My New Religion

mixism (note the lower case, don’t violate my rights by capitalizing it) has one central tenet: only people of color should receive our most sacred sacrament, divorce. Therefore, this country’s current, offensive, divorce laws, which obviously apply equally to caucasians as well as to me and my fellow mixists, violate my religious freedom and that of all my followers. To compensate I will be petitioning local legislatures to pass a Freedom of Religion Act prohibiting divorce for all white folk, using Arizona as a model. For, as the sacred mix texts clearly state, we are only free when whites are unable to cut the ties that bind. My brothers and sisters, join me in my march to freedom!

136 replies
  1. 1
    Jerzy Russian says:

    Can I pick and choose which of your church’s teachings I will follow? If so, then count me in.

  2. 2
    evolved beyond the fist mistermix says:

    @Jerzy Russian: Yeah, we’re just like the Catholics.

  3. 3
    BGinCHI says:

    Dear God,

    More smiting please.

    Thanks.

    BG

  4. 4
    Hawes says:

    mixism does have a whiff of maoism about it.

  5. 5
    dmsilev says:

    As an aside, I have to admire the purity of this NewsMax headline: “Ann Coulter: Shysters Hijacking Tea Party”. I guess she’s worried that new competitors are horning in on her grifting territory?

  6. 6
    JPL says:

    Will a patron have to leave their birth control pills at the counter. I think special i.d. cards should be issued to the residence of the state.

  7. 7
    Teresa says:

    My religion says that all businesses must charge all white right wing Christians that support AZ’s mindset 10 times the price on everything if my believers even want them in their establishment.

  8. 8
    wenchacha says:

    “It’s good to be King.” Henry VIII

  9. 9
    dmsilev says:

    I think you should consider revising your creed to forbid heterosexuals from divorcing. Want a divorce? One or the other of you needs to get a sex-change operation first.

  10. 10
    SatanicPanic says:

    Are people of color allowed to divorce white people? If not I am leaving and forming my own church

  11. 11
    Corner Stone says:

    mixism wouldn’t mandate this anti-divorce law be retroactive, would it?
    Because as John Lewis said, “I don’t want to go back”.

  12. 12
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    Does this mean we are all going to retroactively remarried? Corner Stone will freak. I won’t be happy. At all.

  13. 13
    max says:

    For, as the sacred mix texts clearly state, we are only free when whites are unable to cut the ties that bind. My brothers and sisters, join me in my march to freedom!

    I heartily endorse your drive to stick to The Man.

    max
    [‘I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.’]

  14. 14
  15. 15
    srv says:

    What will be the clerical titles? I’d like to be chief ideologist of ideolatry.

    I was trying to figure out a way to monetize the 1%, and came up with the idea of a new school. Don’t have a name for it, maybe Perkins or Theil University. Our mission statement would be to “Set the 1% Free.”

    We’d start by offering a Masters of Sociopathy. Wondering what other degrees would be useful.

  16. 16
    SatanicPanic says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: This makes for an interesting theological question a la “can people born before Jesus be saved?”

    I suspect you’re going to end up in some sort of limbo

  17. 17
    Baud says:

    @SatanicPanic:

    I suspect you’re going to end up in some sort of limbo schism.

    FTFY. I’m looking forward to the holy wars.

  18. 18
    Corner Stone says:

    @SatanicPanic: Mine is at my house all the damn time now, anyway. So if a kind of limbo is the worst thing that happens, then I guess bring on The Mixism.

  19. 19
    JPL says:

    uhoh, I commented without permission, since I broke a commandment according to mixism.

  20. 20
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @dmsilev:

    I was just going to post that myself.

    Grifters hate it when other grifters horn in on their grift.

  21. 21
    Corner Stone says:

    I wonder how someone in elected office not only sees this bill and says, “Yeah, that sounds reasonable.”, but also then thinks, “And my constituents will also see this as a reasonable thing.”
    The lack of morality involved on the War on The Poors is one thing, because nobody wins defending the poors, but holy jeebus cracker.

  22. 22
    srv says:

    @SatanicPanic: limbo must be absolutely overflowing with aborted babies by now since Catholics Doctrine had us all stop praying for them to get out.

  23. 23
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    Other Noisemax silliness:

    The 1 Surprising Thing Most Millionaires Have in Common

    They all have at least a million dollars?

  24. 24
    shortstop says:

    I’m loving this idea. No matter how deviants try to redefine it, God reserved divorce for people of color only. If I call an apple an orange, does it make it an orange? No, it does not! Also, what if Jewish grocers were forced to sell pork? That’s exactly like forcing me to recognize white divorce. Stand up for the ONE TRUE DEFINITION OF AUTHENTIC MARRIAGE DISSOLUTION!

  25. 25
    dmsilev says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: No, that would be the ‘1 UNsurprising Thing…’. I’m going to go with ‘Enjoy model-railroading as a hobby’.

  26. 26
    raven says:

    When’s the Georgia Confederate Flag tag issue coming to BJ?

  27. 27
    SFAW says:

    I’m wondering if any Thuggee adherents are considering relocating to Arizona.

  28. 28
    🎂 Martin says:

    I invite everyone here to join me with the newly formed ‘Church of the Rolling Stop’. We are a branch off of Pastafarianism, but the only sect willing to speak out against the persecution of peoples around the world. As you are surely aware, when the FSM created the world and the beer volcanos and the stripper factories, stop signs and red lights were not part of the deal. Not only has the decline of pirate activity contributed to global warming, but so has the ever-spreading demand by intolerant governments to force us to stop our vehicles at intersections, when keeping them moving would allow us to get to religious services faster, reduce fuel consumption, and hopefully through the reversal of climate change bring aaaarg-loving pirates back to our seas. Throw down your shackles people, ignore those stop signs and red lights, and stand up for your religious rights!

  29. 29
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @dmsilev:

    How about “Have Noisemax as their home page”?

  30. 30
    Middle-Aged Fogey says:

    Serious question: If a devout Christian Scientist owns a company that employs, say, 6,000 people, can said CS deny employees health insurance coverage in toto and avoid penalties as a result of his or her religious beliefs?

    Less serious question: Does mixism approve or disapprove of treatments for erectile dysfunction? Vasectomies? Prostate treatments?

    I’d like to see candidates’ debates in general elections across the country force aging, intolerant incumbents (I’m looking at you, McConnell, if you make it that far; you too, Louie) to make their positions on these issues crystal clear.

  31. 31
    SFAW says:

    @🎂 Martin:

    bring aaaarg-loving pirates back to our seas.

    I think you’ll have to wait about seven months for that one, pal.

    But everything else seems Kosher.

  32. 32
    SatanicPanic says:

    @srv: Wait, I thought the pope just decided limbo doesn’t exist. I figured everyone there was relocated to purgatory. They need a map of these places.

  33. 33
    🎂 Martin says:

    @dmsilev: I’m going to go with ‘they don’t eat babies’.

  34. 34
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @🎂 Martin:

    bring aaaarg-loving pirates back to our seas.

    Avast, matey, I find this idea intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

  35. 35
    The Dangerman says:

    Hey Corner Stone, did you see none other then President Obama compared Michael Sam to Jackie Robinson? Now, I disagree with the comparison, but, you must admit, young Mr. Sam is collecting quite the amount of goodwill and from even the highest office in the land. Of course, I am to believe, per you, that all this “goodwill” won’t translate into financial reward. Uh-huh.

    Also, you had a problem with me being unable to name a current product or service Sam is endorsing; you were ever so correct. I cannot. I will mention, however, that I said he will have endorsements. ESPN says he will, Fortune says he will, etc.; note what I believe is called “future tense” in those examples. For example, if I say the “sun will rise in the East tomorrow” and your response is “show me a picture of the sun rising in the East now”, my response is “WTF are you talking about?”.

