Amazing, Six Members of the Clown Car did WHAT?

[Conservative65]

So you cannot substantiate anything. WHy is that not shocking?

Just giving baby a taste of his own medicine. All the best.


6 Presidential Candidates Pledge to Support Bill to Protect Gay Marriage Opponents

Six Presidential Candidates Pledge to Support First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) Within First 100 Days | American Principles Project

Six Presidential Candidates Pledge to Sign the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) | American Principles Project

Thats a fail. Those arent unbiased sources.

Wow, pretending to be a lib is so much fun.

You're not even good at that game. Poor dear.

This is where the Rabbi plays his "I am the Rabbi" game
He demands sources and then dismisses all sources given as "bogus" or "invalid"
All while scoffing at the idea that he is responsible for sourcing his own wild claims

You mean like Liberals when the sources they request don't say what they want to hear? Got it.

 

[rightwinger]

So you cannot substantiate anything. WHy is that not shocking?

Just giving baby a taste of his own medicine. All the best.


6 Presidential Candidates Pledge to Support Bill to Protect Gay Marriage Opponents

Six Presidential Candidates Pledge to Support First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) Within First 100 Days | American Principles Project

Six Presidential Candidates Pledge to Sign the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) | American Principles Project

Thats a fail. Those arent unbiased sources.

Wow, pretending to be a lib is so much fun.

You're not even good at that game. Poor dear.

This is where the Rabbi plays his "I am the Rabbi" game
He demands sources and then dismisses all sources given as "bogus" or "invalid"
All while scoffing at the idea that he is responsible for sourcing his own wild claims

You mean like Liberals when the sources they request don't say what they want to hear? Got it.

Please stay on topic

Rabbi has been given sources and has failed to provide evidence of his claim that the OP is fake. Maybe you can help him out

 

[peach174]

Services that are essential to live. Police, fire, hospitals, taxis, grocery stores, gas stations, buses, etc.

So you want to officially make gays second class citizens

This would apply for everyone not just gays.

So it applies to blacks and jews if you don't want their kind hanging out in your store

You are familiar with the word everyone, no?

Your point is that nonessential services should have the right to deny service to anyone. We saw that with lunch counters, hotels, movie theaters 50 years ago...it was unfair then, it is unfair now

The same Democrat party who now keeps them in poverty with their welfare policies.

 

[g5000]

What you liberals are REALLY upset about is the realization that the end of political correctness is at hand.

Political Correctness is out, damnable hypocrisy is in.

The six signatories are okay with you violating the living shit out of Matthew 19:9. You can marry your sixth wife, but a woman can't marry her first.

You hypocrites might want to read Matthew 7:2.

 

[whitehall]

Let me get this straight, examples of left wing bigotry are rampant (the president made a joke about the special olympics) but the left has a problem with something they call "institutional bigotry"? What is institutional bigotry, insulting someone in a mental hospital? I bet the left has done that also.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

I support God's laws.

God's law depends on which invisible, unprovable wooo-wooo non-existent deity you believe in.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Yes, who needs roads, bridges and an education system that ranks in the world's top 10 when we can spy on gays and lesbians instead?

There us,no Constitutional mandate for ANY education spending or a,large percentage of what you people call infrastructure maintenance. There IS a mandate to protect the General Welfare of the NATION from harm, ie.... Immorality (aka Social Justice)

Immorality can't be legislated. Shit falling on your car when you're driving under a bridge in Boston, can. A kid who gets to the 8th grade but still can't read, can.

 

[Hossfly]

I support God's laws.

God's law depends on which invisible, unprovable wooo-wooo non-existent deity you believe in.

That's correct.

 

[Anathema]

Immorality can't be legislated. Shit falling on your car when you're driving under a bridge in Boston, can. A kid who gets to the 8th grade but still can't read, can.

Morality CAN and SHOULD be legislated.

Infrastructure not related directly to US Postal Routes and Educatio. In general CAN be legislated but SHOULD NOT BE, since there us no legitimate Fexeral Power to base those action on.

 

[Conservative65]

Just giving baby a taste of his own medicine. All the best.


6 Presidential Candidates Pledge to Support Bill to Protect Gay Marriage Opponents

Six Presidential Candidates Pledge to Support First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) Within First 100 Days | American Principles Project

Six Presidential Candidates Pledge to Sign the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) | American Principles Project

Thats a fail. Those arent unbiased sources.

Wow, pretending to be a lib is so much fun.

You're not even good at that game. Poor dear.

This is where the Rabbi plays his "I am the Rabbi" game
He demands sources and then dismisses all sources given as "bogus" or "invalid"
All while scoffing at the idea that he is responsible for sourcing his own wild claims

You mean like Liberals when the sources they request don't say what they want to hear? Got it.

