Businesses that discriminate against, for example, gays and lesbians, should be legally required to post that information publicly so that LGBT don’t waste time driving around and waiting in line before being turned away.
Advertise Your Bigotry
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
40 Comments. Leave new
Label the businesses?!? Oh, no you don’t. That’s job-killing government regulation!!!
Better we label the gays … perhaps with rainbow armbands.
This system has worked very well before: http://tinyurl.com/2jvu6l
Re Godwin:
If Godwin didn’t exist, resurgent American “native/Christo- fascism” would have invented him
… or did it already.
I remember reading about a cute little war out in Washington (state)
Buncha people signed a petition to outlaw gay marriage. One of those radical left wing groups (ACLU?) wanted the gubbmint to disclose who had signed that petition. Whole lotta people started screaming that they didn’t want their names made public. Why not? Because they were afraid they might get bullied!
You just gotta sit back and admire that kind of doublethink. Buncha people want to dictate the lives of people they don’t even know, people who want to do something that the buncha don’t want to have anything to do with, and which doesn’t affect the buncha whatsoever. And they’re worried about being bullied? Might do ’em some good to be on the receiving end for once, y’know?
Saw a letter to-duh-editor a while back, some lady complaining that the government had no business defining marriage. Her solution? Have the government define marriage. How do they do that without their tiny little heads exploding?
Good idea, Ted – let’s see how closely they hold to their superstitious beliefs once it has an affect on their bottom line.
While we’re on the subject, if a pharmacy is going to refuse to dispense birth control pills to unwed women, or refuse to dispense Plan B to worried teenagers they should *definitely* have to disclose that up front.
For that matter, any pharmacists who refuses to dispense Plan B should lose his license immediately. Not because of his superstitious beliefs, but because he’s obviously unqualified if he doesn’t understand the difference between terminating a pregnancy and preventing one.
Tell me Ted;
How are the anti-homo handjobs of the business world even going to know about some customer’s “Gay” preferences unless she/he/it tattoos a label or somesuch on their forehead? In today’s modern fashion world, androgynous clothing is frequently sometimes even a community standard. As long as any dress code is equally applied among the lifestyles, no harm, no foul.
I mean, its like those fucking “Gay-Pride” parades where a giant crowd of outrageously overt “queers” prance nearly butt-naked down some public fareway with the shit practically dripping off their dicks (do notice that female homosexuals commonly seem a bit more conservative ~) … there’s being homosexual and then there’s being tasteless homosexual. I would be no less critical refusing service toward some tasteless in-heat (crowd of) hetero freak(s).
Also tell me this, can you believe that some service-providers may choose to not serve (the abusively obvious) fags just because they find people displaying their rut in public may (to them) be morally intolerable? In such instances, t’s not always only because they’re “Gay,” but just as much perhaps because they’re also fucking nasty.
DanD
… frequently/sometimes …
Crazyh;
You state: “Don’t believe me? Take your posts from this thread, and substitute the word “Catholic” for “gay” or “woman” or “liberal.” If you do (and you won’t) you’ll instantly see what I’m talking about.”
Your stated correlation between the noun “Catholic” and the more dichotomous descriptives gay/woman/liberal is false. While a Catholic may be a gay, a woman, a liberal, and/or even all three, there are also a great multitude of heterosexual male conservatives that are also just as “Catholic.”
You need to fine-tune your thesis just a bit.
DanD
@dandy –
Fail.
The point of this exercise it to make it clear to bigots – such as yourself – that they are, indeed, bigots. The word chosen matters not in the least, it only has to be a word that strikes close to home – in Alex’s case I chose “Catholic” because he sounds like a Catholic to me.
In your case, try “White Males” or “Conservatives” … do your words sound the same now?
e.g.
“I mean, its like those fucking “Republican-Pride” parades where a giant crowd of outrageously overt “Conservatives” prance nearly butt-naked down some public fareway with the shit practically dripping off their dicks (do notice that female Republicans commonly seem a bit more conservative ~) … there’s being Conservative and then there’s being tasteless Conservative. I would be no less critical refusing service toward some tasteless in-heat (crowd of) Liberal freak(s).”
OTOH, it’s very easy to tell the homophobes. They are 100% nasty and proud of it.
We should outlaw homophobe marriage. After all, they just pass their nasty habits onto innocent children.
No way! As I want Gays to be just as miserable as the “Straight” crowd, I say MAKE THEM GET MARRIED! Hell, I know that all the lawyer’s guilds (both Straight and Gay) throughout America are just salivating over the obtuse expansion of divorce litigation.
As I inferred above, being Gay does not automatically relegate any homosexual to flaming queen status. I also really don’t care who is (or is not) Gay. But it is also neither my obligation nor duty to in any way admit to or confirm the legitimacy of any Gay lifestyle.
Simply put, if Gay people don’t want to have their lifestyles severely criticized or suppressed, then they shouldn’t perversely advertise their own peculiar orientation. Indeed, the Hetero lifestyle is just one, excessively long history of self-oppression. Gays currently have an excellent opportunity to insightfully NOT repeat so much of Heterosexuality’s more perverse predispositions of intellectual self flagellation.
DanD
I’m not sure whether we’ve communicated or not.
I’m all for legal homosexual marriage. I am, however, all in favor of outlawing homophobic marriage.
Homophobes are easily identified by their propensity to post things like “…with the shit practically dripping off their dicks…”
Decent people simply don’t want our children exposed to such unwholesome attitudes. The poor little innocents might even start to believe that those ideas are normal or acceptable. There’s no way their kind should be allowed to teach school or lead boy scout troops. If we let them get married, why, they might even reproduce!
Oh, the horror.
Well put, crazy.
As you implied, DanD, liberals have a hard time understanding the difference between tolerating gays and celebrating them. Some conflate these purposefully and others genuinely seem unable to tell the difference. I wonder what kind of media reception I would get if I were to organize a huge hetero parade? (I’d probably be homophobic.) Men’s Rights Parade? (Misogynist!) WHITE PRIDE? (Lmao. Racist!) Only those designated as oppressed are allowed to do such things. Do I think gays hate heterosexuals? Of course not. Do I think feminists hate men? Of course!
Indeed, marriage has become so broken; homosexuals are welcome to join the misery. It’s not rational for them to want a part of it or a part of the military as Ted has pointed out. For that matter, why do women want in? I wonder if feminist elites will start enlisting in droves for combat and submarine duty? HA. I can hope I suppose.
@jack – So, you’re taking Ted at his word and advertising your bigotry?
Let’s start here: “liberals have a hard time understanding the difference between tolerating gays and celebrating them.”
In one sentence, you’ve shown your bigotry of gays & libs both. Nice. FYI: I’ve never ‘celebrated’ a gay in my life (whatever that means.) A gay pride parade is a celebration, but not all liberals are gay, in spite of what Fox news says. Nor do I “tolerate” gays, I leave that up to the few homophobes who’ve been successfully housebroken.
We ask for simple human rights, the righties blow their collective gasket and start screaming about ‘glorifying’ ‘celebrating’ ‘teaching our children to be lesbians’ etc. NONE of which we’ve ever actually said – those words come entirely from the right. It’s obvious that the RIGHT can’t tell the difference.
This is priceless: “Do I think feminists hate men? Of course!” News flash: Some feminists ARE men. That statement alone would prove your misogyny – even if you hadn’t already wasted scads of bandwidth making it plain for everyone to see. It is undeniably true that SOME feminists hate men, but it’s patently false that all do. And while the incidence of misogyny in this country is highly exaggerated, comments such as yours make it all too easy for feminists to assume that it’s a realistic assessment.
” I wonder if feminist elites will start enlisting in droves for combat and submarine duty”
hmmm, so feminists are both ‘elites’ and ‘oppressed’? Interesting. I suppose that your saving grace on that comment was “droves” – even men don’t enlist for combat positions in “droves” so you’re correct on a technicality. But to further your education a little, a google search for “women petitioning to be in combat roles” got 351,000 hits.
[Here’s just one]
BTW: women have been able to serve on Navy subs since 2010.
First, I want to thank you for proving my point. I am NEUTRAL toward gays. They’re just regular people. I cannot APPROVE of their sexuality because I DON’T CARE. This is clearly beyond you. Oh, and indeed, I am suspect of anyone who identifies with liberalism.
“Feminists are both elites and oppressed?”
I agree that doesn’t make much sense. But they are in charge and still believe there is a patriarchy/rape culture/pay disparity, etc. I never said feminists made sense. You did. They control the family courts, colleges, HR and PR departments in corporate America, media, and political bodies. How much more power and preferential treatment do they need? It always warms my heart to come across a woman who does not identify as ‘feminist.’ Not all women are clueless. Some have seen and felt the damage feminism has done. A great irony how feminists haven’t a clue about femininity. They just wish they were men. 🙂 It’ll never happen, um, “ladies.”
It’s not as if I care about our military thugs. By all means, ladies, feminize the hell out of it! Starting of course with nursing in uniform. What mockery. A military uniform used to be a badge of masculine pride. Worse mockery: people really don’t get what a mockery it is. Oh, masculine pride! What a sexist and archaic idea! I mean what does that even mean? Proud to be men? You guys are monstrous and likely rapists! Only women can be proud, dontcha know?
You get some credit for noticing that misogyny is blown completely out of proportion. Indeed, women are the worst misogynists. They can be fiercely competitive and use the nuclear bomb insults on each other more than men do: ‘slut,’ ‘ugly,’ or ‘fat.’ Those words hurt so much because they know subconsciously that their sexual value is almost all about appearance. Long term value has a lot to do with how choosy they’ve been in the past…Hey, when nature and truth have my back, I don’t care about popular opinion. Modern woman, “Why don’t men find me attractive? I’m aggressive and narcissistic and have a graduate degree and am aging rapidly!” Omg. We should all be so horny for that. I need to marry that shit quick before someone else does!
It’s sick that liberals think we can or should socialize men’s desires out of them. We like hot, fertile, young, lean, voluptuous women. Deal with it harpies! LOL
Huge LOL @ male feminists. What an oxymoron. If it were really all about being ‘equal’ then feminists would stop demanding special treatment. Oh, and if life would be so much better with women in charge, then why have they never managed to lead in a meaningful way, so far as I know, in all of civilized history? Men take the risks and do the work and protect the women and children. The ‘unearned privilege’ line is a lie. Excepting high pregnancy mortality, women have had it much easier than men. But for pointing out facts and thinking differently, I clearly despise women even though, for example, I prefer their company to men’s.
A precious few feminists are mostly alright.
Camile Paglia:
“If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts.”
AMEN.
“Primary education does everything in its power to turn boys into neuters.”
Preach it! So much more satisfying to hear it from a feminist.
If we’re going to get out of this rotten mess we call modern society, we are going to need MANY more strong men than we have.
Thanks for taking my bait! <3
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303997604579240022857012920
uhhh, Jack? People who are NEUTRAL on gays don’t say things like, “understanding the difference between tolerating gays and celebrating them,” talk about hetero parades, etc.
Deny it all you want, but your own words belie your claims to the contrary. (y’know, I’m starting to appreciate Ted’s policy of not allowing you edit your posts after the fact…)
If gay parades are great, what is wrong with hetero parades?
Again, you prove my point. “People who are NEUTRAL on gays don’t say things like, ‘understanding the difference between tolerating gays and celebrating them.'” Except that I am neutral, and I just said that. But you continue to insist that your definition is correct. You’re a big smart boy. Surely you understand that ambivalence is different than support?
@JACK
PEOPLE WHO ARE neutral ON A SUBJECT DON’T USE all caps WHEN THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT IT.
You seem to be under the impression that I’m arguing with you. I’m not. I’m merely pointing out that which is obvious to anyone reading your words.
Don’t believe me? Take your posts from this thread, and substitute the word “Catholic” for “gay” or “woman” or “liberal.” If you do (and you won’t) you’ll instantly see what I’m talking about.
You’re not alone, the majority of bigots are in denial about their affliction as well. “The first step to solving a problem is admitting you have one.”
Oh, right, I must’ve hurt your ears. I forgot that caps is ‘yelling.’ I wanted italics but did not bother. Then again, I’d really have to yell to get the point across. You repeated the word ‘neutral’ back so I know you read it. Maybe you don’t understand the meaning?
Do I have to pull out the ‘one of my best friends was a flamer?’ This is exactly what I am talking about. If a person does not fit a given liberal’s rigid definition of proper attitude toward gays, he is a bigot. Take a guess at how much a random liberal’s opinion means to me. I am ambivalent toward gay marriage and Russia’s anti-gay propaganda law. I don’t otherwise want gays to be discriminated against based upon orientation. Is that really what makes a bigot these days?
And going after my grammar or presentation? Talk about low hanging fruit. You pick and choose well; if your position were strong, you wouldn’t have to avoid substance.
This gem really needs answering. “In one sentence, you’ve shown your bigotry of gays & libs both.” Oh, it’s possible to be bigoted toward liberals now? A political camp?! Are you a protected widdle victim class? Can you guys not help the way you are? Are you fucking serious? Then by your own classification and great record hating any political opinion to the right of Pinko, you’re absolutely bigoted!
“Catholic” doesn’t make any sense there. I tried what you said. Why Catholic? Didn’t you say you were Catholic? I hate religion.
@Jack –
I chose Catholic because you sound like a Catholic (or perhaps a “recovering Catholic”). I’d bet my next paycheck that you were raised in some form of the Christian superstition.
As I pointed out to your fellow homophobe, the specific word matters not – the point of the exercise is to make it clear how your own words sound to other people. Here’s a sampling:
“Alex has a hard time understanding the difference between tolerating blacks and celebrating them.”
“Do I think masculinists hate women? Of course!”
“Do I think Alex hates women? Of course!”
“Do I think blacks hate whites? Of course!”
“Do I think Christians hate Muslims? Of course!”
“Do I think Muslims hate Christians? Of course!”
“I cannot APPROVE of their skin color because I DON’T CARE.”
“I cannot APPROVE of Muslims because I DON’T CARE.”
“I cannot APPROVE of Alex…”
” I never said blacks made sense.”
” I never said Alex made sense.”
“Not all blacks are clueless. Some have seen and felt the damage the civil rights movement has done.”
“Why don’t women find me attractive? I’m aggressive and narcissistic and have a graduate degree and am aging rapidly!”
“If it were really all about being ‘equal’ then blacks would stop demanding special treatment.”
“If we’re going to get out of this rotten mess we call modern society, we are going to need MANY more white men than we have.”
“… MANY more Christians than we have.”
“… MANY more Muslims than we have.”
Let’s recap: these are YOUR WORDS. All I did was swap out the nouns.
You might want to think carefully before responding. If you complain, you’ll be making it crystal clear that you DID see the bigotry behind them, otherwise you’d have nothing to complain about.
Oh, right, italics. Okee dokee, I aim to please:
“I cannot approve of their skin color because I don’t care.”
“I cannot approve of Muslims because I don’t care.”
“I cannot approve of Alex…”
“I cannot approve of Republicans…”
“I cannot approve of atheists…”
“I cannot approve of capitalists…”
“I cannot approve of gold standard proponents…”
Oh, yeah, sure – it’s a LOT better NOW… ::rolls eyes::
I was raised atheist/liberal if you really want to know. I am the most sexually open person I have ever met. Shall I let you know where to send your next paycheck?
“Those are your words, all I did was change [the words].” Lmfao. You still never answered most of what I said.
Except women love older, narcissistic, successful, aggressive men. I’ve learned to embrace double-standards as a fact of nature. No one said life was fair. I’m actually just assertive and irrationally self-confident. You’d like me in real life. Everyone does. 🙂 I just think it’s funny that you sound a little like I used to–before I figured out how deluded liberalism is. Stop trying to engineer nature already. You won’t succeed. Nature always wins. It does not care about fairness.
