Joe My God news article and comments

   




























































Joe.My.God. 


   

 
 


Home
Categories




















Blogroll
Archive
About
Contact
Store
New RSS Feed
Facebook
Twitter
 


nomscal2

Hate Group Leader Brian Brown Praises Antonin Scalia’s Attempts To Keep Homosexuality Criminalized
February 17, 2016 Hate Groups, Religion


NOM president Brian Brown has penned a lengthy tribute to late Justice Antonin Scalia’s attempts to keep homosexuality criminalized in the United States. An excerpt:

When the majority of his colleagues, led by Justice Anthony Kennedy, ruled in Romer v Evans that the voters of Colorado could not prohibit the granting of special rights to homosexuals, Scalia took them to task for the abject lack of constitutional basis for the ruling.

He reminded the Court that just ten years earlier in Bowers v. Hardwick they had ruled that there was no fundamental constitutional right for someone to engage in homosexual acts and that the constitution had not changed during the intervening decade. Despite this, the liberal Kennedy wing decreed that it is unconstitutional for voters to prevent special rights to be granted to gays and lesbians because doing so supposedly amounted to animus and discrimination, and that expressing moral disapproval of homosexual conduct was akin to racial and religious bigotry.

To this, Justice Scalia chastised the majority for its utter lack of judicial basis: “The Court today… employs a constitutional theory heretofore unknown to frustrate Colorado’s reasonable effort to preserve traditional American moral values…But the Court today has done so, not only by inventing a novel and extravagant constitutional doctrine to take the victory away from traditional forces, but even by verbally disparaging as bigotry adherence to traditional attitudes.”

The constitutional battle over marriage and traditional American values came more clearly into focus in the case of Lawrence v Kansas, which revisited whether states could penalize people for engaging in homosexual conduct such as sodomy (which was at issue in the Bowers case years before). Once again, Justice Anthony Kennedy led the majority to strike down state laws penalizing sodomy, and once again Justice Scalia dissented — not because he personally favored penalties for homosexual conduct but because the US Constitution simply does not contain a fundamental right to homosexuality.

In his dissent in Lawrence, Justice Scalia presciently warned that the ruling would inevitably lead to gay marriage and the striking down of laws against polygamy, bigamy, adult incest and bestiality because the Court was effectively banning states from considering the morality of sexual practices as an intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.
  


Share




in
Share
.



 
Tags Antonin Scalia Brian Brown Christianists crackpots hate groups Lawrence V. Texas NOM religion SCOTUS


Previous
 BRITAIN: BBC To Launch Reboot Of Smash 70s Sitcom Are You Being Served? This Fall«
Next
 Glenn Beck: God Killed Antonin Scalia In Order To Make Sure Ted Cruz Becomes President [VIDEO]»





 
by Taboola
Sponsored Links

You May Like






Brilliantly Simple Tactic To Pay Off Your Credit Cards
LendingTree








You’ll Never Go Back to a “Normal” Belt After You See This
SlideBelts








Worst Exercise For Middle Age -- Ages You Faster
MAX Workouts Fitness Guide








American's Are Buying This Flashlight By The T…
G700 Tactical Flashlight








13 Things You Didn't Know About Gilligan's Island
Answers








The #1 Reason the Average Golfer Can't Play Consistent Gol…
Revolution Golf

































Like us on Facebook





Advertisement




    

 
  




Read more...
INNdulge Palm Springs Legendary Gay Resort
Clothing is Forever Optional
Naked Men in the Desert
Read more...

Buy a Blogad!



Advertisement





 

Advertisement







Advertisement











Advertisement







Advertisement








  
.







Explore Joe’s Mighty Tags

2012 elections 2016 elections activism advertising AFA assholery Barack Obama bigotry California Catholic Church celibacy Christianists crackpots crazy people DADT education Florida gay artists GOP hate groups internet lawsuits LGBT History LGBT rights LGBT youth liars marriage equality Mitt Romney movies New York state NOM NYC pop music Proposition 8 religion Russia scandal SCOTUS Senate silliness sports teabaggers Tea Party television Tony Perkins
 



© joemygod.com 2016



 
   







 120 comments  

JoeMyGod  

 Login  













 1




 Recommend 








⤤ Share




Sort by Best
















Avatar
Join the discussion…











Media preview placeholder



















































 







Avatar
Anastasia Beaverhousen  • 11 days ago 




Brian, honey, Your cause is as dead as Antonin.
 
59 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
b > Anastasia Beaverhousen  • 11 days ago 




So is barging into a private bedroom and arresting men for what they practice in their non-public home.
These people are supposed to be so conservative, such deep lovers of the Constitution and freedoms of the individual! BULLSHIT.
 
17 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
KnownDonorDad  • 11 days ago 




the US Constitution simply does not contain a fundamental right to homosexuality.
The Constitution doesn't talk about sexuality at all, unlike the religious right, which is obsessed with it.
 
50 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
HanyBaal > KnownDonorDad  • 11 days ago 




9th amendment says it doesn't have to be spelled out. that's why Scalia hated it BriBri ignores it.
 
20 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
b > HanyBaal  • 11 days ago 




Scalia wanted Vatican rule, no Constitution rule. Romeo v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas proved that explicitly.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
KnownDonorDad > HanyBaal  • 11 days ago 




Good point, people forget the 9th and usually go with just the 14th.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Falconlights > KnownDonorDad  • 11 days ago 




They never do see the corollary to that, which is that the Constitution does not contain a fundamental right to heterosexuality, either. Just like they don't have the foresight to see that their stupid RFRAs could be used against them.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Carl > KnownDonorDad  • 11 days ago 




The US constitution doesn't give me permission to eat this sandwich either.....
He really was a hack. Good riddance.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Stev84  • 11 days ago 




Remember back when NOM claimed that it only cared about marriage?
 
38 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
b > Stev84  • 11 days ago 




NOM is fake institution. They claim they want to protect heterosexual marriages against the mythical danger of homosexual marriages, but that's their lie. Brian Brown just veers off his topic at the first mention of gay people. he is a weirdo. He can't support a Supreme Court majority opinion that says police officers can't march into your bedroom, yank you out of bed and rip off your condoms and haul to to jail because the State they represent doesn't like the manner of sex you are having!?? NUTZ.
NOM is just bigotry. And here is a note to you, you sorry-ass intern at NOM. You are trying to harm GOOD FAMILIES. Walk out the door.
 
14 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Harshan > b  • 11 days ago 




NOM has very few donors. If the largest one changes his mind, NOM no longer exists.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Eric in Oakland > Harshan  • 11 days ago 




It's mostly a front for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Knights of Columbus (i.e. the Vatican).
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
b > Harshan  • 11 days ago 




They will all volunteer! They don't need any money! Because they are saving heterosexual families from invisible demons created by gay marriages! They will fight the invisible demons, free of charge and without pay! Because they are superior christians! No pay! No money! No funding! Because they are not just crude propaganda bigots, they devote all their efforts to GOD, so money is no problem!
They don't need any money. They will freely volunteer, and keep the organization heavily growing. Brown will even enlist all his friends and family, just to preserve the non-bigot NOM org.
And even if they can't pay the intern, he and she will never walk out the door. They will work endlessly, without pay, because God is more of a concern in their brains.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 



−
⚑ 


Avatar
Harshan > b  • 11 days ago 




No matter how many volunteers they have, there are still things that cost money. Interns generally do not get paid, but they also generally work part time. They need at least one person who is full time. They need an office, an internet hookup, computers, and a server. They need a correspondence management system. They need to pay for web development. They need a phone system. They need the equipment or a service to print their outgoing mailings, and a bulk mail service to send it out. They have to purchase office supplies. They are positioning themselves as representing the grand majority of respectable Americans, so their mailings have to be high quality. On top of that, they have travel costs, not just airfare, bus fare, or mileage, but also hotels and meals and rented meeting spaces. They also have to hire a bookkeeper and at least the part-time services of a lawyer.
There's a lot of cost to setting up an advocacy group, and it isn't just magical volunteers who don't need food, sleep, or a place to live. Without their big donor, they are dead.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
GC > b  • 11 days ago 




Former NOM affiliate The Ruth Institute actually proposed giving up on "marriage" as a straights-only institution, and having God's Gentle People turn to new, improved, discriminatory, gender-based civil unions, complete with provisions to make divorce, er, dissolving those unions much more difficult.
'Cause it's all about the institution and "God Said So", never mind actual human beings' life, happiness, and fulfillment.
http://www.goodasyou.org/good_...
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
BlueberriesForMe > b  • 11 days ago 




"NOM is just bigotry". And hate. And evil.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Zoey > Stev84  • 11 days ago 




Yeah, just like when he traveled to Russian to help enshrine their new anti gay laws. Odd since Russians have no SSM.
 
Thumbnail
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Chris Baker > Stev84  • 11 days ago 




"We -heart- gays. We only want to protect the sacred institution of marriage." At least Maggie was smart enough to jump of that sinking ship.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Reality.Bites > Chris Baker  • 11 days ago 




And jump on to the ex-gay ship. Not winning any awards for brilliance is our Mags.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Blake Jordan > Stev84  • 11 days ago 




Nope, they have been against us on all levels since inception.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Richard B > Stev84  • 11 days ago 




Yes I do, but Brian milked the marriage cow for all he could and now the grifter has branched out to keep the money flowing.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Prion  • 11 days ago 




,..
 
Thumbnail
 
32 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
popebuck1 > Prion  • 11 days ago 




Reminds me of E.L. Doctorow's "Welcome to Hard Times."
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
gaymurican  • 11 days ago 




The Justice's son was primed for the closet of the priesthood in youth, and is now affiliated with an "ex-gay" ministry that claims homosexuality simply does "not exist." The father processed his prejudice first upon the son - and then upon the nation. How many homophobic "public servants" with gay children does there have to be, before folks figure this out!
 
24 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
b > gaymurican  • 11 days ago 




Their fathers and mothers are lunatics, and make their children even crazier. Ted Cruz even has a more ugly beak that his Castro vendetta father.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
popebuck1  • 11 days ago 




He also gets the name of Lawrence v. Texas wrong, calling it Lawrence v. Kansas.
 
23 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Maki Stefan > popebuck1  • 11 days ago 




He admits there's no diffrence between those two. Or any other south states...
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
dwieboldt > popebuck1  • 10 days ago 




He's a really ignorant douchebag... His smarmy whiney evocations should qualify him for guantanamo... Where we hope that he not changed is mind (assuming that he actually has one), but that his ass and mouth were up for sale for votes... It does seem like he would do absolutely anything for the nomination...
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
b > popebuck1  • 11 days ago 




He never read it. It says State can't put a big eyeglass looking for cum on your bedsheets, and lock you up for what they see.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
AJD  • 11 days ago 




Will this finally convince the SPLC to acknowledge what LGBT people have known for a decade, that NOM is nothing but a hate group?
 
19 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
M Jackson > AJD  • 11 days ago 




Out of the whole pack of jackals -- the FRC, the AFA, the ADF, the WTF -- NOM's sole and only reason to exist is to enact animus against gay people.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Reality.Bites > AJD  • 11 days ago 




NOM hasn't existed for a decade.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
M Jackson > Reality.Bites  • 11 days ago 




"Brian wipes his lips, releases a belch, and grins sheepishly."
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Steve Teeter  • 11 days ago 




I think it was Lawrence v Texas not Lawrence v Kansas. He just can't get anything right, can he.
 
19 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
medaka > Steve Teeter  • 11 days ago 




Probably because Lawrence is IN Kansas.
Geography gets HARD with Law.
gehe....
 
13 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Maki Stefan > medaka  • 11 days ago 




City v. State, the lawsuit of the century! Do a city have a constitutional right to engage in 'consensual sodomy' with another city. Or do he have to fuck with counties...
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Steverino > medaka  • 11 days ago 




He likely thinks Arkansas City is in Arkansas, and pronounces it wrong, too.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Sam_Handwich > Steve Teeter  • 11 days ago 




i saw that, too! what an idiot
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Prion  • 11 days ago 




..,
 
Thumbnail
 
19 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
oikos  • 11 days ago 




The US Constitution simply does not contain a fundamental right to h̶o̶m̶o̶s̶e̶x̶u̶a̶l̶i̶t̶y̶.̶ b̶l̶u̶e̶ ̶e̶y̶e̶s̶ b̶e̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶o̶b̶e̶s̶e̶ running a tax exempt hate group.
 