    Now, maybe you don’t like the Macro examples of ESPN and Fortune; fine, I can talk of an example on the Micro, too. Let’s say there’s a person (for fun, let’s call him “John Cole”) who says he wants to wear a Sam jersery. Now, I don’t know for 100% sure why he wants to wear a Sam jersey (I don’t think he said in his original post). Maybe he’s a Jack Ham fan and he likes that there’s a rhyming name there. Maybe he subconsciously makes anagrams with people’s names and it reminds him of his Mothers home cooking (“Mama’s Chile”; ok, he’d have to be a shitty speller, too). Maybe he’ll share with us why he wants to buy this jersey (and 50 times over). BTW, I suppose if Sam is to get his cut of jersey deals, he has to make a team, which, I suppose means he has to play a down (unless he Napolean MacCallum’s a knee walking from the locker room on opening day). I stand mildly corrected on that previous assertion; such a mild error doesn’t support your claims of bigotry, however.

    Now, if it were up to me in my world, Michael Sam’s announcement would have merited little attention and he would be treated exactly as every other single mid-round draft pick. All the draft talk would be about Manziel being a potential #1 pick of the Texans (which is fucking crazy talk, but, hey, maybe the Texans want to suck for a few more years). That hasn’t happened, obviously.

  36. 36
    SFAW says:

    @Middle-Aged Fogey:

    One would think that particular line of argument, or some variation thereof, would be enough to convince the SCOTUS to shoot down the new law.

    But this is the Fat-Nino’s-House-o-Crazy SCOTUS, so all bets are off.

  37. 37
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @SatanicPanic:

    Yes, relocated to Purgatory, forced to take double black diamond runs all day. Moguls, ho!

  38. 38
    SFAW says:

    @SatanicPanic:

    Wait, I thought the pope just decided limbo doesn’t exist.

    That’s only because he’s never been on a singles cruise.

  39. 39
    srv says:

    @dmsilev: Ruh Roh, that article got me to Joseph Farah and he has figured out the reason Republicans aren’t investigating the IRS scandals is because they want Obama to bludgeon the Tea Party with his evil instruments of state.

    It was just so much easier when Hillary had her Black Helicopters. Thinking about that, will she have helicopters or tilt-rotors for 2016?

    @SatanicPanic: Explain that to a bunch of 6th graders who fervently prayed for the babies every day and then… wtf.

  40. 40
    raven says:

    Women’s hockey Gold Medal game comin right up/

  41. 41
  42. 42
    Baud says:

    @SFAW:

    The Hobby Lobby case currently before the Supreme Court is all about this. We’ll find out in June whether we have a theocracy or not.

  43. 43
    Baud says:

    @raven:

    Should be epic.

  44. 44
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @The Dangerman:

    I continue to hope that the Seahawks draft Sam. Then Cole will have to buy a Seahawks jersey, which will in turn cause Yatsuno to double over with laughter, which will amuse his physical therapist.

  45. 45
    SatanicPanic says:

    @srv: In that case, tell them their prayers worked and all the dead fetuses went to heaven. Hooray!

  46. 46
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @raven:

    I don’t even have to go to ESPN to know that it’s USA and Canada, right?

  47. 47
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    My religious convictions prevent me from recognizing your religious convictions.

  48. 48
    raven says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: Yup and it is live on NBC.

  49. 49
    Roger Moore says:

    @dmsilev:

    As an aside, I have to admire the purity of this NewsMax headline: “Ann Coulter: Shysters Hijacking Tea Party”.

    I was really struck by a comment in their “Ted Nugent Kicked Off Campaign After ‘Mongrel’ Remark” article:

    But Nugent’s description of Obama as a “communist-nurtured, subhuman mongrel” in a January interview amounts to racism, critics say.

    So they’re dissociating themselves from the criticism of Nugent both with the “amounts to” qualifier on racism- sorry guys, that’s blatantly racist- and by attributing it to “critics” rather than coming out and saying it themselves. In any case, Newsmax is carefully burying the lede, which is that Abbot is refusing either to explicitly denounce Nugent’s comments or to publicly dissociate itself from him. Instead, it’s giving a mealy mouthed comment about him “say things or use language that Greg Abbott would not endorse or agree with” while continuing to welcome his support.

  50. 50
    dmsilev says:

    @srv:

    It was just so much easier when Hillary had her Black Helicopters. Thinking about that, will she have helicopters or tilt-rotors for 2016?

    Electric cars. Still black, of course.

  51. 51
    ruemara says:

    @The Dangerman: yes, just like being black, being gay is a wealth creation machine. We get it. You are so correct.

    I’ll only subscribe to a religion that grants me the divine right to slap people on the back of the head for idiocy. And nutpunches for being evil. It’s like being a modern paladin.

  52. 52
    jonas says:

    I’m not a lawyer, but can someone explain to me why it is legal in Kansas and Arizona to claim that your religion allows you to discriminate against gays, but not also against people of color (let’s say your a “Creativist“) or restrict your business hiring to only one gender because of Sharia or something (“I’m firing all the unmarried women because they’re a source of impurity,” e.g.) or refuse service to, say, Muslims because your Bible says that “thou shalt have no dealings with the unbelievers, nor shall you serve them.”?

    I simply can’t see how this stands constitutional muster, unless you’re also going to basically roll back all civil rights legislation relating to public services and allow the re-institution of Jim Crow. Which, for some of these assholes, is a feature, not a bug, I suppose.

  53. 53
    Roger Moore says:

    @srv:

    I was trying to figure out a way to monetize the 1%

    Might I suggest coercing them into changing their wills to make you the beneficiary and then processing them into delicious Soylent Green?

  54. 54
    Corner Stone says:

    @The Dangerman: You keep trying this on, eh?
    Ok, I guess. I said at the time that I was unsure what to think of the JR comparisons and did not plan to comment further on those. Others are free to comment as they choose, if they choose. I am not, at this time.
    As for your other statements regarding deals, this is why I asked for proof:

    now, do be a good soul and go look up the endorsement deals that Sam is already inking his name to (I think I linked a Fortune article the other night and, no, I’m not going to go look it up for you).

    emphasis mine
    “already inking” Now, what tense would that be, Professor?
    As for the rest, yes, I continue to hold the opinion that your comments on this matter have been bigoted.

    ETA, and may you endure a thousand blights for even mentioning the possibility the Texans may draft Johnny Football.
    high priest of mixism, I beg your interference in this matter! Like the love between two men, this outcome can not be allowed to happen!

  55. 55
    aimai says:

    @jonas: What makes you think they wouldn’t be ok with “not serving muslims.” The thing is, they will happilly throw a few sikhs out the door, like the scene in Giant when Rock Hudson ends up being beaten to a pulp for bringing his mexican grandchildren into the restaurant at the end of the movie. The cook who beats him up throws a sign down on him “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” after he wins. It was the first time I realized those signs were, of course, meant to signal to some people–non whites–that they would not be welcome in the restaurant without the restaurant owner having to come out with it directly.

  56. 56
    🎂 Martin says:

    @jonas: It’s totally different. Jesus loved people of all color (after 1965).

  57. 57
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @jonas: It is perfectly legal to make those claims (1st Amendment); acting on those claims runs a person up against the 14th Amendment.

    Also too, OT: is there a more pernicious song than Katy Perry’s Roar on pop radio? And isn’t the horn riff on Beyonce’s Crazy in Love from an old Chi-kites song? Yeah, I am stuck someplace that is a pop music hell.

  58. 58
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: Chi-lites, that is.

  59. 59
    shortstop says:

    @🎂 Martin: Naw, those laws were “government tyranny” for decades afterward. Just as MLK Jr. is now viewed as a good Negro by parts of the right, Jesus really only started loving people of all color when gays became the next fundie punching bag.

    Some of the NOM supporters who keep ‘splaining that being black, unlike having hot gay sex, is “something people can’t help” (it’s still deeply, deeply unfortunate, but it’s just a bad roll of the universe’s dice, you see) are the exact same people who screamed abuse at little kids trying to go to school way back when. Others are just the cultural and sometimes literal descendants of them. The bible always has some verse or other these assholes can cherrypick to justify hating on people.

  60. 60
    Corner Stone says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: Oooo, I could listen to Crazy in Love all day long. Because in my head the video plays right along with it, each and every time.
    Of course, in my video I play the part of Jay Z. Not rapping, of course, just all the rest of it.

  61. 61
    Elizabelle says:

    Ooh! Ooh!

    Can the religion involve special underwear?

    Not for us, of course. Can we mandate the white non-divorcing types wear it?

    Outside their clothing, so we know they’re complying with our dictates?

    Is for their own good.

  62. 62
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Corner Stone: Yeah, I don’t mind the Beyonce. I just thought I recognized the horn riff. The Katy Perry thing is horrific.

  63. 63
    Fuzzy says:

    Reminds me of the old Imus and his “Church of the ooey gooey death and the discount house of worship” and their motto “may jesus kick me through the goalposts of life” coming to you from beautiful Del Rio Texas.

  64. 64
    Gordon, the Big Express Engine says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: the other day a woman at a bar asked me what I would do if I had a million dollars. I told her I would wonder where the rest of my money went!

  65. 65
    cokane says:

    I’m not scared of your Mixism sir

  66. 66
    Corner Stone says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: I sometimes irritate my son by singing:
    “You’re gonna hear me snore!! Snore! Sn-Sn-Snore-ore-ore-o-ore!”
    Just a little mid-day over sharing for you. Anything to keep my mind off mistermix forcing me back into bondage. And not the good kind, either.

  67. 67
    Chris says:

    mixism (note the lower case, don’t violate my rights by capitalizing it) has one central tenet: only people of color should receive our most sacred sacrament, divorce. Therefore, this country’s current, offensive, divorce laws, which obviously apply equally to caucasians as well as to me and my fellow mixists, violate my religious freedom and that of all my followers. To compensate I will be petitioning local legislatures to pass a Freedom of Religion Act prohibiting divorce for all white folk, using Arizona as a model. For, as the sacred mix texts clearly state, we are only free when whites are unable to cut the ties that bind. My brothers and sisters, join me in my march to freedom!

    I’ll just wait until you’re dead and then co-opt your religion for my own profit and power, telling your congregations to do all the things you wouldn’t have wanted them to do and to do it for the sake of Your holy memory. And an absolute minimum of 27% of them will eat it up like candy.

  68. 68
    tybee says:

    @raven:

    hah. the idiocy in the peach state continues.

    as an aside, you may have noticed that now, on your georgia license plate, you can get a sticker, “IN GOD WE TRUST”, that goes over the spot where your county name usually resides.

    i mutilated mine slightly and now my tag reads “IN DOG WE TRUST”.

  69. 69
    SFAW says:

    @Baud:

    We’ll find out in June whether we have a theocracy or not.

    We already do, it’s just whether the Supreme Court will “sanctify” it.

  70. 70
    jl says:

    @Chris: I recommend you co-opt my religion, which I just founded, and then I ordained myself as the Holy Leader. The fundamental tenet and principal of jl-sm is that I have all the money.

    And frankly, I am hurt, and feel quite violated that the BJ community has, as of this morning, been violating my religious freedom. (edit: In case that hint went over your heads, I expect you people to cash out and send me the proceeds asap. Liquidity is the second fundamental principal of my new religion, so I don’t want quit claim deeds and other garbage like that. ‘In God we trust others pay cash’ is Holy Scripture around here).

    The IPO will be annouced shortly for shares in my new religion for eager co-opters who want to get in on the ground floor.

  71. 71
    raven says:

    @tybee: Yea and I’m supposed to get a free nam vet tag too!

  72. 72
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @jl: Apostate! How dare you violate tenets of Omnibusism?

  73. 73
    Gex says:

    So many problems with this law. First of all, it gives me the impression that there is only one sin that these Christians are opposed to. If the argument is that serving gays is tantamount to endorsing our sins, then serving everyone else is tantamount to endorsing their sins. So murderers, pedophiles, rapists, thieves, etc. They are saying they approve of those things by drawing the line here. Which is a pretty sad statement on their moral values.

    Second, these people have repeatedly argued that gays do not exist. There are only straight people who sin. They’ve made that argument in court repeatedly when judges pondered the question of whether or not we are or should be a protected class. How can they now argue for the right to legally discriminate against a class of people who they themselves have argued does not exist? I hope that gets thrown in their face at the very first lawsuit.

    Third, I know exactly how we need to deal with this. We need to recruit legions of straight allies to dress and act in ways that haters think gays dress and act and go in to their establishments only to get kicked out. Then sue them. Repeatedly. Over and over until we break them. Because unless they want some sort of government inquisition and a mandatory pink triangle patch, they are going to fuck up and refuse to serve straight people. And I want the straight people who get caught up by their bigoted false positives to make them pay.

    Finally, I don’t even know whether or not I would count as gay to these guys any more. Kate’s been dead over a year now. There’s no one else. I’m celibate. Isn’t that just as good as not being gay? Hate the sin, love the sinner and all that, am I right? (Heh, yeah right. Hate is the key word for them. That’s their core competency.)

  74. 74
    shortstop says:

    @jl: I don’t have my glasses on and read your new religion as “jism.”

  75. 75
    Chris says:

    @jl:

    What a bag of dicks. It’s like that time Hitler invaded Poland, and you’re just like the Jews at Auschwitz.

    At long last, Balloon Juicers, have you no decency?

  76. 76
    Belafon says:

    @SatanicPanic: The answer I heard was that Jesus went and rescued Moses and others from Hell.

  77. 77
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Gex: So I need to practice my flouncing and lisping? I think I get my hands on a pink boa; will that help?

  78. 78
    Gex says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: I think you would look fantastic in a pink boa!

  79. 79
    SFAW says:

    Hi, I’m trying to find some fellow members of the Judean People’s Front. Any of you belong?

  80. 80
    SFAW says:

    @Belafon:
    … with help from The Angel Moron.

  81. 81
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Gex: I was shooting for fabulous.

    I do like your idea though. I am sure these types of businesses would just love being flooded with the entire variety of gay stereotypes on a daily basis. Being sued for tossing people would be icing on the cake.

  82. 82
    Violet says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: Just take a few notes from Johnny Weir during his figure skating announcing stint over these Olympics and you’ll be all set.

  83. 83
    Belafon says:

    @The Dangerman: In my dream world, Christians would pray in the closet, help the poor, and rich Christians would either be trying be less rich or talk about how they are not truly Christians.

    Instead, I’ve got someone running for senator who touts that he wouldn’t let “the left” (actually used that in an ad) stop him from creating the moment of silence we have in our schools here in Texas. Sam is way less showboaty than this guy and is not trying to pretend to speak for God.

  84. 84

    @shortstop: Hey shortstop, OT but a great article on how ska came to be and a look at the early careers of Bob, Peter, Bunny and others. http://www.oxfordamerican.org/.....op-upbeat/

    Still waiting for the 4th wave.

  85. 85
    Corner Stone says:

    @Gex:

    We need to recruit legions of straight allies to dress and act in ways that haters think gays dress and act and go in to their establishments only to get kicked out. Then sue them. Repeatedly.

    If someone was hateful enough to actually refuse service, wouldn’t their defense be that they honestly believed they were following the law, and had the right to refuse service?
    I would suggest boycott campaigns at the state level, and then against any store that actually did this to someone.

  86. 86
  87. 87
    Corner Stone says:

    Also, when you have the NFL wearing pink to support cancer research, and haters hatin’ on them for doing so, I’m just not sure any longer on what “dressing gay” would entail.
    Maybe I’m overthinking it.

  88. 88
    aimai says:

    @Corner Stone: There’s nothing in the law as written that would make refusal to serve a legitimate/non gay customer legal–the law doesn’t specify that anyone can be refused service. You’ve got to offer your religious reason. I’m wondering whether you’d have a cause of action for the harm/distress it caused you to be accused of being gay, as well.

