Glad to know my equal civil rights don't sit well with many DUers

[LostinVA]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4503303&mesg_id=4506999

WTF isn't this locked??? And the one in LBN/.

[LostinVA]

1. "I don't know if I agree with forcing Woolworth's to integrate their lunch counters"

[marmar]

2. Yeah, I was kind of suprised by the original thread (which I assume inspired your thread).....

..... Yes, it's a private business. But Starbucks is private too, but if I walk into one and someone tells me we don't serve black people here, I'm going to run at light speed to a lawyer's office and sue their green smocks off.
The casual acceptance of discrimination in that thread was very disheartening.

[LostinVA]

3. They don't seem to grasp that we have laws telling businesses they can't do stuff like that

Only Gays don't have FEDERAL protection. However, NJ has a killer equal rights law. They sued UPS, remember, for not offering health benefits to same sex marriage spouses. When I filled out my health insurance insurance, the only thing HR asked me was,"Does Haruka want the same Primary Care Physician as you?"

[sui generis]

4. if he's paying federal taxes

why do we have to keep knocking these dumbass dickweed humanoid sausage casings into the dirt? Why do they think we aren't equally capable of being just as destructive using the very same "heterosexual privilege" they love so much to invoke?

I just love smacking these asswipes around. It's like slinging chitlin's. You cut 'em up into manageable pieces, go some distance away from your door and spin 'em around over yer head like a mad leather queen scrambling eggs on speed until all the shit flies out.

Figuratively speaking, of course.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4503303&mesg_id=4507191

[LostinVA]

6. Read what I wrote to you there -- I'm crossposting it here.

[LostinVA]

8. "I think I'll fire a few employees for being (presumably) straight

You know, that's brilliant!

It would be great if some straight employees who work for a gay-owned company would allow themselves to be a "test case," like Scopes or Rosa Parks. It may well force some courts to find FOR him -- ie you can't be fired for sexual orientation.

[tandot]

5. It seems like some wouldn't protest if they'd see "Whites Only" signs in a store window

Amazing.

[LostinVA]

9. Seriously -- that was amazing to me

The only way to "justify" their homophobia was to also admit they are racist. WTF?

[terrya]

7. The usual suspects are in that thread.

lynyrd_skynyrd, Hypnotoad. Same old, same old crapola.

[racaulk]

11. Yup.

I wasn't surprised to see them there either.

[QC]

15. I don't know how that guy is still here. n/t

[LeftyMom]

30. I (heart) my ignore list.

Didn't see 'em.

[racaulk]

10. Oh good grief.

I'm equally bothered by the DUer that posted that OP and by the DUers that are trying to defend it. If eHarmony tried to exclude ANY OTHER GROUP from receiving its services, those same DUers would be outraged.

:eyes:

[LostinVA]

12. Exactly!

[WillParkinson]

13. You can't say that for sure...

I mean homophobic comments sometimes also hide other prejudices as well. :-)

[racaulk]

14. LOL

That is a very good point! :rofl:

[racaulk]

16. "I have no problem with people who are gay."

If you go out of your way to make a statement like that, then you do have a problem.

[mondo joe]

18. "I'm a live and let live kind of person". We need to catalog these euphemisms that

translate into "I won't go out of my way to oppress you, but don't disturb the status quo by demanding equal rights."

[LostinVA]

19. Thatw as my FAVE in the whole thread -- plus, he acn't answer yes or no

[LostinVA]

21. The latest: saying GLBT rights aren't teh same as REAL AA rights isn't bigoted

[racaulk]

22. Also: Everyone was offered the same access to heterosexual matching, so what's the problem?

:eyes:

[yardwork]

17. Unfortunately, I already knew that each of the posters in question hold those views.

The wording of many of their posts is notable, too. Blatant homophobia. "Where gays can get their needs met..." That sort of thing.

[LostinVA]

20. Oh yeah -- and "homosexual"

[RetiredTrotskyite]

23. I Thougnt That...

"homosexual" went out of fashion after Stonewall. Uh, in fundie/bigotland, I guess not.

[QC]

25. It's kinda like "Negro." n/t

[LostinVA]

28. Exactly

[LostinVA]

24. How can anyone over the age of 15 not know about the Greensboro Woolworth's protest???

It was probably one of the TOP FIVE civil rights incidents ever. I put it above Rosa Parks, actually.

(I ate many quick lunches at that very counter when I was in the college in the 80's.)

[littlebit]

32. I didn't know what it was

until I moved to Greensboro when I was 27.

[madmadmad]

26. I AM SO PISSED, I AM ABOUT TO HAVE A STROKE...

HOW CAN THIS BE? on a progressive democratic board? i honestly can't believe this davidpdx person wrote this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4503303&mesg_id=4507820

"I never said anything homophobic or bigoted and

never said I oppose equal rights. I said businesses can't be dictated to cater to gays.

So I challange you to have me banned. Go for it."

CHANGE ONE MOTHER FUCKIN' WORD, AND IT SURE SOUNDS BIGOTED TO ME...

"I never said anything homophobic or bigoted and

never said I oppose equal rights. I said businesses can't be dictated to cater to jews.

So I challange you to have me banned. Go for it."


"I never said anything homophobic or bigoted and

never said I oppose equal rights. I said businesses can't be dictated to cater to blacks.

So I challange you to have me banned. Go for it."


so yeah, this fag wants him banned.

[bluedawg12]

27. " e-hatemoney" founder began with ties to Fracas on family dobsondogbeater

and their mouth piece is ultra right wing lawyer Ted Olsen as in Gore v. Bush fame!

Just google these two douches. Amazing that DU'ers don't understand their allegiance to the rw and that a business in Calif. whether internet or bricks and mortar are subject to Calif. law and not unique and personal capricious whimsical bigotry.

[racaulk]

29. The thread is locked now. n/t

[bluedawg12]

31. Aaaaand it's locked. Here is some background on the politics of e-crapmoney

I wouldn't use them or their service on princple - why support those with strong ties to rw haters?

But for the FYI files:

The players: fracas/phobia on the family supported warren in his early days, then warren split to broaden his image and make more $$$ but excluded gays and he tried to justify it, as seen in the USA Today 2005 piece, a gay challenged his anti-Calif. law policy, the company is based in Calif., and warren hired a noted rw hit-attorney, who was also involved in the old impeach Clinton rw movement, and was the laywer for shrub in shrub vs. Gore at the SCOTUS level, and this rw mouth piece decided that they should settle this out of Court as they violated Calf. law.

It is precisely because of gay activism that the bullsh*t spewed in the 2005 USA today story, complete with homophobic coded bigotry and blather about being illegal was challenged legally and their attorney rw’er Ted Olsen folded and settled out of court.

Activism + Courts = fairness to gays.

........
Neil Clark Warren


Riches of love: Neil Clark Warren has built eHarmony into the fourth-largest online dating service.

..........

http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2005-05-18-eharmony_x.htm

From 2005

>>Warren, 70, really is a grandpa. Born on an Iowa farm, he's quick with a down-home hug and a smile...

And he really does want to set you up — but only if you're emotionally healthy, heterosexual and want to get married...

A psychologist with a divinity degree, Warren has emerged from the Christian community — three of his 10 books on love and dating were published by conservative Focus on the Family — to become one of the Internet's most unlikely entrepreneurs.

Warren started out marketing primarily to Christian sites, touting eHarmony as "based on the Christian principles of Focus on the Family author Dr. Neil Clark Warren."

The connection may come as a surprise to today's mainstream users: Nothing in Warren's TV or radio ads ($50 million spent last year, $80 million projected this year) hints at his Christian background.

And while it's no secret, the Web site doesn't play it up, either.

eHarmony increasingly is seeking out secular audiences through online partnerships, including promotions on USATODAY.com and other news sites owned by USA TODAY's parent company, Gannett. As part of that effort, Warren is trying to distance himself from Focus on the Family and its founder James Dobson, a longtime friend.

Warren says he will no longer appear on Dobson's radio show, and he recently bought back the rights to the three books Focus on the Family published —Finding the Love of Your Life, Make Anger Your Ally and Learning to Live with the Love of Your Life - so he can drop Focus' name from their covers.

"We're trying to reach the whole world — people of all spiritual orientations, all political philosophies, all racial backgrounds," Warren says. "And if indeed, we have Focus on the Family on the top of our books, it is a killer. Because people do recognize them as occupying a very precise political position in this society and a very precise spiritual position."...

Some also criticize eHarmony's decision to refuse to provide matches for gays and lesbians — a policy that differs from Yahoo, Match.com and many other sites.

"From a corporate perspective, eHarmony does discriminate. There's clearly a deliberate desire to exclude gay people from the site," says New York psychiatrist Jack Drescher, who is gay and treats gay and lesbian couples.

But Warren says eHarmony promotes heterosexual marriage, about which he has done extensive research. He says he does not know enough about gay and lesbian relationships to do same-sex matching.

It "calls for some very careful thinking. Very careful research." He adds that same-sex marriage is illegal in most states. "We don't really want to participate in something that's illegal."

<<

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Clark_Warren

>>Warren attributes much of eHarmony's initial success to its promotion on the daily radio broadcast of Focus on the Family. As the company expanded and sought broader market share, Warren parted ways with Focus on the Family and its founder, James Dobson. In 2005, Warren discontinued his appearances on Dobson’s radio show and bought back rights to three of his books — Finding the Love of Your Life, Make Anger Your Ally, and Learning to Live with the Love of Your Life — originally published by Focus on the Family. As Warren explained, "We're trying to reach the whole world — people of all spiritual orientations, all political philosophies, all racial backgrounds."<3><<

I guess they weren’t trying to reach gays, as apparently, gays aren’t people?

The “e-hatemoney” mouth piece Teddy Olsen

..........

Ted Olsen attorney for e-hate-money settled the case out of court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Olsen



Leave it to Bevry!

Olson successfully represented presidential candidate George W. Bush in the Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore, which effectively determined the final result of the contested 2000 Presidential election.

He was nominated to the Office of Solicitor General by President Bush on February 14, 2001, was confirmed by the United States Senate on May 24, 2001, and took office on June 11, 2001. In


Olson served Giuliani's 2008 presidential campaign as judicial committee chairman.<5>

Olson was present at the first meeting of the Federalist Society.<5>

Executive appointment speculation
Prior to President Bush's nomination of D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge John Roberts, Olson was considered a potential nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States to fill Sandra Day O'Connor's post. Following the withdrawal of Harriet Miers' nomination for that post, and prior to the nomination of Third Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Samuel Alito, Olson's name was again mentioned as a possible nominee.

In September 2007, Olson was considered by the Bush administration for the post of Attorney General to succeed Alberto Gonzales. However, the Democratic response was so strongly negative that Bush chose to nominate Michael Mukasey instead.<6>