Back in August 2012, Lindaman posted this picture:
This started a discussion, between Lindaman and several others. Including a hit-and-run coont named Goresa Looza. Fortunately there was a rational person named Mike Raffety.
I already discussed Chick-Fil-A here. But there's some additional things that need to be mentioned, just because of this:
After Mike Raffety brought up the fact that Chick-Fil-A gives millions to anti-gay organizations (including ones that lead to their execution) Lindaman, in his usual right-wing compassion, replies with "So?" Which sums up Lindaman in a nutshell. That's it. Game over. Lindaman will never be able to recover his credibility after that. Any and all thoughts of Lindaman being a decent human being, were lost with that one word. Whatever persona he shows anywhere else, doesn't matter. With that one word, he's shown that at his very core, he's a terrible person.
Now, back to Chick-Fil-A...
Yep, Chick-Fil-A has the right to donate to anti-gay organizations. But people also have the right to call them assholes because of it.
Your little picture evades the fact that CEO Dan Cathy financially supports hate groups that are actively oppressing American citizens for religious reasons. And he's supporting them with money from customers, which is the reason why people are boycotting Chick-fil-A.
Cathy can and has said all he wants about gays for years now, and he's free to. People have said that he's an asshole twat for the same number of years, and they're free to. Using customer money to support groups that attack American citizens, that is not freedom of speech. That's actively being evil, and more people need to take a stand against it. People shouldn't abide evil and oppression, simple as that. Obvious evil should not be coddled and protected in the name of "fairness" and "equality".
Lindaman also states that people are against gay marriage because of pictures of people at Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day. How's that for logic? This is clear evidence that Lindaman suffers from False-consensus syndrome. lol
Sorry, Lindaman. The "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day" does not show that the overwhelming majority of Americans are in favor of keeping gay marriage illegal (polling shows otherwise). "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day" just shows that ignorant bigots love to gather passive-aggressively as long as it doesn't require much effort. And even if the majority were in favor of discriminating against gays, that doesn't make it right. There was a time when the majority were also against mixed marriage. It didn't make it right.
Lindaman then asks Raffety where the right to marry is in the Constitution. This is typical of right-wingers to shift the goalposts. Raffety never claimed that it was actually directly printed in the Constitution. Regardless, I bring up the fact about marriage being declared a right and not a privilege in THIS and THIS post.
Funny how these people thump the Constitution until it protects something they disagree with. I wonder why it is that the strict constitutionalist assholes always seem to forget about the 9th. Not to mention the full faith and credit clause (Marriage is a legal document after all).
Can all consenting non-genetically related adults join into a monogamous marriage with whom they choose? No? Then that's inequality. Yes, that depends on the legal definition of marriage. DOMA seems to have already defined that, which creates two classes of people.
Lindaman also uses more right-wing logic: He says that if gays have a right to marry, then Lindaman has the right to sue a woman who refuses to marry him. No, I'm not kidding. He said that. He tried that bullshit on his blog and it was easily struck down HERE. Lindaman couldn't refute the strikedown, either. But that didn't stop him from trying it again on that Facebook discussion. Lindaman loves using the "repeat the lie" mentality of right-wingers.
As far as the "Sue the woman" claim: Sorry, you're wrong. 14th Amendment doesn't work that way. It's a separate issue entirely to same-sex marriage. Constitutional law doesn't work that way. If you challenge a law on one ground and win, it doesn't automatically change the law on all other grounds (such as your stupid "forced marriage" claim). Furthermore, courts will not strike down a law preventing "forced marriage" under Equal Protection grounds if the government can present a "rational basis" for the law. I'd love to hear your "rational basis" for forced marriages, since you seem to love that self-created meme so much.
Marriage laws and the Constitution do not work that way. This is about the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples. That's it. Nothing more. Polygamy and incest and Lindaman's "rape-marriage" logic are not at issue, no matter how much you pretend that a decision allowing same-sex marriage automatically means that those things will suddenly become legal.
The government can't grant women the right to marry a man simply because of being born a female, nor grant men the right to marry a women simply because of being born a male. If a female can choose to marry a man, then so should a male. If a male can chose to marry a female, then so should a female. As no one has to the right to marry a minor, or a close relative, nor more than one partner, or an unwilling partner, because there is no discrimination based on any suspect class, then it's not the same as gay marriage. Got it?
