All in the Family featured the curmudgeonly Archie Bunker. Archie was television’s most famous grouch, blunt, blustering, straightforward and untouched by the PC crowd. He was the archetype of the conservative male. Michael desprately tried to reeducate him, but he persisted in his breviloquence.

Looking back at the last 40 years, we realize: ARCHIE WAS RIGHT!


Tyranny Of The Trany

It occurs to me that our nation is morally and mentally upside down on the issue of what is ridiculously referred to as "civil rights".

There are of course no such things as "civil rights" as no right can be totally enforced in a "civil" manor.  Neither are there rights of a so called "civilization".  There are only natural rights and property rights.  The first set of rights are a prerequisite to human existence and the second to human interaction.  "Black rights", "women rights", "immigrant rights" "LGBTG rights" etc. are all artificial constructs of, or perhaps logical subdivisions of natural and property rights.  

Why then do a have a segment of our society that enjoys in manufacturing "rights" solely as a method of enforcing their particular world view on others?  I'm not a fan of same sex "marriage".  I won't try to hide my objection to the issue or my negative view on the matter. 

Neither will I hide my utter contempt for the people promoting LGBT tyranny.  For generations any non heterosexual relationship was viewed in a range that went form slightly askew to evil and perverse.  Today we are told that all peoples preferences in all matters should be treated with respect and tolerance.  The principle of "what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes" should be private is repeated in a tone and fervor resembling holy rite.

Be ye tolerant of those whom do things ye do not.  Be ye compassionate of which ye find reprehensible.  Be ye a good sport and turn ye a blind eye.  Thou shalt not appear even slightly judgmental of things in the popular culture.  It is it's own religion.

When a man decides to marry a man, we are told that it is a good thing.  Why? Blank out. There is no good answer.  Something about love and civil rights and mumbled unintelligent platitudes.

The one and only thing we are told we can object to, is someone who objects to celebrating or at least facilitating the event.  So what happens if a person who believes its impossible for a man to marry a man says they are unwilling to provide flowers or a cake or perform the ceremony?

That person is treated as some sort of evil, oppressive villain.  Cart them off to court!  Take away their home!  Steal their bank account! Off with their head! DO IT NOW!

Gleefully done in the name of tolerance and a diverse society.

Some old lady bakes cakes and decorates them real pretty, or she is real good at arranging flowers.  She also has a honestly held religious/philosophical belief that marriage is (as it has been defined for millennium) only between a man and a women.  Because it violates her faith she says she can't take the job.

She loses the profit from the sale.  She also may lose the customer as a client in the future because until the gay marriage that person used her services.  Other people may hear of her stand and decide to take their future business elsewhere to someone they view as less bigoted. 

She wasn't a bad sport about it.  She turned the job down and helped the client find someone to do what they wanted.  She wasn't unkind or impolite.  She was true to her principles.

Free trade can only occur when a willing seller finds a willing buyer.  What if one is unwilling, for any reason?  In that case a transaction can only occur under violence or the threat of violence.

Is that what the LGBT community wants?  Men with guns forcing little old ladies to bake cakes and arrange flowers.  Is the florist's hand trembling because she fears going to hell or is it because the SWAT team is pointing guns at her to enforce a court order?

Make no mistake about it, all laws are enforced at the point of a gun.

Is that the kind of "civil" rights Americans want?


  1. Make no mistake about it, all laws are enforced at the point of a gun.

    Is that the kind of "civil" rights Americans want?

    Sadly, yes, that is what most Americans want. They always think the gun will never be pointed at them.

  2. I used a conglomeration of different people and situations when I was thinking about this post. In each of those cases though the folks who turned down providing services for the "gay marriage" were decent about it and even went so far as to help them line up someone else who would do what they wanted.

    In other words they just didn't take the job. The vendors didn't interfere in the wedding or anything. They didn't do any actual harm to anyone other than saying "no I don't want the job".

    How mentally unstable of a person are you to get butt hurt over that?

    People turn down work for all sorts or reasons. If a Rabbi refused to preform a wedding for a Islamic couple would anyone be surprised? Why is it big deal if a church doesn't allow someone to use its facilities?

    When we got married there were lots of vendors that didn't work on our wedding. I would have loved to have had Chef Hermann Suhs cater our wedding. Couple of problems with that, the first being there was no way I could afford it. The second was there was no way my wife's parents would. Should he have been forced to work on my wedding at a rate that I could pay? Of course not.

    My feelings are hurt and my marriage wasn't ruined because of the catering. But what if they were? Should I be able to take the man's livelihood because of it?

    What judge in his right mind would award damages based on someone not taking a job and offering to help the people find someone who would provide them with the services they wanted?

  3. SSM is a mockery of God, and how He views marriage. Marriage is symbolic of how He views the relationship of Jesus and his bride(the church). Any thing that mocks religion or God in the eyes of these perverts is okay by them.

    Reread the article about the NM Christian photographer who was found guilty by the judge. He totally twisted the law to fit his pathetic ruling. Come to find out, he actually had a conflict of interest that should have precluded him from even hearing the case.

    Judges are so deeply in hock with their backers and in love with their power and liberalism that they love being able to make legislation from the bench.

    It really doesn't matter what the law says anymore. I notice that the media is deliberately ignoring that the original law that spawned the religious protection laws in about 20 different states came from Bill Clinton during his first term. That law was to allow for the use of peyote in the religious ceremonies of native Americans. I would call that a big Oops that the media won't admit to.

    You and I are old enough to remember when the cry of the gays was "stay out of our bedrooms", and we did. For decades. Problem was, the activists felt that wasn't moving the agenda fast enough, so they started back up with the in our faces behavior to get the attention.
    Sad thing is, there are a lot of the gay population who are actually horrified by the behavior of these activists. They don't want the destruction of the Christians, but those activists sure do.

    1. I knew about Clinton and the peyote being the basis of the religious freedom bill.

      The same legal principle that allows for vision quests is the same principle that should allow other people to define what practices are actable or unacceptable for them.

      Even the atheistic position that religion is a man made construct, should not prohibit people from defining their religious beliefs; and having defined those beliefs live according to them.

      If the Christians are expected to stay out of other peoples bathhouses and bedrooms, why aren't the gays staying out of our churches and business?