda to silence wants us out of the marketplace."

"This agenda" being you're own retarded beliefs, you mean.
 
2014-05-16 02:20:53 PM  
The free market has spoken.
 
2014-05-16 02:21:04 PM  

sugardave: These douchebags can go to Mississippi with the AFA and all circle-jerk each others' businesses


Point of order, Tupelo hates these douchebags as much as the rest of us do.

/Fun fact: The AFA has been behind almost every fundamentalist moral panic in the United States since the Satanic Panic in 1980s.
 
2014-05-16 02:21:27 PM  
The who of the what now?
 
2014-05-16 02:21:37 PM  
I thought they made brandy and hockey sticks.
 
2014-05-16 02:22:16 PM  
Daily Caller

Let me stop you right there. I don't want to read anything Tucker Carlson's House of Bowties and Perpetually Butthurt Middle Class White Dudes have to say about anything. Seriously. Petulant, poutraged conservatism farking began with this bowtied dickcanoe. I would wish that Tucker Carlson and his entire staff develop ass herpes, but fark it, I feel bad for the herpes simplex virus that would have to burrow inside their moist and clammy, doughy skins in order to take up root.
 
2014-05-16 02:22:16 PM  
I mean, I'm not a huge brandy fan but that's still messed up, Christian Brothers.

vendomestore.com
 
2014-05-16 02:23:12 PM  

propasaurus: bhcompy: vpb: bhcompy:

Honestly, I don't like witch hunts, and this is one.  If someone wants to legally campaign for something unpopular through protests, media, etc, I don't think that it should have as great an effect on your personal and professional life as what I see here.  I'm pretty sure a large number of people on Fark would say it's unreasonable if they were fired because it came out that they're pro-marijuana legalization

The mental gymnastics you right wingers is pretty impressive really.  They are basically demanding a witch hunt for people who don't follow their silly little cult and you are upset because a private business not wanting their hate to cost them money by soiling the banks public image is a witch hunt.

Those poor little victims.

Yes, because I don't like people having their lives ruined over some speech I am a right wing member of a silly little cult.  Is the ACLU a silly little cult?  Because that's the only related group that I belong to.  I am not a member of a political party. I value speech and its benefits.  I think it's unreasonable to harshly punish someone over an unrelated exercise of speech that would have no negative impact if no action was taken. That is a witch hunt by definition.

An independent, one might say.


From the website, Fark, even.
 
2014-05-16 02:23:33 PM  
I love this comment.  It tells you a lot:

Apparently diversity means to comply with the Lavender Mafia or else. (Maybe they've confused "diversity" with perversity"?)

It's time for normal people to stand up for themselves while they can.


They still think that they're in the majority.  Protip:  if a lending institution won't touch you because of your opinions, you're really toxic.
 
2014-05-16 02:26:16 PM  

bhcompy: vpb: bhcompy:

Honestly, I don't like witch hunts, and this is one.  If someone wants to legally campaign for something unpopular through protests, media, etc, I don't think that it should have as great an effect on your personal and professional life as what I see here.  I'm pretty sure a large number of people on Fark would say it's unreasonable if they were fired because it came out that they're pro-marijuana legalization

The mental gymnastics you right wingers is pretty impressive really.  They are basically demanding a witch hunt for people who don't follow their silly little cult and you are upset because a private business not wanting their hate to cost them money by soiling the banks public image is a witch hunt.

Those poor little victims.

Yes, because I don't like people having their lives ruined over some speech I am a right wing member of a silly little cult.  Is the ACLU a silly little cult?  Because that's the only related group that I belong to.  I am not a member of a political party.  I value speech and its benefits.  I think it's unreasonable to harshly punish someone over an unrelated exercise of speech that would have no negative impact if no action was taken. That is a witch hunt by definition.


I have as much freedom to call these guys bigots and to protest them as they do to call homosexuals disgusting sinners and protest them.  Why do you hate my freedom of speech?
 
2014-05-16 02:26:30 PM  

Rapmaster2000: Apparently diversity means to comply with the Lavender Mafia or else. (Maybe they've confused "diversity" with perversity"?)


Haha. The Lavender Mafia.

There you have it. This is the 21st century equivalent of "Satanists". The gay panic is in full swing. I can't wait till they start spreading rumors of the Lavender Mafia kidnapping blue eyed, blonde virgin babies to sacrifice to the fashion God.
 
2014-05-16 02:26:55 PM  

bhcompy: JoieD'Zen: Marijuana doesn't hurt anyone; hatred, suppression and discrimination do.

Exercising speech through legal channels doesn't hurt anyone.  They aren't leading lynchmobs hanging homosexuals.  They're talking about what they believe in.  Debate is good and necessary for a healthy country.


Yes, Let's debate whether or not whites and blacks should be allowed to marry. Let's debate whether or not the U.S., as a Christian country, should embrace slavery since the institution has Biblical imprimatur.
 
2014-05-16 02:27:33 PM  

hardinparamedic: SunTrust Banks is cutting ties with would-be reality stars David and Jason Benham after liberal activists attacked them for their conservative views on abortion and gay marriage, The Daily Caller has learned.

Journalistic Bias? What Journalistic Bias.

I bet the writer was the same guy who labeled the pictures of the Civil Rights Movement as "N*ggers brutally attacking innocent police trying to keep them cool with waterhoses."


There are some that truly believe this is what happened.
 
2014-05-16 02:28:58 PM  
I'm trying to parse the difference between a florist refusing to do business with a gay and a bank refusing to do business with an anti-gay.

I suppose the difference is that in the former case, the discrimination need not based on anything SAID by the prospective customer (if the florist merely "perceives" that the customer is gay, regardless of their actual orientation), whereas in the latter case, it's a response to a stated opinion?

But IIRC, the wedding-person (a cake-maker?) case was in NM, where they have sexual orientation included in the protected class, so the Benhams' discrimination wouldn't have been allowed there either? Although in Suntrust's case, it wasn't because of their orientation or their perceived orientation, it was a direct result of their stated opinions, so maybe that's enough of a difference?

Anyway, try not working to take away privileges and rights from other American citizens, and you may find that people are more accepting of you in return.

// not a sermon, just a thought
 
2014-05-16 02:29:09 PM  

bhcompy: Yes, because I don't like people having their lives ruined over some speech I am a right wing member of a silly little cult.  Is the ACLU a silly little cult?  Because that's the only related group that I belong to.  I am not a member of a political party.  I value speech and its benefits.  I think it's unreasonable to harshly punish someone over an unrelated exercise of speech that would have no negative impact if no action was taken. That is a witch hunt by definition.


No one is having their freedom of speech impinged upon. This is EXACTLY how free speech works, dude.
 
2014-05-16 02:29:14 PM  
Y'all need to stop violating bhcompy's right to say stupid shiat.
 
2014-05-16 02:29:17 PM  

eurotrader: I wish they would stop using the term conservative to describe extremist minority views.  The Benham brothers are free to have whatever ideals they want but should be labeled as extremists for promoting ideas and actions that are nearly identical to Islamic extremists.


Totes THIS
Totes
 
Displayed 50 of 249 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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