Tuesday, 2 September 2014

Harvesting Truth with Tara Beth Ep.1 Sept 2 2014

Her first debut show on the Freedom Palooza Podcast Network, run by Shaun Surplus, Tara Beth talks about what she will be covering in the future on the show and also speaks about Gay Affirmative Action, that works against Christian moral standing.

Whilst there are a few bump-music problems during the broadcast, (Shaun is working on this) her first show was a good one.  A pat on the back and a warm welcome to Tara Beth and her new show Harvesting Truth.


1 comment:

  1. Tara Beth,

    I listened to your show, although after the fact. I thought that your topic was worthwhile. People need to understand how corrupt their justice system
    actually is.

    From what you described, the interaction between the bridal shop owners and
    the homosexual couple was completely benign. There doesn't even seem to
    have been rudeness involved.

    This would not end in a legal controversy in the real world. These things take time
    and money that common people (gay or straight) don't have to waste.

    Also, there is nothing here between private individuals. There is no slander, no
    financial loss, no property damage. There isn't even "hate speech". There are no
    damages of any kind.

    I don't believe that any local attorney (absent some agenda) would even take
    such a case. Any claim of offense is questionable, and there are no clear
    measurable damages. Attorneys do not engage in civil litigation unless they
    believe that there is a high likelihood of convincing 12 people that wrongdoing occurred, and the award for damages has to exceed the cost of handling the case. They don't go into court blind and roll-the-dice hoping to achieve an award
    for damages that aren't even there. The amounts that you described aren't even
    enough to cover the cost of a case.

    Something else appears to be going on here. I am suspicious that your comminity
    was "played" and that the bridal shop owners were targeted ahead of time because they would be likely to refuse to be involved in such a union. I noticed that
    you referred to the couple as anonymous. Is this because they need protected or so that persons such as yourself can't connect dots. They may have been outsiders sent in specifically to provoke this affair. It sounds like an outsider was sent in to the community meeting to stir the pot with accusations of local
    pejoratives and complaints of homosexuals losing their houses and jobs.

    This all sounds like much horseshit to me. I've never heard of homosexuals
    losing their houses because of sexuality, even in conservative areas. Homosexuals are also protected in the modern workplace. If anything bad
    behavior is tolerated for fear of being called prejudiced. This is all nonsense.

    Cases like this are always an intentional orchestration. I do not believe that they occur spontaneously. It is no coincidence that it follows the recent acceptance
    of homosexual marriage in many states. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a federal
    componant to the issue. These things are brought about intentionally to advance
    a political agenda and to alter legal precendent.

    It is good that you brought this issue up. I would have focussed more on connecting-dots to establish whether or not this case was contrived or just
    manipulated. Also, I would try to figure out why the bridal shop owners lost.
    It may have something to do with how they were incorporated, rather than with
    rights or religious freedoms. I don't know for sure. I'm not a lawyer. The whole thing sounds suspicious to me.