Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson
Of course they did. All Obama/Biden appointees.
Gorsuch spent some of his majority opinion heavily criticizing Sotomayor’s dissent.
“It is difficult to read the dissent and conclude we are looking at the same case,” Gorsuch wrote.
The question at hand is, “Can a State force someone who provides her own expressive services to abandon her conscience and speak its preferred message instead?” Gorsuch said. “When the dissent finally gets around to that question— more than halfway into its opinion—it reimagines the facts of this case from top to bottom,” he wrote.
“In some places, the dissent gets so turned around about the facts that it opens fire on its own position,” Gorsuch said.
I have never really read SCOTUS opinions before last year... I highly suggest reading them. They are NOT dry. They are highly intellectual catfights and I love it.
Not anything the three dissenters say -- that is all "BUT MY FEEEEELINGS"
I was scared about how awful this one would be but Matt Walsh was right again- he was excited for it and while we've had the now standard BS of child drag shows and the cops hunting down people for leaving tire marks on the rainbow road it's been largely a success for normal people.
Muslim Canadians stomping on pride flags when liberals tell them they shouldn't be allowed to stay in the country has been chef's kiss.
What a great way to end Pride Month. Gay activists do not have the right to force you to work for them. You are not a slave. You have freedom of association. It never should have been necessary to clarify this, but thank God sanity prevailed
The Pride Month has been an absolute disaster for the LGBT cult. They’ve taken one L after another. And now it ends with them losing in the Supreme Court. Awesome stuff.
Compelling people to work for you against their will is slavery, yes. That’s literally the definition. I know you think you should have the privilege to force people to do anything you want them to do, but the Supreme Court disagrees.
Compelling people to work for you against their will is not even close to the definition of slavery. It's informally part of the definition, but that's like saying the definition of an apple is "red food". It's an oversimplification.
The closest thing this case would have been to is coercion - the threat of force in order to get the other party to enter into a contract. It's still very much illegal, but let's not act like Redditors and destroy the English language just to prove a point.
I understand your point but that is very much nitpicking, as slavery is merely coercion as it's not like they can literally force a person to work a field against their will as they may attempt to flee even at their own risk or simply kill themselves to ultimately refuse to act. Slavery itself is based on coercion under threat of forceful violence at last until there is some sort of nonsense brainchip to physically puppet the body anyway.
The difference between slavery and coerced labor, even putting aside the fact that slaves don't get paid and coerced labor does, is that slaves are owned. They're property, at least in part. It's a very important distinction, and without it, the status of "slave" does not exist.
That means nothing, they are cognisant humans, they cannot be owned unless they submit to coercive actions. Yes it is an extreme example but they cannot be property and told what to do without a very significant "or else" If someone walked up to you and told you they owned you and you must now do what they say would you simply just do as told? I highly doubt that, they would have to add a threat of force or just use force to convince you to comply and even then you have extreme options of refusal.
I forget the specifics but the case you're referring to was procedural. Basically they ruled that kangaroo court the fags ran to disregarded religious liberty (which is why it was set up to begin with of course) but they never ruled on the constitutional question of what religious liberty requires. Now they have, so hopefully the lower courts will put a stop to bad faith attempts to evade the ruling.
Yep the first one almost any court (composition wise) could have made because they HATE it when somebody encroaches on their authority. The SC is gonna decide what's free speech and not damnit.
I see. That's very weird. Seems like clarifying that religious liberty exists in the ruling would have been a no brainer in the cake case. But I guess they can only rule on whatever's specifically put in front of them, or however it works.
they can only rule on whatever's specifically put in front of them
Correct. Although you can also be an activist judge and make shit up like Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor. You won't be respected for it as Gorsuch showed in this case (copied from YesMovement above):
The question at hand is, “Can a State force someone who provides her own expressive services to abandon her conscience and speak its preferred message instead?” Gorsuch said. “When the dissent finally gets around to that question— more than halfway into its opinion—it reimagines the facts of this case from top to bottom,” he wrote.
Yes. Unless you specifically state it in an appeal, the Court cannot address it. That's why, until Bruen, the Court allowed AWBs to stand... because no gun case had ever cited the decision from United States vs. Miller as precedent.
There’s more of an element of speech jurisprudence in this case as opposed to the religious freedom angle the cake case took. But the outcome is the same for both because this is still America, god damnit.
Aside from a couple of justices I still don't quite trust the Supreme Court to be fair, honest, and independent. As such I'm concerned that rulings like this may just be attempts to lull us back to sleep so the slow decline can continue.
But this is a very good victory. Freedom of - what would you even call this? I think it's bigger than freedom of religion. But the right to refuse objectionable customers and especially objectionable work is extremely important to a society that even pretends to be free and fair. The idea that you can be forced to create a work that goes against your beliefs, religious of otherwise, is utterly repugnant and you can bet the unbelievably vile shitstains (My mistake, I assumed this was a result of someone trying to sue her for refusing them service. It's better this way, I probably would have run afoul of rule two.)
Even if they are just throwing us a bone in the hope we'll quiet down, if we're getting noisy enough to be heard that's a good thing. I think we can all feel a shift in the tide. People are waking up to the disgusting state of affairs we find ourselves in, and they are pissed. That's what gives me hope. It always comes down to the people, not the elites.
But the right to refuse objectionable customers and especially objectionable work is extremely important to a society that even pretends to be free and fair.
We lost this right in the "Civil Rights" movement when you ceased to be able to choose who was your customer and had to let everyone in. Everything since has just been attempts to skirt around and loophole it, but when it comes down you are either given a large generalization that does little or simply forced to let it happen.
Except for teenagers, because at the moment "age based discrimination" technically only applies upward. You can absolutely discriminate against the youth with all you want, which is why places can openly post signs banning them. Despite being no less destructive or problematic than your average adult black, who you are forced to allow in.
With the rise of cancelling people's bank accounts because they have the wrong opinions, I can see the need for some kind of guarantee of service, but at the same time, individuals should be able to refuse service or association for any reason.
Maybe a way to ensure that would be to make it so only larger companies, or better yet corporations, have to provide service to everyone (and that includes people guilty of wrongthink). Treating corporations like individuals is the opposite of what should happen.
Or let people serve who they want, but there has to be a guaranteed, government-backed option that people refused elsewhere can use. And there certainly needs to be a clear path for people to create their own infrastructure without being shut down by monopolies and legal bullshit.
None of which will happen, of course, when they can just destroy freedom of association by forcing you to serve and validate their sacred cows.
Officially speaking, freedom of religion is freedom of conscience. In order to include the concept of atheism, and to avoid having the state impose regulations on religion by trying to define it, freedom of religion is effectively any philosophical moral judgement you make.
The original case is fucking bananas as it was. Basically, it was rumored that this cake maker shop wouldn't make cakes for gay weddings. So Queer activists went to the shop and demanded a gay wedding cake. They were told they could have any of the pre-made items on display. They refused and demanded a custom designed wedding cake, and they insisted that it had to be for a gay wedding. The artist refused. They sued and dragged him before the State's "Human Rights Council". They violated his due process rights in how they ignored the facts of the case, fined him an insane amount of money, and that is what was dragged into the federal courts. SCOTUS didn't explicitly say that he had to make custom art for gay weddings against his religious convictions; just that the State Civil Rights body didn't abide by the constitution in how insane it behaved.
In response, the Queer Activists doubled down. They went to the shop a half-dozen times for any reason they could think of, and chose the specific case they wanted to make. Rinse and repeat the whole thing but with transgenderism.
Its stories like this that should serve as a reminder that we will never be able to live in a "harmonious" society with them. Even humoring them is granting them a step towards victory.
Because this is the type of activists and activities even the "good, based gays" condone through silent inaction, and gleefully feast upon the spoils of if they win regardless.
Hard disagree. In fact, you are doing exactly the most import act to support Queers: accept their claim that they represent anything about gays.
While it is true you can never live with a single Queer Activist; they are Sex Communists fundamentally. This means they use whatever group is necessary as a human shield against the core group of activists. Plenty of gays are told to remain silent if they ever want a social life or community support, lest they be attacked even worse than anyone else (since they were dependent upon the conquered social community). Anyone else who disagrees, has to completely separate themselves out. They can do this silently to avoid being targeted, normally. The ones who step out of line get special treatment for abuse. There used to be entire organizations dedicated to "outing" conservative gays. Not just ones that were engaged with infidelity, but ones that were just either Christian, or Republican, or Conservative; including posting revenge porn and honey-potting them
It's like saying you can't live with the working-class because of how Trade Unionists behave, and the silent support that working class gives them. If you defied the union, thanks to the mob, you'd end up dead. If you were a nobody, you'd be a "skag" and be beaten within an inch of your life by 50 people. Their point is to divide an conquer, by having you cede ground to them as legitimate representatives; when they are clearly a conquering force.
There are no Chinese Communists, just Communists occupying China.
accept their claim that they represent anything about gays.
When you are a fractionally small portion of a population with a massive portion of that fraction being X, you do in fact represent that group. Especially as the minority leftover seems more than happy to allow you to represent them, either through complete silence or simple ignorance.
If you allow them to bully you into being their thralls, you have my sympathy to some extent but you are still complicit in their crimes against both children and society. Because once you've partaken in the recent ill gotten gains of your cohorts, you aren't clean of sin. By merely waving a Pride flag (which I'll wager over 90% do in some form), you are submitting to let them at minimum represent you if not outright supporting them doing so.
Plenty of gays are told to remain silent if they ever want a social life or community support, lest they be attacked even worse than anyone else
I'm shocked you can write this and think it does anything but make them look worse. Because its fundamentally admitting that they can have no personality beyond being gay to preclude them from having any social ability beyond one built on gayness. Which not only makes them sound pathetic, it means they cannot be disengaged from these activists ever as they are too symbiotically linked.
You are still committing all the same assumptions that grants Leftists territory and authority. You are granting that the poor are fully represented by Communists, despite the fact that the poor tend to oppose Communism when directly asked. But instead of highlighting that division, and pointing out, you demand to cede that ground to the Communists and wage a war against the poor.
Chile just had this exact issue with natives in their constitutional referendum. The Constitution was explicitly designed to favor the native populations as much as possible, and the native population that was targeted explicitly turned out against it, harder than the general population. Whatever mild benefits may swing in the favor of that tribe, they were not looking for Communism. But, you demand that they accept Communists as their one true representation, regardless of their opposition to Communism, because the Communists told you they did.
What's more, you've gone even further: If you are beaten into submission you are guilty of your attacker's other crimes against other people. That makes even less sense.
By merely waving a Pride flag (which I'll wager over 90% do in some form), you are submitting to let them at minimum represent you if not outright supporting them doing so.
Most people would have no problem waiving a pride parade because they have zero knowledge of the history of Queer Theory, nor the history of Pride. That does not mean that your normie boss should have his head smashed in for being a podophile. Instead of recognizing the fact that activist institutional propaganda has played in deceiving people, you not only drag them kicking and screaming into the arms of their enemy, but then demand equal punishment.
Waging a war on the innocent and naïve serves only to validate Leftist claims of defense against right-wing terror. "You see! Those crazy rightsists just hate love and tolerance. No Leftist in human history has ever done anything wrong, and John Money is a well established scientist. Don't listen to their crazy conspiracy theories! They are just hateful. Queer Theory doesn't exist. Look how much he wants to hurt you! I'm the only one who can protect you."
its fundamentally admitting that they can have no personality beyond being gay to preclude them from having any social ability beyond one built on gayness.
It's cult behavior 101 that you aren't getting. The point behind getting gays into the queer community is to destroy their external relationships and define them entirely along with the cult. That way, you can use social blackmail to destroy people psychologically when they oppose you.
The Left does this with everything, 100% of the time. People who are going to lose their entire support system (because the Left ensured that external support systems were destroyed), are going to remain quiet because they don't want to lose their grip on reality.
The correct response is to try and show them how to live outside the cult, and the response can't be "Fuck you kill yourself, you're a fucking pedo because I said so, and you deserve to die. I don't care if you did nothing wrong, you should be executed along with everyone else." That is going to drive them back to the cult because they do not believe there are other options. That strengthens the cult's position; as they intended, and as you provided.
