I hate this woman, and everyone of her heritage, and I'm not afraid to say it.

...For having such a fucked-up-looking arm.

Unless that's the story, in which case all of you who can't love her for who she is on inside are just a bunch of bigoted jerks. I didn't follow the link.

Listen, it's not that I sympathize with people in media... I'm one of them, and I'm a piece of shit. But the press is just giving their customers what they want. And what they want is to be flattered. They need that very badly.

Here's the thing: The average guy on the street, especially on the [predominant] left, feels he has the right to be admired by other people as a heroic and courageous figure in contemporary decency...

...At no cost to himself whatsoever. Risklessly.

I've been reviewing our old comments on here and have been AMAZED at how often this comes up. Anyone remember Justin Case from San Francisco? In arguments about gay marriage a dozen other things, he though he should be allowed to make insults without being corrected, and certainly without having them sent his way in return. He didn't even do the reading... But he, like so many others, imagined himself to be Rosa Parks.

THAT'S what's going on in with the Hillary-voting majority in American life. They're using their policy positions, and consuming their media, as a way to feign social distance from other people.

Meanwhile, over at UCLA

Celia Cody-Carrese, an Intergroup Relations Center intern who helped put on the event, told The Daily Bruin that organizers chose white feminism as their topic because they think feminism has traditional ties with white supremacy, noting that the term “feminism” is most frequently applied to white women, while the concerns of black women are generally treated as a separate, racial issue.

Mitali Gupta, a UCLA Senior who attended the event, told Campus Reform that feminism’s link to white supremacy was indeed discussed during the meeting, adding that she agrees that such a connection exists.

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8450

Virtue signaling.

Why is that nearly the exclusive property of progressives?

Gabriel Malor:

At the end of all this, Arthur has harmed the Gaineses, harmed her own cause, harmed her colleagues, and harmed her own reputation. And we still don’t know the Gaines’ view on marriage or why it is important to know the religious beliefs of reality television hosts. Given the month-long outcry over “fake news” swaying a presidential election, one would hope Buzzfeed takes more care in the future not to publish more fake news of its own.

https://ricochet.com/393435/buzzfeed-targets-hgtv-hosts-attending-christian-church/

"Racist lingerie?" Can you design whites-only bras? Cultural appropriation in women's underwear? Methinks HGB needs to get a life.

Folks like HGB wear their charges of racism, their media choices, their votes, and their every utterance as badges of social and moral superiority. So, even if a charge of racism is unfounded, the utterer's mere awareness of the existence of the various isms marks her as an enlightened soul, a special person. As such, they can freely toss around bogus charges of sexism, racism, islamophobia and homophobia willy-nilly without any sense of guilt.

I've watched their show once. I was utterly amazed at their ability to get out-of-state hipsters to pay absurd amounts of money for ugly, basic 1970s homes, then sink another quarter million into said home. In a crappy neighborhood in a crappy town. I mean, the true historic homes I can understand. But going $450k in on an 1970's ranch on a basic lot in Hillsboro?? Insane. It did end up cute, though.

Who cares if they are anti-gay? Since when did peoples Completely Unexpressed thoughts become a crime worthy of ruining their life? Not that they've ever given any indication they are.

This too.

Well, there IS the old saying "you are judged by the company you keep."

That goes double for someone who has an image that other people ALREADY don't like. Or an image that just doesn't get much real respect in general because it's "shallow" in one way or another. Like the average celebrity.

So, people who were already planning to vote for Obama in 2008 would, of course, give him the benefit of the doubt. Those who were not, still knew there wasn't much point in making a fuss over his connection to Reverend Wright once Obama cut off ties with him. (Had he not, of course that would have stayed as a regular feature in Fox News, at least. Like his citizenship.)

And while we don't have proof that Chip and Joanna are anti-gay, how would it look if the pastor were openly opposed to race-mixing and used the Bible to back up his views, as so many used to do? Why would C and J overlook that to be in his church?

Side note: If I had to apply to a fundamentalist college, at the very least, I would refuse to go to any one that was founded by a blatant racist in the 20th century. You know, like Bob Jones "University." Just because they dropped the restrictions on interracial dating in 2000 doesn't make it an unpolluted atmosphere for young adults to be in, compared to at least maybe a few other fundamentalist colleges. (I have no idea which ones.)

HGTV is rife with openly gay couples buying and fixing up houses. Of course most of their shows are set in Canada or in various locations around the country, locations probably more gay-friendly than Waco, Texas.

The Gaines' show is set (and filmed) in Waco, Texas. I don't now what the gay scene in Waco, Texas is like. It's a college town, so there are probably more openly gay couples than you would think, but there may not be many who want to go on a national television show and announce themselves. Memories of James Byrd and Matthew Shepherd still linger in that part of the country, fair or not.

Although halfway between two of them, Waco is not listed as one of Texas' gay-friendly cities.

Waco, it appears, is not all bad.

Those would be the official views of the church that Nance Pelosi says she belongs to.

Double standards must be way better than no standards at all.

We were there, we changed, and young teen/adult outrage over that era has become just another whine in the background.

Tolerance goes both ways and SJW's have used their's up over silly cakes, grown men in women's bathrooms (anyone dressed as woman was considered okay), and ignoring the fact that most people have gay friends and family members.

Our Southern towns have had gay town council members and gay mayors. Can Northern towns say the same in the same numbers? Gays are loved whether we agree w/their lifestyle or not. (You know the phrase.)

If you think Hillary lost counties that voted for Obama TWICE because they were ignorant and self-loathing then this stuff is right up your alley.

For the rest of us it is getting tuned out as white noise.

Virtually everyone has unsavory attitudes about something. Some cheat on their taxes, some cheat on their wives. Some ignore their kids or never visit their elderly parents. Some think Castro was a swell guy. Even worse, some people do not give their seat to the elderly on the bus. Some even smack their lips while they eat.

What are we to do with all these horrible people? and who is pure enough to judge them? How can someone prove he is not guilty of thought-crime anyway? He can't

Racist panties? Not possible. Must be a stealth move for no panties.

Does "anti-gay" equal:

1. "I think you should not have condom-free sex with risky partners." or

2. "I do not understand how you can have sex with _________." or

3. "We think your behavior is "wrong" but love you anyway and have your back if anything goes wrong."

4. "I'm a Christian." or

5. Anything different from the urban hipsters.

I thought we could have differences and still be friends.

Does "anti-gay" equal
__________________________________________

If so, Dan Savage would be called anti-gay on almost all of the above. Surprise, surprise. Granted, he can be terribly immature in his behavior when it comes to his enemies, but he's not afraid to say and do unexpected things when it comes to what he teaches his readers.

(Example: OK, no, he doesn't go to church - but as he said, you shouldn't have to believe in God to follow a few family traditions if you want; he had his son baptized - in part to delight Dan's mother, even though he was never going to raise his son Catholic - and his mother knew that.)

And, on #3, depends what you mean by "have your back." Savage is of course flat-out opposed to unprotected sex and is all for shunning those who violate that rule with multiple partners, but while he certainly supports AIDS drug research, he thinks people who have AIDS and infect others with it should be paying for their victim's medical bills. (I don't know how he feels about health insurance with regard to AIDS in general.)

The Washington Post weighs in, urging engagement, not wild accusations of homophobia.

Excerpts:

"A 2016 survey from Pew Research Center shows public support of same-sex marriage is at an all-time high of 55 percent — and it is steadily growing. But the same polls tell us that nearly 4 out of 10 Americans — no small number! — are not on board with it. The minds at BuzzFeed are not naive: They know that the Gaineses and HGTV are going to have to come out with a public statement on same-sex marriage. They also know that if the statement is not 100 percent supportive of same-sex marriage, the network will be pressured to drop them."

"Think about that for a moment. Is the suggestion here that 40 percent of Americans are unemployable because of their religious convictions on marriage? That the companies that employ them deserve to be boycotted until they yield to the other side of the debate — a side, we should note, that is only slightly larger than the one being shouted down?"

It's time to stop being bullied and I hope HGTV knows this.

I have a right to my personal opinion just as anyone else should. My employment should not be dependent upon that being the same as my employer as long as I can fulfill the terms of employment (serving beer for example).

Those that worship at the alter of "same-sex" marriage and are not allowing other opinions are creating a backlash that will catch everyone by surprise.

It's happened once and can happen again.

If C and J serve their gay clients as well as they do their straight clients, of course, they should keep their jobs. (I've never seen the show, forgive any ignorance on my part.)

Doesn't mean they shouldn't get hassled for whom they associate with.

And if they get hassled for HAVING gay clients, well, they could always say "well, you can't please everyone, but we're certainly trying to by playing both sides."

Just in time for our discussion group:

Virginia school bans Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird for failing to adhere to doubleplusgood newspeak

Reading the quote from the complaining parent it's hard to understand how the school didn't give her a hot cup of STFU and a long walk home.

lenona, "Doesn't mean they shouldn't get hassled for whom they associate with."

The "right of association" from Wikipedia:

"It is both an individual right and a collective right, guaranteed by all modern and democratic legal systems, including the United States Bill of Rights, article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and international law, including articles 20 and 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Conventions 87 and 98 of the International Labour Organization."

But I guess some "animals" are more "special".

"Virginia school bans Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird for failing to adhere to doubleplusgood newspeak"

Which of course is hilarious to anyone who has ever actually read those books. Once again, the politically correct style triumphs over substance.

Must I spell everything out?

I meant "should" in the moral sense. Of course they have the LEGAL right to associate with anyone they want. (As I hinted in my last post.)

"I meant 'should' in the moral sense. Of course they have the LEGAL right to associate with anyone they want. "

The problem is, to the Left, law and morality are one and the same. There is no notion there of "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it." In their world, if they find something distasteful, then by definition it is, or should be, illegal. In today's practice, the First Amendment's freedom-of-association provision is nearly a dead letter. In nearly all forums except for a private residence, the government can dictate who you must associate with and who you cannot associate with. (See: cake bakers, unisex bathrooms, Operation Choke Point, etc.)

Which of course is hilarious to anyone who has ever actually read those books. Once again, the politically correct style triumphs over substance. ~ Cousin Dave at December 2, 2016 6:34 AM

It's difficult to show someone triumphing over racism (his own or the town's) if you can't show the racism and how perniciously evil it is.

lenona, "I meant "should" in the moral sense."

moral, concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character

That's funny. A difference in opinion about the "religious" definition of "marriage" (not the "legal" definition as in whatever the State wants it to mean) is immoral.

That sounds sanctimonious (making a show of being morally superior to other people) to me.

(No offense to you personally lenona. It's just words and word play.)

Bob:

It's not just about gay marriage.

Leaving aside anyone's religious definition of marriage (and, if you like, anyone's argument that just BEING gay is a sin against God) here's what the Buzzfeed article-within-the-article says:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/kateaurthur/chip-and-joanna-gaines-church-same-sex-marriage?utm_term=.bledQe3My3#.gsrrRW9b19

(more than 1400 comments follow)

"...Their church, Antioch Community Church, is a nondenominational, evangelical, mission-based megachurch. And their pastor, Jimmy Seibert, who described the Gaineses as 'dear friends' in a recent video, takes a hard line against same-sex marriage and promotes converting LGBT people into being straight...

"Fixer Upper has fans of all stripes: Christians, feminists, and LGBT viewers have all found something to love in the Gaineses. So in the absence of a response from them or their representatives, it’s worth looking at the severe, unmoving position Seibert and Antioch take on same-sex marriage...

"Seibert then goes on to discuss sin. 'Truth No. 1: Homosexuality is a sin. The lie: Homosexuality is not a sin.' He urges compassion for the sinners, though, because “the statistics say that 90% of people who are in a full-blown homosexual lifestyle were abused in some way. Physically, sexually, mentally...

"But LGBT people have a choice, Seibert says, and can change. 'Truth No. 2: God is able to give us power over every sin, including homosexuality. Lie No. 2: I am a homosexual in thought and action, and I cannot change...'

"He expands on that notion: 'We can change, contrary to what you hear. I’ve worked with people for over 30 years — I have seen hundreds of people personally change their direction of same-sex attraction from a homosexual lifestyle to a heterosexual lifestyle. It doesn’t mean they don’t struggle with feelings, it doesn’t mean that they aren’t hurting, it doesn’t mean it’s not challenging. But they have chosen to change. And there has always been grace there for those who choose that.'

"(In 2009, a task force of American Psychological Association concluded that 'efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful and involve some risk of harm.' The Human Rights Campaign has also decried conversion therapy, linking it in minors to 'depression, anxiety, drug use, homelessness, and suicide.')..."

(end of excerpts)

Given what the APA said, I would say that Seibert's constant push for conversion therapy counts as homophobia. Hence, what I said in my 3:37 post.

Not to mention that I'm pretty sure that when Seibert said “the statistics say that 90% of people who are in a full-blown homosexual lifestyle were abused in some way" is deliberately very misleading - IF it's true in the first place, which I doubt. If it is, correlation is not causation. If it's false, well, spreading blatant lies about any social group is hateful. As I was saying...

Btw, from the article, I take it the Gaineses have not featured a same-sex couple on their show. Here's what it said:

"...So are the Gaineses against same-sex marriage? And would they ever feature a same-sex couple on the show, as have HGTV’s House Hunters and Property Brothers? Emails to Brock Murphy, the public relations director at their company, Magnolia, were not returned. HGTV’s PR department did not respond to initial emails and calls. Two days after this story was published, they released the following statement: 'We don’t discriminate against members of the LGBT community in any of our shows. HGTV is proud to have a crystal clear, consistent record of including people from all walks of life in its series.' "

So they haven't even included an unmarried gay couple, it seems. FWIW.

And, just as importantly...

https://books.google.com/books?id=q_QMdueEEpAC&pg=PA19&dq=%22dan+savage%22+conversion+therapy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjl4_PU29vQAhVB6SYKHQGLAvUQuwUINTAE#v=onepage&q=%22dan%20savage%22%20conversion%20therapy&f=false

(from Dan Savage's "The Kid" - it's from 1998)

The important pages are from the end of page 17 to the middle of 19. They're about the ads promoting conversion therapy. Excerpt:

"...The target was straight people, and the message was not that Jesus loves the little homos, all the little homos of the world. No, the advertisers wanted straight people to believe that the only thing preventing them from living in a world free of homosexuality were those stubborn gays and lesbians ('Why can't they just give themselves to Jesus Christ?'). By arguing that we didn't have to exist, these ads implicitly argued that we had no right to exist."

Sounds on target to me.