A Pair Of Gay ‘Tech Bears’ Owns JebBushForPresident.com
If former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) officially…
And they won't sell it. The domain is owned by CJ Phillips and Charlie Rainwater, a self-described "bear couple" from Oregon who told Business Insider they plan to use the site "as a platform to educate our friends and family about political impact to LGBT families."
Confirmed it's registered to them: http://whois.icann.org/en/lookup?name=JebBushForPresident.com
These two evidently don't understand the term cyber squatting. One simple appeal to ICANN from Jeb and he takes the domain flat out and they get nothing in return.
+Tyson C a lot of free publicity
+Tyson C Cybersquatting can only happen when the name is trademarked. Now while Jeb might have trademarked his name, unless he trademarked JebPushForPresident he has very little claim, particularly IF they actually do something with the domain. Now if they don't, and his name is trademarked, then it could be taken under the the ACPA.
Come on, Really?!? You can't use any other domain name to educate people about political impacts on homosexual couples?
If I were him, I might pursue whatever legal course available, to have the sight blocked from use. He may not be able to force them to sell it to him (which is their right and is fine), but they don't have the right to associate him and his name with the gay community.
If it makes him a bigot because he doesn't want to be linked with that group, than that's another unfortunate case of 'political correctness' running amuck and destroying freedom of choice , expression and thought in this country (and if that makes me a bigoted Nazi, or whatever else folks want to label me as, so be it).
I don't know that legally he can have the site blocked, though I'm sure he has way more money to spend on attorneys than these guys do. I think it's probably fair to say that it's dick-ish of them to have bought the domain for the purpose they propose to use it for.
Having said that, I don't think bigotry is a "case of 'political correctness' running amuck". If he didn't want to be associated with African American's we wouldn't be saying we're limiting his free expression and destroying freedom of choice we'd just call him a bigot. If he didn't want to be associated with those who have physical disabilities we wouldn't say it was an "unfortunate case of 'political correctness' running amuck", we'd just call him a bigot. Conversely, I think it's also fair to say that what these guys did was a total asshole move as the domain really doesn't have anything to do with their political message… I'm sure there is a term for what they're doing as well, I just don't know what it is…
+Paul Spoerry
True. Anyone who wants to insulate them selves from *any* group based on what that group represents, should have that right (I mean we are talking about also wanting to be unassociated with folks like the clan and other radical tuckus-brains). If you want to completely alienate an entire voting group, god bless you, you have just diminished the chance that we'll have to deal with you as the POTUS. 😉