Why Legislate It

I was reading posts on the Facebook timeline of George Takei today. Folks are up in arms over a bill that passed in the Senate that would make it illegal to fire someone based on their sexual orientation. Most were screaming about the assholes in the House and how they would never pass it, or that Speaker John Boehner would not let it come to a vote.

Ummmmm… ok? Why do we need a law for this? According to George, there are still states out there where you can be fired for being “gay”. Ummmm… ok? Don’t live there.

I know, controversial. Homophobic. Nut job. Blah. Blah. Blah.

My point is, why do we have to legislate this? Are there actual laws in the books that say “If he is gay, you can fire him!”? If so, then I agree, let us push the states to repeal those stupid laws. Or, as I believe George meant, are there laws on the books that specifically call out that a business cannot fire someone based solely on their preference? If this is the case, then why did we make those laws?

One would think, that in today’s world, if a business fired a person for no other reason than sexual preference, said business would be dragged through court and/or be run out of existence. Legislating for a specific group is bad policy.

Why not create a law for Jews? Muslims? People from Cincinnati? What if I get fired because my teeth are yellowing and the business feels I do not adequately represent an appearance they feel is acceptable? Do I, then, get a law in my benefit?

It does not matter if it is a one-person group or a one-million person group. Policy like that just gives people a reason to play the victim. And when people play the victim, politicos will flock to them like leeches until we have even more divide than there already is, followed by even more bad policy.

Work hard to effect positive change. But do it for EVERYONE, not just your pet group.

The revolution is at hand. Will you be a leader or a follower?

If You Disagree, You Are A Dumb Bitch

UPDATE: The Pinhead retracts his apology and then invokes an even harsher term for Miss California. What a loser.

Miss USA, Miss America, Miss Universe, pick your event. These used to be a classy event. They used to be watched by millions of viewers for the elegant gowns, sometimes-BAD entertainment, and of course, the swimsuit portion. As the years passed, the viewership declined. I think, personally, it is because one of the biggest draws was the swimsuit portion. And since you can get more skin by watch CSI than the pageant, it lost a bit of its luster.

But even still, there are many girls who work hard to compete. They use the event to launch a career or perhaps to get their platform out to the public. Whatever the reason, if you are a judge for the event, the least you can do is be civil and appreciate them for who they are.

Which brings me to my point. At the recent Miss USA pageant, noted gay-rights activist Perez Hilton was a judge. It went down as follows:

Hilton asked this question: “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalise same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?”

“Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other,” 21-year-old Prejean said.

“We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage,” she continued.

“You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there.

Simple enough. The girl thinks that the states should decide the issue for themselves, but she, personally, is against gay marriage. The audience booed. Later in a video blog, the slanderous Perez said Miss California lost because she was a Dumb Bitch.

Tolerance? Acceptance? Inclusiveness? Live and let live?

Only if you agree with them.

The revolution is at hand. Will you be a leader or a follower?

Barney Frank Is A Breedophobe

It is a well known fact that Bawney Fwank (D-MA) is gay. He and his boyfriend, in fact, were involved in a scandel where a brothel was (apparently) being run from his home a few years back. The guy is obnoxious, routinely blames everyone but himself and flat out lost his mind over these AIG bonuses.

Well, because Supreme Court Justice Scalia believes that some issues (gay marriage, consensual sodomy, etc) should remain at the the state level and away from activist judges, Fwank has accused the SCOTUS member of being a homophobe.

I submit that the idiot congressional imbecile is, in fact, a Breedophobe. After all, Justice Scalia has shown great restraint and careful thought regarding his decisions. Fwank, however, flies off at the mouth like the juvenile girl that he is.

The revolution is at hand. Will you be a leader or a follower?