Are Boycotting Entities Outside North Carolina Etc. Practicing Sedition of Sovereign Democracy?

[IsaacNewton]

Sorry, free speech trumps all that. Otherwise no one could say anything about any law. Not gonna happen.

We'll see. It's not like all cases that will ever be heard before SCOTUS have already been heard. Skylar would like us to think so but alas, it isn't true.

Targeting elected officials for the reason they were elected (the platform they ran on which got the millions to cast votes for them) or an entire state's gaggle of voters, imposing hurt or sanctions upon them for self-rule on a controversial topic like letting men in girls bathrooms...forcing them to "change their minds" is duress. And its sedition. I'd like to see a new conservative Justice's opinion on targeting unraveling democratic rule on controversial topics in states with sanctions by outside entities. Like to see what s/he might think about that..

You mean like a group of men telling a duly elected president and all the people that voted for him that they won't let him exercise his Constitutional powers of nominating and putting a new justice on the Supreme Court? A group of men who have declared themselves above the Constitution and given themselves the power to declare an entire election null and void at their whim?

 

[Silhouette]

Sorry, free speech trumps all that. Otherwise no one could say anything about any law. Not gonna happen.

We'll see. It's not like all cases that will ever be heard before SCOTUS have already been heard. Skylar would like us to think so but alas, it isn't true.

Targeting elected officials for the reason they were elected (the platform they ran on which got the millions to cast votes for them) or an entire state's gaggle of voters, imposing hurt or sanctions upon them for self-rule on a controversial topic like letting men in girls bathrooms...forcing them to "change their minds" is duress. And its sedition. I'd like to see a new conservative Justice's opinion on targeting unraveling democratic rule on controversial topics in states with sanctions by outside entities. Like to see what s/he might think about that..

You mean like a group of men telling a duly elected president and all the people that voted for him that they won't let him exercise his Constitutional powers of nominating and putting a new justice on the Supreme Court? A group of men who have declared themselves above the Constitution and given themselves the power to declare an entire election null and void at their whim?

You're talking about when the democrats said this to a republican administration just awhile back or the opposite today?

 

[IsaacNewton]

Sorry, free speech trumps all that. Otherwise no one could say anything about any law. Not gonna happen.

We'll see. It's not like all cases that will ever be heard before SCOTUS have already been heard. Skylar would like us to think so but alas, it isn't true.

Targeting elected officials for the reason they were elected (the platform they ran on which got the millions to cast votes for them) or an entire state's gaggle of voters, imposing hurt or sanctions upon them for self-rule on a controversial topic like letting men in girls bathrooms...forcing them to "change their minds" is duress. And its sedition. I'd like to see a new conservative Justice's opinion on targeting unraveling democratic rule on controversial topics in states with sanctions by outside entities. Like to see what s/he might think about that..

You mean like a group of men telling a duly elected president and all the people that voted for him that they won't let him exercise his Constitutional powers of nominating and putting a new justice on the Supreme Court? A group of men who have declared themselves above the Constitution and given themselves the power to declare an entire election null and void at their whim?

You're talking about when the democrats said this to a republican administration just awhile back or the opposite today?

So you're confused about the difference between words and action. They confirmed someone as was their requirement.

You are part of the Neo-con movement that has embraced relativism with both hands and you are French kissing it.

 

[Skylar]

Sorry, free speech trumps all that. Otherwise no one could say anything about any law. Not gonna happen.

We'll see. It's not like all cases that will ever be heard before SCOTUS have already been heard. Skylar would like us to think so but alas, it isn't true.

We already have. No law nor court recognizes anything youv'e described as any form of crime. Let alone 'sedition'.

See, words have actual meanings. You making up your own doesn't magically change the law. Or create the slightest legal controversy.

Targeting elected officials for the reason they were elected (the platform they ran on which got the millions to cast votes for them) or an entire state's gaggle of voters, imposing hurt or sanctions upon them for self-rule on a controversial topic like letting men in girls bathrooms...forcing them to "change their minds" is duress. And its sedition. I'd like to see a new conservative Justice's opinion on targeting unraveling democratic rule on controversial topics in states with sanctions by outside entities. Like to see what s/he might think about that..

Of course its not. Nor is commenting on a new story 'targeting elected officials'. You genuinely don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

 

[mdk]

Sorry, free speech trumps all that. Otherwise no one could say anything about any law. Not gonna happen.

We'll see. It's not like all cases that will ever be heard before SCOTUS have already been heard. Skylar would like us to think so but alas, it isn't true.

Targeting elected officials for the reason they were elected (the platform they ran on which got the millions to cast votes for them) or an entire state's gaggle of voters, imposing hurt or sanctions upon them for self-rule on a controversial topic like letting men in girls bathrooms...forcing them to "change their minds" is duress. And its sedition. I'd like to see a new conservative Justice's opinion on targeting unraveling democratic rule on controversial topics in states with sanctions by outside entities. Like to see what s/he might think about that..

You mean like a group of men telling a duly elected president and all the people that voted for him that they won't let him exercise his Constitutional powers of nominating and putting a new justice on the Supreme Court? A group of men who have declared themselves above the Constitution and given themselves the power to declare an entire election null and void at their whim?

You're talking about when the democrats said this to a republican administration just awhile back or the opposite today?

Exactly. It is totally the fault of queers that the Governor couldn't keep his dick in his pants and the press reported his actions.

 

[koshergrl]

What he said is absolutely correct. If anyone is trolling it's you with your constant anti-gay threads. This is like, what, the 100th one since last summer's ruling? It's here to stay. You lost. Get over it.

I don't bow to tyranny or sedition. Get over it.

You mean representative republic, right?

Why do you hate Capitalism, by the way?

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

NBA commissioner vows to move 2017 All-Star game out of Charlotte if NC doesn’t overturn anti-gay law

 

[Silhouette]

The number of people in favor of forcing women to endure men in their restrooms is abysmally small...any entity that displays publicly, sanctions intended to HURT North Carolina for their protecting women is in grave danger of hurting their own business. Imposing economic sanctions on a sovereign state for protecting women and girls is a seditious act that will come back to haunt the perpetrator(s)...

 

[Skylar]

The number of people in favor of forcing women to endure men in their restrooms is abysmally small...any entity that displays publicly, sanctions intended to HURT North Carolina for their protecting women is in grave danger of hurting their own business.

No they aren't. Remember, you have no idea what you're talking about. And keep offering us YOUR personal opinion as the nation's opinion......on whatever topic you're discussing. And with almost mathmatic predictably, you're wrong.

Forty-four percent of women favor letting a man who is in transition from male to female into their public toilets, compared to 39 percent who say they must use the facilities matching their gender assigned at birth....

.....Overall, the public is roughly split, with 43 percent saying they are closer to the view that people should use public restrooms "according to the biological sex on their birth certificate" compared to 41 percent who opt for "according to the gender with which they identify."

Exclusive: Women, young more open on transgender issue in U.S. - Reuters/Ipsos poll

But you'll ignore this poll like you do every other that contradicts your nonsense. And businesses aren't going to craft policy around the silly, demonstrably false lies you tell yourself.

 

[Silhouette]

Do you have like ten cut 'n paste responses to my post that you just switch up each day?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Boycotts are perfectly legal and 100% American.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ NOT when they are intended to disrupt democracy in a given state under threat of real duress and with the intent to harm unless 100% surrender is given.

Skylar...to force a state's lawful legislative actions to protect its women and girls in the bathrooms they use...into abdicating that legislation for an outside minority entity using duress and threat of economic sanctions, is sedition of the democratic process. It is erasing the power of the People of State of (fill in the blank), after-the-fact. The People of North Carolina voted for their legislators and governor knowing or intuiting their stance on letting men into women's private (away from men) hygiene areas. To force those duly-elected representative's of the People to can their own laws using any type of threat is sedition.

Letting men into women's bathrooms is by no means whatsoever a matter of "settled law". In fact it is one of the most highly controversial proposals in a slew of escalating outrageous legal maneuvers from the LGBT cult to date. The most recent of course was the marriage contract redaction to the detriment of children without their having any representation at that Table last year. "Gay marriage" promises children implicitly involved the complete amputation of either a mother or father for life....to each child's detriment...which renders Obergefell null and void without challenge. (Google "Infant Doctrine" "infants & contracts" "infants & necessities" & also "New York vs Ferber USSC 1982")

So when a state comes down one way or another on the question, THAT'S THEIR INDISPUTABLE RIGHT TO DO SO. Any force, especially outside that state's boundaries or majority rule, brought upon them to not follow their consciences and best common sense on this question is sedition. It is sedition. Let me repeat IT IS SEDITION. It is the very definition of sedition! A state's right to act to protect its citizens CANNOT BE REMOVED BY FORCE.

 

[Skylar]

Do you have like ten cut 'n paste responses to my post that you just switch up each day?

You're again confusing yourself with everyone else. While I've cited the same study twice on this board, my posts were both originals. Its you that spams the same, silly shit across multiple threads, even multiple boards.

And exactly as I predicted.....you ignored the actual poll. And instead clung to your imaginary horseshit. The reason your arguments are so poorly crafted and your predictions so laughably inaccurate....is that you can't separate what reality is from what you want it to be. You keep equating your desires to objective evidence.

They aren't the same thing.

 

[mdk]

Letting men into women's bathrooms is by no means whatsoever a matter of "settled law". In fact it is one of the most highly controversial proposals in a slew of escalating outrageous legal maneuvers from the LGBT cult to date. The most recent of course was the marriage contract redaction to the detriment of children without their having any representation at that Table last year. "Gay marriage" promises children implicitly involved the complete amputation of either a mother or father for life....to each child's detriment...which renders Obergefell null and void without challenge. (Google "Infant Doctrine" "infants & contracts" "infants & necessities" & also "New York vs Ferber USSC 1982")

Children are not a party to a marriage contract. Perhaps in your addled mind, but not in any jurisdiction in this nation. You can pretend Obergefell is null and void until the cows come, but the rest of us are under no obligation to partake in your delusion.

 

[Silhouette]

Ah I see both of your socks teemed up on this one. Matters of law yet to be tested are yet to be tested. We will see if infants shared implicitly in the marriage contract for over a thousand years when the challenge comes up. And it will. Mark my words. There are many people alarmed and organized about the dissolving of traditional families who are waiting in the wings for a conservative replacement for Obama and Scalia. And then, the gloves will come off. But, have fun spinning while there's still time..

 

[Skylar]

^^ NOT when they are intended to disrupt democracy in a given state under threat of real duress and with the intent to harm unless 100% surrender is given.

Skylar...to force a state's lawful legislative actions to protect its women and girls in the bathrooms they use...into abdicating that legislation for an outside minority entity using duress and threat of economic sanctions, is sedition of the democratic process.

Obviously it isn't. . You don't know what sedition is. You're treating the law like you do the polls like you do the outcome of court cases.....as extensions of your personal opinion. Where the meaning of sedition is whatever you imagine it to be.

But in the real world, these terms have actual meanings. And nothing you've described is even remotely illegal. Let alone 'sedition'. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Letting men into women's bathrooms is by no means whatsoever a matter of "settled law". In fact it is one of the most highly controversial proposals in a slew of escalating outrageous legal maneuvers from the LGBT cult to date. The most recent of course was the marriage contract redaction to the detriment of children without their having any representation at that Table last year. "Gay marriage" promises children implicitly involved the complete amputation of either a mother or father for life....to each child's detriment...which renders Obergefell null and void without challenge. (Google "Infant Doctrine" "infants & contracts" "infants & necessities" & also "New York vs Ferber USSC 1982")

And you run head long into the same wall that you always do: you keep assuming that your personal opinion is the law. Alas, your personal opinion has no relevance to the law. And thus effects no legal outcomes. Let me demonstrate:

No court nor law recognizes children as parties to the marriages of their parents. Thus, none of your 'contract' gibberish has the slightest legal relevance as your argument is based on pseudo-legal nonsense that no law nor court recognizes. I'll demonstrate again:

New York v. Ferber has nothing to do with marriage. Its a case about child pornography which you've bizarrely insisted overrides Obergefell....a case about same sex marriage. Ferber never even mentions marriage, nor finds that same sex marriage hurts any child. Obergefell on the other hand finds that same sex marriage helps children and denying same sex marriage hurts them.

You've literally ignored the explicit findings of the Supreme Court regarding the effect of same sex marriage on children because you disagree. But you ignoring their findings doesn't magically make them disappear. Nor change any legal outcome based on those findings. As your personal opinion isn't legally binding. While a supreme court ruling is.

You make the same silly mistake over and over; insisting that your personal opinion is the law. While ignoring the actual law and actual court rulings. Its the reason why every legal prediction you've ever made has been wrong.

As no court nor law gives a shit what you imagine. And neither do we.

 

[mdk]

Ah I see both of your socks teemed up on this one. Matters of law yet to be tested are yet to be tested. We will see if infants shared implicitly in the marriage contract for over a thousand years when the challenge comes up. And it will. Mark my words. There are many people alarmed and organized about the dissolving of traditional families who are waiting in the wings for a conservative replacement for Obama and Scalia. And then, the gloves will come off. But, have fun spinning while there's still time..

Mark your words?! lol. Your record of legal predictions have been laughably wrong at every pass.

Cute whine about socks, though.

 

[Skylar]

Ah I see both of your socks teemed up on this one. Matters of law yet to be tested are yet to be tested. We will see if infants shared implicitly in the marriage contract for over a thousand years when the challenge comes up. And it will. Mark my words. There are many people alarmed and organized about the dissolving of traditional families who are waiting in the wings for a conservative replacement for Obama and Scalia. And then, the gloves will come off. But, have fun spinning while there's still time..

You told us the same thing when insisting that Trump was going to lose New York a few days ago and when you insisted the Obergefell would come down against same sex marriage last year. Irrational confidence in your own infallibility you've got in spades.

Your predictions actually matching reality......is where your record is one of perfect, unbroken failure. You've never once been right on any legal prediction.

Ever.

With 'Mark my word' being the death knell of virtually every argument you've ever applied it to.

 

[Skylar]

Ah I see both of your socks teemed up on this one. Matters of law yet to be tested are yet to be tested. We will see if infants shared implicitly in the marriage contract for over a thousand years when the challenge comes up. And it will. Mark my words. There are many people alarmed and organized about the dissolving of traditional families who are waiting in the wings for a conservative replacement for Obama and Scalia. And then, the gloves will come off. But, have fun spinning while there's still time..

Mark your words?! lol. Your record of legal predictions have been laughably wrong at every pass.

Cute whine about socks, though.

She's not always wrong. I mean her prediction that Trump would lose big time in New York played out exactly as she described it.........right?