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 »

11/06/2013

What's the implication here, Dirty Mind Research Council?

by Jeremy Hooper

Check out the Family Research Council's latest headline decrying The Employment NonDiscrimination Act (ENDA):

Screen Shot 2013-11-06 At 5.14.37 Am
[FRC]

"Up clothes"? What is it, exactly, that they think ENDA does: force second base on unsuspecting Americans?

Perhaps they think it's "in 'da", like "in 'da bra" or "in 'da shorts"? Maybe they think seven Republicans and fifty-four Democratic U.S. Senators just cleared a legislative hurdle so that they can direct the NSA to spy on Americans' private parts?

You really have to wonder what they're saying here. Other than "you should dislike LGBT people," I mean.

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


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails