Men’s Rights Activist Wants to Talk to You About His Turn-Ons

"Tell me about the lambs, Clarice..."
“Tell me about the lambs, Clarice…”

Sage Gerard, the head of KSU Men and contributor to the men’s rights website A Voice for Men, has been accused of being a sexist creeper on more than one occasion. He recorded himself sneaking into campus restrooms at night — including the women’s restroom — in order to put up stickers advertising AVFM. And then there was the bizarre rape comments and non-consensual touching at last year’s First International Conference on Men’s Issues. Again, weird. But then there’s this piece for AVFM where he asks his readers if they’re “okay” with his sexuality, and claims that his “urges are taboo”:

I’m a sucker for gothic brunette locks of hair that look sapphire blue under a bright light. Mascara is nice, but only just enough to create contrast for a pair of veinless, white eyeballs peaked with irises colored a spine-freezing azure. I’m not crazy about lipstick, but a natural pink, supple cover for a glacier-melting smile is enough to make me evaporate into a cloud.

I could go on to describe my preferred proportions of jiggly torso protrusions, but I figure the standards of a twenty-something young man are understood. But considering what you can find on the Internet, my tastes are tame, if not predictably dull.

. . .

For some reason, my urges are taboo. I can’t even so much as glance at a pin-up of Denise Milani without hearing the tired wails of the Objectification Brigade femsplaining why my feelings of attraction reduce women’s humanity to that of a lubricated Shop Vac.

Look, it’s obviously inappropriate to describe scat porn at a Starkist corporate luncheon, but when did it become uncouth for men to express their sexuality at all?

To call courtship a “minefield” is optimistic because no one gives men a minesweeper. It’s more like making a colorblind Parkinson’s victim try to defuse a bomb with a vibrator. The only reason the poor sap even tries is because part of him wants to believe the bomb might like him enough to explode into a heap of pussy. Or something like that. I’m bad at analogies.

When I was younger I had to learn to overcome the hurdle of expressing my interests to women I liked. Naturally, I had insecurities about rejection to outgrow. But today, it is not rejection I fear, it’s the social consequences that could follow a rejection:

  • I risk a false allegation of sexual assault that could put me in prison.
  • I risk others initiating toxic rumors that can end friendships.
  • I risk suffering vigilante action brought on by a woman’s friends and family, if not the greater public.

I risk all of these things, even if I do nothing wrong and it is only the feelings of others that dictate I should be punished. Don’t tell me I’m being paranoid, because a university professor told cops that I am a potential serial killer because I put up stickers saying men were human.

. . .

[A] pervasive difference between men and women is that men risk far more even before they know what boundaries to respect! Men risk retaliation for approaching a boundary as if they crossed it, and the attitude indicating that risk is no better articulated by Phaedra Starling in Schrödinger’s Rapist. You, a man, are a potential rapist, therefore you will be treated as such until you prove that you are not a threat. Never mind the sexism in that, just man up, right?

There is nothing wrong with me offering or requesting sex with any woman, and it is not embarrassing for me to express my desires since I respect boundaries anyway. It’s not like I can’t walk ten feet to talk to a second woman if the first shows no interest. The problem is that men can’t make a move without risking way more than they should. A woman saying “no” before parting ways is not an excuse to report sexual assault and try to ruin a man’s life.

. . .

If you are a woman, then I may want to have sex with you. Depending on your level of attractiveness, my fantasies about you may range from getting a work visa just to move a continent away, to exploding into the kind of rabid rated-X deep-dish fucking that causes respiratory failure and makes the fire department bring Jaws of Life and a crucifix.

Can you, as a woman, live with me having sexual urges about you at first sight? My urges are natural, and it is perfectly okay for me to want to get in your pants. If you do not reciprocate that interest, that’s understandable and worthy of respect.

However, my urges are not my actions. I don’t move to have sex on sight, because I only sleep with mature, stable, intelligent women whom I know and trust, and who feel the same in return. I prefer women who don’t have chips on their shoulders, and who won’t shame me or other men for feeling attracted to them. These women understand that pointing a finger and using their feelings to harm men who have done nothing wrong is both bigoted and unfair. No amount of police intervention and male shaming makes any man responsible for the bigotry of an insecure woman, no matter how attractive or popular she happens to be.

I am a white able-bodied male cis-gender shitlord from Hell that will totally take a bundle of curves and smiles to bed for a night of sex and pizza.

And no one is going to stop me.

Random Headlines — 4/18/15

Kotaku — GamerGate booth led by Men’s Rights Activists was kicked out of a Canadian comic expo.
Cosmopolitan — Why this longtime abortion provider may never reopen her practice.
Think Progress – Hobby Lobby part two is barreling towards the Supreme Court.
Salon — Ted Cruz’s call for Americans to arm  themselves against ‘tyranny’ reveals his frightening gun fanaticism.
We Hunted the Mammoth — Ex-Reed College student who disrupted class discussions on rape has been arrested for sexual abuse and harassment.
Feministing — Women are almost twice as likely as men to live in poverty during retirement.
Politico — On the twentieth anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, not ignoring homegrown terror is a key lesson.
AlterNet — The Republican Party’s contempt for women is breathtaking.

Random Headlines — 4/15/15

Marco Rubio

The Huffington Post – Marco Rubio’s Miami church deals in exorcisms, Creationism, and anti-gay policies.
Think Progress – The perfect storm may be brewing in Colorado to pass a ‘personhood’ law.
The New Civil Rights Movement – Jeb Bush to deliver commencement address at virulently anti-gay Liberty University.
Slate – How welfare recipients actually spend their money.
The TransAdvocate – An interview with Catherine MacKinnon on sex, gender, and sexuality.
Salon – Ted Nugent tells an NRA audience that he would like to gun down Harry Reid.
Media Matters – Fox News asks if it’s “time to revisit” voter literacy test requirements.
Hatewatch – NC neo-Nazi is arrested in the murder of his gay former supervisor.

Random Headlines — Race to the White House Edition

Hillary Clinton

Politico – The strange tale of the first woman to run for president.
– Hillary Clinton isn’t a champion of women’s rights, she’s the embodiment of corporate feminism.
Washington Post – Rand Paul’s problem with female interviewers just cropped up again.
Salon – Ted Cruz says the gay community is waging a “jihad” against people of faith.
The Nation – Former Republican says no one who voted for the Iraq War should be president — including Hillary Clinton.
The Atlantic – How self-segregation and concentrated affluence became normal in America.
Raw Story – Evangelical Republicans lash out at LGBT and abortion rights in a new chapter of the culture wars.

Why I’m Shutting Down the Comments


This is something I’ve been thinking about for a while now. For every decent comment I receive, I end up with twice the number of abusive/spam comments which I have to end up deleting. It gets to be a hassle, and subjectively determining what I should consider a violation of the rules on any given occasion grows tiresome. Plus, I was struck by what Popular Science had to say about comment sections of articles and their effect on readers’ perceptions of the articles themselves:

In one study led by University of Wisconsin-Madison professor Dominique Brossard, 1,183 Americans read a fake blog post on nanotechnology and revealed in survey questions how they felt about the subject (are they wary of the benefits or supportive?). Then, through a randomly assigned condition, they read either epithet- and insult-laden comments (“If you don’t see the benefits of using nanotechnology in these kinds of products, you’re an idiot” ) or civil comments. The results, as Brossard and coauthor Dietram A. Scheufele wrote in a New York Times op-ed:

Uncivil comments not only polarized readers, but they often changed a participant’s interpretation of the news story itself.

In the civil group, those who initially did or did not support the technology — whom we identified with preliminary survey questions — continued to feel the same way after reading the comments. Those exposed to rude comments, however, ended up with a much more polarized understanding of the risks connected with the technology.

Simply including an ad hominem attack in a reader comment was enough to make study participants think the downside of the reported technology was greater than they’d previously thought.

Another, similarly designed study found that just firmly worded (but not uncivil) disagreements between commenters impacted readers’ perception of science.

If you carry out those results to their logical end–commenters shape public opinion; public opinion shapes public policy; public policy shapes how and whether and what research gets funded–you start to see why we feel compelled to hit the “off” switch.

This might be a good idea for me. So, starting tomorrow I’m going to try shutting down the comment capability on this blog. You can still feel free to like the posts if you’re so inclined, but no one will be able to comment on any of my posts.

