Anti-Gay cake jerk gets told to take a hike.

[paperview]

Are you suggesting that courts do not have the power to enforce the law or throw illegal laws out? Because they most certainly do.

Only suggestion I made was you lied when you said 37 states had made faghadist marriage legal. The question whether the courts have the authority to impose it on the states has yet to be determined.

No, that question is settled, obviously.

Really, did I miss the supreme court decision, you got a link?

What you missed, I gather, was the SC letting lower court decisions stand. That is a decision, without writing one. Try and keep up and just deal with the fact that gay marriage it here, so stop being queer.

Of course the supremes have never changed direction, right? LMAO

Are you of the opinion SCOTUS will rule against SSM in June?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Are you suggesting that courts do not have the power to enforce the law or throw illegal laws out? Because they most certainly do.

Only suggestion I made was you lied when you said 37 states had made faghadist marriage legal. The question whether the courts have the authority to impose it on the states has yet to be determined.

No, that question is settled, obviously.

Really, did I miss the supreme court decision, you got a link?

What you missed, I gather, was the SC letting lower court decisions stand. That is a decision, without writing one. Try and keep up and just deal with the fact that gay marriage it here, so stop being queer.

Of course the supremes have never changed direction, right? LMAO

If you believe they will this time, after letting a dozen decisions stand and taking this on only after it went against equality, then you're a fool. This thing was in the bag a year ago. They're just putting the bow on now. 7-2, 6-3, it hardly matters, it ain't going your way.

 

[Slyhunter]

ooooooooooooo, anti-homosexual...omg

they should just start hanging these people..how dare anyone be ANTI-HOMOSEXUAL

I mean they are all so gentle and tolerant aren't they?

brother this is the last thing on the majority of the peoples minds on who the hell is Anti-homosexual

get over yourselves already

Actually, the majority of people in the US accept gays and support their rights. The majority of people in the US are concerned about hate and intolerance against homosexuals. Most people are not like you, Steph. They are good, open minded, generous spirited people. Not at all like you.

bullshit, wait until a few more Guys who pretend to be girls go peeing in their daughters schools bathroom and they will protest against it vehemently.

 

[orogenicman]

Most states? You have that backwards. 37 states have legalized gay marriage. It is illegal in only 13 states.

No the courts did that in the majority of the states.

And?

And you're a liar, 26 of those 37 did not legalize gay marriage, the courts forced it on them, despite what their citizens wanted.

Are you suggesting that courts do not have the power to enforce the law or throw illegal laws out? Because they most certainly do.

Only suggestion I made was you lied when you said 37 states had made faghadist marriage legal. The question whether the courts have the authority to impose it on the states has yet to be determined.

How is it a lie when I said that gay marriage was legal in 37 states? Perhaps you should go back to that post and count. If you don't know how to count, take a class. There is no question that courts have the authority to overturn unconstitutional laws. Next.

 

[FA_Q2]

Pathetic that someone seems to be able to rejoice in such double standards.

THis is what happens when the government starts getting involved in bullshit moral enforcement.

 

[OKTexas]

Only suggestion I made was you lied when you said 37 states had made faghadist marriage legal. The question whether the courts have the authority to impose it on the states has yet to be determined.

No, that question is settled, obviously.

Really, did I miss the supreme court decision, you got a link?

What you missed, I gather, was the SC letting lower court decisions stand. That is a decision, without writing one. Try and keep up and just deal with the fact that gay marriage it here, so stop being queer.

Of course the supremes have never changed direction, right? LMAO

Are you of the opinion SCOTUS will rule against SSM in June?

I'm saying I don't know, I don't presume to have a crystal ball like some. The left thought they knew what the Hobby Lobby decision was going to be, didn't they? Were they right?

 

[OKTexas]

No the courts did that in the majority of the states.

And?

And you're a liar, 26 of those 37 did not legalize gay marriage, the courts forced it on them, despite what their citizens wanted.

Are you suggesting that courts do not have the power to enforce the law or throw illegal laws out? Because they most certainly do.

Only suggestion I made was you lied when you said 37 states had made faghadist marriage legal. The question whether the courts have the authority to impose it on the states has yet to be determined.

How is it a lie when I said that gay marriage was legal in 37 states? Perhaps you should go back to that post and count. If you don't know how to count, take a class. There is no question that courts have the authority to overturn unconstitutional laws. Next.

