Oh, That’s So Cute, Amy
Amy Coney Barrett danced a cute one this morning, finding a rusty old dog whistle to toot a fast one on Democrats and a sloooooow one on Republicans.
“I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and I would never discriminate on the basis of sexual preference.”
First, that’s a bald face lie. From 2015 to 2017 she served on the board Trinity Schools, who had a policy of not accepting children of unmarried parents. Gays could not marry at that time. And, even beside that, it’s never just and honorable to discriminate against children for what you view as the sins of their parents.
Secondly, sexual preference is not sexual orientation. Sexuality is not something you prefer, like vanilla ice cream. Sexual preference is the term used by those who believe that every member of the LGBTQ community can be fixed.
Sexual preference: “I like screwing a guy who wears a thong and has thick hair.”
Sexual orientation: “I’m a male who has always been sexually attracted to other males.”
Food preference: “I’m not crazy about eating beets”
Food orientation: “I have to eat, or I will die”
This is not difficult.
By their ‘reasoning,’ all conservatives are bi-sexual. What other reason is there for their adamant insistence that sexual orientation is a “choice”?
What Amy doesn’t get is that simply because she made a choice, she does not have a right to impose her choice on others. Call it tyranny, call it fascism, but it isn’t right, Amy. As with all the phony conservative panic button issues the forced birthers are projecting their nefarious control issues onto others.
Get past the 1st and 2nd Amendments, Amy. Enlighten yourself with the 4th and 14th Amendments.
1Obergefell v. Hodges was decided in 2015, so your statement that “gays could not marry at that time” is incorrect. The rest of your point is valid, though.
2We know she’s a repugnantican so truth is no obstacle when lies work better. Lies are the go to tactic for repugnanticans to get their way, and she’s doing it now and she did it by omitting pertinent information to the senate in writing.
3My wife calls her Brett Kavanaugh in a skirt, not because of her personal physical sexual assaults but in her lying to Congress and the American people. I guess you could say she’ll likely rule to sexually assault others from the bench in the future.
I swear it’s getting to the point where I’m thinking about gargling with gasoline and lighting it with my zippo so I can spit fire at these willfully-ignorant-assed malevolent people. It’s bad enough they co-opted the Notorious RBG meme for this woman like she is some sort of feminist icon. Couple that with #45 thinking he’s Lazarus back from the dead while gleefully spreading COVID-19 to anyone foolish enough to get near him, and him replaying Mussolini’s greatest hits from his Evita balcony and you have political theater at its most absurd. My only comfort is knowing my ballot is in, the blue tsunami has begun and will blow this psychopath into well-deserved oblivion. I used to hope for the Evil Incompetent Orange One going to a richly- deserved jail cell, but I’ll settle for him just being GONE from my damn TV screen every friggin’ day. Because another 4 years of this buffoon would mean drinking a lot more good whiskey just to drown the stench from the swamp in which he so joyfully floats. But hell, I’m retired now, so drinking whiskey at breakfast is always an option…I wonder of Miss Lindsey realized he was starting hearings for a homophobe on the anniversary of Matt Shepard’s horrific death?
4I just finished watching Ted Cruz’s harangue. For someone who’s not of his religion, it was terrifying.
5No matter what she calls it, I would never believe Amy’s declaration that she doesn’t discriminate. There’s thing about radical religionists: lying for Jebus is totally OK.
6Been following a discussion on the twitter machine – is it ok to really, really hate her little girl voice? Is it just the way she was born or is it an affectation?
Done wondering- back to writing votefwd.org letters to unlikely TX voters. Carry on.
7Somebody should ask the judge where she got her sexual preference.
8On top of everything she’s said and omitted this week, not answering the questions about a peaceful transfer of power after the election was a very loud silence today when questioned by Cory Booker. She’s answered all our questions with her non-answers like a Trumpf trooper. If the court wasn’t corrupted before, it’s a sure thing after this week.
9Kenneth Fair @2
The Supreme Court ruled and grudgingly, those states which had not allowed same sex marriage shifted.
However, Catholic Schools remain able to discriminate against students whose parents are not opposite sex; or against the children of single parents; or those who are not married in the Catholic church (which does not marry same-sex couples). They also are able to refuse to hire or to fire members of their teaching staff who have a same sex marriage. I do not know of Judge Barrett’s service on the board of the specific school — but I would be she would need a really large asterisk to clarify why her acts as part of the board did not advance or acquiesce to policies which had a discriminatory effect.
10I do not expect her to answer questions about deciding future cases but there is no good reason not to answer questions about past cases: is Dred Scott outside the limits of discussion?
What she did though (and Durbin cleverly exposed) was reveal that her claims to be an originalist and a textualist are bogus. (This is always true, all claims by all jurists to be originalists are bogus.) Her claim to have found a distinction between civic rights and individual rights (in, eg, Heller) is laughable dumb.
And even if it were not, it isn’t based on any text.
11