RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists'  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

08/31/2005

'Concerned Woman' Robert Knight recalls 'Perturbed Schoolgirl' past

by Jeremy Hooper

  Concerned Women for America's Robert Knight sat down for another of his little bitchfests with fellow 'Concerned Woman' Martha Kleder today, with this 'plain, no Equal' coffee klatch focusing on a gay rights proposal currently being debated in an itty bitty guest room in the U.S. House of Reps. The proposal -- Sponsored by NY Rep. Edolphus Towns -- would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act to "prohibit discrimination on the basis of affectional or sexual orientation," an idea that puts Knight & Co. in a full-fledged 'concerned tizzy.'

In an attempt to exemplify why this discrimination-preventing measure would damn the nation to an irreversible state of moral decay, Roberto waxes nostalgically on his "Distressed Underclassmen' days of yesteryear, saying:

"When I was a college student in the District of Columbia, we were renting out a house and we had to fill up all the room so we could make the rent. And I remember one day when two guys answered the ad we had put up in the campus newspaper, and they came in and they were flagrantly homosexual...I mean they made no attempt to hide it, and they acted in such a manner that was guaranteed to annoy everybody in the house. If a law like this was on the books, we could have been hauled into court for not renting a room to them, even though that's pretty intimate, living in the same house with people sharing the same bathroom, but we would have been forced to if this law had been on the books"

HOLY SH*T, they didn't even hide their flagrant case of homo-gay?!? Is that even legal?!?!? Isn't it odd how their attempts to negate the validity of gay-friendly policies and legislation often read exactly like reasons for the proposals' necessity?

To hear Knight expound on the societal ills that would result from nondiscrimination at both the collegiate and post-collegiate levels, follow the link below:

Homosexual ‘Civil Rights’ Bill in House Committe [CWFA]

space gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails