Cakes, Fakes & Counter-Quakes; Do The Kleins Have A Countersuit Against The Lesbians?

[JakeStarkey]

The post above is having fun with the OP.

There are some men women should just stay away from. The guy will use or hurt or do worse to them. Stay away.

There are some women men should not have a thing to do with. You guys know what I mean.

Ladies, if you really have trouble with a long term relationship with a guy, get a good career, a test tube baby, and a jar.

 

[rightwinger]

As a literalist......Where does the Constitution mention cakes?

Where does it mention marriage? Deviant sex practitioners?

I know

So the Constitution really does not apply to anything because it is not specifically annotated
Who needs courts?

 

[rightwinger]

If our Founding Fathers wanted to protect the baking of cakes, they would have included it in the Constitution

They left it out for a reason!

 

[Silhouette]

So the Constitution really does not apply to anything because it is not specifically annotated
Who needs courts?

Oh...it talks specifically about race & gender & country of origin & religion. But when you have judicial-legislation ripping away the majority's power to regulate deviant minority behaviors, you set up discrimination against other deviant minority behaviors & lifestylists if you don't give them all the same privileges.

For example, please explain to me in terms of Obergefell & the 14th Amendment why polygamists still can't marry & adopt unwanted children?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sigh. Still you can't make a sensible argument, Sil.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I'm skeptical of science lately, that Globull warming scam has made me skittish. Faking data will do that

You mean you're skeptical of science PERIOD, because you lack scientific background, education and training.

Sorry but in the face of a statement like that, you and I have nothing more to discuss on this thread. You might be a really nice person but I am not here to teach you, or anyone else, science.
And if you're hostile to it to begin with, it would be an even bigger waste of time.

Have they been caught fudging data? The answer is a resounding YES!

There lies your problem, "scientists" have sold out, they like grant money and in the process have done themselves great harm. LBGT is a hot issue, I'd be curious as to who is funding this research.

Much like polls...any desired result can be achieved, all depends on who is desiring the achievment. No?

EVERY Scientist in EVERY country has "sold out"?
Data consistently leads to a conclusion of man made global warming whether you live in a Democracy, Communist country, Dictatorship, Capitalist Country......

Pay attention you damn fool. Plenty of scientists have come out against it and you'll never get around the doomsayers have been nailed fudging data to suit their agenda. The moment that happens YOU should be skeptical but you remain in your echo chamber and in your ignorant bliss

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Here's your chance to find out if you understand basic science:

A Chevy LS-series V8, such as the ones used in the modern Corvettes, creates its power over a wider band of RPM.
Ninety percent of its power is achieved between 2000 and 7000 RPM, whereas a "tuner" style Honda 4 cylinder that puts out a thousand horsepower might only develop most of its power between 6000 and 8000 RPM.

The term for that is "paper horsepower".

That has what to do with globull warming?

You like to hear yourself talk

 

[Silhouette]

So the Constitution really does not apply to anything because it is not specifically annotated
Who needs courts?

Oh...it talks specifically about race & gender & country of origin & religion. But when you have judicial-legislation ripping away the majority's power to regulate deviant minority behaviors, you set up discrimination against other deviant minority behaviors & lifestylists if you don't give them all the same privileges.

For example, please explain to me in terms of Obergefell & the 14th Amendment why polygamists still can't marry & adopt unwanted children?

Sigh. Still you can't make a sensible argument, Sil.

That's not an answer. Please help me make a sensible argument. Please explain to me in therms of Obergefell & the 14th Amendment why polygamists still can't marry and adopt unwanted children?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

If our Founding Fathers wanted to protect the baking of cakes, they would have included it in the Constitution

They left it out for a reason!

If two men came to the Founding Fathers and told them they wanted to marry the Fathers would have looked at them like they had worms coming out of their ears.

That's a fact. Jack

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is no sensible argument to be made. Obergefeel & the 14th Amendment do not pertain to plural marriage.

 

[rightwinger]

So the Constitution really does not apply to anything because it is not specifically annotated
Who needs courts?

Oh...it talks specifically about race & gender & country of origin & religion. But when you have judicial-legislation ripping away the majority's power to regulate deviant minority behaviors, you set up discrimination against other deviant minority behaviors & lifestylists if you don't give them all the same privileges.

For example, please explain to me in terms of Obergefell & the 14th Amendment why polygamists still can't marry & adopt unwanted children?

Beats the hell out of me
I have no problem with polygamy if it is consensual

It is only the religious nutjobs who are blocking it

 

[Syriusly]

So the Constitution really does not apply to anything because it is not specifically annotated
Who needs courts?

Oh...it talks specifically about race & gender & country of origin & religion.

There is nothing in the Constitution that against a business discriminating against blacks, or Jews, or homosexuals.

But there are laws that prohibit discrimination.

 

[rightwinger]

If our Founding Fathers wanted to protect the baking of cakes, they would have included it in the Constitution

They left it out for a reason!

If two men came to the Founding Fathers and told them they wanted to marry the Fathers would have looked at them like they had worms coming out of their ears.

That's a fact. Jack

They left Gay Marriage out of the Constitution. If they opposed it, they would have included it
The Ten Commandments says nothing about Homosexuality. Didn't seem that important to God

 

[Syriusly]

No it actually depends on whether the person studying the data has enough training, education and background to understand the data in the first place.

If I were to present you with a four cylinder Honda engine that puts out a thousand horsepower, versus a Chevy V8 that only puts out 600, and show you more and more 1000 HP Hondas, you would eventually assume that Honda four bangers are just more powerful than American V8 engines.

And I can explain to you why that is bullshit, but you would have to have some background in physics to understand why it's bullshit.

Faking data is faking data and they got caught...more than once.

Well by that standard we can't believe anything from Conservatives- because they have been caught faking data.

So anything ever stated by a Conservative must be false- because a few Conservatives have faked data.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

No it actually depends on whether the person studying the data has enough training, education and background to understand the data in the first place.

If I were to present you with a four cylinder Honda engine that puts out a thousand horsepower, versus a Chevy V8 that only puts out 600, and show you more and more 1000 HP Hondas, you would eventually assume that Honda four bangers are just more powerful than American V8 engines.

And I can explain to you why that is bullshit, but you would have to have some background in physics to understand why it's bullshit.

Faking data is faking data and they got caught...more than once.

Well by that standard we can't believe anything from Conservatives- because they have been caught faking data.

So anything ever stated by a Conservative must be false- because a few Conservatives have faked data.

Oh shut up. You're trying to deflect from your bullshit global warming scam to some other crap.

You're a waste of time

 

[mdk]

Oh...it talks specifically about race & gender & country of origin & religion. But when you have judicial-legislation ripping away the majority's power to regulate deviant minority behaviors, you set up discrimination against other deviant minority behaviors & lifestylists if you don't give them all the same privileges.

For example, please explain to me in terms of Obergefell & the 14th Amendment why polygamists still can't marry & adopt unwanted children?

The case that was making its way through the courts concerning polygamy was from The Brown family. (The Supreme Court refused to grant cert in January) They did not argue they had the right to marry under Obergefell; however, they did argue they had the right to do so under Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the right to privacy. Why don't you support the religious freedoms of The Brown family?

You're only opposed to public accommodation laws on the grounds of religious freedoms when they cover fags. You still think a business should have to serve Jews or Muslims aganist their wishes regardless of any religious objections they may have. Again, I think all PA laws are stupid, but you still think the government should force people to do business with one another, unless they are gay. I am sure you're mentally ill obsession with homos has nothing to do with that hypocritical stance.

 

[Syriusly]

So the Constitution really does not apply to anything because it is not specifically annotated
Who needs courts?

For example, please explain to me in terms of Obergefell & the 14th Amendment why polygamists still can't marry & adopt unwanted children?

Oh that is really simple. You will ignore the explanation as you always do but the answer is really quite simple.

States have the right to create marriage laws- but Americans have a right to marriage. What Obergefell- and Loving and the other two rulings on marriage have repeatedly stated is that States cannot deny Americans marriage without a compelling reason. And the States were not able to present a compelling reason why mixed race couples, same gender couples, parents who owe child support or people in prison should not be allowed to marry.

Now do you think that States have a compelling reason to prohibit polygamy?

If you do- give it.

If you don't- then why do you want polygamy to be illegal?

Either there is a compelling argument against polygamy- or there isn't.

Is there?

Silhouette- is there a compelling argument against polygamy?

 

[Syriusly]

No it actually depends on whether the person studying the data has enough training, education and background to understand the data in the first place.

If I were to present you with a four cylinder Honda engine that puts out a thousand horsepower, versus a Chevy V8 that only puts out 600, and show you more and more 1000 HP Hondas, you would eventually assume that Honda four bangers are just more powerful than American V8 engines.

And I can explain to you why that is bullshit, but you would have to have some background in physics to understand why it's bullshit.

Faking data is faking data and they got caught...more than once.

Well by that standard we can't believe anything from Conservatives- because they have been caught faking data.

So anything ever stated by a Conservative must be false- because a few Conservatives have faked data.

Oh shut up. You're trying to deflect from your bullshit global warming scam to some other crap.

You're a waste of time

LOL- faux Conservatives- typical- "Science bad because I saw something Hannity said about Scientists faking data"- but when I point out that Conservatives have faked data then its "shut up!"

LOL

 

[Syriusly]

So the Constitution really does not apply to anything because it is not specifically annotated
Who needs courts?

But when you have judicial-legislation ripping away the majority's power to regulate deviant minority behaviors, .

Why are you against Loving v. Virginia?

Why do you think that the majority should have been able to 'regulate' deviant minority behaviors- which in that case was mixed race relations and marriage?

 

[Syriusly]

If our Founding Fathers wanted to protect the baking of cakes, they would have included it in the Constitution

They left it out for a reason!

If two men came to the Founding Fathers and told them they wanted to marry the Fathers would have looked at them like they had worms coming out of their ears.

That's a fact. Jack

If a black man came to the Founding Fathers and told them he wanted to run for President, the Founding fathers would have looked at him and told him to get back on the plantation/

That's a fact. Jack.