Arizona Senate Passes Bill Allowing Business Owners To Refuse Service To Gays

[paperview]

We pause this thread for a moment to bring you some sweetcakes.

 

[Silhouette]

The girl who is dressed like a boy and being dominant like a boy in the photo above isn't a boy. She's a girl. And one wonders though with all the external trappings of a boy, why the other "lesbian" is attracted to her in the first place? Maybe she likes boys...

Are you homophobes tired of getting beaten by gays? Or are you up for more gay punishment?

Speaking of that, have you read the Windsor/DOMA Decision from June 2013? After reading that, how do you think gays vs Utah is going to fare when it is heard this year by SCOTUS? Which will prevail do you think?

 

[WorldWatcher]

The girl who is dressed like a boy and being dominant like a boy in the photo above isn't a boy. She's a girl. And one wonders though with all the external trappings of a boy, why the other "lesbian" is attracted to her in the first place? Maybe she likes boys...

The one in the hat is wearing the uniform of a member of the United States Navy. She had just debarked form the ship after deployment. She wasn't "dressed like a boy" she was wearing the uniform as prescribed by the Military Service she joined.

Trying to claim that a female that has volunteered to serve her country and is wearing the uniform in the correct manner at a prescribed time is choosing to "dress like a boy" is about one of the most ignorant things I've seen.



>>>>

 

[hunarcy]

Yes, it is hypocrisy. And, I'm not lying. You and others like you are trying to claim that you want to keep "marriage" sacred, but when one of your heroes drags marriage through the mud, you look the other way.

If you are so bent on keeping marriage "honorable" then anything that defiles it, would be reason for you and those that think like you to try and write bills to change it, but the truth is that it isn't so much about keeping marriage sacred, but more about hating gays. Haters gotta hate......

You ARE lying when you claim Limbaugh is one of my "heroes" and you are lying when you try to assign a point of view to me. In fact, other than my mocking you for trying to deflect to Limbaugh, you have no idea what I believe about keeping marriage "sacred" or how I feel about gays or what I hate.

If you are a rightwing extremist, which your defense of discrimination against same sex marriage, then obviously you are one of many that worship Limbaugh and drool over every word he says. The fact that you and many of the others on the right are not calling him out as making a mockery of marriage, when you want to claim that gays are, is obvious that you are looking the other way.

I don't really care how you feel about gays, the very fact that you've made ignorant assumptions as to why it is okay to discriminate them is enough for anyone to get a good reading on what you are about.

Kind of makes you a horse's anus.

The fact that you are in denial about what you really believe makes you the horses ass.

[MENTION=43625]Mertex[/MENTION]

Ah, so pointing out that you deflect to Limbaugh is what makes me a "rightwing extremist"? How does that work?

And, where have I made an assumption about why it's ok to discriminate against gays? In fact when did I say it's ok to discriminate against anyone? Your need to label me these things just shows that I'm correct about you being the south end of a north bound horse.

 

[Silhouette]

The girl who is dressed like a boy and being dominant like a boy in the photo above isn't a boy. She's a girl. And one wonders though with all the external trappings of a boy, why the other "lesbian" is attracted to her in the first place? Maybe she likes boys...

The one in the hat is wearing the uniform of a member of the United States Navy. She had just debarked form the ship after deployment. She wasn't "dressed like a boy" she was wearing the uniform as prescribed by the Military Service she joined.

Trying to claim that a female that has volunteered to serve her country and is wearing the uniform in the correct manner at a prescribed time is choosing to "dress like a boy" is about one of the most ignorant things I've seen.



>>>>

Oh, well maybe you should take a look at this lesbian couple then and ask yourself what the one one in the dress is really attracted to. Closet heterosexuality is alive and well in the church of LGBT. Heretics!

..lol.. What is LGBT again anyway?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/343345-fox-news-promotes-gay-marriage.html

 

[paperview]

No matter how much you want it bub, she ain't gonna be attracted to you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ron and Rand Paul support gay rights 100% as they are Libertarians.

Ron Paul has repeatedly expressed his view that same sex marriage is a matter for the states. If that is your idea of 100% support of gay rights I can see why you think you are smart.

I do not think I am smart. I am convinced of it.

Yet you say stupid things all the time.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ron Paul has repeatedly expressed his view that same sex marriage is a matter for the states. If that is your idea of 100% support of gay rights I can see why you think you are smart.

I do not think I am smart. I am convinced of it.

Yet you say stupid things all the time.

He's smart enough, just blinded by his bigotry against Christians.

 

[Silhouette]

No matter how much you want it bub, she ain't gonna be attracted to you.

I don't know, Anne Heche changed her mind just fine...

 

[WorldWatcher]

The girl who is dressed like a boy and being dominant like a boy in the photo above isn't a boy. She's a girl. And one wonders though with all the external trappings of a boy, why the other "lesbian" is attracted to her in the first place? Maybe she likes boys...

The one in the hat is wearing the uniform of a member of the United States Navy. She had just debarked form the ship after deployment. She wasn't "dressed like a boy" she was wearing the uniform as prescribed by the Military Service she joined.

Trying to claim that a female that has volunteered to serve her country and is wearing the uniform in the correct manner at a prescribed time is choosing to "dress like a boy" is about one of the most ignorant things I've seen.



>>>>

Oh, well maybe you should take a look at this lesbian couple then and ask yourself what the one one in the dress is really attracted to. Closet heterosexuality is alive and well in the church of LGBT. Heretics!

..lol.. What is LGBT again anyway?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/343345-fox-news-promotes-gay-marriage.html

No matter how much you try to deflect, your insulting remarks about a member of the United States Armed Forces serving her country and properly dressed in a female uniform doesn't change.



>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No matter how much you want it bub, she ain't gonna be attracted to you.

I don't know, Anne Heche changed her mind just fine...

Ellen has probably made a few straight guys go gay.

 

[Mertex]

You ARE lying when you claim Limbaugh is one of my "heroes" and you are lying when you try to assign a point of view to me. In fact, other than my mocking you for trying to deflect to Limbaugh, you have no idea what I believe about keeping marriage "sacred" or how I feel about gays or what I hate.

If you are a rightwing extremist, which your defense of discrimination against same sex marriage, then obviously you are one of many that worship Limbaugh and drool over every word he says. The fact that you and many of the others on the right are not calling him out as making a mockery of marriage, when you want to claim that gays are, is obvious that you are looking the other way.

I don't really care how you feel about gays, the very fact that you've made ignorant assumptions as to why it is okay to discriminate them is enough for anyone to get a good reading on what you are about.

Kind of makes you a horse's anus.

The fact that you are in denial about what you really believe makes you the horses ass.

[MENTION=43625]Mertex[/MENTION]

Ah, so pointing out that you deflect to Limbaugh is what makes me a "rightwing extremist"? How does that work?

I wasn't even talking to you, but you decided to jump in and ask why Limbaugh was being included in the conversation.....why if Limbaugh is not one of your rw heroes, do you even care if he is being mentioned? Because you are the deceptive one, trying to weasel out of what you said. And as nasty as Rush Limbaugh is, calling women sluts and such, anyone that defends him is usually a rightwing extremist....conservatives with values don't look up to that drug addict, four times married, obese person when trying to make a statement in defense of honoring marriage.

And, where have I made an assumption about why it's ok to discriminate against gays? In fact when did I say it's ok to discriminate against anyone? Your need to label me these things just shows that I'm correct about you being the south end of a north bound horse.

That is what this thread is about....if you're going to jump in and start an argument in defense of it, then you are definitely for discriminating against gays. If you can't see the connection, then perhaps you should have someone explain it to you, in stead of insulting others, cause that makes you the horses ass.

And, don't @Mention me again....I get notification when someone responds to my posts and I know when I want to respond, I don't need you calling my attention to your lames responses.

 

[Mertex]

No matter how much you want it bub, she ain't gonna be attracted to you.

I don't know, Anne Heche changed her mind just fine...

Do you have any proof that Anne Heche was ever really homosexual, or just saw an opportunity to gain some notoriety, fame and money? If you can't prove that she was ever homosexual, you should not be using her as an example....movie stars do many things just to get notoriety, which usually gets them noticed.

 

[Silhouette]

No matter how much you want it bub, she ain't gonna be attracted to you.

I don't know, Anne Heche changed her mind just fine...

Ellen has probably made a few straight guys go gay.

Well straight guys don't go for men, so yeah, I see your point. But it makes you wonder why "lesbian" women go for manly lesbians. Something ain't right there. There is definitely some closet hetero stuff crammed way back in the dark, inaccessible and forbidden etiology behind the dogma of the church of LGBT.

Imagine for a minute if a hetero guy was attracted to women who dressed like men, acted like men etc. gays would INSTANTLY proclaim him as a closet homosexual. There would be no debate about it. It simply would be declared as fact. Yet when I point out how many of their ranks, about half of them actually, are attracted to all the trappings of the opposite gender, yet proclaim themselves "gay", you have to apply the law of equals here and say, "no, actually, they are heterosexual and just have issues coming to terms with that".

Equally mysterious is the law in California forbidding minors from discussing [free speech] with their therapist their own wishes and plans to throw off unwanted homophilia, even when that is gotten by having been molested. Yet simultaneously, the church of LGBT holds evangelizing events enticing teens and even younger who are "bi-curious" [all kids are sexually curious and forming their identities at that age] to "come and join the fun!", with cookies, cake, punch, bands and activities all set up to complete the enticement.

Also, tons and tons and tons of funding, groups and outreach entities exist to help coerce teens and younger "out of the closet" to "discover they are gay". All this with arguably truckloads of coercion and suggestion involved. But if a kid himself wants to rid his compulsive homosexuality after being "tampered with" by being molested...un,uh...no way! That's forbidden by law.

So properly, the cult of LGBT has already made indoctrinization of their dogma a matter of secular law. You see, they don't want themselves declared a behavioral grouping...and therefore properly a "cult" [they call themselves a "subculture" or refer to "culture wars"], because if people recognize that they are, then what they're doing with laws becomes a matter of separation of church and state. And of course the cannot simultaneously lobby to remove christian practices in schools at the same time they require by law that kids in California celebrate their messiah/gay pedophile Harvey Milk each May 22nd.

Dogma is dogma. Learn to recognize it when it's mauling your kids at school and in the therapist's office... and "bi-curious" events with cake, cookies, bands and FUN! .....might also want to brush up on law enforcement profiles of pedophiles and what they refer to as "grooming behaviors" when pedophiles are targeting the kids they're after to eventually molest. Often those grooming behaviors including enticements of cake, cookies, entertainment and "FUN"...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil has in her filibabble created a LGBT strawman that does not exist in reality and then beats it down, and rebuilds, and beats down, and then rebuilds and so forth and so on.

All the hetero-fascists now are doing is negotiating their terms of surrender to a society of marriage equality.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil has in her filibabble created a LGBT strawman that does not exist in reality and then beats it down, and rebuilds, and beats down, and then rebuilds and so forth and so on.

All the hetero-fascists now are doing is negotiating their terms of surrender to a society of marriage equality.

The cult of LGBT. The good, the bad and the ugly. We are going to explore all of it and not just the pretty rainbow parts as their dogma forces its way upon the sovereign states and the self-governed there..

 

[Statistikhengst]

Sil has in her filibabble created a LGBT strawman that does not exist in reality and then beats it down, and rebuilds, and beats down, and then rebuilds and so forth and so on.

All the hetero-fascists now are doing is negotiating their terms of surrender to a society of marriage equality.

The cult of LGBT. The good, the bad and the ugly. We are going to explore all of it and not just the pretty rainbow parts as their dogma forces its way upon the sovereign states and the self-governed there..

Indeed, I do think you make for an outstanding hetero-fascist. Perhaps you have found your calling in life!! I think you can market that, get a piece of the niche, you know...

 

[Silhouette]

Sil has in her filibabble created a LGBT strawman that does not exist in reality and then beats it down, and rebuilds, and beats down, and then rebuilds and so forth and so on.

All the hetero-fascists now are doing is negotiating their terms of surrender to a society of marriage equality.

The cult of LGBT. The good, the bad and the ugly. We are going to explore all of it and not just the pretty rainbow parts as their dogma forces its way upon the sovereign states and the self-governed there..

Indeed, I do think you make for an outstanding hetero-fascist. Perhaps you have found your calling in life!! I think you can market that, get a piece of the niche, you know...

The proper term to call me isn't "hetero-fascist". It's "heretic". That's what you call people who shirk the fold and won't pay homage to the messiah Harvey Milk. I'll wear that badge proudly.

 

[hunarcy]

I wasn't even talking to you, but you decided to jump in and ask why Limbaugh was being included in the conversation.....why if Limbaugh is not one of your rw heroes, do you even care if he is being mentioned? Because you are the deceptive one, trying to weasel out of what you said. And as nasty as Rush Limbaugh is, calling women sluts and such, anyone that defends him is usually a rightwing extremist....conservatives with values don't look up to that drug addict, four times married, obese person when trying to make a statement in defense of honoring marriage.

And, where have I made an assumption about why it's ok to discriminate against gays? In fact when did I say it's ok to discriminate against anyone? Your need to label me these things just shows that I'm correct about you being the south end of a north bound horse.

That is what this thread is about....if you're going to jump in and start an argument in defense of it, then you are definitely for discriminating against gays. If you can't see the connection, then perhaps you should have someone explain it to you, in stead of insulting others, cause that makes you the horses ass.

And, don't @Mention me again....I get notification when someone responds to my posts and I know when I want to respond, I don't need you calling my attention to your lames responses.

You're right, I jumped in and asked why you were trying to deflect to Limbaugh. I didn't do it because he's a "hero" to me, I did it because it's a weak argument and I wanted to know why you were wasting time with it. And, while now want to claim I'm weaseling out, it's you that is trying to back away from your comments...probably to hide your embarrassment. And, before you try to deny it, you were obviously embarrassed because you immediately began trying to label me an "extremist" and implying I'm a bigot instead of making an argument. Your intellectual dishonesty (which you tried to deny but is obvious) forced you into more and more insults because you actually have no argument and that's why you're the horse's ass in the conversation.

I accept your surrender on the challenge to show I've called for anyone to suffer discrimination and that I have never said anything derogatory about Gays. I now challenge you to show I started an argument in defense of discrimination toward Gays. All I did was ask why you were trying to deflect to Limbaugh as if his problems with marriage was an argument for or against marriage.

And I'll tag you if I wish, [MENTION=43625]Mertex[/MENTION]. I don't take orders from the back end of a horse.

So, to summarize, you were using a lame tactic instead of creating a thoughtful argument, you got called on it, you immediately began to lie about me and now you can't back up your lies. You should apologize and move on, but you strike me as the type that can't do that and will continue to make yourself look less than intellectual. Either way, unless you can meet the challenge or make a REAL argument, you've nothing else to say.

 

[DriftingSand]

FALSE! Reagan never was a Conservative, and he still remains the God of Pseudo-Conservatism, as his malicious opposition to the Briggs Initiative well attested. Other examples were his back down from Muslim jihadists after the attack on the US Marines barracks in Lebanon, his amnesty to illegal aliens, and in his post-presidency, Reagan cast his support to a pair of critical gun control measures in the 1990s: 1993’s Brady Bill and 1994’s Assault Weapons Ban. Add to that his very low tax on the rich (28%) depriving the govt of $$ for FBI, ICE, CBP, DEA, CIA, etc. and you have one hell of a non-Conservative.

Yeah, I know a lot of Conservatives consider him a poster child of modern conservatism. There's only one problem with that. THEY are Psuedo-Conservatives for that very reason.

I happen to agree with you. There are scant few true Conservatives left in this land. Ron and Rand Paul are about as close as we're likely to get. Reagan was an insider with a lot of charm.

Ron and Rand Paul support gay rights 100% as they are Libertarians.

They also support Christian rights and don't believe that Christians should be forced to accept the tenets of gay activism.