Posted on 08/17/2008 4:45:36 PM PDT by Mobile Vulgus
Isn't it grand that in the United States of America you are free to hold a political position or affiliation, free to donate your money to any political party you desire, and not lose your job over it? The United States has always been the epitome of freedom of political speech.
... unless you are a gay guy that wants to support John McCain. In that case, all bets are off.
At least this is what a fellow named Jonathan Crutchley discovered when he decided that John McCain would be a better president in this age of Jihadi terror and donated $2,300 to McCain's campaign. Apparently, freedom of political choice is not allowed in gay circles.
You see, Mr. Crutchley happens to be the chairman of the board that runs a gay dating site named Manhunt. And the intolerant gays surrounding him have forced him to quit his job. To be sure, Crutchley didn't donate company money and didn't make any announcements that his gay website was sponsoring his efforts or McCain's. It was a personal donation quietly made with his own money.
Yet here is what the hate filled gays in his company have officially said of him.....
Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!
my heart bleeds.
Crutchley?
Manhunt....hahahahahaha
I guess there is no mistake what you are getting on that site. Nothing obscure like eHarmony.
Wow. Someone actually agrees with Dennis Miller. You can’t get married, gay or not, if you are dead.
Faggies rule!
The “gay” vote is pretty small, but, there are the Log Cabin Republicans, who are gays but are Republicans.
I’ve seen estimates that Bush got about 25% of the gay vote in 2004. Remember gay marriage was a prominent issue that year. That issue has faded into the background this year and less likely to influence presidential votes.
I’m sure many homosexuals lead quiet lives and just want to be left alone. It sure doesn’t help that the poster girl for lesbiansism is Rosie O’Donnell.
The homos at manhunt are no different then Nazis. They don’t think anyone other than gay liberals deserve rights. Imagine how hard they would be crying if we treated them the way they are treating the founder of the company.
Well, I think that is WAY harsh and WAY not fair.
Not harsh enough IMO.
The Pubbies are just not fabulous, Nancy!
Maybe, but the gay lobby is very well funded. Gays have a lot more disposable income than the average 'breeder.'
What the heck do you mean way harsh and way unfair?
This (gay) man in the above article supports McCain because of his stance on terrorism. Dennis Miller said that being tough on terrorism should trump all gay rights issues because you can’t get married if you dead. Meaning a terrorist kills you. Apparently this man agrees and terrorism is more important a factor than McCain’s stance on gay marraige. I didn’t mean he should die for crying out loud!
I think you're mistaken. This year is a critical election year on the marriage issue, considering that one of the most populous states in the country just established same-sex "marriage" by judicial fiat, with exportation allowed by California and now by Massachusetts. Additionally, two of our most populous states, California and Florida, will be voting to amend their constitutions making natural man/woman marriage the only legitimate kind. I'd say the stakes are much higher now than in 2004 or 2006, and voters know it. If California fails to pass its marriage amendment, the issue will pretty much be put to rest there, and exportation of homosexual "married" couples will spread nationwide, lawsuits will quickly ensue, and the DOMA will be severely tested. Combine that senario with an Obama presidency with the probable appointment of at least two absolute Marxist SC justices, and you have the ingredients of nationwide mandated homosexual marriage - and worse.
That's because Rove had him use the word "fabulous" a lot.
Now they’ve gone and out-ed George Lucas. Hateful.
That’s why the gay movement is often it’s own worse enemy. Since most gays are intolerant, self-absorbed, and arrogant, it’s difficult for them to win people to their side.
At my place of employment, the largest number of “hostile workplace” complaints come from women who happen to have gay men as their supervisors. They complain that they are rude, condescending, and sexist.
I was thinking it is just WAY harsh and WAY unfair not to let dead people marry each other. I mean, like, this is uhMURRica and dead people should be allowed to do as their conscience dictates.
I mean, like, for goodesth THAKE! THOMEbody hath got to look out for the Zombieth (how do you type a lisped 'z'?) I mean, like, y'know, to judge by Chicago and other municipalities, the dead already have the vote.
So you're going to let them vote, but you're not going to let them get married or to engage in, like, eew, well, whatever in the privacy of their own tombs, mausoleums (mausolea?), charnel houses or whatever as long as it doesn't involve children or minor animals or do harm to anybody else like, say, distract them from watching Oprah or Ellen Degenerate (or frighten the horses)?
What is this, like, a bias for the living or something? I mean, y'know, like, they can't HELP it if they're dead. (Well, I mean not counting, y'know, suicides. Those people are SUCH a downer anyway.)
I trust that as I amp up the burlesque the meaning of my original post becomes less obscure?
“I trust that as I amp up the burlesque the meaning of my original post becomes less obscure?”
The meaning of your original becomes WAY funnier!
CIVIL RIGHTS FOR DEAD PEOPLE!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.