After Indiana Pizzeria Said They Wouldn’t Cater Gay Weddings, the Backlash Was So Extreme

[G.T.]

Nature is working out the bigotry, bigot.

Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

See the problem?

I dont need a canard to justify my world view.

Huh... yet you invoke a canard to advise the reader that you do not NEED a canard.

Oh! Now THAT's FASCINATIN'!

In some universe, this was a good point.

G'job, bro.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nature is working out the bigotry, bigot.

So as you kick and scream about how others are what you consider deviant, society as a whole becomes more accepting of women, minorities and gays.

Signed,

Too bad, so sad, yo dad.

The polls prove it, and the states increasingly legalizing it do as well. Your anti gay campaign is a failure, so please, continue to rail against other peoples' communication skills as i keep #winning.

"Nature" is doing it? I thought we were all just knuckling under to this fascist police state that tells you what to think.

I dont think you know what facist police state means, scaredy cat.

And the state doesnt tell me what to think, are you projecting? You listen to what the state tells you to think? What a sad sack.

Polls show 60% approval, of the people, of gay marriage.

Of the other 40%, the undecideds and i dont cares are within.



What was it in the mid 90's, that approval?





27%.


Your side on this issue is terrible at communicating, and winning hearts and minds. Thats because it happens to be wrong and soon, irrelevant.

ROFLMNAO!

>IF< that's true... Then why do ya suppose that the abuse of the Judiciary was required to OVER-RULE the POPULAR VOTES, WHICH WERE POLLED IN THE COUNTING OF VOTES WHICH PASSED BILLS, IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES, BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS, WHICH WERE SIGNED BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE GOVERNORS... WHICH SOUGHT TO DEFEND THE NATURAL STANDARDS OF MARRIAGE WHICH REQUIRE THAT MARRIAGE IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I dont need a canard to justify my world view.

Huh... yet you invoke a canard to advise the reader that you do not NEED a canard.

Oh! Now THAT's FASCINATIN'!

In some universe, this was a good point.

G'job, bro.

Yeah... and IF it had not been THIS universe, THAT would've been a good point, bro'.

 

[G.T.]

Nature is working out the bigotry, bigot.

So as you kick and scream about how others are what you consider deviant, society as a whole becomes more accepting of women, minorities and gays.

Signed,

Too bad, so sad, yo dad.

The polls prove it, and the states increasingly legalizing it do as well. Your anti gay campaign is a failure, so please, continue to rail against other peoples' communication skills as i keep #winning.

"Nature" is doing it? I thought we were all just knuckling under to this fascist police state that tells you what to think.

I dont think you know what facist police state means, scaredy cat.

And the state doesnt tell me what to think, are you projecting? You listen to what the state tells you to think? What a sad sack.

Polls show 60% approval, of the people, of gay marriage.

Of the other 40%, the undecideds and i dont cares are within.



What was it in the mid 90's, that approval?





27%.


Your side on this issue is terrible at communicating, and winning hearts and minds. Thats because it happens to be wrong and soon, irrelevant.

ROFLMNAO!

>IF< that's true... Then why do ya suppose that the abuse of the Judiciary was required to OVER-RULE the POPULAR VOTES, WHICH WERE POLLED IN THE COUNTING OF VOTES WHICH PASSED BILLS, IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES, BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS, WHICH WERE SIGNED BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE GOVERNORS... WHICH SOUGHT TO DEFEND THE NATURAL STANDARDS OF MARRIAGE WHICH REQUIRE THAT MARRIAGE IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN?

Ummm, might wanna double check today's numbers.

Might save yourself the frivolous flailing nonsense you post.

 

[G.T.]

I dont need a canard to justify my world view.

Huh... yet you invoke a canard to advise the reader that you do not NEED a canard.

Oh! Now THAT's FASCINATIN'!

In some universe, this was a good point.

G'job, bro.

Yeah... and IF it had not been THIS universe, THAT would've been a good point, bro'.

Your concession is noted and accepted.

Tool.

 

[bripat9643]

Nature is working out the bigotry, bigot.

So as you kick and scream about how others are what you consider deviant, society as a whole becomes more accepting of women, minorities and gays.

Signed,

Too bad, so sad, yo dad.

The polls prove it, and the states increasingly legalizing it do as well. Your anti gay campaign is a failure, so please, continue to rail against other peoples' communication skills as i keep #winning.

"Nature" is doing it? I thought we were all just knuckling under to this fascist police state that tells you what to think.

I dont think you know what facist police state means, scaredy cat.

And the state doesnt tell me what to think, are you projecting? You listen to what the state tells you to think? What a sad sack.

Polls show 60% approval, of the people, of gay marriage.

Of the other 40%, the undecideds and i dont cares are within.



What was it in the mid 90's, that approval?





27%.


Your side on this issue is terrible at communicating, and winning hearts and minds. Thats because it happens to be wrong and soon, irrelevant.

ROFLMNAO!

>IF< that's true... Then why do ya suppose that the abuse of the Judiciary was required to OVER-RULE the POPULAR VOTES, WHICH WERE POLLED IN THE COUNTING OF VOTES WHICH PASSED BILLS, IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES, BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS, WHICH WERE SIGNED BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE GOVERNORS... WHICH SOUGHT TO DEFEND THE NATURAL STANDARDS OF MARRIAGE WHICH REQUIRE THAT MARRIAGE IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN?

Don't remind him/her of democracy. That's so embarrassing for the queer rights agenda.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So as you kick and scream about how others are what you consider deviant.

Deviant: that which deviates; Deviate; to depart from usual or accepted standards.

The Standard: Human Physiology / Homosexuality = a 180 degree deviation from the human physiological standard =/= (Homosexuality = Sexual Deviancy)

Deviant is also a moral judgment.

Dumbass.

Deviate is a fact, which leads to the inalterable conclusion (Judgment) that those who demonstrate deviation are deviants... thus where the issue is concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character, such judgment is axiomatically moral in nature.

What you want to 'believe' is that such deviations are not departures from the standard, thus are not subject to moral judgment, OR that deviations from the standard can not be used in the determination of moral judgment.

Both of which are hysterically false, despite your holding the 'belief' that such is truth.

Ergo: You're presenting delusion; which is to say an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

Which, if you're keeping score, THAT is part and parcel of the mental disorder which is also known to present sexual deviancy.

Now did you want to formally come out here and now, or are you waiting for a special occasion?

 

[G.T.]

A person with abnormal athletic ability is deviant of the norm, but not immoral because of said deviation.

You are really good at this feigned stupidity thing, key loser.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I dont need a canard to justify my world view.

Huh... yet you invoke a canard to advise the reader that you do not NEED a canard.

Oh! Now THAT's FASCINATIN'!

In some universe, this was a good point.

G'job, bro.

Yeah... and IF it had not been THIS universe, THAT would've been a good point, bro'.

Your concession is noted and accepted.

Tool.

Well Thank You, Tool.

But, what concession is that? Where SPECIFICALLY in our little exchange, would you like to cite as evidence that I yielded or otherwise sought to deflect from the standing issue?

I ask because the record of the discussion presents no such evidence, thus to better understand that nature of your delusion, we'll need you to indicate the specific space wherein your imagination found that which otherwise does not exist.

Don't worry Gilligan, I'll be here for ya.

 

[G.T.]

I dont need a canard to justify my world view.

Huh... yet you invoke a canard to advise the reader that you do not NEED a canard.

Oh! Now THAT's FASCINATIN'!

In some universe, this was a good point.

G'job, bro.

Yeah... and IF it had not been THIS universe, THAT would've been a good point, bro'.

Your concession is noted and accepted.

Tool.

What concession is that? Where SPECIFICALLY in our little exchange, would you like to cite as evidence that I yielded or otherwise sought to deflect from the standing issue?

