Tuesday - February 28, 2012

They Must Have Changed The Name

U.S. Marines?
No longer. Now it’s the
EWWW S. Marines

Peiper wouldn’t post this. I will. But you don’t have to click.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2107338/Gay-marines-follow-wake-lesbian-home-coming-kiss.html

Posted by Drew458     on 02/28/2012 at 05:17 PM   
Filed Under: • Gay Gay Gay! • Personal •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - January 09, 2012

making odd ppl feel welcome.

From the world of the weird and the stupid and the politically correct.

No link so you’ll just have to darn well take my word for it that this is what I saw in the Telegraph.  Which is usually pretty hard to get links from when the hard copy has no writer credit and sometimes even when it does.

I guess next on the list to grow will be every single interest and ethnic group imaginable.

Here it is the beginning of a new year and I think I may have already found the Moonbat Award for all of 2012. 
On the other hand, the rate of stupid moves so fast ………….. Here. Take a look.

INSPECTORS WILL GIVE GAY-FRIENDLY RATINGS TO SHOPS.

SHOPS in a former mining town will be inspected and rated for how welcoming they are to homosexuals.

Mystery shoppers will visit businesses in Barnsley to make sure they are gay friendly.

Firms signing up to the “Rainbow Tick” scheme will be trained on how to treat the gay community and will face checks to ensure they maintain standards.

Apparently there were reports of abuse in dealing fairly, by which the group organizing the inspections mean that the rather odd balls among the population weren’t treated with respect.  Since they work and spend their money in that town, the activists say they should have the same respect and rights “and know they are welcome.”

That last is a fair comment except for the welcome part.  How would you go about showing how welcome someone is, when in fact they aren’t actually welcome at all?

The problem surfaced because a couple were holding hands and asked to leave in one case, and in another case a lesbian couple simply had their arms around each other at the bar. So the bar tender “leaned over the bar and separated them.” A rights group says that would not happen had the couples been hetros.
I guess that’s true enough if you think about it. And I don’t have any problem with treating customers properly.  But the inspection thing just seems like another step in a big brother society. 

Posted by peiper     on 01/09/2012 at 12:00 PM   
Filed Under: • Gay Gay Gay! •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - November 12, 2011

what if straights decided to have a pride in straight parade

It won’t happen of course, and if it ever did - the straights taking part in such a parade would be tagged as ‘homophobic.’

Are these somewhat queer folk so insecure and maybe even questioning of their own position (no puns) that they need parades and their own flag to prove their worth?  And not content with shouting (and showing) their predilection for all the world to hear, next year they are adding another day to the event.
Now it’s going to be a global day. Watch for a special holiday in the future where banks and POs are closed and stores announce large money saving sales to celebrate queerdom.

Lets not be too quick to blame them however.  It couldn’t be done minus the help in every form, financial - organizational etc. without huge support from the left.
None of the bs, pc, acceptance could thrive as it has, without the conservative majority (who are the honest liberals) just laying down and going with the program dictated by the left.

I don’t have a personal problem with their private lives.  I don’t care what they do behind closed doors and I don’t hate or fear them. 
What I object to strongly are major corps. such as this one also laying down and appeasing a group who are such a minority of any given population. I don’t even believe the left, although strong enough to alter habits and attitudes, is anywhere near the majority they hold sway over.  And they do. 

What a world.

Outrage as Tesco backs gay queer festival… but drops support for cancer charity event

Tesco’s contribution would be used to run an entertainment area for families and children at next year’s festival.

By SEAN POULTER

Tesco has triggered outrage by ending its support for the Cancer Research ‘Race for Life’ while deciding to sponsor Britain’s largest gay festival.

Some religious commentators and groups have condemned the decision and are calling for a boycott of the supermarket chain.

Tesco has worked with Cancer Research for more than ten years, raising hundreds of millions of pounds to help combat an illness that will affect one in three of the population.

The chain’s main contribution was support for the annual fundraising Race for Life, the UK’s largest women-only charity event, which has raised more than £400million for the fight against cancer since it began in 1994.

But shortly after Tesco announced the partnership would end, the firm said it would be a headline sponsor of Pride London.

This is Britain’s largest gay pride event, and will be adding a second day next year when it hosts the global WorldPride 2012 festival in July.

Tesco’s chief executive of retailing services, Andrew Higginson, said: ‘Our “Out at Tesco” team will be working closely with Pride London to ensure next year’s event is even more fun.’

Francis Phillips, a commentator at The Catholic Herald, condemned the shift, saying: ‘Tesco is a supermarket.

Its remit has been to sell good-quality food and other items at very reasonable prices, and in this it has been hugely successful.

Why has it now aligned itself with an aggressive political organisation such as Pride London?

‘Why has it given up its sponsorship of Cancer Research? Or at least…why hasn’t it taken up with another mainstream charity such as the British Legion or Age UK?

‘There are thousands of ex-servicemen and wounded soldiers needing help in this country, and millions of elderly people in danger of neglect.
‘They are a fundamental part of the fabric of our society – the kind of fabric that Tesco should be reflecting.’

David Skinner of the Anglican Mainstream organisation, which supports traditional marriage and family life, has written to complain to Mr Higginson and Tesco chief executive Philip Clarke.

He wrote: ‘For Tesco to sponsor a tiny homosexual minority – according to the Office for National Statistics, that amounts to little more than 1 per cent of the population – will be showing the utmost contempt for a large proportion of British society that still adheres, more or less, to the morality and values of the Ten Commandments.’

read and see more

PS: America.  You have a Tesco branch in a manner of speaking.  It’s a convenience outlet new to the USA in the last few years.
It’s called Fresh & Easy, doesn’t have cashiers (the one in Palm Desert doesn’t anyway) and is all self serve.  Tesco is the parent company.

Posted by peiper     on 11/12/2011 at 03:54 AM   
Filed Under: • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Gay Gay Gay! • Politically Correct B.S. •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - June 21, 2011

Kenya: Kill Teh Gayz!!

... somewhere over the rainbow ...

Muslim leaders in Kenya have called on the government to introduce the death penalty for homosexuals and to boycott their businesses, media reports said Monday.

“Death is the only punishment prescribed by Islam for such people as done in China and Iran,” the Daily Nation quoted Sheikh Mohammed Khalifa, of the Council of Imams and Preachers of Kenya, as saying.

“We are asking Kenyans to shun businesses owned by such people and further show them open discrimination as a way of stopping the beastly act,” he told reporters at an anti-homosexual workshop.

“They grossly abuse rights of others and should not be accepted among the society,” he said.

The workshop was attended by more than 150 madrassa teachers and was called to address the problem of sexual abuse of boys.

Another participant at the work shop, Sheikh Majid Obeid also blamed Kenya’s recent drought on “illicit activities.”

Homosexuality is illegal in most African countries. Those who show their gay orientation openly often face violence as well as discrimination.

Posted by Drew458     on 06/21/2011 at 11:39 AM   
Filed Under: • Gay Gay Gay! • RoPMA •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - April 16, 2011

a queer protest over no kissing in pub …

OK. Now for some very queer news from the UK.

Jonathan Williams, 26, a financial journalist, and James Bull, 23, a charity volunteer, said they were ejected from the John Snow in Soho, central London, by a woman claiming to be the landlady who accused them of being ‘obscene’.

What sort of occupation is ‘charity volunteer?  I mean, volunteer is unpaid. Right?  So maybe the faggot is wealthy and doesn’t have to work. Or ...benefits?

Couldn’t miss this article altho the queers in question seem to miss the point.

I don’t care if you’re heterosexual, I find ppl swallowing each other’s face in public disgusting. Hand holding is fine. OK, a peck on the cheek maybe alright I suppose.  But please take your serious tongue touching to a private place.  But leave it to a couple of damn maggots to make an issue out of their lack of decorum.  One of em says he “has never been made to feel bad for being gay.” The stupid bastard doesn’t understand nobody attacked his queerness. Nobody thought to make him feel anything except perhaps a few good manners in public. Oh dear fuckin me. What’s that?

No surprise to BMEWS readers of course that now the happy couple, who by the way were on their very first date, are going to seek “legal advice.”

Just another good example of why so many straights feel hatred toward these odd ppl.  They bring it on themselves by their behavior and then point the finger of blame on others.  They feel outrage and anger that others do not accept their lifestyle and insist that others should. Well those ‘others’ don’t take kindly being told they must accept abnormal people in their midst doing disgusting things. 

If you read the links and what some had to say, you might feel as I do which is.  If someone brained these fruit loops, I would feel no pity for them.
I think they they were pushing things and hoping for just this outcome and a lawsuit.

Here. See what you make of this.

Gay couple ‘kicked out of London pub for kissing’

A gay couple who claim they were thrown out of a pub for kissing have received widespread support online.

Jonathan Williams and James Bull kissed during their first date at the John Snow pub in Soho, central London.

They were asked to leave by a woman claiming to be the landlady, who told the pair that they were being obscene.

They said she was backed up by a man who grabbed Mr Williams’ lapels as he asked them to leave.

When they did go, the couple was joined by several other outraged customers.

Mr Bull, 23, who works for a charity, said: “I felt so belittled, and to be made to feel so dirty and cheap over something like that – it’s just wrong.”

He rang the police when he got home to lodge a complaint while Mr Williams, 26, took to Twitter to protest at the treatment they had received.

The financial journalist wrote: “Seven years in London & I’ve never been made to feel bad for being gay.

“45 mins ago the John Snow pub, W1F had me removed for kissing a date.”

His tweet provoked a storm of protest and supporters have planned a “kiss in” at the pub.

One person wrote on Twitter: “The John Snow kiss-in protest has 456 attendees and growing by the hour. This is so exciting!”

fag source

The kiss-in protest: Hundreds descend on London pub for mass smooch after gay couple were ‘thrown out for snogging’

By Daily Mail Reporter

Hundreds of people attended a ‘kiss-in’ protest at a London pub after a gay couple claimed they were thrown out for kissing.

Several hundred protesters gathered outside the locked doors of the pub last night, and staged a mass kiss at 7pm. The demonstration, organised on Facebook, was to take place in the pub, but its doors were closed after news of the protest broke.

If the incident is proven it would have broken the Equality Act which says that goods and services must be offered to all fairly regardless of sexuality

More plus photos here.
source

“goods and services must be offered to all fairly regardless of sexuality”

But services weren’t refused based on the fact that they’re queer. It was refused because of public behavior seen as obscene.
But I guess everyone MUST accept that cos ... they have rights.

Posted by peiper     on 04/16/2011 at 11:54 AM   
Filed Under: • Gay Gay Gay! •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

test. what state requires by law the teaching of fag history?

Oh good grief.

Can anyone say ... Reading, Writing, Rithmahtik? Jeesh.

Maybe we won’t be going back to Calif. after all.
What a load of rubbish.
And take a look at the list of all the ‘special’ groups that must now be recognized.  It isn’t enough to recognize individual achievement and honor those who contribute. No.  Now we have to recognize and pay homage to the group they come from.
Fair enuff but I don’t see Jews on that list and heaven knows that group has contributed out of all proportion to it’s numbers. Who do I sue?

Didn’t I tell BMEWS I wasn’t certain Ca. would be where I wanted to be with Gov. Moonbeam in office.
The worst part?  We still could end up there.  My head hurts and reading this hasn’t done anything for the stomach either.

California set to teach gay history and rights in schools

California is set to become the first US state to require the teaching of gay history and rights.

By Alex Spillius, Washington

Children would take lessons on issues affecting gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people, with schools granted discretion about what age to start the lessons.

The law was passed by the state’s senate and is likely to pass the assembly easily, which is also controlled by the Democrats, before being signed by Governor Jerry Brown.

The legislation, sponsored by Democrat Mark Leno of San Francisco, passed on a 23-14 party line vote.
“We are second-class citizens and children are listening,” he said. “When they see their teachers don’t step up to the plate when their classmate is being harassed literally to death, they are listening and they get the message that there is something wrong with those people.”
Republican state Senator Doug La Malfa opposed the bill saying: “I’m deeply troubled kids would have to contemplate at a very, very early age, when many of us are teaching abstinence ... what is sexuality.”

California law already requires schools to cover the contributions to the state and nation of:

Women

African Americans

Mexican Americans

Entrepreneurs

Asian Americans

European Americans

American Indians AND

LABOR ACTIVISTS!

AND

A new bill will also add:

The Disabled, to the list.

How many states will follow this crap I wonder.  And here we thought the Brit govt. was loopy. I guess my home state now becomes UK Pacific.

What q queer fuckin world we inhabit.

SOURCE

Posted by peiper     on 04/16/2011 at 10:48 AM   
Filed Under: • Education • Gay Gay Gay! •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - March 11, 2011

queers to Christians … fuck you and give us more of your money

If I say “trust me” you damn well can because I haven’t got time at my age, to waste time with bullshit. Or small talk, at which I’ve never been good at. I guess that implies I’m good at the former and lets be truthful, all of us have had to resort to that from time to time in our lives.

So, trust me when I say I had no intention of booting today and especially this early.
It’s this damn tooth/gum thing. Pain as you’d imagine and I should have called my dentist yesterday, the office is closed today. So earliest will be Monday. Oh this will be a fun wkend.  Headache won’t quit either and all made worse by page five of the Daily Mail. Maybe I should sue em.

My reason for booting is due to not being able to get page five of one of our papers today, without stopping what I was doing, including the coffee thing, because I just had to share this very frustrating article with you all.

Yeah. I’m pissed again. As in … RCOB!  Damn attention seeking queers. Yes they fuckin well are.  They are not normal so therefore they are queer. As in, very odd. Out of the normal scheme of things.  So let us forget this ‘gay’ shit. It’s queer behavior.

Remember the story a month or two back, some of you will.
A Christian couple who own a B&B, refuse to rent their rooms to unmarried hetro couples or queer couples. They will give them separate rooms but their belief doesn’t allow for two ppl who are not married to share one room, especially one bed. And certainly not homosexuals.

Oh what a coincidence that it just so happens a fag couple happen to choose this one B&B for a romantic getaway and are refused one room. So they sue and of course they win. Remember that?  Yeah well, the shits are back in the news again.
They each got £1,800 at the time but now say they want more because the old couple haven’t been punished enough!  Yes, really.  Read it for yourself.

Is it any wonder I’m pissed off?

Gay Queer pair who won cash from Christian B&B couple launch fight for more - and you are funding them
By STEVE DOUGHTY

The gay odd couple who won damages from Christian hotel owners for refusing them a bed are suing to get even more money from them, according to documents filed at the Court of Appeal.

Steven Preddy and Martyn Hall said the owners were let off too lightly because of their Christian beliefs.
Peter and Hazelmary Bull now face having to pay the couple thousands of pounds more in compensation.
Civil partners Mr Preddy, 38, and Mr Hall, 46, of Bristol, won their case in January and were awarded £1,800 each.

Their legal challenge to the amount of damages is being backed and fully financed by the taxpayer-funded Equality and Human Rights Commission, according to the documents.

The move led yesterday to fresh protests that the might of the State is being used to sweep away any remaining claim Christianity has to a hearing in the courts.
Mr and Mrs Bull, who run the Chymorvah Hotel in their seven-bedroom home in Cornwall, had turned away the men on the grounds that their policy is to let double rooms only to married couples.

In January Judge Andrew Rutherford, at Bristol County Court, ruled that the Bulls had broken sexual orientation regulations under the Equality Act, because in the eyes of the law civil partnership is the same as marriage.

Mr Preddy and Mr Hall have now applied to the Appeal Court to overturn the damages awarded against the Bulls and order much higher compensation. Their case is being presented by EHRC lawyers, according to court documents.

LINK TO MORE

Mister and Mister???? Surely that’s wrong. Isn’t one of em supposed to be a Miss? or Mz or Mrs ?
Now tell me that ain’t fuckin queer as a three dollar bill. Or billette as the case may be.

I have to confess to feeling a bit guilty for being so damned vitriolic in my response to the news.  That’s because in my many years, I have known a few homosexuals who really were nice people. They didn’t in any way resemble this pair of opportunistic bastards. And by that I don’t mean they were docile.
They were content with themselves, I only knew one who wasn’t, and said he thought he was more queer then ‘gay’ and didn’t think it was normal. But they were not bad people.  I have to keep things like that in mind when I lose it and tend to make it appear as tho I’m attacking everyone as an entire group.
I wonder if this particular pair of queens would be so quick to go to court if the taxpayer weren’t funding it all. Pissants.

Posted by peiper     on 03/11/2011 at 05:16 AM   
Filed Under: • Gay Gay Gay! •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - February 23, 2011

Anger as word ‘marriage’ vanishes from birth statistics. You may now thank the left.

Eight years ago Labour ministers ordered that the word ‘marriage’ should no longer be used on official documents because they said it led to discrimination against gays

That people, is how far the former left wing govt. brought things to pass.

Anger as word ‘marriage’ vanishes from birth statistics

By STEVE DOUGHTY

Married couples have disappeared from official family records for the first time.
In a further blow to the status of marriage, records of the number of women who become pregnant will no longer show how many were or were not married.
Instead, Government statisticians will publish the number of mothers-to-be who were in ‘a legal partnership’ at the time they conceived – which will include both marriages and women in civil partnerships.

Eight years ago Labour ministers ordered that the word ‘marriage’ should no longer be used on official documents because they said it led to discrimination against gays.

However, there has been a growing chorus of complaints that the censorship of the word will warp official records and erase the evidence which shows that married couples and their children live healthier and happier lives.

The Office for National Statistics’ new figures show that there were 896,300 conceptions in England and Wales in 2009.

But, rather than referring to numbers inside and outside marriage, they only show that 57 per cent of pregnancies began ‘outside a legal partnership’.
The disappearance of marriage statistics has come despite a plea from Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith.

In a major speech earlier this month, Mr Duncan Smith said: ‘I have asked my department to ensure references to marriage are included on relevant forms and research in the future.’

source

Posted by peiper     on 02/23/2011 at 01:22 PM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • DIVERSITY BS • Gay Gay Gay! • Stoopid-People •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - February 15, 2011

more on same sex marriage and the debate that is brewing

Last couple of days have not been overly productive and aside from being so damn tired I had all I could do not to fall asleep at this damn machine, I just quit it for a couple of days.  Wish I had a nice sympathy inducing excuse for not doing my job.
Hell, you’d see thru that in a minute.

Glad Drew caught that utterly stupid decision with regard to the warning about wire mesh and injured burglars.  I knew I should have been all over that but really, I just couldn’t face booting up.  Just as well anyway cos the wife had me helping her haul books into charity bags etc.  We even have an encyclopaedia published in the early 20s collecting dust.  But it isn’t worth anything to collectors as we’ve looked into that.
It’s interesting to view once in awhile. The language was so different and ppl mentioned who were still very much alive at the time. 

We have a lot of things to dispose of and haven’t been very good at it. If I may say it, for once it isn’t my fault. Really.  Wife drags heels on the project and there are things here I can’t toss cos they aren’t mine to throw away.  And to be fair, she has some health problems on and off and doesn’t have the stamina to tackle it all, even if I do the work.  I’m not complaining, but I wish we could empty this old place of things because when it finally comes time to sell up, I know it’s gonna be a 30 day mad, last minute rush to try and do everything at once.

Well on to today’s story which is a couple of days old but still has folks here talking. As well it should.

Apparently, government ministers are considering Same Sex Church Weddings.
That was the headline in big bold black print. 
What bothers many and it should, is since when has it been the job of govt. ministers to tell a church that it MUST marry the odd couple in a religious ceremony where a church on religious grounds, does not recognize that sort of union.

If I have it muddled, my apologies.  Here’s the article.  See what you make of this.

Gay ‘marriages’ to be allowed in church

Ministers are proposing to change the law to allow homosexual couples to “marry” in traditional religious ceremonies – including in church.

By Patrick Hennessy, Political Editor

Lynne Featherstone, the Liberal Democrat equalities minister, is expected shortly to outline firm plans to lift the current ban on civil partnerships being conducted in places of worship.

In a political “win” for Nick Clegg and his party, the Coalition will also say that such ceremonies should for the first time be allowed to have a religious element, such as hymn-singing and readings from the Bible.

They could, it is understood, also be carried out in the future out by priests or other religious figures.
The landmark move will please equality campaigners but is likely to prompt a fierce backlash from mainstream Christian leaders, as well as some Right-leaning Tories.
The Church of England has already pledged not to allow any of its buildings to be used for civil partnership ceremonies, while last year Pope Benedict said same-sex marriage was among the “most insidious and dangerous challenges that today confront the common good.”

Some faiths, however – including the Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Jews – support the change in the law and will apply for their
buildings to host same-sex “marriage” ceremonies.

Currently civil partnership ceremonies, which were introduced in 2005, have to be entirely secular and cannot contain any religious element, even though civil partners have almost exactly the same legal rights as married spouses.

Last year an amendment was added to the former Labour government’s Equalities Act by Lord Alli, the Labour peer, paving the way for civil partnership ceremonies to be held in places of worship if religious groups permitted this.

However, before this arrangement could be fully legal ministers would be compelled to stage a separate consultation and to pass separate legislation. This is the process to be launched by Mrs Featherstone within days.

It is as yet unclear whether the new-style civil partnerships, formalised in a place of worship, would be officially called “marriage” under the law.
This is thought to be among the questions ministers will pose during the consultation period; they will also raise issues about the financial implications of the new arrangements, including their impact on tax.

more to the story here

I believe one of the sticky problems is the public monies given in tax breaks to religious orgs. If you’re taking public money, do you have a right to deny service to anyone?  But as many see it, religion and churches aren’t as easy as all that. Religion falls outside the norm of the kind of “rights” that civil and human rights activists are always barking about.  Everything is made more complicated then logic demands. And lawyers see that it remains so.

Posted by peiper     on 02/15/2011 at 10:27 AM   
Filed Under: • Daily Life • Gay Gay Gay! •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

wilder extremes of political correctness.

I suppose there will be Christian ministers as well as other denominations, who would happily conduct a religious marriage ceremony for a same sex couple, as they would see nothing wrong with it.  But I wonder what might happen if a couple wanted a Catholic ceremony in the church because they really were practising Catholics who happen to believe the church is simply mistaken about same sex marriage.

Woo-hoo. I can’t wait for the first same sex couple who think they’re muslims and insist on a mosque marriage. Now that is something that just will not happen, no matter what law or opinion held sway.

I’m inventing something with that, that may well never happen. Although ….
On the other hand … if a couple of the same sex could get all bothered and have their feelings hurt by the refusal of a B&B to host them, and successfully sue, I can see a lawyer taking a case to sue God as well.
We do live in world turned upside down.

Melanie Phillips thinks so too.

Pinch yourself! A Tory (Consv) Prime Minister is upholding the idea that traditional morality is bigotry

By MELANIE PHILLIPS

On countless occasions, David Cameron has declared that he is a tremendous fan of the institution of marriage. So big a fan, it now becomes clear, that he generously intends to bestow its status and privileges far beyond what most people consider marriage actually to be.
Time and again, the Tory leader has used his promise to strengthen marriage so as to reassure people that he was fully committed to defending this core value of conservatism.
Now, however, it is becoming all too plain that he is signing up instead to the wilder extremes of political correctness.

Indeed, he is planning to go further than even New Labour dared to tread. Eat your heart out Harriet Harman, patron saint of equality!
For it was revealed yesterday that ministers are planning to change the law to allow homosexual couples to ‘marry’ in religious ceremonies, including in church.
Gay partnership ceremonies in other venues will also be allowed for the first time to contain a religious element, such as hymns or readings from the Bible. These unions will then be called ‘marriage’.
For sure, this change doesn’t force religious institutions to introduce such ceremonies; whether they do so is up to them.

But the Government’s position is anything but neutral. For it implicitly endorses the idea that there is nothing wrong with overturning centuries of Biblical understanding of the sacrament of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. As such, the Government will be cutting the ground from under the feet of religious traditionalists.
And what if churches refuse to conduct such a travesty of a marriage ceremony? Presumably, they would then risk being sued for ‘discrimination’.
Truly, we are fast reaching the stage where upholding Biblical sexual standards will become the morality that dare not speak its name.
Once again, we have to wonder at the way in which a politically motivated faction within a tiny minority of the population — for many gay people do not approve of this ideological gay rights agenda — is now running public policy.

PLEASE SEE ALL OF MELANIE PHILLIPS HERE

Just so you know.
Melanie Phillips is a very conservative and deeply religious lady, without being preachy about it. She also happens to be a very good word smith.
It was a treat to see her on Fox news when we visited home last summer.

A month or so ago she wrote in her column that the people (homosexuals) who themselves were the target of persecution, were now doing the same to anyone who dared question them or who dared be critical of them.  She sited the example of the B&B owners, who became the target of abuse in the extreme and described their behavior as the fascist activity they were labeling others with.

She then became a target of the most outrageous and hateful calls and mail which she said, surprised her in their volume. Ppl were wishing cancer on her, there were even threats to her life.  All because she wrote that the owners of that B&B were being ill treated due to their religious beliefs. If you use the link here, you can read some of foul unreasoning things aimed at her.

Look for this headline:
MELANIE PHILLIPS: The calls for me to be killed this week prove the bedrock values of our society are in danger 30/01/11

Take a look at that to see how things are and how much control a small number of “activists” can generate.

Posted by peiper     on 02/15/2011 at 09:54 AM   
Filed Under: • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Gay Gay Gay! • UK •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - January 27, 2011

Second gay couple sue B&B after being turned away by owner.

Update to an older story. Never seems to end, does it?
Why can’t these odd people simply go where they are welcome?
No. Cannot do that, as it does not prove any points. Must be very militant about it and force themselves on people who want nothing to do with them.

Last week an old couple lost their case and have to pay a lot of money to a couple of queers with hurt feelings. Well, the old man is now in hospital recovering from surgery and in bad shape (unrelated to the B&B case he and wife lost) and the hosp. switchboard is getting crank calls for him. His wife meanwhile is getting calls from ppl claiming to be homosexual and demanding rooms. The B&B is closed for the winter anyway, but it makes no difference to those calling at all hours. She is being reminded that she must rent to them or face the law again. 

Meanwhile, there is a new case brewing. Same subject, different couple.

Someday, someone with artillery will settle their hash, and maybe then these folks will stop forcing themselves on people. There are loads of places that cater to queers.
At some point in time, somebody is going to be driven to take up arms against the next in your face f****t that thinks he has a right to force himself on them.

Second gay couple sue B&B after being turned away by owner who said her ‘convictions’ didn’t allow two men to share a bed
By Daily Mail Reporter

A gay couple are suing a Christian bed and breakfast owner after she told them it was ‘against her convictions’ for them to share a bed.
Michael Black, 63, and John Morgan, 58, are claiming sexual discrimination after being turned away from Swiss B&B in Cookham, Berkshire, last March.
Their case follows that of Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy, who won £3,600 damages from the owners of a Cornish guesthouse last week for refusing them a double room.

Mr Black and Mr Morgan, who have been partners for over seven years, claimed they were ‘shocked’ when they were not allowed to stay the night or share a bed.
They have launched legal proceedings against owner Susanne Wilkinson to ‘make sure people can’t break the sexual discrimination act and get away with it’.
They booked the B&B online but when they arrived Mrs Wilkinson told them ‘it is against my convictions for two men to share a bed’, adding ‘this is my private home’.
Mr Black said that they were given a refund and asked to leave.
‘She said she was sorry and she was polite in a cold way and she was not abusive, so we asked our money back and she gave it to us,’ he explained.

and the beat goes on. and on.

Posted by peiper     on 01/27/2011 at 12:43 PM   
Filed Under: • Gay Gay Gay! •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - January 19, 2011

in the dock … therapist who tried to change a queer man’s sexuality, at his request.

