Comments on: Gay Burgers: McDonalds Attacked for Undermining the Republic With Ties to the Gay Business Community

By: Bob, Esq.

Bob, Esq. — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:48:28 +0000

Ironic; isn’t it?

It appears that Rick Pearcey defines ‘sanity’ & ‘heterosexuality’ as ACTUALLY being a burger shy of a Happy Meal.

Shamelessly yours,

Bob

By: Patty C

Patty C — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:38:10 +0000

It’s not funny if I have to explain it.

By: Susan

Susan — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:19:14 +0000

Very true, Mespo, folks like Pearcy are the best advertisement for what the “religious right” supposedly stands for, which as you pointed out is usually ignorance and unreasoning bigotry. And they aren’t even paying anything for the message!

By: mespo727272

mespo727272 — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:05:14 +0000

betta:

I also welcome Pearcy’s entrance onto the scene. Proclaiming one’s ignorance for all to see takes the mystery out of preposterous positions. I say it again “sunlight is the best disinfectant,” with citation to Justice Brandeis, of course.

By: binx101

binx101 — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:48:35 +0000

I fear Rev. Jerry is very busy haunting Heritage Village after the scam he pulled on former PTL founder Jim Bakker. He assisted the government in creating a total loss for investors in a real-estate deal that went off the rails. The situation was completely reversible but with his help – he was the only winner.

It appears to me that Rev. Jerry, although ostensibly deceased, has been advising the Bush Administration, and continues to do so.

By: mespo727272

mespo727272 — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:32:40 +0000

Like Pearcy, I too have noticed an eerie resemblance between Tinky-Winky and the Hamburglar. If only Reverend Jerry were around to clarify this moral dilemma.

By: binx101

binx101 — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:57:57 +0000

betta: Very very good point – however – I fear you’re preaching to the choir. The comments I’ve seen here were not critical to their right to protest – simply that their protest, while a Constitutional right, is aimed their rejection of others’ Constitutional rights.

Clearly, non-violent protest is acknowledged, but I rather think that we don’t have to cheer people for simply doing the right thing and obeying the law. It’s further compounded by the fact that they are calling for the abridgment of other citizen’s rights by the protest.

It would seem that the body of their argument, irrespective of their lawful assembly, is wide open for criticism.

By: betta

betta — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:16:23 +0000

I cheer the Pearcey’s right to nonviolent protest and right to free speech and so should everybody else.

Certainly the right to protest and right to free speech is not a one way street to the left only…

By: Susan

Susan — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:57:18 +0000

DW, I completely agree that it is all about money and power. I saw that a long time ago as well. From what I have seen of most “religious right” members, they want to take BOTH from everyone else. Well, they’ll have to get used to disappointment, at least from me. I’m keeping both my money and my personal power to make my own life decisions to MYSELF. Last time I checked, there’s still no law against being “selfish” in that respect.

By: Patty C

Patty C — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:48:36 +0000

“Justice is the tolerable accommodation of the conflicting interests of society, and I don’t believe there is any royal road to attain such accommodation concretely.”

~Judge Learned Hand, in P. Hamburger, The Great Judge, 1946

By: deeply worried

deeply worried — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:39:54 +0000

Susan, it sad to say is really all about money and power. Remember the french revolution and how the montanists and the jacobins and the dantonists were all at each other’s throats? Each had to out-rhetoric the other to establish their purity and claim to the mantle of the Revolution. With the American Christian right, I suspect a similar dynamic plays out among those who seek power and financial gain. They must have their enemies. Always. It is not enough to go about one’s day quietly, worshiping their Lord.
No they must be “leaders”, and leaders (and would-be leaders)in that culture have a quasi-prophetic role to attack the enemies of Righteousness. Joe McCarthy was trapped in a similar dynamic in his day.

In this case, they are kind of grasping.

By: Susan

Susan — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:25:56 +0000

JT, after years of reading nonsense from the group called the “religious right,” I’ve noticed they often confuse the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They tend to zero in on the “Creator” part of the D.O.I. and use that to try and convince everyone that “America is a Christian nation.”

Of course they go ballistic when either an unbeliever or non-Christian calls them on their obvious error. I’ve also seen this absurd argument: “there is no separation of church and state mentioned in the Constitution.” The folks using that line of “thinking” have either never heard of Thomas Jefferson’s famous letter to the Danbury Baptists written in either 1802 or 1803 (I always get the year wrong, don’t ask me why), or they read it a long time ago and dismissed it because it didn’t match their “Christian nation” spin.

This latest attack by the religious right brigade is just another replay of ridiculous anti-gay incidents in the past. The rather silly “Sponge Bob” story comes immediately to mind.

By: deeply worried

deeply worried — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:09:28 +0000

Ah yes, the Discovery Institute…..but I doubt they want to get involved in this piece of work. They are much too clever to associate themselves with this kind of thing…it vitiates their claim to be “scientists”.

By: betta

betta — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:56:44 +0000

Stopped eating at McDonalds years ago. Have you noticed how it appears probably 7 out of 10 McDonalds patrons are disturbingly overweight, especially the children.