One Million Moms rally at JcPenny's to fire Ellen Degeneres for being GAY!

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
it's not over 'til it's over

No. Its gonna take a while. I think at this point I'm fine waiting for all the "I's" dotted and "T's" crossed - - so that it becomes permanent and unchangeable.

I know in Los Angeles - - they did a media blitz the week before the vote - - directed at Latino and Black mothers - - strongly stating Homosexuality will be taught in schools. Which of course is not true.

If you look at the demographic of those who voted for Prop8 - - it is this group. Latino and Black mothers.

How could this happen? Does she even ride a Harley? People really should think first before joining in on a rally. My own recommendation would be to drive a Bentley to ward off any suspicions.

I dont get what the big deal is?? she's a spokes person almost every buisness has some celeb as a spokesperson. As long as she isnt trying to push her beliefs on others whats the big deal? it's not likes shes coming on and being like "hey kids come shop at J.C. Pennys and turn Gay like me." no its advertizement just like everything else. Sounds like these people got some issues or too much time on their hands.

ok, I have an article that ends the gay marriage debacle.

As annee says, it's a secular government.
We will call this the balaams ass solution.
Annee is balaams cohort in this.
Government has no business at all in the business of marriage.
It's about personal liberties.
Marriahe is first and formost a religious institution.
Everything the state does should be about personal liberties and thats it.
They CANNOT infringe on the church and it's institutions.
So get government out of the marriage business and all is well.

snip^If the state chooses to make rights and benefits contingent on marital status, it places an unconstitutional burden on religious institutions, and thereby violates the First Amendment free exercise clause, and it also invites challenges, like the one in Perry v. Brown, where one class or group denied the legal recognition of, rights associated with, and state benefits conferred on “married” couples insists on inclusion. That issue and all others are properly avoided when we recognize in the first instance that under the First Amendment government has no legitimate role in licensing religious institutions and practices, such as marriage.

www.newswithviews.com...

now what makes me think that balaams ass would object to this even?

reply to post by kaylaluv

Let's just say your answers to my questions do not surprise me.

What exactly did you want me to say?
I said I want equal rights for everyone just as you do (or you claim).
I said the CEO respectfully protected the rights of everyone, Ellen, the MM, and his decision.
I said I will do my best to defend the rights of everyone.
Lol, I guess I should have kissed your snip and used all of the political correct language... I wasn't sensitive enough?
If you preach equal rights, then you should try to live it.

Good day.

reply to post by technical difficulties

link

Ask JC Penney to replace Ellen Degeneres as their new spokesperson immediately and remain neutral in the culture war.

I see they're asking their members to ask JC Penny for neutrality at the bottom of the page.
Does that count for anything, lol.

What if JC Penny hired someone who was a loud talking head for defending Marriage as between a man and a woman?
How would you feel about that? Would you possibly wonder if the person hired might have a greater influence on defending Marriage as between a man and a woman?

I'm not on here protesting against Ellen working for JC Penny. I don't care if she works for them.

I got on here because Annee was seriously hating on Christians and on Moms/parents who feel the need to rally. She used the same "word" trickery as Million Mom's did btw.
Thankfully she's matured somewhat in the last couple of days harnessing the very monster she so righteously blames on everyone else.

I can see the fear from both sides of the isle. I can also understand that fear (from both sides).
I've also come to realize (from this thread) if you're not kissing hands and in absolute support of hating on those mom's, or at least calling them a name, ....... you're considered just another hater against gays
It's all or nothing I guess.
(btw, I did look at your other links, thank you).

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


en.wikipedia.org...
I might get flamed for this but gays have suffered far far less than what the black's suffered under that idiotic horrible law.
I'm not dismissing what has happened to gays and those labeled gays but weren't. There are hardly any words to describe the insane unjust harm that's happened to them either but they sure haven't suffered nearly as bad as black people have.
In time of protection, at least gays are able to hide their sexual preferences, one couldn't hide their color!
In saying that, I'll repeat this. I don't dismiss the rapes, murders or the verbal attacks the gays have endured and
are enduring today.
It's all horrible, incredibly sad to say the least. Women in general (as in, regardless of straight or gay) are attacked on a daily basis, would you also add them to this? If you add gays to it, I hope you add women to it too.
Eta: children too.

I just spent a good chunk of time reading on the NOM website - and then on websites directly related to that site, then reading up on Jim Crow legislation, miscegenation laws, the definition of marriage, the definition of kinship...all I have to say about that is - I couldn't stop giggling. I'm surprised they got as far as they did - but I think it's just a matter of time - it is a civil rights issue - and these things have a way of making us look back on the past and wonder what the hell we could have been thinking

I understand the meaning behind your "giggling", I do. But that's not the emotions I felt after reading what you referenced...back to back.

Thanks for sharing what you read, I have a larger picture of this now.

The simple fact of the matter is - one side wants equal rights for everyone - and the other wants special rights upheld only for themselves

It's so simple, no one can see it. May I ask, (subjectively) which one is which?

hate or no hate - NOM and their Moms are on the wrong side of this argument

NOM and their Moms ...
When you talk about "Moms" the first thing I think of is the children.
Imo, the children from any family, shouldn't be taught about sex at an early age except from their parents.
In this.... I would say we all need to teach tolerance regardless of what the subject matter is and leave the sex education to the parents.

My opinion is that regardless of what law is passed, it makes no difference to me until tolerance and understanding becomes the main stay and special interest.

Your opinion is greatly appreciated, thank you for taking the time out to share.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Annee

 

Father's Day and Mother's Day? Those holidays are both always celebrated on weekends. What has that to do with school curriculum? Independence Day? You are welcome to move to Cuba if you feel that is antisocial.

Not when I went to school in the 50s. Mother and Father's day was celebrated in school.

Sorry that you can't understand the concepts are the same.

I live here - - and I like the way our society is going. You're the one who might be happier some place else.

I was happier when it was less like Communist Cuba. You need to get a clue about what is happening here. With so many people on this site talking about the NWO, you might want to take notice. I've listened to the lectures by ex KGB Yuri Besmenov, where he talks about how the Soviet "Sleepers" wake up in a certain locale and begin to be active about certain issues. His lectures go back to the mid to late 80's, and he says that these sleepers demand various rights( it matters not so much which rights are being demanded, only that it is stirring up trouble) and it is for the purpose of creating instability. That is the cue for the Statists to come in and fix the issue.
It is easy to realize that when certain members of certain groups invariably come up with ties to the communist party or to the socialist party they can be identified as subversives. It's easy for many people to become unwittingly tied up in all of this breuhaha talking about it, protesting about this and that, arguing. With the unrest it all creates, it leaves open the door for a third party to come in and settle it.
He said it has been tried in various places already.
I think it's silly for people to think that the former head of the KGB still running about the leadership of Russia is retired from his ideology.
I have already shown that certain members of a certain persuasion had ties to the communist party and a particular person was about changing the mores of our culture actively through certain groups. What more really needs to be said about this?

Here is the guy


Marxist theory, unions, strikes, redistribution, ideology, workers rights, equality



sleepers, social workers not elected, media, people who claim they know how to lead the society


oh yes, in that third vid he talks about how the union workers say they are tired of strking and losing money so let's get a strong leader, a socialist government, etc. and a "savior".
'

Originally posted by kaylaluv

We DO have laws against discrimination, however. The Civil Rights Act was not about making the black segment of our society "special" - it was about eliminating discrimination. You discriminate against someone by not treating them the same as everyone else, by not allowing them the same rights as everyone else - in other words - inequality. See how it works?

Nope, don't see it.

Unless you can show me the laws that allowed discrimination?

The problem is that new laws were never required, only equal application of existing laws.

Now we have a situation, this is just for example, where it is worse to attack a homosexual than a none homosexual ('hate crimes'). Thereby, homosexuals (and any other 'protected group') have been deemed more valuable than the rest by the very nature of having special laws to protect them.

This will be just as bad in the future as it was in the past, simply because nobody can figure out that the best 'anti-discrimination' policy is the removing of all labels/titles/etc from our existing laws.

They should all protect all equally, not some for this group, some for that group.

Originally posted by peck420

Originally posted by kaylaluv

We DO have laws against discrimination, however. The Civil Rights Act was not about making the black segment of our society "special" - it was about eliminating discrimination. You discriminate against someone by not treating them the same as everyone else, by not allowing them the same rights as everyone else - in other words - inequality. See how it works?