Some of you will recall a case wherein a Christian couple ran a “family” B & B, and said they would not give a room to any couple who were unmarried. Separate rooms was their idea because they said their religious beliefs wouldn’t condone or allow the renting of one room for unmarried people. And that certainly included homosexuals, as the bible they said spoke against that. They would allow them rooms so long as they were separate rooms.

Well, don’t ya know a queer couple tried and failed to get a room there. Some people believe that the couple were set up to fail the equality test, by a homosexual group. The judge decided against them and fined them, and awarded the odd couple £1,800 EACH. He found no evidence that they were set up as they claimed.

Some have argued that they were running a public business and they could not discriminate in that manner. Their defenders claim there wasn’t any discrimination, that the B & B was in their home, and so they should be able to insist on renting separate rooms. Or even not renting at all. And their web site clearly stated what they were.

It opens some interesting questions. For example, should it not be the right of a taxpaying, property owning person to exclude anyone they wish for any reason or no reason. Financial suicide perhaps but why shouldn’t they have that right?

Then there’s something brought up by someone today I hadn’t even thought of. What about backpackers, same sex but straight, who are on holiday and need to stop off and this couple’s B&B was in their area.  Unless they asked openly, are you homosexuals, would they still rent a room to a couple of straight men? In other words, in order to make sure they were not renting to, the wrong sort, they’d have to ask.

We live in a very complicated world. Needlessly.

Enclosed here are two editorials from two different papers. I suppose I could have posted more but 2’s enough for my purpose because I have another interesting tidbit to follow the editorials.

Tel The law is eroding our right to a set of beliefs

Telegraph View: The right to act in keeping with one’s religious faith is being set against the right not to be offended – and is losing.

The owners of a Cornish hotel who refused to allow two homosexual men to take a double room were judged at Bristol county court yesterday to have acted unlawfully. Peter and Hazelmary Bull argued that, as Christians, they did not believe unmarried couples, whatever their sexual orientation, should share a room at their hotel. They said it was a policy they had operated since opening their doors for business 25 years ago. Indeed, their hotel website describes their hotel as “family-run for families” – which prompts us to ask why the couple, Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy, should have wanted to stay there in the first place. They had an absolute legal right to do so, of course, and no one could possibly condone a refusal to give them a room on the grounds of their sexuality. The Bulls said they based their refusal on their “married couples only” rule, a fine point given that the two men are civil partners.

Judge Andrew Rutherford, awarding Mr Hall and Mr Preddy £3,600 damages, told the Bulls that their views were out of date and added: “It is inevitable that laws will, from time to time, cut across the deeply held beliefs of individuals and sections of society.” It should surprise no one that the Bulls received such short shrift from the courts and that their strongly held religious convictions should count for so little. Last year, Gary McFarlane, a Christian sex therapist, was sacked by Relate, the relationship charity, because he refused to counsel a homosexual couple. His case was taken up by Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, who said Christians are being persecuted because a strongly held conviction that homosexuality is wrong is being superseded by laws outlawing discrimination on grounds of sexual discrimination. The McFarlane case went to the Appeal Court, which found against him. In a similar case, a registrar who refused to conduct civil partnerships because they were against her religious beliefs was sacked. In both cases, the aggrieved parties could have gone elsewhere to be counselled or married, just as Messrs Hall and Preddy could have found a different hotel.

The right to hold religious beliefs, and to act in keeping with one’s faith, is being set against the right not to be offended – and is losing. This is a dispiriting trend in a free society. The views of the Bulls will seem to many to be old-fashioned, even distasteful – but they have every right to hold them. A pervasive climate of political correctness, however, is driving such beliefs to the margins; the law is out of kilter. It no longer protects the freedom of the believer in the way that it defends the interests of those who consider themselves discriminated against. As we have argued before, this is an unhealthy imbalance that needs to be redressed – if not by the courts, then by Parliament.

TELEGRAPH

The following is the Daily Mail’s editorial on the subject.

Tolerance, Christian values and the law
By Daily Mail Comment

As the judge accepted, Peter and Hazelmary Bull, aged 70 and 66, are decent and benevolent people.
They have no dislike of homosexuals, whom they often welcome to their small Cornish hotel, treating them exactly as they do unmarried heterosexuals.
Indeed, they had only one motive in refusing a double room to civil partners Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy.
In the words of Judge Andrew Rutherford, this was their ‘perfectly orthodox Christian belief’ that sex outside marriage, straight or gay, is wrong.
It is because they live by that belief, held through the centuries in what is still called a Christian country, that today the Bulls face ruin.
They’ve been found to have acted unlawfully under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 and ordered to pay £3,600 in damages.
Of course, some will side firmly with the civil partners in this classic clash between competing rights and attitudes.
After all, Mr Hall and Mr Preddy clearly had reason to feel angry and humiliated at being turned away — particularly if Judge Rutherford was right in rejecting claims that their case was a set-up.
But since no malice against a minority was involved, the Mail feels more sympathy with the Bulls, who argue that Christians are increasingly marginalised.
Yes, it is good that society accepts same sex relationships and recognises the rights of civil partners. But why is it then so intolerant of people like the Bulls?
Is there no place for a good-natured couple, approaching old age, to live by the orthodox beliefs of the religion to which Britain owes its identity?
Ultimately, the fault lies with the last parliament, which delighted in trampling on traditional values.
But was it really necessary for the Equality Commission to throw the full weight of the state — and taxpayers’
hard-earned money — into victimising a couple who meant nothing but well?

DAILY MAIL

“A couple who meant nothing but well.”
But if you’re running a public business, your version of “well” might be different from others who have the law on their side. So where does that leave you?

Now here’s something interesting and please note I do not go looking for conspiracies and don’t see one every time I read a story that confounds me.
However ... because the folks in that other story said they were “set up” and the judge said no you weren’t, and since he has almost the final word unless they appeal, this story caught my eye.  See if don’t think she was set up. Maybe not but it sure does look suspicious given that she was speaking (unknown to her) to a journalist who oh just happened to be a queer rights campaigner. Oh the coincidence. Well fancy that.
Here ya go. Take a look.

The therapist who claims she can help gay men go straight
A psychotherapist who tried to convert a gay man to become heterosexual faces being struck off at a landmark disciplinary hearing this week.

By Robert Mendick, Chief reporter

The case will expose the growing use of hugely controversial therapies, from the United States, which attempt to make homosexual men heterosexual.

The therapy has been described by the leading professional psychotherapy body as “absurd”, while the Royal College of Psychiatrists said “so-called treatments of homosexuality” allow prejudice to flourish.

A small group of counsellors believe all men are born heterosexual but that some choose a homosexual lifestyle which can then be changed through counselling.

Lesley Pilkington, 60, a psychotherapist for 20 years, faces being stripped of her accreditation to the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) after treating a patient who had told her he wanted to be “cured” of his homosexuality.

The patient was in fact a prominent homosexual rights campaigner and journalist, who secretly recorded two sessions with Mrs Pilkington, a devout Christian, before reporting her to the BACP.

READ MORE HERE

If you read the link, you find that her son is she says, heterosexual, but has a homosexual problem. The poor woman is in denial. I personally doubt anybody can change anyone’s natural state. I mean, can you imagine someone believing they can change a straight person into something they aren’t?
But read the whole article please.  She may be mistaken but she damn well was set up. That’s how I read it anyway. She didn’t go looking for the fag who set her up. He went looking for someone just like her.

Mr Strudwick told The Sunday Telegraph: “Entering into therapy with somebody who thinks I am sick … is the singularly most chilling experience of my life.”

Like somebody put a gun to his head and forced him to see the woman.  Poor victim he.

Posted by peiper     on 01/19/2011 at 01:09 PM   
Filed Under: • Gay Gay Gay! •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - January 13, 2011

Eye Roll

SAN FRANCISCO – The nation’s first gay museum opening in San Francisco’s Castro district showcases a variety of items ranging from Harvey Milk’s pink-framed sunglasses to manuscripts and sex toys.

The 1,600-square-foot museum, opening Wednesday, chronicles the evolution of what organizers call the liberation of the gay, bisexual and transgender community.

Milk’s sunglasses displayed in the GLBT History Museum are a tribute to the late San Francisco supervisor, who was the first elected openly gay politician in California.

GLBT Historical Society executive director Paul Boneberg told the San Francisco Chronicle the society has a five-year lease for a formerly empty storefront.

Rumor has it that this place has no front door.

Posted by Drew458     on 01/13/2011 at 09:56 AM   
Filed Under: • Gay Gay Gay! •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - August 04, 2010

Tyranny In California

A federal judge in California on Wednesday overturned the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, saying the voter-approved rule violated the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians.

The decision, issued by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco, is an initial step in what will likely be a lengthy legal fight over California’s Proposition 8, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

At stake in the trial was whether California’s ban on same-sex marriage violated the constitutional rights to equal protection and due process of two gay couples that want to marry.

Outside a San Francisco courthouse, a small group of same-sex marriage supporters waited for the decision. They waved flags and carried signs that read: “We all deserve the freedom to marry.” Rallies were planned for later in the day.

So now California is run by the judges. Regardless of the wishes of the people, as expressed through the legislature and the voting process.

Take this judge out and hang him before he allows transgendered bestiality and grants sheep and goats equal rights. Use a thin rough rope. Sic semper tyrannis.

Posted by Drew458     on 08/04/2010 at 04:25 PM   
Filed Under: • Gay Gay Gay! • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (10) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner