Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court Stops Gay Marriage In Utah

[Flopper]

Jack McKinley was either 17 or 18 which is above the age of consent when Milk met him therefore there was no child sexual abuse. You choose to ignore this but it is a fact.

Randy Shilts, Milk's biographer, was gay, a good friend of Harvey Milk and more importantly, an accredited journalist known, famous for actually, his hard-lined adherence to the truth and facts when he reported. Gays used to spit on him in fact as he walked through the Castro district for being a traitor. Mr. Shilts reported on the AIDS epidemic spreading [he died ot it himself] and his open objections to public bathhouses as the main culprit.

Randy Shilts wrote in Milk's biography of Milk's affair with young teen Jack McKinley these words:

"Sixteen-year-old McKinley was looking for some kind of father figure. … At 33, Milk was launching a new life, though he could hardly have imagined the unlikely direction toward which his new lover would pull him.”

So, either Mr. Shilts the accredited journalist famous for taking heat for reporting only the facts, even from his own friends, stepped out of staunch character just to write those words, or you, Flopper, are wilfully misrepresenting the truth in order to make excuses for the inexcusable.

Since nobody here knows you, nor has any reason to respect you as an accredited journalist famous for telling the truth, I guess we'll have to err on the side of Randy Shilts who knew Harvey Milk personally and was probably the most credible eyewitness the world could hope for as to accurate details of Milk's life and how old his "lovers/victims" were...

The age of consent in New York when and where Harvey Milk plucked this "young waif with substance abuse problem.." was 17. Ergo, Harvey Milk sodomized a mentally ill, drug addicted teen orphaned MINOR boy, while officiating as his father figure.

That's three felony counts of child sexual assault involving sodomy. Sandusky went to prison for that. Harvey Milk gets 60 LGBT groups petitioning successfully, the US Postal service to commission a rainbow "USA' stamp of Harvey Milk instead. He is their cultural hero. His sexuality stands aligned with their own.

Houston, we have a problem.

Accredited by whom? He could have been well - meaning enough and still be wrong / sloppy, but I smell ambition. If one is part of a minority group, the best way to become successful is to sell them out. See Phyllis Schaffly.

And what's with this "we" shit? NOBODY but green bean and gspys follows you with anything but a groan and a snicker.

I scanned the "Mayor of Castro Street" at the library this morning looking for Galen and could find only one quote where the author mentioned Galen's age and it was incorrect because Galen was at least 17 at that time. The rest of the reported quotes aren't from the book. They've copied from anti-gay and defense of marriage web sites.

And what does a 40 year old affair between two gays, both dead have to do with a U.S. Supreme Court decision to stop gay marriage in Utah? Absolutely Nothing.

Getting back to the subject at hand, a Supreme Court decision early this year now seems likely which will not only address the Utah ban, but also the recent court decisions that have struck down gay marriage bans in Virginian and Utah. The decision may or may not effect the Kentucky decision that the state must recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

Increasingly, the judges are saying they can see no legitimate justification for denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples. With the Supreme Court having said that states cannot validly base marriage laws on traditional religious disapproval of homosexuality, the remaining justifications offered to defend the laws fail to pass muster, the judges have ruled.

Same-sex marriage moving swiftly back toward Supreme Court - latimes.com

 

[Silhouette]

Accredited by whom? He could have been well - meaning enough and still be wrong / sloppy, but I smell ambition. If one is part of a minority group, the best way to become successful is to sell them out. See Phyllis Schaffly.

And what's with this "we" shit? NOBODY but green bean and gspys follows you with anything but a groan and a snicker.

I believe that when Randy Shilts says Harvey Milk took a 16 year old street "waif" "with substance abuse problems" as his lover, that he was in a position and of the highest credibility as a researcher and an eyewitness to have reported the account of that crime against a minor accurately.

...the career of Randy Shilts, author of "And the Band Played On: Politics, People and the AIDS Epidemic," who died of AIDS himself...

...Shilts' sense of purpose was passionate and he never backed down from his own most controversial beliefs. And Shilts' own success manifestly delighted him. Being both feisty and cocky, naturally, he made enemies. The late Bob Ross, editor and publisher of the Bay Area Reporter, described Shilts as a traitor to his own kind. In part that was because in stories he wrote for The Chronicle, where in 1981 he became the first openly gay employee, he advocated the closing of gay bathhouses as a means of containing the spread of AIDS. Asking people to forsake a sexual freedom that was so new and enthralling led to Shilts' being spat upon on Castro Street.

"One of the big criticisms leveled at Randy," says his longtime friend and assistant, Linda Alband, "is that he was an assimilationist. But he chose to write about gay issues for the mainstream precisely because he wanted other people to know what it was like to be gay. If they didn't know, how were things going to change?" ...

...Shilts was many things to many people: an author, an activist, a pioneer, a turncoat. But to himself he was first and foremost a reporter; he moved through the world around him, his world, filing reports. "I think of him as a classic journalist," says Michael Denneny, who edited his last two books and is his literary executor. "Somebody who took the almost romantic notion of being a journalist, totally believed it, and lived it out." ...

...He wrote well, but he was not a fine stylist. His strongest effects were savage irony; disgust with indifference, political cowardice, and selfishness; and passionate anger at injustice. His work is heartfelt, consistently reasoned. His greatest strength was his research: It was thorough, tireless, penetrating and eventually revealing.

In his first book, "The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk," Shilts drew upon his friendship with Milk and his own experiences in the Castro. He had been there, had been a witness and a participant...

... moved to San Francisco in 1975, worked for a gay alternative newspaper and for KQED television, and yearned to be a mainstream journalist. "Randy badly wanted to be normal," says Jennifer Finlay, one of his research assistants. "Being accepted was important to him. He was human."

When he was hired by The Chronicle in 1981, he was as likely as a red light on a freeway.

"With his striped shirts, flowered ties and suspenders, Randy stood out," wrote Susan Sward in this paper when he died. She described a man who laughed frequently and had a halo of curly blond-brown hair -- AIDS later turned it straight. The other males in the newsroom, Sward wrote, dressed, and thought, more conservatively. "In such a mileu, commitment or passionate devotion to any sort of belief system was ... worthy of derision. At best, Randy made many in the city room nervous."

Although he had numerous friends at the paper, even they describe him as being difficult at times, and no more egotistical than Donald Trump. But Shilts was usually disarmingly funny about his own ego, and his commitment. In a television interview when he was dying, he said he had at last put aside vanity. "But I wish I had less character," he added, "and more T-cells."...

... Perhaps because Shilts remains controversial among some gays, there is no monument to him. Nor is there a street named for him, as there are for other San Francisco writers such as Jack Kerouac and Dashiell Hammett. "He's one of our community's heroes," says author Frank Robinson. "In my opinion he had as much effect on the gay community as Harvey Milk did. Both were immensely important. Where's the street or building named after Randy?" ... Randy Shilts was gutsy, brash and unforgettable. He died 10 years ago, fighting for the rights of gays in American society. - SFGate

Again, Randy Shilts own words publicized and thoroughly researched, understood and witnessed by him:

"Sixteen-year-old McKinley was looking for some kind of father figure. … At 33, Milk was launching a new life, though he could hardly have imagined the unlikely direction toward which his new lover would pull him.”

 

[Barb]

So, accredited by YOU, even though simple math shows him to have been 17.

 

[Silhouette]

So, accredited by YOU, even though simple math shows him to have been 17.

I didn't write that article. It was written by the San Francisco Chronicle. There is no simple math to it. Randy Shilts knew him, knew he took Jack Mckinley at 16, a minor, as his "lover".

You weren't there. The accredited journalist was. Simply and blatantly lying to try to cover up a crime against a minor is a crime in itself. I don't mean that figuratively either. What you're up to here is actually on the books as a prosecutable crime. I'd be careful..

 

[Barb]

So, accredited by YOU, even though simple math shows him to have been 17.

I didn't write that article. It was written by the San Francisco Chronicle. There is no simple math to it. Randy Shilts knew him, knew he took Jack Mckinley at 16, a minor, as his "lover".

You weren't there. The accredited journalist was. Simply and blatantly lying to try to cover up a crime against a minor is a crime in itself. I don't mean that figuratively either. What you're up to here is actually on the books as a prosecutable crime. I'd be careful..

delusional you.

 

[Seawytch]

So, accredited by YOU, even though simple math shows him to have been 17.

I didn't write that article. It was written by the San Francisco Chronicle. There is no simple math to it. Randy Shilts knew him, knew he took Jack Mckinley at 16, a minor, as his "lover".

You weren't there. The accredited journalist was. Simply and blatantly lying to try to cover up a crime against a minor is a crime in itself. I don't mean that figuratively either. What you're up to here is actually on the books as a prosecutable crime. I'd be careful..

Milk's address book, in which he wrote the birthdates of people he knew, gives McKinley's date of birth as October 18, 1946. Milk's address book is in the Milk-Smith Collection, James C. Hormel Gay & Lesbian Center, San Francisco Public Library.

Who would know better, your "accredited journalist" or Harvey Milk who wrote his birthday down?

 

[Silhouette]

So, accredited by YOU, even though simple math shows him to have been 17.

I didn't write that article. It was written by the San Francisco Chronicle. There is no simple math to it. Randy Shilts knew him, knew he took Jack Mckinley at 16, a minor, as his "lover".

You weren't there. The accredited journalist was. Simply and blatantly lying to try to cover up a crime against a minor is a crime in itself. I don't mean that figuratively either. What you're up to here is actually on the books as a prosecutable crime. I'd be careful..

Milk's address book, in which he wrote the birthdates of people he knew, gives McKinley's date of birth as October 18, 1946. Milk's address book is in the Milk-Smith Collection, James C. Hormel Gay & Lesbian Center, San Francisco Public Library.

Who would know better, your "accredited journalist" or Harvey Milk who wrote his birthday down?

The statistics of births and deaths in the County where Jack McKinley was born, should be the final word, along with Shilts reputation of being acutely thorough in his reasearch. However, there are other indicators. Since every bio I've ever seen of Jack McKinley online states his birth as 1947, NOT 1946, we know that the boy was 16. Moreover, your redacted Diary that you will next argue was proof that "at least Milk didn't have reason to suspect McKinley was underaged" [ie: that he believed he was older at the time] is hogwash for two reasons:

1. That the accredited journalist/biographer of Harvey Milk, Randy Shilts, knew Jack to have been 16 at the time. Remember, Shilts was a good friend of Milk's and knew his facts before he published.

2. Harvey Milk took Jack Mckinley to start an investment account as a guardian for McKinley. When he did, the broker said to him: "What you’re really talking about is opening an account for the boy you’ve got living with you. Right?”

When you take someone to open a bank account, as their "guardian", there are a couple of things that are implied and accepted:

A. That Milk knew McKinley was underaged. Why else would he need a guardian? This happened in California when McKinley was STILL underaged as Milk was sodomizing him/acting as his father.

B. That Milk had to have known that McKinley was born in 1947 because as a condition of opening a bank account, even then, accurate identification and birthday were/are required.

So, your "Milk wrote down in his diary" BS is just that: pure crap.

Noted, once again, another LGBT activist is here defending three felony counts of child sexual abuse:

1. Milk's sodomizing a legal minor for years [after beginning in New York with minor 16 year old McKinley, he moved him across state lines, in violation also of the MANN Act, and continued sodomizing him in California as he remained a minor there until he was 18.]

2. Milk's sodomizing that same minor under the same conditions who Milk knew to be mentally ill/suicidal as a result of his natural father being abusive to him; while Milk was officiating as McKinley's father also.

3. Milk's sodomizing that same minor under the conditions that Milk knew that boy was also suffering with drug addiction.

Three felony counts. You won't catch me at least trying to cover up for/make excuses for sexual abuse of a minor boy. Galen "Jack" McKinley's birthday can be researched. Milk knew of it. And Milk knew he was having sex with a minor the entire years he was doing it. Mckinley was legally incapable of consent on three counts.

 

[Silhouette]

An update:

Several groups, including those whose religions are normally at odds theologically, are supporting Utah as a federal appeals court in Denver considers the constitutionality of its gay marriage ban.

"Our theological perspectives, though often differing, converge on a critical point: that the traditional, husband-wife definition of marriage is vital to the welfare of children, families and society," says an amicus brief filed by several churches and religious groups.

Thirty similar briefs have been filed since Monday by constitutional scholars and religious and political groups siding with Utah in a lawsuit that struck down Utah's law banning gay marriage....

...A coalition of religions not normally allied together — Mormons, Catholic bishops, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod) and the Southern Baptist Convention — has joined in an amicus brief filed by an attorney for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in Washington, D.C., and members of a Salt Lake City law firm.

The brief says a common tactic by proponents of same-sex marriage is to claim that their opponents are "irrational or even bigoted, ... motivated by 'anti-gay animus,' ... in the form of unthinking ignorance or actual hostility.

"The accusation is false and offensive. It is intended to suppress rational dialogue and rational dialogue and democratic conversation, to win by insult and intimidation rather than by reason, experience and fact," the brief states. "In truth, we support the husband-wife definition of marriage because we believe it is right and good for children, families and society."...

...Colorado Attorney General John Suthers joined attorneys general from the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma and South Carolina in an amicus brief supporting Utah's position. Michigan filed a separate amicus brief supporting Utah.

"Traditional marriage is too deeply imbedded in our laws, history and traditions for a court to hold that more recent state constitutional enactment of that definition is illegitimate or irrational," the brief by 10 states says. Battle lines form up in Utah gay marriage lawsuit - The Denver Post

It seems the "support for gay marriage" isn't as robust as media spin doctors would have everyone believe.

Oral arguments are scheduled to begin April 10th, 2014 in the 10th Circuit court of appeals.

Excerpts:

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE

1 Amici are eighty-one members of the Utah Legislature.

2 In 2004, the constitutionally required 2/3 majority of this body adopted the state constitutional marriage amendment ratified by 66% of voters later that same year. We are sincerely dedicated to representing and protecting the interests of all Utah citizens. We especially feel a profound duty to the children of the State, derived from deep historical roots and experience that confirm children are substantially benefited and best served by public endorsement and recognition of marriage as the legal union between a man and a woman as husband and wife....

...II. Utah Law Prioritizes Children’s Opportunity to be Raised by a Married Mother and Father

In pursuance of this constitutional responsibility to craft domestic relations law in a way that benefits the people of the State, the Utah Legislature has properly prioritized the opportunity of children to be raised, whenever possible, by a married mother and father. This is a recurring and pervasive element of its laws...

..Utah’s marriage amendment and related statutes are part of a wide range of state laws rooted in history and experience and designed to endorse and encourage each child’s opportunity to be reared by a married mother and father. This fact makes abundantly clear that preserving this rational—indeed compelling— policy is the proper explanation for the marriage amendment....

...The relevant statutes include legal matters connected to a child’s birth. Utah law provides that, in addition to adoption or parentage determinations, a child who has been “legitimized by the subsequent marriage of his natural parents” can request a supplementary birth certificate (Utah Code §26-2-10), signaling the State’s recognition of the importance of the child’s bond to married parents.

One of the most difficult questions the State must face is what shall be done when a child cannot be reared by his or her own mother and father. In making provision for adoptions, the State consistently seeks to provide the child with the opportunity to be reared by a married mother and father. The State’s intent is that adoptions should be governed by the known and demonstrated best interest of the child. Thus, in statute, it “specifically finds that it is not in a child’s best interest to be adopted by a person or persons who are cohabiting in a relationship that is not a legally valid and binding marriage under the laws of this state.” ...

...
If a married individual seeks to adopt, he or she must have the consent of the spouse. Utah Code §78B-6-114. The statutory direction of who may adopt provides affirmatively for adoption by married couples: “A child may be adopted by: (a) adults who are legally married to each other in accordance with the laws of this state.” Utah Code §78B-6-117(2). By contrast, it specifies: “A child may not be adopted by a person who is cohabiting in a relationship that is not a legally valid and binding marriage under the laws of this state.” Id. at (3). In the case of a child for whom the State has custodial responsibility, “n order to provide a child who is in the custody of the division with the most beneficial family structure, when a child in the custody of the division is placed for adoption, 9...

...the division or child-placing agency shall place the child with a man and a woman who are married to each other ” unless “there are no qualified married couples”; the child is placed with a relative, someone who “has already developed a substantial relationship with the child” or someone chosen by a parent; or the best interests of the child require placement “with a single person.” Id. at (4). The State will also “not place a child for adoption, either temporarily or permanently, with any individual or individuals who do not qualify for adoptive placement pursuant to” these provisions. Utah Code §62A-4a-607(1)(b)....

..[T]he policy of encouraging the marital father to stay married to the child’s mother and to assume parental responsibility for the child is not rendered irrelevant by the fact that this particular marriage ended in divorce. The parent-child relationships created by marriage last beyond the dissolution of the individual marriage. Recognition and protection of these relationships encourages the acceptance of parental responsibility and the formation of relationships between marital fathers and children who are born into their marriage. We have previously emphasized the importance of preserving family harmony between spouses as a policy consideration for favoring legitimacy. Favoring legitimacy also promotes family harmony between parents and children by protecting and preserving these crucial relationships..

..Curriculum in the public schools that touches on human sexuality stresses “the importance of abstinence from all sexual activity before marriage and fidelity after marriage” and may not include “the advocacy of sexual activity outside of marriage.” Utah Code §53A-13-101. This same emphasis is required in educational programs related to control of communicable diseases. Utah Code §26-6-3. Thus, teaching that could be attributable to the State will underscore the message that sexual relationships between men and women ought to occur only within marriage. This ensures that children who might result from such relationships will be more likely to be born into families with a married mother and father...

...Utah law consistently promotes the preservation of ties between children and natural parents. A statutory purpose of the State’s Division of Child and Family Services is to “when possible and appropriate, provide preventive services and family preservation services in an effort to protect the child from the trauma of separation from his family, protect the integrity of the family, and the constitutional rights of parents.” Utah Code §62A-4a-103. The law requires case workers of the Division to be trained in “the importance of maintaining the parent-child relationship whenever possible.” Utah Code §62A-4a-107. The State’s fundamental policy includes this statement: “It is in the best interest and welfare of a child to be raised under the care and supervision of the child’s natural parents. A child’s need for a normal family life in a permanent home, and for positive, nurturing family relationships is usually best met by the child’s natural parents.” Utah Code §62A-4a-201....

...children in Utah will experience the benefits of being raised by their own mother and father except in those rare cases where a parent’s unfitness may pose danger to the child...

...When the Legislature adopted and the people of the State ratified Utah’s marriage amendment, they retained and secured in their state Constitution a legal understanding that had already prevailed throughout the history of the State. This understanding is consistently reflected throughout the statutes governing all domestic relationships. This coordinated statutory scheme has worked well for Utah’s children. The purposes of Utah’s marriage law are reasoned, principled, and consistent. It is rational—even compelling—for the laws of the State to reflect a consistent recognition, endorsement and promotion of husband-wife marriage as the proper and best institution for childbearing and childrearing and the perpetuation of an ordered society http://www.scribd.com/doc/206381142/Utah-Legislature-Amicus

That brief was written in the spirit of the decision in Windsor and its lengthy discussion of how a state has a vested interest in the sculpting of the nature of marriage that defines how members of a discreet community interact with each other. Utah has 104 total legislators. 81 of those signed on to the amicus brief above. That is 78% of the Utah legislature in favor of Utah's man-woman marriage statutes.

 

[BillyZane]

SeaWytch certainly isn't doing her fellow queers any favors in this thread.

 

[Silhouette]

SeaWytch certainly isn't doing her fellow queers any favors in this thread.

In the short run that's how it would appear. But in the long run she is doing her fellows an infinite service by disclosing what's really going on... Think: The American Psychological Association...

 

[Seawytch]

SeaWytch certainly isn't doing her fellow queers any favors in this thread.

Oh, care to elaborate?

You're doing the equality movement enough favors for both of us anyway. Sil helps a lot.

 

[BillyZane]

SeaWytch certainly isn't doing her fellow queers any favors in this thread.

Oh, care to elaborate?

You're doing the equality movement enough favors for both of us anyway. Sil helps a lot.

I'm pro allowing fags to marry you dummy.

I'm equally pro being allowed to tell them to shove it up their asses when they try to force others to do business with them, but it has nothing to do with gay. It has to do with my fundamental belief that the Constitution gives us the freedom to discriminate , no matter how distasteful it may be.

That's the part people like you don't get, and probably never will. Well, to put it more bluntly, you don't WANT to get it. You have no Constitutionally protected right to force me to like you or to business with you. Oh sure , you can dishonestly claim that forcing people not to discriminate is simply regulating , but it isn't and deep down you know it.

But the part you REALLY don't get is that I can be PRO allowing people to discriminate while at the same time being against discrimination. Or actually I'm not against discrimination , I'm for it in some cases; because I believe a business owner should be able to hang up a big sign that says "no gays" if he wishes, likewise I'd discriminate and not do business with him. See how that works? Probably not.

 

[Unkotare]

I'm pro allowing fags to marry you dummy.

Is there a reason you felt compelled to use the word "fag" there?

 

[Seawytch]

SeaWytch certainly isn't doing her fellow queers any favors in this thread.

Oh, care to elaborate?



You're doing the equality movement enough favors for both of us anyway. Sil helps a lot.

I'm pro allowing fags to marry you dummy.



I'm equally pro being allowed to tell them to shove it up their asses when they try to force others to do business with them, but it has nothing to do with gay. It has to do with my fundamental belief that the Constitution gives us the freedom to discriminate , no matter how distasteful it may be.



That's the part people like you don't get, and probably never will. Well, to put it more bluntly, you don't WANT to get it. You have no Constitutionally protected right to force me to like you or to business with you. Oh sure , you can dishonestly claim that forcing people not to discriminate is simply regulating , but it isn't and deep down you know it.



But the part you REALLY don't get is that I can be PRO allowing people to discriminate while at the same time being against discrimination. Or actually I'm not against discrimination , I'm for it in some cases; because I believe a business owner should be able to hang up a big sign that says "no gays" if he wishes, likewise I'd discriminate and not do business with him. See how that works? Probably not.

The constitutionality of public accommodation laws has already been determined...so, yeah there is a RIGHT to "force" you to provide the service your business advertises to blacks, Jews, Muslims and in almost half the states, gays.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The boy was 17, Shilts was wrong, and Sil is banging the drum on a tune that was out of chord long ago.

Sil accredits nobody, period; the documentation is against her.

End of story.

 

[Silhouette]

The boy was 17, Shilts was wrong, and Sil is banging the drum on a tune that was out of chord long ago.

Sil accredits nobody, period; the documentation is against her.

End of story.

The boy was 16, a minor and the vital statistics in the county where he was born can prove this.

Was Shilts also wrong that Harvey Milk took the still minor Jack Mckinley, officiating as his guardian no less, to a banker to start an investment account? In order to start that account, Milk had to have known Mckinley was a minor and had to have seen his birthdate on identification Mckinley would have to have had at the time.

Your "documentation" is a redacted diary at a museum in San Francisco and that is supposed to be superior to the vital statistics in the county where Galen Jack McKinley was born in 1947???

Defending sexual abuse of a minor is a crime Jake. You should take note as well... Why did Milk officiate as the boy's legal guardian when he took him to the bank Jake? Was that because he knew the boy was a minor? He even wrote letters to another minor he had his eyes on, urging him to run away from his parents' home and come be with him. You are defending a serial sexual abuser of troubled teen boys. I hope you are aware of that.

 

[BillyZane]

Oh, care to elaborate?



You're doing the equality movement enough favors for both of us anyway. Sil helps a lot.

