Its not surprising to see the comments by Foster in today’s Petsokey News story.
Lee Chatfield, a candidate challenging Frank Foster for Michigan’s 107th State Representative race is being questioned for campaign donations accepted from true Republican Dave Agema’s pac. Agema, a conservative who (contrary to progressives and apparently Frank Foster) believes in the sanctity of marriage, and that is between one man and one woman.
Foster, utilizing the Alinsky tactic of isolation would like to paint Chatfield in the manner that progressive liberal Republicans have tried previously with Agema himself. But there is a very good reason he would do so. A reason that most folks might not be aware. From The Petoskey News
” Foster said he and many other Republicans have disassociated themselves from Agema despite his prominent position in the party.
“Everyone is entitled to exercise freedom of speech and to donate to whoever they want, but I would not accept money from someone like Dave who I just don’t think is well-educated on the issues,” Foster said.
Chatfield said he did not seek support from Agema or his political action committee titled Top Gun Conservatives.
As a teacher and athletic director at Northern Michigan Christian Academy in Burt Lake, Chatfield said he decided to run for Foster’s seat after a series of meetings with the representative over the last year. The two disagreed on key issues, Chatfield said.
Among those is a push by Foster to change the state’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act to include protections against discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation. “
Frank Foster, presumably a REPUBLICAN, is trying to drag the party into support of an activity that causes incredibly disproportionate incident rates of STD’s, and mental illness.
In promoting the change of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act to include those with a sexual preference as a protected class, he thumbs his nose to those in the true civil rights movement. Yet there is a difference between inherent attributes (skin color, race, gender) and those that are of a mental nature.
Foster’s disregard for civil rights struggles in order to promote a deviant lifestyle choice, as well as his previous disregard for traditional voters who elected him should be noted.
(22)Nuh Uh.
(4)
While I abhor the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act as a whole I do think discrimination is distrustful. If I knew a business refused to serve gay people based solely on their choice of lifestyle, I'd do business elsewhere. Getting the government involved isn't the answer. Good old fashion boycotts are.
The correct course of action is to heavily modify the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act to allow businesses to discriminate but forbid government entities from discriminating. Once that is done, I'd support expanding it to include: GLBT, Polyamory, and other lifestyle choices.
There is no reason any of those issues should be known. Period.
Skin color, race, age, and gender are inherent and easily identifiable. Behavioral conditions are usually only known when it creates a problem. It would be absurd to hamstring the ability to deal with problems as they occur.
More limitations on the ability to manage a department? Fear of somebody claiming a sexual preference caused them to lose a job they deserved to lose would keep government operating the way I know you don't like.
Re-think that position Phillip.
The only reason politicians are climbing on the homosexual bandwagon is " for the money", lets face it, 1 1/2 percent of the population will not matter at the voting booth. It is unfortunate, however, homosexuals contribute massive amounts of money to candidates who are willing to promote their agenda. Also, politicians who bow to gay driven political correctness are the worst choice to represent the public, because they are for sale. We all make decisions which discriminate against people, places, and things daily. There are many good reasons to be wary of homosexuals pretending to be victims.
I take great exception on Fosters comment of not being well educated on this issue. Please go to daveagema.com the click-OTHER, then-ISSUES, then - TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE and you decide who has done due diligence. He's obviously suffering from a liberal education and a severe case of self importance with a voting record considerably more left than mine ever were. But then again, I voted on principle, not what the lobbyist told me to do.
Mr. Agema, the purpose of education is to examine and research all sides of an issue. You do not. You search for statistics and websites that only support your side of the issue whether they are reputable or not. True scholars welcome opposite views and the opportunity to defend their own views. They do not succumb to ego at the expense of academic wisdom. You are a bully and a narcissist. You call yourself moral, yet denigrate the office of RNC committeeman by deviding the party. If you truly believed in traditional marriage you would engage in positive activities regarding the 40%+ divorce rate in this country. No normal adult male spends as much time as you do attacking the intimate private lives of others. You say you are educated, yet you have poor spelling and grammatical skills. Please, just go away.
Oh, go blow it out your pious old Chrispy Creme Christie ass.
I love when the grammar police come out. Usually when someone mentions spelling or grammatical skills, it is because they fear the truth of the person they attack. On the other hand, you misspelled 'dividing'.
Anyhow the world needs bullies.
Suck it up cupcake.
"No normal adult male spends as much time as you do attacking the intimate private lives of others."
Sorry, but that's an Alinsky-style tactic right there.
Repeatedly focus on one element of another person's beliefs, to the exclusion of others... and then claim that the person is "obsessed" with that element, largely through your own over-obsession with it. It helps to have the larger mainstream media working on the same cause, because it then becomes easy to ignore all the other aspects of the subject's life, creating a self-fulfilling narrative. Or, to summarize the Alinsky approach -- target, isolate, attack.
Oh, and BTW, I do agree that Mr. Agema needs to spellcheck better, but those at work in Lansing DO have lots of correspondence to get through. And also, I apologize for Corinthian Scales' comment to you. I suspect that liberals take him no more seriously than we conservatives do.
LOL! rdww, you're really a fucked up person, and you do know that. - CS
Melanie, would you like some research? Here's some for you: Why would a pro-life party embrace a culture of death? Please feel free to read more here: Following The Path Of Ezekiel. I promise you that there's plenty of data in there for you to read and draw your own conclusions from.