You should join the NeoNazis with your ability to distill every single thing in existence down to one group who is responsible for all of it. Your brain power is apparently on par with our boi Imp.
That is going to drive them back to the cult because they do not believe there are other options
See here is the part you aren't getting. I consider being weak minded enough to be duped this considerably to be a sin in itself, making me not care to bring you out of the cult. Only to be culled with it. The world will be made better by the loss of someone as stupid and weak minded as you.
Because if you can fall for it once, you can again. And again. And again. Making it a never ending battle of saving your from your own ignorance and gullibility. Its as retarded as believing this time your junkie parent will keep clean and cease to steal from you.
Let the cult be strengthened if that be the case, my desired course will not change in the slightest. Because I don't owe you the right to forgiveness for helping evil along, regardless of if you did it out of fear and ignorance.
But I suppose being super duper concerned about optics and philosophy is a great excuse to never do anything. You can rest safe at home feeling like you are accomplishing a task, fighting the fight and making the world better because your inaction doesn't have as bad consequences as a direct action.
You should join the NeoNazis with your ability to distill every single thing in existence down to one group who is responsible for all of it.
Leftists have a common theme and are a very common enemy. if we were currently institutionally occupied by Islamists, I'd say so, but this is not the case.
Let the cult be strengthened if that be the case, my desired course will not change in the slightest.
"Lord, strengthen my enemies so that I may not know the burden of forgiveness." This is not helping anyone ever, and should anyone take this approach to you, you will not like it.
But I suppose being super duper concerned about optics and philosophy is a great excuse to never do anything. You can rest safe at home feeling like you are accomplishing a task, fighting the fight and making the world better because your inaction doesn't have as bad consequences as a direct action.
Killing the ignorant for the crime of association is not appropriate, and they have a right to defend themselves against your aggression.
Leftists have a common theme and are a very common enemy.
Despite sharing massive overlap, these words are not interchangeable (Leftist and Communist). But good on you for pulling back to a massive generalized term the moment you were called out on it. The show of someone who is clearly an intellectual and quite capable of high level speech and charisma.
You know, things you'd need to pull someone out of a cult. But I guess that's meant for better men than you, you simply want to say the "solution."
Best Pride Month so far, perhaps. The truly best one ever will be the one June where SCOTUS overturns Obergefell v. Hodges, and also rules any law to mandate gay marriage on the federal level unconstitutional.
Of course they did. All Obama/Biden appointees.
And all bonus-hole havers.
Is...is that a thing now?
No (yet) but a cervical cancer fund in the UK thinks vaginas should be called that in the name of gender-inclusive language.
"Hey this is your doctor, we found a bonus lump in your bonus hole"
Congratulations madam, you have testicular cancer.......
Can’t spell Cuck without UK.
These are the more eloquent ways of saying "Bitch be tripping!"
I have never really read SCOTUS opinions before last year... I highly suggest reading them. They are NOT dry. They are highly intellectual catfights and I love it.
Not anything the three dissenters say -- that is all "BUT MY FEEEEELINGS"
to be fair all of Trump's appointees have been complete cucks, just not for the past 30 days.
Damn this pride month has been going better than expected.
And significantly so.
I was scared about how awful this one would be but Matt Walsh was right again- he was excited for it and while we've had the now standard BS of child drag shows and the cops hunting down people for leaving tire marks on the rainbow road it's been largely a success for normal people.
Muslim Canadians stomping on pride flags when liberals tell them they shouldn't be allowed to stay in the country has been chef's kiss.
aside from this, what else was there? The Bud Light and Target boycotts started before June, didn’t they?
MLB turned down their pride shit immensely -- telling teams to stop wearing themed jerseys.
The LA Dodgers fiasco woke a lot of people up. Not many people want to come to the defense of blasphemers.
NHL also stopped pride jerseys.
https://nitter.net/MattWalshBlog/status/1674785411984674816#m
https://nitter.net/MattWalshBlog/status/1674785704159879170#m
https://nitter.net/MattWalshBlog/status/1674798382223859714#m
Compelling people to work for you against their will is not even close to the definition of slavery. It's informally part of the definition, but that's like saying the definition of an apple is "red food". It's an oversimplification.
The closest thing this case would have been to is coercion - the threat of force in order to get the other party to enter into a contract. It's still very much illegal, but let's not act like Redditors and destroy the English language just to prove a point.
I understand your point but that is very much nitpicking, as slavery is merely coercion as it's not like they can literally force a person to work a field against their will as they may attempt to flee even at their own risk or simply kill themselves to ultimately refuse to act. Slavery itself is based on coercion under threat of forceful violence at last until there is some sort of nonsense brainchip to physically puppet the body anyway.
The difference between slavery and coerced labor, even putting aside the fact that slaves don't get paid and coerced labor does, is that slaves are owned. They're property, at least in part. It's a very important distinction, and without it, the status of "slave" does not exist.
That means nothing, they are cognisant humans, they cannot be owned unless they submit to coercive actions. Yes it is an extreme example but they cannot be property and told what to do without a very significant "or else" If someone walked up to you and told you they owned you and you must now do what they say would you simply just do as told? I highly doubt that, they would have to add a threat of force or just use force to convince you to comply and even then you have extreme options of refusal.
You sound Fag.
I thought it was already determined that you don't have to Bake The Cake? It was even the same state that tried to pull this shit last time.
I forget the specifics but the case you're referring to was procedural. Basically they ruled that kangaroo court the fags ran to disregarded religious liberty (which is why it was set up to begin with of course) but they never ruled on the constitutional question of what religious liberty requires. Now they have, so hopefully the lower courts will put a stop to bad faith attempts to evade the ruling.
"Human Rights Council"
Every HRC in the US should be abolished. They are political arbitrators. They have nothing to do with the law or jurisprudence.
Yep the first one almost any court (composition wise) could have made because they HATE it when somebody encroaches on their authority. The SC is gonna decide what's free speech and not damnit.
I see. That's very weird. Seems like clarifying that religious liberty exists in the ruling would have been a no brainer in the cake case. But I guess they can only rule on whatever's specifically put in front of them, or however it works.
Correct. Although you can also be an activist judge and make shit up like Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor. You won't be respected for it as Gorsuch showed in this case (copied from YesMovement above):
Yes. Unless you specifically state it in an appeal, the Court cannot address it. That's why, until Bruen, the Court allowed AWBs to stand... because no gun case had ever cited the decision from United States vs. Miller as precedent.
There’s more of an element of speech jurisprudence in this case as opposed to the religious freedom angle the cake case took. But the outcome is the same for both because this is still America, god damnit.
It's the same shop, last time I checked.
Aside from a couple of justices I still don't quite trust the Supreme Court to be fair, honest, and independent. As such I'm concerned that rulings like this may just be attempts to lull us back to sleep so the slow decline can continue.
But this is a very good victory. Freedom of - what would you even call this? I think it's bigger than freedom of religion. But the right to refuse objectionable customers and especially objectionable work is extremely important to a society that even pretends to be free and fair. The idea that you can be forced to create a work that goes against your beliefs, religious of otherwise, is utterly repugnant
and you can bet the unbelievably vile shitstains(My mistake, I assumed this was a result of someone trying to sue her for refusing them service. It's better this way, I probably would have run afoul of rule two.)Even if they are just throwing us a bone in the hope we'll quiet down, if we're getting noisy enough to be heard that's a good thing. I think we can all feel a shift in the tide. People are waking up to the disgusting state of affairs we find ourselves in, and they are pissed. That's what gives me hope. It always comes down to the people, not the elites.
Equal parts freedom of expression and freedom of association.
Freedom from faggots, both kinds.
We lost this right in the "Civil Rights" movement when you ceased to be able to choose who was your customer and had to let everyone in. Everything since has just been attempts to skirt around and loophole it, but when it comes down you are either given a large generalization that does little or simply forced to let it happen.
Except for teenagers, because at the moment "age based discrimination" technically only applies upward. You can absolutely discriminate against the youth with all you want, which is why places can openly post signs banning them. Despite being no less destructive or problematic than your average adult black, who you are forced to allow in.
With the rise of cancelling people's bank accounts because they have the wrong opinions, I can see the need for some kind of guarantee of service, but at the same time, individuals should be able to refuse service or association for any reason.
Maybe a way to ensure that would be to make it so only larger companies, or better yet corporations, have to provide service to everyone (and that includes people guilty of wrongthink). Treating corporations like individuals is the opposite of what should happen.
Or let people serve who they want, but there has to be a guaranteed, government-backed option that people refused elsewhere can use. And there certainly needs to be a clear path for people to create their own infrastructure without being shut down by monopolies and legal bullshit.
None of which will happen, of course, when they can just destroy freedom of association by forcing you to serve and validate their sacred cows.
Freedom of conscience.
Officially speaking, freedom of religion is freedom of conscience. In order to include the concept of atheism, and to avoid having the state impose regulations on religion by trying to define it, freedom of religion is effectively any philosophical moral judgement you make.
The constitution and the civil rights act are on a collision course.
Always were.
The Civil Rights Act destroyed freedom of association.
The original case is fucking bananas as it was. Basically, it was rumored that this cake maker shop wouldn't make cakes for gay weddings. So Queer activists went to the shop and demanded a gay wedding cake. They were told they could have any of the pre-made items on display. They refused and demanded a custom designed wedding cake, and they insisted that it had to be for a gay wedding. The artist refused. They sued and dragged him before the State's "Human Rights Council". They violated his due process rights in how they ignored the facts of the case, fined him an insane amount of money, and that is what was dragged into the federal courts. SCOTUS didn't explicitly say that he had to make custom art for gay weddings against his religious convictions; just that the State Civil Rights body didn't abide by the constitution in how insane it behaved.
In response, the Queer Activists doubled down. They went to the shop a half-dozen times for any reason they could think of, and chose the specific case they wanted to make. Rinse and repeat the whole thing but with transgenderism.
Its stories like this that should serve as a reminder that we will never be able to live in a "harmonious" society with them. Even humoring them is granting them a step towards victory.
Because this is the type of activists and activities even the "good, based gays" condone through silent inaction, and gleefully feast upon the spoils of if they win regardless.
Hard disagree. In fact, you are doing exactly the most import act to support Queers: accept their claim that they represent anything about gays.
While it is true you can never live with a single Queer Activist; they are Sex Communists fundamentally. This means they use whatever group is necessary as a human shield against the core group of activists. Plenty of gays are told to remain silent if they ever want a social life or community support, lest they be attacked even worse than anyone else (since they were dependent upon the conquered social community). Anyone else who disagrees, has to completely separate themselves out. They can do this silently to avoid being targeted, normally. The ones who step out of line get special treatment for abuse. There used to be entire organizations dedicated to "outing" conservative gays. Not just ones that were engaged with infidelity, but ones that were just either Christian, or Republican, or Conservative; including posting revenge porn and honey-potting them
It's like saying you can't live with the working-class because of how Trade Unionists behave, and the silent support that working class gives them. If you defied the union, thanks to the mob, you'd end up dead. If you were a nobody, you'd be a "skag" and be beaten within an inch of your life by 50 people. Their point is to divide an conquer, by having you cede ground to them as legitimate representatives; when they are clearly a conquering force.
There are no Chinese Communists, just Communists occupying China.
When you are a fractionally small portion of a population with a massive portion of that fraction being X, you do in fact represent that group. Especially as the minority leftover seems more than happy to allow you to represent them, either through complete silence or simple ignorance.
If you allow them to bully you into being their thralls, you have my sympathy to some extent but you are still complicit in their crimes against both children and society. Because once you've partaken in the recent ill gotten gains of your cohorts, you aren't clean of sin. By merely waving a Pride flag (which I'll wager over 90% do in some form), you are submitting to let them at minimum represent you if not outright supporting them doing so.
I'm shocked you can write this and think it does anything but make them look worse. Because its fundamentally admitting that they can have no personality beyond being gay to preclude them from having any social ability beyond one built on gayness. Which not only makes them sound pathetic, it means they cannot be disengaged from these activists ever as they are too symbiotically linked.
You are still committing all the same assumptions that grants Leftists territory and authority. You are granting that the poor are fully represented by Communists, despite the fact that the poor tend to oppose Communism when directly asked. But instead of highlighting that division, and pointing out, you demand to cede that ground to the Communists and wage a war against the poor.
Chile just had this exact issue with natives in their constitutional referendum. The Constitution was explicitly designed to favor the native populations as much as possible, and the native population that was targeted explicitly turned out against it, harder than the general population. Whatever mild benefits may swing in the favor of that tribe, they were not looking for Communism. But, you demand that they accept Communists as their one true representation, regardless of their opposition to Communism, because the Communists told you they did.
What's more, you've gone even further: If you are beaten into submission you are guilty of your attacker's other crimes against other people. That makes even less sense.
Most people would have no problem waiving a pride parade because they have zero knowledge of the history of Queer Theory, nor the history of Pride. That does not mean that your normie boss should have his head smashed in for being a podophile. Instead of recognizing the fact that activist institutional propaganda has played in deceiving people, you not only drag them kicking and screaming into the arms of their enemy, but then demand equal punishment.
Waging a war on the innocent and naïve serves only to validate Leftist claims of defense against right-wing terror. "You see! Those crazy rightsists just hate love and tolerance. No Leftist in human history has ever done anything wrong, and John Money is a well established scientist. Don't listen to their crazy conspiracy theories! They are just hateful. Queer Theory doesn't exist. Look how much he wants to hurt you! I'm the only one who can protect you."
It's cult behavior 101 that you aren't getting. The point behind getting gays into the queer community is to destroy their external relationships and define them entirely along with the cult. That way, you can use social blackmail to destroy people psychologically when they oppose you.
The Left does this with everything, 100% of the time. People who are going to lose their entire support system (because the Left ensured that external support systems were destroyed), are going to remain quiet because they don't want to lose their grip on reality.
The correct response is to try and show them how to live outside the cult, and the response can't be "Fuck you kill yourself, you're a fucking pedo because I said so, and you deserve to die. I don't care if you did nothing wrong, you should be executed along with everyone else." That is going to drive them back to the cult because they do not believe there are other options. That strengthens the cult's position; as they intended, and as you provided.
Stop facilitating your enemy.
You should join the NeoNazis with your ability to distill every single thing in existence down to one group who is responsible for all of it. Your brain power is apparently on par with our boi Imp.
See here is the part you aren't getting. I consider being weak minded enough to be duped this considerably to be a sin in itself, making me not care to bring you out of the cult. Only to be culled with it. The world will be made better by the loss of someone as stupid and weak minded as you.
Because if you can fall for it once, you can again. And again. And again. Making it a never ending battle of saving your from your own ignorance and gullibility. Its as retarded as believing this time your junkie parent will keep clean and cease to steal from you.
Let the cult be strengthened if that be the case, my desired course will not change in the slightest. Because I don't owe you the right to forgiveness for helping evil along, regardless of if you did it out of fear and ignorance.
But I suppose being super duper concerned about optics and philosophy is a great excuse to never do anything. You can rest safe at home feeling like you are accomplishing a task, fighting the fight and making the world better because your inaction doesn't have as bad consequences as a direct action.
Leftists have a common theme and are a very common enemy. if we were currently institutionally occupied by Islamists, I'd say so, but this is not the case.
"Lord, strengthen my enemies so that I may not know the burden of forgiveness." This is not helping anyone ever, and should anyone take this approach to you, you will not like it.
Killing the ignorant for the crime of association is not appropriate, and they have a right to defend themselves against your aggression.
Despite sharing massive overlap, these words are not interchangeable (Leftist and Communist). But good on you for pulling back to a massive generalized term the moment you were called out on it. The show of someone who is clearly an intellectual and quite capable of high level speech and charisma.
You know, things you'd need to pull someone out of a cult. But I guess that's meant for better men than you, you simply want to say the "solution."
Best Pride Month so far, perhaps. The truly best one ever will be the one June where SCOTUS overturns Obergefell v. Hodges, and also rules any law to mandate gay marriage on the federal level unconstitutional.