Posted by Ben @ May 1st, 2010 8:14 am. Filed under: Don't Worry About What THEY Want,I Find That Offensive!,It's Not Gay If Your Balls Don't Touch,Rejected Petitions,That's SO UNFAIR! I HATE YOU!,Unintentional Irony,Unreasonable Demands,We Don't Take Kindly To Your Type Rahnd These Pahts,What A Dick — Tags: david skinner —
by David skinner (rejected)Though in no way wishing to take away the liberty of homosexuals to access homosexual friendly guest houses, of which there are many, we believe that to force Mr and Mrs Wilkinson to conform to the tastes and lifestyle of homosexuals is discriminatory and is a blatant contradiction of the Equality Bill. Our British inheritance to be able to live and speak, according to our conscience, privately and in the public sphere, without harassment or the fear of civil or criminal penalty, is a freedom that once distinguished us from all other nations. This liberty did not come cheaply but cost the lives of our forebears and ancestors. Sadly today it is treated with such contempt by a government that continues to bind us in an ever growing cancerous growth of legislation.As people from all walks of life, political parties, religious faiths and none , but still broadly speaking, citizens of a Christian country, we the undersigned have joined together to stand foursquare with Mr and Mrs Wilkinson in defence of their beliefs and civil liberties.
There’s a sort-of wonderful, ignorant irony in David bringing up the Equality Bill when Mr and Mrs Wilkinson are sort-of contravening the Equality Bill themselves by forbidding homosexuals from using their establishment.
He obviously feels very strongly about this, considering he submitted this and two other near-identical petitions about this very subject. He seems to think that the ideals of people who believe in a magical space wizard are more important than the ideals of people who happen to be in love, irrespective of what their genders may be. In fact, looking at a previous petition of his we featured some time ago, he seems to think that religious ideals (specifically his ideals, which happen to be Christian) trump all other ideals, beliefs and lifestyles. For that reason, he is a cunt.
That’s not a word I use often. It’s not a word I even like using. I have a particular disdain for that word, but then I also have a disdain for people who think that their imaginary friend is more important than… well, than anything else. That makes him a cunt. He is a cunt. David Skinner, who is a cunt, is a cunt.
I honestly can’t understand how someone can think that their God, whom they believe in despite the lack of any evidence, is more important than the love between two people of the same gender, which they refuse to believe in despite the overwhelming evidence presented.
RSS feed for comments on this post. | TrackBack URL
Homeowners indeed have that right, in the sense that there’s no law forbidding it, but if you choose to run a business from that address then all relevant workplace laws apply. For example, you aren’t allowed to smoke in any room customers, delivery men or other staff may have cause to use. This is exactly how it should be, to protect people from discrimination/cancer at home-run businesses.
While I agree that his motives are bullshit I am unsure about how much I want to impose on the freedom of people to run their workplace however they want. In other words, if they want to be total dicks and ban homosexuals or blacks or whoever from their establishment they should have the freedom to do so.
But by giving them the right to be dicks, you’re impeaching on the rights of those homosexuals and blacks who are unable to use the establishments that say that such people are banned.
So you impose on the rights of either ‘People who want to be dicks to others’ or ‘People who want to be accepted for who they are’.
Sounds like the British government picked the correct option here.
Well, since the folks who want to be dicks and say ‘no’ would probably be replaced by a better establishment if they were allowed to say no, since folks with a sense of decency would try and avoid them, I dunno. So long as the law doesn’t end up basically discriminating against anyone who ISN’T a minority I’m happy.
Wait, so being Monotheistic means believing in an imaginary friend/space wizard? And being in favour of letting people discriminate against homosexuals is not believing in homosexuality? Cripes, Ben, you’re normally very level-headed, but your bias is astoundingly massive here!
Pretty sure being monotheistic means believing in an imaginary space wizard friend. I… I think that’s pretty much what that means. I mean, that’s literally the meaning of the word.
I suppose these are comments you have to expect from a society that wouldn’t no morals if they screamed at them. Who are as blind as bats (apologies to the bats!!) and are as ignorant as planks (apologies again to the planks!!)
Hang on Simon: The church wants to be able to discriminate people based solely on who they happen to be in love with, and you think it’s comments like ours that are indicative of amoral behaviour?
What a prick.
It is the use of gutter language that I am referring to. However I do believe that Homosexuality is morally wrong. That is my choice as you have made the choice to consider otherwise – it’s called democracy!!
I’d rather my language were in the gutter, sir, than my attitude towards my fellow human beings who deserve the right to live their lives without being discriminated against simply because they happen to be in love with someone of the same gender. You are a despicable creature; a callous, hate-filled gargoyle, and your malcontent for others is palpable. It hangs in the air, miasmic in nature, poisonous to all who inhale it. That shit be noxious, Simon. Your Jurassic attitude towards homosexuals is one that, hopefully, is on the way out.
