Indiana is for Bigots - video and Pence running for cover

[ChrisL]

That changes nothing. Doctors should not discriminate. Doctors are supposed to see people as human beings in need of healing. Being a doctor is much more important than being a baker. That is my point.

I agree, however doctors do have the right to choose who they treat except in a life threatening emergency as long as their reason relates to the practice of medicine. With this new law, I guess a doctor could reject a patient because they are gay.

What I find strange about this law, is that it makes the assumption that a business owner will be able to determine that a person is gay by their appearance or action. The fact is there are millions of men who are effeminate but aren't gay just as there are women that have masculine features but aren't lesbians. Heterosexual men and women will often show affection to members of their own sex. If will be interesting to see the reaction of heterosexuals when they have been denied service because they have been labeled as being gay; should make interesting lawsuits.

This law will certainly joint the long list of America' stupidest laws.

I agree with most of your post, but I don't think the government has the right to tell a baker that he has to cater to a gay person if he doesn't wish too. If it is your own business, it should be your decision. It would be a stupid decision, and they will lose customers. Also, it's important to know who exactly you are doing business with.

Exactly how many posts will I be required to make before you understand that businesses don't get to make up the rules they follow, society does?

Lol. Well obviously not. This is supposed to be a FREE country.

So you are posting Sunday School Americanism, and ignoring reality entirely then? Carry on.

Not at all. Government cannot legislate morality, especially in a FREE country.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What I find strange about this law, is that it makes the assumption that a business owner will be able to determine that a person is gay by their appearance or action.

What I find interesting is there are willful or unintentional misinterpretations of the law that suggest this discriminates against gays. It doesn't. See my other thread on the subject. All this law does is grant objectors the right to due process under the law, in other words:

I can appeal to the government my religious objection to serve a gay person. The government, instead of unilaterally forcing me to serve this individual, is required under the law to prove its case of compelling interest against my objection due to faith. Nine times out of 10 the objector loses, and the objection has zero to do with gay or lesbian couples.

All all this law grants due process, granting the objector, the claimant and the government a right to jury of their peers. Anyone and everyone entitled to it in America.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I agree, however doctors do have the right to choose who they treat except in a life threatening emergency as long as their reason relates to the practice of medicine. With this new law, I guess a doctor could reject a patient because they are gay.

What I find strange about this law, is that it makes the assumption that a business owner will be able to determine that a person is gay by their appearance or action. The fact is there are millions of men who are effeminate but aren't gay just as there are women that have masculine features but aren't lesbians. Heterosexual men and women will often show affection to members of their own sex. If will be interesting to see the reaction of heterosexuals when they have been denied service because they have been labeled as being gay; should make interesting lawsuits.

This law will certainly joint the long list of America' stupidest laws.

I agree with most of your post, but I don't think the government has the right to tell a baker that he has to cater to a gay person if he doesn't wish too. If it is your own business, it should be your decision. It would be a stupid decision, and they will lose customers. Also, it's important to know who exactly you are doing business with.

Exactly how many posts will I be required to make before you understand that businesses don't get to make up the rules, meani they follow, society does?

Lol. Well obviously not. This is supposed to be a FREE country.

So you are posting Sunday School Americanism, and ignoring reality entirely then? Carry on.

Not at all. Government cannot legislate morality, especially in a FREE country.

I have no idea where you got this idea from, but it is entirely untrue. A Free Country is not Anarchy, it has rules, meaning laws, about freedom no less.

 

[ChrisL]

I agree with most of your post, but I don't think the government has the right to tell a baker that he has to cater to a gay person if he doesn't wish too. If it is your own business, it should be your decision. It would be a stupid decision, and they will lose customers. Also, it's important to know who exactly you are doing business with.

Exactly how many posts will I be required to make before you understand that businesses don't get to make up the rules, meani they follow, society does?

Lol. Well obviously not. This is supposed to be a FREE country.

So you are posting Sunday School Americanism, and ignoring reality entirely then? Carry on.

Not at all. Government cannot legislate morality, especially in a FREE country.

I have no idea where you got this idea from, but it is entirely untrue. A Free Country is not Anarchy, it has rules, meaning laws, about freedom no less.

It's not "anarchy" to allow a baker to decide who he or she serves.

 

[WorldWatcher]

What I find strange about this law, is that it makes the assumption that a business owner will be able to determine that a person is gay by their appearance or action.

What I find interesting is there are willful or unintentional misinterpretations of the law that suggest this discriminates against gays. It doesn't. See my other thread on the subject. All this law does is grant objectors the right to due process under the law, in other words:

I can appeal to the government my religious objection to serve a gay person. The government, instead of unilaterally forcing me to serve this individual, is required under the law to prove its case of compelling interest against my objection due to faith. Nine times out of 10 the objector loses, and the objection has zero to do with gay or lesbian couples.

All all this law grants due process, granting the objector, the claimant and the government a right to jury of their peers. Anyone and everyone entitled to it in America.

Just to point out a couple of things:

1. It doesn't grant "Due Process" as anyone could have already appealed a decision that went against them. For example, Elane Photography was found to be violation of New Mexico's PA law. They appealed the ruling and took it all the way to the State Supreme Court, that ruling was then appealed to the SCOTUS. Masterpiece Cakes in Colorado appealed their ruling in court. Sweetcakes by Melissa will be appealing their ruling in court. What the law actually does is provide (in Indiana) that a claim of religion becomes an affirmative defense for special privileges under the law which are not available to those objecting to serving customers for non-religious reasons.

2. These types of claims would not be heard by a "jury of their peers", these requests for exemption under what would be a generally applicable law would be heard by a sitting Judge.



>>>>

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Exactly how many posts will I be required to make before you understand that businesses don't get to make up the rules, meani they follow, society does?

Lol. Well obviously not. This is supposed to be a FREE country.

So you are posting Sunday School Americanism, and ignoring reality entirely then? Carry on.

Not at all. Government cannot legislate morality, especially in a FREE country.

I have no idea where you got this idea from, but it is entirely untrue. A Free Country is not Anarchy, it has rules, meaning laws, about freedom no less.

It's not "anarchy" to allow a baker to decide who he or she serves.

No, but it's not slavery either. We regulate how businesses operate here, or did you miss say, the last 230 years of American history?

 

[TemplarKormac]

These types of claims would not be heard by a "jury of their peers", these requests for exemption under what would be a generally applicable law would be heard by a sitting Judge.

Still a hearing is it not? Still due process, is it not? Why the semantics? Instead of forcing the person to act against their beliefs without telling them why, the law makes the government state its case in a courtroom. The whole idea of Due Process is the idea that the claimant or the appellee has the right to be heard in court. Whether it is by a jury or a judge sans jury, makes no difference.

It doesn't grant "Due Process" as anyone could have already appealed a decision that went against them.

I suggest you read my previous response. Due process of law is not limited to jury trials. The very definition of due process is that the legal rights of the person must be respected.

 

[ChrisL]

Lol. Well obviously not. This is supposed to be a FREE country.

So you are posting Sunday School Americanism, and ignoring reality entirely then? Carry on.

Not at all. Government cannot legislate morality, especially in a FREE country.

I have no idea where you got this idea from, but it is entirely untrue. A Free Country is not Anarchy, it has rules, meaning laws, about freedom no less.

It's not "anarchy" to allow a baker to decide who he or she serves.

No, but it's not slavery either. We regulate how businesses operate here, or did you miss say, the last 230 years of American history?

Yes, I don't have a problem with regulations. I don't think this falls under "regulations" though. It is simply trying to legislate morality. I don't feel that the government has any right to involve itself in the business decisions (regardless of how STUPID they might be) for a business owner. The business owner will pay through the capitalism system when he loses business. That's why I said earlier, I don't mind if they hang signs. People should know exactly who it is they are doing business with. If I saw such a sign, I would take my business elsewhere. I would rather do business with reasonable and intelligent people than some bigot.

I don't see what your issue is with this stance. The business owner loses money, perhaps even his business. These people who would refuse to do business with a person simply because he or she is gay or other silly reasons are a minority in today's society in the United States. Most business owners are interested in making money and having a successful business that caters to their customers.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So you are posting Sunday School Americanism, and ignoring reality entirely then? Carry on.

Not at all. Government cannot legislate morality, especially in a FREE country.

I have no idea where you got this idea from, but it is entirely untrue. A Free Country is not Anarchy, it has rules, meaning laws, about freedom no less.

It's not "anarchy" to allow a baker to decide who he or she serves.

No, but it's not slavery either. We regulate how businesses operate here, or did you miss say, the last 230 years of American history?

Yes, I don't have a problem with regulations. I don't think this falls under "regulations" though. It is simply trying to legislate morality. I don't feel that the government has any right to involve itself in the business decisions (regardless of how STUPID they might be) for a business owner. The business owner will pay through the capitalism system when he loses business. That's why I said earlier, I don't mind if they hang signs. People should know exactly who it is they are doing business with. If I saw such a sign, I would take my business elsewhere. I would rather do business with reasonable and intelligent people than some bigot.

I don't see what your issue is with this stance. The business owner loses money, perhaps even his business. These people who would refuse to do business with a person simply because he or she is gay or other silly reasons are a minority in today's society in the United States. Most business owners are interested in making money and having a successful business that caters to their customers.

Got it. You "feel". Nuff said.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The legal definition of Due Process:

A fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property. Also,a constitutional guarantee that a law shall not be unreasonable, Arbitrary, or capricious.

 

[ChrisL]

Not at all. Government cannot legislate morality, especially in a FREE country.

I have no idea where you got this idea from, but it is entirely untrue. A Free Country is not Anarchy, it has rules, meaning laws, about freedom no less.

It's not "anarchy" to allow a baker to decide who he or she serves.

No, but it's not slavery either. We regulate how businesses operate here, or did you miss say, the last 230 years of American history?

Yes, I don't have a problem with regulations. I don't think this falls under "regulations" though. It is simply trying to legislate morality. I don't feel that the government has any right to involve itself in the business decisions (regardless of how STUPID they might be) for a business owner. The business owner will pay through the capitalism system when he loses business. That's why I said earlier, I don't mind if they hang signs. People should know exactly who it is they are doing business with. If I saw such a sign, I would take my business elsewhere. I would rather do business with reasonable and intelligent people than some bigot.

I don't see what your issue is with this stance. The business owner loses money, perhaps even his business. These people who would refuse to do business with a person simply because he or she is gay or other silly reasons are a minority in today's society in the United States. Most business owners are interested in making money and having a successful business that caters to their customers.

Got it. You "feel". Nuff said.

Got it, you've got no argument because you know it makes perfect sense.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I have no idea where you got this idea from, but it is entirely untrue. A Free Country is not Anarchy, it has rules, meaning laws, about freedom no less.

It's not "anarchy" to allow a baker to decide who he or she serves.

No, but it's not slavery either. We regulate how businesses operate here, or did you miss say, the last 230 years of American history?

Yes, I don't have a problem with regulations. I don't think this falls under "regulations" though. It is simply trying to legislate morality. I don't feel that the government has any right to involve itself in the business decisions (regardless of how STUPID they might be) for a business owner. The business owner will pay through the capitalism system when he loses business. That's why I said earlier, I don't mind if they hang signs. People should know exactly who it is they are doing business with. If I saw such a sign, I would take my business elsewhere. I would rather do business with reasonable and intelligent people than some bigot.

I don't see what your issue is with this stance. The business owner loses money, perhaps even his business. These people who would refuse to do business with a person simply because he or she is gay or other silly reasons are a minority in today's society in the United States. Most business owners are interested in making money and having a successful business that caters to their customers.

Got it. You "feel". Nuff said.

Got it, you've got no argument because you know it makes perfect sense.

No, Sweetheart, it ignores reality. We do not let the marketplace work this out. We have, and always have had, a communal morality that is represented by our laws. It's not that it couldn't be done, it has been done in the past, but it no longer is. What you defend is what has already been shown not to work, and has therefore been rejected. I'm unsure of what era you live in, but it isn't one of the last sixty years or so.

Maybe this will comfort you, Adam Smith was a moralist. He supported an economic system that was efficient, and also, moral, and he had no issues with society having a say in such matters since without them, the system would not exist in the first place.

 

[ChrisL]

It's not "anarchy" to allow a baker to decide who he or she serves.

No, but it's not slavery either. We regulate how businesses operate here, or did you miss say, the last 230 years of American history?

Yes, I don't have a problem with regulations. I don't think this falls under "regulations" though. It is simply trying to legislate morality. I don't feel that the government has any right to involve itself in the business decisions (regardless of how STUPID they might be) for a business owner. The business owner will pay through the capitalism system when he loses business. That's why I said earlier, I don't mind if they hang signs. People should know exactly who it is they are doing business with. If I saw such a sign, I would take my business elsewhere. I would rather do business with reasonable and intelligent people than some bigot.

I don't see what your issue is with this stance. The business owner loses money, perhaps even his business. These people who would refuse to do business with a person simply because he or she is gay or other silly reasons are a minority in today's society in the United States. Most business owners are interested in making money and having a successful business that caters to their customers.

Got it. You "feel". Nuff said.

Got it, you've got no argument because you know it makes perfect sense.

No, Sweetheart, it ignores reality. We do not let the market work this out. We have, and always have had, a communal morality that is represented by our laws. It's not that it couldn't be done, it has been done in the past, but it no longer is. What you defend is what has already been shown not to work, and has therefore been rejected. I'm unsure of what era you live in, but it isn't one of the last sixty years or so.

I live in today's era, of course! People have changed since 60 years ago. We are more educated and less ignorant. Most of us realize that equal rights in our society is important. Most of the younger generation of people, who are most often the ones getting married, would not do business with such people.

I think this mindset of bigotry is most common with older generations and is the minority today. It may not seem that way on these forums because these places tend to attract the extremists anyways. NOT representative of our population.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No, but it's not slavery either. We regulate how businesses operate here, or did you miss say, the last 230 years of American history?

Yes, I don't have a problem with regulations. I don't think this falls under "regulations" though. It is simply trying to legislate morality. I don't feel that the government has any right to involve itself in the business decisions (regardless of how STUPID they might be) for a business owner. The business owner will pay through the capitalism system when he loses business. That's why I said earlier, I don't mind if they hang signs. People should know exactly who it is they are doing business with. If I saw such a sign, I would take my business elsewhere. I would rather do business with reasonable and intelligent people than some bigot.

I don't see what your issue is with this stance. The business owner loses money, perhaps even his business. These people who would refuse to do business with a person simply because he or she is gay or other silly reasons are a minority in today's society in the United States. Most business owners are interested in making money and having a successful business that caters to their customers.

Got it. You "feel". Nuff said.

Got it, you've got no argument because you know it makes perfect sense.

No, Sweetheart, it ignores reality. We do not let the market work this out. We have, and always have had, a communal morality that is represented by our laws. It's not that it couldn't be done, it has been done in the past, but it no longer is. What you defend is what has already been shown not to work, and has therefore been rejected. I'm unsure of what era you live in, but it isn't one of the last sixty years or so.

I live in today's era, of course! People have changed since 60 years ago. We are more educated and less ignorant. Most of us realize that equal rights in our society is important. Most of the younger generation of people, who are most often the ones getting married, would not do business with such people.

I think this mindset of bigotry is most common with older generations and is the minority today. It may not seem that way on these forums because these places tend to attract the extremists anyways. NOT representative of our population.

The reason why you believe as you do, is because we passed laws, decades ago, based upon that morality. Had we not, the bigotry of the old would be the norm, even today. We made the laws that helped along the morality and you, well you followed along by accepting them.

Society is more advanced now, more tolerant. more moral, because we passed laws to make it so.

 

[ChrisL]

Yes, I don't have a problem with regulations. I don't think this falls under "regulations" though. It is simply trying to legislate morality. I don't feel that the government has any right to involve itself in the business decisions (regardless of how STUPID they might be) for a business owner. The business owner will pay through the capitalism system when he loses business. That's why I said earlier, I don't mind if they hang signs. People should know exactly who it is they are doing business with. If I saw such a sign, I would take my business elsewhere. I would rather do business with reasonable and intelligent people than some bigot.

I don't see what your issue is with this stance. The business owner loses money, perhaps even his business. These people who would refuse to do business with a person simply because he or she is gay or other silly reasons are a minority in today's society in the United States. Most business owners are interested in making money and having a successful business that caters to their customers.

Got it. You "feel". Nuff said.

Got it, you've got no argument because you know it makes perfect sense.

No, Sweetheart, it ignores reality. We do not let the market work this out. We have, and always have had, a communal morality that is represented by our laws. It's not that it couldn't be done, it has been done in the past, but it no longer is. What you defend is what has already been shown not to work, and has therefore been rejected. I'm unsure of what era you live in, but it isn't one of the last sixty years or so.

I live in today's era, of course! People have changed since 60 years ago. We are more educated and less ignorant. Most of us realize that equal rights in our society is important. Most of the younger generation of people, who are most often the ones getting married, would not do business with such people.

I think this mindset of bigotry is most common with older generations and is the minority today. It may not seem that way on these forums because these places tend to attract the extremists anyways. NOT representative of our population.

The reason why you believe as you do, is because we passed laws, decades ago, based upon that morality. Had we not, the bigotry of the old would be the norm, even today. We made the laws that helped along the morality, and you, you followed along by accepting them...

So basically what you are saying is that, without government intervention, people can't make their OWN mind? You are obviously out of touch. People are not so ignorant anymore, for the most part. Bigotry like that, from everything I've seen, is much more rare. Just HOW MANY business owners do you think are going to ban gays? Most businesses are in business for the money. You just seem to want to force your views on everyone, and you can't do that anymore than the religious people can force theirs on you!

 

[Dot Com]

These thumpers are really starting to piss me off!!!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Got it. You "feel". Nuff said.

Got it, you've got no argument because you know it makes perfect sense.

No, Sweetheart, it ignores reality. We do not let the market work this out. We have, and always have had, a communal morality that is represented by our laws. It's not that it couldn't be done, it has been done in the past, but it no longer is. What you defend is what has already been shown not to work, and has therefore been rejected. I'm unsure of what era you live in, but it isn't one of the last sixty years or so.

I live in today's era, of course! People have changed since 60 years ago. We are more educated and less ignorant. Most of us realize that equal rights in our society is important. Most of the younger generation of people, who are most often the ones getting married, would not do business with such people.

I think this mindset of bigotry is most common with older generations and is the minority today. It may not seem that way on these forums because these places tend to attract the extremists anyways. NOT representative of our population.

The reason why you believe as you do, is because we passed laws, decades ago, based upon that morality. Had we not, the bigotry of the old would be the norm, even today. We made the laws that helped along the morality, and you, you followed along by accepting them...

So basically what you are saying is that, without government intervention, people can't make their OWN mind? You are obviously out of touch. People are not so ignorant anymore, for the most part. Bigotry like that, from everything I've seen, is much more rare. Just HOW MANY business owners do you think are going to ban gays? Most businesses are in business for the money. You just seem to want to force your views on everyone, and you can't do that anymore than the religious people can force theirs on you!

They are not so ignorant today because our laws, written in the past, showed them that they were wrong.

You have faith in humans acting on their own. Don't, history clearly shows that doesn't work and that is why we legislate morality. We always have, and we always will. Humans are tiny demons when left to their own devices, which is why no society on earth does such a thing.

 

[ChrisL]

Got it, you've got no argument because you know it makes perfect sense.

No, Sweetheart, it ignores reality. We do not let the market work this out. We have, and always have had, a communal morality that is represented by our laws. It's not that it couldn't be done, it has been done in the past, but it no longer is. What you defend is what has already been shown not to work, and has therefore been rejected. I'm unsure of what era you live in, but it isn't one of the last sixty years or so.

I live in today's era, of course! People have changed since 60 years ago. We are more educated and less ignorant. Most of us realize that equal rights in our society is important. Most of the younger generation of people, who are most often the ones getting married, would not do business with such people.

I think this mindset of bigotry is most common with older generations and is the minority today. It may not seem that way on these forums because these places tend to attract the extremists anyways. NOT representative of our population.

The reason why you believe as you do, is because we passed laws, decades ago, based upon that morality. Had we not, the bigotry of the old would be the norm, even today. We made the laws that helped along the morality, and you, you followed along by accepting them...

So basically what you are saying is that, without government intervention, people can't make their OWN mind? You are obviously out of touch. People are not so ignorant anymore, for the most part. Bigotry like that, from everything I've seen, is much more rare. Just HOW MANY business owners do you think are going to ban gays? Most businesses are in business for the money. You just seem to want to force your views on everyone, and you can't do that anymore than the religious people can force theirs on you!

They are not so ignorant today because our laws, written in the past, showed them that they were wrong.

You have faith in humans acting on their own. Don't, history clearly shows that doesn't work and that is why we legislate morality. We always have, and we always will. Humans are tiny demons when left to their own devices, which is why no society on earth does such a thing.

Look, I'm not surprised you feel that way. YOU are one of the extremists I was referring too. I don't think people are angels, but I think they are better than you give them credit for. Basically you think that the majority of people are bigots, and that's understandable from a person who thinks people are parasites.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No, Sweetheart, it ignores reality. We do not let the market work this out. We have, and always have had, a communal morality that is represented by our laws. It's not that it couldn't be done, it has been done in the past, but it no longer is. What you defend is what has already been shown not to work, and has therefore been rejected. I'm unsure of what era you live in, but it isn't one of the last sixty years or so.

I live in today's era, of course! People have changed since 60 years ago. We are more educated and less ignorant. Most of us realize that equal rights in our society is important. Most of the younger generation of people, who are most often the ones getting married, would not do business with such people.

I think this mindset of bigotry is most common with older generations and is the minority today. It may not seem that way on these forums because these places tend to attract the extremists anyways. NOT representative of our population.

The reason why you believe as you do, is because we passed laws, decades ago, based upon that morality. Had we not, the bigotry of the old would be the norm, even today. We made the laws that helped along the morality, and you, you followed along by accepting them...

So basically what you are saying is that, without government intervention, people can't make their OWN mind? You are obviously out of touch. People are not so ignorant anymore, for the most part. Bigotry like that, from everything I've seen, is much more rare. Just HOW MANY business owners do you think are going to ban gays? Most businesses are in business for the money. You just seem to want to force your views on everyone, and you can't do that anymore than the religious people can force theirs on you!

They are not so ignorant today because our laws, written in the past, showed them that they were wrong.

You have faith in humans acting on their own. Don't, history clearly shows that doesn't work and that is why we legislate morality. We always have, and we always will. Humans are tiny demons when left to their own devices, which is why no society on earth does such a thing.

Look, I'm not surprised you feel that way. YOU are one of the extremists I was referring too. I don't think people are angels, but I think they are better than you give them credit for. Basically you think that the majority of people are bigots, and that's understandable from a person who thinks people are parasites.

Humans are a disease. And it has nothing at all to do with feelings.

When you start dealing with reality, you will start to understand why we regulate businesses, and morality. Left to their own, humans would leave us knee-deep in the blood of the throats they slit.

 

[ChrisL]

I live in today's era, of course! People have changed since 60 years ago. We are more educated and less ignorant. Most of us realize that equal rights in our society is important. Most of the younger generation of people, who are most often the ones getting married, would not do business with such people.

I think this mindset of bigotry is most common with older generations and is the minority today. It may not seem that way on these forums because these places tend to attract the extremists anyways. NOT representative of our population.

The reason why you believe as you do, is because we passed laws, decades ago, based upon that morality. Had we not, the bigotry of the old would be the norm, even today. We made the laws that helped along the morality, and you, you followed along by accepting them...

So basically what you are saying is that, without government intervention, people can't make their OWN mind? You are obviously out of touch. People are not so ignorant anymore, for the most part. Bigotry like that, from everything I've seen, is much more rare. Just HOW MANY business owners do you think are going to ban gays? Most businesses are in business for the money. You just seem to want to force your views on everyone, and you can't do that anymore than the religious people can force theirs on you!

They are not so ignorant today because our laws, written in the past, showed them that they were wrong.

You have faith in humans acting on their own. Don't, history clearly shows that doesn't work and that is why we legislate morality. We always have, and we always will. Humans are tiny demons when left to their own devices, which is why no society on earth does such a thing.

Look, I'm not surprised you feel that way. YOU are one of the extremists I was referring too. I don't think people are angels, but I think they are better than you give them credit for. Basically you think that the majority of people are bigots, and that's understandable from a person who thinks people are parasites.

Humans are a disease. And it has nothing at all to do with feelings.

When you start dealing with reality, you will start to understand why we regulate businesses, and morality. Left to their own, humans would leave us knee-deep in the blood of the throats they slit.

You see? Extremist.