I ask because the record of the discussion presents no such evidence, thus to better understand that nature of your delusion, we'll need you to indicate the specific space wherein your imagination found that which otherwise does not exist.

Don't worry Gilligan, I'll be here for ya.

Im gunna dig into how much you REALLY care about messageboard tit for tatting.

You obviously have a lust, a passion, walls and walls of blathering pseudo intellectual text.

But then, that would ruin your fun. As any mirror would.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Nature is working out the bigotry, bigot.

So as you kick and scream about how others are what you consider deviant, society as a whole becomes more accepting of women, minorities and gays.

Signed,

Too bad, so sad, yo dad.

The polls prove it, and the states increasingly legalizing it do as well. Your anti gay campaign is a failure, so please, continue to rail against other peoples' communication skills as i keep #winning.

"Nature" is doing it? I thought we were all just knuckling under to this fascist police state that tells you what to think.

I dont think you know what facist police state means, scaredy cat.

And the state doesnt tell me what to think, are you projecting? You listen to what the state tells you to think? What a sad sack.

Polls show 60% approval, of the people, of gay marriage.

Of the other 40%, the undecideds and i dont cares are within.
What was it in the mid 90's, that approval?
27%.
Your side on this issue is terrible at communicating, and winning hearts and minds. Thats because it happens to be wrong and soon, irrelevant.

ROFLMNAO!
>IF< that's true... Then why do ya suppose that the abuse of the Judiciary was required to OVER-RULE the POPULAR VOTES, WHICH WERE POLLED IN THE COUNTING OF VOTES WHICH PASSED BILLS, IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES, BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS, WHICH WERE SIGNED BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE GOVERNORS... WHICH SOUGHT TO DEFEND THE NATURAL STANDARDS OF MARRIAGE WHICH REQUIRE THAT MARRIAGE IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN?

Don't remind him/her of democracy. That's so embarrassing for the queer rights agenda.

You don't live in a democracy, Bripiss. The rights of others are not up for a vote.

And with that I'm going back on break, I'm enjoying it. BTW, that's my new name for you, Bripiss, and also, gross with a capital G.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

A person with abnormal athletic ability is deviant of the norm, but not immoral because of said deviation.

You are really good at this feigned stupidity thing, key loser.

Yes, and we call that 'relevant context'. Red Hair is also a deviation from the norm which does not lend itself to moral judgement.

And that is because there is no potential moral component, given that such is not a function of delusion. Which is to say that the individual is not taking action based upon reasoning which is otherwise destructive to themselves and those around them. While believing that the behavior is acceptable, because such fulfills their own personal need.

Take your time with that. As it represents a complete thought, expressed through a whole paragraph. Your tendency will be to snap off the customary fiery indignation lamenting the volume of words... and the always entertaining conclusion that the words are meaningless. Try to resist that temptation. But understand that doing so will likely cause you some discomfort. We call that 'emotional growth'.

See if you can do it... at least give us a sense of how long you were able to do so before you were overcome with failure.

 

[bripat9643]

Nature is working out the bigotry, bigot.

So as you kick and scream about how others are what you consider deviant, society as a whole becomes more accepting of women, minorities and gays.

Signed,

Too bad, so sad, yo dad.

The polls prove it, and the states increasingly legalizing it do as well. Your anti gay campaign is a failure, so please, continue to rail against other peoples' communication skills as i keep #winning.

"Nature" is doing it? I thought we were all just knuckling under to this fascist police state that tells you what to think.

I dont think you know what facist police state means, scaredy cat.

And the state doesnt tell me what to think, are you projecting? You listen to what the state tells you to think? What a sad sack.

Polls show 60% approval, of the people, of gay marriage.

Of the other 40%, the undecideds and i dont cares are within.
What was it in the mid 90's, that approval?
27%.
Your side on this issue is terrible at communicating, and winning hearts and minds. Thats because it happens to be wrong and soon, irrelevant.

ROFLMNAO!
>IF< that's true... Then why do ya suppose that the abuse of the Judiciary was required to OVER-RULE the POPULAR VOTES, WHICH WERE POLLED IN THE COUNTING OF VOTES WHICH PASSED BILLS, IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES, BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS, WHICH WERE SIGNED BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE GOVERNORS... WHICH SOUGHT TO DEFEND THE NATURAL STANDARDS OF MARRIAGE WHICH REQUIRE THAT MARRIAGE IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN?

Don't remind him/her of democracy. That's so embarrassing for the queer rights agenda.

You don't live in a democracy, Bripiss. The rights of others are not up for a vote.

Don't you and your ilk claim that government creates rights? IF that's the case, then they are up for a vote. If the Bill of Rights was a bill before congress right now, Democrats would vote it down.

And with that I'm going back on break, I'm enjoying it. BTW, that's my new name for you, Bripiss, and also, gross with a capital G.

Scintillating.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Huh... yet you invoke a canard to advise the reader that you do not NEED a canard.

Oh! Now THAT's FASCINATIN'!

In some universe, this was a good point.

G'job, bro.

Yeah... and IF it had not been THIS universe, THAT would've been a good point, bro'.

Your concession is noted and accepted.

Tool.

Well Thank You, Tool.

But what concession is that? Where SPECIFICALLY in our little exchange, would you like to cite as evidence that I yielded or otherwise sought to deflect from the standing issue?

I ask because the record of the discussion presents no such evidence, thus to better understand that nature of your delusion, we'll need you to indicate the specific space wherein your imagination found that which otherwise does not exist.

Don't worry Gilligan, I'll be here for ya.

Im gunna dig into how much you REALLY care about messageboard tit for tatting.

You obviously have a lust, a passion, walls and walls of blathering pseudo intellectual text.

But then, that would ruin your fun. As any mirror would.

OH! Well, FYI: THAT is YOU yielding from the standing point, thus THAT IS YOU CONCEDING THAT POINT: TO ME!

See how that works?

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[G.T.]

A person with abnormal athletic ability is deviant of the norm, but not immoral because of said deviation.

You are really good at this feigned stupidity thing, key loser.

Yes, and we call that 'relevant context'. Red Hair is also a deviation from the norm which does not lend itself to moral judgement.

And that is because there is no potential moral component, given that such is not a function of delusion. Which is to say that the individual is not taking action based upon reasoning which is otherwise destructive to themselves and those around them. While believing that the behavior is acceptable, because such fulfills their own personal need.

Take your time with that. As it represents a complete thought, expressed their a whole paragraph. Your tendency will be to snap off the customary fiery indignation lamenting the volume of words... and the always entertaining conclusion that the words are meaningless. Try to resist that temptation. But understand that doing so will likely cause you some discomfort. We call that 'emotional growth'.

See if you can do it... at least give us a sense of how long you were able to do so before you were overcome with failure.

Deviating from the norm =/= being a moral deviant.

In no human logic can one conclude that being gay is morally wrong, without resorting to a wholly unproven religious scripture.

Because being gay causes no innocents any harm.

Being gay does not rise to the level of immoral in any relevant logical sense.

You have to feign abhorrance in order to justify such a bigotry.

If 96% of gays had AIDS....thats not a moral problem with being gay, its a moral problem with unsafe sex.

If 30% of gay people are pedophiles, thats not a moral problem with being gay. Its a moral problem with fucking children just like it is for the % of straights who commit such monstrousity.


There have been 0 cogent arguments in the history of the internet as to what makes being gay immoral.

Not 1.

And, youre not about to do it, ego as you have.

 

[G.T.]

In some universe, this was a good point.

G'job, bro.

Yeah... and IF it had not been THIS universe, THAT would've been a good point, bro'.

Your concession is noted and accepted.

Tool.

Well Thank You, Tool.

But what concession is that? Where SPECIFICALLY in our little exchange, would you like to cite as evidence that I yielded or otherwise sought to deflect from the standing issue?

I ask because the record of the discussion presents no such evidence, thus to better understand that nature of your delusion, we'll need you to indicate the specific space wherein your imagination found that which otherwise does not exist.

Don't worry Gilligan, I'll be here for ya.

Im gunna dig into how much you REALLY care about messageboard tit for tatting.

You obviously have a lust, a passion, walls and walls of blathering pseudo intellectual text.

But then, that would ruin your fun. As any mirror would.

OH! Well, FYI: THAT is YOU yielding from the standing point, thus THAT IS YOU CONCEDING THAT POINT: TO ME!

See how that works?

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Which point, blockhead? That youre obsessive?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Deviating from the norm =/= being a moral deviant.

That's an invalid equation.

Take your time and see if you can determine the fatal flaw in your reasoning. It is likely beyond your means, but it will be a fun exercise for me.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yeah... and IF it had not been THIS universe, THAT would've been a good point, bro'.

Your concession is noted and accepted.

Tool.

Well Thank You, Tool.

But what concession is that? Where SPECIFICALLY in our little exchange, would you like to cite as evidence that I yielded or otherwise sought to deflect from the standing issue?

I ask because the record of the discussion presents no such evidence, thus to better understand that nature of your delusion, we'll need you to indicate the specific space wherein your imagination found that which otherwise does not exist.

Don't worry Gilligan, I'll be here for ya.

Im gunna dig into how much you REALLY care about messageboard tit for tatting.

You obviously have a lust, a passion, walls and walls of blathering pseudo intellectual text.

But then, that would ruin your fun. As any mirror would.

OH! Well, FYI: THAT is YOU yielding from the standing point, thus THAT IS YOU CONCEDING THAT POINT: TO ME!

See how that works?

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Which point, blockhead? That youre obsessive?

You claimed that I conceded... then were challenged to demonstrate the concession, whereupon you failed to do so... thus conceding that your assertion that I had conceded, was false.

Look... you seem to be struggling with every point made.

It's clear that this discussion is well beyond your intellectual means.

Perhaps you should consider the "FIRE HOT!" thread... it is designed specifically for you; the Intellectually Less Fortunate contributors.

 

[G.T.]

Deviating from the norm =/= being a moral deviant.

That's an invalid equation.

Take your time and see if you can determine the fatal flaw in your reasoning. It is likely beyond your means, but it will be a fun exercise for me.

The equation, and the subsequent text you cut thereafter, all show that youre daft and full of shit.

All i do is win. Ever.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"Nature" is doing it? I thought we were all just knuckling under to this fascist police state that tells you what to think.

I dont think you know what facist police state means, scaredy cat.

And the state doesnt tell me what to think, are you projecting? You listen to what the state tells you to think? What a sad sack.

Polls show 60% approval, of the people, of gay marriage.

Of the other 40%, the undecideds and i dont cares are within.
What was it in the mid 90's, that approval?
27%.
Your side on this issue is terrible at communicating, and winning hearts and minds. Thats because it happens to be wrong and soon, irrelevant.

ROFLMNAO!
>IF< that's true... Then why do ya suppose that the abuse of the Judiciary was required to OVER-RULE the POPULAR VOTES, WHICH WERE POLLED IN THE COUNTING OF VOTES WHICH PASSED BILLS, IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES, BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS, WHICH WERE SIGNED BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE GOVERNORS... WHICH SOUGHT TO DEFEND THE NATURAL STANDARDS OF MARRIAGE WHICH REQUIRE THAT MARRIAGE IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN?

Don't remind him/her of democracy. That's so embarrassing for the queer rights agenda.

You don't live in a democracy, Bripiss. The rights of others are not up for a vote.

Don't you and your ilk claim that government creates rights? IF that's the case, then they are up for a vote. If the Bill of Rights was a bill before congress right now, Democrats would vote it down.

And with that I'm going back on break, I'm enjoying it. BTW, that's my new name for you, Bripiss, and also, gross with a capital G.

Scintillating.

Rights are created by men, but you don't live in a democracy Bripiss, therefore most things aren't up for a vote my little infant, and now I know how big an infant you really are.