There is, at this point, not even an allegation that this attack was committed by homosexuals or on behalf of homosexuals or that it had anything to do with this pastor’s opinions on homosexuality. All we know is that a custodian was asaulted by some guys who said “this is for Paul.” Can you produce a single reason to connect the dots with any gay issue other than the custodian saying “they looked gay” (which is obviously meaningless and worthless as evidence)?
So where is the flip flop? There seems to be an automatic presumption in this case that the assault must have been some kind of retaliation for anti-gay statements even though there is not a shred of evidence to support that presumption. There is nothing to “flip flop” from. We have no idea, whatever why the assault occurred but it’s not unreasonable to guess that someone was pissed at this pastor for some reason. Gambling debts or wife-boinking are just as viable as motives for the attack as homophobic sermons. Why is it ok to insinuate that it was a retaliatory attack by gay men but not to wonder if he owed money? Why is the former theory any more likely than the latter?
I’m sorry, but the bullshit detection meter is going off the scale here.
How did the attackers manage to “look gay” again? Were they wearing tiny pink triangle lapel pins? Or did they pause during the attack to engage in some quick making out with each other?
I don’t buy it. There’s zero credible evidence that the attackers were gay.
I find the channel 5 headline to be rather misleading and slanted. It implies a connection between the sermon and the assault where none has been shown.
thanks for helping with the links.
I still think Buck should’ve called himself Buck Naked.
The local gay paper Gay Chronicles is sending someone to investigate to see if it indeed had ANYTHING at all to do with the pastors sermon on homosexuality.
I wonder how they “looked gay” too.
But thats the slant the news put on it, even going so far as to interview Buck.
My BS meter is going off, but that might be because we get so much shit from churches like that I have long ago stopped believing anything that they say. As others have said, if this was related to the preacher preaching what he believes the bible says about homosexuality, it was wrong and stupid. Hell, it was wrong and stupid no matter what the reason was. And any gay guys tacky enough to drive a white Firebird could well be stupid enough to do this. But I think that there is a huge leap to prove that this was gay related, that the attackers were gay, or that it happened the way the janitor said it did.