Sunday, May 16, 2010

When truly stupid people blog.

Apparently, some of Canada's relentless whiners have been yammering on about how freedom of conscience (or some other equally vacuous phrase) should allow civil marriage commissioners to pick and choose which members of the public they wish to serve.

As a history lesson, then, a smattering of news pieces over the last several years, in a (probably vain) attempt to educate these ignorant, teary-eyed bigots (all emphasis thigh-suckingly added).

January, 2004:

Perform same-sex marriages or resign, B.C. tells commissioners

British Columbia has ordered the province's marriage commissioners to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies or resign...

The B.C. Vital Statistics Agency, which appoints the commissioners who perform civil marriage ceremonies, sent out a letter in January ordering those "who feel they cannot solemnize same-sex marriages" to "resign their appointments" effective March 31.

February, 2005:

7 Nfld. marriage commissioners quit over same-sex issue

One in every 10 marriage commissioners in Newfoundland and Labrador has resigned, saying they won't perform ceremonies for same-sex couples.

Immediately after a Supreme Court of Newfoundland decision that cleared the way for same-sex marriage, the provincial government notified marriage commissioners they would have to abide with the law or resign by Jan. 31.

May, 2008:

Rights tribunal rebukes marriage commissioner in same-sex ruling
Religious beliefs can't be a factor for civil servants, tribunal says

The Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal has ordered a marriage commissioner who refused to perform a same-sex ceremony for religious reasons to pay $2,500 in compensation to the gay complainant.

Orville Nichols, 71, has also been ordered to stop discriminating against same-sex couples in a judgment issued in Saskatoon Friday by the quasi-judicial provincial body that adjudicates human rights complaints.

In the 25-page decision, tribunal member Anil K. Pandila ruled that as a public servant providing a government service, Nichols does not have the right to refuse service on the basis of his personal beliefs.

While religious organizations have that right, the ruling states, the purpose of civil marriage is to give people, including same-sex couples, who have the legal right to marry a chance to be wed outside of a church.

May, 2010, when even the screeching dingbats at the National Post get it:

National Post editorial board: Marriage commissioners have no right to say no
Posted: May 11, 2010, 8:32 AM by NP Editor
Editorial, gay rights

Civil marriage commissioners are, in effect, agents of the state. It is government that gives them authority to perform legally binding marriage ceremonies — which means they must follow the government’s rules when they execute their duties...

Once the government has decided that gays have as much right to marry as heterosexuals, it clearly is a violation of their human rights for a civil commissioner to turn them down.

I await the inevitable slobbering, idiotic refutations from the aforementioned bigots, who will argue that devout Christians should be exempt from their official, state-sanctioned and legally-defined obligations because it hurts their widdle feewings.

LET'S TALK ANALOGIES: When wankers insist on using inane, indefensible arguments to support marriage commissioners' right to freedom of homophobia, it is impossible to make said wankers appreciate their overwhelming dumbassitude through the application of mere logic and reason. And this is where a good analogy always comes in handy.

To set the stage, let us recap the typical wanker position -- civil marriage commissioners should have the freedom to discriminate because, well, to make them marry gays would hurt their precious feelings and offend them greatly, and it would be a horrible violation of their religious right to be assholes, and when they took the job, it didn't say anything about having to hitch those dirty faggots and they should be "grandfathered in" and, in the end, what's the big deal since there's always another marriage commissioner who might be willing to do the job? Have I missed anything? No, seriously, is there any ignorant, screeching facet of the wanker's argument that I've overlooked? Because this is where an analogy might finally demonstrate their ridiculous stupidity.

Let us imagine the aforementioned wanker as the owner and operator of, say, a moderately successful family restaurant, which gets enough business to employ one waitress full-time. Life is good, the restaurant makes a decent profit and everyone is happy.

Until one day, when the wanker/owner finally gets approval for his liquor license, which is a big deal since -- as we all know -- the markup on booze is typically obscene and profits should go up noticeably. Yee ha. More money about to come in. Except we suddenly have a problem.

The heretofore reliable waitress makes it clear that she's not going to be able to do this. Turns out that she has a deep-seated, religious objection to serving alcohol. She's been fine until now as long as beer and wine wasn't on the menu, but now that the rules have changed, she has to put her foot down. She's happy to handle customers who require no booze, but beyond that, not a chance.

What's a poor wanker/owner to do?

Well, if said wanker/owner applied his own gay marriage logic, he would happily accept that the waitress should be allowed out of her duties serving alcohol. Of course, this means he has to hire another (entirely unnecessary) person to handle the liquor-related duties but, hey, that's the logic he used in one situation, so it's only fair that he be forced to live with it now. Or, extending his own logic even further, when customers come in who want to order alcohol with their meals, they're told, sorry, but there's another restaurant just down the road that can accommodate them. See where this is going?

Now, let's take a poll -- how many people think that the wanker/owner would consider any of the above possibilities for even a fraction of a millisecond?

Not. A. Chance.

I guarantee that the wanker -- having earlier made what he thinks is a compelling argument for the freedom of conscience of marriage commissioners to be gay-bashing bigots -- would fire that waitress in less time than it takes Stephen Taylor to fluff Preston Manning. There is zero possibility that the wanker would accept the very same logic he just finished spewing all over the floor with respect to same-sex marriage. Zero. His attitude would be blunt and direct: "Sweetheart, either do your job or there's the door. Choose."

But I'm sure that, if you presented this analogy to any random wanker, they would refuse to accept it. That's completely different, they would whine. They wouldn't be able to explain how, but it goes without saying that they would reject this perfectly reasonable comparison, agree with the restaurant owner that it's time to fire that useless wench, then go back to unabashedly defending marriage commissioners, all the while completely unaware of their own hypocrisy.

Canada's wankers: Always ready to argue the most dumbass, indefensible logic, as long as they don't have to live with it themselves.

P.S. We're not done here.


cameron.campbell said...

Umm.. you get that none of this matters right?

All they care about is opposing the ongoing Homosexual Agenda™

Logic has no place mixed in with their terror.

Boris said...

The wanker/owner, I think you've just indentified a new subclass of the bourgeois. Avowed capitalists (well, fans at least, I'm not sure they're all such great beneficiaries of the economics they promote) with cognitively dissonant or inconsistant personality disorders.

wv: faterse

Rev.Paperboy said...

Lets say I my IQ drops by 50% and at the same time I get a job with the Ministry of transport doing driver's licence examinations. Since my IQ has dropped to about that of a smart blogging tory, I believe that blondes really are dumb and that women make lousy drivers, so I refuse to grant blonde women drivers' licences -- hey, I'm just following my conscience! what could possibly be wrong with that?
Or maybe, just maybe my IQ has dropped by 75% and I've become a crazy religious fundementalist and I think the bible or koran or book of mormon says women shouldn't be allowed to drive cars -- can I just follow my religious convictions?