Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter

Advertisement

FIRST DOG ON THE MOON

Feb 11, 2013

User login status :

Share

Advertisement

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

36 comments

Leave a comment

36 thoughts on “Jesus it’s 2013 for God’s sake! Oh wait…

  1. The Weetb*x slogan is nothing short of inspired.

    Thingies were bound to cause major trouble right from the get-go, it’s surprising the creat0r didn’t foresee some folk might use them for all manner of mischief. Six days simply wasn’t enough time to get the prototype right.

  2. Those who would would flag-er-rant be, that’s a disaster
    All faithful aussies agree, follow the pastor
    Active discouragement, must make them now relent
    Their jobs. Its our intent to see them victims.

  3. @Zut: send her over. And Matt, would not a fornicatrix be a portmanteau of a fornicator and a dominatrix? Not that there’s anything wrong with that, as Seinfeld rather infamously said.

  4. And along with those hand-picked selected abuminations there’s more in Leviticus – no eating shell-fish, crustaceans, pigs, hares, camels – any number of birds.

  5. Plonk, I knew a bloke once – they called him Claude Balls – then I found out it was because he was one of those sort Cory Bernardi has been warning us about. He knew a few fornicatrix – but not enough obviously.
    His real name was Roger something.

  6. The ability to discriminate used to be considered a positive attribute that indicated an ability to distinguish the good from the bad, and then cleave to the former and avoid the latter. That used to be a virtue in relation to everything from choosing wine to moral behavior.

    Now one might not agree that homosexuality is ‘a sin’, but if the bible says it, and it does, and you are a biblically oriented institution, well then you discriminate against it, and quite properly I would have thought.

    And why the f*ck would you want to work in an institution that brands you as a sinner who needs to repent and change his or her ways? Give me a break! You would avoid the place like the plague. Well wouldn’t you?

  7. Good dog! Wonderful as always. Though I have to say, still using “Juliar” is pretty pathetic really.
    The wonderful “News Limited” cartoon panel you had printed on T shirts for me has been an amazing success. I’ve had strangers stop me in the street to take photos of it! Never has a T shirt got me so much attention.

  8. I have a creeping suspicion that if every ‘sinner’ who worked in the Catholic hospital system failed to turn up for work, things would rapidly grind to a halt.

  9. @ Chris Nagle
    I don’t see why being a “biblically oriented institution” or for that matter oriented to any other document, should enable employers to discriminate on a basis that would be illegal to other employers. Its a law about the labour market, not freedom of religion.

    But suppose we do allow an exemption for “religious employers”, should that exemption survive where public monies are given to the employer for the purpose of hiring people ?

    There are many people who are currently employed by religious employers who could be lawfully subjected to discriminatory treatment if their circumstances became publicly known. They may not have sought out that situation, but they are in it. Can you not see that such people are in a very awkward position if they want to complain about something; such as reporting paedophilia to police ?

  10. Been living in Oz for the last 4 months coming from the UK, only just discovered this site and these dog in the moon cartoons.

    After 4 months of tedious media (SBS aside) its a real breath of fresh air. Bloody fantastic.

  11. ANDYBOB: The whole thing stinks. But, big but, as far as women are concerned it is both sexist and ageist. The churches have the right to discriminate, -IE refuse to hire ‘potentially pregnant females’.

    Doubtless you’ve read that it is the over thirty-five year old females who are in the majority in the child-bearing stakes. After the woman in question has had one or two children she would be about forty-five years old. So, by the time she aims to be accepted into this vile scheme, {probably around fifty} she would/could be a pensioner, and receive a pensioner’s wage. Don’t you see????