Random Headlines — 4/07/15

VICE – A white cop is being charged with murder in South Carolina for shooting an unarmed black man in the back.
The New York Times – According to a new report, Rolling Stone’s article on rape at the University of Virginia failed all journalistic basics.
Talking Points Memo – An account from a woman who was sexually assaulted at UVA, and doesn’t accept the Rolling Stone reporter’s apology.
Think Progress – Rand Paul would be the worst president on Civil Rights since the 1800s.
Media Matters – National Review likens concern over campus sexual assault to ‘mass hysteria’ of Salem Witch Trials.
Salon – Anti-choicers are trying to stop North Carolina medical schools from teaching abortion care.

CoAlpha Forum Member Ponders Whether Raping White Women is a ‘Revolutionary Act’

I'm getting the strange feeling of deja vu.
I’m getting the strange feeling of deja vu.

“Eurasian males” are “humiliated” and “broken.” They “have no claim to their White Dad’s right to white women.” Europeans of Arabic descent are “about to be exterminated” and yet they “continue raping white women.” “That takes balls.” No, those aren’t the words of Elliot Rodger, but those of a member of the CoAlpha Reactionary Forum — a small online community of men whose views on women and society would embarrass all but the Taliban.

A new member who identifies as a “Hapa” — a Hawaiian term used to designate people of mixed ethnicity — and goes by the name “manofire” vents his frustration toward his racial heritage and his apparent inability to date white women:

Eurasian males are the humiliated degraded broken sons of White Dads. They have no claim to their White Dad’s right to white women.

Arab and Indian Men are just as rejected by white women, but at least they know how to rape them and turn them into sex slaves. Muslims are facing a Holocaust in Europe, but they are still not afraid to rape, and seduced into prostitution thousands of white girls.

You can blame dating on female choice. But the lack of Asian men raping white women, is solely the fault of the man.

Should Hapa men redeem themselves by raping white women in a revolutionary act?

His use of the phrase “revolutionary act” to describe rape is, as he acknowledges, borrowed from the late Black Panther leader Eldridge Cleaver. In Soul on Ice — a collection of prison essays released as a book in 1978 — Eldridge confessed to raping numerous women, both white and black, and called rape an “insurrectionary act.” “It delighted me that I was defying and trampling upon the white man’s law, upon his system of values, and that I was defiling his women…I felt I was getting revenge.”

Being of Asian and European heritage, manofire wondered if this should be the goal of other men like him:

Is the most revolutionary think Hapa boys can do rape White women who share the white race of their Fathers?

I’m not an advocate of criminality. I merely ask if Hapas are in the same revolutionary position as Eldridge Cleaver.

Is the Hapa destiny to be solved in the rape of white women?

It makes me kind of angry that they have turned me into such a loser. By letting the Asian race sink so low. Ok it is women who do the sexual selection. But Asian Men could rape more. They have so many comics about rape, but they dont actually rape. White women’s opinions don’t matter in rape. You can’t get rejected by rape. Look at Arab men. White Europe is on the verge of having a Holocaust against Arabs, but that doesn’t stop them from raping white women. Your about to be exterminated, and your still raping. That takes balls.

So yes as a Hapa guy, I do hate Asian men for not being rapists enough. Would it hurt my feelings if I had a reputation as a rapist based on my race? beats being a eunuch. rape is totally in the man’s control, and asian men can’t even do that. I never hear cases of Asian men raping white women. And if Arabs can do it so can they.

Am I hypocrite, since I;m not a rapist myself? Look I’m an aspie retard mutant freak, I could never pull it off. Is the whole Asian race, filled with man-children like me, who cant even rape?

Asian men have betrayed me in 2 ways. 1st they were assholes to me in person, throughout my life. and 2nd they have let their reputation and therfore my reputation sink to shit. And some forms of sex are in their control period.

This post is absolutely chilling, and to their very limited credit, other CoAlpha members refused to egg him on or agree with him. One poster even compared him (one would hope unfavorably) to Elliot Rodger. Even the website’s administrator fschmidt, who has made his share of appalling remarks about women, responded by saying that he found the post pointless. “I don’t care about rape. I don’t care about race. The question that interests me is what one wants out of life, and then how to get it.”

In turn, manofire left a link to a blog called The Pain of Eurasian Sons, run by someone who calls himself “hapaguy.” The blog appears to be a collection of posts from self-identified Hapa men, none of whom appear happy with their existence.

In one blog entry, a poster wrote, “What a tragic fucking Darwinian universe, in which we the Eurasian Males, who most care about the feelings of white girls, are forever doomed to be permavirgins. We are on the opposite side of the racial spectrum to the ghetto swagging gangsta. It seems like a cruel joke of the universe that Eurasian boys like me even exist. Is it possible for Eurasian boys to get a white girlfriend when we are biologically indisposed to hurting, dominating, or mistreating them?”

Another poster refers to himself as a “mutant from a nonhuman species” whom humans want to make miserable. “There are 8 million Hapa males, and none of us have had sex,” he complained. “WE are just ignored by the world. Our plight doesn’t exist to them. No people suffer more than us, and yet it is a hidden Holocaust. It is the worst crime in human history. The worst form of child abuse. Yet no one in the world gives a shit about Hapa suffering.”

In one of the final blog entries — perhaps by hapaguy himself, though it’s difficult to tell — states that Eurasians “are the answer to feminism and liberalism.” “Oriental women” are “beautiful, delicate, intelligent and loyal” though “their men are weeds.” On the other hand, “Germanic men” are “strong, manly and tall” while “their women are whores.”

“Our only hope,” he wrote, “is to bring Oriental women and Germanic men together. They will create the master race this planet needs to eradicate niggers, mudslimes[,] kikes, pakis and uber-liberals.”

In retrospect, much of this content — the self-pity, the entitlement, the misogyny, the racism, the desire to harm women — could have been ripped straight from Elliot Rodger’s manifesto. In retrospect, people could have seen the warning signs with Rodger, before he finally took the lives of several innocent people in Isla Vista last May. Certainly not everyone who expresses hatred of women or racial minorities will act violently toward them. Nor will everyone who expresses violent sentiment will make good on their statements. But sometimes, as we saw with the Isla Vista massacre and numerous racist murderers, they do. And we inevitably wish we would have paid more attention before it was too late.

Return of Kings Writer: ‘Game’ Could Have Prevented Andreas Lubitz From Committing Mass Murder

Andreas Lubitz

Following in the footsteps of Vox Day, Donovan Sharpe of Return of Kings wrote that “game” — that is, seduction techniques used by pickup artists to sleep with women — would have prevented Andreas Lubitz from deliberately crashing Germanwings Flight 9525 and killing all on board:

Since 9/11 our first reflex in any plane crash is to suspect terrorism. But an unexpected twist emerged as details of Lubitz’s mental health and broken relationship came to the forefront. Since then it’s become obvious that the event that caused his mental break and drove him to fly a plan into a mountain was being dumped by his long-time girlfriend, Kathrin Goldbach, who is pregnant with his child.

While it isn’t surprising this was predicted by an unplugged member of the [Manosphere], it’s worth noting that this event has much of the same stench as the Elliot Rodger mass murder and suicide last May and maybe even a dash of the Andrew Stern calamity.

There are differences to be sure, but the commonality these three events share is that lives were lost because a man lost his shit over his dealings with the opposite sex. The Germanwings crash only further confirms one of the many unshakable truths we teach in the ‘sphere: Game saves lives.

. . .

When a man lashes out and kills people over a woman, he’s got beta blood running through his veins. It’s reported that Lubitz was banging a stewardess on the side, but given his personality and behavior leading up to the crash, that can hardly be described as “alpha.”

. . .

Although Lubitz went out like a sniveling beta, believe it or not he actually had the tools to be an alpha. Yes, he was a control freak and yes, he sought validation from persons other than the man in the mirror.

But if we put on our neomasculine spectacles and read between the lines of these accounts, it’s quite easy to see that he had all the makings of a man who could tickle the loins of hot young females.

. . .

Both the media and the public at large wants to characterize this tragedy as the typical case of a demented male who went off his meds and killed a bunch of people. They are consistently highlighting Lubitz’s history of mental illnesses, his anxiety over losing his job, and the stash of pills they found at his place as the main causes for his psychotic break.

There’s no doubt those ingredients certainly played a role in his coming unglued, but red pillers know that being dumped by his fiancée is what pushed him over the edge. The world seems to be playing catch up and is starting to give a little more credence to what we already know to be true which, incidentally, only serves to further increase the perceived high value of females.

The raw truth to all of this is that had Lubitz had game this would not have happened. Game improves a man in every way imaginable but more importantly it also acts as a natural cure for mental illness. It’s very difficult for a man to slip into depression when his mind and body are strong.

A man who has a solid sense of self and overall satisfaction with both life and who he is as a person is a man who is all but immune to conditions like oneitis and homicidal or suicidal ideation. If Lubitz, Rodger, and Stern had even an ounce of neomasculine wisdom they and their victims might still be alive today.

Andreas Lubitz had all the makings of someone who could live a dominant and fulfilling life. He had a pretty young girl pregnant with his child and hopelessly committed to him, regular action with a flight attendant on the side, and an exciting profession which would have provided him with a enough money to live a comfortable life.

All he needed was a bit of game to solidify himself as a man. Unfortunately for him, 149 other people, and his unborn child, Lubitz never took the red pill.

Game saves lives, gentlemen, and you can bet your ass incidents like this will increase in frequency in the coming years.

The description of Lubitz appears to be one of a man who needlessly controlled the lives of his girlfriends. A man who struggled with mental illness. A man who couldn’t deal with his feelings of inadequacy and anger. In this sense, Lubitz isn’t any different from other male spree killers like George Sodini or Elliot Rodger. But the solution to these problems would be to overhaul our mental health system, not just in the U.S. but elsewhere, and to create a culture where men don’t see violence and killing as a solution to problems.

Sharpe, however, is using the mass murder of 149 people to promote sleazy seduction techniques and the foul idea that the solution to misogynist male rage is, well, more misogyny. He lays the blame for this tragedy at the feet of women who don’t “put out” and “beta males” who aren’t “Red Pill.” If only mass murderers the likes of Elliot Rodger or Andreas Lubitz could just get laid more often, then lonely, entitled men wouldn’t snap and hurt innocent people. This attitude is only a recipe for more tragedies.

Random Headlines — 4/04/15

Homophobic Car
Sometimes bumper stickers are the best indication of someone’s idiocy.

Think Progress – The conservative Christian movement that tried to make religious liberty about homophobia.
Talking Points Memo – Ex-boss of California’s ‘kill all gays’ lawyer says, ‘Go after him with a knife and fork.’
The New York Times – Transgender inmate’s hormone treatment lawsuit gets Justice Department backing.
AlterNet – In statutory rape case involving a teacher and student, the judge asks the courtroom, ‘What young man would not jump on that candy?’
Raw Story – Conservative comedian poses as an offensive gay stereotype and asks Muslim bakeries for wedding cakes.
Vox – Conservatives lost in Indiana, but they’re not going down without a fight.
Right Wing Watch – Mike Huckabee claims the gay community won’t rest until ‘there are no more churches.’
Hatewatch – In their latest meeting, European and American racists are set to gather in Belgium.

Bryan Fischer: ‘Homosexual Zealots’ Are Forcing Christians ‘Back to the Plantation’

Bryan Fischer is still awful.
Just like being paid to bake a wedding cake.

Indiana Governor Mike Pence recently signed an amendment to his state’s controversial “religious freedom” law which stipulates that it cannot be invoked by business owners to discriminate against LGBT customers. Far-right Christians who championed the bill as a means to prevent Christians from baking cakes and making floral arrangements for same-sex weddings were livid.

Matt Barber called the amended law and “anti-Christian, sexual anarchist disaster” and likened Governor Pence to Judas Iscariot. Scott Lively, an extremist pastor currently set to stand trial for crimes against humanity, compared LGBT activists to the Borg from Star Trek, writing, “No existing member of the American Marxist collective is allowed to dissent from the view that homosexuality and related perversions are deserving of legal protection and cultural celebration.  Moreover, any dissent from outside the Collective attracts the entire body of Borg-like drones — like a swarm of hornets — in the single-minded quest to seek and either assimilate or destroy whatever person or entity has been foolish enough to challenge it.”

The AFA’s Bryan Fischer had similar harsh words, claiming the amended law “forces Christian bakers to bake cakes in violation of their faith and conscience” and that Governor Pence “tried to fix something that wasn’t broken, and he broke it.”

Fischer also conceived of a way to fight legislation that doesn’t allow for Christians to follow their consciences and deny service to gays and lesbians. Citing an article from American Thinker Fischer wrote that “the  key constitutional answer to Indiana’s crisis is not even found in the First Amendment but in the 13th”:

Here’s how the 13th Amendment reads (emphasis mine):

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

Well, Indiana is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, so involuntary servitude is flatly forbidden anywhere in the state. Period. We fought a civil war to resolve this issue, and yet pro-homosexual zealots want to take us back to the days of the Confederacy and the days when disfavored minorities were forced to pick cotton or else.

. . .

A Christian baker cannot be forced against his will to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. That’s involuntary servitude.

A Christian florist cannot be compelled against her will to prepare a floral arrangement for a same-sex wedding. That’s involuntary servitude.

A Christian photographer cannot be compelled against her will and conscience to shoot a same-sex wedding ceremony. That’s involuntary servitude.

A Jewish baker cannot be compelled against his will to bake a cake with Adolf Hitler’s image on it (such cakes exist, believe it or not). A black owner of a T-shirt company cannot be compelled against his conscience and will to print shirts with KKK slogans. And a Muslim butcher cannot be compelled against his will to butcher a hog. Period.

Setting aside the vast differences between a Christian baker creating a cake — something that a baker does in the regular course of business — and a Muslim being forced to purchase and slaughter an animal for meat he wouldn’t normally stock, Fischer’s constitutional analysis falls flat, and is once again reminiscent of arguments made by segregationists decades ago.

Over fifty years ago the 88th Congress passed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. This law banned acts of discrimination in both the public and private sphere, with Title II reading in part, “All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation…without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.”

The law was, quite predictably, met with fierce resistance by white business owners who refused to be compelled by Congress to serve African-Americans. In their minds they were allowed to refuse service to anyone, and for any reason, and had a right to run their businesses as they saw fit.

Such was the attitude of Moreton Rolleston, a white motel owner from Georgia, who refused to rent rooms to blacks. Rolleston swiftly mounted a legal challenge to Title II of the Civil Rights Act, alleging that Congress acted outside the scope of its powers to force private business owners to provide services to people regardless of race.

In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964), the main thrust of Rolleston’s argument before the Supreme Court was that Congress exceeded its power under the Commerce Clause — its main justification in being able to police the actions of private business owners — in enacting Title II. However, one of his more colorful arguments was that the law also violated his rights under the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments.

The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person “shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” while the Thirteenth Amendment serves as the prohibition against both chattel slavery and involuntary servitude. Rolleston claimed that denying him the freedom to choose the customers whom he wished to serve (i.e. white travelers) would be tantamount to involuntary servitude. That is, he would be forced by the government to provide rooms to black customers just as he would for white customers — all against his will.

The Supreme Court, with Justice Tom C. Clark writing for the majority, eviscerated these arguments in short order. The Court declared not only that Congress was well within its authority under the Commerce Clause to enforce such sweeping legislation, but that Rolleston was not deprived of his Fifth Amendment rights:

Thus, the power of Congress to promote interstate commerce also includes the power to regulate the local incidents thereof, including local activities in both the States of origin and destination, which might have a substantial and harmful effect upon that commerce. One need only examine the evidence which we have discussed above to see that Congress may — as it has — prohibit racial discrimination by motels serving travelers, however “local” their operations may appear.

Nor does the Act deprive appellant of liberty or property under the Fifth Amendment. The commerce power invoked here by the Congress is a specific and plenary one authorized by the Constitution itself. The only questions are: (1) whether Congress had a rational basis for finding that racial discrimination by motels affected commerce, and (2) if it had such a basis, whether the means it selected to eliminate that evil are reasonable and appropriate. If they are, appellant has no “right” to select its guests as it sees fit, free from governmental regulation.

The Court also found “no merit in the remainder of appellant’s contentions, including that of ‘involuntary servitude.'” The Court noted that, at that time, 32 states had laws which barred racial discrimination in public accommodations, and that such laws merely codified the common law innkeeper rule, by which such proprietors had a duty to accommodate all travelers absent some reasonable grounds for refusal. The common law, the Court pointed out, “long predated the Thirteenth Amendment,” and it is doubtful that the Thirteenth Amendment was “intended to abrogate this principle.” The Court concluded this point by declaring, “Indeed, the opinion of the Court in the Civil Rights Cases is to the contrary as we have seen, it having noted with approval the laws of ‘all the States’ prohibiting discrimination. We could not say that the requirements of the Act in this regard are in any way ‘akin to African slavery.'”

The point made by Fischer is one that has been settled a half century ago. Trying to cast laws prohibiting businesses from discriminating against protected classes of people as being the same as slavery is a foul, evil comparison that defies all logic. It has been argued before, by other bigots, long before reactionaries such as Bryan Fischer and the teary-eyed owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa. Co-opting the pain of minority groups in order to exempt yourselves from treating your customers equally was a losing argument in 1964. It will surely be a losing argument in 2015.