Also: Having an opinion on a thing isn’t “democracy!!”, it’s having an opinion. And, as I’d like to remind you, just because it is an opinion does not make it exempt from being wrong.
Just because I believe that homosexuality is wrong does not mean that I hate homosexuals. I think that many have unfortunately misunderstood the word “discrimination”. Judging from your words are you not discriminating against me. It’s like the old scenario in the 1950′s where the Anti-communists had such a fear they came up with the phrase “reds under the bed!!” What I do hate is the need to resort to filthy and offensive language – this actually does you more harm than good because it almost incites hatred.
No, what incites hatred is people like you saying people like me aren’t allow to be people like me.
Basically Simon, you appear to be in support of this petition. This petition is asking for the church to continue to selectively hire people based on their sexual orientation. Y’know what that is? That’s discrimination.
Allow me to drop some science on those assembled with an excerpt from Dictionary.com’s entry on the word:
treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
You seem to believe that homosexuality is a “lifestyle choice”, that one wakes up on some clear December morn and thinks to themselves, “Ooh, y’know what? I think I’ll start dating people with the same genitalia as me.” That’s very much not the case. Love, as they say, is blind – we cannot control who we fall in love with, and yet you and people like you would dictate that such love be ignored, even forbidden. You are in favour of people going against their very nature and that makes you a Bad Person in my book, Simon.
And I can’t stand that “homosexuality is wrong but I don’t hate gays” bullshit, because whether you like it or not you’re still negatively tarring gay and bisexual people with this brush of negativity, that somehow what we’re doing is wrong. Why is it wrong, Simon? Who are we hurting? Nobody, that’s who. The only damage we’re doing is to your Picket Fence ideals of what a relationship is.
The sad fact is that you are too small-minded to consider that people don’t fit into neat little boxes that can be easily labeled. Everyone is different. No two people are the same.
Where did this concept of “Love is blind” come from? I believe that it is a misconception. I concede that what some people call “love” is not love at all, it can be lust or infatuation. I’ve fallen into it many times admittedly. That was until I met the woman who is now my wife. Believe me “MY EYES WERE TRULY OPEN, AND HAVE BEEN EVER SINCE!!”.
I agree that perhaps there has been provocation in both camps, but this is inevitable, we can only agree to differ. You will never change my opinion and I will never change yours so we are at a total empasse. Only time will tell at the end of the day who is right
We do not “need to resort to filthy and offensive language”. We choose to employ filthy language because it’s the language that you backward fuckers deserve.
The seminal work on this topic is, of course, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHRDfut2Vx0
I agree that perhaps there has been provocation in both camps, but this is inevitable, we can only agree to differ.
“Provokation”? Simon, homosexuals and bisexuals (and variations thereupon) aren’t hurting anyone. All they want to do is live and love in peace. And all people like you want to do is prevent them from doing so by ensuring that they do not have equal rights like, for instance, the right to get married, or sleep in a B&B without being harassed or thrown out because of their nature. That right there? Provocation on the part of you and yours. Simply put, you started it.
You will never change my opinion and I will never change yours so we are at a total empasse.
That may well be true, but your opinion is based on falsehoods. You think gays and bisexuals are acting purely out of lust, which says to me that you’re incredibly narrow-minded. You can’t even factor in the possibility of a man falling in love with another man, or two women deciding that they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. That’s you being small-minded. You’ve got this idea in your head of One Man and One Woman and, like a million close-minded bigots before you, you think anything that deviates from this “norm” is somehow damaging. How is it damaging, Simon? Explain that to me.
And fuck, even if it were just lust, what’s wrong with that? What’s wrong with people of any gender wanting to enjoy each other’s bodies? How does the sexual activity of any two (or three, or four, etc.) people going on behind closed doors affect your life? Simple answer: It doesn’t.
Only time will tell at the end of the day who is right
Fuck off.
Why are some people’s rights and consciences sacrosanctwhile others are trampled upon? Resorting to filthy and offensive language is the last resort of the incoherent.
Complaining about “filthy and offensive language” is the last death rattle of someone with no other substance to their argument.
Euan reckons:
Whilst the guy is, as you put it very correctly, a cunt, there’s a sliver of makey-sensey-ness in his post. In the particular example he’s using, it was a private property. I’m pretty sure folk have the right to refuse anyone entry to their home, given, y’know, it’s their HOME. Whether it’s because they’re a racist, or a homophobe, or whatever (or even if it’s justified) is kinda beside the point. Also, declaration of human rights article 18. Article 2 applies to both sides.
Doesn’t stop him being a dick though.
May 4, 2010 at 11:09 am