17 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Prion  • 11 days ago 




.,,
 
Thumbnail
 
14 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Robincho > Prion  • 11 days ago 




Rightwing-tips...
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
WebSlinger  • 11 days ago 




In my life I have never understood how denying another group of people the same rights that you have could EVER be a good thing or bring about a quieter and more peaceful world...
When I think about all of the energy and money that Brian Brown and others like him could have used to feed the hungry, volunteer at a Veteran's hospital, or even feed those in need, etc that would have lessened the noise in this small world...but instead their energies are wasted checking IDs and turning away others at the door of the club called: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness...just a shame

  
Thumbnail
 
20 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Blake Jordan > WebSlinger  • 11 days ago 




Some people cannot accept their worthlessness, so they need to be rewarded (made to feel special) over frivolous shit like sexual orientation (race, gender,...)
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Prion  • 11 days ago 




.,.
 
Thumbnail
 
13 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Azima Khan > Prion  • 11 days ago 




Man, I love elephants, they're so majestic, and have matriarchal social structures. Asshole GOP are ruining them for everyone
 
11 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Reality.Bites > Azima Khan  • 11 days ago 




Someone should let them know that all the elephants in the US are immigrants who lack green cards.
(OK, some are anchor babies)
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Ginger Snap > Reality.Bites  • 11 days ago 




More like elephand slave trade.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Reality.Bites > Ginger Snap  • 11 days ago 




Sadly correct.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
popebuck1 > Azima Khan  • 11 days ago 




But they ARE good at trampling and destroying everything in their path. So you can't say the metaphor is completely off target.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Todd20036 > popebuck1  • 11 days ago 




I WANT MY ELEPHANT!!!!
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
Sam_Handwich  • 11 days ago 




Its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that [Amendment 2] seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests. ....:
[It] is at once too narrow and too broad. It identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence. ....
If the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare ... desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.
 
12 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bill@19D  • 11 days ago 




And re-criminalizing homosexuality is exactly what they would do if they could. They want their views on sexual morality imposed on society and that includes encorcment in the criminal law. They just stop short of calling for it now because its to far gone to be an option with the debate standing as it does.
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Gustav2 > bill@19D  • 11 days ago 




They would criminalize contraception if the could, so they close down Planned Parenthood and send women to lying Crisis Pregnancy Centers and other religious run 'Women's Clinics' with staff with no medical training or restrictions on what the doctors or nurse practitioners may prescribe.
 
10 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
zhera  • 11 days ago 




Is there a constitutional right to engage in heterosexual activity? Does the Constitution mention sex or sexuality even once? Is there a constitutional right to drive a car? To sleep in a bed? To eat carrots?
Bri Bri doesn't mention freedom because, I'm assuming, there's nothing about sex that gives him associations to freedom. But he knows, deep down in that ashen heart of his, that a democracy must have freedom, and freedom means that he and his ilk stay the fuck out of people's private lives. Ssshhhhh
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Reality.Bites > zhera  • 11 days ago 




According to Scalia, no, there is no right to engage in heterosexual activity either, unless you're married. Or even masturbation.
He imagined the state laws that Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion might ultimately overturn, including prohibitions against “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity.”
He was a full-on Catholic ideologue.
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Oh'behr > Reality.Bites  • 11 days ago 




Yikes, he's even scarier than I knew about. Against masturbation? What century was he from. 1600s? Spanish Inquisition?
Though what would Republicans do as most of what is on the list is what they do daily. Red states also do the most porn.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Reality.Bites > Oh'behr  • 11 days ago 




When I read that, way back when, I realized we were not dealing with a sane or rational man. Legalized sodomy may lead to legalized masturbation?
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Bad Tom > Reality.Bites  • 11 days ago 




Even worse: Legalized dancing!
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Reality.Bites > Bad Tom  • 11 days ago 




Which in turn leads to: no more remakes of Footloose.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 















Avatar
Michael Rush  • 11 days ago 




An ignorant woman named Mary Lou Bruner posted this on her facebook page , it's kind of perfect because it shows that being willfully ignorant brings you closer to Christ ...
you can read about Mary Lou Bruner here ...
( she's running for the Texas State Board of Education and going on about the years Obama " spent as a male prostitute in his twenties. " in her flag outfit .)
http://wonkette.com/598811/tex...
  