So you lie and then double down, you said, and I quote "You have that backwards. 37 states have legalized gay marriage.". Only 11 states have legalized gay marriage, the others it was forced on them by the courts. And the constitutionality of those laws have yet to be determined by the Supreme Court.

 

[orogenicman]

And?

And you're a liar, 26 of those 37 did not legalize gay marriage, the courts forced it on them, despite what their citizens wanted.

Are you suggesting that courts do not have the power to enforce the law or throw illegal laws out? Because they most certainly do.

Only suggestion I made was you lied when you said 37 states had made faghadist marriage legal. The question whether the courts have the authority to impose it on the states has yet to be determined.

How is it a lie when I said that gay marriage was legal in 37 states? Perhaps you should go back to that post and count. If you don't know how to count, take a class. There is no question that courts have the authority to overturn unconstitutional laws. Next.

So you lie and then double down, you said, and I quote "You have that backwards. 37 states have legalized gay marriage.". Only 11 states have legalized gay marriage, the others it was forced on them by the courts. And the constitutionality of those laws have yet to be determined by the Supreme Court.

So you are going to argue semantics? Then let me restate:

Gay marriage is legal in 37 states, as opposed to your argument that it is illegal in the majority of states. How it became legal in those states is irrelevant to the fact that in those 37 states it is legal for gays to get married. And your claim that it is illegal in the majority of states? That was the lie. And it was you who said it.

 

[OKTexas]

And you're a liar, 26 of those 37 did not legalize gay marriage, the courts forced it on them, despite what their citizens wanted.

Are you suggesting that courts do not have the power to enforce the law or throw illegal laws out? Because they most certainly do.

Only suggestion I made was you lied when you said 37 states had made faghadist marriage legal. The question whether the courts have the authority to impose it on the states has yet to be determined.

How is it a lie when I said that gay marriage was legal in 37 states? Perhaps you should go back to that post and count. If you don't know how to count, take a class. There is no question that courts have the authority to overturn unconstitutional laws. Next.

So you lie and then double down, you said, and I quote "You have that backwards. 37 states have legalized gay marriage.". Only 11 states have legalized gay marriage, the others it was forced on them by the courts. And the constitutionality of those laws have yet to be determined by the Supreme Court.

So you are going to argue semantics? Then let me restate:

Gay marriage is legal in 37 states, as opposed to your argument that it is illegal in the majority of states. How it became legal in those states is irrelevant to the fact that in those 37 states it is legal for gays to get married. And your claim that it is illegal in the majority of states? That was the lie. And it was you who said it.

How about you produce that quote like I did yours or apologize.

 

[OnePercenter]

And yet another member of the American Taliban gets spanked for being a jerk. Happy days.


The Colorado Civil Rights Division, which earlier ruled a Christian bakery could not refuse to make a wedding cake for a “same-sex” marriage, has denied any discrimination took place when another bakery turned down a request to make cakes that including Bible verses labeling homosexual conduct as sin.

Last week, the state agency ruled that Denver’s Azucar Bakery did not discriminate against William Jack, a Christian from Castle Rock, by refusing to make two cakes with “groomsmen” X’d out and Bible verses the following Bible verses: “God hates sin. Psalm 45:7,” “Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:2,” “God loves sinners” and “While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Romans 5:8.”

He told the civil rights agency he ordered the cakes with the imagery and biblical verses to convey that same-sex marriage is, in his words, “un-biblical and inappropriate.”

Marjorie Silva, the owner of the bakery, told Jack that she would make him the Bible-shaped cakes, but would not decorate them with the biblical verses and the image of the groomsmen that he requested. Instead, she offered to provide him with icing and a pastry bag so he could write or draw whatever messages he wished on the cakes.


Gay cakes protected anti- gay cakes not

Again, what is a Christian bakery and a gay cake?

More of the GOP has nothing to offer bull shit.

 

[orogenicman]

Are you suggesting that courts do not have the power to enforce the law or throw illegal laws out? Because they most certainly do.

Only suggestion I made was you lied when you said 37 states had made faghadist marriage legal. The question whether the courts have the authority to impose it on the states has yet to be determined.

How is it a lie when I said that gay marriage was legal in 37 states? Perhaps you should go back to that post and count. If you don't know how to count, take a class. There is no question that courts have the authority to overturn unconstitutional laws. Next.

So you lie and then double down, you said, and I quote "You have that backwards. 37 states have legalized gay marriage.". Only 11 states have legalized gay marriage, the others it was forced on them by the courts. And the constitutionality of those laws have yet to be determined by the Supreme Court.

So you are going to argue semantics? Then let me restate:

Gay marriage is legal in 37 states, as opposed to your argument that it is illegal in the majority of states. How it became legal in those states is irrelevant to the fact that in those 37 states it is legal for gays to get married. And your claim that it is illegal in the majority of states? That was the lie. And it was you who said it.

How about you produce that quote like I did yours or apologize.

My apologies. It was Americano who made the following claim which started this side discussion:

That's not my argument. You said bigamy is illegal. I counter that gay marriage is illegal in most states.

It was either a lie or he was sadly mistaken. But you called me a liar, and I showed you that I wasn't lying. So are you going to apologize to me, or what?

 

[OKTexas]

Only suggestion I made was you lied when you said 37 states had made faghadist marriage legal. The question whether the courts have the authority to impose it on the states has yet to be determined.

How is it a lie when I said that gay marriage was legal in 37 states? Perhaps you should go back to that post and count. If you don't know how to count, take a class. There is no question that courts have the authority to overturn unconstitutional laws. Next.

So you lie and then double down, you said, and I quote "You have that backwards. 37 states have legalized gay marriage.". Only 11 states have legalized gay marriage, the others it was forced on them by the courts. And the constitutionality of those laws have yet to be determined by the Supreme Court.

So you are going to argue semantics? Then let me restate:

Gay marriage is legal in 37 states, as opposed to your argument that it is illegal in the majority of states. How it became legal in those states is irrelevant to the fact that in those 37 states it is legal for gays to get married. And your claim that it is illegal in the majority of states? That was the lie. And it was you who said it.

How about you produce that quote like I did yours or apologize.

My apologies. It was Americano who made the following claim which started this side discussion:

That's not my argument. You said bigamy is illegal. I counter that gay marriage is illegal in most states.

It was either a lie or he was sadly mistaken. But you called me a liar, and I showed you that I wasn't lying. So are you going to apologize to me, or what?

So I should apologize because you didn't say 37 have legalized SSM when I provided you with the quote where you did? Really? BTW don't think I missed your equivocation and attempt to play the semantics game in post 168, because how it became legal in this discussion is totally relevant.

 

[orogenicman]

How is it a lie when I said that gay marriage was legal in 37 states? Perhaps you should go back to that post and count. If you don't know how to count, take a class. There is no question that courts have the authority to overturn unconstitutional laws. Next.

So you lie and then double down, you said, and I quote "You have that backwards. 37 states have legalized gay marriage.". Only 11 states have legalized gay marriage, the others it was forced on them by the courts. And the constitutionality of those laws have yet to be determined by the Supreme Court.

So you are going to argue semantics? Then let me restate:

Gay marriage is legal in 37 states, as opposed to your argument that it is illegal in the majority of states. How it became legal in those states is irrelevant to the fact that in those 37 states it is legal for gays to get married. And your claim that it is illegal in the majority of states? That was the lie. And it was you who said it.

How about you produce that quote like I did yours or apologize.

My apologies. It was Americano who made the following claim which started this side discussion:

That's not my argument. You said bigamy is illegal. I counter that gay marriage is illegal in most states.

It was either a lie or he was sadly mistaken. But you called me a liar, and I showed you that I wasn't lying. So are you going to apologize to me, or what?

So I should apologize because you didn't say 37 have legalized SSM when I provided you with the quote where you did? Really? BTW don't think I missed your equivocation and attempt to play the semantics game in post 168, because how it became legal in this discussion is totally relevant.

So you won't be apologizing for wrongfully calling me a liar.

I'm done here.

Cheers,

 

[OKTexas]

So you lie and then double down, you said, and I quote "You have that backwards. 37 states have legalized gay marriage.". Only 11 states have legalized gay marriage, the others it was forced on them by the courts. And the constitutionality of those laws have yet to be determined by the Supreme Court.

So you are going to argue semantics? Then let me restate:

Gay marriage is legal in 37 states, as opposed to your argument that it is illegal in the majority of states. How it became legal in those states is irrelevant to the fact that in those 37 states it is legal for gays to get married. And your claim that it is illegal in the majority of states? That was the lie. And it was you who said it.

How about you produce that quote like I did yours or apologize.

My apologies. It was Americano who made the following claim which started this side discussion:

That's not my argument. You said bigamy is illegal. I counter that gay marriage is illegal in most states.

It was either a lie or he was sadly mistaken. But you called me a liar, and I showed you that I wasn't lying. So are you going to apologize to me, or what?

So I should apologize because you didn't say 37 have legalized SSM when I provided you with the quote where you did? Really? BTW don't think I missed your equivocation and attempt to play the semantics game in post 168, because how it became legal in this discussion is totally relevant.

So you won't be apologizing for wrongfully calling me a liar.

I'm done here.

Cheers,

Typical lib, can't take responsibility for your actions, you have a good one, ya hear.

 

[orogenicman]

So you are going to argue semantics? Then let me restate:

Gay marriage is legal in 37 states, as opposed to your argument that it is illegal in the majority of states. How it became legal in those states is irrelevant to the fact that in those 37 states it is legal for gays to get married. And your claim that it is illegal in the majority of states? That was the lie. And it was you who said it.

How about you produce that quote like I did yours or apologize.

My apologies. It was Americano who made the following claim which started this side discussion:

That's not my argument. You said bigamy is illegal. I counter that gay marriage is illegal in most states.

It was either a lie or he was sadly mistaken. But you called me a liar, and I showed you that I wasn't lying. So are you going to apologize to me, or what?

So I should apologize because you didn't say 37 have legalized SSM when I provided you with the quote where you did? Really? BTW don't think I missed your equivocation and attempt to play the semantics game in post 168, because how it became legal in this discussion is totally relevant.

So you won't be apologizing for wrongfully calling me a liar.

I'm done here.

Cheers,

Typical lib, can't take responsibility for your actions, you have a good one, ya hear.

Wow, I didn't know you are a liberal. Hard to tell from your responses.

 

[FA_Q2]

So you lie and then double down, you said, and I quote "You have that backwards. 37 states have legalized gay marriage.". Only 11 states have legalized gay marriage, the others it was forced on them by the courts. And the constitutionality of those laws have yet to be determined by the Supreme Court.

So you are going to argue semantics? Then let me restate:

Gay marriage is legal in 37 states, as opposed to your argument that it is illegal in the majority of states. How it became legal in those states is irrelevant to the fact that in those 37 states it is legal for gays to get married. And your claim that it is illegal in the majority of states? That was the lie. And it was you who said it.

How about you produce that quote like I did yours or apologize.

My apologies. It was Americano who made the following claim which started this side discussion:

That's not my argument. You said bigamy is illegal. I counter that gay marriage is illegal in most states.

It was either a lie or he was sadly mistaken. But you called me a liar, and I showed you that I wasn't lying. So are you going to apologize to me, or what?

So I should apologize because you didn't say 37 have legalized SSM when I provided you with the quote where you did? Really? BTW don't think I missed your equivocation and attempt to play the semantics game in post 168, because how it became legal in this discussion is totally relevant.

So you won't be apologizing for wrongfully calling me a liar.

I'm done here.

Cheers,

?

You said he made a statement. He never did. Then you realized your mistake and want him to apologise? That makes no sense.

 

[orogenicman]

So you are going to argue semantics? Then let me restate:

Gay marriage is legal in 37 states, as opposed to your argument that it is illegal in the majority of states. How it became legal in those states is irrelevant to the fact that in those 37 states it is legal for gays to get married. And your claim that it is illegal in the majority of states? That was the lie. And it was you who said it.

How about you produce that quote like I did yours or apologize.

My apologies. It was Americano who made the following claim which started this side discussion:

That's not my argument. You said bigamy is illegal. I counter that gay marriage is illegal in most states.

It was either a lie or he was sadly mistaken. But you called me a liar, and I showed you that I wasn't lying. So are you going to apologize to me, or what?

So I should apologize because you didn't say 37 have legalized SSM when I provided you with the quote where you did? Really? BTW don't think I missed your equivocation and attempt to play the semantics game in post 168, because how it became legal in this discussion is totally relevant.

So you won't be apologizing for wrongfully calling me a liar.

I'm done here.

Cheers,

?

You said he made a statement. He never did. Then you realized your mistake and want him to apologise? That makes no sense.

And I apologized for my mistake. But he refuses to apologize for calling me a liar when I posted the verified fact that 37 states allow homosexual weddings.