Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:No one should have expected (Score 1) 1364 1364

Deacon .. Please cite an instance where a straight person has been beaten to death (or near death, or even hospitalized) by a gay person just because they are straight.

Gays face violence and death everyday in the US for simply existing.

Your FUD, and that of your hateful religious brethren is tired. No one is suggesting gays do the same thing (beat up, attack kill) to straight people.

They would just like to be afforded their rights as citizens.

Comment: Re:No one should have expected (Score 1) 1364 1364

You dolt..

1) Anti-Prop8 graffiti - could have been anyone. Judging the tactics by the religious zealots throughout that campaign, it's equally likely that it was planted. No one was charged.

2) El Coyote.. tragic? Hah. A restaurant with a large gay clientele until its owner donated money (essentially from that gay clientele) to No on 8.. the backlash is a straightforward boycott. Why would that large gay clientele want to continue giving money to someone who thinks they are second class citizens. That's not intimidation, that's the consequence of making a stupid stupid decision.

3) The mobbing in San Fran - let's see, what else did this known religious fanatic group expect when they start spouting their bullshit in the Castro? That's like a group of KKK going to a Martin Luther King day event and chanting how all them n*****s should go back to picking cotton.

Those religious fanatics went into a hostile crowd and incited them. And then cried "oppression" when they met resistance. Hardly "intimidation."

Wanna try again?

What the Haters in Washington are trying to accomplish is a subversion of well understood law so they can HATE anonymously. That's deeply unamerican, and cowardly.

Comment: Re:Coyne brings up an interesting point (Score 2, Interesting) 507 507

In our knee-jerk anti-Tory attitude we often forget that the Liberals were the ones who proposed -- and passed -- this legislation in the first place.

So what? It was also the Liberals who defined this legislation with a sunset clause - specifically because it was not envisioned to be needed forever.

The correct "anti-Tory" tack to take here is that the Conservatives are so gung-ho for law and order that they're insane enough to strip Canadians of civil rights over trumped up fears.

If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. -- Albert Einstein

Working...