Nope, don't see it.

Unless you can show me the laws that allowed discrimination?

The problem is that new laws were never required, only equal application of existing laws.

Now we have a situation, this is just for example, where it is worse to attack a homosexual than a none homosexual ('hate crimes'). Thereby, homosexuals (and any other 'protected group') have been deemed more valuable than the rest by the very nature of having special laws to protect them.

This will be just as bad in the future as it was in the past, simply because nobody can figure out that the best 'anti-discrimination' policy is the removing of all labels/titles/etc from our existing laws.

They should all protect all equally, not some for this group, some for that group.

We will never have 'equality' when one side gets to dictate the 'thoughts' of the other side. That pretty much rules out every 'equality' and 'inequality' pushing groups in the world. It is a technical impossibility to write 'equality' in law as, by giving a group or person special status (ironically, to make them 'equal'), they are no longer equal to the others. The only true 'equality' in law, is the absence of differentiating labels/titles/etc. Until that gets figured out, don't expect this sort of thing to go away.

You've posted only two posts in all of these pages and both posts speak volumes, common sense, and wisdom.
This is exactly where I stand on this. Thank you for posting!

I just came across this thread and thought you might like to take a look at it. PEACE To attempt the impossible...

reply to post by peck420


Very good perception. Environmentalists want to protect the rights of whales and baby seals, but not unborn babies, or humans in general. Human Rights activists want to protect the rights of this or that group, giving it the same treatment as the environmentalists, ie they are an endangered species to be protected at all costs. Everything gets turned upside down.
Who does the liberal left protect? I could make a list but I might get flamed.

Originally posted by manna2
Government has no business at all in the business of marriage.

Uh uh - - you don't side step by changing the subject.

Equal Rights of what we have in place. Not whether there should be a government license or not.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
I was happier when it was less like Communist Cuba.

If you want to discuss your Communist paranoia - - why don't you start a thread in politics.

Equal rights is about something already in place - - that excludes a minority group (that harms no one).

Acceptance of differences is a good thing and a human thing - - that is best introduced at the youngest of ages.

Introducing it in the primary school environment is only logical - - - and necessary to counteract parents like those of NOM and AFA.

Oh - - and about trying to get someone fired just because they belong to that minority group.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


When things go over other posters heads, you should just ignore their ignorance... unless they actually understand but can't handle it when you hit it out of the park...

Regardless, we must learn to love those who barely survive on their tunnel vision.

Thanks for adding those vid's, I'm almost finished watching them.

dbl post

reply to post by peck420

They should all protect all equally, not some for this group, some for that group.

show us an example of when 'they' don't

a real example

from real life

please

Originally posted by sweetliberty
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

When things go over other posters heads, you should just ignore their ignorance... unless they actually understand but can't handle it when you hit it out of the park...

Regardless, we must learn to love those who barely survive on their tunnel vision.

Thanks for adding those vid's, I'm almost finished watching them.

Thanks for the support. That was 3 out of 7 I believe so if you go to the YouTube site you will find the rest. I have found it invaluable in undestanding the destabilization process.
And you are so right. I need to be more loving in my approach.

reply to post by sweetliberty

It's so simple, no one can see it. May I ask, (subjectively) which one is which?

a very good point

which side wants to deny the other the right to be married - based on their idea of what's right and wrong?

why does this group need to be special?

why should all of us coddle them and deny the other group something that should obviously be an option for them - just as it is for everybody else?

here and now sweetliberty, why don't you try and answer this: how is this in any way about sex?

the team that is now legally able to marry acts like sex is a toxic substance or something - so even if it was about sex - what is the worst thing that could happen?

:-)

go on - I'm sure you can do it

reply to post by Annee

Acceptance of differences is a good thing and a human thing - - that is best introduced at the youngest of ages. Introducing it in the primary school environment is only logical - - - and necessary to counteract parents like those of NOM and AFA.

We all chose our fights and I've just realized mine.

LOL's

This is one of the most stupid things Iv'e ever heard.

Statistically speaking 30% of these woman's partners are cheating on them and they are lashing out against one gay woman who has done NOTHING to them.

Crazy !!