Gay Activists Protest Failure Of Anti-Discrimination Bill At Legislator’s Home

21218391_BG1

This seems entirely inappropriate:

BISMARCK – A group of about 45 people stood outside a Bismarck lawmaker’s house Thursday night in protest of a Senate vote that killed a bill to outlaw discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals.

Protest organizer Kevin Tengesdal, of Bismarck, a constituent of Republican Sen. Margaret Sitte, who voted against the bill, called the protest a vigil, to “be awake to the plight of discrimination and to hold a silent memorial at the death of the Senate bill.”

Senate Bill 2252 failed Thursday by a 21-26 vote. It would have added “sexual orientation” to state anti-discrimination law to allow LGBT individuals to seek recourse against a landlord or employer who evicts or fires someone based on their sexual orientation.

Free speech is one thing. Intimidation is quite another. And even a quiet, “peaceful” demonstration at a person’s home is intimidation.

There are plenty of places where a protest like this could have had an impact, the state capitol where the law in question was defeated by a majority in one chamber of the legislature would be a good starting place.

But not a legislator’s home. Not any public official’s home. That’s crossing the line. Especially in a state as open as North Dakota.

We enjoy a special level of access to our political leaders. On the state legislative website most legislators list a home address and even a phone number. I’m not sure there’s any place else in the country where you could stop by your legislator’s home, or call their cell phone, to discuss an issue.

But if that level of access is abused, as I think it was here, we’re going to lose it.

I’m also not sure how much this sort of thing helps the cause of gay rights, something I’m very sympathetic too. These sort of tactics are only going to make opponents dig in.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • Roy_Bean

    This is the way things are done when a community organizer is in charge.

    • slackwarerobert

      Yo would think they would flee over the state line and hide in a hotel room, worked for those nuts in wisconsin. Or do those states kick gays out of hotels?

    • $8194357

      Community organizors are communist union type thugs…..
      Always the threat of violence in the mix….

  • barackHUisINSANEobama

    The perverts … the police should have been there to see if there were some felon pedophiles there. This is called intimidation!

    • dakotacyr

      Someone has a fear of people who don’t look like him.

      • two_amber_lamps

        So the gay community isn’t partly composed of white males?

        You ARE a special kind of stupid cyr. They should make a monument to your douche-baggery.

    • SusanBeehler

      Do you think “pedophiles” are homosexual? What about the old guys who go after little girls are they a “pedophile” or a homosexual or what exactly are they? I would say they are criminals. Intimidation, really? What are you afraid of a rainbow?

      • JoeMN

        That’s interesting.
        However some have claimed that those Catholic priests involved in the abuse scandal were pedophiles, but NOT homosexual.
        I am not saying that all homosexuals are also pedophiles, but the gay lobby has a serious problem in their ranks that I don’t believe they have adequately addressed to date.

  • Dallas

    Margaret is a bigoted, ignorant, wing-nut. But I agree, demonstrating outside her home crosses a line.

    • Rocky

      Actually she’s well educated and has had a professional career. But you disagree with her views, so feel free to resort to name calling. Stay classy.

    • jl

      “Racist” was unavailable this time? Oh, my. You poor thing.

  • grammie

    I am still having a hard time to understand the gay activists need to push their life style into my way of living. what really do they want? if it is the right for end of life decesions with their mates give them Power of attorney, if it is to keep their jobs do an excellence job and no worry, if it is to be left money upon death write a will. if it is for insurance purposes buy insurance for them, If it is to rent an apartment be a good tenant, I don’t care if I see 2 gays holding hands, or eatting together, or even having a service to make themselves feel married, So why is there a need for a law?? if it is truly to be accepted apparently they have not in all honestly accepted themselves for when one is 100 % happy with who they are, why do they need others to agree with them.

    • http://nofreelunch.areavoices.com/ Kevin Flanagan

      They want “benefits” and immunity from any accountability for their behavior.

      • sbark

        Maybe we should put them on a “reservations” and then they would get all the Fed money and benefits they’d ever want……….and they’d be insulated from all this discrimination

        • Opinion8ed

          Yes, federal protections like polar bears

    • dakotacyr

      Oh, I dunno, grammie, maybe they want to live their lives in the open like you do. Maybe just doing their jobs well don’t matter to some people, just like some people think they can sexually harass women who are doing their jobs well, or who are black, or muslim. Not everyone in this country is like you. There are some people in this world who thinks it is their right to harass someone who is not like them and it gives them a power trip to do it. And sometimes it’s the boss or supervisor who does it and that is why we need this law.

      • zipity

        You mean like when the President tries to marginalize a news organization because they refuse to kneel before him and promote his policies without question and cover up his outright lies and failures to enforce Federal Laws he disagrees with? Or when his Dept. of Homeland “Security” equates Americans who support limited Government (aka Tea Party) with Neo-Nazis? Or those who paint anyone who disagrees with the President’s and his Democrat allies goal of an overbearing all encompassing Federal Government as blatant RACISTS….

        Is that what you mean…?

        • dakotacyr

          No, what I mean is what I wrote, reading comprehension problem?

          • zipity

            Ah. It’s always hard to tell when reading the disjointed ramblings of a low IQ Liberal apologist such as yourself.

            Thanks for clearing that up.

          • two_amber_lamps

            No, I’d say the idiocy you wrote was quite plain in context. You just hate being called on the BS race-baiting innuendos you throw out with abandon.

      • grammie

        what difference really would a law make, look at drunk driving, underage drinking, stopping at a red light, driving the speed limit. if laws would really change people minds , do you really think people will think different?

        • SusanBeehler

          Are you saying we should have no laws? I think they call that anarchy. Do you want to get rid of the 10 commandments too?

          • two_amber_lamps

            That is one of the silliest strawman arguments you’ve ever constructed.

            Once again Ms. SuzyBS’er = FAIL.

            Hey look, we’ve found something you ARE good at! Failure just comes easy for ya!

          • SusanBeehler

            Try try and try again. I think grammies argument was sillier. You fail to see her strawman argument. I didn’t know it was a contest.

          • two_amber_lamps

            “I think…”

            Therein lies your first mistake… that is you assumed you were capable of cognition.

            FAILED again… good girl!

          • $8194357

            If people/liberals won’t follow God’s law
            why ya think they will follow mans?
            Some of those Christian male chavenists
            Founding Fathers said it like this:

            “Our Constitution was made only for a
            moral and religious people. It is wholly
            inadequate to the government of any other.”
            John Adams

            “We’ve staked our future on our ability to
            follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart.”
            James Madison

            Thats why liberals/communistsd attack our Constitutional
            patriarchail rule of law foundations.
            To destroy her from within with false secular morality called
            “social justice marxism”.

        • dakotacyr

          Yes, indeed, there is less drunk driving, and that is do to the law and harsh penalties.

          • VocalYokel

            If “there is less drunk driving” as you say, what was the recent uproar about toughening the laws?
            And laws do not prevent criminal activity, but merely define it and set parameters of punishment by establishing degrees of criminality for those who transgress.
            The reason I do not rob, rape, pillage, assault, etc. is because I was raised to believe it is wrong, not because it is illegal.

          • SusanBeehler

            Raising works for some and for those it doesn’t we have laws.

          • JoeMN

            There is less drunk driving because of societal changes/attitudes toward drunk driving.

            If it were simply laws that change behavior, the “war on drugs” would have swept the streets clean by now.
            Did the Civil Rights Act cure racism ?
            Could it ?

          • $8194357

            Just disquised it for the same outcomes under new names…
            http://kitmantv.blogspot.com/2009/07/history-of-political-correctness.html

            Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.

            First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted “victims” groups that PC revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the college, they face formal charges – some star-chamber proceeding – and punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political Correctness intends for the nation as a whole.

      • sbark

        oohhh you mean like Bill Clinton and the many women he forced himself upon will Gov of Ark and Pres of the USA? ……..or do you mean like Dem’ Senator Menendez and his underage girls in the Caribbean?………..or are you going way back into History like Senator until 2007 Dem’ Robert Byrd of West Virginia ……..a high level KKK member?
        what punishment did any of them ever get?………….
        We need laws to protect us from our Leftist predators for the most part.

        • two_amber_lamps

          Senator Byrd was an Exalted Cyclops! You shall observe decorum and give him the “respect” he’s due… particularly given what was his high standing within the apparatus of the Democrat Party!

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            “I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times… and I don’t mind apologizing over and over again. I can’t erase what happened.”

            Robert Byrd

          • two_amber_lamps

            Oh hai there Bobby! Looks like the Exhaled Cyclops has a special place in your heart!

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            As he should yours, 2 dim bulbs.
            Real Americans understand.

            Do you?

          • two_amber_lamps

            Real Americans understand the genesis of the Klu Klux Klan…

            Apparently you don’t since you subscribe to the leftist “new truth” rather than historical fact.

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            You’re pretty dim, aren’t ya?

          • two_amber_lamps

            Whazzamatter Bobby-san… run out of material? Or are you afraid to embrace historical fact and risk being thrown out of your leftist Mickey Mouse club?

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            Oh 2 dim bulbs, please tell us what you know about the gop Southern Strategy and what it did for American political affiliations.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Oh your silly hackneyed “Southern Strategy?”

            You forgot to post your maps bobby’sworld….

            Hey that reminds me… when are you going to answer the question?

            When you voted for Obama in 2008 was that because you’re an anti-gay marriage BIGOT or was that because you were merely ignorant to Obama’s anti-gay marriage stance?

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            If you don’t know about the gop Southern Strategy, just say so, 2 dim bulbs. It’s not like we didn’t expect it already.

          • two_amber_lamps

            I know all about your “Southern Strategy” silly Bob… and frankly the meme is tired.

            So… when you voted for Obama in 2008 was that because you’re an anti-gay marriage BIGOT or was that because you were merely ignorant to Obama’s anti-gay marriage stance?

            Oh, good! I see you edited your previous post and put up your silly maps!

            Now answer the question.

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            2 dim bulbs < lm

          • two_amber_lamps

            Are you a gay-hater or useful idiot Bobby? (or both?)

            Your choice!

            Bwahahahahaaa!

          • two_amber_lamps

            Does this mean you refuse to answer the question: “When you voted for Obama in 2008 was that because you’re an anti-gay
            marriage BIGOT or was that because you were merely ignorant to Obama’s anti-gay marriage stance?”

          • $8194357

            He and gurgle sure bought into that
            cultural terrorist “communist social justice lie”
            hook line and sinker, huh.
            Most Dems did…

          • $8194357

            Factual history will never support the “big tent” social justice
            usurption with communist political correct false moral agendas….

          • $8194357

            UNESCO revisionist black CPUSA history….
            Suckered several generations with the usurption
            of the womens/civil rights movements, huh.
            Smart ole marxists they were…
            devil had their “collective” ears….

          • $8194357

            Revisionist lies and you know it.
            the KKK stayed in the Democratic party where
            they really always been. Just made house slaves out of the
            larger big tent plantaion dependent on DC and its benevolent handouts.

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            Oh gun nut, are you really that dumb?

          • two_amber_lamps

            Oh hai there Bobby! Glad you’re back! Now maybe you can answer!

            “When you voted for Obama in 2008 was that because you’re an anti-gay marriage BIGOT or was that because you were merely ignorant to Obama’s anti-gay marriage stance?”

            Please make you answer in the form of an intelligible reply… NO CUT AND PASTE! I know that might be difficult for you…

            Good luck!

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            Senator Obama was the best candidate, I voted for him.

          • Neiman

            Well sure, like you he loves slaughtering helpless, innocent babies in the tens of millions; and. like you, he is a well known Christ hating homosexual.

          • guest

            You would have voted for any Marxist/communist.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Ah, some progress I see!

            So was he the better candidate because of his bigoted anti-gay marriage stance or was he the better candidate because you were unfamiliar with his bigoted anti-gay marriage stance?

          • $8194357

            No…
            You are…

          • Thresherman

            This is hilarious because liberals never forgive former southern Democrats who became Republicans even though they similarly recanted their previous positions. I guess in their eyes, leaving the Democratic Party is more heinous than being a segregationist.

          • $8194357

            The “party”..
            Communist loyalty oaths were sworn to the “party”.

          • Onslaught1066

            You can take democrats out of the party, but.. you’ll never take the segregationist out of liberals.

            liberalism, the only “good” cancer.

      • slackwarerobert

        So you need this law because a boss doesn’t like gays and fires you. So what is going to happen, you sue him and the business shuts down and EVERYONE is fired including you. Yea that will work out great. Why would you want to work with people like that?

  • zipity

    What do you expect from Liberal scumbags like this? This is who/what they are. They believe their goals are right, noble and beyond debate, so nothing is out of bounds for them.

    Sounds a bit like the KKK, Nazis, Communists in Cuba/China/Soviet Union/Cambodia, etc., etc.

    • $8194357

      Don’t forget the “other” totalitarian political system disquised with “religion”.
      Sharia and the jihadists use the same tactics you described being used
      by the groups above.

    • two_amber_lamps

      They believe their goals are right, noble and beyond debate, so nothing is out of bounds for them.

      So sayeth their great scholar:

      “The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost
      any means….”

      –Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky

      • $8194357

        Old Saul was like a god to these modern communist democrats.

        • two_amber_lamps

          And the unlearned fools among them don’t even REALIZE who their false god is… the rituals are now completed without even knowing why they are performed.

          • $8194357

            Yup…
            What it is…
            Lucifers/Lenins indoctrinated useful idiot fool tools…

          • two_amber_lamps

            Funny it is… Saul’s dedication in Rules for Radicals:

            “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history… the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom.

            —Lucifer.”

          • $8194357

            10X
            The Illuminati who financed Karl Marx as well understood who they were working for…Modern liberal cause advocats…Eh not so much.
            Cloward/Piven cannon fodder for the devils crony capitalist, communist/islamic elitist olagarchy New World Order agendas.
            But they sure think they have the moral high ground, huh…
            Root systems….Been studying on them for a spell…
            leftist fool tools and useful idiots..

  • http://nofreelunch.areavoices.com/ Kevin Flanagan

    It’s harassment and it’s wrong.

    • http://Sayanythingblog.com The Whistler

      And never forget if they won on this bill the same jerks would be pushing an even more radical bill. They’ll never be happy and they want to bring their unhappiness upon the rest of us.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1489524484 Rebecca Leigh Randolph

    In VA, our state senate just shot down the same proposal!! Thank God we don’t have to deal with anything like this though!! When will gays understand that their sex lives don’t belong in the workplace…..keep it behind closed doors!!

  • Yogibare

    I agree with the writer–Rob, in this case. This is crossing the line of peaceful protest. Yes, they were peaceful, but at the same time this is an agressive action with, in my view, the intent to intimidate. The intimidation was aimed at Sitte and also any other legislator who may see what this demonstration was doing.
    Is this the “way of the Progressives” and their agenda? We have seen this on a national level many times, and it seems to be the method of operation of the Left and the Progressives. CIVILITY! It has no place in the Lefty agenda unless it can be used against those who appose them. How sad it is to see that it has come to this kind of Left-wing tactic here in North Dakota.

    • SusanBeehler

      Did they bring guns or just candles?

    • SusanBeehler

      What did the neighbors think?
      Or were the neighbors the ones protesting?
      It is a bipartisan tactic; left and right protest peacefully, and assemble peacefully. Actually it is a pretty patriotic thing to do. Actually some of those on the right have not been very peaceful, throwing fire bombs and showing up at military funerals with nasty signs, or weren’t they “right”.

      • Yogibare

        You say this is a tactic of the “Right”? Really? Where? When?

        • sbark

          my thoughts also

          • SusanBeehler

            It has happened in North Dakota, but it always wasn’t peaceful.
            http://www.wday.com/event/arti
            “clinic workers would have sporadic protests and court battles to deal with, but nothing like what began in the early 1990s.
            “It was a living hell,” said Bovard.
            During that time, the clinic was the target of break-ins, contentious protests and firebombings. Bovard was threatened, robbed at gunpoint, and her north Fargo home was repeatedly picketed.”

        • SusanBeehler

          Depends on how far “right” you go, It has happened in North Dakota, but it always wasn’t peaceful.
          http://www.wday.com/event/arti
          “clinic workers would have sporadic protests and court battles to deal with, but nothing like what began in the early 1990s.
          “It was a living hell,” said Bovard.
          During that time, the clinic was the target of break-ins, contentious protests and firebombings. Bovard was threatened, robbed at gunpoint, and her north Fargo home was repeatedly picketed.”

      • JoeMN

        An interesting choice to invoke the Westboro Baptist nuts here, Susan

        The left attacks their message which as disagreeable as it may be, is still their constitutional right to express.

        However, if one were to look solely at the anti-societal tactics they use, one would realize this is the same style of protest employed by the left.

  • WOOF

    Fair’s fare for a lawmaker who approves throwing people
    out of their homes at his.

    • slackwarerobert

      Who can throw you out of your home? If you don’t pay your mortgage they can foreclose, but they can’t take it even if you run a gay whore house, B Frank proved that.

    • Opinion8ed

      The landlord can throw you out for sneaking in pets, partying, non payment of rent, these people want guarantees so that no matter what they do they can come back with the homo card.

      • Lianne

        I don’t know who is using my name, but I did not write this.

        • Lianne

          Wasn’t that a fluky thing. Glad it is corrected and you can take credit for it!

  • sue

    Can you imagine if we did this to each legislator who voted in a way we disagreed? We do not bully. We inform ourselves and vote.

    • $8194357

      Leftist don’t..
      This has been the “take it to the streets” tactics
      since the “New Left Democrats” (read communists)
      took over the DNC in the sixties…
      Kill your mom and dad and burn down the man…
      Its has been “all the rage” since the liberal rich took
      it to heart in their youth.

  • headward

    Isn’t there anti-stalking laws that should prevent this? Has anybody asked them why they should be granted more rights than everybody else?

    • SusanBeehler

      You only cry foul with the 2nd Ammendment what about protecting the First Ammendment. You want your God given right to your gun but not the right to peacefully assemble.

      • headward

        “I’m not stalking her officer I’m just peacefully assembling everywhere she goes.”
        Like Rob said – protest at the steps of the capital not at his home.

        • Lianne

          I do wonder if they would have ‘assembled’ at the home of a male senator.

          • SusanBeehler

            What are you saying a woman was getting special treatment? Do you think they were discriminating against her because she was a woman? The newspaper says they were her constituents, that means she is in the same district they live and she is the only Senator representing them, the only one who had the opportunity to vote for them.

          • Lianne

            So, all 45 LGBT’s lived in her district? Really? I doubt it.

      • Zog

        So, Susan, where do you draw the line? Would it be OK for those sweethearts to stage their “protest” in the Senator’s living room? Or yours? Mustn’t interfere with their first ammenment rights you know.

        • SusanBeehler

          Her living room or mine is not “public”. A sidewalk, a street is “public”.

          • $8194357

            The communist community organizors use the “threat”
            of violence as a tactic before they take the next step of
            the revolution.
            Spill blood..Take lives…

            Barrys buddy Bill Ayers and his “Weather Underground”
            have been pushing “armed reveloution” in America for decades..
            all marxist/communists agree armed reveloution is needed for the final take over of the targeted systems..Then re-education/death camps.
            Its historicaly recorded and documented “fact”.

    • SusanBeehler

      What if someone posted this video and they were fired for it? http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151362776965225 because someone thought it was a homosexual act. Stalking is not just one event. They were not going to be granted more rights “Sexual orientation” means actual or perceived heterosexuality, bisexuality,
      homosexuality, or gender identity;according to the definition in the bill. So “gays” would not be able to discriminate against “straights” either. It also means if you thought someone appeared “gay” you could not discriminate against them. So people who seem to love to stereo type on this blog, right or left, people who are actually “straight” but someone thought they were “gay” could not be discriminated against either.

      • Lianne

        If they were posting on company time, I would fire them for that alone.

    • $8194357

      Thats exactly what leftist social justice “protected class status” has accomplished here in America by design…To de construct a equal rule of law republic and create division with class warfare as its false moral high ground….

      To pit one group against the other for system wide failure…
      It has worked its magic on the leftist liberal do gooders and bore much deconstructive ” soviet central planning fruit”.

      The rule of men “above” the rule of law elitist crony capitalist result
      we now have with the Pelosi/Rieds and Barry in DC…
      Elitist puppets in both parties to the olagarchies agendas…

  • Bubba

    This shameful display is very much like openly carrying a weapon at government meetings or near public officials homes and offices (i.e., a DA’s office). Never appropriate, designed only to intimidate, but justified under the guise of the constitution.

    • Neiman

      It is Democrat/Liberal/Gay Thuggery – plain and simple.

    • slackwarerobert

      carrying a weapon on your hip, or even a drop holster is not intimidating. It is a necessity because you have thugs like these running around the country. You ever see a 99%’r or national summit meeting, the loons in the cops are as bad as the loons rioting “peacefully”. I don’t intimidate anyone, heck I have been accused of being gay at least twice. Would thins law let my sue for that?

    • SusanBeehler

      Bubba this is a First Ammendment right nothing saying you can’t line up on a sidewalk, I think if they would have had guns, shovels, or baseball bats that would have been intimidating. You are making a comparison to something that is often illegal at least in North Dakota you can’t carry a gun into government public meeting.

      • zipity

        Your intentional obliqueness on this is laughable. As for your First Amendment argument, I don’t think this involves “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
        prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
        speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
        assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

        I had a similar discussion with a moron at work, who got fired for trashing our company and CEO on a social media website. He argued “my free speech rights were violated.”

        To which I replied “Dude, you got fired by Congress? That’s harsh.”

        This would be similar to the thought process Lefties who deny the obvious and easily found “right to bear arms” in the Constitution, and yet have no problem finding the “right” to abort a perfectly viable fetus if it inconveniences the mother.

        The clear objective of these “protestors” was to intimidate someone they disagree with on a political level.

        They are clearly saying “We know where you live…”

        • SusanBeehler

          You call it intimidation,maybe they felt this was a way to send the message of disapproval. Peaceful assembly is the individual right to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests, sounds like they were doing this. I don’t believe in abortion. Anyone can look up any elected official and find out where they live, it is public record, you can probably find out how many bedrooms, bathrooms and all kinds of other stuff too, it is public record. You are assuming you know their objective, is it because that would be your motive if you were doing it?

          • zipity

            Wow….did you major in straw man studies in college?

            Just because you can look up someone’s home address, does it make it right to organize a “protest” outside someone’s HOME?

            I would never do what you imply I would;

            I suspect this is due to the fact they you WOULD.

            You are one and the same as them. You believe your cause is just and noble, so the ends justify your evil means.

            Despicable.

          • two_amber_lamps

            The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

            Coupled with the third rule of ethics: “……in war the end justifies almost
            any means….”

            -Saul Alinsky (Rules for Radicals)

  • Lianne

    “It would have added “sexual orientation” to state anti-discrimination law to allow LGBT individuals to seek recourse against a landlord or employer who evicts or fires someone based on their sexual orientation.”

    I have to wonder how one could define LGBT individuals for purposes of discrimintation unless the LGBT are flaunting their orientation at the work place or does the employer/landlord monitor the activities in the bedrooms of the LGBT?
    And, yes, this protest was purely forintimidating and threatening Senator Sitte. Not classy on their part at all. Maybe their behavior does demand firing or eviction.

    • SusanBeehler

      1st Ammendment right, Are you going against the constitution now to protect a certain group of people a “legislator” and give a “woman” special protection? “Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief.”

      • Lianne

        the only part of your post that is readable and understandable is your cut and paste portion. I believe in the right to protest. I believe this act was shear intimidation and a publicity stunt. The captiol grounds would have been the proper place for the protest.

        • SusanBeehler

          I thought you were all about following the Constitution. The Constitution does not say only protest at the Capitol. This would be an infringement of your 1st amendment right

          • Lianne

            the Constitution did neglect to include a rule of manners and deceny for people like you. For that the founding fathers were negligent.
            Also, the word should be ‘specifically’, not ‘specific’ or you could have written ‘the Constitution was not specific’. Either way our founding fathers neglected to define deceny.
            No one is saying they could not protest. We are saying where they did it was in poor taste, it was for the purpose of intimidation, and rather passive aggressive. Why did they not protest on the grounds of the capitol? Were they ‘intimidated’ by authorities?

          • Lianne

            *decency

          • SusanBeehler

            Fail

          • two_amber_lamps

            Oh, how poor… find your own material.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Leftists don’t subscribe to “manners and decency.” Rather they only understand the letter of the law, which is why you have to legislate tens of thousands to delineate exactly what behavior is and is not acceptable.

            Further “manners and decency” are irrelevant to the left who subscribe to the Saul Alinsky school of “means justifies the ends.” If your method attains the desired ends, the method used is quite irrelevant.

          • $8194357

            And then they “exempt themselves” from those same laws or standards they hold others too…

          • SusanBeehler

            “manners and decency” are irrelevant to two amber with some of the name calling you use.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Name calling? I merely use you the rules of your great liberal school master against you!

            Rule #5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. -Saul Alinsky

            Fight fire with fire… I shall meet you in the trenches and pummel you with your own weapons…. or lack thereof in your case.

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            The Eskimos used to practice “song duelling”. Two enemies would make up a song each that ridiculed the other. The loser, as judged by members of the community, would walk off to the nearest comfortable ice-flow to help feed the endangered polar bears. Fortunately for them the lib trolls on this blog are strangers to shame so they don’t react that way. I would just like to remind them that, if they were really PC & concerned about global warming, they might get in line with that old and honorable Eskimo tradition. Just sayin’.

          • two_amber_lamps

            What a shame there are no polar bears in Bismarck… Lil Ms. SuzyBrainwashed could then do the right thing…

            I think you’re on to something Flame, since leftists have indoctrinated their acolytes to avoid making judgements/decisions (abdicate that responsibility to the state), they’ve absolved themselves the ability to make even the most mundane judgements of their own behavior. Sort of like the loss of the Super Ego… they no longer regulate/monitor their own behavior… ie. no conscience.

            Fringe “benefit” to this is the inability to feel shame or recognize their pathetic arguments for the short-comings they inherently possess.

          • SusanBeehler

            I do not even know who Saul Alinsky is, nor do I care to if you are emulating him. Are you threatening or is it a quote from this Saul guy?

          • $8194357

            Oh Suzy…
            The devils root systems…
            The corrupt Illionois Democratic political machine that currently runs DC was “skooled” by a devout satanist/communist named Saul Alinsky
            Barry boy wonder is a tenth degree black belt in the Alinsky communist rules for radicals all the DNC has been following since the 50’s on thru to the present day CPUSA (Democratic Progressive Caucus) usurption of the national political process…The last election had the officle vote tabulated by a computor company that Barrys puppet master George Soros had his fingers in…They stole the election just like it was in Chicago….Hillary came from the same New Left Democrat skool…
            Her college thesis was on improving Alinkskys rules for radicals that he dedicated to the first born radical, lucifer…
            Do some dang home work lemming feminist cause advocate…
            Your whole social justice PC root systems stink from marxist/satanic ideologies to destroy from within a rule of law moral society..
            Liberals…Stupid a$$ fool tools to that end.

          • $8194357

            Read and learn Susan…Read and learn…

            http://kitmantv.blogspot.com/2009/07/history-of-political-correctness.html

            Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.

            First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted “victims” groups that PC revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the college, they face formal charges – some star-chamber proceeding – and punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political Correctness intends for the nation as a whole.

            Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this philosophy certain things must be true – such as the whole of the history of our culture is the history of the oppression of women. Since reality contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must become forbidden to acknowledge the reality of our history. People must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes to look out and say, “Wait a minute. This isn’t true. I can see it isn’t true,” the power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie. That is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.

            Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of production. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups. Nothing else matters. All literature, indeed, is about that. Everything in the past is about that one thing.

            Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness certain groups are good – feminist women, (only feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be “victims,” and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do. Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism.

            Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When the classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions. When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance to a college in favor of a black or Hispanic who isn’t as well qualified, the white student is expropriated. And indeed, affirmative action, in our whole society today, is a system of expropriation. White owned companies don’t get a contract because the contract is reserved for a company owned by, say, Hispanics or women. So expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism.

          • two_amber_lamps

            You stupidity never ceases to amaze, Suzy…

            If I told you “The pen is mightier than the sword” you’d also try to bend that into some kind of death threat.

            Ever hear of this one “In a battle of wit, you are an unarmed (wo-)man?” You are case in point.

            It’s an unfortunate downside to an open forum such as SAB that even a witless cretin such as yourself is allowed to vomit your silly tripe, accuse others of making threats because your tiny little mind is incapable of comprehending more than even the most pedestrian of conversations. Your posts are nothing more than pointless syllables of clutter, which left unchecked would be a poor reflection on the good citizens of ND.

            Much as you claim to be something other than liberal, you are nothing more than another leftist useful idiot who fancies themselves something other than what you are.

            I almost feel sorry for your inevitable failures and inability to use logic and reason… but then you bring these written beat-downs upon yourself.

            I suggest you move on to a forum that’s a little more to your intellectual level.

            http://childrensreadingblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/highlights-magazine1.jpg

            I’d further suggest you read up on Saul Alinsky since you might actually learn something about the ideology which you’ve unknowingly come to embrace… but I’m sure you have more important things to attend to… like the last season of “Dancing with the Stars.” Besides, Saul writes at something above your 4th Grade reading level and alas, there are no pictures.

            Ta Ta for now Ms. SuzyBrainwashed… I wish thee all the best, though I know it to be for naught.

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            I wouldn’t call it “name-calling.” It’s just colorful, yet quite accurate, descriptions.

          • SusanBeehler

            Our founding founders were neglectful and slave owners? Why don’t you ask the protesters?

        • $8194357

          Same tactics communist organizors have used since the early unionizing protests and threats of violence…Organize the collective.
          Just re-branded re-named to a new group/cause.
          Marxists called it “cultural terrorism” and we now call it social justice political correctness…

    • whowon

      Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior, SB apparently totally unaware.

      • Lianne

        She really does reveal that fact in posts further down on the blog. NO sense of personal space, of a home being a person’s ‘castle’, of appropriate behavior, respect for another individual.
        For Susan, who has said she didn’t have a clue what good or legal meant; I will explain ‘castle’. A person’s home is generally created to provide a separation from the day to day life outside those doors. If you don’t respect that, there is little you do respect. And you deserve NO respect in turn.
        Now, would be a good time, Susan, to turn off your nonsensical output and allow time for the input to digest and hopefully allow some basic understanding of what we post.

  • borborygmi

    It is okay to have a protest “silent vigil” at a business.

    • Neiman

      “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” I think that includes a Legislator’s home as well, but notice the word “peaceably” to assemble in protest, when by any reasonable local definition it is considered violent or disorderly conduct, it may be lawfully broken up. Although, I think such forceful end to public protest must be engaged in reluctantly, lest we subvert the intent of the First Amendment.

  • Scot

    I agree with Rob that this does indeed cross the line. Senator Sitte may have voted against the protestors’ position – a position I support – but she didn’t even speak to the bill during floor debate. Regardless of which side you are on, this is not an effective method of letting one’s thoughts be known.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      That struck me as odd too. Senator Sitte didn’t even speak up on the floor. There were plenty of other Bismarck-area legislators who voted the bill down too, so why was Sitte targeted?

      They should have held the protest at the captiol. That’s the appropriate venue.

      • SusanBeehler

        1st Ammendment

        • Scot

          While the protesters were probably within their First Amendment rights, I question the effectiveness of this kind of tactic. And yes, Jane Bovard was protested at home. There is something about being protested at home that seems unseemly.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            Very unseemly, regardless of who is doing it and the cause.

          • borborygmi

            I agree and it doesn’t help the cause whatever the cause maybe. Think about the outcry if 2nd amendment advocates protested in from of say Rep Giffords houe because of the stance she took.

          • SusanBeehler

            No someone just shot her instead. She is no longer a Representative.

          • JoeMN

            Her shooter was angry that Giffords didn’t toe the leftist line

            Did you know he stalked her for three years prior ?

            http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/psycho_stalked_pol_for_years_HBSCJ3HN9Iq0eykMUWjeSL
            BTW he could have claimed to be anti-gun, just as the LAPD psycho, but (quite the opposite)his actions made the case even more clear for self defense/ gun ownership

          • SusanBeehler

            The guy with a gun on the scene did nothing, a woman stopped him

          • two_amber_lamps

            Why should he have acted?

            http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

            If the police have no duty to protect the citizenry, why should an individual exercising his 2nd Amendment right to carry a firearm be duty-bound to defend a liberal fascist who’d sooner see the greater population disarmed?

            Why draw undue danger and liability on yourself? For a leftist no less?

            In this day and age, I don’t fault him a bit. His choice.

          • SusanBeehler

            You missed the point, the argument many give in the discussion of addressing gun violence, is more “armed citizens” because some how more “armed citizens” are going to protect from these kinds of attacks. I am just saying their was someone there with a gun and it was not what stop the shooter, it was a woman who stopped him from reloading. Gun Violence does not have a simple solution like no guns or more guns.

          • two_amber_lamps

            More armed citizens means more individuals MAY choose to interdict these psychologically deranged murderers from their path of wanton destruction.

            Your strawman argument fails because YOUR assumption (that and your leftist ilk that is) is that ANYONE with a gun is duty-bound to act in defense of the collective. Is that how you twist the pro-second amendment argument in your head? It’s nothing to do with more citizens with guns to stop these tragedies. The last thing we need is more thoughtless dullards like yourself taking up arms. That’s your choice to make yourself a helpless victim. The 2nd Amendment allows those of us who CHOSE to exercise the right to bear arms the latitude to defend ourselves or those we chose to defend.

            “Violence is not a simple solution like no guns or more guns.”

            OMG! I do believe Ms. Suzy-LOB-otomy is waxing profound!

            Interesting, your prior comments have indicated you believe the deprivation of guns and abrogation of the 2nd Amendment will result in violence-free utopia.

            Once again you contradict yourself.

            FAIL

          • $8194357

            That “someone” was another Dorner liberal leftist “activist”..

          • $8194357

            Evil tea baggin scum, huh…

          • Ray Seltz

            I imagine that sheople such as yourself get tea bagged a bunch. Waiting for Christ, no less. Evil leftists ignore the Constitution and the marxists commies are coming for me. Sentry positions everybody! He ha hoy!

          • $8194357

            Parden me Ray ray…
            Your delusion is showing again…

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          Nobody is saying it’s illegal Susan.

          I’m saying it’s inappropriate, and probably does more harm than good to their cause.

          • $8194357

            It is a leftist Alinsky tactic used since Saul taught it to them.

  • SusanBeehler

    Don’t people do this when we are against abortion? I think this is done at their homes too. This is a common way for a group to get their message out. If they would have come with guns or vandalized her place than I would say that definitely crosses the line, but standing with candles I think that is a peaceful assembly and protected under our 1st amendment. “Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief.”

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      I’ve not heard of pro-life protesters showing up at private residences to protest, and if they’ve done it they’re wrong too.

      • SusanBeehler

        It has happened in North Dakota, but it always wasn’t peaceful.
        http://www.wday.com/event/article/id/73969/
        “clinic workers would have sporadic protests and court battles to deal with, but nothing like what began in the early 1990s.
        “It was a living hell,” said Bovard.
        During that time, the clinic was the target of break-ins, contentious protests and firebombings. Bovard was threatened, robbed at gunpoint, and her north Fargo home was repeatedly picketed.”

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          That’s horrible, if it’s true, and inexcusable though I’d need independent corroboration.

          People in politics have a bad habit of portraying themselves as victims.

    • grammie

      Goodness Susan it seems to me that your throwing everything possible you can think of into this, but reread some of your stuff, it has nothing at all about people who went in front of Senator Sitte home and whinned about not getting their way. Why her? because her stance against certain groups getting singled out for protection, or her religious values? She didn’t even speak on the floor about this. I think that even thro she didn’t speak on the floor about it and she is a women of
      God and her church,and somehow the group must think she is a threat. Why couldn’t they go to the capitol grounds, go to the Churchs, have a parade,buy time on the radio, hand out flyers, but go to a persons home to protest! no Susan, it not the right thing to do. 1st amendment gives then the right to assemble but just like they lifestyle makes no sense to me. Maybe the next time taxes come up people can come to your house and do the same thing. or because you want guns rights changed, your not voteing on any of that but goodness your against it so why not you and your family ?

      • SusanBeehler

        I don’t know why they did it, but if you read the newspaper, it says they were her constituents and they obviously were not happy with how she voted, her vote speaks for itself. What does her faith have to do with this? Why would these voters go to the Churches? It might not be the right thing to do, but from what I can tell it is not illegal. If someone wants to stand in front my house with candles and signs, I say go ahead, it would be pretty silly. I am not a elected official, so it would be pretty strange for anyone to even want to do that. Taxes? Why not me and my family? Because I am not elected and I only represent myself, not constituents like this Senator does, she represents not only herself and her family but the voters who voted for her.

        • Lianne

          I firmly doubt that all those 45 GLBT’s were from just HER district.

    • Lianne

      Are you saying that because one person did it, then it is okay for someone else to do it? There is an old adage that went something like this–just because your best friend jumps off a cliff, that doesn’t mean you have to do it.
      Or in more general terms, it was inaprropriate to protest in front of Bovard’s home and it was inappropriate to protest in front of Senator Sitte’s home.
      I continue to suggest to you to shut down the output until such time that your input has had time to digest and you can add some semblence of intelligence to these conversations.

  • Anon

    ITT: People who think it’s okay to protest outside an abortion provider’s house, but hypocritically think this is outrageous.

  • camsaure

    Their only interest is to destroy all that is or was considered good.

  • Dallas

    Hey Tubby, been through the comments twice and didn’t see mine. Are you restricting my right of free speech? Noticed you removed my comment regarding Ed Schafer’s alleged column a week ago too.

  • Lynn Bergman

    Tolerance of their lifestyle is one thing; passing laws that promote the lifestype is an entirely different thing. Next people will be running around holding protests demanding rights as a nose picker or finger nail chewer.

  • Clint F

    This just goes to show that the goal of the legislation they were pushing is intimidation and punishment, not “equality.” Identical legislation has been used time after time in other states to harass and intimidate individual citizens who don’t want to cater to these people. They as much as said so in testimony to the judiciary committee, saying it would give them the right to “pursue damages” from people who don’t agree with them. Another person noted that, while the bill gives exemption to churches, he hoped that “within my lifetime” they could change the churches as well. They’re getting bolder about disclosing their true agenda, and this is another demonstration (pun intended) of it.

  • Stuart

    The simple remedy for marriage is too purchase a license on the Internet for $20-$50
    And then any of the gay populations friends could marry yhem before their gods or god. SOLVED. COMMON LAW IS IN EFFECT.

  • Stuart

    Dakotacyr..you forgot to ad Christian harassment into your comments.

  • Stuart

    If you do some research in the Forum Archives I believe there was a case of Christian harassment also. And SNL just had a skit about Jesus killing his accusers and harassers. Like Seinfeld use to say, “not that there’s anything wrong with it. “!

Top