I'm pro allowing fags to marry you dummy.



I'm equally pro being allowed to tell them to shove it up their asses when they try to force others to do business with them, but it has nothing to do with gay. It has to do with my fundamental belief that the Constitution gives us the freedom to discriminate , no matter how distasteful it may be.



That's the part people like you don't get, and probably never will. Well, to put it more bluntly, you don't WANT to get it. You have no Constitutionally protected right to force me to like you or to business with you. Oh sure , you can dishonestly claim that forcing people not to discriminate is simply regulating , but it isn't and deep down you know it.



But the part you REALLY don't get is that I can be PRO allowing people to discriminate while at the same time being against discrimination. Or actually I'm not against discrimination , I'm for it in some cases; because I believe a business owner should be able to hang up a big sign that says "no gays" if he wishes, likewise I'd discriminate and not do business with him. See how that works? Probably not.

The constitutionality of public accommodation laws has already been determined...so, yeah there is a RIGHT to "force" you to provide the service your business advertises to blacks, Jews, Muslims and in almost half the states, gays.

The Court got it wrong, and sadly morons like you do not understand that protecting our RIGHT to do with our property as we please should take precedence over ANYTHING, no matter how distasteful some people are in exercising those rights

 

[Silhouette]

The constitutionality of public accommodation laws has already been determined...so, yeah there is a RIGHT to "force" you to provide the service your business advertises to blacks, Jews, Muslims and in almost half the states, gays.

The Court got it wrong, and sadly morons like you do not understand that protecting our RIGHT to do with our property as we please should take precedence over ANYTHING, no matter how distasteful some people are in exercising those rights

What do blacks and jews and muslims have to do with gays? The LGBTers haven't formally formed a church yet have they? If not, they have nothing to do with race or federally recognized religions...

 

[BillyZane]

The constitutionality of public accommodation laws has already been determined...so, yeah there is a RIGHT to "force" you to provide the service your business advertises to blacks, Jews, Muslims and in almost half the states, gays.

The Court got it wrong, and sadly morons like you do not understand that protecting our RIGHT to do with our property as we please should take precedence over ANYTHING, no matter how distasteful some people are in exercising those rights

What do blacks and jews and muslims have to do with gays? The LGBTers haven't formally formed a church yet have they? If not, they have nothing to do with race or federally recognized religions...

What they have to do with it, is the federal government is not constitutionally empowered to carve out ANY exceptions to where they can force people to do business with each other.

Without major twisting of the document a person can not find ANYWHERE in the COTUS where the government is empowered to enforce the Civil Rights Act.

And the odd thing is, the federal government has always picked and choosed to which parties they will force to do what, while ignoring other violations of this unconstitutional law, and people just ignore that.

 

[Silhouette]

The Court got it wrong, and sadly morons like you do not understand that protecting our RIGHT to do with our property as we please should take precedence over ANYTHING, no matter how distasteful some people are in exercising those rights

What do blacks and jews and muslims have to do with gays? The LGBTers haven't formally formed a church yet have they? If not, they have nothing to do with race or federally recognized religions...

What they have to do with it, is the federal government is not constitutionally empowered to carve out ANY exceptions to where they can force people to do business with each other.

Without major twisting of the document a person can not find ANYWHERE in the COTUS where the government is empowered to enforce the Civil Rights Act.

And the odd thing is, the federal government has always picked and choosed to which parties they will force to do what, while ignoring other violations of this unconstitutional law, and people just ignore that.

Sorry, my points were more directed to Seawytch. She starts her rants under false premises and bulls forward as if they are concrete fact. From that she "concludes" false findings.

Blacks are a race, millions of years old. Jews are a religion, federally recognized and thousands of years old. Muslims are a religion, federally recognized and thousands of years old. LGBT is a cult, a few decades old and not either a race of people, nor a federally recogized religion.

They do have a messiah though, Harvey Milk. And they do evangelize as a matter of law no less [see California law requiring the celebration of the LGBT messiah in schools], and their numbers are on the massive increase. But they are not a religion. They are not a race. Apples and oranges. Did you get that Seawytch?