Crazy (w)H(ore) [anybody can do ad-hominem]
Sorry CH, didn’t mean to make you melt down. It seems that vicious hate is okay with you just as long as it’s done against the appropriate “bad-guy.”
The only gays that I have talked out about here are the nasty, culturally perverted ones who choose not to practice manners. You seem to believe that (only) they have a constitutional right to assault everybody else with their publicly displayed, vile perversions … all in the name of orientation “freedom” of course.
There’s really nothing homophobic about me because I could care less about anybody’s sexual orientation just as long as Homophiles (such as yourself) don’t require me to unnecessarily suffer through any public displays of undisciplined rut. Gays in the movie house or at a restaurant? Fine with me. If they want to hold hands? I could care less. They want to peck each other(s) on the cheek in greeting? Whatever.
But when they start whipping it out (or even just pretend to) and jack each other off, Well, that’s no more acceptable than a Hetero couple finger-fellating each other in the seating immediately in front or behind me. I would quite emphatically suggest that either brand of porn-practitioner (or group) go get a hotel room or something and then demand that they be removed from the premises. I suppose that you would prefer pulling your cell phone out and recording video.
You’re a sad guy.
DanD
@dandy –
No, hating bigots is entirely different from hating people who have done you no harm.
Homophobes are haters – and you can’t seriously expect anyone to believe you’re not a homophobe after that first post of yours.
I know, I know, you’re only talking about the “flamers” – if that were true then you’d be posting vicious attacks on the heteros flaunting their sexuality in public. If I searched out all your previous posts, how many of those do you suppose I’d find vs. vicious attacks on gays?
Do I really have to enumerate all the ways that homophobes make it hard for gays to simply live their lives like anyone else? Bigoted posts such as yours only serve to perpetuate the myths. Out of one end of your alimentary canal you tell us all about how you don’t care, and you support their civil rights, blah, blah, blah, while out the other end you make it difficult for them to achieve those very rights.
Gays, OTOH, do you no harm whatsoever. You don’t like to look at the parade? Don’t look at the parade, duh?
Half the reason that The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence do their outrageous bit is to play with homophobes’ heads. I look at ’em and laugh, you get all upset. That’s not the Sisters’ fault – it’s your own fault for being a homophobe in the first place.
It’d probably do you some good to go see a Gay Pride Parade in person. Faux News doesn’t show you anyone but the “flamers.” If you actually did see a parade yourself, you’d see a lot of people who look and act just like “everyone else.”
CrazywHore challenges:
“If I searched out all your previous posts, how many of those do you suppose I’d find vs. vicious attacks on gays?”
Okay slut, then do it. But since I have made no “vicious attacks” on Gays, will you then report in to us how you really don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about? Go ahead, prove you’re not a coward also.
DanD
@dandy –
But since I have made no “vicious attacks” on Gays…
You’re too easy, dandy. Here’s one right here.
Go ahead, prove you’re not a coward also.
Nice comment coming from someone who’s attacking a large number of people while hiding behind an internet. How about you prove *you’re* not a coward? I know a nice gym downtown. Some of the guys who work out there have arms bigger around than most mens’ legs. Sometimes they’re holding their boyfriends’ hands on the way in. You go read that post aloud standing in the middle of that gym & I’ll believe you’re not a coward.
But I’m not the one trying to prove a point here. I’ve already cited ample evidence to show that you most certainly are a homophobic bigot. You keep insisting you’re not, Okay, the burden of proof is on you. Let’s see some of those posts where you’re flaming straights. I can wait.
Back in the early days of the civil rights era, you’d still hear people say, “I ain’t no bigot, some of my best friends is niggers – I jes’ wouldn’t want one to marry my sister”
Essay Question, 100 words or less: Do you believe that the person speaking is not a bigot? Explain your answer.
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2014/03/ending-property-rights-what-add-words.html
DanD
You’re such a CrazywHore ~
So, to prove a point you want to make, you say I need to take your punk-ass challenge? I just realized something shill-breath, you’re just an internet troll.
http://filmingcops.com/yes-there-are-paid-government-trolls-on-social-media-blogs-forums-and-websites/
No, silly – I’m asking *you* to prove the point *you’ve* repeatedly tried to make. I have no obligation whatsoever to help you out on that score.
