# New Congresswomen Lauren Bohbert Says New Bill Makes Gays and Transvestites Supreme to Everyone Else



## AFrench2

This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.


----------



## rightwinger

Shows how batshit crazy some voters are.


----------



## playtime

Qanon veronica is a nutter of the highest degree.


----------



## Polishprince

AFrench2 said:


> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.




The broad is spot on correct.  Sexual Perverts of all kinds are truly being granted Supremacy by the Biden Regime.

If someone is a crossdresser, that's their own affair, but why should they have special rights to be exempt from any criticism?


----------



## Ringtone

AFrench2 said:


> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.



Narcissist or sociopath?


----------



## Ringtone

playtime said:


> Qanon veronica is a nutter of the highest degree.


Narcissist or sociopath?


----------



## Ringtone

rightwinger said:


> Shows how batshit crazy some voters are.


Narcissist or sociopath?


----------



## rightwinger

Ringtone said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shows how batshit crazy some voters are.
> 
> 
> 
> Narcissist or sociopath?
Click to expand...

sociopath


----------



## Ringtone

rightwinger said:


> sociopath



That would have been my bet!  I guess you lose the argument.


----------



## playtime

Ringtone said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Qanon veronica is a nutter of the highest degree.
> 
> 
> 
> Narcissist or sociopath?
Click to expand...


donny's both, so why not her?


----------



## Ringtone

playtime said:


> donny's both, so why not her?



You're the one claiming to know the actual outcomes of this proposed legislation, so why are you implying she doesn't?


----------



## rightwinger

Ringtone said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> donny's both, so why not her?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one claiming to know the actual outcomes of this proposed legislation, so why are you implying she doesn't?
Click to expand...

your signature is too long
Overwhelms your post

What were you thinking!


----------



## playtime

Ringtone said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> donny's both, so why not her?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one claiming to know the actual outcomes of this proposed legislation, so why are you implying she doesn't?
Click to expand...


equal to is not the same as supreme.

besides she's a nutter.


----------



## Ringtone

playtime said:


> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.



So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?

That's what I thought.

You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!

But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.

After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

AFrench2 said:


> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.


Holly fucking shit ! Seriously ? Transvestites? Hoe fucking ignorant!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ringtone said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
Click to expand...

They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.


----------



## Lastamender

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
Click to expand...

Projection. Democrats exploit every group they can get their hands on. Someone should call them on it. And your party runs on hate.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> AFrench2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The broad is spot on correct.  Sexual Perverts of all kinds are truly being granted Supremacy by the Biden Regime.
> 
> If someone is a crossdresser, that's their own affair, but why should they have special rights to be exempt from any criticism?
Click to expand...

Ah yes! We can always count on the Princess to show up on these gay threads to share her pearls of wisdome. Do you have any prison gay rape stories to share tonight?


----------



## Polishprince

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
Click to expand...



The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.

OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.

Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Lastamender said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Projection. Democrats exploit every group they can get their hands on. Someone should call them on it. And your party runs on hate.
Click to expand...

A boatload of bovine excrement You have nothing to back that up and cannot refute the point that I made


----------



## Indeependent

AFrench2 said:


> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.


She's correct.
Now let's see the text of the Equality Act.
If it specifically protects people with particular sexual tendencies then it's a crock of shit.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
Click to expand...

Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.


----------



## Lastamender

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Projection. Democrats exploit every group they can get their hands on. Someone should call them on it. And your party runs on hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A boatload of bovine excrement You have nothing to back that up and cannot refute the point that I made
Click to expand...

The Democratic party backs it up. They are haters of this country, the people, and the Constitution.


----------



## Ringtone

Indeependent said:


> She's correct.
> Now let's see the text of the Equality Act.
> If it specifically protects people with particular sexual tendencies then it's a crock of shit.



It does, and it does so in violation of free-association, free speech and property rights, and, thusly, is "a crock of shit."  It empowers the state and illegitimately suppresses the free exercise of people's inherent rights.


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
Click to expand...

Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?


----------



## Ringtone

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.



Narcissist or sociopath?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

AFrench2 said:


> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.


Congratulations! You are now elite.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

rightwinger said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shows how batshit crazy some voters are.
> 
> 
> 
> Narcissist or sociopath?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sociopath
Click to expand...

You would know


----------



## Ringtone

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.



Even if that were true, it's irrelevant to the fact of the inalienable rights of  the people and the fact of the  tyrannical suppression of the expression of those rights by statist thugs..


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Indeependent said:


> AFrench2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.
> 
> 
> 
> She's correct.
> Now let's see the text of the Equality Act.
> If it specifically protects people with particular sexual tendencies then it's a crock of shit.
Click to expand...

Happy that you asked> Get ready to feel stupid> It protects everyone including you


The Equality Act amends the *1964 Civil Rights Act to explicitly ban discrimination against people based on sexual orientation and gender identity* in sectors including housing, employment, federal programs and public accommodations such as stores and even websites.
*Stefanik voted yes on the Equality Act in 2019. Why does she oppo…*




www.timesunion.com/news/article/Stefanik-voted-yes-on-the-Equality-Act-in-201


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AFrench2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.
> 
> 
> 
> She's correct.
> Now let's see the text of the Equality Act.
> If it specifically protects people with particular sexual tendencies then it's a crock of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Happy that you asked> Get ready to feel stupid> It protects everyone including you
> 
> 
> The Equality Act amends the *1964 Civil Rights Act to explicitly ban discrimination against people based on sexual orientation and gender identity* in sectors including housing, employment, federal programs and public accommodations such as stores and even websites.
> *Stefanik voted yes on the Equality Act in 2019. Why does she oppo…*
> View attachment 463906
> www.timesunion.com/news/article/Stefanik-voted-yes-on-the-Equality-Act-in-201
Click to expand...

You just made an ass of yourself...it states that Americans who are willing to openly display their sexuality are protected by something they are already protected by.
Why are Americans in the workforce not protected from being replaced by Business Visas?


----------



## Jimmy_Chitwood

AFrench2 said:


> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.




When did you trans?


----------



## Jimmy_Chitwood

rightwinger said:


> Shows how batshit crazy some voters are.




When did you catch The Ghey?


----------



## Indeependent

Every time I turn around, another law that protects everyone is *superseded *by a law that has to specify race and sexuality.
People who have the emotional need to display their sexuality in public are pressuring lawmakers to make *them *more special than heterosexuals.


----------



## Polishprince

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AFrench2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.
> 
> 
> 
> She's correct.
> Now let's see the text of the Equality Act.
> If it specifically protects people with particular sexual tendencies then it's a crock of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Happy that you asked> Get ready to feel stupid> It protects everyone including you
> 
> 
> The Equality Act amends the *1964 Civil Rights Act to explicitly ban discrimination against people based on sexual orientation and gender identity* in sectors including housing, employment, federal programs and public accommodations such as stores and even websites.
> *Stefanik voted yes on the Equality Act in 2019. Why does she oppo…*
> View attachment 463906
> www.timesunion.com/news/article/Stefanik-voted-yes-on-the-Equality-Act-in-201
Click to expand...



How do you figure that Normative folks are treated equally with sexual perverts?

Did you know that although there is a Gay History Month celebrated each year, America has never celebrated Normative History?    Shouldn't kids be taught about the great achievements of straights throughout history?  From Adam and Eve on through to the current era,  hundreds of generations of straight arrows have had their achievements demeaned.


----------



## Indeependent

We need a law protecting the rights of people under 6' tall.


----------



## AFrench2

Jimmy_Chitwood said:


> AFrench2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did you trans?
Click to expand...

Don't worry bro, your balls will drop soon.


----------



## Jimmy_Chitwood

AFrench2 said:


> Jimmy_Chitwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AFrench2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did you trans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't worry bro, your balls will drop soon.
Click to expand...


You being the expert on other men's genitals.

Answer the question sister


----------



## playtime

Ringtone said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
Click to expand...


^^^


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Indeependent said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AFrench2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.
> 
> 
> 
> She's correct.
> Now let's see the text of the Equality Act.
> If it specifically protects people with particular sexual tendencies then it's a crock of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Happy that you asked> Get ready to feel stupid> It protects everyone including you
> 
> 
> The Equality Act amends the *1964 Civil Rights Act to explicitly ban discrimination against people based on sexual orientation and gender identity* in sectors including housing, employment, federal programs and public accommodations such as stores and even websites.
> *Stefanik voted yes on the Equality Act in 2019. Why does she oppo…*
> View attachment 463906
> www.timesunion.com/news/article/Stefanik-voted-yes-on-the-Equality-Act-in-201
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just made an ass of yourself...it states that Americans who are willing to openly display their sexuality are protected by something they are already protected by.
> Why are Americans in the workforce not protected from being replaced by Business Visas?
Click to expand...

What the fuck are you talking about? It allows YOU to "openly display"yopur sexuality as well


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AFrench2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.
> 
> 
> 
> She's correct.
> Now let's see the text of the Equality Act.
> If it specifically protects people with particular sexual tendencies then it's a crock of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Happy that you asked> Get ready to feel stupid> It protects everyone including you
> 
> 
> The Equality Act amends the *1964 Civil Rights Act to explicitly ban discrimination against people based on sexual orientation and gender identity* in sectors including housing, employment, federal programs and public accommodations such as stores and even websites.
> *Stefanik voted yes on the Equality Act in 2019. Why does she oppo…*
> View attachment 463906
> www.timesunion.com/news/article/Stefanik-voted-yes-on-the-Equality-Act-in-201
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure that Normative folks are treated equally with sexual perverts?
> 
> Did you know that although there is a Gay History Month celebrated each year, America has never celebrated Normative History?    Shouldn't kids be taught about the great achievements of straights throughout history?  From Adam and Eve on through to the current era,  hundreds of generations of straight arrows have had their achievements demeaned.
Click to expand...

Idiot! Kids have always been taught about the contributions of straight, white, men. No so much about gays, women and blacks,


----------



## Jets

Spoken like a true mossback...


----------



## Polishprince

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AFrench2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.
> 
> 
> 
> She's correct.
> Now let's see the text of the Equality Act.
> If it specifically protects people with particular sexual tendencies then it's a crock of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Happy that you asked> Get ready to feel stupid> It protects everyone including you
> 
> 
> The Equality Act amends the *1964 Civil Rights Act to explicitly ban discrimination against people based on sexual orientation and gender identity* in sectors including housing, employment, federal programs and public accommodations such as stores and even websites.
> *Stefanik voted yes on the Equality Act in 2019. Why does she oppo…*
> View attachment 463906
> www.timesunion.com/news/article/Stefanik-voted-yes-on-the-Equality-Act-in-201
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure that Normative folks are treated equally with sexual perverts?
> 
> Did you know that although there is a Gay History Month celebrated each year, America has never celebrated Normative History?    Shouldn't kids be taught about the great achievements of straights throughout history?  From Adam and Eve on through to the current era,  hundreds of generations of straight arrows have had their achievements demeaned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot! Kids have always been taught about the contributions of straight, white, men. No so much about gays, women and blacks,
Click to expand...



That's bullshit. At least around here.

I remember history lessons in school as a kid, I never remember it being pointed out a single time that George Washington was normal, Abe Lincoln, or the fact that heterosexuality was popular with the pilgrims in Massachusetts Bay.   Edison's straightness wasn't mentioned, neither was Frederick Douglass', or Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller.

Maybe things have changed since I was a kid, but the Normalcy of a lot of great Americans was totally forgotten.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Indeependent said:


> AFrench2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.
> 
> 
> 
> She's correct.
> Now let's see the text of the Equality Act.
> If it specifically protects people with particular sexual tendencies then it's a crock of shit.
Click to expand...

You are a crock of shit. Yes it does specifically protect LGBT people because they are the ones in need of protection. But at the same tim, it makes it clear that the protections extend to everyone equally.

*



			Text - H.R.5 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Equality Act ...
		
Click to expand...

*


> Text - H.R.5 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Equality Act
> 
> 
> Text for H.R.5 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Equality Act
> 
> 
> 
> www.congress.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feb 23, 2021 · “(b) Claims and remedies not precluded.—*Nothing in section 1101 or a covered title shall be construed to limit the claims or remedies available to any individual* for an unlawful practice on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), or national origin including claims brought pursuant to section 1979 or 1980 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985) or any other law, including a Federal law amended by the* Equality Act,* …



It does not bestow any "special rights" It ensures EQUAL rights. You people need to get iver your pathological hysteria over this.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AFrench2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.
> 
> 
> 
> She's correct.
> Now let's see the text of the Equality Act.
> If it specifically protects people with particular sexual tendencies then it's a crock of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Happy that you asked> Get ready to feel stupid> It protects everyone including you
> 
> 
> The Equality Act amends the *1964 Civil Rights Act to explicitly ban discrimination against people based on sexual orientation and gender identity* in sectors including housing, employment, federal programs and public accommodations such as stores and even websites.
> *Stefanik voted yes on the Equality Act in 2019. Why does she oppo…*
> View attachment 463906
> www.timesunion.com/news/article/Stefanik-voted-yes-on-the-Equality-Act-in-201
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure that Normative folks are treated equally with sexual perverts?
> 
> Did you know that although there is a Gay History Month celebrated each year, America has never celebrated Normative History?    Shouldn't kids be taught about the great achievements of straights throughout history?  From Adam and Eve on through to the current era,  hundreds of generations of straight arrows have had their achievements demeaned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot! Kids have always been taught about the contributions of straight, white, men. No so much about gays, women and blacks,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's bullshit. At least around here.
> 
> I remember history lessons in school as a kid, I never remember it being pointed out a single time that George Washington was normal, Abe Lincoln, or the fact that heterosexuality was popular with the pilgrims in Massachusetts Bay.   Edison's straightness wasn't mentioned, neither was Frederick Douglass', or Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller.
> 
> Maybe things have changed since I was a kid, but the Normalcy of a lot of great Americans was totally forgotten.
Click to expand...

Are you really that dense or are you just playing stupid?


----------



## bodecea

Polishprince said:


> AFrench2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The broad is spot on correct.  Sexual Perverts of all kinds are truly being granted Supremacy by the Biden Regime.
> 
> If someone is a crossdresser, that's their own affair, but why should they have special rights to be exempt from any criticism?
Click to expand...

What are you hiding?


----------



## Polishprince

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AFrench2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.
> 
> 
> 
> She's correct.
> Now let's see the text of the Equality Act.
> If it specifically protects people with particular sexual tendencies then it's a crock of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Happy that you asked> Get ready to feel stupid> It protects everyone including you
> 
> 
> The Equality Act amends the *1964 Civil Rights Act to explicitly ban discrimination against people based on sexual orientation and gender identity* in sectors including housing, employment, federal programs and public accommodations such as stores and even websites.
> *Stefanik voted yes on the Equality Act in 2019. Why does she oppo…*
> View attachment 463906
> www.timesunion.com/news/article/Stefanik-voted-yes-on-the-Equality-Act-in-201
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure that Normative folks are treated equally with sexual perverts?
> 
> Did you know that although there is a Gay History Month celebrated each year, America has never celebrated Normative History?    Shouldn't kids be taught about the great achievements of straights throughout history?  From Adam and Eve on through to the current era,  hundreds of generations of straight arrows have had their achievements demeaned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot! Kids have always been taught about the contributions of straight, white, men. No so much about gays, women and blacks,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's bullshit. At least around here.
> 
> I remember history lessons in school as a kid, I never remember it being pointed out a single time that George Washington was normal, Abe Lincoln, or the fact that heterosexuality was popular with the pilgrims in Massachusetts Bay.   Edison's straightness wasn't mentioned, neither was Frederick Douglass', or Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller.
> 
> Maybe things have changed since I was a kid, but the Normalcy of a lot of great Americans was totally forgotten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you really that dense or are you just playing stupid?
Click to expand...



I'm old.


Maybe school has changed a lot since I was a kid.   But when I was in school, the sexual practices and preferences of great normatives like Lincoln, Washington, Edison, etc., were never discussed.


----------



## Ringtone

playtime said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^^^
> 
> View attachment 464029
Click to expand...

So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be. You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties and property rights this legislation portends?

That's what I thought.


----------



## Ringtone

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Happy that you asked> Get ready to feel stupid> It protects everyone including you
> 
> 
> The Equality Act amends the *1964 Civil Rights Act to explicitly ban discrimination against people based on sexual orientation and gender identity* in sectors including housing, employment, federal programs and public accommodations such as stores and even websites.
> *Stefanik voted yes on the Equality Act in 2019. Why does she oppo…*
> View attachment 463906
> www.timesunion.com/news/article/Stefanik-voted-yes-on-the-Equality-Act-in-201



So you don't grasp the real-world outcomes regarding the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties and property rights this legislation portends?

That's what I thought.  A mindless product of the state schools and popular culture, eh?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AFrench2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.
> 
> 
> 
> She's correct.
> Now let's see the text of the Equality Act.
> If it specifically protects people with particular sexual tendencies then it's a crock of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Happy that you asked> Get ready to feel stupid> It protects everyone including you
> 
> 
> The Equality Act amends the *1964 Civil Rights Act to explicitly ban discrimination against people based on sexual orientation and gender identity* in sectors including housing, employment, federal programs and public accommodations such as stores and even websites.
> *Stefanik voted yes on the Equality Act in 2019. Why does she oppo…*
> View attachment 463906
> www.timesunion.com/news/article/Stefanik-voted-yes-on-the-Equality-Act-in-201
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure that Normative folks are treated equally with sexual perverts?
> 
> Did you know that although there is a Gay History Month celebrated each year, America has never celebrated Normative History?    Shouldn't kids be taught about the great achievements of straights throughout history?  From Adam and Eve on through to the current era,  hundreds of generations of straight arrows have had their achievements demeaned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot! Kids have always been taught about the contributions of straight, white, men. No so much about gays, women and blacks,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's bullshit. At least around here.
> 
> I remember history lessons in school as a kid, I never remember it being pointed out a single time that George Washington was normal, Abe Lincoln, or the fact that heterosexuality was popular with the pilgrims in Massachusetts Bay.   Edison's straightness wasn't mentioned, neither was Frederick Douglass', or Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller.
> 
> Maybe things have changed since I was a kid, but the Normalcy of a lot of great Americans was totally forgotten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you really that dense or are you just playing stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm old.
> 
> 
> Maybe school has changed a lot since I was a kid.   But when I was in school, the sexual practices and preferences of great normatives like Lincoln, Washington, Edison, etc., were never discussed.
Click to expand...

No it wasn't It did not need to be and still doesnot need to be.. Hetrosexuality was always assumed and unspoken and still is.  Don't be so sure about Lincin though

The point is - which I apparently need to spoon feed you- LGBT people  are marginalised and degraded because of their sexuality, instead of being humanised and appreciated for there contibutions that have nothing to do with sexuality


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ringtone said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Happy that you asked> Get ready to feel stupid> It protects everyone including you
> 
> 
> The Equality Act amends the *1964 Civil Rights Act to explicitly ban discrimination against people based on sexual orientation and gender identity* in sectors including housing, employment, federal programs and public accommodations such as stores and even websites.
> *Stefanik voted yes on the Equality Act in 2019. Why does she oppo…*
> View attachment 463906
> www.timesunion.com/news/article/Stefanik-voted-yes-on-the-Equality-Act-in-201
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't grasp the real-world outcomes regarding the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties and property rights this legislation portends, or grasp the judicial shitstorm all across this nation that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.  A mindless product of the state schools and popular culture, eh?
Click to expand...

Get a grip Dude. Explain EXACTLY what those outcomes would be and while your at it, explain how extending the civil rights act to LGBT people is any different then the protections that other minorities already have.


----------



## TNHarley

Everyone is supreme to white males, according to many years of legislation.
All these "civil rights" bills are nothing but govt sanctioned discrimination. If people want actual equality, they would want to rid our country of these discrimination laws.


----------



## Ringtone

TNHarley said:


> Everyone is supreme to white males, according to many years of legislation.
> All these "civil rights" bills are nothing but govt sanctioned discrimination. If people want actual equality, they would want to rid our country of these discrimination laws.



Precisely!


----------



## Polishprince

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AFrench2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.
> 
> 
> 
> She's correct.
> Now let's see the text of the Equality Act.
> If it specifically protects people with particular sexual tendencies then it's a crock of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Happy that you asked> Get ready to feel stupid> It protects everyone including you
> 
> 
> The Equality Act amends the *1964 Civil Rights Act to explicitly ban discrimination against people based on sexual orientation and gender identity* in sectors including housing, employment, federal programs and public accommodations such as stores and even websites.
> *Stefanik voted yes on the Equality Act in 2019. Why does she oppo…*
> View attachment 463906
> www.timesunion.com/news/article/Stefanik-voted-yes-on-the-Equality-Act-in-201
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure that Normative folks are treated equally with sexual perverts?
> 
> Did you know that although there is a Gay History Month celebrated each year, America has never celebrated Normative History?    Shouldn't kids be taught about the great achievements of straights throughout history?  From Adam and Eve on through to the current era,  hundreds of generations of straight arrows have had their achievements demeaned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot! Kids have always been taught about the contributions of straight, white, men. No so much about gays, women and blacks,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's bullshit. At least around here.
> 
> I remember history lessons in school as a kid, I never remember it being pointed out a single time that George Washington was normal, Abe Lincoln, or the fact that heterosexuality was popular with the pilgrims in Massachusetts Bay.   Edison's straightness wasn't mentioned, neither was Frederick Douglass', or Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller.
> 
> Maybe things have changed since I was a kid, but the Normalcy of a lot of great Americans was totally forgotten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you really that dense or are you just playing stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm old.
> 
> 
> Maybe school has changed a lot since I was a kid.   But when I was in school, the sexual practices and preferences of great normatives like Lincoln, Washington, Edison, etc., were never discussed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it wasn't It did not need to be and still doesnot need to be.. Hetrosexuality was always assumed and unspoken and still is.  Don't be so sure about Lincin though
> 
> The point is - which I apparently need to spoon feed you- LGBT people  are marginalised and degraded because of their sexuality, instead of being humanised and appreciated for there contibutions that have nothing to do with sexuality
Click to expand...



Not so sure about Linc?


Exactly what I'm pointing out.  Abe was a straight arrow and you want to dehumanize him and not admit the man was Normative.


----------



## Theledgened

AFrench2 said:


> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.


“Where am I” who said it?


----------



## Ringtone

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Get a grip Dude. Explain EXACTLY what those outcomes would be and while your at it, explain how extending the civil rights act to LGBT people is any different then the protections that other minorities already have.



_You_ get a clue, Dude.  _You_ imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda. 

So _you_ explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.  _You_ explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.  _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . . .  _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.  _You_ explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.

_You_ explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. _ You_ explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.

Thanks.

The only thing that leftists_—_mindless, statist bootlicks, indeed, the useful idiots of power hungry politicians_—_will ever understand about the inalienable rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads.


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AFrench2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.
> 
> 
> 
> She's correct.
> Now let's see the text of the Equality Act.
> If it specifically protects people with particular sexual tendencies then it's a crock of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a crock of shit. Yes it does specifically protect LGBT people because they are the ones in need of protection. But at the same tim, it makes it clear that the protections extend to everyone equally.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Text - H.R.5 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Equality Act ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Text - H.R.5 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Equality Act
> 
> 
> Text for H.R.5 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Equality Act
> 
> 
> 
> www.congress.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feb 23, 2021 · “(b) Claims and remedies not precluded.—*Nothing in section 1101 or a covered title shall be construed to limit the claims or remedies available to any individual* for an unlawful practice on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), or national origin including claims brought pursuant to section 1979 or 1980 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985) or any other law, including a Federal law amended by the* Equality Act,* …
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does not bestow any "special rights" It ensures EQUAL rights. You people need to get iver your pathological hysteria over this.
Click to expand...

Judges will be forced by social pressure to treat gay people more favorably.
Judges belong to a party and bow to political pressure all the time.


----------



## Ringtone

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Get a grip Dude. Explain EXACTLY what those outcomes would be and while your at it, explain how extending the civil rights act to LGBT people is any different then the protections that other minorities already have.



_You_ explain.  _You_ explain.


----------



## Ringtone

AFrench2 said:


> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.



_You_ explain too.  See post #56.


----------



## Ringtone

rightwinger said:


> Shows how batshit crazy some voters are.


_You_ explain too. See post #56.


----------



## Ringtone

playtime said:


> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.


_You_ explain too. See post #56.


----------



## Ringtone

AFrench2 said:


> Don't worry bro, your balls will drop soon.



Ah!  Ad hominem, the default of cowards and tyrants.  

_You_ explain too. See post #56.


----------



## Ringtone

bodecea said:


> What are you hiding?


_You_ explain too. See post #56.


----------



## AFrench2

Chill, bro.


----------



## Ringtone

AFrench2 said:


> Chill, bro.



Explain, dude.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ringtone said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^^^
> 
> View attachment 464029
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be. You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties and property rights this legislation portends?
> 
> That's what I thought.
Click to expand...

If your so smart why don't you spell it out for us  idiots?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Indeependent said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AFrench2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.
> 
> 
> 
> She's correct.
> Now let's see the text of the Equality Act.
> If it specifically protects people with particular sexual tendencies then it's a crock of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a crock of shit. Yes it does specifically protect LGBT people because they are the ones in need of protection. But at the same tim, it makes it clear that the protections extend to everyone equally.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Text - H.R.5 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Equality Act ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Text - H.R.5 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Equality Act
> 
> 
> Text for H.R.5 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Equality Act
> 
> 
> 
> www.congress.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feb 23, 2021 · “(b) Claims and remedies not precluded.—*Nothing in section 1101 or a covered title shall be construed to limit the claims or remedies available to any individual* for an unlawful practice on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), or national origin including claims brought pursuant to section 1979 or 1980 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985) or any other law, including a Federal law amended by the* Equality Act,* …
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does not bestow any "special rights" It ensures EQUAL rights. You people need to get iver your pathological hysteria over this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Judges will be forced by social pressure to treat gay people more favorably.
> Judges belong to a party and bow to political pressure all the time.
Click to expand...

You're just making that shit up.  Our system assumes that judges willn be fair and impartial. Sometimes they are not but that can go either way. For the most part LGBT people will be treated equally in court and protected in society. 

Are you not also concerned about racial and religious minorities being give favoratism as the result of the verry same Civil Rights Act ? If you are not then you have some serious explaining to do


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AFrench2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.
> 
> 
> 
> She's correct.
> Now let's see the text of the Equality Act.
> If it specifically protects people with particular sexual tendencies then it's a crock of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a crock of shit. Yes it does specifically protect LGBT people because they are the ones in need of protection. But at the same tim, it makes it clear that the protections extend to everyone equally.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Text - H.R.5 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Equality Act ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Text - H.R.5 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Equality Act
> 
> 
> Text for H.R.5 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Equality Act
> 
> 
> 
> www.congress.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feb 23, 2021 · “(b) Claims and remedies not precluded.—*Nothing in section 1101 or a covered title shall be construed to limit the claims or remedies available to any individual* for an unlawful practice on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), or national origin including claims brought pursuant to section 1979 or 1980 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985) or any other law, including a Federal law amended by the* Equality Act,* …
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does not bestow any "special rights" It ensures EQUAL rights. You people need to get iver your pathological hysteria over this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Judges will be forced by social pressure to treat gay people more favorably.
> Judges belong to a party and bow to political pressure all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're just making that shit up.  Our system assumes that judges willn be fair and impartial. Sometimes they are not but that can go either way. For the most part LGBT people will be treated equally in court and protected in society.
> 
> Are you not also concerned about racial and religious minorities being give favoratism as the result of the verry same Civil Rights Act ? If you are not then you have some serious explaining to do
Click to expand...

It’s obvious you cherry pick the cases you read about.
What actual events motivate you to think the justice system treats homosexuals any different than heterosexuals?


----------



## Ringtone

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> If your so smart why don't you spell it out for us  idiots?



No, no!  You claimed to grasp the real-world outcomes of the agenda, that the legislation protects the rights of all, so you explain how it doesn't actually violate the inherent rights of natural and constitutional law:

So _you_ explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional. _You_ explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority. _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . . . _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them. _You_ explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.​​_You_ explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. _You_ explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.​
Thanks.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ringtone said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get a grip Dude. Explain EXACTLY what those outcomes would be and while your at it, explain how extending the civil rights act to LGBT people is any different then the protections that other minorities already have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ get a clue, Dude.  _You_ imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
> 
> So _you_ explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.  _You_ explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.  _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . . .  _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.  _You_ explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
> 
> _You_ explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. _ You_ explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> The only thing that leftists_—_mindless, statist bootlicks, indeed, the useful idiots of power hungry politicians_—_will ever understand about the inalienable rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads.
Click to expand...




> You get a clue, Dude. You imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.



  I asked you before how would the outcomes with respect to LGBT folks be different from the outcomes in relation to racial and religious minorities. If you are only concerned when the issue is sexual minorities you have a lot of explaining to do. 



> So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.



Who is it that you don’t wish to associate with and under what circumstances?  Again I ask, Is this a concern only in relation to sexual minorities? If we are talking about public accommodations here, many states already prohibit discrimiantion based on gender identity or sexual orientation   



> You explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.


You really have to explain this one. Parental consent for what?  You are boardering on the bizarre here 



> You explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . .



.  Freedom of religion, association and speech are not absolute and do not give the right to discriminate, Deal with it. And once again I must ask, since the Civil Rights Act also covers other minorities, why the fuss about LGBT people? 



> . You explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.


 Like what? You sound hysterical now 


> You explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.



WHAT  . What the hell are you talking about now? Are the voices in your hed telling you that,, or is it Marjory Green? 



> You explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. You explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.


You explain how this is not a Red Herring logical fallacy intended to distract from the fact that you are only in a tither about this law because it involves LGBT people but would not apply the same objections to the law when it pertains to other minorities,  Here you are just throwing more dung at the hopping that something will stick


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get a grip Dude. Explain EXACTLY what those outcomes would be and while your at it, explain how extending the civil rights act to LGBT people is any different then the protections that other minorities already have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ get a clue, Dude.  _You_ imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
> 
> So _you_ explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.  _You_ explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.  _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . . .  _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.  _You_ explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
> 
> _You_ explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. _ You_ explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> The only thing that leftists_—_mindless, statist bootlicks, indeed, the useful idiots of power hungry politicians_—_will ever understand about the inalienable rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get a clue, Dude. You imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you before how would the outcomes with respect to LGBT folks be different from the outcomes in relation to racial and religious minorities. If you are only concerned when the issue is sexual minorities you have a lot of explaining to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is it that you don’t wish to associate with and under what circumstances?  Again I ask, Is this a concern only in relation to sexual minorities? If we are talking about public accommodations here, many states already prohibit discrimiantion based on gender identity or sexual orientation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really have to explain this one. Parental consent for what?  You are boardering on the bizarre here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .  Freedom of religion, association and speech are not absolute and do not give the right to discriminate, Deal with it. And once again I must ask, since the Civil Rights Act also covers other minorities, why the fuss about LGBT people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . You explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like what? You sound hysterical now
> 
> 
> 
> You explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHAT  . What the hell are you talking about now? Are the voices in your hed telling you that,, or is it Marjory Green?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. You explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You explain how this is not a Red Herring logical fallacy intended to distract from the fact that you are only in a tither about this law because it involves LGBT people but would not apply the same objections to the law when it pertains to other minorities,  Here you are just throwing more dung at the hopping that something will stick
Click to expand...

Ad hominem.
In the next post you can answer the question(s).


----------



## Polishprince

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get a grip Dude. Explain EXACTLY what those outcomes would be and while your at it, explain how extending the civil rights act to LGBT people is any different then the protections that other minorities already have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ get a clue, Dude.  _You_ imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
> 
> So _you_ explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.  _You_ explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.  _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . . .  _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.  _You_ explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
> 
> _You_ explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. _ You_ explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> The only thing that leftists_—_mindless, statist bootlicks, indeed, the useful idiots of power hungry politicians_—_will ever understand about the inalienable rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get a clue, Dude. You imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you before how would the outcomes with respect to LGBT folks be different from the outcomes in relation to racial and religious minorities. If you are only concerned when the issue is sexual minorities you have a lot of explaining to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is it that you don’t wish to associate with and under what circumstances?  Again I ask, Is this a concern only in relation to sexual minorities? If we are talking about public accommodations here, many states already prohibit discrimiantion based on gender identity or sexual orientation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really have to explain this one. Parental consent for what?  You are boardering on the bizarre here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .  Freedom of religion, association and speech are not absolute and do not give the right to discriminate, Deal with it. And once again I must ask, since the Civil Rights Act also covers other minorities, why the fuss about LGBT people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . You explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like what? You sound hysterical now
> 
> 
> 
> You explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHAT  . What the hell are you talking about now? Are the voices in your hed telling you that,, or is it Marjory Green?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. You explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You explain how this is not a Red Herring logical fallacy intended to distract from the fact that you are only in a tither about this law because it involves LGBT people but would not apply the same objections to the law when it pertains to other minorities,  Here you are just throwing more dung at the hopping that something will stick
Click to expand...



LGBT people aren't really a "minority" at all, they are just people who like to engage in specific types of perversion.  If they decided not to dress up like broads and shove gerbils in their keisters or whatever, the She-Males would be exactly the same as anyone else.

All that Normative folks ask is that you keep it to yourselves, and only tell people on a need-to-know basis.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Indeependent said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get a grip Dude. Explain EXACTLY what those outcomes would be and while your at it, explain how extending the civil rights act to LGBT people is any different then the protections that other minorities already have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ get a clue, Dude.  _You_ imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
> 
> So _you_ explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.  _You_ explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.  _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . . .  _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.  _You_ explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
> 
> _You_ explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. _ You_ explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> The only thing that leftists_—_mindless, statist bootlicks, indeed, the useful idiots of power hungry politicians_—_will ever understand about the inalienable rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get a clue, Dude. You imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you before how would the outcomes with respect to LGBT folks be different from the outcomes in relation to racial and religious minorities. If you are only concerned when the issue is sexual minorities you have a lot of explaining to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is it that you don’t wish to associate with and under what circumstances?  Again I ask, Is this a concern only in relation to sexual minorities? If we are talking about public accommodations here, many states already prohibit discrimiantion based on gender identity or sexual orientation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really have to explain this one. Parental consent for what?  You are boardering on the bizarre here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .  Freedom of religion, association and speech are not absolute and do not give the right to discriminate, Deal with it. And once again I must ask, since the Civil Rights Act also covers other minorities, why the fuss about LGBT people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . You explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like what? You sound hysterical now
> 
> 
> 
> You explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHAT  . What the hell are you talking about now? Are the voices in your hed telling you that,, or is it Marjory Green?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. You explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You explain how this is not a Red Herring logical fallacy intended to distract from the fact that you are only in a tither about this law because it involves LGBT people but would not apply the same objections to the law when it pertains to other minorities,  Here you are just throwing more dung at the hopping that something will stick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem.
> In the next post you can answer the question(s).
Click to expand...

Those are not even questions. They are bizarre assumption and chicken little type slippery slope fallacies with not examples to expain what the hell he is talking about


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get a grip Dude. Explain EXACTLY what those outcomes would be and while your at it, explain how extending the civil rights act to LGBT people is any different then the protections that other minorities already have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ get a clue, Dude.  _You_ imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
> 
> So _you_ explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.  _You_ explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.  _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . . .  _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.  _You_ explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
> 
> _You_ explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. _ You_ explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> The only thing that leftists_—_mindless, statist bootlicks, indeed, the useful idiots of power hungry politicians_—_will ever understand about the inalienable rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get a clue, Dude. You imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you before how would the outcomes with respect to LGBT folks be different from the outcomes in relation to racial and religious minorities. If you are only concerned when the issue is sexual minorities you have a lot of explaining to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is it that you don’t wish to associate with and under what circumstances?  Again I ask, Is this a concern only in relation to sexual minorities? If we are talking about public accommodations here, many states already prohibit discrimiantion based on gender identity or sexual orientation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really have to explain this one. Parental consent for what?  You are boardering on the bizarre here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .  Freedom of religion, association and speech are not absolute and do not give the right to discriminate, Deal with it. And once again I must ask, since the Civil Rights Act also covers other minorities, why the fuss about LGBT people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . You explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like what? You sound hysterical now
> 
> 
> 
> You explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHAT  . What the hell are you talking about now? Are the voices in your hed telling you that,, or is it Marjory Green?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. You explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You explain how this is not a Red Herring logical fallacy intended to distract from the fact that you are only in a tither about this law because it involves LGBT people but would not apply the same objections to the law when it pertains to other minorities,  Here you are just throwing more dung at the hopping that something will stick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LGBT people aren't really a "minority" at all, they are just people who like to engage in specific types of perversion.  If they decided not to dress up like broads and shove gerbils in their keisters or whatever, the She-Males would be exactly the same as anyone else.
> 
> All that Normative folks ask is that you keep it to yourselves, and only tell people on a need-to-know basis.
Click to expand...

Tell us more Princess. We will hang on your every pearl of wisdom. Tell us a good prison rape story and how you fought for your manhood


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get a grip Dude. Explain EXACTLY what those outcomes would be and while your at it, explain how extending the civil rights act to LGBT people is any different then the protections that other minorities already have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ get a clue, Dude.  _You_ imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
> 
> So _you_ explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.  _You_ explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.  _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . . .  _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.  _You_ explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
> 
> _You_ explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. _ You_ explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> The only thing that leftists_—_mindless, statist bootlicks, indeed, the useful idiots of power hungry politicians_—_will ever understand about the inalienable rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get a clue, Dude. You imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you before how would the outcomes with respect to LGBT folks be different from the outcomes in relation to racial and religious minorities. If you are only concerned when the issue is sexual minorities you have a lot of explaining to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is it that you don’t wish to associate with and under what circumstances?  Again I ask, Is this a concern only in relation to sexual minorities? If we are talking about public accommodations here, many states already prohibit discrimiantion based on gender identity or sexual orientation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really have to explain this one. Parental consent for what?  You are boardering on the bizarre here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .  Freedom of religion, association and speech are not absolute and do not give the right to discriminate, Deal with it. And once again I must ask, since the Civil Rights Act also covers other minorities, why the fuss about LGBT people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . You explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like what? You sound hysterical now
> 
> 
> 
> You explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHAT  . What the hell are you talking about now? Are the voices in your hed telling you that,, or is it Marjory Green?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. You explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You explain how this is not a Red Herring logical fallacy intended to distract from the fact that you are only in a tither about this law because it involves LGBT people but would not apply the same objections to the law when it pertains to other minorities,  Here you are just throwing more dung at the hopping that something will stick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem.
> In the next post you can answer the question(s).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are not even questions. They are bizarre assumption and chicken little type slippery slope fallacies with not examples to expain what the hell he is talking about
Click to expand...

You didn’t answer the questions.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Indeependent said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get a grip Dude. Explain EXACTLY what those outcomes would be and while your at it, explain how extending the civil rights act to LGBT people is any different then the protections that other minorities already have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ get a clue, Dude.  _You_ imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
> 
> So _you_ explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.  _You_ explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.  _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . . .  _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.  _You_ explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
> 
> _You_ explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. _ You_ explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> The only thing that leftists_—_mindless, statist bootlicks, indeed, the useful idiots of power hungry politicians_—_will ever understand about the inalienable rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get a clue, Dude. You imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you before how would the outcomes with respect to LGBT folks be different from the outcomes in relation to racial and religious minorities. If you are only concerned when the issue is sexual minorities you have a lot of explaining to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is it that you don’t wish to associate with and under what circumstances?  Again I ask, Is this a concern only in relation to sexual minorities? If we are talking about public accommodations here, many states already prohibit discrimiantion based on gender identity or sexual orientation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really have to explain this one. Parental consent for what?  You are boardering on the bizarre here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .  Freedom of religion, association and speech are not absolute and do not give the right to discriminate, Deal with it. And once again I must ask, since the Civil Rights Act also covers other minorities, why the fuss about LGBT people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . You explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like what? You sound hysterical now
> 
> 
> 
> You explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHAT  . What the hell are you talking about now? Are the voices in your hed telling you that,, or is it Marjory Green?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. You explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You explain how this is not a Red Herring logical fallacy intended to distract from the fact that you are only in a tither about this law because it involves LGBT people but would not apply the same objections to the law when it pertains to other minorities,  Here you are just throwing more dung at the hopping that something will stick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem.
> In the next post you can answer the question(s).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are not even questions. They are bizarre assumption and chicken little type slippery slope fallacies with not examples to expain what the hell he is talking about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn’t answer the questions.
Click to expand...

Buzz off wierdo


----------



## San Souci

Polishprince said:


> AFrench2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The broad is spot on correct.  Sexual Perverts of all kinds are truly being granted Supremacy by the Biden Regime.
> 
> If someone is a crossdresser, that's their own affair, but why should they have special rights to be exempt from any criticism?
Click to expand...

Yes. Because of Woke Democrats this is becoming a land of Sodom and Gomorrah. AIDS was Gods first warning to the Sodomites. The NEXT one won't be so nice.


----------



## AFrench2

_Yes. Because of Woke Democrats this is becoming a land of Sodom and Gomorrah. AIDS was Gods first warning to the Sodomites. The NEXT one won't be so nice.-San Souci_

Well, the quota for "most insane fucking thing said all day" is taken today by you. Grats.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

San Souci said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AFrench2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The broad is spot on correct.  Sexual Perverts of all kinds are truly being granted Supremacy by the Biden Regime.
> 
> If someone is a crossdresser, that's their own affair, but why should they have special rights to be exempt from any criticism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Because of Woke Democrats this is becoming a land of Sodom and Gomorrah. AIDS was Gods first warning to the Sodomites. The NEXT one won't be so nice.
Click to expand...


----------



## San Souci

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AFrench2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The broad is spot on correct.  Sexual Perverts of all kinds are truly being granted Supremacy by the Biden Regime.
> 
> If someone is a crossdresser, that's their own affair, but why should they have special rights to be exempt from any criticism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Because of Woke Democrats this is becoming a land of Sodom and Gomorrah. AIDS was Gods first warning to the Sodomites. The NEXT one won't be so nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 464166View attachment 464167
Click to expand...

No. Progressivism is filthy Communism and Sodomy.


----------



## Ringtone

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You get a clue, Dude. You imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you before how would the outcomes with respect to LGBT folks be different from the outcomes in relation to racial and religious minorities. If you are only concerned when the issue is sexual minorities you have a lot of explaining to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is it that you don’t wish to associate with and under what circumstances?  Again I ask, Is this a concern only in relation to sexual minorities? If we are talking about public accommodations here, many states already prohibit discrimiantion based on gender identity or sexual orientation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really have to explain this one. Parental consent for what?  You are boardering on the bizarre here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .  Freedom of religion, association and speech are not absolute and do not give the right to discriminate, Deal with it. And once again I must ask, since the Civil Rights Act also covers other minorities, why the fuss about LGBT people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . You explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like what? You sound hysterical now
> 
> 
> 
> You explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHAT  . What the hell are you talking about now? Are the voices in your hed telling you that,, or is it Marjory Green?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. You explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You explain how this is not a Red Herring logical fallacy intended to distract from the fact that you are only in a tither about this law because it involves LGBT people but would not apply the same objections to the law when it pertains to other minorities,  Here you are just throwing more dung at the hopping that something will stick
Click to expand...


No, no! You claimed to grasp the real-world outcomes of the agenda, that the legislation protects the rights of all, so you explain how it doesn't actually violate the inherent rights of natural and constitutional law:

So _you_ explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional. _You_ explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority. _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . . . _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them. _You_ explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.​​_You_ explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. _You_ explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.​
Thanks.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

San Souci said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AFrench2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The broad is spot on correct.  Sexual Perverts of all kinds are truly being granted Supremacy by the Biden Regime.
> 
> If someone is a crossdresser, that's their own affair, but why should they have special rights to be exempt from any criticism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Because of Woke Democrats this is becoming a land of Sodom and Gomorrah. AIDS was Gods first warning to the Sodomites. The NEXT one won't be so nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 464166View attachment 464167
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. Progressivism is filthy Communism and Sodomy.
Click to expand...

If  you say so Boss. You the Boss. You got all you shit together.Can't argue with the truth of God and Conservatives. Ya all have been so kind to the malined and downtrodden over the decades we worship at your filty feet


----------



## playtime

Ringtone said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^^^
> 
> View attachment 464029
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be. You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties and property rights this legislation portends?
> 
> That's what I thought.
Click to expand...


i know that it will not affect my life, nor my heterosexuality,  nor my marriage of 35 years in the least.  nor yours.

so there ya go.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ringtone said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get a clue, Dude. You imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you before how would the outcomes with respect to LGBT folks be different from the outcomes in relation to racial and religious minorities. If you are only concerned when the issue is sexual minorities you have a lot of explaining to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is it that you don’t wish to associate with and under what circumstances?  Again I ask, Is this a concern only in relation to sexual minorities? If we are talking about public accommodations here, many states already prohibit discrimiantion based on gender identity or sexual orientation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really have to explain this one. Parental consent for what?  You are boardering on the bizarre here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .  Freedom of religion, association and speech are not absolute and do not give the right to discriminate, Deal with it. And once again I must ask, since the Civil Rights Act also covers other minorities, why the fuss about LGBT people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . You explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like what? You sound hysterical now
> 
> 
> 
> You explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHAT  . What the hell are you talking about now? Are the voices in your hed telling you that,, or is it Marjory Green?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. You explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You explain how this is not a Red Herring logical fallacy intended to distract from the fact that you are only in a tither about this law because it involves LGBT people but would not apply the same objections to the law when it pertains to other minorities,  Here you are just throwing more dung at the hopping that something will stick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, no! You claimed to grasp the real-world outcomes of the agenda, that the legislation protects the rights of all, so you explain how it doesn't actually violate the inherent rights of natural and constitutional law:
> 
> So _you_ explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional. _You_ explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority. _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . . . _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them. _You_ explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.​​_You_ explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. _You_ explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.​
> Thanks.
Click to expand...

Holy fucking Christ! You are just repeating the same vague and  inane equine excrement without explaining what the fuck  you are so worked upm about.. OK, I get it. You are programed to spew this crap without really undeerstanding what it all means. So, lets take this in baby steps one at a time

Please explain EXACTLY how the Equality Act would infringe on parental rights with respect to consent and authority. Please be specic. Give examples of what you fear will happen. What parental rights are we talking about? What specific provision of the act are you referring to?

For extra credit try this: explain what you mean by the  "government relegating  those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry." Again, give examples and cite the provision of the law that would do that

By the way, I do indeed grasp the real world outcomes. LGBT people would be treated as equals and with dignityThey could not be discrimianted against fwith regards to housing, employment , public accomodations and business matters. What is the problem ?


----------



## playtime

Ringtone said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ explain too. See post #56.
Click to expand...


so how did women getting the right to vote  - affect *you*?  being 'allowed' to get birth control without their husband's consent -  affect *you* ?  the right to own property - affect *you*?

how did blacks, no longer having a separate bathroom & water fountain -  affect *you*?  

how about donny's 'traditional' marriage AFTER marriage AFTER  marriage... knocking up wife #2 b4 being divorced from wife #1 - affect *you*  or your right to practice *your* religion?   how about rush limbaugh's FOUR 'traditional' marriages?  

 are you connecting the dots  yet?


----------



## playtime

San Souci said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AFrench2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The broad is spot on correct.  Sexual Perverts of all kinds are truly being granted Supremacy by the Biden Regime.
> 
> If someone is a crossdresser, that's their own affair, but why should they have special rights to be exempt from any criticism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Because of Woke Democrats this is becoming a land of Sodom and Gomorrah. AIDS was Gods first warning to the Sodomites. The NEXT one won't be so nice.
Click to expand...


LOL... sodom & gomorrah....  

go ahead & use that bible passage to condemn the homogays....

did you know after that same passage - lot went on to have sex with his 2 daughters?  LOL!!!!!  ya............   what a student of the bible you are!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

AFrench2 said:


> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.


Batshit fucking crazy! Transvestites ? Seriously


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get a grip Dude. Explain EXACTLY what those outcomes would be and while your at it, explain how extending the civil rights act to LGBT people is any different then the protections that other minorities already have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ get a clue, Dude.  _You_ imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
> 
> So _you_ explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.  _You_ explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.  _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . . .  _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.  _You_ explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
> 
> _You_ explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. _ You_ explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> The only thing that leftists_—_mindless, statist bootlicks, indeed, the useful idiots of power hungry politicians_—_will ever understand about the inalienable rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get a clue, Dude. You imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you before how would the outcomes with respect to LGBT folks be different from the outcomes in relation to racial and religious minorities. If you are only concerned when the issue is sexual minorities you have a lot of explaining to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is it that you don’t wish to associate with and under what circumstances?  Again I ask, Is this a concern only in relation to sexual minorities? If we are talking about public accommodations here, many states already prohibit discrimiantion based on gender identity or sexual orientation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really have to explain this one. Parental consent for what?  You are boardering on the bizarre here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .  Freedom of religion, association and speech are not absolute and do not give the right to discriminate, Deal with it. And once again I must ask, since the Civil Rights Act also covers other minorities, why the fuss about LGBT people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . You explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like what? You sound hysterical now
> 
> 
> 
> You explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHAT  . What the hell are you talking about now? Are the voices in your hed telling you that,, or is it Marjory Green?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. You explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You explain how this is not a Red Herring logical fallacy intended to distract from the fact that you are only in a tither about this law because it involves LGBT people but would not apply the same objections to the law when it pertains to other minorities,  Here you are just throwing more dung at the hopping that something will stick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem.
> In the next post you can answer the question(s).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are not even questions. They are bizarre assumption and chicken little type slippery slope fallacies with not examples to expain what the hell he is talking about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn’t answer the questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Buzz off wierdo
Click to expand...

Buzz off wierdo

Ad hominem.
You didn’t answer the questions.
Because you can't.

Have you heard of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?
When Reagan became President he bribed Patrick Moynihan and every member of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, to nullify all laws to ensure minority employment.
You see, the  corporations that supported this endeavor have attorneys that are much smarter than you and they will find 100 ways to bypass this law and either not hire people who publicly display their sexuality or to fire people who publicly display their sexuality, even if a company has to fire 1,000 other people to get away with it.

Now why do *you *consider people who publicly display their sexuality to *not *be Americans?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

playtime said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ explain too. See post #56.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so how did women getting the right to vote  - affect *you*?  being 'allowed' to get birth control without their husband's consent -  affect *you* ?  the right to own property - affect *you*?
> 
> how did blacks, no longer having a separate bathroom & water fountain -  affect *you*?
> 
> how about donny's 'traditional' marriage AFTER marriage AFTER  marriage... knocking up wife #2 b4 being divorced from wife #1 - affect *you*  or your right to practice *your* religion?   how about rush limbaugh's FOUR 'traditional' marriages?
> 
> are you connecting the dots  yet?
Click to expand...

Ringtone is tone deaf


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Indeependent said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get a grip Dude. Explain EXACTLY what those outcomes would be and while your at it, explain how extending the civil rights act to LGBT people is any different then the protections that other minorities already have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ get a clue, Dude.  _You_ imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
> 
> So _you_ explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.  _You_ explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.  _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . . .  _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.  _You_ explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
> 
> _You_ explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. _ You_ explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> The only thing that leftists_—_mindless, statist bootlicks, indeed, the useful idiots of power hungry politicians_—_will ever understand about the inalienable rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get a clue, Dude. You imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you before how would the outcomes with respect to LGBT folks be different from the outcomes in relation to racial and religious minorities. If you are only concerned when the issue is sexual minorities you have a lot of explaining to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is it that you don’t wish to associate with and under what circumstances?  Again I ask, Is this a concern only in relation to sexual minorities? If we are talking about public accommodations here, many states already prohibit discrimiantion based on gender identity or sexual orientation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really have to explain this one. Parental consent for what?  You are boardering on the bizarre here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .  Freedom of religion, association and speech are not absolute and do not give the right to discriminate, Deal with it. And once again I must ask, since the Civil Rights Act also covers other minorities, why the fuss about LGBT people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . You explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like what? You sound hysterical now
> 
> 
> 
> You explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHAT  . What the hell are you talking about now? Are the voices in your hed telling you that,, or is it Marjory Green?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. You explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You explain how this is not a Red Herring logical fallacy intended to distract from the fact that you are only in a tither about this law because it involves LGBT people but would not apply the same objections to the law when it pertains to other minorities,  Here you are just throwing more dung at the hopping that something will stick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem.
> In the next post you can answer the question(s).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are not even questions. They are bizarre assumption and chicken little type slippery slope fallacies with not examples to expain what the hell he is talking about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn’t answer the questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Buzz off wierdo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Buzz off wierdo
> 
> Ad hominem.
> You didn’t answer the questions.
> Because you can't.
> 
> Have you heard of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?
> When Reagan became President he bribed Patrick Moynihan and every member of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, to nullify all laws to ensure minority employment.
> You see, the  corporations that supported this endeavor have attorneys that are much smarter than you and they will find 100 ways to bypass this law and either not hire people who publicly display their sexuality or to fire people who publicly display their sexuality, even if a company has to fire 1,000 other people to get away with it.
> 
> Now why do *you *consider people who publicly display their sexuality to *not *be Americans?
Click to expand...


What do you mean by"publicly displaying their sexuality" Having a picture of their same sex spous on their desk. Posting pictures of their sam sex wedding on social media? You can do that . Why can't others withour the threat of reprisals?  You need to give more thought to your bullshit and stop trying to distract with your Red Herrings and Gish Gallop.


----------



## playtime

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ explain too. See post #56.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so how did women getting the right to vote  - affect *you*?  being 'allowed' to get birth control without their husband's consent -  affect *you* ?  the right to own property - affect *you*?
> 
> how did blacks, no longer having a separate bathroom & water fountain -  affect *you*?
> 
> how about donny's 'traditional' marriage AFTER marriage AFTER  marriage... knocking up wife #2 b4 being divorced from wife #1 - affect *you*  or your right to practice *your* religion?   how about rush limbaugh's FOUR 'traditional' marriages?
> 
> are you connecting the dots  yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ringtone is tone deaf
Click to expand...


deaf dumb & blind.  & by dumb -  i mean stoooooooooooopid.


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get a grip Dude. Explain EXACTLY what those outcomes would be and while your at it, explain how extending the civil rights act to LGBT people is any different then the protections that other minorities already have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ get a clue, Dude.  _You_ imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
> 
> So _you_ explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.  _You_ explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.  _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . . .  _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.  _You_ explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
> 
> _You_ explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. _ You_ explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> The only thing that leftists_—_mindless, statist bootlicks, indeed, the useful idiots of power hungry politicians_—_will ever understand about the inalienable rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get a clue, Dude. You imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you before how would the outcomes with respect to LGBT folks be different from the outcomes in relation to racial and religious minorities. If you are only concerned when the issue is sexual minorities you have a lot of explaining to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is it that you don’t wish to associate with and under what circumstances?  Again I ask, Is this a concern only in relation to sexual minorities? If we are talking about public accommodations here, many states already prohibit discrimiantion based on gender identity or sexual orientation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really have to explain this one. Parental consent for what?  You are boardering on the bizarre here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .  Freedom of religion, association and speech are not absolute and do not give the right to discriminate, Deal with it. And once again I must ask, since the Civil Rights Act also covers other minorities, why the fuss about LGBT people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . You explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like what? You sound hysterical now
> 
> 
> 
> You explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHAT  . What the hell are you talking about now? Are the voices in your hed telling you that,, or is it Marjory Green?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. You explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You explain how this is not a Red Herring logical fallacy intended to distract from the fact that you are only in a tither about this law because it involves LGBT people but would not apply the same objections to the law when it pertains to other minorities,  Here you are just throwing more dung at the hopping that something will stick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem.
> In the next post you can answer the question(s).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are not even questions. They are bizarre assumption and chicken little type slippery slope fallacies with not examples to expain what the hell he is talking about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn’t answer the questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Buzz off wierdo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Buzz off wierdo
> 
> Ad hominem.
> You didn’t answer the questions.
> Because you can't.
> 
> Have you heard of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?
> When Reagan became President he bribed Patrick Moynihan and every member of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, to nullify all laws to ensure minority employment.
> You see, the  corporations that supported this endeavor have attorneys that are much smarter than you and they will find 100 ways to bypass this law and either not hire people who publicly display their sexuality or to fire people who publicly display their sexuality, even if a company has to fire 1,000 other people to get away with it.
> 
> Now why do *you *consider people who publicly display their sexuality to *not *be Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean by"publicly displaying their sexuality" Having a picture of their same sex spous on their desk. Posting pictures of their sam sex wedding on social media? You can do that . Why can't others withour the threat of reprisals?  You need to give more thought to your bullshit and stop trying to distract with your Red Herrings and Gish Gallop.
> View attachment 464193View attachment 464194
Click to expand...

Are you saying that trans-dressers do not display their sexuality in public?
Are you saying that homosexuals do not display their sexuality in public?
If so, you haven't been in NYC lately.

In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Indeependent said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get a grip Dude. Explain EXACTLY what those outcomes would be and while your at it, explain how extending the civil rights act to LGBT people is any different then the protections that other minorities already have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ get a clue, Dude.  _You_ imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
> 
> So _you_ explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.  _You_ explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.  _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . . .  _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.  _You_ explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
> 
> _You_ explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. _ You_ explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> The only thing that leftists_—_mindless, statist bootlicks, indeed, the useful idiots of power hungry politicians_—_will ever understand about the inalienable rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get a clue, Dude. You imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you before how would the outcomes with respect to LGBT folks be different from the outcomes in relation to racial and religious minorities. If you are only concerned when the issue is sexual minorities you have a lot of explaining to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is it that you don’t wish to associate with and under what circumstances?  Again I ask, Is this a concern only in relation to sexual minorities? If we are talking about public accommodations here, many states already prohibit discrimiantion based on gender identity or sexual orientation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really have to explain this one. Parental consent for what?  You are boardering on the bizarre here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .  Freedom of religion, association and speech are not absolute and do not give the right to discriminate, Deal with it. And once again I must ask, since the Civil Rights Act also covers other minorities, why the fuss about LGBT people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . You explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like what? You sound hysterical now
> 
> 
> 
> You explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHAT  . What the hell are you talking about now? Are the voices in your hed telling you that,, or is it Marjory Green?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. You explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You explain how this is not a Red Herring logical fallacy intended to distract from the fact that you are only in a tither about this law because it involves LGBT people but would not apply the same objections to the law when it pertains to other minorities,  Here you are just throwing more dung at the hopping that something will stick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem.
> In the next post you can answer the question(s).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are not even questions. They are bizarre assumption and chicken little type slippery slope fallacies with not examples to expain what the hell he is talking about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn’t answer the questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Buzz off wierdo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Buzz off wierdo
> 
> Ad hominem.
> You didn’t answer the questions.
> Because you can't.
> 
> Have you heard of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?
> When Reagan became President he bribed Patrick Moynihan and every member of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, to nullify all laws to ensure minority employment.
> You see, the  corporations that supported this endeavor have attorneys that are much smarter than you and they will find 100 ways to bypass this law and either not hire people who publicly display their sexuality or to fire people who publicly display their sexuality, even if a company has to fire 1,000 other people to get away with it.
> 
> Now why do *you *consider people who publicly display their sexuality to *not *be Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean by"publicly displaying their sexuality" Having a picture of their same sex spous on their desk. Posting pictures of their sam sex wedding on social media? You can do that . Why can't others withour the threat of reprisals?  You need to give more thought to your bullshit and stop trying to distract with your Red Herrings and Gish Gallop.
> View attachment 464193View attachment 464194
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that trans-dressers do not display their sexuality in public?
> Are you saying that homosexuals do not display their sexuality in public?
> If so, you haven't been in NYC lately.
> 
> In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
Click to expand...

Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the  difference ??!


----------



## DrLove

Boebert sounds an awful lot like Marge Greene. What a fucking loony bird!!


----------



## DrLove

rightwinger said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> donny's both, so why not her?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one claiming to know the actual outcomes of this proposed legislation, so why are you implying she doesn't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your signature is too long
> Overwhelms your post
> 
> What were you thinking!
Click to expand...


They need to limit the number of characters on sigs. Some of them are BLINDING!!


----------



## Ringtone

playtime said:


> i know that it will not affect my life, nor my heterosexuality,  nor my marriage of 35 years in the least.  nor yours.
> 
> so there ya go.



Maybe the problem is overload.  Let's try one at a time.

So _you_ explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.


----------



## playtime

Ringtone said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> i know that it will not affect my life, nor my heterosexuality,  nor my marriage of 35 years in the least.  nor yours.
> 
> so there ya go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the problem is overload.  Let's try one at a time.
> 
> So _you_ explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


why do you think you are free to discriminate anything because you think it's evil & icky?  your first amendment rights are fully intact because of the constitution.


----------



## playtime

Ringtone said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> deaf dumb & blind.  & by dumb -  i mean stoooooooooooopid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So _you_ explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


i just dun did, jethro.


----------



## Ringtone

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get a clue, Dude. You imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you before how would the outcomes with respect to LGBT folks be different from the outcomes in relation to racial and religious minorities. If you are only concerned when the issue is sexual minorities you have a lot of explaining to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is it that you don’t wish to associate with and under what circumstances?  Again I ask, Is this a concern only in relation to sexual minorities? If we are talking about public accommodations here, many states already prohibit discrimiantion based on gender identity or sexual orientation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really have to explain this one. Parental consent for what?  You are boardering on the bizarre here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .  Freedom of religion, association and speech are not absolute and do not give the right to discriminate, Deal with it. And once again I must ask, since the Civil Rights Act also covers other minorities, why the fuss about LGBT people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . You explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like what? You sound hysterical now
> 
> 
> 
> You explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHAT  . What the hell are you talking about now? Are the voices in your hed telling you that,, or is it Marjory Green?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. You explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You explain how this is not a Red Herring logical fallacy intended to distract from the fact that you are only in a tither about this law because it involves LGBT people but would not apply the same objections to the law when it pertains to other minorities,  Here you are just throwing more dung at the hopping that something will stick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, no! You claimed to grasp the real-world outcomes of the agenda, that the legislation protects the rights of all, so you explain how it doesn't actually violate the inherent rights of natural and constitutional law:
> 
> So _you_ explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional. _You_ explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority. _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . . . _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them. _You_ explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.​​_You_ explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. _You_ explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.​
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy fucking Christ! You are just repeating the same vague and  inane equine excrement without explaining what the fuck  you are so worked upm about.. OK, I get it. You are programed to spew this crap without really undeerstanding what it all means. So, lets take this in baby steps one at a time
> 
> Please explain EXACTLY how the Equality Act would infringe on parental rights with respect to consent and authority. Please be specic. Give examples of what you fear will happen. What parental rights are we talking about? What specific provision of the act are you referring to?
> 
> For extra credit try this: explain what you mean by the  "government relegating  those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry." Again, give examples and cite the provision of the law that would do that
> 
> By the way, I do indeed grasp the real world outcomes. LGBT people would be treated as equals and with dignityThey could not be discrimianted against fwith regards to housing, employment , public accomodations and business matters. What is the problem ?
Click to expand...


Try and see if you can deal with one issue at a time, as you seemed to be overwhelmed.

So _you_ explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.


----------



## San Souci

playtime said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ explain too. See post #56.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so how did women getting the right to vote  - affect *you*?  being 'allowed' to get birth control without their husband's consent -  affect *you* ?  the right to own property - affect *you*?
> 
> how did blacks, no longer having a separate bathroom & water fountain -  affect *you*?
> 
> how about donny's 'traditional' marriage AFTER marriage AFTER  marriage... knocking up wife #2 b4 being divorced from wife #1 - affect *you*  or your right to practice *your* religion?   how about rush limbaugh's FOUR 'traditional' marriages?
> 
> are you connecting the dots  yet?
Click to expand...

Yes. Liberals suck. Dot Dot Dot


----------



## Ringtone

playtime said:


> why do you think you are free to discriminate anything because you think it's evil & icky?  your first amendment rights are fully intact because of the constitution.



Ideological discrimination is the essence of liberty, dummy.  By what right does the government compel me to make expressions or engage in activities that I hold to be immoral?


----------



## playtime

Ringtone said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do you think you are free to discriminate anything because you think it's evil & icky?  your first amendment rights are fully intact because of the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ideological discrimination is the essence of liberty, dummy.  By what right does the government compel me to make expressions or engage in activities that I hold to be immoral?
Click to expand...


is the gov'ment making you turn gay?


----------



## San Souci

playtime said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do you think you are free to discriminate anything because you think it's evil & icky?  your first amendment rights are fully intact because of the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ideological discrimination is the essence of liberty, dummy.  By what right does the government compel me to make expressions or engage in activities that I hold to be immoral?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> is the gov'ment making you turn gay?
Click to expand...

It is making the Country into Sodom and Gomorrah. Teaching CHILDREN that sick behavior is normal? PPPFFFTTT!


----------



## playtime

San Souci said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do you think you are free to discriminate anything because you think it's evil & icky?  your first amendment rights are fully intact because of the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ideological discrimination is the essence of liberty, dummy.  By what right does the government compel me to make expressions or engage in activities that I hold to be immoral?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> is the gov'ment making you turn gay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is making the Country into Sodom and Gomorrah. Teaching CHILDREN that sick behavior is normal? PPPFFFTTT!
Click to expand...


you rooted for the biblical dude that had sex with his daughters.  so stfu.


----------



## Death Angel

AFrench2 said:


> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.


Of course she's right. SPECIAL rights put them in a class ahead of us peasants


----------



## San Souci

playtime said:


> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do you think you are free to discriminate anything because you think it's evil & icky?  your first amendment rights are fully intact because of the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ideological discrimination is the essence of liberty, dummy.  By what right does the government compel me to make expressions or engage in activities that I hold to be immoral?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> is the gov'ment making you turn gay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is making the Country into Sodom and Gomorrah. Teaching CHILDREN that sick behavior is normal? PPPFFFTTT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you rooted for the biblical dude that had sex with his daughters.  so stfu.
Click to expand...

According to scripture ,Joseph married his own niece. Incest was not always an abomination. Sodomy ALWAYS has been. At least Lot didn't  get punked.


----------



## DrLove

Ringtone said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do you think you are free to discriminate anything because you think it's evil & icky?  your first amendment rights are fully intact because of the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ideological discrimination is the essence of liberty, dummy.  By what right does the government compel me to make expressions or engage in activities that I hold to be immoral?
Click to expand...


So don't bake the cake - And please stop whining incessantly. Oh - And fix your sig please. Highly annoying


----------



## playtime

San Souci said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do you think you are free to discriminate anything because you think it's evil & icky?  your first amendment rights are fully intact because of the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ideological discrimination is the essence of liberty, dummy.  By what right does the government compel me to make expressions or engage in activities that I hold to be immoral?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> is the gov'ment making you turn gay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is making the Country into Sodom and Gomorrah. Teaching CHILDREN that sick behavior is normal? PPPFFFTTT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you rooted for the biblical dude that had sex with his daughters.  so stfu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to scripture ,Joseph married his own niece. Incest was not always an abomination. Sodomy ALWAYS has been. At least Lot didn't  get punked.
Click to expand...


^ '  Incest was not always an abomination. '

uh-huh.  neither was abortion.  but that doesn't stop the pro birthers from saying it's sacrilege.  

????????????????????

doesn't that tell you anything about the OT?


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get a grip Dude. Explain EXACTLY what those outcomes would be and while your at it, explain how extending the civil rights act to LGBT people is any different then the protections that other minorities already have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ get a clue, Dude.  _You_ imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
> 
> So _you_ explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.  _You_ explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.  _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . . .  _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.  _You_ explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
> 
> _You_ explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. _ You_ explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> The only thing that leftists_—_mindless, statist bootlicks, indeed, the useful idiots of power hungry politicians_—_will ever understand about the inalienable rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get a clue, Dude. You imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you before how would the outcomes with respect to LGBT folks be different from the outcomes in relation to racial and religious minorities. If you are only concerned when the issue is sexual minorities you have a lot of explaining to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is it that you don’t wish to associate with and under what circumstances?  Again I ask, Is this a concern only in relation to sexual minorities? If we are talking about public accommodations here, many states already prohibit discrimiantion based on gender identity or sexual orientation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really have to explain this one. Parental consent for what?  You are boardering on the bizarre here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .  Freedom of religion, association and speech are not absolute and do not give the right to discriminate, Deal with it. And once again I must ask, since the Civil Rights Act also covers other minorities, why the fuss about LGBT people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . You explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like what? You sound hysterical now
> 
> 
> 
> You explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHAT  . What the hell are you talking about now? Are the voices in your hed telling you that,, or is it Marjory Green?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. You explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You explain how this is not a Red Herring logical fallacy intended to distract from the fact that you are only in a tither about this law because it involves LGBT people but would not apply the same objections to the law when it pertains to other minorities,  Here you are just throwing more dung at the hopping that something will stick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem.
> In the next post you can answer the question(s).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are not even questions. They are bizarre assumption and chicken little type slippery slope fallacies with not examples to expain what the hell he is talking about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn’t answer the questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Buzz off wierdo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Buzz off wierdo
> 
> Ad hominem.
> You didn’t answer the questions.
> Because you can't.
> 
> Have you heard of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?
> When Reagan became President he bribed Patrick Moynihan and every member of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, to nullify all laws to ensure minority employment.
> You see, the  corporations that supported this endeavor have attorneys that are much smarter than you and they will find 100 ways to bypass this law and either not hire people who publicly display their sexuality or to fire people who publicly display their sexuality, even if a company has to fire 1,000 other people to get away with it.
> 
> Now why do *you *consider people who publicly display their sexuality to *not *be Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean by"publicly displaying their sexuality" Having a picture of their same sex spous on their desk. Posting pictures of their sam sex wedding on social media? You can do that . Why can't others withour the threat of reprisals?  You need to give more thought to your bullshit and stop trying to distract with your Red Herrings and Gish Gallop.
> View attachment 464193View attachment 464194
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that trans-dressers do not display their sexuality in public?
> Are you saying that homosexuals do not display their sexuality in public?
> If so, you haven't been in NYC lately.
> 
> In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the  difference ??!
Click to expand...

If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ringtone said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get a clue, Dude. You imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you before how would the outcomes with respect to LGBT folks be different from the outcomes in relation to racial and religious minorities. If you are only concerned when the issue is sexual minorities you have a lot of explaining to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is it that you don’t wish to associate with and under what circumstances?  Again I ask, Is this a concern only in relation to sexual minorities? If we are talking about public accommodations here, many states already prohibit discrimiantion based on gender identity or sexual orientation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really have to explain this one. Parental consent for what?  You are boardering on the bizarre here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .  Freedom of religion, association and speech are not absolute and do not give the right to discriminate, Deal with it. And once again I must ask, since the Civil Rights Act also covers other minorities, why the fuss about LGBT people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . You explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like what? You sound hysterical now
> 
> 
> 
> You explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHAT  . What the hell are you talking about now? Are the voices in your hed telling you that,, or is it Marjory Green?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. You explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You explain how this is not a Red Herring logical fallacy intended to distract from the fact that you are only in a tither about this law because it involves LGBT people but would not apply the same objections to the law when it pertains to other minorities,  Here you are just throwing more dung at the hopping that something will stick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, no! You claimed to grasp the real-world outcomes of the agenda, that the legislation protects the rights of all, so you explain how it doesn't actually violate the inherent rights of natural and constitutional law:
> 
> So _you_ explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional. _You_ explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority. _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . . . _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them. _You_ explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.​​_You_ explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. _You_ explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.​
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy fucking Christ! You are just repeating the same vague and  inane equine excrement without explaining what the fuck  you are so worked upm about.. OK, I get it. You are programed to spew this crap without really undeerstanding what it all means. So, lets take this in baby steps one at a time
> 
> Please explain EXACTLY how the Equality Act would infringe on parental rights with respect to consent and authority. Please be specic. Give examples of what you fear will happen. What parental rights are we talking about? What specific provision of the act are you referring to?
> 
> For extra credit try this: explain what you mean by the  "government relegating  those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry." Again, give examples and cite the provision of the law that would do that
> 
> By the way, I do indeed grasp the real world outcomes. LGBT people would be treated as equals and with dignityThey could not be discrimianted against fwith regards to housing, employment , public accomodations and business matters. What is the problem ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try and see if you can deal with one issue at a time, as you seemed to be overwhelmed.
> 
> So _you_ explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Holy fucking shit you are a hopeless case. Just more of the same evasive bullshit! What the fuck are you talking about? You  are completely unable to actually explain what the negative consequenses of the equality act would look like IN THE REAL WORLD. Cut the fucking bullshit and answere the question. I am not overwhelmed. I am underwhelmed by your bullshit. Try some fucking honesty and clarity! I keep asking you to give specific examples of what you are taking about and I get is theoretical gobbidy gook that explains nothing. How is the law infringing on your right to free associate .Stop being a coward and answer the question.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Indeependent said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get a grip Dude. Explain EXACTLY what those outcomes would be and while your at it, explain how extending the civil rights act to LGBT people is any different then the protections that other minorities already have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ get a clue, Dude.  _You_ imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
> 
> So _you_ explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.  _You_ explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.  _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . . .  _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.  _You_ explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
> 
> _You_ explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. _ You_ explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> The only thing that leftists_—_mindless, statist bootlicks, indeed, the useful idiots of power hungry politicians_—_will ever understand about the inalienable rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get a clue, Dude. You imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you before how would the outcomes with respect to LGBT folks be different from the outcomes in relation to racial and religious minorities. If you are only concerned when the issue is sexual minorities you have a lot of explaining to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is it that you don’t wish to associate with and under what circumstances?  Again I ask, Is this a concern only in relation to sexual minorities? If we are talking about public accommodations here, many states already prohibit discrimiantion based on gender identity or sexual orientation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really have to explain this one. Parental consent for what?  You are boardering on the bizarre here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .  Freedom of religion, association and speech are not absolute and do not give the right to discriminate, Deal with it. And once again I must ask, since the Civil Rights Act also covers other minorities, why the fuss about LGBT people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . You explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like what? You sound hysterical now
> 
> 
> 
> You explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHAT  . What the hell are you talking about now? Are the voices in your hed telling you that,, or is it Marjory Green?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. You explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You explain how this is not a Red Herring logical fallacy intended to distract from the fact that you are only in a tither about this law because it involves LGBT people but would not apply the same objections to the law when it pertains to other minorities,  Here you are just throwing more dung at the hopping that something will stick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem.
> In the next post you can answer the question(s).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are not even questions. They are bizarre assumption and chicken little type slippery slope fallacies with not examples to expain what the hell he is talking about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn’t answer the questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Buzz off wierdo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Buzz off wierdo
> 
> Ad hominem.
> You didn’t answer the questions.
> Because you can't.
> 
> Have you heard of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?
> When Reagan became President he bribed Patrick Moynihan and every member of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, to nullify all laws to ensure minority employment.
> You see, the  corporations that supported this endeavor have attorneys that are much smarter than you and they will find 100 ways to bypass this law and either not hire people who publicly display their sexuality or to fire people who publicly display their sexuality, even if a company has to fire 1,000 other people to get away with it.
> 
> Now why do *you *consider people who publicly display their sexuality to *not *be Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean by"publicly displaying their sexuality" Having a picture of their same sex spous on their desk. Posting pictures of their sam sex wedding on social media? You can do that . Why can't others withour the threat of reprisals?  You need to give more thought to your bullshit and stop trying to distract with your Red Herrings and Gish Gallop.
> View attachment 464193View attachment 464194
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that trans-dressers do not display their sexuality in public?
> Are you saying that homosexuals do not display their sexuality in public?
> If so, you haven't been in NYC lately.
> 
> In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the  difference ??!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?
Click to expand...

Becaue you bigots will use it against people and get them fired from jobs among other things . Are you really so stupid as to not see that?


----------



## JustAGuy1

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get a clue, Dude. You imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you before how would the outcomes with respect to LGBT folks be different from the outcomes in relation to racial and religious minorities. If you are only concerned when the issue is sexual minorities you have a lot of explaining to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is it that you don’t wish to associate with and under what circumstances?  Again I ask, Is this a concern only in relation to sexual minorities? If we are talking about public accommodations here, many states already prohibit discrimiantion based on gender identity or sexual orientation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really have to explain this one. Parental consent for what?  You are boardering on the bizarre here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .  Freedom of religion, association and speech are not absolute and do not give the right to discriminate, Deal with it. And once again I must ask, since the Civil Rights Act also covers other minorities, why the fuss about LGBT people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . You explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like what? You sound hysterical now
> 
> 
> 
> You explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHAT  . What the hell are you talking about now? Are the voices in your hed telling you that,, or is it Marjory Green?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. You explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You explain how this is not a Red Herring logical fallacy intended to distract from the fact that you are only in a tither about this law because it involves LGBT people but would not apply the same objections to the law when it pertains to other minorities,  Here you are just throwing more dung at the hopping that something will stick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, no! You claimed to grasp the real-world outcomes of the agenda, that the legislation protects the rights of all, so you explain how it doesn't actually violate the inherent rights of natural and constitutional law:
> 
> So _you_ explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional. _You_ explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority. _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . . . _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them. _You_ explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.​​_You_ explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. _You_ explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.​
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy fucking Christ! You are just repeating the same vague and  inane equine excrement without explaining what the fuck  you are so worked upm about.. OK, I get it. You are programed to spew this crap without really undeerstanding what it all means. So, lets take this in baby steps one at a time
> 
> Please explain EXACTLY how the Equality Act would infringe on parental rights with respect to consent and authority. Please be specic. Give examples of what you fear will happen. What parental rights are we talking about? What specific provision of the act are you referring to?
> 
> For extra credit try this: explain what you mean by the  "government relegating  those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry." Again, give examples and cite the provision of the law that would do that
> 
> By the way, I do indeed grasp the real world outcomes. LGBT people would be treated as equals and with dignityThey could not be discrimianted against fwith regards to housing, employment , public accomodations and business matters. What is the problem ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try and see if you can deal with one issue at a time, as you seemed to be overwhelmed.
> 
> So _you_ explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy fucking shit you are a hpeless case. Just more of the same evasive bullshit! What the fuck are you talking about? Ypu  are completely unable to actually explain what the negative consequenses of the equality act would look like IN THE REAL WORLD. Cut the fucking bullshit and answere the question. I am not overwhelmed. I am underwhelmed by your bullshit. Try some fucking honesty and clarity!
Click to expand...


Tell us asshole, what are your pronouns today?


----------



## JustAGuy1

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get a grip Dude. Explain EXACTLY what those outcomes would be and while your at it, explain how extending the civil rights act to LGBT people is any different then the protections that other minorities already have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ get a clue, Dude.  _You_ imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
> 
> So _you_ explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.  _You_ explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.  _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . . .  _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.  _You_ explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
> 
> _You_ explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. _ You_ explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> The only thing that leftists_—_mindless, statist bootlicks, indeed, the useful idiots of power hungry politicians_—_will ever understand about the inalienable rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get a clue, Dude. You imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you before how would the outcomes with respect to LGBT folks be different from the outcomes in relation to racial and religious minorities. If you are only concerned when the issue is sexual minorities you have a lot of explaining to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is it that you don’t wish to associate with and under what circumstances?  Again I ask, Is this a concern only in relation to sexual minorities? If we are talking about public accommodations here, many states already prohibit discrimiantion based on gender identity or sexual orientation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really have to explain this one. Parental consent for what?  You are boardering on the bizarre here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .  Freedom of religion, association and speech are not absolute and do not give the right to discriminate, Deal with it. And once again I must ask, since the Civil Rights Act also covers other minorities, why the fuss about LGBT people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . You explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like what? You sound hysterical now
> 
> 
> 
> You explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHAT  . What the hell are you talking about now? Are the voices in your hed telling you that,, or is it Marjory Green?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. You explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You explain how this is not a Red Herring logical fallacy intended to distract from the fact that you are only in a tither about this law because it involves LGBT people but would not apply the same objections to the law when it pertains to other minorities,  Here you are just throwing more dung at the hopping that something will stick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem.
> In the next post you can answer the question(s).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are not even questions. They are bizarre assumption and chicken little type slippery slope fallacies with not examples to expain what the hell he is talking about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn’t answer the questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Buzz off wierdo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Buzz off wierdo
> 
> Ad hominem.
> You didn’t answer the questions.
> Because you can't.
> 
> Have you heard of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?
> When Reagan became President he bribed Patrick Moynihan and every member of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, to nullify all laws to ensure minority employment.
> You see, the  corporations that supported this endeavor have attorneys that are much smarter than you and they will find 100 ways to bypass this law and either not hire people who publicly display their sexuality or to fire people who publicly display their sexuality, even if a company has to fire 1,000 other people to get away with it.
> 
> Now why do *you *consider people who publicly display their sexuality to *not *be Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean by"publicly displaying their sexuality" Having a picture of their same sex spous on their desk. Posting pictures of their sam sex wedding on social media? You can do that . Why can't others withour the threat of reprisals?  You need to give more thought to your bullshit and stop trying to distract with your Red Herrings and Gish Gallop.
> View attachment 464193View attachment 464194
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that trans-dressers do not display their sexuality in public?
> Are you saying that homosexuals do not display their sexuality in public?
> If so, you haven't been in NYC lately.
> 
> In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the  difference ??!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Becaue you bigots will use it against people and get them fired from jobs among other things . Are you really so stupid as to not see that?
Click to expand...


You're a lying sack of shit. Let your boyfriend suck your cock in public you go to jail, lose your job. Do it in your bedroom who cares.


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get a grip Dude. Explain EXACTLY what those outcomes would be and while your at it, explain how extending the civil rights act to LGBT people is any different then the protections that other minorities already have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ get a clue, Dude.  _You_ imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
> 
> So _you_ explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.  _You_ explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.  _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . . .  _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.  _You_ explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
> 
> _You_ explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. _ You_ explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> The only thing that leftists_—_mindless, statist bootlicks, indeed, the useful idiots of power hungry politicians_—_will ever understand about the inalienable rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get a clue, Dude. You imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you before how would the outcomes with respect to LGBT folks be different from the outcomes in relation to racial and religious minorities. If you are only concerned when the issue is sexual minorities you have a lot of explaining to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is it that you don’t wish to associate with and under what circumstances?  Again I ask, Is this a concern only in relation to sexual minorities? If we are talking about public accommodations here, many states already prohibit discrimiantion based on gender identity or sexual orientation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really have to explain this one. Parental consent for what?  You are boardering on the bizarre here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .  Freedom of religion, association and speech are not absolute and do not give the right to discriminate, Deal with it. And once again I must ask, since the Civil Rights Act also covers other minorities, why the fuss about LGBT people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . You explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like what? You sound hysterical now
> 
> 
> 
> You explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHAT  . What the hell are you talking about now? Are the voices in your hed telling you that,, or is it Marjory Green?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. You explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You explain how this is not a Red Herring logical fallacy intended to distract from the fact that you are only in a tither about this law because it involves LGBT people but would not apply the same objections to the law when it pertains to other minorities,  Here you are just throwing more dung at the hopping that something will stick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem.
> In the next post you can answer the question(s).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are not even questions. They are bizarre assumption and chicken little type slippery slope fallacies with not examples to expain what the hell he is talking about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn’t answer the questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Buzz off wierdo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Buzz off wierdo
> 
> Ad hominem.
> You didn’t answer the questions.
> Because you can't.
> 
> Have you heard of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?
> When Reagan became President he bribed Patrick Moynihan and every member of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, to nullify all laws to ensure minority employment.
> You see, the  corporations that supported this endeavor have attorneys that are much smarter than you and they will find 100 ways to bypass this law and either not hire people who publicly display their sexuality or to fire people who publicly display their sexuality, even if a company has to fire 1,000 other people to get away with it.
> 
> Now why do *you *consider people who publicly display their sexuality to *not *be Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean by"publicly displaying their sexuality" Having a picture of their same sex spous on their desk. Posting pictures of their sam sex wedding on social media? You can do that . Why can't others withour the threat of reprisals?  You need to give more thought to your bullshit and stop trying to distract with your Red Herrings and Gish Gallop.
> View attachment 464193View attachment 464194
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that trans-dressers do not display their sexuality in public?
> Are you saying that homosexuals do not display their sexuality in public?
> If so, you haven't been in NYC lately.
> 
> In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the  difference ??!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Becaue you bigots will use it against people and get them fired from jobs among other things . Are you really so stupid as to not see that?
Click to expand...

My, my, are you still using your emotions rather than logic?
Provide an example of how anyone can convince someone else that a non-heterosexual is not an American and will have the law on their side.


----------



## Indeependent

JustAGuy1 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get a grip Dude. Explain EXACTLY what those outcomes would be and while your at it, explain how extending the civil rights act to LGBT people is any different then the protections that other minorities already have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ get a clue, Dude.  _You_ imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
> 
> So _you_ explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.  _You_ explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.  _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . . .  _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.  _You_ explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
> 
> _You_ explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. _ You_ explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> The only thing that leftists_—_mindless, statist bootlicks, indeed, the useful idiots of power hungry politicians_—_will ever understand about the inalienable rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get a clue, Dude. You imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you before how would the outcomes with respect to LGBT folks be different from the outcomes in relation to racial and religious minorities. If you are only concerned when the issue is sexual minorities you have a lot of explaining to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is it that you don’t wish to associate with and under what circumstances?  Again I ask, Is this a concern only in relation to sexual minorities? If we are talking about public accommodations here, many states already prohibit discrimiantion based on gender identity or sexual orientation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really have to explain this one. Parental consent for what?  You are boardering on the bizarre here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .  Freedom of religion, association and speech are not absolute and do not give the right to discriminate, Deal with it. And once again I must ask, since the Civil Rights Act also covers other minorities, why the fuss about LGBT people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . You explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like what? You sound hysterical now
> 
> 
> 
> You explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHAT  . What the hell are you talking about now? Are the voices in your hed telling you that,, or is it Marjory Green?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. You explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You explain how this is not a Red Herring logical fallacy intended to distract from the fact that you are only in a tither about this law because it involves LGBT people but would not apply the same objections to the law when it pertains to other minorities,  Here you are just throwing more dung at the hopping that something will stick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem.
> In the next post you can answer the question(s).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are not even questions. They are bizarre assumption and chicken little type slippery slope fallacies with not examples to expain what the hell he is talking about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn’t answer the questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Buzz off wierdo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Buzz off wierdo
> 
> Ad hominem.
> You didn’t answer the questions.
> Because you can't.
> 
> Have you heard of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?
> When Reagan became President he bribed Patrick Moynihan and every member of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, to nullify all laws to ensure minority employment.
> You see, the  corporations that supported this endeavor have attorneys that are much smarter than you and they will find 100 ways to bypass this law and either not hire people who publicly display their sexuality or to fire people who publicly display their sexuality, even if a company has to fire 1,000 other people to get away with it.
> 
> Now why do *you *consider people who publicly display their sexuality to *not *be Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean by"publicly displaying their sexuality" Having a picture of their same sex spous on their desk. Posting pictures of their sam sex wedding on social media? You can do that . Why can't others withour the threat of reprisals?  You need to give more thought to your bullshit and stop trying to distract with your Red Herrings and Gish Gallop.
> View attachment 464193View attachment 464194
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that trans-dressers do not display their sexuality in public?
> Are you saying that homosexuals do not display their sexuality in public?
> If so, you haven't been in NYC lately.
> 
> In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the  difference ??!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Becaue you bigots will use it against people and get them fired from jobs among other things . Are you really so stupid as to not see that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a lying sack of shit. Let your boyfriend suck your cock in public you go to jail, lose your job. Do it in your bedroom who cares.
Click to expand...

Notice that the ProgBots cannot address the issue so they resort to their usual MO...insults.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Indeependent said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get a grip Dude. Explain EXACTLY what those outcomes would be and while your at it, explain how extending the civil rights act to LGBT people is any different then the protections that other minorities already have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ get a clue, Dude.  _You_ imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
> 
> So _you_ explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.  _You_ explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.  _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . . .  _You_ explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.  _You_ explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
> 
> _You_ explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. _ You_ explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> The only thing that leftists_—_mindless, statist bootlicks, indeed, the useful idiots of power hungry politicians_—_will ever understand about the inalienable rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get a clue, Dude. You imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you before how would the outcomes with respect to LGBT folks be different from the outcomes in relation to racial and religious minorities. If you are only concerned when the issue is sexual minorities you have a lot of explaining to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is it that you don’t wish to associate with and under what circumstances?  Again I ask, Is this a concern only in relation to sexual minorities? If we are talking about public accommodations here, many states already prohibit discrimiantion based on gender identity or sexual orientation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really have to explain this one. Parental consent for what?  You are boardering on the bizarre here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .  Freedom of religion, association and speech are not absolute and do not give the right to discriminate, Deal with it. And once again I must ask, since the Civil Rights Act also covers other minorities, why the fuss about LGBT people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . You explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like what? You sound hysterical now
> 
> 
> 
> You explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHAT  . What the hell are you talking about now? Are the voices in your hed telling you that,, or is it Marjory Green?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. You explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You explain how this is not a Red Herring logical fallacy intended to distract from the fact that you are only in a tither about this law because it involves LGBT people but would not apply the same objections to the law when it pertains to other minorities,  Here you are just throwing more dung at the hopping that something will stick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem.
> In the next post you can answer the question(s).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are not even questions. They are bizarre assumption and chicken little type slippery slope fallacies with not examples to expain what the hell he is talking about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn’t answer the questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Buzz off wierdo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Buzz off wierdo
> 
> Ad hominem.
> You didn’t answer the questions.
> Because you can't.
> 
> Have you heard of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?
> When Reagan became President he bribed Patrick Moynihan and every member of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, to nullify all laws to ensure minority employment.
> You see, the  corporations that supported this endeavor have attorneys that are much smarter than you and they will find 100 ways to bypass this law and either not hire people who publicly display their sexuality or to fire people who publicly display their sexuality, even if a company has to fire 1,000 other people to get away with it.
> 
> Now why do *you *consider people who publicly display their sexuality to *not *be Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean by"publicly displaying their sexuality" Having a picture of their same sex spous on their desk. Posting pictures of their sam sex wedding on social media? You can do that . Why can't others withour the threat of reprisals?  You need to give more thought to your bullshit and stop trying to distract with your Red Herrings and Gish Gallop.
> View attachment 464193View attachment 464194
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that trans-dressers do not display their sexuality in public?
> Are you saying that homosexuals do not display their sexuality in public?
> If so, you haven't been in NYC lately.
> 
> In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the  difference ??!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Becaue you bigots will use it against people and get them fired from jobs among other things . Are you really so stupid as to not see that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My, my, are you still using your emotions rather than logic?
> Provide an example of how anyone can convince someone else that a non-heterosexual is not an American and will have the law on their side.
Click to expand...

That is bizarre and moronic! You are just playing juvenile word games now .Fuck off


----------



## Ringtone

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Holy fucking shit you are a hopeless case. Just more of the same evasive bullshit! What the fuck are you talking about? You  are completely unable to actually explain what the negative consequenses of the equality act would look like IN THE REAL WORLD. Cut the fucking bullshit and answere the question. I am not overwhelmed. I am underwhelmed by your bullshit. Try some fucking honesty and clarity! I keep asking you to give specific examples of what you are taking about and I get is theoretical gobbidy gook that explains nothing. How is the law infringing on your right to free associate .Stop being a coward and answer the question.



Calm down, Sunshine.  

By what right does the government compel a homosexual business owner, for example, to provide goods or services that entail making expressions or directly participating in activities that the same regards as evil or icky?

Thanks.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

San Souci said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ explain too. See post #56.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so how did women getting the right to vote  - affect *you*?  being 'allowed' to get birth control without their husband's consent -  affect *you* ?  the right to own property - affect *you*?
> 
> how did blacks, no longer having a separate bathroom & water fountain -  affect *you*?
> 
> how about donny's 'traditional' marriage AFTER marriage AFTER  marriage... knocking up wife #2 b4 being divorced from wife #1 - affect *you*  or your right to practice *your* religion?   how about rush limbaugh's FOUR 'traditional' marriages?
> 
> are you connecting the dots  yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Liberals suck. Dot Dot Dot
Click to expand...

You fucking articulate


----------



## JustAGuy1

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ explain too. See post #56.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so how did women getting the right to vote  - affect *you*?  being 'allowed' to get birth control without their husband's consent -  affect *you* ?  the right to own property - affect *you*?
> 
> how did blacks, no longer having a separate bathroom & water fountain -  affect *you*?
> 
> how about donny's 'traditional' marriage AFTER marriage AFTER  marriage... knocking up wife #2 b4 being divorced from wife #1 - affect *you*  or your right to practice *your* religion?   how about rush limbaugh's FOUR 'traditional' marriages?
> 
> are you connecting the dots  yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Liberals suck. Dot Dot Dot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You fucking articulate
Click to expand...


Go fuck yourself old man.What are your pronouns today?


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ explain too. See post #56.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so how did women getting the right to vote  - affect *you*?  being 'allowed' to get birth control without their husband's consent -  affect *you* ?  the right to own property - affect *you*?
> 
> how did blacks, no longer having a separate bathroom & water fountain -  affect *you*?
> 
> how about donny's 'traditional' marriage AFTER marriage AFTER  marriage... knocking up wife #2 b4 being divorced from wife #1 - affect *you*  or your right to practice *your* religion?   how about rush limbaugh's FOUR 'traditional' marriages?
> 
> are you connecting the dots  yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Liberals suck. Dot Dot Dot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You fucking articulate
Click to expand...

You have not yet explained why a non-heterosexual is not considered an American in the face of current law.


----------



## Indeependent

JustAGuy1 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ explain too. See post #56.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so how did women getting the right to vote  - affect *you*?  being 'allowed' to get birth control without their husband's consent -  affect *you* ?  the right to own property - affect *you*?
> 
> how did blacks, no longer having a separate bathroom & water fountain -  affect *you*?
> 
> how about donny's 'traditional' marriage AFTER marriage AFTER  marriage... knocking up wife #2 b4 being divorced from wife #1 - affect *you*  or your right to practice *your* religion?   how about rush limbaugh's FOUR 'traditional' marriages?
> 
> are you connecting the dots  yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Liberals suck. Dot Dot Dot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You fucking articulate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go fuck yourself old man.What are your pronouns today?
Click to expand...

TPP has proven time and again that he never looks at the entire flowchart of any given idea.


----------



## Ringtone

DrLove said:


> So don't bake the cake - And please stop whining incessantly. Oh - And fix your sig please. Highly annoying



Oh, so now you're pretending not understand the real-world outcomes.  Hot damn, you're a phony ass!


----------



## Indeependent

Ringtone said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> So don't bake the cake - And please stop whining incessantly. Oh - And fix your sig please. Highly annoying
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so now you're pretending not understand the real-world outcomes.  Hot damn, you're a phony ass!
Click to expand...

How else do ProgBots operate?


----------



## San Souci

Indeependent said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ explain too. See post #56.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so how did women getting the right to vote  - affect *you*?  being 'allowed' to get birth control without their husband's consent -  affect *you* ?  the right to own property - affect *you*?
> 
> how did blacks, no longer having a separate bathroom & water fountain -  affect *you*?
> 
> how about donny's 'traditional' marriage AFTER marriage AFTER  marriage... knocking up wife #2 b4 being divorced from wife #1 - affect *you*  or your right to practice *your* religion?   how about rush limbaugh's FOUR 'traditional' marriages?
> 
> are you connecting the dots  yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Liberals suck. Dot Dot Dot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You fucking articulate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have not yet explained why a non-heterosexual is not considered an American in the face of current law.
Click to expand...

Actually they are. That is the trouble.


----------



## San Souci

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ explain too. See post #56.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so how did women getting the right to vote  - affect *you*?  being 'allowed' to get birth control without their husband's consent -  affect *you* ?  the right to own property - affect *you*?
> 
> how did blacks, no longer having a separate bathroom & water fountain -  affect *you*?
> 
> how about donny's 'traditional' marriage AFTER marriage AFTER  marriage... knocking up wife #2 b4 being divorced from wife #1 - affect *you*  or your right to practice *your* religion?   how about rush limbaugh's FOUR 'traditional' marriages?
> 
> are you connecting the dots  yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Liberals suck. Dot Dot Dot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You fucking articulate
Click to expand...

Your Avatar name is an oxymoron. So called "Progressives" are all traitor Anarchists.


----------



## Ringtone

playtime said:


> is the gov'ment making you turn gay?



Are you on dope?

By what right does the government compel a homosexual business owner, for example, to provide goods or services that entail making expressions or directly participating in activities that the same regards as evil or icky?


----------



## playtime

Ringtone said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> is the gov'ment making you turn gay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you on dope?
> 
> By what right does the government compel a homosexual business owner, for example, to provide goods or services that entail making expressions or directly participating in activities that the same regards as evil or icky?
Click to expand...


^ ' Are you on dope: '

lol.... nope.

' By what right does the government compel a homosexual business owner, for example, to provide goods or services that entail making expressions or directly participating in activities that the same regards as evil or icky? '

*                    Fourteenth Amendment                *
*                            Section 1                     *

*All persons* born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; *nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*

*                                              Section 5                        *
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.



^^^* that* ^^^


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ringtone said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy fucking shit you are a hopeless case. Just more of the same evasive bullshit! What the fuck are you talking about? You  are completely unable to actually explain what the negative consequenses of the equality act would look like IN THE REAL WORLD. Cut the fucking bullshit and answere the question. I am not overwhelmed. I am underwhelmed by your bullshit. Try some fucking honesty and clarity! I keep asking you to give specific examples of what you are taking about and I get is theoretical gobbidy gook that explains nothing. How is the law infringing on your right to free associate .Stop being a coward and answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calm down, Sunshine.
> 
> By what right does the government compel a homosexual business owner, for example, to provide goods or services that entail making expressions or directly participating in activities that the same regards as evil or icky?
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...

OK Slick. Two can play the same game of answering questions with another question

What right does ANY business ower- who offers good or services to the general public - to discrimiant by refusing service to ANYONE who walks through the door? If that business can in fact   arbitrarily refuse service to any one for any reason, what are the implications for an orderly andcivil society? 
How do we function as a society if no one can be sure that they will not be humiliated when they enter a business? You mightalso want to consider the fact that the original civil rights act, as well as numerous state laws against discrimination were never sucsessfully challanged on constitutional grounds. Why do you think that is. ?

And, you never answered this. Do you or do you not support laws prohibiting discrimination against other minorities, or is it only laws protecting  LBGT people that you have a problem with?

And you never responded to this either.  Please explain EXACTLY how the Equality Act would infringe on parental rights with respect to consent and authority. Please be specic. Give examples of what you fear will happen. What parental rights are we talking about? What specific provision of the act are you referring to? 

Give it a try hot shot


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

San Souci said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ explain too. See post #56.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so how did women getting the right to vote  - affect *you*?  being 'allowed' to get birth control without their husband's consent -  affect *you* ?  the right to own property - affect *you*?
> 
> how did blacks, no longer having a separate bathroom & water fountain -  affect *you*?
> 
> how about donny's 'traditional' marriage AFTER marriage AFTER  marriage... knocking up wife #2 b4 being divorced from wife #1 - affect *you*  or your right to practice *your* religion?   how about rush limbaugh's FOUR 'traditional' marriages?
> 
> are you connecting the dots  yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Liberals suck. Dot Dot Dot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You fucking articulate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your Avatar name is an oxymoron. So called "Progressives" are all traitor Anarchists.
Click to expand...

Oh please! Give a fucking break with that trite bovine excrement , Was Teddy Roosevelt a traitor and anarchist?


----------



## DrLove

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy fucking shit you are a hopeless case. Just more of the same evasive bullshit! What the fuck are you talking about? You  are completely unable to actually explain what the negative consequenses of the equality act would look like IN THE REAL WORLD. Cut the fucking bullshit and answere the question. I am not overwhelmed. I am underwhelmed by your bullshit. Try some fucking honesty and clarity! I keep asking you to give specific examples of what you are taking about and I get is theoretical gobbidy gook that explains nothing. How is the law infringing on your right to free associate .Stop being a coward and answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calm down, Sunshine.
> 
> By what right does the government compel a homosexual business owner, for example, to provide goods or services that entail making expressions or directly participating in activities that the same regards as evil or icky?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK Slick. Two can play the same game of answering questions with another question
> 
> What right does ANY business ower- who offers good or services to the general public - to discrimiant by refusing service to ANYONE who walks through the door? If that business can in fact   arbitrarily refuse service to any one for any reason, what are the implications for an orderly andcivil society?
> How do we function as a society if no one can be sure that they will not be humiliated when they enter a business? You mightalso want to consider the fact that the original civil rights act, as well as numerous state laws against discrimination were never sucsessfully challanged on constitutional grounds. Why do you think that is. ?
> 
> And, you never answered this. Do you or do you not support laws prohibiting discrimination against other minorities, or is it only laws protecting  LBGT people that you have a problem with?
> 
> And you never responded to this either.  Please explain EXACTLY how the Equality Act would infringe on parental rights with respect to consent and authority. Please be specic. Give examples of what you fear will happen. What parental rights are we talking about? What specific provision of the act are you referring to?
> 
> Give it a try hot shot
Click to expand...


That one is certainly annoying


----------



## Polishprince

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What right does ANY business ower- who offers good or services to the general public - to discrimiant by refusing service to ANYONE who walks through the door? If that business can in fact   arbitrarily refuse service to any one for any reason, what are the implications for an orderly andcivil society?
> How do we function as a society if no one can be sure that they will not be humiliated when they enter a business? You mightalso want to consider the fact that the original civil rights act, as well as numerous state laws against discrimination were never sucsessfully challanged on constitutional grounds. Why do you think that is. ?




It isn't "arbitrary" at all.  People get refused service in a classy joint if they aren't wearing a jacket and tie, they get refused at a black cocktail lounge if they appear in their sheets.         Why is it considered off the radar that a man in a dress should be told to get lost?

As far as the bakers in Oregon, they didn't refuse service at all.  The homo customers asked for a product (Gay Marriage Cake) that they didn't carry.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ringtone said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
Click to expand...

I know what the  outcome would be!

Liberty Counsel Falsely Claims Equality Act Would Force Religious Schools to Hire Pedophiles and 'Goat Lovers' | Right Wing Watch



> Religious-right fearmongering about the Equality Act, which would add sexual orientation and gender identity protections to federal civil rights laws, has been increasingly extreme around Thursday’s vote in the House of Representatives, which passed the legislation on a 224-206 vote. Today, an email from Mat Staver of the stridently anti-LGBTQ Liberty Counsel declared that if the Equality Act became law, “schools [that] refuse to hire a crossdresser, a pedophile or a goat lover” would be “penalized.”


----------



## Polishprince

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know what the  outcome would be!
> 
> Liberty Counsel Falsely Claims Equality Act Would Force Religious Schools to Hire Pedophiles and 'Goat Lovers' | Right Wing Watch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religious-right fearmongering about the Equality Act, which would add sexual orientation and gender identity protections to federal civil rights laws, has been increasingly extreme around Thursday’s vote in the House of Representatives, which passed the legislation on a 224-206 vote. Today, an email from Mat Staver of the stridently anti-LGBTQ Liberty Counsel declared that if the Equality Act became law, “schools [that] refuse to hire a crossdresser, a pedophile or a goat lover” would be “penalized.”
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



How can you say its a "false claim"?

Paedophilia as well as goat fucking are perverted sexual preferences as well.  It would be tough to deny those folks their "rights" if you give the rights to She Males and Cross Dressers.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> It isn't "arbitrary" at all. People get refused service in a classy joint if they aren't wearing a jacket and tie, they get refused at a black cocktail lounge if they appear in their sheets. Why is it considered off the radar that a man in a dress should be told to get lost?


False equivalency  logical fallacy. A dress code applies equally to all. It is not a public accomodation issue


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> s far as the bakers in Oregon, they didn't refuse service at all. The homo customers asked for a product (Gay Marriage Cake) that they didn't carry.


Bullshit. What the hell is a gay marriage cake. A cke is a fucking cake


----------



## San Souci

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ explain too. See post #56.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so how did women getting the right to vote  - affect *you*?  being 'allowed' to get birth control without their husband's consent -  affect *you* ?  the right to own property - affect *you*?
> 
> how did blacks, no longer having a separate bathroom & water fountain -  affect *you*?
> 
> how about donny's 'traditional' marriage AFTER marriage AFTER  marriage... knocking up wife #2 b4 being divorced from wife #1 - affect *you*  or your right to practice *your* religion?   how about rush limbaugh's FOUR 'traditional' marriages?
> 
> are you connecting the dots  yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Liberals suck. Dot Dot Dot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You fucking articulate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your Avatar name is an oxymoron. So called "Progressives" are all traitor Anarchists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh please! Give a fucking break with that trite bovine excrement , Was Teddy Roosevelt a traitor and anarchist?
Click to expand...

So? Ya want a parallel? With Teddy? Well ,he busted up "Trusts" because JP Morgan ,Carnegie ,And Rockefeller BOUGHT the WhiteHouse for McKinley.---Who the fuck do ya think BOUGHT the WhiteHouse for Biden?  Bezos ,Dorsey ,Zuckerberg ,and Soros. Why not bust THEM up? Because they OWN the Democrat Machine.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

San Souci said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ explain too. See post #56.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so how did women getting the right to vote  - affect *you*?  being 'allowed' to get birth control without their husband's consent -  affect *you* ?  the right to own property - affect *you*?
> 
> how did blacks, no longer having a separate bathroom & water fountain -  affect *you*?
> 
> how about donny's 'traditional' marriage AFTER marriage AFTER  marriage... knocking up wife #2 b4 being divorced from wife #1 - affect *you*  or your right to practice *your* religion?   how about rush limbaugh's FOUR 'traditional' marriages?
> 
> are you connecting the dots  yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Liberals suck. Dot Dot Dot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You fucking articulate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your Avatar name is an oxymoron. So called "Progressives" are all traitor Anarchists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh please! Give a fucking break with that trite bovine excrement , Was Teddy Roosevelt a traitor and anarchist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? Ya want a parallel? With Teddy? Well ,he busted up "Trusts" because JP Morgan ,Carnegie ,And Rockefeller BOUGHT the WhiteHouse for McKinley.---Who the fuck do ya think BOUGHT the WhiteHouse for Biden?  Bezos ,Dorsey ,Zuckerberg ,and Soros. Why not bust THEM up? Because they OWN the Democrat Machine.
Click to expand...

Thank you admitting that progeressives are not traitors and anarchits . And it was the American who put Biden in the White House


----------



## San Souci

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ explain too. See post #56.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so how did women getting the right to vote  - affect *you*?  being 'allowed' to get birth control without their husband's consent -  affect *you* ?  the right to own property - affect *you*?
> 
> how did blacks, no longer having a separate bathroom & water fountain -  affect *you*?
> 
> how about donny's 'traditional' marriage AFTER marriage AFTER  marriage... knocking up wife #2 b4 being divorced from wife #1 - affect *you*  or your right to practice *your* religion?   how about rush limbaugh's FOUR 'traditional' marriages?
> 
> are you connecting the dots  yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Liberals suck. Dot Dot Dot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You fucking articulate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your Avatar name is an oxymoron. So called "Progressives" are all traitor Anarchists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh please! Give a fucking break with that trite bovine excrement , Was Teddy Roosevelt a traitor and anarchist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? Ya want a parallel? With Teddy? Well ,he busted up "Trusts" because JP Morgan ,Carnegie ,And Rockefeller BOUGHT the WhiteHouse for McKinley.---Who the fuck do ya think BOUGHT the WhiteHouse for Biden?  Bezos ,Dorsey ,Zuckerberg ,and Soros. Why not bust THEM up? Because they OWN the Democrat Machine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you admitting that progeressives are not traitors and anarchits . And it was the American who put Biden in the White House
Click to expand...

No.It was Mail out votes. Bought and PAID for by Bezos. And I admit nothing. I deny everything. And BLM and Antifa are indeed TRAITORS. Democrat traitors. And "Progressives" are the WORST of Democrats.


----------



## Ringtone

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> OK Slick. [sic] Two can play the same game of answering questions with another question
> 
> What right does ANY business ower [sic] - who offers good or services to the general public - to discrimiant [sic] by refusing service to ANYONE who walks through the door? If that business can in fact   arbitrarily refuse service to any one [sic] for any reason, what are the implications for an orderly andcivil [sic] society?



You write like you think, Sport.

I didn't say anything about _refusing service to ANYONE who walks through the door_ or _about a business arbitrarily refusing service to anyone for any reason, _did I?

Rather:

By what right does the government compel a homosexual (or any other-sexual) business owner, for example, to provide goods or services that entail *making expressions or directly participating in activities that the same regards as evil or icky?*​​Thanks.


----------



## Hollie

AFrench2 said:


> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.


You’re intimidated.

Your ego won’t survive.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ringtone said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK Slick. [sic] Two can play the same game of answering questions with another question
> 
> What right does ANY business ower [sic] - who offers good or services to the general public - to discrimiant [sic] by refusing service to ANYONE who walks through the door? If that business can in fact   arbitrarily refuse service to any one [sic] for any reason, what are the implications for an orderly andcivil [sic] society?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You write like you think, Sport.
> 
> I didn't say anything about _refusing service to ANYONE who walks through the door_ or _about a business arbitrarily refusing service to anyone for any reason, _did I?
> 
> Rather:
> 
> By what right does the government compel a homosexual (or any other-sexual) business owner, for example, to provide goods or services that entail *making expressions or directly participating in activities that the same regards as evil or icky?*​​Thanks.
Click to expand...

Bullshit . You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You are doing it again right now  by saying that you didn't say anything about _refusing service._ At the same time you oppose the idea t=of government prohibiting the refusal of services based on waht the customer is, or is percieved to be. What the fuck do you think will happen in the absence of laws and regultions?. Cut the crap with your dishonest and rediculous games


And, I posed this question to you which you have been unwilling or unable  to answer:

_"What right does ANY business ower- who offers good or services to the general public - to discrimiant by refusing service to ANYONE who walks through the door? If that business can in fact arbitrarily refuse service to any one for any reason, what are the implications for an orderly andcivil society?
How do we function as a society if no one can be sure that they will not be humiliated when they enter a business? You mightalso want to consider the fact that the original civil rights act, as well as numerous state laws against discrimination were never sucsessfully challanged on constitutional grounds. Why do you think that is. ?"_


----------



## San Souci

Speaking of Congress ,I see the Q-Anon" riot did not happen. How can this BE? It was on CNN!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

San Souci said:


> Speaking of Congress ,I see the Q-Anon" riot did not happen. How can this BE? It was on CNN!


It has been pushed to Memorial day, if not then July 4th They have to keep it alive and the moronic minions will follow


----------



## Ringtone

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Bullshit . You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You are doing again right now  by saying that you didn't say anything about _refusing service._ At the same time you oppose the idea t=of government prohibiting the refusal of services based on waht the customer is, or is percieved to be. What the fuck do you think will happen in the absence of laws and regultions?. Cut the crap with your dishonest and rediculous games



Calm down, Sunshine.  The above may be interpreted to mean something I never intended.  Hence:

I still didn't say anything about _a business arbitrarily refusing service to anyone on the basis of who they are, _did I?​​Rather:​​By what right does the government compel a homosexual (or any other-sexual) business owner, for example, to provide goods or services that entail *making expressions or directly participating in activities that the same regards as evil or icky?*​​Thanks.​


----------



## Ringtone

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Bullshit . You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You are doing it again right now  by saying that you didn't say anything about _refusing service._ At the same time you oppose the idea t=of government prohibiting the refusal of services based on waht the customer is, or is percieved to be. What the fuck do you think will happen in the absence of laws and regultions?. Cut the crap with your dishonest and rediculous games



You really do need to calm down, Sunshine.  You're responses are overwrought. 

Thanks.


----------



## Ringtone

playtime said:


> Is the gov'ment making you turn gay?



You seem to be confused, obsessed with juvenile, little boy talk.  It's almost as if you're a child.  Perhaps you can answer the question in light of the caveat.

Given that I never said anything about _a business arbitrarily refusing service to anyone on the basis of who they are, _by what right does the government compel a homosexual (or any other-sexual) business owner, for example, to provide goods or services that entail *making expressions or directly participating in activities that the same regards as evil or icky?*

Thanks.


----------



## San Souci

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of Congress ,I see the Q-Anon" riot did not happen. How can this BE? It was on CNN!
> 
> 
> 
> It has been pushed to Memorial day, if not then July 4th They have to keep it alive and the moronic minions will follow
Click to expand...

In reality ,Q-Anon is a fear tactic to SCARE people. Made up by Bezos. The Democrats sure learned a lot from Goebbles.


----------



## AFrench2

Hey, Ringtone, dude - can you stop Triple posting in my topic please? Your signature is huge bro, when you triple post it takes up my entire screen and my eyes bleed.


----------



## Bush92

AFrench2 said:


> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.


She is a highly intelligent woman. Democrats want to legitimize every perversion. Watch your anus kids.


----------



## playtime

Ringtone said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the gov'ment making you turn gay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be confused, obsessed with juvenile, little boy talk.  It's almost as if you're a child.  Perhaps you can answer the question in light of the caveat.
> 
> Given that I never said anything about _a business arbitrarily refusing service to anyone on the basis of who they are, _by what right does the government compel a homosexual (or any other-sexual) business owner, for example, to provide goods or services that entail *making expressions or directly participating in activities that the same regards as evil or icky?*
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...


<pfffft>   i am female, probably older than you ... & unlike you - can recognise sarcasm when it's right in front of you.

i also answered you -  the 14th amendment means equal protection under the LAW.  you know ... a rule that when broken, has consequences.  if a biz'nez enjoys the tax breaks a municipality gives it to set up & serve the public with its goods or services ... then they just don't have a choice to serve or not serve the tax paying public.  if they want that choice -  then they need to refuse all tax breaks, perhaps become a private biz'nez that requires a membership with private fire & 'police' protection as well.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ringtone said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit . You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You are doing again right now  by saying that you didn't say anything about _refusing service._ At the same time you oppose the idea t=of government prohibiting the refusal of services based on waht the customer is, or is percieved to be. What the fuck do you think will happen in the absence of laws and regultions?. Cut the crap with your dishonest and rediculous games
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calm down, Sunshine.  The above may be interpreted to mean something I never intended.  Hence:
> 
> I still didn't say anything about _a business arbitrarily refusing service to anyone on the basis of who they are, _did I?​​Rather:​​By what right does the government compel a homosexual (or any other-sexual) business owner, for example, to provide goods or services that entail *making expressions or directly participating in activities that the same regards as evil or icky?*​​Thanks.​
Click to expand...

If you really want to have a serious adult discussion you might want to try to posting an adult question. What the hell does this actually mean?





> .... *making expressions or directly participating in activities that the same regards as evil or icky?*



*evil or icky? *Seriously ? Try provide someactual examples of what you are talking about


----------



## Ringtone

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> If you really want to have a serious adult discussion you might want to try to posting an adult question. What the hell does this actually mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .... *making expressions or directly participating in activities that the same regards as evil or icky?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *evil or icky? *Seriously ? Try provide someactual examples of what you are talking about
Click to expand...


_Evil or icky_ are the terms that *playtime* used, you know. as he mocked the wont of others having their inherent rights respected.  He thinks their expectations per natural and constitutional law are stupid and irrelevant.  He thinks it's okay for the government to treat others like second-class citizens . . . sort of like you.

It's very strange that you don't seem to grasp the difference between providing goods and services  that one offers to all, and providing goods and services that would compel one to make expressions or directly engage in activities that are morally anathema to them.


----------



## Ringtone

playtime said:


> <pfffft>   i am female, probably older than you ... & unlike you - can recognise sarcasm when it's right in front of you.
> 
> i also answered you -  the 14th amendment means equal protection under the LAW.  you know ... a rule that when broken, has consequences.  if a biz'nez enjoys the tax breaks a municipality gives it to set up & serve the public with its goods or services ... then they just don't have a choice to serve or not serve the tax paying public.  if they want that choice -  then they need to refuse all tax breaks, perhaps become a private biz'nez that requires a membership with private fire & 'police' protection as well.



The pertinent  concerns go to the inherent rights of the First Amendment.

Thanks.


----------



## Ringtone

AFrench2 said:


> Hey, Ringtone, dude - can you stop Triple posting in my topic please? Your signature is huge bro, when you triple post it takes up my entire screen and my eyes bleed.
> 
> 
> View attachment 464632


Is that better, Sport?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ringtone said:


> It's very strange that you don't seem to grasp the difference between providing goods and services that one offers to all, and providing goods and services that would compel one to make expressions or directly engage in activities that are morally anathema to them.


Well now that you are using big boy words I think that I do understand what you are trying to say...that no one should be required to provide a service or a product that they do normally provide  as a buisness, to anyone . Of course I see the difference that and selectivly withholding a product or service that they normall provide to the general public. 

Now just a few more things to clear up

1. Do you think that a buisness owner should be  allowed to  selectivly withholding a product or service that they normall provide to the general public to a specific group who they disapprove op

2. Can you cite an instance where a business owner was forced toprovide a service or a product tothat they do normally provide to anyone?. 

3. Regardless of your answeres to 1 & 2, what does any of this have to do with the equality act?

4. Lasgtly for now, I'm still waiting for you to explain how the Equality Act woul undermine parental rights and authority. I suspect  that you just made that up or heard from some nut case on OAN or Newsmax


----------



## Ringtone

Ringtone said:


> It's very strange that you don't seem to grasp the difference between providing goods and services that one offers to all, and providing goods and services that would compel one to make expressions or directly engage in activities that are morally anathema to them.





TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Well now that you are using big boy words I think that I do understand what you are trying to say...that no one should be required to provide a service or a product that they do normally provide  as a buisness, [sic] to anyone . Of course I see the difference that and selectivly [sic] withholding a product or service that they normall [sic] provide to the general public.



Let's stick to one point at a time.  You're still having difficulty with the following. . . .

Well, as you're still using little boy think, t's very strange that you don't seem to grasp the difference between (1) providing goods and services that one offers to all, and (2) providing goods and services that would compel one to make expressions or directly engage in activities that are morally anathema to one.

That's weird, given that the latter would be those goods and services that one does not normally provide for anyone at all, and only tyrants would demand that one  do so or else . . . almost as if they owned one, indeed, almost as if one were their slave  That doesn't seem very civil to me.  That strikes me as a blatant violation of natural and constitutional law.

Thanks.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ringtone said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's very strange that you don't seem to grasp the difference between providing goods and services that one offers to all, and providing goods and services that would compel one to make expressions or directly engage in activities that are morally anathema to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well now that you are using big boy words I think that I do understand what you are trying to say...that no one should be required to provide a service or a product that they do normally provide  as a buisness, [sic] to anyone . Of course I see the difference that and selectivly [sic] withholding a product or service that they normall [sic] provide to the general public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's stick to one point at a time.  You're still having difficulty with the following. . . .
> 
> Well, as you're still using little boy think, t's very strange that you don't seem to grasp the difference between (1) providing goods and services that one offers to all, and (2) providing goods and services that would compel one to make expressions or directly engage in activities that are morally anathema to them.
> 
> That's weird, given that the latter would be those goods and services that one does not normally provide for anyone at all, and only tyrants would demand that one  do so or else . . . almost as if they owned one, indeed, almost as if one were their slave  That doesn't seem very civil to me.  That strikes me as a blatant violation of natural and constitutional law.
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...

Holy fucking shit! Just when I thought that we were beginning to communicate in some rational way, you, rather than addressing my questions, respond with more evasive and dishonest bullshit. I made it clear that I do indeed understand the difference that you referr to, and you are pretending that I do not, or is it that you just  not understand what I said?. What the fuck is wrong with you. You are monumentally agravating .

To be clear, I DO NOT think that a buisness should be required to provide goods and services, that they do not offer to the general public, to anyone who may demand it and claim discrimination. That is just fucking stupid

At the same time, I ALSO DO NOT BELIEVE that a business offering goods or services to the general public should be allowed to discrimiante against those who they disapprove of on religous or any othe rgrounds . There you have it. NOW answer my questions or get the hell out of here. Try some honesty for a change.

Again, the questions that you are running from:

1. Do you think that a buisness owner should be allowed to selectivly withholding a product or service that they normall provide to the general public to a specific group who they disapprove op

2. Can you cite an instance where a business owner was forced toprovide a service or a product tothat they do normally provide to anyone?.

3. Regardless of your answeres to 1 & 2, what does any of this have to do with the equality act?

4. Lastly for now, I'm still waiting for you to explain how the Equality Act woul undermine parental rights and authority. I suspect that you just made that up or heard from some nut case on OAN or Newsmax


----------



## Ringtone

You obviously need to rewrite what you wrote, dummy:



TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Well now that you are using big boy words I think that I do understand what you are trying to say...that no one should be required to provide a service or a product that *they do normally provide as a buisness,* [sic] to anyone . Of course I see the difference [between] that and selectivly [sic] withholding a product or service that they *normall [sic] provide to the general public.*


​You're distinction in the above is nonexistent.  You write like you think.  Presumably, that which is *normally provided by any given business* is the very same thing *a business normally provides to the general public.* 

And, ultimately, your distinction, whatever it is, is nonsensical relative to my actual distinction . . . as the latter just keeps flying right over your head.



TheProgressivePatriot said:


> To be clear, I DO NOT think that a buisness [sic] should be required to provide goods and services, [sic] that they do not offer to the general public, to anyone who may demand it and claim discrimination. [sic] That is just fucking stupid



Well, now, this is  clearer, isn't it?  You seem to think I'm a mind reader.



TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I ALSO DO NOT BELIEVE that a business offering goods or services to the general public should be allowed to discrimiante[sic] against those who the disapprove of on religous [sic] or any othe rgrounds .



And now you're back to _duh_.  _Zoom_  Right over your head again!

Once again!  It's very strange that you don't seem to grasp the difference between (1) providing goods and services that one offers to all, and (2) *providing goods and services that would compel one to make expressions or directly engage in activities that are morally anathema to one.

The latter would be those goods and services that one does not normally provide for anyone at all!

The latter would be those goods and services that one does not normally provide for anyone at all!

I'm repeating myself here because it's not sinking into that head of yours.

I'm repeating myself here because it's not sinking into that head of yours.

What's being refused are goods and services that would entail one EXPRESSING IDEAS OR ENGAGING IN ACTIVITIES THAT ARE MORALLY ANATHEMA TO ONE. 

What's being refused are goods and services that would entail one EXPRESSING IDEAS OR ENGAGING IN ACTIVITIES THAT ARE MORALLY ANATHEMA TO ONE.*

It has nothing to do with refusing goods or services on the basis of who the customer is, dummy; rather, it has do with the kind of goods or services the customer is requesting relative to *who the provider is and has every right to be!*

Knock.  knock.  Anybody home?


----------



## playtime

Ringtone said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you really want to have a serious adult discussion you might want to try to posting an adult question. What the hell does this actually mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .... *making expressions or directly participating in activities that the same regards as evil or icky?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *evil or icky? *Seriously ? Try provide someactual examples of what you are talking about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Evil or icky_ are the terms that *playtime* used, you know. as he mocked the wont of others having their inherent rights respected.  He thinks their expectations per natural and constitutional law are stupid and irrelevant.  He thinks it's okay for the government to treat others like second-class citizens . . . sort of like you.
> 
> It's very strange that you don't seem to grasp the difference between providing goods and services  that one offers to all, and providing goods and services that would compel one to make expressions or directly engage in activities that are morally anathema to them.
Click to expand...


like i said.  i am female.  as in SHE. 

 'inherent' rights?  lol ... to discriminate?

nope.  not in a secular nation.  the 1st amendment also means freedom from religion.  by the way -  you can be as christian or jewish or mooooooslem or druid all you want in your private life.  but when it comes to society - when money is concerned for goods & services, then all are equal cause money is green no matter who's got the pocket.


----------



## Ringtone

playtime said:


> like i said.  i am female.  as in SHE.
> 
> 'inherent' rights?  lol ... to discriminate?
> 
> nope.  not in a secular nation.  the 1st amendment also means freedom from religion.  by the way -  you can be as christian or jewish or mooooooslem or druid all you want in your private life.  but when it comes to society - when money is concerned for goods & services, then all are equal cause money is green no matter who's got the pocket.



Neither natural law nor constitutional law gives one the freedom _from_ religion, whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.  One has the freedom _of_ religion, and the First Amendment recognizes one's inherent right to express/practice one's religion in private and public life, you fascist imbecile.

Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

The only thing that leftists will ever understand about the rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads.


----------



## playtime

Ringtone said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> like i said.  i am female.  as in SHE.
> 
> 'inherent' rights?  lol ... to discriminate?
> 
> nope.  not in a secular nation.  the 1st amendment also means freedom from religion.  by the way -  you can be as christian or jewish or mooooooslem or druid all you want in your private life.  but when it comes to society - when money is concerned for goods & services, then all are equal cause money is green no matter who's got the pocket.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither natural law nor constitutional law gives one the freedom _from_ religion, whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.  One has the freedom _of_ religion, and the First Amendment recognizes one's inherent right to express/practice one's religion in private and public life, you fascist imbecile.
> 
> Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
> 
> The only thing that leftists will ever understand about the rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads.
Click to expand...


freedom from religion means your beliefs don't 'trump' mine & visey versey.

you know... that whole separation of church & state thingy?  boy oh boy jefferson had it right.


*Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
 The Final Letter, as Sent*

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins,  & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association  in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which   you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist  association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful  and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion  as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them  becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies   solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for  his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach  actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence  that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature  should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting  the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between  Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the  nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction  the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural  rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection &   blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves  & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
         Jan. 1. 1802.



^ ' The only thing that leftists will ever understand about the rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads. '

my my MY my my ... how very christian of you.


----------



## Ringtone

playtime said:


> ^ ' The only thing that leftists will ever understand about the rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads. '
> 
> my my MY my my ... how very christian of you.



My, my, how silly of you.  That statement goes to your state of mind, fascist, not mine, and you just affirmed what I told you, which, of course, is obvious.  You're not very bright, are you?


----------



## playtime

Ringtone said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^ ' The only thing that leftists will ever understand about the rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads. '
> 
> my my MY my my ... how very christian of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My, my, how silly of you.  That statement goes to your state of mind, fascist, not mine, and you just affirmed what I told you, which, of course, is obvious.  You're not very bright, are you?
Click to expand...


lol ...  'fascist'.... lol ....  i don't think you actually comprehended that little letter, now did you?

me thinx not.

bigot.


----------



## Indeependent

I believe I already destroyed all the pro-sexuality POVs here as no one has been able to respond to my posts in the last 24 hours.


----------



## Ringtone

playtime said:


> me thinx not.


You think wrong, fascist.


----------



## playtime

Ringtone said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> me thinx not.
> 
> 
> 
> You think wrong, fascist.
> 
> View attachment 464918
Click to expand...


<pfffffft>

you have no clue the meaning of the word.


----------



## Indeependent

playtime said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> me thinx not.
> 
> 
> 
> You think wrong, fascist.
> 
> View attachment 464918
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> <pfffffft>
> 
> you have no clue the meaning of the word.
Click to expand...

When representatives are considered more important than those they represent.


----------



## playtime

Indeependent said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> me thinx not.
> 
> 
> 
> You think wrong, fascist.
> 
> View attachment 464918
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> <pfffffft>
> 
> you have no clue the meaning of the word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When representatives are considered more important than those they represent.
Click to expand...


*Fourteen Points of Fascism*


 * 1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism*
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
* 2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights*
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of \u201cneed.\u201d The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
* 3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause*
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
* 4. Supremacy of the Military*
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
* 5. Rampant Sexism*
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
* 6. Controlled Mass Media*
Sometimes the media are directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media are indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
* 7. Obsession with National Security*
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
* 8. Religion and Government are Intertwined*
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
* 9. Corporate Power is Protected*
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
* 10. Labor Power is Suppressed*
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
* 11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts*
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free _expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
* 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment*
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations
* 13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption*
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
* 14. Fraudulent Elections*
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.


----------



## Indeependent

playtime said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> me thinx not.
> 
> 
> 
> You think wrong, fascist.
> 
> View attachment 464918
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> <pfffffft>
> 
> you have no clue the meaning of the word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When representatives are considered more important than those they represent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Fourteen Points of Fascism*
> 
> 
> * 1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism*
> Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
> * 2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights*
> Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of \u201cneed.\u201d The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
> * 3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause*
> The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
> * 4. Supremacy of the Military*
> Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
> * 5. Rampant Sexism*
> The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
> * 6. Controlled Mass Media*
> Sometimes the media are directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media are indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
> * 7. Obsession with National Security*
> Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
> * 8. Religion and Government are Intertwined*
> Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
> * 9. Corporate Power is Protected*
> The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
> * 10. Labor Power is Suppressed*
> Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
> * 11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts*
> Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free _expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
> * 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment*
> Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations
> * 13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption*
> Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
> * 14. Fraudulent Elections*
> Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
Click to expand...

For ProgBots everyone of those items means White People Bad.
And you worship the D Party.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ringtone said:


> You're distinction in the above is nonexistent. You write like you think. Presumably, that which is *normally provided by any given business* is the very same thing *a business normally provides to the general public.*
> 
> And, ultimately, your distinction, whatever it is, is nonsensical relative to my actual distinction . . . as the latter just keeps flying right over your head.


You are out of your fucking mind! First you accuse me of not understanding the distinction and when I make it clear that I do, you claim that it is nonsensical. You are trying to gasslight me. Not working!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ringtone said:


> You obviously need to rewrite what you wrote, dummy:
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well now that you are using big boy words I think that I do understand what you are trying to say...that no one should be required to provide a service or a product that *they do normally provide as a buisness,* [sic] to anyone . Of course I see the difference [between] that and selectivly [sic] withholding a product or service that they *normall [sic] provide to the general public.*
> 
> 
> 
> ​You're distinction in the above is nonexistent.  You write like you think.  Presumably, that which is *normally provided by any given business* is the very same thing *a business normally provides to the general public.*
> 
> And, ultimately, your distinction, whatever it is, is nonsensical relative to my actual distinction . . . as the latter just keeps flying right over your head.
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be clear, I DO NOT think that a buisness [sic] should be required to provide goods and services, [sic] that they do not offer to the general public, to anyone who may demand it and claim discrimination. [sic] That is just fucking stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, now, this is  clearer, isn't it?  You seem to think I'm a mind reader.
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I ALSO DO NOT BELIEVE that a business offering goods or services to the general public should be allowed to discrimiante[sic] against those who the disapprove of on religous [sic] or any othe rgrounds .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And now you're back to _duh_.  _Zoom_  Right over your head again!
> 
> Once again!  It's very strange that you don't seem to grasp the difference between (1) providing goods and services that one offers to all, and (2) *providing goods and services that would compel one to make expressions or directly engage in activities that are morally anathema to one.
> 
> The latter would be those goods and services that one does not normally provide for anyone at all!
> 
> The latter would be those goods and services that one does not normally provide for anyone at all!
> 
> I'm repeating myself here because it's not sinking into that head of yours.
> 
> I'm repeating myself here because it's not sinking into that head of yours.
> 
> What's being refused are goods and services that would entail one EXPRESSING IDEAS OR ENGAGING IN ACTIVITIES THAT ARE MORALLY ANATHEMA TO ONE.
> 
> What's being refused are goods and services that would entail one EXPRESSING IDEAS OR ENGAGING IN ACTIVITIES THAT ARE MORALLY ANATHEMA TO ONE.*
> 
> It has nothing to do with refusing goods or services on the basis of who the customer is, dummy; rather, it has do with the kind of goods or services the customer is requesting relative to *who the provider is and has every right to be!*
> 
> Knock.  knock.  Anybody home?
Click to expand...

Cut the bullshit and answer the questions . You wont because you are too dishonest and too much of a coward

1. Do you think that a buisness owner should be allowed to selectivly withholding a product or service that they normall provide to the general public to a specific group who they disapprove op

2. Can you cite an instance where a business owner was forced toprovide a service or a product tothat they do normally provide to anyone?.

3. Regardless of your answeres to 1 & 2, what does any of this have to do with the equality act?

4. Lastly for now, I'm still waiting for you to explain how the Equality Act woul undermine parental rights and authority. I suspect that you just made that up or heard from some nut case on OAN or Newsmax


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ringtone said:


> Once again! It's very strange that you don't seem to grasp the difference between (1) providing goods and services that one offers to all, and (2) *providing goods and services that would compel one to make expressions or directly engage in activities that are morally anathema to one.*


It is very strange that I addressed that very clearly and you are either unable to understand my answer or to dishonist and manipulative to acknowledge it


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ringtone said:


> You obviously need to rewrite what you wrote, dummy:
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well now that you are using big boy words I think that I do understand what you are trying to say...that no one should be required to provide a service or a product that *they do normally provide as a buisness,* [sic] to anyone . Of course I see the difference [between] that and selectivly [sic] withholding a product or service that they *normall [sic] provide to the general public.*
> 
> 
> 
> ​You're distinction in the above is nonexistent.  You write like you think.  Presumably, that which is *normally provided by any given business* is the very same thing *a business normally provides to the general public.*
> 
> And, ultimately, your distinction, whatever it is, is nonsensical relative to my actual distinction . . . as the latter just keeps flying right over your head.
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be clear, I DO NOT think that a buisness [sic] should be required to provide goods and services, [sic] that they do not offer to the general public, to anyone who may demand it and claim discrimination. [sic] That is just fucking stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, now, this is  clearer, isn't it?  You seem to think I'm a mind reader.
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I ALSO DO NOT BELIEVE that a business offering goods or services to the general public should be allowed to discrimiante[sic] against those who the disapprove of on religous [sic] or any othe rgrounds .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And now you're back to _duh_.  _Zoom_  Right over your head again!
> 
> Once again!  It's very strange that you don't seem to grasp the difference between (1) providing goods and services that one offers to all, and (2) *providing goods and services that would compel one to make expressions or directly engage in activities that are morally anathema to one.
> 
> The latter would be those goods and services that one does not normally provide for anyone at all!
> 
> The latter would be those goods and services that one does not normally provide for anyone at all!
> 
> I'm repeating myself here because it's not sinking into that head of yours.
> 
> I'm repeating myself here because it's not sinking into that head of yours.
> 
> What's being refused are goods and services that would entail one EXPRESSING IDEAS OR ENGAGING IN ACTIVITIES THAT ARE MORALLY ANATHEMA TO ONE.
> 
> What's being refused are goods and services that would entail one EXPRESSING IDEAS OR ENGAGING IN ACTIVITIES THAT ARE MORALLY ANATHEMA TO ONE.*
> 
> It has nothing to do with refusing goods or services on the basis of who the customer is, dummy; rather, it has do with the kind of goods or services the customer is requesting relative to *who the provider is and has every right to be!*
> 
> Knock.  knock.  Anybody home?
Click to expand...

Sensless blathering to avoid my questions. You make no fucking sense at all. You are playing some sicck game here and I will have nione of it. Stop wasting my time.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ringtone said:


> It has nothing to do with refusing goods or services on the basis of who the customer is, dummy; rather, it has do with the kind of goods or services the customer is requesting relative to *who the provider is and has every right to be!*


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with refusing goods or services on the basis of who the customer is, dummy; rather, it has do with the kind of goods or services the customer is requesting relative to *who the provider is and has every right to be!*
> 
> 
> 
> I fully addressed that but you are ignoring my response ,Dummy
Click to expand...


----------



## Ringtone

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with refusing goods or services on the basis of who the customer is, dummy; rather, it has do with the kind of goods or services the customer is requesting relative to *who the provider is and has every right to be!*
> 
> 
> 
> I fully addressed that but you are ignoring my response ,Dummy
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



You're cut off.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ringtone said:


> It has nothing to do with refusing goods or services on the basis of who the customer is, dummy; rather, it has do with the kind of goods or services the customer is requesting relative to *who the provider is and has every right to be!*


I fully addressed that AS TWO SEPARATE ISSUES  and asked you to respond which you did not in any meaningful way, but you are ignoring my response ,or tooo stupid to understand it Dummy


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ringtone said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with refusing goods or services on the basis of who the customer is, dummy; rather, it has do with the kind of goods or services the customer is requesting relative to *who the provider is and has every right to be!*
> 
> 
> 
> I fully addressed that but you are ignoring my response ,Dummy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're cut off.
Click to expand...

You can run but you can't  hide. I will follow you and call you out on your inane equine excrement at every turn. Have  a good evening


----------



## playtime

Indeependent said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> me thinx not.
> 
> 
> 
> You think wrong, fascist.
> 
> View attachment 464918
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> <pfffffft>
> 
> you have no clue the meaning of the word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When representatives are considered more important than those they represent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Fourteen Points of Fascism*
> 
> 
> * 1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism*
> Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
> * 2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights*
> Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of \u201cneed.\u201d The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
> * 3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause*
> The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
> * 4. Supremacy of the Military*
> Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
> * 5. Rampant Sexism*
> The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
> * 6. Controlled Mass Media*
> Sometimes the media are directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media are indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
> * 7. Obsession with National Security*
> Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
> * 8. Religion and Government are Intertwined*
> Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
> * 9. Corporate Power is Protected*
> The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
> * 10. Labor Power is Suppressed*
> Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
> * 11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts*
> Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free _expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
> * 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment*
> Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations
> * 13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption*
> Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
> * 14. Fraudulent Elections*
> Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For ProgBots everyone of those items means White People Bad.
> And you worship the D Party.
Click to expand...


nope

& i'm not a (D) ... so:

nope again.


----------



## Ringtone

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You can run but you can't  hide. I will follow you and call you out on your inane equine excrement at every turn. Have  a good evening



You are not worthy to sit at my feet and be taught anymore.  In the scheme of things, I'm Socrates, you, a fascist cockroach scrambling toward yet another dumpster.

Goodbye.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ringtone said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can run but you can't  hide. I will follow you and call you out on your inane equine excrement at every turn. Have  a good evening
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not worthy to sit at my feet and be taught anymore.  In the scheme of things, I am Socrates, you, a fascist cockroach scrambling toward yet another dumpster.
> 
> Goodbye.
Click to expand...

   You have yet to explain your inane prediction that the equality act will undermine parental rights.


----------



## San Souci

Bush92 said:


> AFrench2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.
> 
> 
> 
> She is a highly intelligent woman. Democrats want to legitimize every perversion. Watch your anus kids.
Click to expand...

So true. So true.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Indeependent said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the *USC* already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
Click to expand...


University of Southern California, or University of South Carolina?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Polishprince said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AFrench2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.
> 
> 
> 
> She's correct.
> Now let's see the text of the Equality Act.
> If it specifically protects people with particular sexual tendencies then it's a crock of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Happy that you asked> Get ready to feel stupid> It protects everyone including you
> 
> 
> The Equality Act amends the *1964 Civil Rights Act to explicitly ban discrimination against people based on sexual orientation and gender identity* in sectors including housing, employment, federal programs and public accommodations such as stores and even websites.
> *Stefanik voted yes on the Equality Act in 2019. Why does she oppo…*
> View attachment 463906
> www.timesunion.com/news/article/Stefanik-voted-yes-on-the-Equality-Act-in-201
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure that Normative folks are treated equally with sexual perverts?
> 
> Did you know that although there is a Gay History Month celebrated each year, America has never celebrated Normative History?    Shouldn't kids be taught about the great achievements of straights throughout history?  From Adam and Eve on through to the current era,  hundreds of generations of straight arrows have had their achievements demeaned.
Click to expand...

If only there was a government info film showing how gay predators prey on young boys. It would open peoples eyes to the threat.


----------



## Indeependent

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the *USC* already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> University of Southern California, or University of South Carolina?
Click to expand...

US Constitution.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Indeependent said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
Click to expand...

Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .
Click to expand...

*You* should look at some of your earlier posts on this Thread because *you're* the one who posted that all Americans are already protected by the law.
How can that be unless it's in the USC.
By the way, thanks for not being able to provide a rational answer to my question that stopped you dead in your ProgBot tracks.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Indeependent said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the *USC* already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> University of Southern California, or University of South Carolina?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> US Constitution.
Click to expand...


That would be COTUS. You abbreviation makes no sense.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Indeependent said:


> *You* should look at some of your earlier posts on this Thread because *you're* the one who posted that all Americans are already protected by the law.
> How can that be unless it's in the USC.


What the hell are you talking about smiley? I have trouble believing that I would have said such a thing and am willing to bet that you are grossly misinterpreting or misrepresenting something that I said. This appears to be your way of glossing over the fact that you claimed there are protections in the COTUS that do not exist. Now you're running for cover.

Interesting how you post this crap but do not rise to my challange to show where such protections exist in COTHUS .


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Indeependent said:


> By the way, thanks for not being able to provide a rational answer to my question that stopped you dead in your ProgBot tracks.


What question was that smiley? Something stupid no doubt


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, thanks for not being able to provide a rational answer to my question that stopped you dead in your ProgBot tracks.
> 
> 
> 
> What question was that smiley? Something stupid no doubt
Click to expand...

I am not going to be disrespected by your not remembering your last post before today.
Take 2 minutes and  look for it.


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .
Click to expand...

Posts 93 and 109.
You stepped in your own doo doo.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Indeependent said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posts 93 and 109.
> You stepped in your own doo doo.
Click to expand...


Post 109 ? Your post fool! 
You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality. 
I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??! 
You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?   .  
How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect


----------



## Polishprince

Tommy Tainant said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AFrench2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.
> 
> 
> 
> She's correct.
> Now let's see the text of the Equality Act.
> If it specifically protects people with particular sexual tendencies then it's a crock of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Happy that you asked> Get ready to feel stupid> It protects everyone including you
> 
> 
> The Equality Act amends the *1964 Civil Rights Act to explicitly ban discrimination against people based on sexual orientation and gender identity* in sectors including housing, employment, federal programs and public accommodations such as stores and even websites.
> *Stefanik voted yes on the Equality Act in 2019. Why does she oppo…*
> View attachment 463906
> www.timesunion.com/news/article/Stefanik-voted-yes-on-the-Equality-Act-in-201
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure that Normative folks are treated equally with sexual perverts?
> 
> Did you know that although there is a Gay History Month celebrated each year, America has never celebrated Normative History?    Shouldn't kids be taught about the great achievements of straights throughout history?  From Adam and Eve on through to the current era,  hundreds of generations of straight arrows have had their achievements demeaned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If only there was a government info film showing how gay predators prey on young boys. It would open peoples eyes to the threat.
Click to expand...



Actually, there are films available , which have been shown in government as well as private schools warning young people about homosexuality.

Unfortunately, in the current era, few school districts are enlightened enough to give their students the 4-1-1 on the preference.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AFrench2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.
> 
> 
> 
> She's correct.
> Now let's see the text of the Equality Act.
> If it specifically protects people with particular sexual tendencies then it's a crock of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Happy that you asked> Get ready to feel stupid> It protects everyone including you
> 
> 
> The Equality Act amends the *1964 Civil Rights Act to explicitly ban discrimination against people based on sexual orientation and gender identity* in sectors including housing, employment, federal programs and public accommodations such as stores and even websites.
> *Stefanik voted yes on the Equality Act in 2019. Why does she oppo…*
> View attachment 463906
> www.timesunion.com/news/article/Stefanik-voted-yes-on-the-Equality-Act-in-201
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure that Normative folks are treated equally with sexual perverts?
> 
> Did you know that although there is a Gay History Month celebrated each year, America has never celebrated Normative History?    Shouldn't kids be taught about the great achievements of straights throughout history?  From Adam and Eve on through to the current era,  hundreds of generations of straight arrows have had their achievements demeaned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If only there was a government info film showing how gay predators prey on young boys. It would open peoples eyes to the threat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, there are films available , which have been shown in government as well as private schools warning young people about homosexuality.
> 
> Unfortunately, in the current era, few school districts are enlightened enough to give their students the 4-1-1 on the preference.
Click to expand...

Yes, They are right up their in terms of credibility as Refer Madness and Red Nightmare   Red Scare Filmography - Cinema Studies - Library Guides at University of Washington Libraries (uw.edu)


----------



## Polishprince

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AFrench2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.
> 
> 
> 
> She's correct.
> Now let's see the text of the Equality Act.
> If it specifically protects people with particular sexual tendencies then it's a crock of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Happy that you asked> Get ready to feel stupid> It protects everyone including you
> 
> 
> The Equality Act amends the *1964 Civil Rights Act to explicitly ban discrimination against people based on sexual orientation and gender identity* in sectors including housing, employment, federal programs and public accommodations such as stores and even websites.
> *Stefanik voted yes on the Equality Act in 2019. Why does she oppo…*
> View attachment 463906
> www.timesunion.com/news/article/Stefanik-voted-yes-on-the-Equality-Act-in-201
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure that Normative folks are treated equally with sexual perverts?
> 
> Did you know that although there is a Gay History Month celebrated each year, America has never celebrated Normative History?    Shouldn't kids be taught about the great achievements of straights throughout history?  From Adam and Eve on through to the current era,  hundreds of generations of straight arrows have had their achievements demeaned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If only there was a government info film showing how gay predators prey on young boys. It would open peoples eyes to the threat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, there are films available , which have been shown in government as well as private schools warning young people about homosexuality.
> 
> Unfortunately, in the current era, few school districts are enlightened enough to give their students the 4-1-1 on the preference.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, They are right up their in terms of credibility as Refer Madness and Red Nightmare   Red Scare Filmography - Cinema Studies - Library Guides at University of Washington Libraries (uw.edu)
Click to expand...



Sid Davis, the producer of this film was closely associated with noted heterosexual activist, John Wayne.  Are you some kind of heterophobe that you don't like the Duke?


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posts 93 and 109.
> You stepped in your own doo doo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post 109 ? Your post fool!
> You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
> You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?   .
> How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect
Click to expand...


*You* said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Polishprince said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AFrench2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.
> 
> 
> 
> She's correct.
> Now let's see the text of the Equality Act.
> If it specifically protects people with particular sexual tendencies then it's a crock of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Happy that you asked> Get ready to feel stupid> It protects everyone including you
> 
> 
> The Equality Act amends the *1964 Civil Rights Act to explicitly ban discrimination against people based on sexual orientation and gender identity* in sectors including housing, employment, federal programs and public accommodations such as stores and even websites.
> *Stefanik voted yes on the Equality Act in 2019. Why does she oppo…*
> View attachment 463906
> www.timesunion.com/news/article/Stefanik-voted-yes-on-the-Equality-Act-in-201
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure that Normative folks are treated equally with sexual perverts?
> 
> Did you know that although there is a Gay History Month celebrated each year, America has never celebrated Normative History?    Shouldn't kids be taught about the great achievements of straights throughout history?  From Adam and Eve on through to the current era,  hundreds of generations of straight arrows have had their achievements demeaned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If only there was a government info film showing how gay predators prey on young boys. It would open peoples eyes to the threat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, there are films available , which have been shown in government as well as private schools warning young people about homosexuality.
> 
> Unfortunately, in the current era, few school districts are enlightened enough to give their students the 4-1-1 on the preference.
Click to expand...

I knew that you would bite you fucking clown.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Indeependent said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posts 93 and 109.
> You stepped in your own doo doo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post 109 ? Your post fool!
> You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
> You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?   .
> How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You* said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
> Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
> Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.
Click to expand...

First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim

NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.

This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posts 93 and 109.
> You stepped in your own doo doo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post 109 ? Your post fool!
> You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
> You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?   .
> How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You* said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
> Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
> Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim
> 
> NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.
> 
> This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.
Click to expand...

The law already protects all Americans.
There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posts 93 and 109.
> You stepped in your own doo doo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post 109 ? Your post fool!
> You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
> You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?   .
> How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You* said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
> Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
> Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim
> 
> NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.
> 
> This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.
Click to expand...

I ran from nothing.
I posted your own statement in your face and you ran away for 4 days.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

AFrench2 said:


> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.


This lady is a liar.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Indeependent said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posts 93 and 109.
> You stepped in your own doo doo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post 109 ? Your post fool!
> You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
> You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?   .
> How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You* said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
> Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
> Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim
> 
> NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.
> 
> This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I ran from nothing.
> I posted your own statement in your face and you ran away for 4 days.
Click to expand...

Bullshit! Stop lying!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Indeependent said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posts 93 and 109.
> You stepped in your own doo doo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post 109 ? Your post fool!
> You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
> You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?   .
> How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You* said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
> Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
> Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim
> 
> NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.
> 
> This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law already protects all Americans.
> There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
> Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
> If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.
Click to expand...

More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posts 93 and 109.
> You stepped in your own doo doo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post 109 ? Your post fool!
> You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
> You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?   .
> How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You* said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
> Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
> Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim
> 
> NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.
> 
> This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I ran from nothing.
> I posted your own statement in your face and you ran away for 4 days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit! Stop lying!
Click to expand...

You stop lying!


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posts 93 and 109.
> You stepped in your own doo doo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post 109 ? Your post fool!
> You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
> You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?   .
> How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You* said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
> Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
> Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim
> 
> NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.
> 
> This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law already protects all Americans.
> There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
> Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
> If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!
Click to expand...

Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Indeependent said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posts 93 and 109.
> You stepped in your own doo doo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post 109 ? Your post fool!
> You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
> You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?   .
> How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You* said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
> Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
> Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim
> 
> NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.
> 
> This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law already protects all Americans.
> There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
> Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
> If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.
Click to expand...

Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posts 93 and 109.
> You stepped in your own doo doo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post 109 ? Your post fool!
> You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
> You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?   .
> How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You* said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
> Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
> Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim
> 
> NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.
> 
> This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law already protects all Americans.
> There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
> Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
> If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue
Click to expand...

You posted a rare case and I posted a common instance in the work place.
Of course only your instance was reported.

Income Equality?
Fire all the men.
A big problem during GW and Obama.
Any special laws?


----------



## Polishprince

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posts 93 and 109.
> You stepped in your own doo doo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post 109 ? Your post fool!
> You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
> You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?   .
> How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You* said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
> Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
> Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim
> 
> NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.
> 
> This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law already protects all Americans.
> There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
> Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
> If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue
Click to expand...



As far as I'm concerned, you can get "dolled up" and loaf on a street corner or a highway rest stop every night with the pimps, fairies, hoes and johns, if that's what you dig.

But don't insult my intelligence and insist that you are normal.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Indeependent said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posts 93 and 109.
> You stepped in your own doo doo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post 109 ? Your post fool!
> You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
> You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?   .
> How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You* said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
> Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
> Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim
> 
> NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.
> 
> This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law already protects all Americans.
> There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
> Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
> If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted a rare case and I posted a common instance in the work place.
> Of course only your instance was reported.
> 
> Income Equality?
> Fire all the men.
> A big problem during GW and Obama.
> Any special laws?
Click to expand...

Thank you for admitting that legislation is needed. Rare or not it happens


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posts 93 and 109.
> You stepped in your own doo doo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post 109 ? Your post fool!
> You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
> You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?   .
> How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You* said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
> Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
> Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim
> 
> NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.
> 
> This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law already protects all Americans.
> There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
> Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
> If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, you can get "dolled up" and loaf on a street corner or a highway rest stop every night with the pimps, fairies, hoes and johns, if that's what you dig.
> 
> But don't insult my intelligence and insist that you are normal.
Click to expand...

Intelligence??


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posts 93 and 109.
> You stepped in your own doo doo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post 109 ? Your post fool!
> You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
> You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?   .
> How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You* said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
> Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
> Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim
> 
> NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.
> 
> This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law already protects all Americans.
> There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
> Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
> If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted a rare case and I posted a common instance in the work place.
> Of course only your instance was reported.
> 
> Income Equality?
> Fire all the men.
> A big problem during GW and Obama.
> Any special laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting that legislation is needed. Rare or not it happens
Click to expand...

You don’t get it...
Corporate attorneys know how to get around everything.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Indeependent said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posts 93 and 109.
> You stepped in your own doo doo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post 109 ? Your post fool!
> You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
> You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?   .
> How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You* said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
> Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
> Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim
> 
> NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.
> 
> This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law already protects all Americans.
> There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
> Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
> If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted a rare case and I posted a common instance in the work place.
> Of course only your instance was reported.
> 
> Income Equality?
> Fire all the men.
> A big problem during GW and Obama.
> Any special laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting that legislation is needed. Rare or not it happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t get it...
> Corporate attorneys know how to get around everything.
Click to expand...

I get the fact that you are struggling totry to show that this legislation is not necessary instead of being honest a just admit that you don't think that LGBT people should be protected


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posts 93 and 109.
> You stepped in your own doo doo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post 109 ? Your post fool!
> You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
> You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?   .
> How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You* said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
> Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
> Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim
> 
> NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.
> 
> This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law already protects all Americans.
> There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
> Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
> If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted a rare case and I posted a common instance in the work place.
> Of course only your instance was reported.
> 
> Income Equality?
> Fire all the men.
> A big problem during GW and Obama.
> Any special laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting that legislation is needed. Rare or not it happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t get it...
> Corporate attorneys know how to get around everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get the fact that you are struggling totry to show that this legislation is not necessary instead of being honest a just admit that you don't think that LGBT people should be protected
Click to expand...

You believe LGBT people should be protected.
I believe all people should be protected.
LGBT people de facto have more protection than anyone else because of ProgBots being loud and obnoxious in front of cameras.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Indeependent said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posts 93 and 109.
> You stepped in your own doo doo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post 109 ? Your post fool!
> You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
> You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?   .
> How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You* said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
> Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
> Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim
> 
> NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.
> 
> This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law already protects all Americans.
> There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
> Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
> If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted a rare case and I posted a common instance in the work place.
> Of course only your instance was reported.
> 
> Income Equality?
> Fire all the men.
> A big problem during GW and Obama.
> Any special laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting that legislation is needed. Rare or not it happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t get it...
> Corporate attorneys know how to get around everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get the fact that you are struggling totry to show that this legislation is not necessary instead of being honest a just admit that you don't think that LGBT people should be protected
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe LGBT people should be protected.
> I believe all people should be protected.
> LGBT people de facto have more protection than anyone else because of ProgBots being loud and obnoxious in front of cameras.
Click to expand...

You are totally full of shit. You are either lying or just that stupid. Yes all people should be protected, but all people do not need the same protection.  You are clearly too much of a dishonest coward to admit that you do not want protections for LGBT people .


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Indeependent said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posts 93 and 109.
> You stepped in your own doo doo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post 109 ? Your post fool!
> You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
> You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?   .
> How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You* said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
> Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
> Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim
> 
> NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.
> 
> This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law already protects all Americans.
> There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
> Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
> If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted a rare case and I posted a common instance in the work place.
> Of course only your instance was reported.
> 
> Income Equality?
> Fire all the men.
> A big problem during GW and Obama.
> Any special laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting that legislation is needed. Rare or not it happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t get it...
> Corporate attorneys know how to get around everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get the fact that you are struggling totry to show that this legislation is not necessary instead of being honest a just admit that you don't think that LGBT people should be protected
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe LGBT people should be protected.
> I believe all people should be protected.
> LGBT people de facto have more protection than anyone else because of ProgBots being loud and obnoxious in front of cameras.
Click to expand...




> Is LGBTQ discriminated against?
> Since the beginning of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) community, it has been one of the most discriminated against groups in the world as they are denied the basic rights that most people get to enjoy. Today, it is still legal to discriminate someone based on their sexual orientation or gender identity in thirty states.
> *Discrimination of the LGBTQ community* - Free Essay Example ...
> papersowl.com/examples/discrimination-of-the-lgbtq-com…


________________________________________________________________




> Is the LGBTQ community still vulnerable to discrimination?
> Millions of LGBTQ workers remain vulnerable to discrimination in employment today seeing as there’s no real laws protecting them from it. Members of the LGBTQ community get discriminated against every day by the general public, in schools, and in the workplace.
> *Discrimination of the LGBTQ community* - Free Essay Example ...
> papersowl.com/examples/discrimination-of-the-lgbtq-com…
> See all results for this question


https://www.bing.com/search?q=Is the LGBTQ community still vulnerable to discrimination?


Now get the fuck out of here !


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posts 93 and 109.
> You stepped in your own doo doo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post 109 ? Your post fool!
> You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
> You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?   .
> How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You* said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
> Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
> Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim
> 
> NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.
> 
> This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law already protects all Americans.
> There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
> Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
> If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted a rare case and I posted a common instance in the work place.
> Of course only your instance was reported.
> 
> Income Equality?
> Fire all the men.
> A big problem during GW and Obama.
> Any special laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting that legislation is needed. Rare or not it happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t get it...
> Corporate attorneys know how to get around everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get the fact that you are struggling totry to show that this legislation is not necessary instead of being honest a just admit that you don't think that LGBT people should be protected
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe LGBT people should be protected.
> I believe all people should be protected.
> LGBT people de facto have more protection than anyone else because of ProgBots being loud and obnoxious in front of cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are totally full of shit. You are either lying or just that stupid. Yes all people should be protected, but all people do not need the same protection.  You are clearly too much of a dishonest coward to admit that you do not want protections for LGBT people .
Click to expand...

You are seeing this from your point of view.
In the late 80s, gays and drug addicts *rioted *outside pharmaceutical laboratories for a cure to a disease that they created themselves through careless sexual relations.
A large percentage of research on heart disease and cancer was stalled due to the sexually perverted owners of media who wanted to engage in anal intercourse and shoot heroin into their veins.
I worked in a cubicle next to a very nice guy who was on the phone all week with his friends planning to block scientists from entering their laboratories.
I'm sure you're proud of the thousands of people who died from cancer and heart disease as long as the loud, obnoxious, *violent*, sexual perverts were able to enjoy their orgies.

Women getting equal pay?
Sure.
Fire mostly men along with other random groups of people so that the companies can't be sued.
I'm sure all of the people who lost their careers, homes and families want to express their appreciation to your helping their lives become miserable.

You and your sympathies and empathies with overt sexual perverts prevent you from seeing the effects you have had on health care and the economic impact of singles and families and their children.
But who cares about the children of heterosexuals when you can spend your energies on 2% of the population rather than 98% of the population.

And the worst part of it all is that your are so *emotionally disturbed*, *mentally ill* and *stupid *that not one iota of these facts will change your mind that all the laws on earth won't stop social perverts from ruining countless lives.


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posts 93 and 109.
> You stepped in your own doo doo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post 109 ? Your post fool!
> You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
> You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?   .
> How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You* said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
> Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
> Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim
> 
> NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.
> 
> This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law already protects all Americans.
> There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
> Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
> If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted a rare case and I posted a common instance in the work place.
> Of course only your instance was reported.
> 
> Income Equality?
> Fire all the men.
> A big problem during GW and Obama.
> Any special laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting that legislation is needed. Rare or not it happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t get it...
> Corporate attorneys know how to get around everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get the fact that you are struggling totry to show that this legislation is not necessary instead of being honest a just admit that you don't think that LGBT people should be protected
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe LGBT people should be protected.
> I believe all people should be protected.
> LGBT people de facto have more protection than anyone else because of ProgBots being loud and obnoxious in front of cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is LGBTQ discriminated against?
> Since the beginning of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) community, it has been one of the most discriminated against groups in the world as they are denied the basic rights that most people get to enjoy. Today, it is still legal to discriminate someone based on their sexual orientation or gender identity in thirty states.
> *Discrimination of the LGBTQ community* - Free Essay Example ...
> papersowl.com/examples/discrimination-of-the-lgbtq-com…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the LGBTQ community still vulnerable to discrimination?
> Millions of LGBTQ workers remain vulnerable to discrimination in employment today seeing as there’s no real laws protecting them from it. Members of the LGBTQ community get discriminated against every day by the general public, in schools, and in the workplace.
> *Discrimination of the LGBTQ community* - Free Essay Example ...
> papersowl.com/examples/discrimination-of-the-lgbtq-com…
> See all results for this question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> https://www.bing.com/search?q=Is the LGBTQ community still vulnerable to discrimination?
> 
> 
> Now get the fuck out of here !
Click to expand...

I don't give a fuck about an article written by a homosexual whose manager is a homosexual.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Indeependent said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posts 93 and 109.
> You stepped in your own doo doo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post 109 ? Your post fool!
> You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
> You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?   .
> How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You* said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
> Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
> Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim
> 
> NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.
> 
> This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law already protects all Americans.
> There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
> Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
> If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted a rare case and I posted a common instance in the work place.
> Of course only your instance was reported.
> 
> Income Equality?
> Fire all the men.
> A big problem during GW and Obama.
> Any special laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting that legislation is needed. Rare or not it happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t get it...
> Corporate attorneys know how to get around everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get the fact that you are struggling totry to show that this legislation is not necessary instead of being honest a just admit that you don't think that LGBT people should be protected
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe LGBT people should be protected.
> I believe all people should be protected.
> LGBT people de facto have more protection than anyone else because of ProgBots being loud and obnoxious in front of cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are totally full of shit. You are either lying or just that stupid. Yes all people should be protected, but all people do not need the same protection.  You are clearly too much of a dishonest coward to admit that you do not want protections for LGBT people .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are seeing this from your point of view.
> In the late 80s, gays and drug addicts *rioted *outside pharmaceutical laboratories for a cure to a disease that they created themselves through careless sexual relations.
> A large percentage of research on heart disease and cancer was stalled due to the sexually perverted owners of media who wanted to engage in anal intercourse and shoot heroin into their veins.
> I worked in a cubicle next to a very nice guy who was on the phone all week with his friends planning to block scientists from entering their laboratories.
> I'm sure you're proud of the thousands of people who died from cancer and heart disease as long as the loud, obnoxious, *violent*, sexual perverts were able to enjoy their orgies.
> 
> Women getting equal pay?
> Sure.
> Fire mostly men along with other random groups of people so that the companies can't be sued.
> I'm sure all of the people who lost their careers, homes and families want to express their appreciation to your helping their lives become miserable.
> 
> You and your sympathies and empathies with overt sexual perverts prevent you from seeing the effects you have had on health care and the economic impact of singles and families and their children.
> But who cares about the children of heterosexuals when you can spend your energies on 2% of the population rather than 98% of the population.
> 
> And the worst part of it all is that your are so *emotionally disturbed*, *mentally ill* and *stupid *that not one iota of these facts will change your mind that all the laws on earth won't stop social perverts from ruining countless lives.
Click to expand...

The year is 2021 and this rant is nothing but  bigoted bovine excrement and Gish Gallop  .




You are still displaying a pathetic desparation to justify your opposition to the Equality Act. You're callinbg me emotionally disturbed only highlights your own distress


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posts 93 and 109.
> You stepped in your own doo doo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post 109 ? Your post fool!
> You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
> You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?   .
> How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You* said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
> Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
> Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim
> 
> NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.
> 
> This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law already protects all Americans.
> There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
> Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
> If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted a rare case and I posted a common instance in the work place.
> Of course only your instance was reported.
> 
> Income Equality?
> Fire all the men.
> A big problem during GW and Obama.
> Any special laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting that legislation is needed. Rare or not it happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t get it...
> Corporate attorneys know how to get around everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get the fact that you are struggling totry to show that this legislation is not necessary instead of being honest a just admit that you don't think that LGBT people should be protected
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe LGBT people should be protected.
> I believe all people should be protected.
> LGBT people de facto have more protection than anyone else because of ProgBots being loud and obnoxious in front of cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are totally full of shit. You are either lying or just that stupid. Yes all people should be protected, but all people do not need the same protection.  You are clearly too much of a dishonest coward to admit that you do not want protections for LGBT people .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are seeing this from your point of view.
> In the late 80s, gays and drug addicts *rioted *outside pharmaceutical laboratories for a cure to a disease that they created themselves through careless sexual relations.
> A large percentage of research on heart disease and cancer was stalled due to the sexually perverted owners of media who wanted to engage in anal intercourse and shoot heroin into their veins.
> I worked in a cubicle next to a very nice guy who was on the phone all week with his friends planning to block scientists from entering their laboratories.
> I'm sure you're proud of the thousands of people who died from cancer and heart disease as long as the loud, obnoxious, *violent*, sexual perverts were able to enjoy their orgies.
> 
> Women getting equal pay?
> Sure.
> Fire mostly men along with other random groups of people so that the companies can't be sued.
> I'm sure all of the people who lost their careers, homes and families want to express their appreciation to your helping their lives become miserable.
> 
> You and your sympathies and empathies with overt sexual perverts prevent you from seeing the effects you have had on health care and the economic impact of singles and families and their children.
> But who cares about the children of heterosexuals when you can spend your energies on 2% of the population rather than 98% of the population.
> 
> And the worst part of it all is that your are so *emotionally disturbed*, *mentally ill* and *stupid *that not one iota of these facts will change your mind that all the laws on earth won't stop social perverts from ruining countless lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The year is 2021 and this rant is nothing but  bigoted bovine excrement and Gish Gallop  .View attachment 465628View attachment 465631
> You are still displaying a pathetic desparation to justify your opposition to the Equality Act. You're callinbg me emotionally disturbed only highlights your own distress
Click to expand...

That's all you got when faced with historical facts you perverted piece of shit.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Indeependent said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posts 93 and 109.
> You stepped in your own doo doo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post 109 ? Your post fool!
> You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
> You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?   .
> How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You* said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
> Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
> Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim
> 
> NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.
> 
> This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law already protects all Americans.
> There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
> Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
> If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted a rare case and I posted a common instance in the work place.
> Of course only your instance was reported.
> 
> Income Equality?
> Fire all the men.
> A big problem during GW and Obama.
> Any special laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting that legislation is needed. Rare or not it happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t get it...
> Corporate attorneys know how to get around everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get the fact that you are struggling totry to show that this legislation is not necessary instead of being honest a just admit that you don't think that LGBT people should be protected
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe LGBT people should be protected.
> I believe all people should be protected.
> LGBT people de facto have more protection than anyone else because of ProgBots being loud and obnoxious in front of cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are totally full of shit. You are either lying or just that stupid. Yes all people should be protected, but all people do not need the same protection.  You are clearly too much of a dishonest coward to admit that you do not want protections for LGBT people .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are seeing this from your point of view.
> In the late 80s, gays and drug addicts *rioted *outside pharmaceutical laboratories for a cure to a disease that they created themselves through careless sexual relations.
> A large percentage of research on heart disease and cancer was stalled due to the sexually perverted owners of media who wanted to engage in anal intercourse and shoot heroin into their veins.
> I worked in a cubicle next to a very nice guy who was on the phone all week with his friends planning to block scientists from entering their laboratories.
> I'm sure you're proud of the thousands of people who died from cancer and heart disease as long as the loud, obnoxious, *violent*, sexual perverts were able to enjoy their orgies.
> 
> Women getting equal pay?
> Sure.
> Fire mostly men along with other random groups of people so that the companies can't be sued.
> I'm sure all of the people who lost their careers, homes and families want to express their appreciation to your helping their lives become miserable.
> 
> You and your sympathies and empathies with overt sexual perverts prevent you from seeing the effects you have had on health care and the economic impact of singles and families and their children.
> But who cares about the children of heterosexuals when you can spend your energies on 2% of the population rather than 98% of the population.
> 
> And the worst part of it all is that your are so *emotionally disturbed*, *mentally ill* and *stupid *that not one iota of these facts will change your mind that all the laws on earth won't stop social perverts from ruining countless lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The year is 2021 and this rant is nothing but  bigoted bovine excrement and Gish Gallop  .View attachment 465628View attachment 465631
> You are still displaying a pathetic desparation to justify your opposition to the Equality Act. You're callinbg me emotionally disturbed only highlights your own distress
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's all you got when faced with historical facts you perverted piece of shit.
Click to expand...

Oooooo Name calling now.  Ad hominems are a sure indication that you're on the rops I can see you foaming at the mouth right now. Historical "facts " have little to do with todays reality.


----------



## Ringtone

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Oooooo Name calling now.  Ad hominems are a sure indication that you're on the rops I can see you foaming at the mouth right now. Historical "facts " have little to do with todays reality.



Name calling is not ad hominem, dummy.  Ad hominem is attacking the man, dummy, instead of directly and accurately addressing the man's argument, dummy.

See how that works, dummy?  I just falsified your blathersmack, dummy, with a real argument, dummy, while calling you a dummy all along the way, dummy.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Lastamender said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Projection. Democrats exploit every group they can get their hands on. Someone should call them on it. And your party runs on hate.
Click to expand...

Thee understatement of the year and thst shill hates that truth being posted.


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posts 93 and 109.
> You stepped in your own doo doo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post 109 ? Your post fool!
> You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
> You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?   .
> How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You* said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
> Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
> Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim
> 
> NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.
> 
> This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law already protects all Americans.
> There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
> Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
> If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted a rare case and I posted a common instance in the work place.
> Of course only your instance was reported.
> 
> Income Equality?
> Fire all the men.
> A big problem during GW and Obama.
> Any special laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting that legislation is needed. Rare or not it happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t get it...
> Corporate attorneys know how to get around everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get the fact that you are struggling totry to show that this legislation is not necessary instead of being honest a just admit that you don't think that LGBT people should be protected
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe LGBT people should be protected.
> I believe all people should be protected.
> LGBT people de facto have more protection than anyone else because of ProgBots being loud and obnoxious in front of cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are totally full of shit. You are either lying or just that stupid. Yes all people should be protected, but all people do not need the same protection.  You are clearly too much of a dishonest coward to admit that you do not want protections for LGBT people .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are seeing this from your point of view.
> In the late 80s, gays and drug addicts *rioted *outside pharmaceutical laboratories for a cure to a disease that they created themselves through careless sexual relations.
> A large percentage of research on heart disease and cancer was stalled due to the sexually perverted owners of media who wanted to engage in anal intercourse and shoot heroin into their veins.
> I worked in a cubicle next to a very nice guy who was on the phone all week with his friends planning to block scientists from entering their laboratories.
> I'm sure you're proud of the thousands of people who died from cancer and heart disease as long as the loud, obnoxious, *violent*, sexual perverts were able to enjoy their orgies.
> 
> Women getting equal pay?
> Sure.
> Fire mostly men along with other random groups of people so that the companies can't be sued.
> I'm sure all of the people who lost their careers, homes and families want to express their appreciation to your helping their lives become miserable.
> 
> You and your sympathies and empathies with overt sexual perverts prevent you from seeing the effects you have had on health care and the economic impact of singles and families and their children.
> But who cares about the children of heterosexuals when you can spend your energies on 2% of the population rather than 98% of the population.
> 
> And the worst part of it all is that your are so *emotionally disturbed*, *mentally ill* and *stupid *that not one iota of these facts will change your mind that all the laws on earth won't stop social perverts from ruining countless lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The year is 2021 and this rant is nothing but  bigoted bovine excrement and Gish Gallop  .View attachment 465628View attachment 465631
> You are still displaying a pathetic desparation to justify your opposition to the Equality Act. You're callinbg me emotionally disturbed only highlights your own distress
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's all you got when faced with historical facts you perverted piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oooooo Name calling now.  Ad hominems are a sure indication that you're on the rops I can see you foaming at the mouth right now. Historical "facts " have little to do with todays reality.
Click to expand...

99% of your posts are either ad hominems or denial of facts.
In order for you to possibly not know about pharmaceutical labs being hijacked by gays and drug addicts you have be be under 40 years old.
If you were an adult by the time GW started his 2nd term you know very well how corporate lawyers skirted every law passed by Schumer to fire hundreds of thousands of people.


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posts 93 and 109.
> You stepped in your own doo doo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post 109 ? Your post fool!
> You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
> You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?   .
> How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You* said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
> Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
> Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim
> 
> NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.
> 
> This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law already protects all Americans.
> There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
> Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
> If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted a rare case and I posted a common instance in the work place.
> Of course only your instance was reported.
> 
> Income Equality?
> Fire all the men.
> A big problem during GW and Obama.
> Any special laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting that legislation is needed. Rare or not it happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t get it...
> Corporate attorneys know how to get around everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get the fact that you are struggling totry to show that this legislation is not necessary instead of being honest a just admit that you don't think that LGBT people should be protected
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe LGBT people should be protected.
> I believe all people should be protected.
> LGBT people de facto have more protection than anyone else because of ProgBots being loud and obnoxious in front of cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are totally full of shit. You are either lying or just that stupid. Yes all people should be protected, but all people do not need the same protection.  You are clearly too much of a dishonest coward to admit that you do not want protections for LGBT people .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are seeing this from your point of view.
> In the late 80s, gays and drug addicts *rioted *outside pharmaceutical laboratories for a cure to a disease that they created themselves through careless sexual relations.
> A large percentage of research on heart disease and cancer was stalled due to the sexually perverted owners of media who wanted to engage in anal intercourse and shoot heroin into their veins.
> I worked in a cubicle next to a very nice guy who was on the phone all week with his friends planning to block scientists from entering their laboratories.
> I'm sure you're proud of the thousands of people who died from cancer and heart disease as long as the loud, obnoxious, *violent*, sexual perverts were able to enjoy their orgies.
> 
> Women getting equal pay?
> Sure.
> Fire mostly men along with other random groups of people so that the companies can't be sued.
> I'm sure all of the people who lost their careers, homes and families want to express their appreciation to your helping their lives become miserable.
> 
> You and your sympathies and empathies with overt sexual perverts prevent you from seeing the effects you have had on health care and the economic impact of singles and families and their children.
> But who cares about the children of heterosexuals when you can spend your energies on 2% of the population rather than 98% of the population.
> 
> And the worst part of it all is that your are so *emotionally disturbed*, *mentally ill* and *stupid *that not one iota of these facts will change your mind that all the laws on earth won't stop social perverts from ruining countless lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The year is 2021 and this rant is nothing but  bigoted bovine excrement and Gish Gallop  .View attachment 465628View attachment 465631
> You are still displaying a pathetic desparation to justify your opposition to the Equality Act. You're callinbg me emotionally disturbed only highlights your own distress
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's all you got when faced with historical facts you perverted piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oooooo Name calling now.  Ad hominems are a sure indication that you're on the rops I can see you foaming at the mouth right now. Historical "facts " have little to do with todays reality.
Click to expand...

When you're full of shit, you're full of shit, especially when I post facts and you respond with a meme ad hominem denying facts.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ringtone said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oooooo Name calling now.  Ad hominems are a sure indication that you're on the rops I can see you foaming at the mouth right now. Historical "facts " have little to do with todays reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name calling is not ad hominem, dummy.  Ad hominem is attacking the man, dummy, instead of directly and accurately addressing the man's argument, dummy.
> 
> See how that works, dummy?  I just falsified your blathersmack, dummy, with a real argument, dummy, while calling you a dummy all along the way, dummy.
Click to expand...

Holy shit! Are  you still here after being run out of town? You seem to be another one who is foaming at the mouth. You don't think that name calling is an ad hominem? Are you really that stupid?
(2) ad hominem definition - Bing


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Indeependent said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posts 93 and 109.
> You stepped in your own doo doo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post 109 ? Your post fool!
> You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
> You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?   .
> How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You* said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
> Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
> Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim
> 
> NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.
> 
> This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law already protects all Americans.
> There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
> Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
> If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted a rare case and I posted a common instance in the work place.
> Of course only your instance was reported.
> 
> Income Equality?
> Fire all the men.
> A big problem during GW and Obama.
> Any special laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting that legislation is needed. Rare or not it happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t get it...
> Corporate attorneys know how to get around everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get the fact that you are struggling totry to show that this legislation is not necessary instead of being honest a just admit that you don't think that LGBT people should be protected
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe LGBT people should be protected.
> I believe all people should be protected.
> LGBT people de facto have more protection than anyone else because of ProgBots being loud and obnoxious in front of cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are totally full of shit. You are either lying or just that stupid. Yes all people should be protected, but all people do not need the same protection.  You are clearly too much of a dishonest coward to admit that you do not want protections for LGBT people .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are seeing this from your point of view.
> In the late 80s, gays and drug addicts *rioted *outside pharmaceutical laboratories for a cure to a disease that they created themselves through careless sexual relations.
> A large percentage of research on heart disease and cancer was stalled due to the sexually perverted owners of media who wanted to engage in anal intercourse and shoot heroin into their veins.
> I worked in a cubicle next to a very nice guy who was on the phone all week with his friends planning to block scientists from entering their laboratories.
> I'm sure you're proud of the thousands of people who died from cancer and heart disease as long as the loud, obnoxious, *violent*, sexual perverts were able to enjoy their orgies.
> 
> Women getting equal pay?
> Sure.
> Fire mostly men along with other random groups of people so that the companies can't be sued.
> I'm sure all of the people who lost their careers, homes and families want to express their appreciation to your helping their lives become miserable.
> 
> You and your sympathies and empathies with overt sexual perverts prevent you from seeing the effects you have had on health care and the economic impact of singles and families and their children.
> But who cares about the children of heterosexuals when you can spend your energies on 2% of the population rather than 98% of the population.
> 
> And the worst part of it all is that your are so *emotionally disturbed*, *mentally ill* and *stupid *that not one iota of these facts will change your mind that all the laws on earth won't stop social perverts from ruining countless lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The year is 2021 and this rant is nothing but  bigoted bovine excrement and Gish Gallop  .View attachment 465628View attachment 465631
> You are still displaying a pathetic desparation to justify your opposition to the Equality Act. You're callinbg me emotionally disturbed only highlights your own distress
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's all you got when faced with historical facts you perverted piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oooooo Name calling now.  Ad hominems are a sure indication that you're on the rops I can see you foaming at the mouth right now. Historical "facts " have little to do with todays reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you're full of shit, you're full of shit, especially when I post facts and you respond with a meme ad hominem denying facts.
Click to expand...

I did not deny facts. I denied relavence. Try to learn the difference


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Indeependent said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posts 93 and 109.
> You stepped in your own doo doo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post 109 ? Your post fool!
> You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
> You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?   .
> How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You* said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
> Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
> Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim
> 
> NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.
> 
> This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law already protects all Americans.
> There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
> Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
> If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted a rare case and I posted a common instance in the work place.
> Of course only your instance was reported.
> 
> Income Equality?
> Fire all the men.
> A big problem during GW and Obama.
> Any special laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting that legislation is needed. Rare or not it happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t get it...
> Corporate attorneys know how to get around everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get the fact that you are struggling totry to show that this legislation is not necessary instead of being honest a just admit that you don't think that LGBT people should be protected
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe LGBT people should be protected.
> I believe all people should be protected.
> LGBT people de facto have more protection than anyone else because of ProgBots being loud and obnoxious in front of cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are totally full of shit. You are either lying or just that stupid. Yes all people should be protected, but all people do not need the same protection.  You are clearly too much of a dishonest coward to admit that you do not want protections for LGBT people .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are seeing this from your point of view.
> In the late 80s, gays and drug addicts *rioted *outside pharmaceutical laboratories for a cure to a disease that they created themselves through careless sexual relations.
> A large percentage of research on heart disease and cancer was stalled due to the sexually perverted owners of media who wanted to engage in anal intercourse and shoot heroin into their veins.
> I worked in a cubicle next to a very nice guy who was on the phone all week with his friends planning to block scientists from entering their laboratories.
> I'm sure you're proud of the thousands of people who died from cancer and heart disease as long as the loud, obnoxious, *violent*, sexual perverts were able to enjoy their orgies.
> 
> Women getting equal pay?
> Sure.
> Fire mostly men along with other random groups of people so that the companies can't be sued.
> I'm sure all of the people who lost their careers, homes and families want to express their appreciation to your helping their lives become miserable.
> 
> You and your sympathies and empathies with overt sexual perverts prevent you from seeing the effects you have had on health care and the economic impact of singles and families and their children.
> But who cares about the children of heterosexuals when you can spend your energies on 2% of the population rather than 98% of the population.
> 
> And the worst part of it all is that your are so *emotionally disturbed*, *mentally ill* and *stupid *that not one iota of these facts will change your mind that all the laws on earth won't stop social perverts from ruining countless lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The year is 2021 and this rant is nothing but  bigoted bovine excrement and Gish Gallop  .View attachment 465628View attachment 465631
> You are still displaying a pathetic desparation to justify your opposition to the Equality Act. You're callinbg me emotionally disturbed only highlights your own distress
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's all you got when faced with historical facts you perverted piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oooooo Name calling now.  Ad hominems are a sure indication that you're on the rops I can see you foaming at the mouth right now. Historical "facts " have little to do with todays reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 99% of your posts are either ad hominems or denial of facts.
> In order for you to possibly not know about pharmaceutical labs being hijacked by gays and drug addicts you have be be under 40 years old.
> If you were an adult by the time GW started his 2nd term you know very well how corporate lawyers skirted every law passed by Schumer to fire hundreds of thousands of people.
Click to expand...

More Gish Gallop that has nothing to do with present day reality and the Equaklity Act. You are truely pathetic


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posts 93 and 109.
> You stepped in your own doo doo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post 109 ? Your post fool!
> You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
> You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?   .
> How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You* said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
> Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
> Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim
> 
> NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.
> 
> This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law already protects all Americans.
> There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
> Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
> If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted a rare case and I posted a common instance in the work place.
> Of course only your instance was reported.
> 
> Income Equality?
> Fire all the men.
> A big problem during GW and Obama.
> Any special laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting that legislation is needed. Rare or not it happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t get it...
> Corporate attorneys know how to get around everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get the fact that you are struggling totry to show that this legislation is not necessary instead of being honest a just admit that you don't think that LGBT people should be protected
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe LGBT people should be protected.
> I believe all people should be protected.
> LGBT people de facto have more protection than anyone else because of ProgBots being loud and obnoxious in front of cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are totally full of shit. You are either lying or just that stupid. Yes all people should be protected, but all people do not need the same protection.  You are clearly too much of a dishonest coward to admit that you do not want protections for LGBT people .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are seeing this from your point of view.
> In the late 80s, gays and drug addicts *rioted *outside pharmaceutical laboratories for a cure to a disease that they created themselves through careless sexual relations.
> A large percentage of research on heart disease and cancer was stalled due to the sexually perverted owners of media who wanted to engage in anal intercourse and shoot heroin into their veins.
> I worked in a cubicle next to a very nice guy who was on the phone all week with his friends planning to block scientists from entering their laboratories.
> I'm sure you're proud of the thousands of people who died from cancer and heart disease as long as the loud, obnoxious, *violent*, sexual perverts were able to enjoy their orgies.
> 
> Women getting equal pay?
> Sure.
> Fire mostly men along with other random groups of people so that the companies can't be sued.
> I'm sure all of the people who lost their careers, homes and families want to express their appreciation to your helping their lives become miserable.
> 
> You and your sympathies and empathies with overt sexual perverts prevent you from seeing the effects you have had on health care and the economic impact of singles and families and their children.
> But who cares about the children of heterosexuals when you can spend your energies on 2% of the population rather than 98% of the population.
> 
> And the worst part of it all is that your are so *emotionally disturbed*, *mentally ill* and *stupid *that not one iota of these facts will change your mind that all the laws on earth won't stop social perverts from ruining countless lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The year is 2021 and this rant is nothing but  bigoted bovine excrement and Gish Gallop  .View attachment 465628View attachment 465631
> You are still displaying a pathetic desparation to justify your opposition to the Equality Act. You're callinbg me emotionally disturbed only highlights your own distress
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's all you got when faced with historical facts you perverted piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oooooo Name calling now.  Ad hominems are a sure indication that you're on the rops I can see you foaming at the mouth right now. Historical "facts " have little to do with todays reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you're full of shit, you're full of shit, especially when I post facts and you respond with a meme ad hominem denying facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did not deny facts. I denied relavence. Try to learn the difference
Click to expand...

Your philosophy is that we don't learn even from the recent past.
No wonder you ProgBots keep repeating your mistakes.


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posts 93 and 109.
> You stepped in your own doo doo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post 109 ? Your post fool!
> You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
> You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?   .
> How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You* said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
> Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
> Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim
> 
> NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.
> 
> This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law already protects all Americans.
> There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
> Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
> If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted a rare case and I posted a common instance in the work place.
> Of course only your instance was reported.
> 
> Income Equality?
> Fire all the men.
> A big problem during GW and Obama.
> Any special laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting that legislation is needed. Rare or not it happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t get it...
> Corporate attorneys know how to get around everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get the fact that you are struggling totry to show that this legislation is not necessary instead of being honest a just admit that you don't think that LGBT people should be protected
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe LGBT people should be protected.
> I believe all people should be protected.
> LGBT people de facto have more protection than anyone else because of ProgBots being loud and obnoxious in front of cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are totally full of shit. You are either lying or just that stupid. Yes all people should be protected, but all people do not need the same protection.  You are clearly too much of a dishonest coward to admit that you do not want protections for LGBT people .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are seeing this from your point of view.
> In the late 80s, gays and drug addicts *rioted *outside pharmaceutical laboratories for a cure to a disease that they created themselves through careless sexual relations.
> A large percentage of research on heart disease and cancer was stalled due to the sexually perverted owners of media who wanted to engage in anal intercourse and shoot heroin into their veins.
> I worked in a cubicle next to a very nice guy who was on the phone all week with his friends planning to block scientists from entering their laboratories.
> I'm sure you're proud of the thousands of people who died from cancer and heart disease as long as the loud, obnoxious, *violent*, sexual perverts were able to enjoy their orgies.
> 
> Women getting equal pay?
> Sure.
> Fire mostly men along with other random groups of people so that the companies can't be sued.
> I'm sure all of the people who lost their careers, homes and families want to express their appreciation to your helping their lives become miserable.
> 
> You and your sympathies and empathies with overt sexual perverts prevent you from seeing the effects you have had on health care and the economic impact of singles and families and their children.
> But who cares about the children of heterosexuals when you can spend your energies on 2% of the population rather than 98% of the population.
> 
> And the worst part of it all is that your are so *emotionally disturbed*, *mentally ill* and *stupid *that not one iota of these facts will change your mind that all the laws on earth won't stop social perverts from ruining countless lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The year is 2021 and this rant is nothing but  bigoted bovine excrement and Gish Gallop  .View attachment 465628View attachment 465631
> You are still displaying a pathetic desparation to justify your opposition to the Equality Act. You're callinbg me emotionally disturbed only highlights your own distress
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's all you got when faced with historical facts you perverted piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oooooo Name calling now.  Ad hominems are a sure indication that you're on the rops I can see you foaming at the mouth right now. Historical "facts " have little to do with todays reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 99% of your posts are either ad hominems or denial of facts.
> In order for you to possibly not know about pharmaceutical labs being hijacked by gays and drug addicts you have be be under 40 years old.
> If you were an adult by the time GW started his 2nd term you know very well how corporate lawyers skirted every law passed by Schumer to fire hundreds of thousands of people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More Gish Gallop that has nothing to do with present day reality and the Equaklity Act. You are truely pathetic
Click to expand...

You need to see a psychiatrist.
When Gay = the Only Good, even  your ass will be thrown under the bus.


----------



## Ringtone

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Holy shit! Are  you still here after being run out of town? You seem to be another one who is foaming at the mouth. You don't think that name calling is an ad hominem? Are you really that stupid?
> (2) ad hominem definition - Bing



You lie, dummy.  Ad hominem is not mere name calling, dummy.  Now calm down and wipe the spittle from your chin.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Indeependent said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posts 93 and 109.
> You stepped in your own doo doo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post 109 ? Your post fool!
> You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
> You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?   .
> How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You* said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
> Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
> Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim
> 
> NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.
> 
> This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law already protects all Americans.
> There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
> Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
> If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted a rare case and I posted a common instance in the work place.
> Of course only your instance was reported.
> 
> Income Equality?
> Fire all the men.
> A big problem during GW and Obama.
> Any special laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting that legislation is needed. Rare or not it happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t get it...
> Corporate attorneys know how to get around everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get the fact that you are struggling totry to show that this legislation is not necessary instead of being honest a just admit that you don't think that LGBT people should be protected
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe LGBT people should be protected.
> I believe all people should be protected.
> LGBT people de facto have more protection than anyone else because of ProgBots being loud and obnoxious in front of cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are totally full of shit. You are either lying or just that stupid. Yes all people should be protected, but all people do not need the same protection.  You are clearly too much of a dishonest coward to admit that you do not want protections for LGBT people .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are seeing this from your point of view.
> In the late 80s, gays and drug addicts *rioted *outside pharmaceutical laboratories for a cure to a disease that they created themselves through careless sexual relations.
> A large percentage of research on heart disease and cancer was stalled due to the sexually perverted owners of media who wanted to engage in anal intercourse and shoot heroin into their veins.
> I worked in a cubicle next to a very nice guy who was on the phone all week with his friends planning to block scientists from entering their laboratories.
> I'm sure you're proud of the thousands of people who died from cancer and heart disease as long as the loud, obnoxious, *violent*, sexual perverts were able to enjoy their orgies.
> 
> Women getting equal pay?
> Sure.
> Fire mostly men along with other random groups of people so that the companies can't be sued.
> I'm sure all of the people who lost their careers, homes and families want to express their appreciation to your helping their lives become miserable.
> 
> You and your sympathies and empathies with overt sexual perverts prevent you from seeing the effects you have had on health care and the economic impact of singles and families and their children.
> But who cares about the children of heterosexuals when you can spend your energies on 2% of the population rather than 98% of the population.
> 
> And the worst part of it all is that your are so *emotionally disturbed*, *mentally ill* and *stupid *that not one iota of these facts will change your mind that all the laws on earth won't stop social perverts from ruining countless lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The year is 2021 and this rant is nothing but  bigoted bovine excrement and Gish Gallop  .View attachment 465628View attachment 465631
> You are still displaying a pathetic desparation to justify your opposition to the Equality Act. You're callinbg me emotionally disturbed only highlights your own distress
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's all you got when faced with historical facts you perverted piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oooooo Name calling now.  Ad hominems are a sure indication that you're on the rops I can see you foaming at the mouth right now. Historical "facts " have little to do with todays reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you're full of shit, you're full of shit, especially when I post facts and you respond with a meme ad hominem denying facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did not deny facts. I denied relavence. Try to learn the difference
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your philosophy is that we don't learn even from the recent past.
> No wonder you ProgBots keep repeating your mistakes.
Click to expand...

Your problem is that you can't grasp that fact that I will not follow you down that rabbit hole of history and allow you to derail that discussion away from the present day reality of discrimination that necessatates the equality Act. You are desparatly  avoiding the topic because you have no defense for your opposition to it and ....again...you are too much of a coward to even admit your reason


----------



## Indeependent

Ringtone said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy shit! Are  you still here after being run out of town? You seem to be another one who is foaming at the mouth. You don't think that name calling is an ad hominem? Are you really that stupid?
> (2) ad hominem definition - Bing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lie, dummy.  Ad hominem is not mere name calling, dummy.  Now calm down and wipe the spittle from your chin.
Click to expand...

Ironic!
Being called stupid by RegressiveTraitor.


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posts 93 and 109.
> You stepped in your own doo doo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post 109 ? Your post fool!
> You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
> You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?   .
> How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You* said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
> Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
> Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim
> 
> NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.
> 
> This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law already protects all Americans.
> There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
> Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
> If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted a rare case and I posted a common instance in the work place.
> Of course only your instance was reported.
> 
> Income Equality?
> Fire all the men.
> A big problem during GW and Obama.
> Any special laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting that legislation is needed. Rare or not it happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t get it...
> Corporate attorneys know how to get around everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get the fact that you are struggling totry to show that this legislation is not necessary instead of being honest a just admit that you don't think that LGBT people should be protected
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe LGBT people should be protected.
> I believe all people should be protected.
> LGBT people de facto have more protection than anyone else because of ProgBots being loud and obnoxious in front of cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are totally full of shit. You are either lying or just that stupid. Yes all people should be protected, but all people do not need the same protection.  You are clearly too much of a dishonest coward to admit that you do not want protections for LGBT people .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are seeing this from your point of view.
> In the late 80s, gays and drug addicts *rioted *outside pharmaceutical laboratories for a cure to a disease that they created themselves through careless sexual relations.
> A large percentage of research on heart disease and cancer was stalled due to the sexually perverted owners of media who wanted to engage in anal intercourse and shoot heroin into their veins.
> I worked in a cubicle next to a very nice guy who was on the phone all week with his friends planning to block scientists from entering their laboratories.
> I'm sure you're proud of the thousands of people who died from cancer and heart disease as long as the loud, obnoxious, *violent*, sexual perverts were able to enjoy their orgies.
> 
> Women getting equal pay?
> Sure.
> Fire mostly men along with other random groups of people so that the companies can't be sued.
> I'm sure all of the people who lost their careers, homes and families want to express their appreciation to your helping their lives become miserable.
> 
> You and your sympathies and empathies with overt sexual perverts prevent you from seeing the effects you have had on health care and the economic impact of singles and families and their children.
> But who cares about the children of heterosexuals when you can spend your energies on 2% of the population rather than 98% of the population.
> 
> And the worst part of it all is that your are so *emotionally disturbed*, *mentally ill* and *stupid *that not one iota of these facts will change your mind that all the laws on earth won't stop social perverts from ruining countless lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The year is 2021 and this rant is nothing but  bigoted bovine excrement and Gish Gallop  .View attachment 465628View attachment 465631
> You are still displaying a pathetic desparation to justify your opposition to the Equality Act. You're callinbg me emotionally disturbed only highlights your own distress
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's all you got when faced with historical facts you perverted piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oooooo Name calling now.  Ad hominems are a sure indication that you're on the rops I can see you foaming at the mouth right now. Historical "facts " have little to do with todays reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you're full of shit, you're full of shit, especially when I post facts and you respond with a meme ad hominem denying facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did not deny facts. I denied relavence. Try to learn the difference
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your philosophy is that we don't learn even from the recent past.
> No wonder you ProgBots keep repeating your mistakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your problem is that you can't grasp that fact that I will not follow you down that rabbit hole of history and allow you to derail that discussion away from the present day reality of discrimination that necessatates the equality Act. You are desparatly  avoiding the topic because you have no defense for your opposition to it and ....again...you are too much of a coward to even admit your reason
Click to expand...

We're living that history right *now*, moron.
non-heterosexuals are Americans; if you can't grasp that, you're mentally ill.
People's careers are being destroyed right now for jokes they made years ago and you're too mentally ill to see it.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Indeependent said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posts 93 and 109.
> You stepped in your own doo doo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post 109 ? Your post fool!
> You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
> You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?   .
> How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You* said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
> Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
> Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim
> 
> NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.
> 
> This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law already protects all Americans.
> There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
> Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
> If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted a rare case and I posted a common instance in the work place.
> Of course only your instance was reported.
> 
> Income Equality?
> Fire all the men.
> A big problem during GW and Obama.
> Any special laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting that legislation is needed. Rare or not it happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t get it...
> Corporate attorneys know how to get around everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get the fact that you are struggling totry to show that this legislation is not necessary instead of being honest a just admit that you don't think that LGBT people should be protected
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe LGBT people should be protected.
> I believe all people should be protected.
> LGBT people de facto have more protection than anyone else because of ProgBots being loud and obnoxious in front of cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are totally full of shit. You are either lying or just that stupid. Yes all people should be protected, but all people do not need the same protection.  You are clearly too much of a dishonest coward to admit that you do not want protections for LGBT people .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are seeing this from your point of view.
> In the late 80s, gays and drug addicts *rioted *outside pharmaceutical laboratories for a cure to a disease that they created themselves through careless sexual relations.
> A large percentage of research on heart disease and cancer was stalled due to the sexually perverted owners of media who wanted to engage in anal intercourse and shoot heroin into their veins.
> I worked in a cubicle next to a very nice guy who was on the phone all week with his friends planning to block scientists from entering their laboratories.
> I'm sure you're proud of the thousands of people who died from cancer and heart disease as long as the loud, obnoxious, *violent*, sexual perverts were able to enjoy their orgies.
> 
> Women getting equal pay?
> Sure.
> Fire mostly men along with other random groups of people so that the companies can't be sued.
> I'm sure all of the people who lost their careers, homes and families want to express their appreciation to your helping their lives become miserable.
> 
> You and your sympathies and empathies with overt sexual perverts prevent you from seeing the effects you have had on health care and the economic impact of singles and families and their children.
> But who cares about the children of heterosexuals when you can spend your energies on 2% of the population rather than 98% of the population.
> 
> And the worst part of it all is that your are so *emotionally disturbed*, *mentally ill* and *stupid *that not one iota of these facts will change your mind that all the laws on earth won't stop social perverts from ruining countless lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The year is 2021 and this rant is nothing but  bigoted bovine excrement and Gish Gallop  .View attachment 465628View attachment 465631
> You are still displaying a pathetic desparation to justify your opposition to the Equality Act. You're callinbg me emotionally disturbed only highlights your own distress
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's all you got when faced with historical facts you perverted piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oooooo Name calling now.  Ad hominems are a sure indication that you're on the rops I can see you foaming at the mouth right now. Historical "facts " have little to do with todays reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 99% of your posts are either ad hominems or denial of facts.
> In order for you to possibly not know about pharmaceutical labs being hijacked by gays and drug addicts you have be be under 40 years old.
> If you were an adult by the time GW started his 2nd term you know very well how corporate lawyers skirted every law passed by Schumer to fire hundreds of thousands of people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More Gish Gallop that has nothing to do with present day reality and the Equaklity Act. You are truely pathetic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to see a psychiatrist.
> When Gay = the Only Good, even  your ass will be thrown under the bus.
Click to expand...

I need a psychiatrist? When did I say that gay is the only good?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ringtone said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy shit! Are  you still here after being run out of town? You seem to be another one who is foaming at the mouth. You don't think that name calling is an ad hominem? Are you really that stupid?
> (2) ad hominem definition - Bing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lie, dummy.  Ad hominem is not mere name calling, dummy.  Now calm down and wipe the spittle from your chin.
Click to expand...

Get lost. I am sick of you and your juvenile bullshit


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posts 93 and 109.
> You stepped in your own doo doo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post 109 ? Your post fool!
> You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
> You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?   .
> How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You* said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
> Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
> Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim
> 
> NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.
> 
> This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law already protects all Americans.
> There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
> Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
> If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted a rare case and I posted a common instance in the work place.
> Of course only your instance was reported.
> 
> Income Equality?
> Fire all the men.
> A big problem during GW and Obama.
> Any special laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting that legislation is needed. Rare or not it happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t get it...
> Corporate attorneys know how to get around everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get the fact that you are struggling totry to show that this legislation is not necessary instead of being honest a just admit that you don't think that LGBT people should be protected
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe LGBT people should be protected.
> I believe all people should be protected.
> LGBT people de facto have more protection than anyone else because of ProgBots being loud and obnoxious in front of cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are totally full of shit. You are either lying or just that stupid. Yes all people should be protected, but all people do not need the same protection.  You are clearly too much of a dishonest coward to admit that you do not want protections for LGBT people .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are seeing this from your point of view.
> In the late 80s, gays and drug addicts *rioted *outside pharmaceutical laboratories for a cure to a disease that they created themselves through careless sexual relations.
> A large percentage of research on heart disease and cancer was stalled due to the sexually perverted owners of media who wanted to engage in anal intercourse and shoot heroin into their veins.
> I worked in a cubicle next to a very nice guy who was on the phone all week with his friends planning to block scientists from entering their laboratories.
> I'm sure you're proud of the thousands of people who died from cancer and heart disease as long as the loud, obnoxious, *violent*, sexual perverts were able to enjoy their orgies.
> 
> Women getting equal pay?
> Sure.
> Fire mostly men along with other random groups of people so that the companies can't be sued.
> I'm sure all of the people who lost their careers, homes and families want to express their appreciation to your helping their lives become miserable.
> 
> You and your sympathies and empathies with overt sexual perverts prevent you from seeing the effects you have had on health care and the economic impact of singles and families and their children.
> But who cares about the children of heterosexuals when you can spend your energies on 2% of the population rather than 98% of the population.
> 
> And the worst part of it all is that your are so *emotionally disturbed*, *mentally ill* and *stupid *that not one iota of these facts will change your mind that all the laws on earth won't stop social perverts from ruining countless lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The year is 2021 and this rant is nothing but  bigoted bovine excrement and Gish Gallop  .View attachment 465628View attachment 465631
> You are still displaying a pathetic desparation to justify your opposition to the Equality Act. You're callinbg me emotionally disturbed only highlights your own distress
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's all you got when faced with historical facts you perverted piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oooooo Name calling now.  Ad hominems are a sure indication that you're on the rops I can see you foaming at the mouth right now. Historical "facts " have little to do with todays reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 99% of your posts are either ad hominems or denial of facts.
> In order for you to possibly not know about pharmaceutical labs being hijacked by gays and drug addicts you have be be under 40 years old.
> If you were an adult by the time GW started his 2nd term you know very well how corporate lawyers skirted every law passed by Schumer to fire hundreds of thousands of people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More Gish Gallop that has nothing to do with present day reality and the Equaklity Act. You are truely pathetic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to see a psychiatrist.
> When Gay = the Only Good, even  your ass will be thrown under the bus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I need a psychiatrist? When did I say that gay is the only good?
Click to expand...

When you see sexuality being used *today* to destroy people's lives.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Indeependent said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posts 93 and 109.
> You stepped in your own doo doo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post 109 ? Your post fool!
> You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
> You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?   .
> How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You* said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
> Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
> Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim
> 
> NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.
> 
> This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law already protects all Americans.
> There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
> Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
> If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted a rare case and I posted a common instance in the work place.
> Of course only your instance was reported.
> 
> Income Equality?
> Fire all the men.
> A big problem during GW and Obama.
> Any special laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting that legislation is needed. Rare or not it happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t get it...
> Corporate attorneys know how to get around everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get the fact that you are struggling totry to show that this legislation is not necessary instead of being honest a just admit that you don't think that LGBT people should be protected
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe LGBT people should be protected.
> I believe all people should be protected.
> LGBT people de facto have more protection than anyone else because of ProgBots being loud and obnoxious in front of cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are totally full of shit. You are either lying or just that stupid. Yes all people should be protected, but all people do not need the same protection.  You are clearly too much of a dishonest coward to admit that you do not want protections for LGBT people .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are seeing this from your point of view.
> In the late 80s, gays and drug addicts *rioted *outside pharmaceutical laboratories for a cure to a disease that they created themselves through careless sexual relations.
> A large percentage of research on heart disease and cancer was stalled due to the sexually perverted owners of media who wanted to engage in anal intercourse and shoot heroin into their veins.
> I worked in a cubicle next to a very nice guy who was on the phone all week with his friends planning to block scientists from entering their laboratories.
> I'm sure you're proud of the thousands of people who died from cancer and heart disease as long as the loud, obnoxious, *violent*, sexual perverts were able to enjoy their orgies.
> 
> Women getting equal pay?
> Sure.
> Fire mostly men along with other random groups of people so that the companies can't be sued.
> I'm sure all of the people who lost their careers, homes and families want to express their appreciation to your helping their lives become miserable.
> 
> You and your sympathies and empathies with overt sexual perverts prevent you from seeing the effects you have had on health care and the economic impact of singles and families and their children.
> But who cares about the children of heterosexuals when you can spend your energies on 2% of the population rather than 98% of the population.
> 
> And the worst part of it all is that your are so *emotionally disturbed*, *mentally ill* and *stupid *that not one iota of these facts will change your mind that all the laws on earth won't stop social perverts from ruining countless lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The year is 2021 and this rant is nothing but  bigoted bovine excrement and Gish Gallop  .View attachment 465628View attachment 465631
> You are still displaying a pathetic desparation to justify your opposition to the Equality Act. You're callinbg me emotionally disturbed only highlights your own distress
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's all you got when faced with historical facts you perverted piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oooooo Name calling now.  Ad hominems are a sure indication that you're on the rops I can see you foaming at the mouth right now. Historical "facts " have little to do with todays reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 99% of your posts are either ad hominems or denial of facts.
> In order for you to possibly not know about pharmaceutical labs being hijacked by gays and drug addicts you have be be under 40 years old.
> If you were an adult by the time GW started his 2nd term you know very well how corporate lawyers skirted every law passed by Schumer to fire hundreds of thousands of people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More Gish Gallop that has nothing to do with present day reality and the Equaklity Act. You are truely pathetic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to see a psychiatrist.
> When Gay = the Only Good, even  your ass will be thrown under the bus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I need a psychiatrist? When did I say that gay is the only good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you see sexuality being used *today* to destroy people's lives.
Click to expand...

WHAT!!??


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posts 93 and 109.
> You stepped in your own doo doo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post 109 ? Your post fool!
> You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
> You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?   .
> How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You* said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
> Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
> Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim
> 
> NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.
> 
> This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law already protects all Americans.
> There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
> Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
> If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted a rare case and I posted a common instance in the work place.
> Of course only your instance was reported.
> 
> Income Equality?
> Fire all the men.
> A big problem during GW and Obama.
> Any special laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting that legislation is needed. Rare or not it happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t get it...
> Corporate attorneys know how to get around everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get the fact that you are struggling totry to show that this legislation is not necessary instead of being honest a just admit that you don't think that LGBT people should be protected
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe LGBT people should be protected.
> I believe all people should be protected.
> LGBT people de facto have more protection than anyone else because of ProgBots being loud and obnoxious in front of cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are totally full of shit. You are either lying or just that stupid. Yes all people should be protected, but all people do not need the same protection.  You are clearly too much of a dishonest coward to admit that you do not want protections for LGBT people .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are seeing this from your point of view.
> In the late 80s, gays and drug addicts *rioted *outside pharmaceutical laboratories for a cure to a disease that they created themselves through careless sexual relations.
> A large percentage of research on heart disease and cancer was stalled due to the sexually perverted owners of media who wanted to engage in anal intercourse and shoot heroin into their veins.
> I worked in a cubicle next to a very nice guy who was on the phone all week with his friends planning to block scientists from entering their laboratories.
> I'm sure you're proud of the thousands of people who died from cancer and heart disease as long as the loud, obnoxious, *violent*, sexual perverts were able to enjoy their orgies.
> 
> Women getting equal pay?
> Sure.
> Fire mostly men along with other random groups of people so that the companies can't be sued.
> I'm sure all of the people who lost their careers, homes and families want to express their appreciation to your helping their lives become miserable.
> 
> You and your sympathies and empathies with overt sexual perverts prevent you from seeing the effects you have had on health care and the economic impact of singles and families and their children.
> But who cares about the children of heterosexuals when you can spend your energies on 2% of the population rather than 98% of the population.
> 
> And the worst part of it all is that your are so *emotionally disturbed*, *mentally ill* and *stupid *that not one iota of these facts will change your mind that all the laws on earth won't stop social perverts from ruining countless lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The year is 2021 and this rant is nothing but  bigoted bovine excrement and Gish Gallop  .View attachment 465628View attachment 465631
> You are still displaying a pathetic desparation to justify your opposition to the Equality Act. You're callinbg me emotionally disturbed only highlights your own distress
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's all you got when faced with historical facts you perverted piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oooooo Name calling now.  Ad hominems are a sure indication that you're on the rops I can see you foaming at the mouth right now. Historical "facts " have little to do with todays reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 99% of your posts are either ad hominems or denial of facts.
> In order for you to possibly not know about pharmaceutical labs being hijacked by gays and drug addicts you have be be under 40 years old.
> If you were an adult by the time GW started his 2nd term you know very well how corporate lawyers skirted every law passed by Schumer to fire hundreds of thousands of people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More Gish Gallop that has nothing to do with present day reality and the Equaklity Act. You are truely pathetic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to see a psychiatrist.
> When Gay = the Only Good, even  your ass will be thrown under the bus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I need a psychiatrist? When did I say that gay is the only good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you see sexuality being used *today* to destroy people's lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHAT!!??
Click to expand...

Are you psychotic?
You don't follow the stories where entertainers are being fired left and right for making a remark 10 or 20 years ago?!
What  the hell is wrong with you!
People are posting those stories here all the time and even Bill Maher says it's gone way too far.
I give up; you are way too fucked up!


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

AFrench2 said:


> Jimmy_Chitwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AFrench2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did you trans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't worry bro, your balls will drop soon.
Click to expand...

Are
You hitting on him? Eeesh


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Indeependent said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be.  You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties  and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of  the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You hear the word _equal_ and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling.  Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!
> 
> But, then, you in all likelihood  are  a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.
> 
> After all, you're a leftist, aren't you?  You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.
> 
> OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.
> 
> Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys  on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posts 93 and 109.
> You stepped in your own doo doo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post 109 ? Your post fool!
> You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
> I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
> You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?   .
> How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You* said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
> Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
> Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim
> 
> NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.
> 
> This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law already protects all Americans.
> There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
> Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
> If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted a rare case and I posted a common instance in the work place.
> Of course only your instance was reported.
> 
> Income Equality?
> Fire all the men.
> A big problem during GW and Obama.
> Any special laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting that legislation is needed. Rare or not it happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t get it...
> Corporate attorneys know how to get around everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get the fact that you are struggling totry to show that this legislation is not necessary instead of being honest a just admit that you don't think that LGBT people should be protected
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe LGBT people should be protected.
> I believe all people should be protected.
> LGBT people de facto have more protection than anyone else because of ProgBots being loud and obnoxious in front of cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are totally full of shit. You are either lying or just that stupid. Yes all people should be protected, but all people do not need the same protection.  You are clearly too much of a dishonest coward to admit that you do not want protections for LGBT people .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are seeing this from your point of view.
> In the late 80s, gays and drug addicts *rioted *outside pharmaceutical laboratories for a cure to a disease that they created themselves through careless sexual relations.
> A large percentage of research on heart disease and cancer was stalled due to the sexually perverted owners of media who wanted to engage in anal intercourse and shoot heroin into their veins.
> I worked in a cubicle next to a very nice guy who was on the phone all week with his friends planning to block scientists from entering their laboratories.
> I'm sure you're proud of the thousands of people who died from cancer and heart disease as long as the loud, obnoxious, *violent*, sexual perverts were able to enjoy their orgies.
> 
> Women getting equal pay?
> Sure.
> Fire mostly men along with other random groups of people so that the companies can't be sued.
> I'm sure all of the people who lost their careers, homes and families want to express their appreciation to your helping their lives become miserable.
> 
> You and your sympathies and empathies with overt sexual perverts prevent you from seeing the effects you have had on health care and the economic impact of singles and families and their children.
> But who cares about the children of heterosexuals when you can spend your energies on 2% of the population rather than 98% of the population.
> 
> And the worst part of it all is that your are so *emotionally disturbed*, *mentally ill* and *stupid *that not one iota of these facts will change your mind that all the laws on earth won't stop social perverts from ruining countless lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The year is 2021 and this rant is nothing but  bigoted bovine excrement and Gish Gallop  .View attachment 465628View attachment 465631
> You are still displaying a pathetic desparation to justify your opposition to the Equality Act. You're callinbg me emotionally disturbed only highlights your own distress
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's all you got when faced with historical facts you perverted piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oooooo Name calling now.  Ad hominems are a sure indication that you're on the rops I can see you foaming at the mouth right now. Historical "facts " have little to do with todays reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 99% of your posts are either ad hominems or denial of facts.
> In order for you to possibly not know about pharmaceutical labs being hijacked by gays and drug addicts you have be be under 40 years old.
> If you were an adult by the time GW started his 2nd term you know very well how corporate lawyers skirted every law passed by Schumer to fire hundreds of thousands of people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More Gish Gallop that has nothing to do with present day reality and the Equaklity Act. You are truely pathetic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to see a psychiatrist.
> When Gay = the Only Good, even  your ass will be thrown under the bus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I need a psychiatrist? When did I say that gay is the only good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you see sexuality being used *today* to destroy people's lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHAT!!??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you psychotic?
> You don't follow the stories where entertainers are being fired left and right for making a remark 10 or 20 years ago?!
> What  the hell is wrong with you!
> People are posting those stories here all the time and even Bill Maher says it's gone way too far.
> I give up; you are way too fucked up!
Click to expand...

Deeal with the fucking issue and stop dancing around it. I will hold your feet to the fire until you stop being such a pathetic coward and deal with it . Why do you oppose the equality act ?


----------



## AFrench2

Agreed...C'mon, deal with the issue.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

AFrench2 said:


> Agreed...C'mon, deal with the issue.


Independent has left the building. He fled in terror   CC   Indeependent | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> AFrench2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The broad is spot on correct.  Sexual Perverts of all kinds are truly being granted Supremacy by the Biden Regime.
> 
> If someone is a crossdresser, that's their own affair, but why should they have special rights to be exempt from any criticism?
Click to expand...

Tell us more Princess. How exactly are they being granted suprmacy? How are they b exempt from criticism?


----------



## Polishprince

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AFrench2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The broad is spot on correct.  Sexual Perverts of all kinds are truly being granted Supremacy by the Biden Regime.
> 
> If someone is a crossdresser, that's their own affair, but why should they have special rights to be exempt from any criticism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us more Princess. How exactly are they being granted suprmacy? How are they b exempt from criticism?
Click to expand...



The She-Male Mr. Levine, who Sleepy Joe put up for a big political plum, has refused to answer questions publicly.   

The way sexual pervs are nowadays, is if you dissent from them in any way you are considered a "transphobe".


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AFrench2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The broad is spot on correct.  Sexual Perverts of all kinds are truly being granted Supremacy by the Biden Regime.
> 
> If someone is a crossdresser, that's their own affair, but why should they have special rights to be exempt from any criticism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us more Princess. How exactly are they being granted suprmacy? How are they b exempt from criticism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The She-Male Mr. Levine, who Sleepy Joe put up for a big political plum, has refused to answer questions publicly.
> 
> The way sexual pervs are nowadays, is if you dissent from them in any way you are considered a "transphobe".
Click to expand...

Oh please! What the fuck are you talking about.? Are you really too fucking lazy to explain your point any better or to document it.? And it is Ms. Lavine Princess.


----------



## JustAGuy1

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ explain too. See post #56.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so how did women getting the right to vote  - affect *you*?  being 'allowed' to get birth control without their husband's consent -  affect *you* ?  the right to own property - affect *you*?
> 
> how did blacks, no longer having a separate bathroom & water fountain -  affect *you*?
> 
> how about donny's 'traditional' marriage AFTER marriage AFTER  marriage... knocking up wife #2 b4 being divorced from wife #1 - affect *you*  or your right to practice *your* religion?   how about rush limbaugh's FOUR 'traditional' marriages?
> 
> are you connecting the dots  yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Liberals suck. Dot Dot Dot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You fucking articulate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your Avatar name is an oxymoron. So called "Progressives" are all traitor Anarchists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh please! Give a fucking break with that trite bovine excrement , Was Teddy Roosevelt a traitor and anarchist?
Click to expand...


Teddy was a Progressive , not a Conservative. He strongly advocated collectivist policies.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

JustAGuy1 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ explain too. See post #56.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so how did women getting the right to vote  - affect *you*?  being 'allowed' to get birth control without their husband's consent -  affect *you* ?  the right to own property - affect *you*?
> 
> how did blacks, no longer having a separate bathroom & water fountain -  affect *you*?
> 
> how about donny's 'traditional' marriage AFTER marriage AFTER  marriage... knocking up wife #2 b4 being divorced from wife #1 - affect *you*  or your right to practice *your* religion?   how about rush limbaugh's FOUR 'traditional' marriages?
> 
> are you connecting the dots  yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Liberals suck. Dot Dot Dot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You fucking articulate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your Avatar name is an oxymoron. So called "Progressives" are all traitor Anarchists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh please! Give a fucking break with that trite bovine excrement , Was Teddy Roosevelt a traitor and anarchist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Teddy was a Progressive , not a Conservative. He strongly advocated collectivist policies.
Click to expand...

Yes I know. That's why I am a fan of his


----------



## Rigby5

JustAGuy1 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal to is not the same as supreme.
> 
> besides she's a nutter.
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ explain too. See post #56.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so how did women getting the right to vote  - affect *you*?  being 'allowed' to get birth control without their husband's consent -  affect *you* ?  the right to own property - affect *you*?
> 
> how did blacks, no longer having a separate bathroom & water fountain -  affect *you*?
> 
> how about donny's 'traditional' marriage AFTER marriage AFTER  marriage... knocking up wife #2 b4 being divorced from wife #1 - affect *you*  or your right to practice *your* religion?   how about rush limbaugh's FOUR 'traditional' marriages?
> 
> are you connecting the dots  yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Liberals suck. Dot Dot Dot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You fucking articulate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your Avatar name is an oxymoron. So called "Progressives" are all traitor Anarchists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh please! Give a fucking break with that trite bovine excrement , Was Teddy Roosevelt a traitor and anarchist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Teddy was a Progressive , not a Conservative. He strongly advocated collectivist policies.
Click to expand...


I agree Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive, with his anti-trust actions.
But those are not "collectivist policies".
When you protect workers and consumers from monopolies, you are protecting individual rights from a super power above individuals, like banks, multi national corporations, monopolies, etc.
It is these large financial trusts that collectivists, they are the wealthy elite.


----------

