How The Freaks Think

How The Freaks Think And Wish To Act
How The Freaks Think And Wish To Act

It’s a sad thing, but this is how the queer freaks and their nigh on mindless enablers really think and how they want to react and act in response the the SCOTUS’ opinion upon Creative LLC v. Elenis.

They truly believe that the SCOTUS has decreed that businesses can refuse to serve people et al simply because they some form of minority, in this case LGBT+ sorts. And, of course, they’re hysterical over it and indulging in masturbatory fantasies about refuse to service various, more normative Americans.

But… like with almost every erosion of special privilege that any minority group faces, both their complaints and fantasies are just wrong and based upon their own ignorance and demands for special treatment.

The SCOTUS’ opinion upon Creative LLC v. Elenis in no way, shape, or form – not even by implication or “penumbra” – say that any business may refuse customers who possess some specially protected trait, e.g., being non-White, non-Christian, or Queer. Indeed, the Court’s opinion is predicated upon the owner of 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith’s uncontested assertion that she is “willing to work with all people regardless of classifications such as race, creed, sexual orientation, and gender,” and she “will gladly create custom graphics and websites” for clients of any sexual orientation.”

No. The Court’s ruling is that the State cannot compel expression – read as Speech – that goes against one’s religious views. Hence, they cannot compel Creative LLC to make a wedding website for a queer couple, but they could penalize them for simple refusing to provide their services to Queers just for being queer. Similarly, a Muslim-owned company could not be compelled by the state to provide creative/expressive services for a bar mitzvah or bat mitzvah. One could, thanks to this ruling even refuse to provide such services for #BlackLivesMatter and/or #MAGA events, if one decide that either or both groups espoused behavior that goes against one’s firmly held beliefs.

But, what’s both sad and casus belli is that these freaks don’t make a distinction between what they want to do and what they are. If people will not support any and every one their actions, they see it as a direct attack upon their very identity and existence. And, they want to create a world where everyone is compelled to do so.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Unconstitutional Equity

1950s Race Riot

Starting in the mid-1950s, America has been dealing with nigh on constant cries – often violent cries – for equality and the destruction of what racial activists have decried as White Supremacy. That was, as problematical and poorly thought out as it was, a necessary pain. There was at that time deliberate and government-enforced inequality between Whites and non-Whites. As such, cries for equality were not inherently a bad thing.

In all truth, back then, it was a good and necessary thing that they won and that the Civil Rights Movement, for all its chaos and flaws, won the day. Though, even then, it was not enough for the Blacks or their enablers and even the venerated MLK later decided that “reparations” should be handed out to his people, thereby setting the stage for later woes.

And therein was the rot that twisted and distorted Civil Rights into the sick caricature and anti-American thing it is today. Equality was decided soon after it was achieved to be not nearly enough.

Equity vs. Equality

Equality what used to be purported as a good thing and a goal – meant each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equitythe Left’s and their minorities’ newspeak for wanting more – states that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome irrespective of those circumstances or their input into the process.

Blacks Demand Reparations And Equity Because Equality Fails Them Since They're Not Really Whites' Equals

Yes; that’s the sad and maddening truth of what Civil Rights have been corrupted into devolving down to. Equality is deprecated among minorities, especially the Blacks, and their “woke” enablers in these times. Now the word is “Equity” and it is a strident demand for special privileges and advantages, preferably and most often mandatorily at the expense of White people, especially White Men, and most especially Straight White Men.

And this isn’t just hateful and wrongheaded rhetoric. Both government agencies and private sector corporations are putting tangible measure into place to give minorities special advantages and privileges, including but not limited to: prioritized hiring and promotions, special career-based educational programs, and special protections against Whites.

At The Risk Of “Shadowing” Things

At the marginal risk of “shadowing” the issue and its problems, and repeating the judgemental errors of the Warren Court’s opinion on Roe v. Wade, it’s my opinion that the actions taken to further Equity instead of Equality are not just wrong, racist, sexist, heterophobic, and pernicious, they’re unconstitutional and a violation of White people’s – specially Straight White MenFourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. There is little to no functional difference between providing special benefits to people based upon their race, creed, color, gender, or sexual proclivities and denying them such based upon those same criteria. Either way, it falls solidly under the Penumbra of the 14th Amendment and, hence, should be considered a violation of the Civil Rights Act.

Of course, the Left, their minorities, and their politicians disagree with this. Or rather, even if they agree with the premise, they don’t care. Their point in switching from equality to equity was explicitly to take current wealth and future opportunity from Whites and redistribute to others. And, the taking is at least as important to them as their redistributing is.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Ceded Authority

Now That You’ve Ceded Authority Once…

Now that you’ve ceded authority to the government for the supposed sake of your safety and everyone else’s once, what now? What about the next time the would-be dictators, benevolent or not, want to strip your constitutional rights away under the penumbra of it being for your health and safety and that of everyone else?

You’ve Set A Precedent

You’ve set a precedent, a precedent that the government at any level can freely violate most parts of the 1st Amendment if they rationalize it as being for the sake of public. Precedents are hard to overturn once established, especially if they’ve been accepted by any court.

And, when a precedent favors the government by expanding their control, it will be used again, each time with a little broader scope or in a context a little further away from whatever crisis was the basis for setting that precedent.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Facebook Bans Conspiracy

Facebook Bans Conspiracy
Facebook Bans Conspiracy

To most Americans it’s obvious that Facebook’s bans are the conspiracy. They’ve doubled-down on probably illegally silencing certain sorts of speech and certain sorts of speech only, while letting at least as “dangerous” things go by without censure or censorship. Indeed, they developed the habit of actively defending their preferred narrative by banning dissenting or complaining comments and those that made them.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Fighting Fascistbook

Fascistbook
Fighting Fascistbook Is Very Possible

Most people believe that there is no real way to fight against Facebook’s fascistic censoring of speech and opinion in its platform because Facebook aka Fascistbook is a private, corporate entity. Fortunately and surprisingly, this is NOT legally true and there is case law to back that up.

The US Supreme Court’s ruling in Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946) that when a corporation is, in essence the public square and functions as such, it must abide by the same restrictions as the State insofar as Constitutional law is concerned. And that Facebook is, in fact, operating in that manner is the held opinion of the SCOTUS, as stated in Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. _ (2017).

Social media allows users to gain access to information and communicate with one another on any subject that might come to mind. With one broad stroke, North Carolina bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge. Foreclosing access to social media altogether thus prevents users from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights.

— Justice Anthony Kennedy

The Court’s ruling in Packingham v. North Carolina is of particular importance because it eliminates the potentially countering issues brought up in Cyber Promotions, Inc. v. American Online, Inc., 948 F. Supp. 436 (E.D. Pa. 1996), though Facebook’s de facto monopoly and ubiquitousness might well do that already.

So yes, I do believe that we, the People have to capacity to fight Fascistbook and the other dangerously biased and tyrannical social media corporations that have become entrenched in society to the point of it not being completely ridiculous to think of them as utilities.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |