As a reminder, Trump hasn’t held a White House press conference in over a year

[Seawytch]

The law isn’t. That’s the point. It’s about the law not how you feel.

As i have said over and over and over and over and over and over, PA laws are being to broadly applied.

And what you say or feel doesn't mean shit when it come s to law.

and this response as usual just passes over the topic of the discussion for appeal to authority.

This is how I know you have run out of steam when you run to "fuh fuh fuh, the law is the law is the law, fuh fuh fuh"

It's hardly an appeal, it is a statement of fact. You bitch and whine and moan about having to bake a cake in a handful of states and localities and yet no one can refuse to bake a cake for a Christian in any of them.

You're all about the courts not "making laws" about these issues. They didn't. Every PA LAW that includes gays was passed by voters or their legislators. Isn't that the way you want it?

Actually California voted against same-sex marriages but the liberals in their government ignored it.

The law isn’t. That’s the point. It’s about the law not how you feel.

As i have said over and over and over and over and over and over, PA laws are being to broadly applied.

And what you say or feel doesn't mean shit when it come s to law.

and this response as usual just passes over the topic of the discussion for appeal to authority.

This is how I know you have run out of steam when you run to "fuh fuh fuh, the law is the law is the law, fuh fuh fuh"

It's hardly an appeal, it is a statement of fact. You bitch and whine and moan about having to bake a cake in a handful of states and localities and yet no one can refuse to bake a cake for a Christian in any of them.

You're all about the courts not "making laws" about these issues. They didn't. Every PA LAW that includes gays was passed by voters or their legislators. Isn't that the way you want it?

Actually California voted against same-sex marriages but the liberals in their government ignored it.

Because it violated the U.S. Constitution. PA laws have not been found to violate the Constitution.

 

[martybegan]

and this response as usual just passes over the topic of the discussion for appeal to authority.

This is how I know you have run out of steam when you run to "fuh fuh fuh, the law is the law is the law, fuh fuh fuh"

It's hardly an appeal, it is a statement of fact. You bitch and whine and moan about having to bake a cake in a handful of states and localities and yet no one can refuse to bake a cake for a Christian in any of them.

You're all about the courts not "making laws" about these issues. They didn't. Every PA LAW that includes gays was passed by voters or their legislators. Isn't that the way you want it?

If the court cases go the way I want them to go, then they would be able to.

Again, it isn't about PA laws themselves, it's about them being applied to something that isn't a PA.

"Every time money changes hands" is not the definition of a PA.

If things "went my way" I'd be married to my wife and Brad Pitt's ex wives.

You don't get to decide what PA laws cover. Neither do I. The legislators do and the court does. Even if you got "your way", localities can still pass whatever laws they want regarding inner state commerce.

And that has nothing to do with this discussion.

The States cannot ignore the right to private property, the right to association, and the right to free exercise and expression.

A PA is created when you invite the public into a given space for point of sale transactions. Not for contracted services.

That States and Judges have been changing that to punish people they hate via government action doesn't change the original concept or application.

And as you keep going to 'the law is the law is the law" it just shows you have no other justification for your views on this other than hatred and a thirst for revenge.

Of course they can. They can regulate inner state commerce. No one's right to the free exercise of their religion is infringed upon with PA laws.

Striking down Federal law (which no one is even trying to do) won't cha get a states ability to pass any non discrimination legislation that tickles their fancy.

Yes it is. when your force someone to do something they don't want to, that is infringing on them. The question then becomes why do you need to do that.

States can't override the 1st amendment.

 

[Seawytch]

It's hardly an appeal, it is a statement of fact. You bitch and whine and moan about having to bake a cake in a handful of states and localities and yet no one can refuse to bake a cake for a Christian in any of them.

You're all about the courts not "making laws" about these issues. They didn't. Every PA LAW that includes gays was passed by voters or their legislators. Isn't that the way you want it?

If the court cases go the way I want them to go, then they would be able to.

Again, it isn't about PA laws themselves, it's about them being applied to something that isn't a PA.

"Every time money changes hands" is not the definition of a PA.

If things "went my way" I'd be married to my wife and Brad Pitt's ex wives.

You don't get to decide what PA laws cover. Neither do I. The legislators do and the court does. Even if you got "your way", localities can still pass whatever laws they want regarding inner state commerce.

And that has nothing to do with this discussion.

The States cannot ignore the right to private property, the right to association, and the right to free exercise and expression.

A PA is created when you invite the public into a given space for point of sale transactions. Not for contracted services.

That States and Judges have been changing that to punish people they hate via government action doesn't change the original concept or application.

And as you keep going to 'the law is the law is the law" it just shows you have no other justification for your views on this other than hatred and a thirst for revenge.

Of course they can. They can regulate inner state commerce. No one's right to the free exercise of their religion is infringed upon with PA laws.

Striking down Federal law (which no one is even trying to do) won't cha get a states ability to pass any non discrimination legislation that tickles their fancy.

Yes it is. when your force someone to do something they don't want to, that is infringing on them. The question then becomes why do you need to do that.

States can't override the 1st amendment.

Which is only your opinion. It is not the opinion of the Supreme Court as indicated in Piggy Park and its not the opinion of a majority of Americans.

 

[mudwhistle]

As i have said over and over and over and over and over and over, PA laws are being to broadly applied.

And what you say or feel doesn't mean shit when it come s to law.

and this response as usual just passes over the topic of the discussion for appeal to authority.

This is how I know you have run out of steam when you run to "fuh fuh fuh, the law is the law is the law, fuh fuh fuh"

It's hardly an appeal, it is a statement of fact. You bitch and whine and moan about having to bake a cake in a handful of states and localities and yet no one can refuse to bake a cake for a Christian in any of them.

You're all about the courts not "making laws" about these issues. They didn't. Every PA LAW that includes gays was passed by voters or their legislators. Isn't that the way you want it?

Actually California voted against same-sex marriages but the liberals in their government ignored it.

As i have said over and over and over and over and over and over, PA laws are being to broadly applied.

And what you say or feel doesn't mean shit when it come s to law.

and this response as usual just passes over the topic of the discussion for appeal to authority.

This is how I know you have run out of steam when you run to "fuh fuh fuh, the law is the law is the law, fuh fuh fuh"

It's hardly an appeal, it is a statement of fact. You bitch and whine and moan about having to bake a cake in a handful of states and localities and yet no one can refuse to bake a cake for a Christian in any of them.

You're all about the courts not "making laws" about these issues. They didn't. Every PA LAW that includes gays was passed by voters or their legislators. Isn't that the way you want it?

Actually California voted against same-sex marriages but the liberals in their government ignored it.

Because it violated the U.S. Constitution. PA laws have not been found to violate the Constitution.

I just find it strange that the state that spews all the time that they believe in diversity and fairness seems to be the least fair. Walk onto just about any California campus wearing a MAGA hat and you can expect to be attacked either verbally or even physically. To think I actually attended collage there years ago.

 

[martybegan]

If the court cases go the way I want them to go, then they would be able to.

Again, it isn't about PA laws themselves, it's about them being applied to something that isn't a PA.

"Every time money changes hands" is not the definition of a PA.

If things "went my way" I'd be married to my wife and Brad Pitt's ex wives.

You don't get to decide what PA laws cover. Neither do I. The legislators do and the court does. Even if you got "your way", localities can still pass whatever laws they want regarding inner state commerce.

And that has nothing to do with this discussion.

The States cannot ignore the right to private property, the right to association, and the right to free exercise and expression.

A PA is created when you invite the public into a given space for point of sale transactions. Not for contracted services.

That States and Judges have been changing that to punish people they hate via government action doesn't change the original concept or application.

And as you keep going to 'the law is the law is the law" it just shows you have no other justification for your views on this other than hatred and a thirst for revenge.

Of course they can. They can regulate inner state commerce. No one's right to the free exercise of their religion is infringed upon with PA laws.

Striking down Federal law (which no one is even trying to do) won't cha get a states ability to pass any non discrimination legislation that tickles their fancy.

Yes it is. when your force someone to do something they don't want to, that is infringing on them. The question then becomes why do you need to do that.

States can't override the 1st amendment.

Which is only your opinion. It is not the opinion of the Supreme Court as indicated in Piggy Park and its not the opinion of a majority of Americans.

Wow, an opinion on a message board.

Again running back to the authority because you have no argument of your own other than being a tired dried up old twat.

 

[Seawytch]

If things "went my way" I'd be married to my wife and Brad Pitt's ex wives.

You don't get to decide what PA laws cover. Neither do I. The legislators do and the court does. Even if you got "your way", localities can still pass whatever laws they want regarding inner state commerce.

And that has nothing to do with this discussion.

The States cannot ignore the right to private property, the right to association, and the right to free exercise and expression.

A PA is created when you invite the public into a given space for point of sale transactions. Not for contracted services.

That States and Judges have been changing that to punish people they hate via government action doesn't change the original concept or application.

And as you keep going to 'the law is the law is the law" it just shows you have no other justification for your views on this other than hatred and a thirst for revenge.

Of course they can. They can regulate inner state commerce. No one's right to the free exercise of their religion is infringed upon with PA laws.

Striking down Federal law (which no one is even trying to do) won't cha get a states ability to pass any non discrimination legislation that tickles their fancy.

Yes it is. when your force someone to do something they don't want to, that is infringing on them. The question then becomes why do you need to do that.

States can't override the 1st amendment.

Which is only your opinion. It is not the opinion of the Supreme Court as indicated in Piggy Park and its not the opinion of a majority of Americans.

Wow, an opinion on a message board.

Again running back to the authority because you have no argument of your own other than being a tired dried up old twat.

Right...I have the "appeal to authority...Or as I like to call it, living in a fact based world not fantasyland.

 

[martybegan]

And that has nothing to do with this discussion.

The States cannot ignore the right to private property, the right to association, and the right to free exercise and expression.

A PA is created when you invite the public into a given space for point of sale transactions. Not for contracted services.

That States and Judges have been changing that to punish people they hate via government action doesn't change the original concept or application.

And as you keep going to 'the law is the law is the law" it just shows you have no other justification for your views on this other than hatred and a thirst for revenge.

Of course they can. They can regulate inner state commerce. No one's right to the free exercise of their religion is infringed upon with PA laws.

Striking down Federal law (which no one is even trying to do) won't cha get a states ability to pass any non discrimination legislation that tickles their fancy.

Yes it is. when your force someone to do something they don't want to, that is infringing on them. The question then becomes why do you need to do that.

States can't override the 1st amendment.

Which is only your opinion. It is not the opinion of the Supreme Court as indicated in Piggy Park and its not the opinion of a majority of Americans.

Wow, an opinion on a message board.

Again running back to the authority because you have no argument of your own other than being a tired dried up old twat.

Right...I have the "appeal to authority...Or as I like to call it, living in a fact based world not fantasyland.

Its just a method of avoiding debate on the topic at hand when you don't want to seem like a thug.

"it's not me, it's the law!"

 

[Seawytch]

Of course they can. They can regulate inner state commerce. No one's right to the free exercise of their religion is infringed upon with PA laws.

Striking down Federal law (which no one is even trying to do) won't cha get a states ability to pass any non discrimination legislation that tickles their fancy.

Yes it is. when your force someone to do something they don't want to, that is infringing on them. The question then becomes why do you need to do that.

States can't override the 1st amendment.

Which is only your opinion. It is not the opinion of the Supreme Court as indicated in Piggy Park and its not the opinion of a majority of Americans.

Wow, an opinion on a message board.

Again running back to the authority because you have no argument of your own other than being a tired dried up old twat.

Right...I have the "appeal to authority...Or as I like to call it, living in a fact based world not fantasyland.

Its just a method of avoiding debate on the topic at hand when you don't want to seem like a thug.

"it's not me, it's the law!"

It's been debated. You have a fantasy, I have facts. Enjoy your unicorn.

 

[martybegan]

Yes it is. when your force someone to do something they don't want to, that is infringing on them. The question then becomes why do you need to do that.

States can't override the 1st amendment.

Which is only your opinion. It is not the opinion of the Supreme Court as indicated in Piggy Park and its not the opinion of a majority of Americans.

Wow, an opinion on a message board.

Again running back to the authority because you have no argument of your own other than being a tired dried up old twat.

Right...I have the "appeal to authority...Or as I like to call it, living in a fact based world not fantasyland.

Its just a method of avoiding debate on the topic at hand when you don't want to seem like a thug.

"it's not me, it's the law!"

It's been debated. You have a fantasy, I have facts. Enjoy your unicorn.

I have a concept of what the laws should be. You have nothing but a response about "the law is the law is the law"

How does it feel to use a variety of the Nuremberg defense?

 

[Seawytch]

Which is only your opinion. It is not the opinion of the Supreme Court as indicated in Piggy Park and its not the opinion of a majority of Americans.

Wow, an opinion on a message board.

Again running back to the authority because you have no argument of your own other than being a tired dried up old twat.

Right...I have the "appeal to authority...Or as I like to call it, living in a fact based world not fantasyland.

Its just a method of avoiding debate on the topic at hand when you don't want to seem like a thug.

"it's not me, it's the law!"

It's been debated. You have a fantasy, I have facts. Enjoy your unicorn.

I have a concept of what the laws should be. You have nothing but a response about "the law is the law is the law"

How does it feel to use a variety of the Nuremberg defense?

The judicial system of the United States is Nazi Germany because your opinion is not law? You believe the law should be contrary to what it is so you can appeal to authority.

 

[martybegan]

Wow, an opinion on a message board.

Again running back to the authority because you have no argument of your own other than being a tired dried up old twat.

Right...I have the "appeal to authority...Or as I like to call it, living in a fact based world not fantasyland.

Its just a method of avoiding debate on the topic at hand when you don't want to seem like a thug.

"it's not me, it's the law!"

It's been debated. You have a fantasy, I have facts. Enjoy your unicorn.

I have a concept of what the laws should be. You have nothing but a response about "the law is the law is the law"

How does it feel to use a variety of the Nuremberg defense?

The judicial system of the United States is Nazi Germany because your opinion is not law? You believe the law should be contrary to what it is so you can appeal to authority.

Nuremberg defense, not Nuremberg trial.

"The law is the law is the law" is just a variation of "I was only following orders". Both are dodges.

 

[Seawytch]

Right...I have the "appeal to authority...Or as I like to call it, living in a fact based world not fantasyland.

Its just a method of avoiding debate on the topic at hand when you don't want to seem like a thug.

"it's not me, it's the law!"

It's been debated. You have a fantasy, I have facts. Enjoy your unicorn.

I have a concept of what the laws should be. You have nothing but a response about "the law is the law is the law"

How does it feel to use a variety of the Nuremberg defense?

The judicial system of the United States is Nazi Germany because your opinion is not law? You believe the law should be contrary to what it is so you can appeal to authority.

Nuremberg defense, not Nuremberg trial.

"The law is the law is the law" is just a variation of "I was only following orders". Both are dodges.

And yet you want the law to change so you can appeal to authority.

Best of luck to you. I support your endeavor to get Title II of the CRA appealed so gays can stop having to bake cakes and make floral arrangements for Christians.

 

[martybegan]

Its just a method of avoiding debate on the topic at hand when you don't want to seem like a thug.

