N.C. Republican Pol Stands by Anti-Gay Remarks

Jan 3, 2011 Full story: EDGEchicago.com News Feed 29

For the second time in as many years, a GOP lawmaker of Mecklenburg County, N.C., has roiled his colleagues and constituents--and created a national furor--with comments about gays.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“Son of Abraham”

Since: Aug 07

Natural Deviant

#1 Jan 3, 2011
Wow, another overweight, highly unattractive man, whom no gay man would ever want to have sex with, is homophobic.

I'm telling you there's a direct link between between a man's physical unattractiveness and his homophobia.

I wish someone would do some kind of study... It wouldn't be that hard to come up with pictures of the homophobic men who've made headlines and compare them side by side to pictures of men who are straight and gay-friendly.

Take James Franco for example (since he's the last guy in the media I can think of as being pro-gay). He's extremely attractive and the bozo in this article is the total cookie-cutter ugly-as-sin homophobe.
Paul in Vancouver BC

Vancouver, Canada

#2 Jan 3, 2011
Why are these hateful, homophobic, bigoted lowlifes even allowed to run for PUBLIC office. I don't campaign in your church so don't preach your hate, homophobia, and bigotry in a public forum.

“I am happy”

Since: Jul 08

St. Petersburg, FL

#3 Jan 3, 2011
Oh, Bill James, I know of him far too well. I lived in Charlotte for years and this guy is a complete whack job.

Here is some history on Bill James.

1. In the 90s, he was part of the infamious "Gang of 5" that stripped away arts funding because "Angels in America" were showing. The very next year, 4 of the 5 were voted out, but Bill James still stayed.

2. In 2001, Charlotte was organizing it's first pride in Charlotte's uptown sector. Bill James got pissed off because the pride was happening and the fact that fellow conservative, Mayor Pat McCrory sent a letter off to welcome the event to the city and went on to mention some of the area attractions.

3. Was that enough? No, then later in the decade Bill James stood in direct opposition to Mecklenburg County extending domestic partner benefits to same sex partners, claiming that gays were like everyone of the talking points you have heard about for gays.

4. Then, more recently, this guy asked a fellow council member whether or not her son was a "homo" because he died of AIDS. Asshat material.

5. Finally, this...... I am not surprised. Many places has the crazy person in their chambers.

Since: Nov 08

Oakland, CA

#4 Jan 3, 2011
Just goes to show that it's easier to dwell among the lower forms of life than to rise and remain among the more compassionate, intelligent and rational beings that help make this world a better place to live.

“Common courtesy, isn't”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#5 Jan 3, 2011
Ho-hum. Another homophobic nut job with a wide stance who undoubtedly spends most of his time sitting on toilets at the airport while texting lewd messages to his teenage male pages.

You've seen one, you've seen 'em all.
BS Detector

Venice, CA

#6 Jan 3, 2011
StevenFL wrote:
Oh, Bill James, I know of him far too well. I lived in Charlotte for years and this guy is a complete whack job.
Granted, the guy is, indeed, a whack job and I take no issue with what you wrote.

In the piece, I noted that some were trying to either get a petition or otherwise ask that he be "punished" for making statements they didn't approve of. The problem with that nonsense is that pesky ol' First Amendment. If some equally whacked idiot on the other side said things like this particular whack job said, would there be equal support (or legal standing) for santions to "punish" the type of speech he didn't approve of? The stupidity of the entire concept of so-called "hate speech" aside, the First Amendment specifically protects unpopular political speech. Hell, many in this forum could easily be considered proponents of hate speech. How are they to be "punished?"

Since: Dec 08

Toronto, ON, Canada

#7 Jan 3, 2011
McMike wrote:
Wow, another overweight, highly unattractive man, whom no gay man would ever want to have sex with, is homophobic.
I'm telling you there's a direct link between between a man's physical unattractiveness and his homophobia.
I wish someone would do some kind of study... It wouldn't be that hard to come up with pictures of the homophobic men who've made headlines and compare them side by side to pictures of men who are straight and gay-friendly.
Take James Franco for example (since he's the last guy in the media I can think of as being pro-gay). He's extremely attractive and the bozo in this article is the total cookie-cutter ugly-as-sin homophobe.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but Hollywood does not usually engage male actors unless it believes they are attractive to at least some women. So Mel Gibson sort of disproves your theory, even if you or I thing he is ugly.

“I am happy”

Since: Jul 08

St. Petersburg, FL

#8 Jan 3, 2011
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text>
Granted, the guy is, indeed, a whack job and I take no issue with what you wrote.
In the piece, I noted that some were trying to either get a petition or otherwise ask that he be "punished" for making statements they didn't approve of. The problem with that nonsense is that pesky ol' First Amendment. If some equally whacked idiot on the other side said things like this particular whack job said, would there be equal support (or legal standing) for santions to "punish" the type of speech he didn't approve of? The stupidity of the entire concept of so-called "hate speech" aside, the First Amendment specifically protects unpopular political speech. Hell, many in this forum could easily be considered proponents of hate speech. How are they to be "punished?"
I do not feel there is a need for punishment. This guy may be in a position of power, but he does not control the city of Charlotte and he has little say within the county council chambers. He will go away one day. The district he represents is one of the more conservative ones, so it does not surprise me that he gets re-elected. The others in the county commission are normally liberal and democrat and they can overrule him.

“Son of Abraham”

Since: Aug 07

Natural Deviant

#9 Jan 3, 2011
JohnInToronto wrote:
<quoted text>
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but Hollywood does not usually engage male actors unless it believes they are attractive to at least some women. So Mel Gibson sort of disproves your theory, even if you or I thing he is ugly.
Sorry but it doesn't actually disprove the core of my theory. Since we all troll Topix we've seen these articles about homophobic guys and they're all physically unfit and unattractive.

While beauty can be in the eye the holder, unattractiveness is usually agreed upon by the group. I'm not trying to base things on looks here but the more articles I see about homophobic guys the more I'm realizing they all fit the same cookie-cutter: As in we can all tell they haven't skipped a meal, etc, etc.

As for good looking straight guys not being homophobic, if a guy is good looking he doesn't get offended by being found good looking by another guy. It's the guy no one finds attractive that seems to want to start the homophobic fight-of-words first.

“Son of Abraham”

Since: Aug 07

Natural Deviant

#10 Jan 3, 2011
JohnInToronto wrote:
<quoted text>
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but Hollywood does not usually engage male actors unless it believes they are attractive to at least some women. So Mel Gibson sort of disproves your theory, even if you or I thing he is ugly.
btw, Mel Gibson would actually prove my theory. You've just stated men employed by Hollywood tend to be attractive however both of us can agree Mel Gibson is unattractive so by Hollywood standards, Mel Gibson is definitely not attractive.

Now, since we can both agree Mel isn't attractive, would he, according to my hypothesis, be homophobic are pro-gay?

“Son of Abraham”

Since: Aug 07

Natural Deviant

#11 Jan 3, 2011
btw, I know this is way beyond the topic at hand but it reminds me of this saying,

"The prettier a man is the easier it is to talk him into bed and if he's pretty enough he'll be the doing the talking."

“Son of Abraham”

Since: Aug 07

Natural Deviant

#12 Jan 3, 2011
umma "he'll be the one doing"

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#13 Jan 3, 2011
It's the "beauty" of our Democratic system, almost anyone can get elected if you play your cards right. Bill James is now and always will be a rabid and unrepentant anti-Gay bigot. There has to be a reason why people like James get elected and re-elected, but he is what he is. If we ever needed his vote in whatever office he was elected to hold, it would probably mean whatever we were doing was wrong to begin with, so ignore him. Accept the fact that any time that he has any "thoughts" regarding anything and anybody not heterosexual, they are going to be mean-spirited and bigoted and until the dead girl/live boy rule inevitably befalls him, he's going to keep his taxpayer funded job thanks to the "voters". Cover him when he doesn't have anything ugly to say, we'd hear a lot less of him...
BS Detector

Venice, CA

#14 Jan 3, 2011
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Accept the fact that any time that he has any "thoughts" regarding anything and anybody not heterosexual, they are going to be mean-spirited and bigoted....
So similar to many in this forum.
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Cover him when he doesn't have anything ugly to say, we'd hear a lot less of him...
I suppose it would be rude of me to make the obvious comparison to some in here.

“Love thy neighbor!”

Since: Dec 06

Westland , MI

#15 Jan 4, 2011
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text>
Granted, the guy is, indeed, a whack job and I take no issue with what you wrote.
In the piece, I noted that some were trying to either get a petition or otherwise ask that he be "punished" for making statements they didn't approve of. The problem with that nonsense is that pesky ol' First Amendment. If some equally whacked idiot on the other side said things like this particular whack job said, would there be equal support (or legal standing) for santions to "punish" the type of speech he didn't approve of? The stupidity of the entire concept of so-called "hate speech" aside, the First Amendment specifically protects unpopular political speech. Hell, many in this forum could easily be considered proponents of hate speech. How are they to be "punished?"
My take on it, was that they didn't want all the contraversial news items to reflect on their county. Any thing that gets in the way of entising taxpayers to live and work there would probably be treated accordingly. It's the cash pot that rules their thinking.
BS Detector

Venice, CA

#16 Jan 4, 2011
Gay Mom wrote:
<quoted text>
My take on it, was that they didn't want all the contraversial news items to reflect on their county. Any thing that gets in the way of entising taxpayers to live and work there would probably be treated accordingly. It's the cash pot that rules their thinking.
I don't disagree with a thing you say. Does that justify trashing the First Amendment and seeking to "punish" the whack job for exercising his First Amendment rights? Seems that the punishmenmt should come at the ballot box.
Bareny Stinson

Saint Louis, MO

#17 Jan 4, 2011
McMike wrote:
Wow, another overweight, highly unattractive man, whom no gay man would ever want to have sex with, is homophobic.
I'm telling you there's a direct link between between a man's physical unattractiveness and his homophobia.
I wish someone would do some kind of study... It wouldn't be that hard to come up with pictures of the homophobic men who've made headlines and compare them side by side to pictures of men who are straight and gay-friendly.
Take James Franco for example (since he's the last guy in the media I can think of as being pro-gay). He's extremely attractive and the bozo in this article is the total cookie-cutter ugly-as-sin homophobe.
And just look at me. I'm straight, pro-gay, and pretty darned hot, if i may say so.
Bareny Stinson

Saint Louis, MO

#18 Jan 4, 2011
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text>
Granted, the guy is, indeed, a whack job and I take no issue with what you wrote.
In the piece, I noted that some were trying to either get a petition or otherwise ask that he be "punished" for making statements they didn't approve of. The problem with that nonsense is that pesky ol' First Amendment. If some equally whacked idiot on the other side said things like this particular whack job said, would there be equal support (or legal standing) for santions to "punish" the type of speech he didn't approve of? The stupidity of the entire concept of so-called "hate speech" aside, the First Amendment specifically protects unpopular political speech. Hell, many in this forum could easily be considered proponents of hate speech. How are they to be "punished?"
The first amendment states that "Congress shall make no law" that prohibits free speech. If the constituents in an area want to request admonshment of a lawmaker that is being unprofessional, hateful, and bigotted, it is perfectly within their rights to ask for that, as long as they aren't asking the US Congress to do it.
Bareny Stinson

Saint Louis, MO

#19 Jan 4, 2011
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> I don't disagree with a thing you say. Does that justify trashing the First Amendment and seeking to "punish" the whack job for exercising his First Amendment rights? Seems that the punishmenmt should come at the ballot box.
Again, not hte first amendment for a county council to punish an officeholder that doesn't represent them well.

Sometimes you have to make a choice. If you want to have the job you were hired to do, you remain professional. If you want to have free speech, you accept the consequences which can include termination from your job, even a public one.
BS Detector

Venice, CA

#20 Jan 4, 2011
Bareny Stinson wrote:
<quoted text>Again, not hte first amendment for a county council to punish an officeholder that doesn't represent them well.
Sometimes you have to make a choice. If you want to have the job you were hired to do, you remain professional. If you want to have free speech, you accept the consequences which can include termination from your job, even a public one.
I'm all for the idiot to be defeated at the ballot box. I do have concerns with the idea that he should be "punished" for expressing an unpopular opinion. Some might say that GWB didn't represnt the US well at times. Some might say that Mr. Obama does not represent the US well. Should he be "punished" or otherwise santioned for expressing an opinion that some disagree with? Seems like he was put on notice by the results of the November mid-term elections.

And that's how it should be.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Mecklenburg County Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Mecklenburg prepares for flood of gay marriage ... Oct '14 Rainbow Kid 10
Brittney Kerr Sep '14 Kayleigh 1
Gay leader arrested after Moral Monday rally Sep '14 Abrahammock Relig... 50
American Airlines worried sales tax hike could ... Jun '14 Uncle Si 1
9 Investigates: Online dating dangers for women (May '14) May '14 dizzyprincess 1
Lincolnton police captain ending storied career (Apr '14) Apr '14 remembering 1
Three same-sex couples request, are denied marr... (Oct '13) Oct '13 ApePeeD 4
More from around the web