Ultraviolet Thunderpussy's View: Commentary, Vintage Male Photos, Videos.

There is a troubling new trend in America where one group gets to decide what constitutes "equality" and then seeks to punish others for not sharing that same viewpoint.   Many times the "aggrieved" and "nose out of joint" group seeks refugee in the courts to force their viewpoint of equality onto others, and by doing so, rape the rights of others to their freedom.   Whether this new "tolerance" is bastardizing the word "marriage" only to suit their narrow purpose while ignoring other just and equal rights for others, the new facism in America is playing fast and loose with other people's freedom and acting by decree elevating one groups notion of "equality" over others - and in doing so, they take the notion of Constitutional rights and burn them.    What once was a right, where you exercising your action did not violate someone else's specified rights, is now an obstacle to enforce a minority viewpoint onto the majority.   And as women claim that their right to the control of their bodies trumps the right of a fetus to life, we have a new mockery of rights.   And in the case below, I will present the case that has my libertarian core burning like those in hell.   I'll present the situation and my commentary beside it. Have a differing viewpoint?    Comment on this article.    There is one rule - state your argument, don't insult me.   If you can't make your argument on the merits of logic, you certainly won't get your comment approved.   Insults are meaningless.    But if you can actually argue your case with logic, I'll be more than happy to post the comment even if it disagrees with my position.   Don't use ad hominems in the comment even if you are arguing your case.   One word of caution - Dumbasses may be fun to kick around, but don't prove you are one.   Who knows, I might not stand in your way of proving you are a dumbass and I might just publish you.    Do you have the balls to be such a dumbass or can you show that you have more than two brain cells? Judge orders Colorado baker to serve gay couples (NBC News) A baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony must serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs or face fines, a judge said Friday.  Arbitrary enforcers of their rights over others  using their sexual orientation as justification for preferential treatment. The order from administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer said Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver discriminated against a couple "because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage."  The order says the cake-maker must "cease and desist from discriminating" against gay couples. Although the judge did not impose fines in this case, the business will face penalties if it continues to turn away gay couples who want to buy cakes.  The American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint against shop owner Jack Phillips with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission last year on behalf of Charlie Craig, 33, and David Mullins, 29. The couple was married in Massachusetts and wanted a wedding cake to celebrate in Colorado.  Mullins and Craig wanted to buy a cake in July 2012, but when Phillips found out the cake was to celebrate a gay wedding, he turned the couple away, according to the complaint.  Nicolle Martin, an attorney for Masterpiece Cakeshop, said the judge's order puts Phillips in an impossible position of going against his Christian faith.  "He can't violate his conscience in order to collect a paycheck," she said. "If Jack can't make wedding cakes, he can't continue to support his family. And in order to make wedding cakes, Jack must violate his belief system. That is a reprehensible choice. It is antithetical to everything America stands for."  The Civil Rights Commission is expected to certify the judge's order next week. Phillips can appeal the judge's order, and Martin said they're considering their next steps.  Mullins said he and Craig are "ecstatic."  "To a certain extent, though, I don't think that this is necessarily a surprise," he said. "We thought it was pretty clear cut that he had discriminated against us."  Mullins said he hopes the "decision will help ensure that no one else will experience this kind of discrimination again in Colorado."  A similar case is pending in Washington state, where a florist is accused of refusing service for a same-sex wedding. In New Mexico, the state Supreme Court ruled in August that an Albuquerque business was wrong to decline to photograph a same-sex couple's commitment ceremony.  Colorado has a constitutional ban against gay marriage but allows civil unions. The civil union law, which passed earlier this year, does not provide religious protections for businesses.  "At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses," Judge Spencer said in his written order. "This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are."  ACLU attorney Amanda Goad said no one is asking Phillips to change his religious beliefs.  "But treating gay people differently because of who they are is discrimination, plain and simple," she said.  Be Careful of the Precedents You Set When in Power I understand the special nature of this notion that many gay people have that they feel persecuted at every turn of their lives.   This notion isn't particular to the homosexual community.  Other groups carry a perpetual chip on their shoulder - blacks, illegal aliens, and women are particular groups who think that just because they feel persecuted, they are persecuted.    As a Libertarian, I have no use for victims or those who fabricate a cause to make their particular ethnic or minority group worthy of special protections.    I believe in total equality where a man and a woman are equal - a gay and a straight are equal - and there are no color or ethnic differences to my eyes.    I do believe in the rule of law - and that those who violate the laws should be held accountable - and that a government can and should restrict immigration and that those who arbitrarily and selfishly put themselves above that law should be dispensed with in the most unflattering and immediate deportation from this country. When it comes to gay rights, I truly understand, being gay myself, this feeling that you suspect or have actually had happen overt contempt by someone else toward you just because you are gay.   I have lived that and oddly enough one of the minorities which screams the loudest about race-based discrimination is the community that showed me physical and emotional contempt for me being gay.   But I hold no grudge or disdain - just sadness that their own bigotry exists. But I've also been insulted and persecuted in school for being too intelligent - once I was sat on a snow bank in Maine during 6th grade and had a rotten banana pushed in my face as my classmates "held court" and tried and convicted me of being "too smart".    I get the feeling - I understand.   I've lived it.   There is overt persecution.   That wasn't a hate crime, but it was assault. Yet, I have matured and grown up understanding that there are ignorant pigs amongst us - and that no matter how much I wish I was loved - I won't be.   People will loathe me for being queer, being smart, being white, or being a man.   Oh focking well.   Yet I do not wear this feeling of "victimization" as a grounds to punish others.   Instead, I seek to rise above - to show that there is no amount of human stupidity that can stand in my way of accomplishing anything. When I read this article to the left, I was dumbfounded.   How is it that someone can force another person to bake them a cake if that baker does not want that person as a customer?    If the baker does have religious convictions, those are rights he has - and no State can force him to do things against his religion.   The leftists among us are always fabricating this notion of a separate between church and state even if those words never once appear in the Constitution.    But when a protected group, homosexuals, are put in conflict with another group, Christians, the Christians rights seem to be less important and protected than homosexual rights.   I take exception to this "equality by decree" where a court can tell me, a web designer, that I must design a website for a "socialist" should I have that opportunity come my way.   How is that I cannot refuse to participate in my trade in a fashion I desire?    The last time I checked, the baker and myself, the web designer, aren't mentioned once in the Constitution, and that there is not one mention that I am REQUIRED to service every potential customer that comes in contact with me.   Simply put, no one has a right to my services, paid or otherwise, and has no right to be a customer of mine. In my case in and in the one I've provided to the left, it would seem silly to enforce either of us to be compelled to participate in commerce where neither of us are the least bit interested.   If I am compelled to create something for someone I would rather not participate, I will not give my best and I should not be forced to participate.   I would no more take on a Neo-nazi website than I would one for a Democrat political candidate.   I simply am not interested and will not bust my butt to create such a website.   That baker should not be compelled to bake a cake for a gay couple and there are plenty of places that will.   But you have no right of absolute right - that is just because you are gay does not give you rights that allow you to interfere in my exercise of rights - and whether my right I am invoking is religion or my freedom of association, your homosexuality is not a trump card you get to wield like a sword of righteousness. So the next time you think being gay means something special - to you it does - but others are free not to share your viewpoint and that does not make them wrong.   It just makes them American and exercising their freedoms.