  89. 89
    Corner Stone says:

    @Belafon: That religion sounds tricky as all hell. But, selfishly, I’d probably still prefer it versus being forced into mixism.

  90. 90
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @The Dangerman: At this point, you are the only around here making a fuss over Sam. Call me when he has a Super Bowl ad pushing politics and religion prior to the NFL draft.

  91. 91
    SFAW says:

    @Belafon:

    Sam is way less showboaty than this guy and is not trying to pretend to speak for God.

    Maybe he should. I mean, how come we never hear about a “Mrs. God”? Oh sure, there was that fling with that Mary babe, but how do we know she wasn’t just trying to “cure” him of his … well, you know .. But He’s been a “confirmed bachelor” for how many thousands of years? Remember what Nathan Lane said about that. And God seems to be into some really over-the-top displays of showing how butch he is. He doesn’t do the pink boa thing, but still.

    So maybe Michael Sam is closer to God than all those gay bashers would have you believe. And, maybe, when they realize it, they heads a-splode.

    Just sayin’

  92. 92
    raven says:

    USA GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLL!

  93. 93
    Corner Stone says:

    @aimai: I haven’t read the bill as my brain keeps self-bleaching when I try thinking about it, so ok.
    And maybe you’re right. I think 30 days of therapy at a premier in-house clinic in California might be required to shed the ickiness of gay accusal.

  94. 94
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @ranchandsyrup: Awesome. I am going try the song sequence when I get home tonight.

  95. 95
    another Holocene human says:

    @Hawes: Maoism is usually more long winded and heavy on theory.

    I do give them props for giving a shit about prisoners when nobody else did. Otherwise, to hell with ’em.

  96. 96

    @Omnes Omnibus: I stayed up late last night listening and youtubing and even doing some awkward white dude ska “dancing”. Enjoy.

  97. 97
    Lawrence says:

    And we are now in the unenviable position of depending on Jan Brewer to be the grown up in the room. Again.

  98. 98
    Gex says:

    @Corner Stone: Yes, they would think they had the right to refuse to serve someone they thought was gay. The law is allowing them to refuse to serve gay people. Just because they think a person is gay doesn’t mean a person is gay, and the law does nothing to give them the right to refuse to serve straight people. If they fuck up, a straight person’s rights were violated.

  99. 99
    srv says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: I would like to file a complaint, who is the Ombudsman of Omnibusism?

  100. 100
    jl says:

    @srv: Omnibusism? A sad false religion. They sit around and worship old burned out buses with Dead graffiti scrawled all over them.

    Why do the heathen rage?

    Send me the money.

  101. 101
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @srv: I am. I hear complaints on alternate Thursdays during leap years. I look forward to your feedback.

    @jl: Buses? Buses don’t enter into it, mate. “All for all.” And by the second all, I mean me.

  102. 102
    Jebediah, RBG says:

    For, as the sacred mix texts clearly state, we are only free when whites are unable to cut the ties that bind.

    I’m much more interested in the sacred mix tapes.
    At any rate, I can’t join your religion, as I am a proud and very orthodox member of Higgs’ Church of Kicking Conservatives in the Junk.
    Unless a qualified theologian weighs in and tells me I can be bireligious.

  103. 103
  104. 104
    shortstop says:

    @ranchandsyrup: Nice. You know it’s up to you and me to get that fourth wave going. If only we weren’t such busy and important people, we’d have done it years ago when this conversation started.

  105. 105
    catclub says:

    LTC Bateman at Charlie Pierce’s Esquire site has quotes from Ex General Jerry Boykin on his religion and how he understands it.

    oy.

  106. 106

    @shortstop: I have my porkpie hat, grade school saxophone chops and wayfarers ready to go.

  107. 107
    shortstop says:

    @ranchandsyrup: We’re changing it up for fourth wave. I don’t want to be seen with someone so white. Just teasing.

  108. 108
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @ranchandsyrup: You need trombone. I still have my wayfarers but I can’t help with the trombone.

