Breaking News: Supreme Court Has Chosen Not To Hear Any Of The 7 Marriage Equality Cases.

[jillian]

poor staph and the social con authoritarians...

Their world just gay-sploded

Maybe it's time for a real mushroom cloud to be spotted over Washington DC

or maybe its time for people like you to find somewhere to live that is more in keeping with your violence and insanity. I hear putin would be happy to have you.

 

[jillian]

Now let's change the tax code so that only households that raise(d) the future generations get tax breaks.

Then we can talk equity.

er... no.

 

[jillian]

First of all, no one is "shitting" on anything. You are allowed to have any views you want - in your private life. your professional life isn't your private life. If you want to be able to pick, and choose to whom you will sell, it is really simple - don't open a public business. Keep your business private, and only work with referrals from, say, your church. Then you are not subject to the public accommodation laws. However, the minute you make the choice to become open to the public - either through a store, or online - then you know longer get to use your personal beliefs as an excuse to discriminate. That is the law. It is constitutional, and the Supreme Court already ruled on this.

Why does the government get to dictate down to that level one's professional life? What is the government's compelling interest in forcing non essential products and services to be open to PA laws? I know it fits your interest in shitting on anyone who disagrees with you, but by what right to you claim the use of government force to impose your own agenda?

Because discrimination actually does violate people's right to free enterprise.

Also, Citizen's united is also "constitutional" because the "court said so" I wonder what you think about that one....

Oh! It is! I have never suggested otherwise. I disagree with the ruling, but the ruling is what it is. So, now, it is up to Congress to pass an amendment that more clearly defines "speech", if they wish to change that. In the meantime, I fully support Democrats taking full advantage of the ruling.

I agree with your point on discrimination..

But I think your nutz to be against the first amendment, as being against the SCOTUS ruling on CU is the same as being against the first amendment.

Oh! I'm not against the first amendment. I just don't think money is speech. Money is property; there's a difference.

No, you are against it for people who disagree with you. I'm sure you are just all hunky dory when unions spend money on ads.

^^^^

he says while supporting texas' loony toon restrictions on reproductive choice and war on women.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Now let's change the tax code so that only households that raise(d) the future generations get tax breaks.

Then we can talk equity.

married people or people with kids should pay the same amount as single people

those tax breaks just create future victimhood that allow leftist to cry that cons hate kids, or some such non-senes

 

[daws101]

it's armageddon !

 

[daws101]

Now let's change the tax code so that only households that raise(d) the future generations get tax breaks.

Then we can talk equity.

married people or people with kids should pay the same amount as single people

those tax breaks just create future victimhood that allow leftist to cry that cons hate kids, or some such non-senes

right! equality = victimhood.

 

[Katzndogz]

The constitution guarantees no such right. Next...

The First Amendment guarantees the Right of Free Association and Assembly. By extension I have a Right to choose NOT to associate with people as well.

True. You have the right to be a hermit. But if you are in a service business, particularly a business dealing with weddings, you do not have the 'right' to discriminate based on you personal fears and suspicions. If you bake wedding cakes and a same sex couple wants your services, you have NO 'RIGHT" to refuse them because they are gay. Just as you have no 'right' to refuse services to Blacks, Asian, Latinos or any other group. In other words, if you're open to the public, you must be OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

The answer is to stop making wedding cakes. Except for friends and those known to you.

 

[Anathema]

Low or no morals, eh? Who arbitrates morality in your world? Who has the final judgment? What law forces you to associate with anyone else? What rights have actually been eroded? Are you forced to hang with colored boys due to the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Did those darkies muck up your world?.

In the world of people I associate with, I get to set the standard. I am forced to exist in a society where I may have to deal with any number of immoral individuals or at least people in positions they ought not be seen doing in a polite society because our society no longer has rules. Try to find a male bank teller when you need one. I lost out on a very nice career opportunity because it would have meant dealing with a female supervisor in an Engineering Department. Now imagine being a business owner trying to hire personnel or deal with customers if you have actual morals.

 

[martybegan]

Why does the government get to dictate down to that level one's professional life? What is the government's compelling interest in forcing non essential products and services to be open to PA laws? I know it fits your interest in shitting on anyone who disagrees with you, but by what right to you claim the use of government force to impose your own agenda?

Because discrimination actually does violate people's right to free enterprise.

Also, Citizen's united is also "constitutional" because the "court said so" I wonder what you think about that one....

Oh! It is! I have never suggested otherwise. I disagree with the ruling, but the ruling is what it is. So, now, it is up to Congress to pass an amendment that more clearly defines "speech", if they wish to change that. In the meantime, I fully support Democrats taking full advantage of the ruling.

I agree with your point on discrimination..

But I think your nutz to be against the first amendment, as being against the SCOTUS ruling on CU is the same as being against the first amendment.

Oh! I'm not against the first amendment. I just don't think money is speech. Money is property; there's a difference.

No, you are against it for people who disagree with you. I'm sure you are just all hunky dory when unions spend money on ads.

^^^^

he says while supporting texas' loony toon restrictions on reproductive choice and war on women.

Ah attack of the buzzwords. What I support is Texas' right to regulate abortion, something that is approved by Roe V. Wade unless it can be shown to be an unreasonable restriction on the ability to get one.

Lawyers such as yourself are quick on the draw to sue doctors performing other similar procedures without the proper ability to provide emergency care if something goes wrong, but in this case your holy sacrament of abortion is under fire, so eh, they get a pass.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Now let's change the tax code so that only households that raise(d) the future generations get tax breaks.

Then we can talk equity.

married people or people with kids should pay the same amount as single people

those tax breaks just create future victimhood that allow leftist to cry that cons hate kids, or some such non-senes

right! equality = victimhood.

What are you blithering on about?

 

[rightwinger]

Now let's change the tax code so that only households that raise(d) the future generations get tax breaks.

Then we can talk equity.

They already do

 

[martybegan]

Oh! And martybegan, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what marriage equality is making you do now that you didn't have to do before.

It's not what it does not me, its what it does to the Republic when it is enforced by judicial fiat and not through the actions of State Legislatures changing the laws that establish the marriage contract.

Except that isn't what happened. It was you guys who all went rushing to your state legislatures to change the marriage laws to include a restriction - "one man, one woman" - that was never there before, because you didn't like those icky icky fags marrying each other. All the courts have done is said, "Nope. You don't get to change the law just because you don't like who happens to be taking advantage of it,"

Also, "The Republic" isn't a person. Your claim was that we force people to behave according to our beliefs. That means that we are actually forcing people to behave differently than they were before. So, either give us an example of how "we" are doing that, or feel free to find a different argument - preferably one that isn't quite so retarded.

The restriction was always implied, it had to be codified because of you assholes. You then went to courts and got them to create a "right" out of thin air, and violated the prerogatives of the state legislatures.

When government forces you to "bake or go out of business" you are forcing your beliefs on others. That is the only example one needs.

 

[martybegan]

The constitution guarantees no such right. Next...

The First Amendment guarantees the Right of Free Association and Assembly. By extension I have a Right to choose NOT to associate with people as well.

True. You have the right to be a hermit. But if you are in a service business, particularly a business dealing with weddings, you do not have the 'right' to discriminate based on you personal fears and suspicions. If you bake wedding cakes and a same sex couple wants your services, you have NO 'RIGHT" to refuse them because they are gay. Just as you have no 'right' to refuse services to Blacks, Asian, Latinos or any other group. In other words, if you're open to the public, you must be OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

BAKE YOU DAMN PEASANT BAKE!!!!

You and your ilk have no right to be a bunch of fucking staist jackasses, but you seem to do it anyway.

FUCK YOU ALL HARD.

 

[daws101]

The constitution guarantees no such right. Next...

The First Amendment guarantees the Right of Free Association and Assembly. By extension I have a Right to choose NOT to associate with people as well.

True. You have the right to be a hermit. But if you are in a service business, particularly a business dealing with weddings, you do not have the 'right' to discriminate based on you personal fears and suspicions. If you bake wedding cakes and a same sex couple wants your services, you have NO 'RIGHT" to refuse them because they are gay. Just as you have no 'right' to refuse services to Blacks, Asian, Latinos or any other group. In other words, if you're open to the public, you must be OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

The answer is to stop making wedding cakes. Except for friends and those known to you.

(snicker)

 

[daws101]

Low or no morals, eh? Who arbitrates morality in your world? Who has the final judgment? What law forces you to associate with anyone else? What rights have actually been eroded? Are you forced to hang with colored boys due to the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Did those darkies muck up your world?.

In the world of people I associate with, I get to set the standard. I am forced to exist in a society where I may have to deal with any number of immoral individuals or at least people in positions they ought not be seen doing in a polite society because our society no longer has rules. Try to find a male bank teller when you need one. I lost out on a very nice career opportunity because it would have meant dealing with a female supervisor in an Engineering Department. Now imagine being a business owner trying to hire personnel or deal with customers if you have actual morals.

I'm hoping that was sarcasm..if not, stepping out in front of a bus might be an option.
btw society has more than enough rules

 

[daws101]

Because discrimination actually does violate people's right to free enterprise.

Oh! It is! I have never suggested otherwise. I disagree with the ruling, but the ruling is what it is. So, now, it is up to Congress to pass an amendment that more clearly defines "speech", if they wish to change that. In the meantime, I fully support Democrats taking full advantage of the ruling.

I agree with your point on discrimination..

But I think your nutz to be against the first amendment, as being against the SCOTUS ruling on CU is the same as being against the first amendment.

Oh! I'm not against the first amendment. I just don't think money is speech. Money is property; there's a difference.

No, you are against it for people who disagree with you. I'm sure you are just all hunky dory when unions spend money on ads.

^^^^

he says while supporting texas' loony toon restrictions on reproductive choice and war on women.

Ah attack of the buzzwords. What I support is Texas' right to regulate abortion, something that is approved by Roe V. Wade unless it can be shown to be an unreasonable restriction on the ability to get one.

Lawyers such as yourself are quick on the draw to sue doctors performing other similar procedures without the proper ability to provide emergency care if something goes wrong, but in this case your holy sacrament of abortion is under fire, so eh, they get a pass.

texas has already proven unreasonable restriction to access by closing down 80% of clinics that provided that service...

 

[Anathema]

True. You have the right to be a hermit. But if you are in a service business, particularly a business dealing with weddings, you do not have the 'right' to discriminate based on you personal fears and suspicions. If you bake wedding cakes and a same sex couple wants your services, you have NO 'RIGHT" to refuse them because they are gay. Just as you have no 'right' to refuse services to Blacks, Asian, Latinos or any other group. In other words, if you're open to the public, you must be OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

That's why I would never own a business. That's why I would never be a Supervisor or Manager. I would end up shooting myself in the head trying to make the rules those positions are forced to work under mesh with actual morality.

 

[Pop23]

Now let's change the tax code so that only households that raise(d) the future generations get tax breaks.

Then we can talk equity.

er... no.

er... Yes

 

[daws101]

Now let's change the tax code so that only households that raise(d) the future generations get tax breaks.

Then we can talk equity.

married people or people with kids should pay the same amount as single people

those tax breaks just create future victimhood that allow leftist to cry that cons hate kids, or some such non-senes

right! equality = victimhood.

What are you blithering on about?

it's you who's blathering

Definition of BLATHER
intransitive verb
: to talk foolishly at length —often used with on

 

[daws101]

The constitution guarantees no such right. Next...

The First Amendment guarantees the Right of Free Association and Assembly. By extension I have a Right to choose NOT to associate with people as well.

True. You have the right to be a hermit. But if you are in a service business, particularly a business dealing with weddings, you do not have the 'right' to discriminate based on you personal fears and suspicions. If you bake wedding cakes and a same sex couple wants your services, you have NO 'RIGHT" to refuse them because they are gay. Just as you have no 'right' to refuse services to Blacks, Asian, Latinos or any other group. In other words, if you're open to the public, you must be OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

BAKE YOU DAMN PEASANT BAKE!!!!

You and your ilk have no right to be a bunch of fucking staist jackasses, but you seem to do it anyway.

FUCK YOU ALL HARD.

was that gay or what!?