Tuesday, January 19, 2016

Trans ....#3... aggression

OK, so yet another continuation of the 'trans' bizzo. The customers are keen to make the point.

There are all sorts of folk in the world, that is true, and most will try to accomodate others. There are laws, you see. And it used to be that the Laws held to account and held in check those who are inclined to robbery and violence, perversion and cruelty. But our society is bending over too far to accomodate just those who would deliberately be that way. In fact the laws are supporting the dissolution of the very society that we have strived so hard to create. 

Many 'new' 'fair' laws are Bull Shyte.
Watch out for Bull Shyte
Personally I have some compassion for those who are 'dis-eased', who have mental problems. They do need help, even - and especially- when their illnesses are mild and easily accomodated.

Someone who thinks he is Napoleon may well elicit some pity for his unreal views. He transgresses reality. But we do not bend over to confirm his meglomania.  If he insists and forces others to bend to his diseased will, it becomes less a transgression and more an aggression. We may have some sympathy with a homosexual who is convinced he or she is more attracted to the same sex than any other normal person is. As long as they keep their sexual activities private, they can even come into the Tavern and have a drink. They need one.

I can even have sympathy and compassion for the genuinely confused young person who thinks they are really in the 'wrong-sexed' body. Their mind is not apprehending themselves correctly. They are almost always 'dis-eased'. 

But when the Law is changed to punish those who would help them find 'ease' or even hinder them from damaging themselves and others, then we have a big problem.

And that we have.

The transgressives are becoming aggressive. 
With help from the Law.

Two items came up in conversation. Dan Gilmore was telling os those wierd places on the West coast in San Francisco and the East coast in New York. 

One might have hoped for a bit of privacy when going to the toilet. We have Gentlemen/Knights toilets here and Ladies/Wenches ones too. We don't let any one lot use the others.
San Francisco's Bathroom Crusade
The human rights commissions in New York City and San Francisco are not at all what their names seem to imply. 
Rather than ensuring the rights of all humans, regardless of their of their biology or their beliefs, they have instead become advocacy organizations for LGBT interests. 
For example, Shaky Town’s HRC introduced a measure that would require gender-neutral bathrooms across the city. But it goes a bit farther than a simple change to the building codes. 
Gender-neutral is code for having some pervert chap interrupt the privacy of a lady or some aggressive, demanding harridan take a chap's place at a urinal.

“The measure would mandate that all single-occupancy bathrooms in the city be relabeled as places for all genders, rather than solely ‘men’ or ‘women,’” Time Magazine reports, “and that new buildings constructed in the city have a gender-neutral bathroom on each floor. 
The bill would also go beyond similar laws in other cities by putting in place sweeping enforcement mechanisms, including a complaint process handled by the Human Rights Commission, an LGBT rights organization, and adding these facilities as a standard checklist item for building inspections.”
Tellingly, Time called San Fran’s human rights commission, a city agency, an “LGBT rights organization,” which shows that it’s no longer trying to ensure civil rights — some of which are enumerated in the Bill of Rights, hello Second Amendment! — but is instead bent on pushing leftist ideology. 
The Big Apple’s HRC recently suggested a regulation that would fine people $125,000 to $250,000 if they were “willful, wanton, or malicious” in assaulting a transgendered person with the wrong pronoun. 
This from a Nation that cannot spell, too !! 
In Democrat fiefdoms like these, accommodation may be the best thing social conservatives can hope for at the moment. Unfortunately, groups like human rights commissions aren’t interested in equal protection under the law. They’re merely the muscle for the Rainbow Mafia, and it’s the model for the rest of the nation.
This is punishing normality.

And it is put in place by the very people elected and appointed to serve society. They are hell-bent on destroying 'normal'.

And they support aggressiveness on the part of nasy, vicious people who cry 'victim'. 

Take the unfortunate farming couple who made a little extra money by letting couples get married on their beautiful property. Their farm. They did not want to be supportive of homosexuals  disgracing both the Institution of Marriage and their farm.

They said no.

The Lesbian couple (hello, we have been here before, with pizza parlours and florist shops) went to Court because they had their feelings hurt.

Heck, the farming couple's feelings were hurt too, but that seems not to matter.

So Dustin Siggins drank his pint and called for another while he told us about it.

Court: Farmers can’t refuse same-sex ‘wedding’ in backyard, fines them $13,000
 Farmers who host weddings in their backyard cannot refuse ceremonies where two people of the same sex are trying to get married, a New York court has ruled.
The court's decision affirmed the state's Division of Human Rights (DHR) ruling against Robert and Cynthia Gifford, owners of Liberty Ridge Farms, after they declined to host a "wedding" for a same-sex couple. 

The Giffords said they would host the reception for a lesbian couple, but the ceremony itself would have to be hosted elsewhere because of their religious beliefs about marriage.
The two argent-grubbing lesbian maggottes (excuse my  French) Jennie McCarthy and Melissa Erwin claim they suffered 'mental pain and suffering.'

Pain and suffering, my arse.

DHR found that the couple violated New York's "places of public accommodation" anti-discrimination law. If the court's decision stands, the Giffords must pay $10,000 in state fines and an additional $3,000 in damages to the lesbian couple, Jennie McCarthy and Melissa Erwin, for "mental pain and suffering." 
Note how the State takes a huge share. 

This is theft. Grand Larceny by the State. 

Additionally, the Giffords – who say they have hosted a birthday party for a lesbian couple's adopted child, and employed people with same-sex attractions – will have to provide sensitivity training to their staff and prominently display a posterhighlighting state anti-discrimination laws.
Wot? No re-education camp and hard labour?

The suit goes back to a 2012 phone call that Cynthia answered. Erwin and McCarthy wanted to have their wedding on site, something Cynthia said couldn't happen.
In a statement issued by the New York arm of the ACLU, which took on their case, the lesbian women said, "Having your relationship judged as somehow unworthy is incredibly hurtful and disheartening and we want to ensure that other couples do not have to undergo the same treatment."
No it isn't 'incredibly hurtful'. There is no credulity in that claim. It is just fatuous nonsense. 

Erwin and McCarthy say it took them months to find another site to host their "wedding."
"All Americans should be free to live and work according to their beliefs, especially in our own backyards," said Alliance Defending Freedom legal counsel Caleb Dalton in a statement after Thursday's decision. Dalton, who defended the couple, added, "The government went after both this couple's freedom and their ability to make a living simply for adhering to their faith on their own property. The court should have rejected this unwarranted and unconstitutional government intrusion, so we will consult with our client regarding appeal."
In 2014, another attorney for the Giffords told LifeSiteNews, "The entire interaction between the complainants and the Giffords transpired during a two- to three-minute telephone conversation, which, unknown to Mrs. Gifford, was being tape-recorded," Trainor said.
So, a prima-facie set-up. A deliberate entrapment. 

Its setting the police and courts on innocent people in the now-so typical homosexual game of 'Let's You and Him, Fight'.

"After communicating the fact that they chose not to hold same-sex marriage ceremonies at the farm because to do so would violate the Giffords' sincerely held beliefs (that God intended marriage to be between a man a woman only), Mrs. Gifford invited the couple to visit the farm to discuss handling their wedding reception, which the couple refused."
Trainor also says the state's law doesn't apply to the Giffords because their wedding and reception business is on their home property. However, Slate's Mark Stern noted in 2014 that DHR found that "[Liberty Ridge Farms] is a for profit business and directs its publicity to the general public. … LRF engages in widespread marketing to the general public through advertising at a bridal show and on the internet[.] … LRF is encouraging members of the public to lease the use of its facilities and purchase its services. Thus, there is no exclusivity and LRF is not 'distinctly private.'" 
What is one to do when provoked by aggressive lesbians?  And an aggressive State.

I shall leave you to ponder that and come up with your own responses.

Meanwhile a couple of other chaps at a table at the back called out....
Paul Bany said: 
Really? $13,000 fine? For what? For lesbians and gays' mental pain and sufferings? What about million of women and men who follow the traditional marriage that have been abused everyday and they do not received any coin for their sufferings? What is special about this new group of gays/lesbians? The world is totally out of order and it has become worse than Sodom and Gomorrah 
And  David Wills suggested....
I would have said, hey girls, come on in! But I promise you that they would have had the noisiest, dirtiest, dustiest, STINKIEST, experience of their lives. 
There would be a mountain of whatever fiendishly ripe animal shyte was on hand, piled up to the frigging sky! 
They would have been welcomed by humming and snarling old farm equipment, a peanut gallery of as many toothless half drunk hillbillies I could find, and a pasture full of cows on hand being serviced by the randiest bull God ever gave breath! 
Nope, the farmers need to consult with me if they want to help these disordered women experienc e a ceremony "out in nature!" Yes, I would give them nature al right...
I found that a very useful, if slightly overdone suggestion but worth considering.

M'self? I too would host if I had to, here at the Tavern on our extensive and very beautiful lawns.... and I would put a Bull in there too.  

There is too much bullshyte in the laws that are coming to a place near you, so look out. In fact, hand it back.



  1. Amazing how your religious freedom ends where lesbian A's feelings begin. BTW - her feelings are almost as large as she and her life partner are combined.
    Technically, doesn't the recorded conversation constitute entrapment?

    1. In any circumstance than a Court, that would be entrapment, but the courts are on their side. And it is not just religious freedom: this is a matter of civil society's management of biological realities. The fact that these are generally codified in a 'morality system' like religion does not exclude it from traditions of civil sense.


Ne meias in stragulo aut pueros circummittam.

Our Bouncer is a gentleman of muscle and guile. His patience has limits. He will check you at the door.

The Tavern gets rowdy visitors from time to time. Some are brain dead and some soul dead. They attack customers and the bar staff and piss on the carpets. Those people will not be allowed in anymore. So... Be Nice..