Rohrbacher: no need to sell your home to a homo

[Gil Bang 26020]

National Assn. of Realtors (of which I'm a member) has just yanked it's support of this douche. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Damn, I didn’t know Rohrabacher came with Putin’s homophobia too.

[Pods 7586]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Damn, I didn’t know Rohrabacher came with Putin’s homophobia too.

Putin is an overcompensating manlet.

[JBJ 3665]

The NAR is right in this.  Housing discrimination should not be allowed.

[HenryJames 66171]

15 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

National Assn. of Realtors (of which I'm a member) has just yanked it's support of this douche. 

Why were they supporting him to begin with?

[Gil Bang 26020]

excellent question. 

[RomaVicta 30018]

This shit is chilling.

[Sbbruin 21888]

There's one smoking a joint!  And another with spots!  If I had my way, I'd have all of you shot!

[RomaVicta 30018]

Waiting to turn on the showers
And fire the ovens.
Waiting for the queens and the coons
and the reds and the jews.
Waiting to follow the worms.

Would you like to see Britannia
Rule again, my friend?
All you have to do is follow the worms.
Would you like to send our colored cousins
Home again, my friend?

All you need to do is follow the worms.

[RomaVicta 30018]

I've got to watch that movie. How odd this was the theme music when the Berlin Wall was torn down. We are so stupid, we humans, to think that this great day or this bad day will never end. The great day is in great danger.

I read from the book of Brisket. Praise be.

[Guest]

Mike Scioscia has to live SOMEWHERE...

[Brisketexan 105336]

You know, here's the fundamental problem -- GOP dudes, why do you have to be such fucking DICKS all the fucking time?  Jesus, just be fucking cool, man.  Who gives a fuck who buys a damned house?  Or a cake?  Or who marches down the street for what fucking cause?  Fucking chill, and don't be fucking DICKS all the time.

[TwiceHorn 31536]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

You know, here's the fundamental problem -- GOP dudes, why do you have to be such fucking DICKS all the fucking time?  Jesus, just be fucking cool, man.  Who gives a fuck who buys a damned house?  Or a cake?  Or who marches down the street for what fucking cause?  Fucking chill, and don't be fucking DICKS all the time.

No shit.  It's one thing to have retrograde social positions and policies, but why do you have to be such DICKS about them?

[HenryJames 66171]

Asshole signalling.

[Brisketexan 105336]

6 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

Asshole signalling.

Which is JUST what a gay dude would do.

PRETTY sneaky, Rorbacher....PRETTY sneaky.

[Jive Turkey 12644]

I’m just waiting for the usual suspects to come here and defend this with their bullshit “let the free market sort it out” argument. 

 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11821]

He needs SOMEBODY to help pack that Russian cash further up his ass.  

[Gil Bang 26020]

5 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

I’m just waiting for the usual suspects Slorch to come here and defend this with their bullshit “let the free market sort it out” argument. 

 

FIFY. 

[NameAlreadyInUse 5125]

What movie is that? Have I been hiding under a rock?

whoops found it. Can’t believe I never saw that before. 

Edited May 24, 2018 by NameAlreadyInUse
Never mind. I was more a dark side of the moon guy.

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You know, here's the fundamental problem -- GOP dudes, why do you have to be such fucking DICKS all the fucking time?  Jesus, just be fucking cool, man.  Who gives a fuck who buys a damned house?  Or a cake?  Or who marches down the street for what fucking cause?  Fucking chill, and don't be fucking DICKS all the time.

Well, i don't think kneeling in front of the house would bring the desired outcome...

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

FIFY. 

Fuck off.

 

If they can pay for the house, why the fuck else would I care?

 

What's funny is the left claiming high ground on staying calm.   LOFL.  No you don't.  Not even close.

Edited May 24, 2018 by slorch

[Guest]

re: Free Market Sort it Out People

What's crazy to me is that everyone knows the gays are nice to have in your neighborhood, in moderation unless you are into the Cedar Springs kinda culture/events, because DINKs really drive up home values for everyone. They take care of their home, a lot of times they renovate, and they are generally nice neighbors who take care of their property. What's not to love about that as a home owner?

[DixonHur 11376]

41 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

I’m just waiting for the usual suspects to come here and defend this with their bullshit “let the free market sort it out” argument.

I'm a big believer in letting the free market sort most things out...I like to know who the bigots are so I can spend my money elsewhere...but this shit is the exact opposite of a free market.  Free market is based on supply and demand...these fucks are literally removing the supply...land isn't exactly a fungible commodity.

[RPM 26354]

Land of the free to follow my beliefs explicitly or else.

[David Dennison 18946]

It says so much about the Republican Party and Republican voters that they tolerate the ugliness that oozes from so many of their members. 

It's a big reason why I left the party and never looked back.

[Gatorubet 30313]

This is truly a litmus test President.   You cannot support him and his ilk and not be rightfully thought of as a traitor and a deplorable human.   Not at this point.

[LongestHorn 759]

aka queer the deal

[Brisketexan 105336]

This is truly a litmus test President.   You cannot support him and his ilk and not be rightfully thought of as a traitor and a deplorable human.   Not at this point.

Like I said, they’re just fucking MEAN. For fuck’s sake, why? It’s the party of MEAN, led by a fucking bully. There’s no decency or kindness in them.

[ndawg 1242]

3 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

This shit is chilling.

The most chilling quote from that scene is the line, "If I had *my* way, they'd all be round up and shot."

Because he's implying that he doesn't have the power to do so... that the law is in his way. In that one moment, he gets to pass himself off as someone who isn't an authoritarian, and he gets to pretend he's bound by the rule of law. But all the while he's inciting the audience to act as a mob on his behalf. He's inviting them to do what he seems like he wishes he could. It's creepy.

Edited May 25, 2018 by ndawg

[David Dennison 18946]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Like I said, they’re just fucking MEAN. For fuck’s sake, why? It’s the party of MEAN, led by a fucking bully. There’s no decency or kindness in them.

It's amazing that they get the support they do. It's really kind of sad.

[jimmyjazz 46130]

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that sexuality constitutes a protected class.  It only applies to New York, Connecticut and Vermont, but it's the latest ruling on the matter and will surely provoke a spate of challenges.

I like the argument:  discriminating against a person because of their sexuality essentially constitutes discrimination based on their sex, because if you get the creepies and refuse to sell a sausage wrap to a man who loves the mens then you are basically discriminating against him because he's a man.  If he were a woman, you wouldn't care; ergo, it's sexual discrimination.

Edited May 25, 2018 by jimmyjazz

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that sexuality constitutes a protected class.  It only applies to New York, Connecticut and Vermont, but it's the latest ruling on the matter and will surely provoke a spate of challenges.

I like the argument:  discriminating against a person because of their sexuality essentially constitutes discrimination based on their sex, because if you get the creepies and refuse to sell a sausage wrap to a man who loves the mens then you are basically discriminating against him because he's a man.  If he were a woman, you wouldn't care; ergo, it's sexual discrimination.

That's all kinds of wrong.

The discrimination is related to sexual preference, not gender.

By your description, it would be consistent as long the seller also refuses the business of the bull dyke who likes the womynz.

That's not to say i support the discrimination, but the logic is all fucked up.

Edited May 25, 2018 by slorch

[Brisketexan 105336]

That's all kinds of wrong.

The discrimination is related to sexual preference, not gender.

By your description, it would be consistent as long the seller also refuses the business of the bull dyke who likes the womynz.

That's not to say i support the discrimination, but the logic is all fucked up.

Actually, it’s quite sound, and I’ve been an advocate of that reasoning for years.

 

If I have two people who like to eat hot dogs, and I’ll sell my house to a woman who eats hot dogs, but not to a man who eats hot dogs, then I’m discriminating on the basis of gender. I clearly don’t have a problem with hot dog-eating; I sold my house to the woman who eats them. Instead, my problem is with the gender of the hot dog-eater, which makes it gender-based discrimination.

 

BTW, in my delicate, subtle example, hot dogs are actually penises.

[DixonHur 11376]

But what if they eat snapper?

[Brisketexan 105336]

But what if they eat snapper?

ISWYDT.

[ndawg 1242]

12 minutes ago, slorch said:

That's all kinds of wrong.

The discrimination is related to sexual preference, not gender.

By your description, it would be consistent as long the seller also refuses the business of the bull dyke who likes the womynz.

That's not to say i support the discrimination, but the logic is all fucked up.

This reply is one of those Dunning Kruger case studies that proudly espouses some retarded conclusion that anyone with an ounce of brains realizes is complete horse shit.

[TwiceHorn 31536]

We need to stop tossing around "protected class" as a term in general discrimination law.  While it is descriptive of those afforded protection by the Equal Protection Clause or statutes such as the Civil Rights Act(s) or the EEO Act/Title VII, it only has real meaning in the context of Title VII, or employment discrimination litigation.

 

While holding a group to be a "protected class" under TItle VII can be a bellwether for more general civil rights, Title VII is among the most broadly worded and inclusive anti-discrimination laws on our books  In the example here, it prohibits employment discrimination based on "sex," which isn't typical of the language of more general statutes or the Constitution (but it is in the CRA 1964).  What goes for Title VII doesn't necessarily go for anything else.  And Title VII reaches private action, while the Constitution does not, per se.

 

For example, the statement that the Second Circuit has declared sexual orientation to be a protected class is accurate for purposes of Title VII, it doesn't mean that discrimination on that basis in other contexts is unlawful.

Edited May 25, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[jimmyjazz 46130]

You are correct, it was a case regarding Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.  According to what I've read, it holds in the workplace, as well as housing and schools.

It's still an interesting ruling, and to my knowledge, the most recent one.  It also contradicts the White House's interpretation of Title VII.

[Newdoc 3453]

4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

You know, here's the fundamental problem -- GOP dudes, why do you have to be such fucking DICKS all the fucking time?  Jesus, just be fucking cool, man.  Who gives a fuck who buys a damned house?  Or a cake?  Or who marches down the street for what fucking cause?  Fucking chill, and don't be fucking DICKS all the time.

Your post works when you read it in this voice.

[Brisketexan 105336]

Your post works when you read it in this voice.

Well, it was kinda written in that voice. I was feeling a bit Spicolish.

[TwiceHorn 31536]

20 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

You are correct, it was a case regarding Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.  According to what I've read, it holds in the workplace, as well as housing and schools.

It's still an interesting ruling, and to my knowledge, the most recent one.  It also contradicts the White House's interpretation of Title VII.

Slorch has been tossing it around here and there, among others, in contexts where it doesn't really belong, other than in the descriptive sense.

[Gatorubet 30313]

5 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

National Assn. of Realtors (of which I'm a member) has just yanked it's support of this douche. 

Gays should just start a religion based upon a FABULOUS DUALITY GOD, who requires going to theater and ballroom dancing and lots of gay sex as a way to worship him/her.

Then, adopt a platform that calls for everything that the Assembly of God likes, save that anti-gay thing.    Call it, "Kristian."

 

Then, sue for every act of gay bashing or homophobic stupidity, claiming that is an abridgment of their Freedom of Religion.     Cite Heritage Foundation Case law.

 

[bolverk 29718]

4 hours ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

What movie is that? Have I been hiding under a rock?

whoops found it. Can’t believe I never saw that before. 

It was pretty fucking mindblowing when I first saw it in the 8th grade during the early 80s. That was my introduction to Pink before I'd heard of Dark Side.

Needless to say, still a fan.

[TDunk 590]

8 minutes ago, bolverk said:

It was pretty fucking mindblowing when I first saw it in the 8th grade during the early 80s. That was my introduction to Pink before I'd heard of Dark Side.

Needless to say, still a fan.

I was a fan of the Pink before the Dark Side as well.  Progressions

[NameAlreadyInUse 5125]

It’s not a preference, slorch. 

[Jack Burton 35]

5 hours ago, JBJ said:

The NAR is right in this.  Housing discrimination should not be allowed.

Fuck off

[Jack Burton 35]

4 hours ago, Jive Turkey said:

I’m just waiting for the usual suspects to come here and defend this with their bullshit “let the free market sort it out” argument. 

 

Johnny Sack is perturbed

[Guest]

6 hours ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

It’s not a preference, slorch. 

I stand corrected.

Thank you.  

I understand why it was the wrong word to use and apologize.

Edited May 25, 2018 by slorch

[Guest]

nm

Edited May 25, 2018 by slorch

[Judge Roybeanbag 11821]

11 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Actually, it’s quite sound, and I’ve been an advocate of that reasoning for years.

 

If I have two people who like to eat hot dogs, and I’ll sell my house to a woman who eats hot dogs, but not to a man who eats hot dogs, then I’m discriminating on the basis of gender. I clearly don’t have a problem with hot dog-eating; I sold my house to the woman who eats them. Instead, my problem is with the gender of the hot dog-eater, which makes it gender-based discrimination.

 

BTW, in my delicate, subtle example, hot dogs are actually penises.