Thumbnail
 
7 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
CanuckDon > Michael Rush  • 11 days ago 




In other words, wear your naive ignorance with pride.
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Michael Rush > CanuckDon  • 11 days ago 




It's fun and it's so easy !
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
GC > Michael Rush  • 11 days ago 




Splitting wisdom into "worldly wisdom" (repackaged as foolish and categorically dismissed) and "godly wisdom" (which the "sinful world" sees as foolish) is a classic manipulative technique of cults. It's part of a religion's "immune system" defending it from evidence conflicting with its claims. Even if "godly wisdom" ends up giving you a horrible life, everything will be made OK in heaven, which conveniently isn't accessible to those blasphemous, god-hating, sinful, libertine skeptics. /s
I strongly recommend watching (or listening to) the entire video "Bending Truth", on how we can all be manipulated and how knowing those techniques can make us less likely to be manipulated. (No time? Use listentoyoutube.com and listen to it on the go as a "podcast".) It's cued up to the bit most relevant to Scalia's quote below:
  


 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Michael Rush > GC  • 11 days ago 




OK Now forward this to Kim Davis .
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
j.martindale > Michael Rush  • 11 days ago 




I'll give him the fool part.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Friday > Michael Rush  • 11 days ago 




Gotta actually be using some wisdom to claim you have it when you're called stupid, Christianists... Sometimes... It's just stupidity, (not to mention meanness.)
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Michael Rush > Friday  • 11 days ago 




also from her facebook page , deep deep stuff !!!

  
Thumbnail
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Joe in PA > Michael Rush  • 11 days ago 




omg, smh.
Edit to add And this woman wants to have say in educating children? Ugh.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
zhera > Michael Rush  • 11 days ago 




If you're looking for signs, you'll find them everywhere.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Reality.Bites > zhera  • 11 days ago 




Especially here.

  
Thumbnail
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
chicago dyke > Michael Rush  • 11 days ago 




"i don't understand email or the internet, but i'm damn proud of being stupid and wasteful! go jeebus!"
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Friday > Michael Rush  • 11 days ago 




Or "You can shut up, now?" :)
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
popebuck1 > Michael Rush  • 11 days ago 




Wow, she used the printer to make 200 originals instead of just finding a copier? What a friggin' waste of toner. She probably goes through a cartridge a week.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Chris Baker > popebuck1  • 11 days ago 




You realize that copiers use toner too, right? The same exact toner that printers use. :-)
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
popebuck1 > Chris Baker  • 11 days ago 




It's been a while since I worked in an office, and I might well have gotten incorrect information, but I was always told that printing an original uses way more toner than making a copy.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
GC > popebuck1  • 11 days ago 




Printers vary in their cost per page; the toner may or may not be more expensive than that for a copier. (Inkjet ink is often significantly more expensive per page, but that's not obvious because the cartridges are good for far fewer pages.)
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Reality.Bites > popebuck1  • 11 days ago 




In large modern offices the printer, scanner, copier and fax machine are all the same thing. Covering x% of a page uses the same amount of toner regardless of the source.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 














Avatar
rmthunter  • 11 days ago 




I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at the characterization of rights that everyone has being characterized as "special" when extended to gays. As I recall, the right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances," which is guaranteed by the Constitution (remember the First Amendment, Brian?), was specifically withdrawn from gays and lesbians as a class by Colorado's amendment 2. I'd love to hear Brown's explanation of how it suddenly becomes a "special" right -- or how reinstating a constitutionally guaranteed right suddenly becomes "a novel and extravagant constitutional doctrine."
As for the rest of it, Brown's encomium is as sloppy and ill-considered as Scalia's jurisprudence.
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Ninja0980  • 11 days ago 




It's nice to see more and more of these bigots openly admitting that they are opposed to our very existence and not just marriage equality.
 It helps other people see what we knew all along.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
GC > Ninja0980  • 11 days ago 




Indeed!
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
DaveMiller135  • 11 days ago 




And yet, here we are. Thanks for playing.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
j.martindale  • 11 days ago 




They actually delude themselves into thinking they can cram us back in a closet.

  
Thumbnail
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Gest2016  • 11 days ago 




I immediately declare Brian Brown unconstitutional and punishable by life in jail or worse. Where in the Constitution does it say bigots are allowed?
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bryan  • 11 days ago 




'liberal Kennedy' ? .. appointed presumably by liberal Reagan.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Marc  • 11 days ago 




Hey, Brian... your last money beg pulled in less than $200k. You might not want to spread that pitiful amount around too much.
 
4 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
BobSF_94117  • 11 days ago 




Nothing like a re-reading of Scalia in Romer to remind one of what a bigot the man was.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
PLAINTOM  • 11 days ago 




ANIMUS
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
GC > PLAINTOM  • 11 days ago 




Bugs Bunny unknowingly hit the nail on the head:
  


"What a maroon! What an ignoranimus!"
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
The Professor  • 11 days ago 




Um... how is he still sending emails and writing blog posts when they turned off the electricity?
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Oh'behr > The Professor  • 11 days ago 




Also ... why is he still using a computer anyway, considering how Microsoft and Apple are so gay supportive.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Prion  • 11 days ago 




...
 
Thumbnail
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
delk  • 11 days ago 




Dear Bri,
What justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples?” (Lawrence v. Texas)
XXOO Nino
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
zhera > delk  • 11 days ago 




Thank you, Scalia! :D
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Andrea_Rae > delk  • 11 days ago 




tradition! tradition! that's the way it's always been!! you can't change tradition! ;)
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Trevor Brown > Andrea_Rae  • 11 days ago 





  

Tradition? TRADITION!
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 












Avatar
Merv99  • 11 days ago 




Equal protection is a very special right, since it required a civil war to get it into the constitution.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
coram nobis  • 11 days ago 




" ... He reminded the Court that just ten years earlier in Bowers v. Hardwick they had ruled ..."
Brian's arithmetic is off. Lawrence v. Texas was in 2003. Bowers was in 1986. Bowers was a 5-4 vote where the swing vote, Lewis Powell, waffled and then voted with the conservative majority, in part because he said he didn't know any [openly] gay people. He later regretted the ruling, and subsequent lower-court rulings derided the case, so it was certainly ripe for review.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
CPT_Doom  • 11 days ago 




...and the striking down of laws against polygamy, bigamy, adult incest and bestiality because the Court was effectively banning states from considering the morality of sexual practices as an intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual

You say that like it's a bad thing, Brian. Do you really want the public to assess the morality of your sex life and its repercussions (e.g., way too many of your spawn running around) before you're allowed to bang your baby mama?
And for the record, polygamy and bigamy are still illegal (although Utah was forced to drop their anti-polygamy law that didn't allow married couples to have another unrelated adult living in the same house), marriages between siblings are still not recognized, and bestiality is still illegal - at least in those jurisdictions that have such laws (at the time Lawrence was decided, Texas actually didn't ban bestiality).
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Harshan > CPT_Doom  • 11 days ago 




Sometimes (okay, most of the time) I think the Republican party should be declared a subversive organization and subjected to the same scrutiny as the other terrorists who are out to destroy our country.
 
3 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Eric in Oakland > CPT_Doom  • 11 days ago 




Yeah. According to that reasoning, the US could enact a one-child policy like China and it would be all hunky dory!
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Baltimatt  • 11 days ago 




What special rights did Colorado grant to homosexuals?
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Silver Badger > Baltimatt  • 11 days ago 




No special rights. Amendment 2 denied gay people any rights, denying us any claim to discrimination. Mr. Perkins was behind this atrocity.
 
5 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Baltimatt > Silver Badger  • 11 days ago 




But Брайан said there were special rights. He wouldn't lie to us, would he?
 
6 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Silver Badger > Baltimatt  • 11 days ago 




Yes, yes he would. Consider that breathing is considered a special right for homosexuals.
 
9 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Eric in Oakland > Silver Badger  • 11 days ago 




It was actually worse than that. It didn't just prevent us from making discrimination claims, it also would have denied us access to the ordinary political and legal avenues generally available to everyone else, as well as disenfranchising voters. Any other group could propose local anti discrimination statutes and have people vote on whether to enact them. Amendment 2 declared that LGBT people did not have that right. Even if 100% of the citizens in a municipality voted to approve local protection for housing or employment, Amendment 2 would have nullified the will of the people if those protections benefited LGBT people.
 
2 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Silver Badger > Eric in Oakland  • 11 days ago 




I sadly remember.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 













Avatar
Gustav2  • 11 days ago 




Ain't nostalgia bittersweet?
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
bdsmjack  • 11 days ago 




What a bore. I'm going back to bed.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
dwieboldt  • 10 days ago 




As usual, Scalia was totally off based, and an ideologue. He could actually never articulate a downside for anyone constitutionally... I'm still happy that and Notorious RBG were so close. I am truly sad that she lost a friend. Having said that, the fact that he is gone, is not going to elicit anything other than joy from me. I hope that his family and notorious RBG are comforted by friends and that they are supported as necessary... At the same time, I can't be to unhappy... He really wasn't a good man, just an ideologue...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
dwieboldt  • 11 days ago 




I'd guess this would be a case for hate crimes or speech... Thank the Universe, that he's gone...
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
TheSeer  • 11 days ago 




A hundred years into the future, the only memory left of Scalia will be his extremist, supremacist and bigoted opinions. And that's good.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
anne marie in philly  • 11 days ago 




and if justice scaley had asked you to suck his dick under his SCOTUS chair, you would have happily done so, wouldn't you, bri-bri?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Robert  • 11 days ago 




The entire basis of his rant sits on faulty reasoning. SCOTUS did not ban Colorado citizens from preventing gays from having 'special rights.' They banned them from denying gays equal rights.
The refusal of closed minded bigots like Scalia and Brown to acknowledge this very basic concept has pretty much rendered them impotent on any thoughtful discussion of gay rights. And it's why they lost.
I am sorry for his family and friends who loved him. However, because of his influence and power, I am not sorry he went the way of Falwell.
May a new justice be selected who is not blinded by prejudice and hate, and determined to do the bidding of the Vatican.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Tom (Winnipeg)  • 11 days ago 




It was your last chance, huh Brian Brownshirt?
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
BeccaM  • 11 days ago 




After a person passes on, there's often a charitable attempt to remember their better qualities. Many of Scalia's friends, including Ruth Bader Ginsberg, recount him as being funny, personable, and a charming man in general.
But he used his position as a Supreme Court associate justice for 30 years to repress and roll back the civil rights of women and minorities, often using his rullings and dissents to express his open disdain for the people who were depending on the courts to stand for and protect them.
The man was both a troll and an outright bigot towards those unlike himself. Time and time again, he was an enemy to those who had no recourse and brilliant or not, his expediency was legendary. Outcomes were all that mattered to him, not justice and certainly not legal consistency.
But Brian Brown is right: Scalia was an enemy for LGBT people everywhere. As recently as 2013, Scalia was still complaining about the Lawrence ruling, making it clear he didn't see any problem at all with homosexuality being criminalized.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 









Avatar
Reality.Bites > BeccaM  • 11 days ago 




The ability to die was his best quality.
 
1 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 











Avatar
Bill  • 11 days ago 




Poor thing.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Mark  • 11 days ago 




good to hear bri-bri is doing what he must to keep them kiddies fed. hope he can find steady work soon.
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 










Avatar
Helen Damnation ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ  • 11 days ago 




Speaking of homosexuality, the lady who posted this is running for a seat on the Texas State Board of Education. I'm not kidding. See: http://goo.gl/mtSDpw
 
Thumbnail
 
 △  ▽ 
•
Reply
•
Share ›


 














What's this? 


Also on JoeMyGod

 DNC Vice Chair Resigns And Endorses Sanders [VIDEO] 
 259 comments •
 3 hours ago
  Avatar
Octavio —  In Off Topic News: Rubio's performance on  Meet the Press Face the Nation (their is really no difference) …


 Hillary Clinton Wins South Carolina Primary 
 1118 comments •
 19 hours ago
  Avatar
Ninja0980 —  BTW, if you want to know why I'm angry with people who say they will sit out to teach the DNC a lesson …


 Donald Trump Refuses To Denounce The KKK [VIDEO] 
 116 comments •
 4 hours ago
  Avatar
Jude Newton — Meanwhile under the heading of "The Internet Never Forgets" Feb 2000


SWITZERLAND: Voters Very Narrowly Reject Tax Bill That Defines …
40 comments •
 2 hours ago
  Avatar
Blake Jordan —  Conservative governments (almost always with a strong religious component) / …


Powered by Disqus

✉Subscribe 



d Add Disqus to your site   
🔒 Privacy 




http://www.joemygod.com/2016/02/17/hate-group-leader-brian-brown-praises-antonin-scalias-attempts-to-keep-homosexuality-criminalized/