Please stay on topic

Rabbi has been given sources and has failed to provide evidence of his claim that the OP is fake. Maybe you can help him out

The topic of your last post was that Rabbi claimed sources he was given were bogus or invalid. More than one of you Liberal retards as discounted the information based on the source. Practice what you preach or STFU.

 

[The Rabbi]

All of it. It was made up, fabricated.

Six GOP Hopefuls Vow To Enshrine Anti-Gay Discrimination Into Law

Your turn

A blog? Fail. Provide some proof that isnt from a biased source.

Your turn

Why don't you embarass me and show where any of the six have spoken out against the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA)?

You made the assertion. You back it up, Bozo.

Ball is firmly in your court Rabbi

You have been provided sources and now it is your turn to back up your claim that the OP is made up. This is the point where you usually

1. Run away
2. Claim a bogus victory
3. Double down on your bogus claims

So you cannot substantiate your assertions with non biased sources.
Why is this surprising to anyone?

 

[The Rabbi]

Just giving baby a taste of his own medicine. All the best.


6 Presidential Candidates Pledge to Support Bill to Protect Gay Marriage Opponents

Six Presidential Candidates Pledge to Support First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) Within First 100 Days | American Principles Project

Six Presidential Candidates Pledge to Sign the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) | American Principles Project

Thats a fail. Those arent unbiased sources.

Wow, pretending to be a lib is so much fun.

You're not even good at that game. Poor dear.

This is where the Rabbi plays his "I am the Rabbi" game
He demands sources and then dismisses all sources given as "bogus" or "invalid"
All while scoffing at the idea that he is responsible for sourcing his own wild claims

You mean like Liberals when the sources they request don't say what they want to hear? Got it.

Please stay on topic

Rabbi has been given sources and has failed to provide evidence of his claim that the OP is fake. Maybe you can help him out

I asked for non biased sources. So far you have failed to provde any. Doubling down on failure yields more failure.

 

[rightwinger]

So you want to officially make gays second class citizens

This would apply for everyone not just gays.

So it applies to blacks and jews if you don't want their kind hanging out in your store

You are familiar with the word everyone, no?

Your point is that nonessential services should have the right to deny service to anyone. We saw that with lunch counters, hotels, movie theaters 50 years ago...it was unfair then, it is unfair now

The same Democrat party who now keeps them in poverty with their welfare policies.

You are welcome to show what Republicans have done for minorities other than build more prisons

 

[rightwinger]

Thats a fail. Those arent unbiased sources.

Wow, pretending to be a lib is so much fun.

You're not even good at that game. Poor dear.

This is where the Rabbi plays his "I am the Rabbi" game
He demands sources and then dismisses all sources given as "bogus" or "invalid"
All while scoffing at the idea that he is responsible for sourcing his own wild claims

You mean like Liberals when the sources they request don't say what they want to hear? Got it.

Please stay on topic

Rabbi has been given sources and has failed to provide evidence of his claim that the OP is fake. Maybe you can help him out

I asked for non biased sources. So far you have failed to provde any. Doubling down on failure yields more failure.

Strike ONE on the Rabbi

Still looking for your source

 

[rightwinger]

Six GOP Hopefuls Vow To Enshrine Anti-Gay Discrimination Into Law

Your turn

A blog? Fail. Provide some proof that isnt from a biased source.

Your turn

Why don't you embarass me and show where any of the six have spoken out against the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA)?

You made the assertion. You back it up, Bozo.

Ball is firmly in your court Rabbi

You have been provided sources and now it is your turn to back up your claim that the OP is made up. This is the point where you usually

1. Run away
2. Claim a bogus victory
3. Double down on your bogus claims

So you cannot substantiate your assertions with non biased sources.
Why is this surprising to anyone?

Oh yes....pulling a Rabbi on us again

Demand proof and then refute the source once it is given...never bothered to read it did ya?

Biased? The Heritage Foundation is biased? For which side?

American Principles Project has joined together with Heritage Action for America, the action arm of the Heritage Foundation, and FRC Action, the legislative affiliate of the Family Research Council, to invite each of the candidates running for President to sign the following pledge:
“If elected, I pledge to push for the passage of the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) and sign it into law during the first 100 days of my term as President.”

So far, six candidates have signed the pledge:

• Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas)
• Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida)
• Dr. Ben Carson
• Carly Fiorina
• Former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania)
• Former Governor Mike Huckabee (R-Arkansas)

 

[Conservative65]

You're not even good at that game. Poor dear.

This is where the Rabbi plays his "I am the Rabbi" game
He demands sources and then dismisses all sources given as "bogus" or "invalid"
All while scoffing at the idea that he is responsible for sourcing his own wild claims

You mean like Liberals when the sources they request don't say what they want to hear? Got it.

Please stay on topic

Rabbi has been given sources and has failed to provide evidence of his claim that the OP is fake. Maybe you can help him out

I asked for non biased sources. So far you have failed to provde any. Doubling down on failure yields more failure.

Strike ONE on the Rabbi

Still looking for your source

You struck out a long time ago son.

 

[Wry Catcher]

All of it. It was made up, fabricated.

Six GOP Hopefuls Vow To Enshrine Anti-Gay Discrimination Into Law

Your turn

A blog? Fail. Provide some proof that isnt from a biased source.

Your turn

Why don't you embarass me and show where any of the six have spoken out against the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA)?

You made the assertion. You back it up, Bozo.

Ball is firmly in your court Rabbi

You have been provided sources and now it is your turn to back up your claim that the OP is made up. This is the point where you usually

1. Run away
2. Claim a bogus victory
3. Double down on your bogus claims

and,
4. post an ad hominem, non sequitur and lie.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"Six of the Republican candidates vying for the presidency have signed a pledge promising to support legislation during their first 100 days in the White House that would use the guise of “religious liberty” to give individuals and businesses the right to openly discriminate against LGBT people.

"Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Rick Santorum, and Mike Huckabee vowed to push for the passage of the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), legislation that would prohibit the federal government from stopping discrimination by people or businesses that believe “marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman” or that “sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.”

Guise?
It is in our 1st amendment. That is no guise.
Well they would not have had to so such a thing in the first place if the Dem's had not passed policies that discriminate against religious beliefs and morals.

Religious beliefs and morals are not the same thing. Do you find human or animal sacrifices moral? How about female circumcision?

Yes they are.
Those two things does harm.
One business who refuses to bake a wedding cake does not harm anyone. They have the right to go to any bakers they want to go to. that do not have strong morals or religious beliefs.
Forcing them to bake a cake is just as much bigotry towards their beliefs.

Here's a little food for thought:

The Force of Law — Frederick Schauer | Harvard University Press

It's a short read and one which provides perspective on civil order, which most human beings seek and why governments exist. If the force of law was not applied in the singular example, the baker, how would that extrapolate?

Now, consider the differences in religion and moral relativism. What maybe a moral imperative to a Muslim may be anathema to a Christian.

Our Federal Government should not be in the management of our Society.
Doing so is counter to freedom.

"Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose"
Me and Bobby McGee, by Janis Joplin

Think about it.

When you were 18 and had nothing; no wife, child, mortgage, career, etc.you were free, and could pick up and go on a whim for having nothing meant you had nothing to lose.

As you aged and accepted responsibilities your became less free and more secure. Sure, you could chuck it all and be free, and some do.

Janice Joplin did with drugs and alcohol, life has a way of keeping a record.

Rational people seek civil order, laws and regulations vis a vis anarchy. Laws and regulations can be changed, anarchy has no such mechanism.

 

[peach174]

Guise?
It is in our 1st amendment. That is no guise.
Well they would not have had to so such a thing in the first place if the Dem's had not passed policies that discriminate against religious beliefs and morals.

Religious beliefs and morals are not the same thing. Do you find human or animal sacrifices moral? How about female circumcision?

Yes they are.
Those two things does harm.
One business who refuses to bake a wedding cake does not harm anyone. They have the right to go to any bakers they want to go to. that do not have strong morals or religious beliefs.
Forcing them to bake a cake is just as much bigotry towards their beliefs.

Here's a little food for thought:

The Force of Law — Frederick Schauer | Harvard University Press

It's a short read and one which provides perspective on civil order, which most human beings seek and why governments exist. If the force of law was not applied in the singular example, the baker, how would that extrapolate?

Now, consider the differences in religion and moral relativism. What maybe a moral imperative to a Muslim may be anathema to a Christian.

Our Federal Government should not be in the management of our Society.
Doing so is counter to freedom.

"Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose"
Me and Bobby McGee, by Janis Joplin

Think about it.

When you were 18 and had nothing; no wife, child, mortgage, career, etc.you were free, and could pick up and go on a whim for having nothing meant you had nothing to lose.

As you aged and accepted responsibilities your became less free and more secure. Sure, you could chuck it all and be free, and some do.

Janice Joplin did with drugs and alcohol, life has a way of keeping a record.

Rational people seek civil order, laws and regulations vis a vis anarchy. Laws and regulations can be changed, anarchy has no such mechanism.

Not the same thing at all as forcing society to do things by the Federal Government.

I had plenty of responsibility at 18.
I had a job, I was going to College, so I had plenty to lose.

 

[Seawytch]

Yup...a lot of people wanting special little "I hate gays" carve outs...but nobody doing anything to repeal Title II of the CRA. That's VERY telling.