So I’m sitting here trying to figure out who is the bigger tool.
There’s this guy, who is clearly so invested in believing that his psychologist colleagues who coached the military on how to torture people more effectively are not a disgrace to their Hippocratic oaths, that he has perverted that same oath beyond recognition. “First, do no harm” no longer means that your primary goal is to not harm your patient. Because your patient is really the United States of America, and if the person sitting in front of you might be thinking of harming one of us, then, well, fucking have at him I guess. Or, in his own words: "
Not to call forth one of those tired-ass Nazi comparisons, but, y’know…yikes. Where'd this guy learn medicine, from watching Laurence Olivier work on Dustin Hoffman's teeth?
Or there’s this “professor of law” bitch, who not only equates caterers being able to turn down a gay wedding with “religious freedom,” she doesn’t know what the phrase “flip side” means. She proposes that the “flip side” of enabling gays to marry is protecting those who object to the gays on “religious” grounds from being forced to provide them with tacky wedding cakes, and rubbery chicken dinners, and from taking poorly lit and boringly staged pictures of their ceremonies.
Yeah. And if you think that line of reasoning is circling the drain, check out the following argument, and while you do, remember that this chick is a professor of law:
What they should not do is what
“The 1st Amendment already provides such protection.”
Hm. Maybe because not having to perform religious marriage services for those who don’t adhere to your bullshit religion is the only fucking issue here! And wonder of wonders, it’s already provided for in our Constitution? Who’d a thunk it?
Oh, only everyone, you stupid fucking idiot professor of law.
Because making a wedding cake for gay people is not a violation of your religion, you only want it to be. What it is a violation of, is your sense of douchebag entitlement. Well, guess what, professor of law genius person? If I made cakes, I wouldn’t want to make them for Christian couples. Because I wouldn’t want them procreating and making more fucking pain in my ass Christians. But I would not be allowed by the government to discriminate against Christians in my little cake-baking business, because if I did, I would be in violation of the law. I would also be an asshole. You know, kind of like the assholes who used to not let Jews into country clubs, and the fairer sex into college, and colored people onto the front of the bus. See, the government has an understandable interest in making sure that everyone in the secular world is treated fairly. And cake-baking, catering, photography? All secular pursuits.
Still confused? Okay, let’s look at it this way. Is your cake-baking business untaxed because it is a religious institution? No? So you have to pay taxes to the government, and you have to have one of those business license thingies? Yeah, that’s what I thought.
What you got yourself there is a business. A business. Not a religion, but a business. And if you want to be an American business, and operate within the good ole US of A, and enjoy separating Americans from their hard-earned dollars, then you have to conform to the rules of doing business here. One of the most important rules of doing business here is that you can’t arbitrarily choose which Americans you will and will not serve. In short, gay people get to sit at your lunch counter now, and thanks to our kick-ass Constitution, soon there will not be one damn thing you can do about it.
Get it, ya fancy dumbass professor of law?
Okay, readers, who's the bigger tool? Dr. Mengele, or the nutty professor?