100% of the evidence supplied so far supports the conclusion that you’re a homophobic bigot. You say otherwise – do you have any evidence to support that claim? Put up or shut up.
PS – government shills tend to support the government’s agenda. You know, MIC, endless wars, spying on innocents, etc. You really think they’d spend money on gay rights?
SERIOUSLY??!!
You do realize that tin foil hats are supposed to be made of TIN, right? Aluminum foil just doesn’t have enough harmonic convergence to block out the Russian satellites’ telepathic laser beans…
Where I live they’d make money doing that. That whole Chik-Fil-A thing? I drive by one on the way to work, that week the bigots were backed up into the right lane of the beltway.
It is more than a little disturbing. My first reaction (before knowing this), would be, “Why do you want to turn away customers…?”
I get your point Ted, and I like the cartoon – but nowadays, I cringe a bit whenever I hear anyone say “should be required” because one of the problems we have is that we already have too many restrictive laws, and once enacted, they are hard to get rescinded. More fair judgement and consideration would go a lot farther than “automatic required penalties and sentences” that lead to knee-jerk decisions.
Or society needs to be less reactive – too many people react to news bits and articles with already-formed responses. How often can you ask a person what their opinion is on an issue, and have them respond with something like, “Gosh, – I don’t really know – I need to know more about what actually happened before I pronounce my judgement…”
Yeah, rikster, I know I do the same thing, for example I’ve often proposed that no-one should be allowed to vote on a subject unless they:
A) understood the facts of the situation
B) were actually affected by the law in question
This would have the obvious benefit of keeping most RW’s from voting on most subjects. However, it would put the government in charge of deciding who was qualified to vote, and we can’t have that.
So, I see that and Ted’s suggestion as a “gee isn’t that a nice dream” kind of thing, rather than a serious proposal.
“Actually affected by the law.”
Hopeful voter #1: “Yes, I would like more handouts and preferential treatment. Thank you.”
Government: “Please go right ahead and vote! This law is all about you.”
Hopeful voter #2: “Hey! That’s my tax dollars!”
Government: “This law does not concern you, wing nut!”
*Sigh* So many fascists in liberals’ clothing. How many laws don’t affect us all?
We could end the Fed, simplify the tax code, end the bailouts, raise the minimum wage substantially, slash military spending, and thereby, reduce social spending and taxes substantially as most people would be able to fend for themselves except in disability or retirement. We could have government be small as it was supposed to be instead of the behemoth we have.
> How many laws don’t affect us all?
Low hanging fruit: gay marriage, recreational drug use, and anything having to do with any sort of sexual activity you don’t personally participate in.
Right. Because families and individuals exist in vacuums. No one’s choices affect anyone else! Amazing standpoint for a liberal–the type of person who supposedly believes we all depend on each other, social contract, cooperation, etc.
Contrary to modern myth, a child needs both a mother AND a father LIVING with him or her to have the best chance at doing well. Plenty of studies on this. Dig them up yourself if you care to become educated. “Wahhh, but gender is a social construct!” Whatever makes you FEEL good, sweetie.
The direction and values of society are everyone’s business.
@Jack – as you so often say (without any substance) “Thank you for proving my point”
“a child needs both a mother AND a father LIVING with him or her to have the best chance at doing well.”
Quite obviously, you seem to feel there’s something wrong with same-sex marriage, while at the same time you keep insisting you don’t care.
try this, instead:
“a child needs both a white mother AND a white father LIVING with him or her to have the best chance at doing well.”
perhaps you can see it now? They’re your words, I only changed the nouns.
I much prefer honest homophobes to liars who try to pretend otherwise. At least dandy doesn’t keep insisting he doesn’t care.
Studies? I know of no such “studies” – you brought it up, the burden of proof is on you.
I couldn’t help but think that refusing service to a gay couple is like refusing service to an interracial couple.
Interesting proposal, Ted ! On the other hand, permit me to doubt its efficacy – how much truth has «Truth in advertising» regulations put in advertising ?…
Henri