Sure, you could sue if a woman doesn't want to marry you. You can do that right now. You can sue anybody. You'd just lose. Another reason Lindaman's logic is insane: A forced marriage is not between consenting adults. She wouldn't sign the marriage certificate. This is the same arguments right-wingers use to equate gay marriage with marrying animals. And (not surprisingly) these are also the same arguments right-wingers used to try to prevent interracial marriage. Loving Vs. Virginia set the legal precedent that marriage is a human right, not just a white privilege.
Lindaman, just deal with this fact: The "suing the woman" meme you're trying to create is not clever. At all.
There's no way this will end well for opponents of same sex marriage. The legal justification to ban same-sex marriage is non-existent, and I think even they know that. And when it happens, the bigoted right-wing anger will be a hundred times more catastrophic than what we saw with last November's election and the healthcare ruling combined.
Lindaman also says that a company supporting the genocide of gays isn't the same as discriminating against them. Well, I guess that's a relief to gays, right? They just need to quit their whining!
Lindaman asked for evidence of discrimination, so Raffety provided links of proof. Lindaman then blows off the links because he claims Media Matters "lies about people they disagree with." Yet, as always, Lindaman has never, EVER, produced evidence that they have ever lied. The best he could ever do was quote a paranoid Anti-Semite (Andy Martin). Unlike Lindaman, MM uses actual sources. Lindaman just keeps repeating "I'm right. And I just said I'm right. I said it. I'm right. I said it." When proved otherwise, Lindaman AGAIN just says "I'm right. I just showed you I'm right." That won't fly with reality.
And as a result, Lindaman lost a friend. Hope it was worth it! You'll see a recurring pattern where Lindman declares himself the victor in every so-called "debate" he says he has. Get this through your head, Lindaman: People rolling their eyes and walking away from your repetition of talking points, is not a victory for you. That's why you always wind up just talking to yourself. Ever notice that? You end up just sitting there in a thread, alone, saying "See, I'm right." No, you're not. The fact you're talking to yourself in a void doesn't transform your fantasies into reality.
As for the remaining friends: Anyone who would be friends with someone who says "So?" to contributing to the execution of gays, is very telling of their mentality, as well.
This started a discussion, between Lindaman and several others. Including a hit-and-run coont named Goresa Looza. Fortunately there was a rational person named Mike Raffety.
I already discussed Chick-Fil-A here. But there's some additional things that need to be mentioned, just because of this:
After Mike Raffety brought up the fact that Chick-Fil-A gives millions to anti-gay organizations (including ones that lead to their execution) Lindaman, in his usual right-wing compassion, replies with "So?" Which sums up Lindaman in a nutshell. That's it. Game over. Lindaman will never be able to recover his credibility after that. Any and all thoughts of Lindaman being a decent human being, were lost with that one word. Whatever persona he shows anywhere else, doesn't matter. With that one word, he's shown that at his very core, he's a terrible person.
Now, back to Chick-Fil-A...
Yep, Chick-Fil-A has the right to donate to anti-gay organizations. But people also have the right to call them assholes because of it.
Your little picture evades the fact that CEO Dan Cathy financially supports hate groups that are actively oppressing American citizens for religious reasons. And he's supporting them with money from customers, which is the reason why people are boycotting Chick-fil-A.
Cathy can and has said all he wants about gays for years now, and he's free to. People have said that he's an asshole twat for the same number of years, and they're free to. Using customer money to support groups that attack American citizens, that is not freedom of speech. That's actively being evil, and more people need to take a stand against it. People shouldn't abide evil and oppression, simple as that. Obvious evil should not be coddled and protected in the name of "fairness" and "equality".
Lindaman also states that people are against gay marriage because of pictures of people at Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day. How's that for logic? This is clear evidence that Lindaman suffers from False-consensus syndrome. lol
Sorry, Lindaman. The "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day" does not show that the overwhelming majority of Americans are in favor of keeping gay marriage illegal (polling shows otherwise). "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day" just shows that ignorant bigots love to gather passive-aggressively as long as it doesn't require much effort. And even if the majority were in favor of discriminating against gays, that doesn't make it right. There was a time when the majority were also against mixed marriage. It didn't make it right.
Lindaman then asks Raffety where the right to marry is in the Constitution. This is typical of right-wingers to shift the goalposts. Raffety never claimed that it was actually directly printed in the Constitution. Regardless, I bring up the fact about marriage being declared a right and not a privilege in THIS and THIS post.
Funny how these people thump the Constitution until it protects something they disagree with. I wonder why it is that the strict constitutionalist assholes always seem to forget about the 9th. Not to mention the full faith and credit clause (Marriage is a legal document after all).
Can all consenting non-genetically related adults join into a monogamous marriage with whom they choose? No? Then that's inequality. Yes, that depends on the legal definition of marriage. DOMA seems to have already defined that, which creates two classes of people.
Lindaman also uses more right-wing logic: He says that if gays have a right to marry, then Lindaman has the right to sue a woman who refuses to marry him. No, I'm not kidding. He said that. He tried that bullshit on his blog and it was easily struck down HERE. Lindaman couldn't refute the strikedown, either. But that didn't stop him from trying it again on that Facebook discussion. Lindaman loves using the "repeat the lie" mentality of right-wingers.
As far as the "Sue the woman" claim: Sorry, you're wrong. 14th Amendment doesn't work that way. It's a separate issue entirely to same-sex marriage. Constitutional law doesn't work that way. If you challenge a law on one ground and win, it doesn't automatically change the law on all other grounds (such as your stupid "forced marriage" claim). Furthermore, courts will not strike down a law preventing "forced marriage" under Equal Protection grounds if the government can present a "rational basis" for the law. I'd love to hear your "rational basis" for forced marriages, since you seem to love that self-created meme so much.
Marriage laws and the Constitution do not work that way. This is about the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples. That's it. Nothing more. Polygamy and incest and Lindaman's "rape-marriage" logic are not at issue, no matter how much you pretend that a decision allowing same-sex marriage automatically means that those things will suddenly become legal.
The government can't grant women the right to marry a man simply because of being born a female, nor grant men the right to marry a women simply because of being born a male. If a female can choose to marry a man, then so should a male. If a male can chose to marry a female, then so should a female. As no one has to the right to marry a minor, or a close relative, nor more than one partner, or an unwilling partner, because there is no discrimination based on any suspect class, then it's not the same as gay marriage. Got it?
Sure, you could sue if a woman doesn't want to marry you. You can do that right now. You can sue anybody. You'd just lose. Another reason Lindaman's logic is insane: A forced marriage is not between consenting adults. She wouldn't sign the marriage certificate. This is the same arguments right-wingers use to equate gay marriage with marrying animals. And (not surprisingly) these are also the same arguments right-wingers used to try to prevent interracial marriage. Loving Vs. Virginia set the legal precedent that marriage is a human right, not just a white privilege.
Lindaman, just deal with this fact: The "suing the woman" meme you're trying to create is not clever. At all.
There's no way this will end well for opponents of same sex marriage. The legal justification to ban same-sex marriage is non-existent, and I think even they know that. And when it happens, the bigoted right-wing anger will be a hundred times more catastrophic than what we saw with last November's election and the healthcare ruling combined.
Lindaman also says that a company supporting the genocide of gays isn't the same as discriminating against them. Well, I guess that's a relief to gays, right? They just need to quit their whining!
Lindaman asked for evidence of discrimination, so Raffety provided links of proof. Lindaman then blows off the links because he claims Media Matters "lies about people they disagree with." Yet, as always, Lindaman has never, EVER, produced evidence that they have ever lied. The best he could ever do was quote a paranoid Anti-Semite (Andy Martin). Unlike Lindaman, MM uses actual sources. Lindaman just keeps repeating "I'm right. And I just said I'm right. I said it. I'm right. I said it." When proved otherwise, Lindaman AGAIN just says "I'm right. I just showed you I'm right." That won't fly with reality.
And as a result, Lindaman lost a friend. Hope it was worth it! You'll see a recurring pattern where Lindman declares himself the victor in every so-called "debate" he says he has. Get this through your head, Lindaman: People rolling their eyes and walking away from your repetition of talking points, is not a victory for you. That's why you always wind up just talking to yourself. Ever notice that? You end up just sitting there in a thread, alone, saying "See, I'm right." No, you're not. The fact you're talking to yourself in a void doesn't transform your fantasies into reality.
As for the remaining friends: Anyone who would be friends with someone who says "So?" to contributing to the execution of gays, is very telling of their mentality, as well.