"it's not me, it's the law!"

It's been debated. You have a fantasy, I have facts. Enjoy your unicorn.

I have a concept of what the laws should be. You have nothing but a response about "the law is the law is the law"

How does it feel to use a variety of the Nuremberg defense?

The judicial system of the United States is Nazi Germany because your opinion is not law? You believe the law should be contrary to what it is so you can appeal to authority.

Nuremberg defense, not Nuremberg trial.

"The law is the law is the law" is just a variation of "I was only following orders". Both are dodges.

And yet you want the law to change so you can appeal to authority.

Best of luck to you. I support your endeavor to get Title II of the CRA appealed so gays can stop having to bake cakes and make floral arrangements for Christians.

Not all cakes or floral arrangements, just contracted ones for specific events.

I don't need to change the CRA, (actually the federal CRA is far more specific about what a PA is, as State laws should be) just have them applied properly.

You really don't see yourself as a thug, do you?

That's sad.

 

[Seawytch]

It's been debated. You have a fantasy, I have facts. Enjoy your unicorn.

I have a concept of what the laws should be. You have nothing but a response about "the law is the law is the law"

How does it feel to use a variety of the Nuremberg defense?

The judicial system of the United States is Nazi Germany because your opinion is not law? You believe the law should be contrary to what it is so you can appeal to authority.

Nuremberg defense, not Nuremberg trial.

"The law is the law is the law" is just a variation of "I was only following orders". Both are dodges.

And yet you want the law to change so you can appeal to authority.

Best of luck to you. I support your endeavor to get Title II of the CRA appealed so gays can stop having to bake cakes and make floral arrangements for Christians.

Not all cakes or floral arrangements, just contracted ones for specific events.

I don't need to change the CRA, (actually the federal CRA is far more specific about what a PA is, as State laws should be) just have them applied properly.

You really don't see yourself as a thug, do you?

That's sad.

I'm wishing you luck but that's "thuggish"? Yes, Marty, we know the only "proper" way is your interpretation. Godspeed.

 

[martybegan]

I have a concept of what the laws should be. You have nothing but a response about "the law is the law is the law"

How does it feel to use a variety of the Nuremberg defense?

The judicial system of the United States is Nazi Germany because your opinion is not law? You believe the law should be contrary to what it is so you can appeal to authority.

Nuremberg defense, not Nuremberg trial.

"The law is the law is the law" is just a variation of "I was only following orders". Both are dodges.

And yet you want the law to change so you can appeal to authority.

Best of luck to you. I support your endeavor to get Title II of the CRA appealed so gays can stop having to bake cakes and make floral arrangements for Christians.

Not all cakes or floral arrangements, just contracted ones for specific events.

I don't need to change the CRA, (actually the federal CRA is far more specific about what a PA is, as State laws should be) just have them applied properly.

You really don't see yourself as a thug, do you?

That's sad.

I'm wishing you luck but that's "thuggish"? Yes, Marty, we know the only "proper" way is your interpretation. Godspeed.

Thuggish is trying to ruin someone over not wanting to bake a cake.

 

[Seawytch]

The judicial system of the United States is Nazi Germany because your opinion is not law? You believe the law should be contrary to what it is so you can appeal to authority.

Nuremberg defense, not Nuremberg trial.

"The law is the law is the law" is just a variation of "I was only following orders". Both are dodges.

And yet you want the law to change so you can appeal to authority.

Best of luck to you. I support your endeavor to get Title II of the CRA appealed so gays can stop having to bake cakes and make floral arrangements for Christians.

Not all cakes or floral arrangements, just contracted ones for specific events.

I don't need to change the CRA, (actually the federal CRA is far more specific about what a PA is, as State laws should be) just have them applied properly.

You really don't see yourself as a thug, do you?

That's sad.

I'm wishing you luck but that's "thuggish"? Yes, Marty, we know the only "proper" way is your interpretation. Godspeed.

Thuggish is trying to ruin someone over not wanting to bake a cake.

Yes Marty we know how you feel about Christians having to bake for gays and how you’re not that concerned about the gays that HAVE TO serve Christians.

 

[martybegan]

Nuremberg defense, not Nuremberg trial.

"The law is the law is the law" is just a variation of "I was only following orders". Both are dodges.

And yet you want the law to change so you can appeal to authority.

Best of luck to you. I support your endeavor to get Title II of the CRA appealed so gays can stop having to bake cakes and make floral arrangements for Christians.

Not all cakes or floral arrangements, just contracted ones for specific events.

I don't need to change the CRA, (actually the federal CRA is far more specific about what a PA is, as State laws should be) just have them applied properly.

You really don't see yourself as a thug, do you?

That's sad.

I'm wishing you luck but that's "thuggish"? Yes, Marty, we know the only "proper" way is your interpretation. Godspeed.

Thuggish is trying to ruin someone over not wanting to bake a cake.

Yes Marty we know how you feel about Christians having to bake for gays and how you’re not that concerned about the gays that HAVE TO serve Christians.

How many cases are out there where some gay bakers were ruined by Christians trying to get married?

 

[Seawytch]

And yet you want the law to change so you can appeal to authority.

Best of luck to you. I support your endeavor to get Title II of the CRA appealed so gays can stop having to bake cakes and make floral arrangements for Christians.

Not all cakes or floral arrangements, just contracted ones for specific events.

I don't need to change the CRA, (actually the federal CRA is far more specific about what a PA is, as State laws should be) just have them applied properly.

You really don't see yourself as a thug, do you?

That's sad.

I'm wishing you luck but that's "thuggish"? Yes, Marty, we know the only "proper" way is your interpretation. Godspeed.

Thuggish is trying to ruin someone over not wanting to bake a cake.

Yes Marty we know how you feel about Christians having to bake for gays and how you’re not that concerned about the gays that HAVE TO serve Christians.

How many cases are out there where some gay bakers were ruined by Christians trying to get married?

Not many...we’re law abiding...unlike Christians apparently.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Nuremberg defense, not Nuremberg trial.

"The law is the law is the law" is just a variation of "I was only following orders". Both are dodges.

And yet you want the law to change so you can appeal to authority.

Best of luck to you. I support your endeavor to get Title II of the CRA appealed so gays can stop having to bake cakes and make floral arrangements for Christians.

Not all cakes or floral arrangements, just contracted ones for specific events.

I don't need to change the CRA, (actually the federal CRA is far more specific about what a PA is, as State laws should be) just have them applied properly.

You really don't see yourself as a thug, do you?

That's sad.

I'm wishing you luck but that's "thuggish"? Yes, Marty, we know the only "proper" way is your interpretation. Godspeed.

Thuggish is trying to ruin someone over not wanting to bake a cake.

Yes Marty we know how you feel about Christians having to bake for gays and how you’re not that concerned about the gays that HAVE TO serve Christians.

Why would anyone want anything from someone that obviously doesn't like you?

 

[martybegan]

Not all cakes or floral arrangements, just contracted ones for specific events.

I don't need to change the CRA, (actually the federal CRA is far more specific about what a PA is, as State laws should be) just have them applied properly.

You really don't see yourself as a thug, do you?

That's sad.

I'm wishing you luck but that's "thuggish"? Yes, Marty, we know the only "proper" way is your interpretation. Godspeed.

Thuggish is trying to ruin someone over not wanting to bake a cake.

Yes Marty we know how you feel about Christians having to bake for gays and how you’re not that concerned about the gays that HAVE TO serve Christians.

How many cases are out there where some gay bakers were ruined by Christians trying to get married?

Not many...we’re law abiding...unlike Christians apparently.

Or maybe they just aren't as litigious and spend the whole 5 minutes finding another baker.