  109. 109

    @Omnes Omnibus: I have zero trombone skillz. *sad trombone sound*

  110. 110
    raven says:

    2-1 3 to go

  111. 111
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    Oh god, this Selena Gomez song might be worse than the Katy Perry one. I am in musical hell.

  112. 112
    shortstop says:

    @ranchandsyrup: In DC recently, I came across a street-corner band with eight — eight! — trombones. (Nine if you count the very young son of one of the guys, who was mostly just learning to hold a mini-trombone without dropping it.) I thought I had died and gone to heaven.

  113. 113
    Roger Moore says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    You need trombone.

    Just make sure it isn’t rusty.

  114. 114
    Baud says:

    @raven:

    Too stressful.

    Can’t believe it hit the post!

  115. 115
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @shortstop: Terry Hall and Jerry Dammers are very disappointed in you.

  116. 116
    shortstop says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: No, they agree with me in 2014.

  117. 117
    Baud says:

    Holy shit!

  118. 118
    raven says:

    ACK 3-3

  119. 119
    raven says:

    ACK 3-3

  120. 120
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @shortstop: I’ll admit that possibility.

  121. 121
  122. 122
    raven says:

    Ouch

  123. 123
    geg6 says:

    To compensate I will be petitioning local legislatures to pass a Freedom of Religion Act prohibiting divorce for all white folk

    Take that all you assholes over the course of my entire fucking life who have thought I was either crazy or a lesbian or fatally flawed for never wanting to marry. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    I endorse your mixism religion and, for the first time in fifty years, may have actually found one worth giving up my atheism for!

  124. 124
    SFAW says:

    @raven:
    That “slashing” penalty was bullshit. If the ref hadn’t called that, there (probably) would have been no breakaway leading to the other (alleged) penalty.

    Reminds me of some of the Olympic boxing refs back in the 1970s, except there they were just on the take (figuratively speaking), not incompetent, or so concerned about evening things up.

    Too bad.

  125. 125
    geg6 says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    Hey! I want one of those jerseys, too. I’m hoping the Steelers pick him. We need some decent linebackers and we aren’t afraid of LBs that are labelled by the scouts as “too small.” Look up Jack Lambert some time.

  126. 126
    catclub says:

    @SFAW: “Reminds me of some of the Olympic boxing refs back in the 1970s”

    I thought it was payback for the US-Russia fix on ice dancing.

  127. 127
    SFAW says:

    @catclub:

    I thought it was payback for the US-Russia fix on ice dancing.

    Which one?

  128. 128
    Calouste says:

    So the Bible talks about the Kingdom of God. I’d say this law gives me the right to not serve people who support the anti-thesis of a Kingdom, i.e. a republic, in name or deed.

  129. 129
    Felonius Monk says:

    I think I’d like to become a mixist, but do I have to accept jeebus mix as my savior before doing so?

  130. 130
    D58826 says:

    On a serious note, are these laws so broadly written that a business could refuse to serve an African American or a Jew? After all segregation and anti-Semitism were defended on religious grounds.

  131. 131

    @shortstop: Good Lawd that’s a lot of tromboners.

  132. 132
    qwerty42 says:

    “mixism” …. not the Orthodox Mixism? Splitter!

  133. 133
    Bill in Section 147 says:

    @shortstop: And I had a hard time swallowing the Body of Christ. Sheesh!

  134. 134
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @D58826:

    SLAVERY was defended on religious grounds.

    It’s about time we started REALLY persecuting these assholes…for being assholes.

  135. 135
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @geg6:

    Lambert was fantastic. So much for the conventional wisdom of twits like Kiper.

  136. 136
    Thursday says:

    I do wonder why Xians keep gliding over Numbers 25? God saves the Chosen People from yet another plague (what do you think they were “chosen” for? Biological experiments?) by Phineas killing the interracial couple in their tent. Because, you know, interracial.

    Not even the apologists have managed to say anything nice about that one!

    I also wonder why so many “Constitutional Originalists” are opposed to the Original Testament?

Comments are closed.