CDZ Christian wedding photographer sues-NY over nondiscrimination law

[danielpalos]

Not an ad-hominem, a valid observation of your posting style, or lack thereof.

This is the CDZ, if you think I have made an ad hominem attack feel free to report me.

My observations are just as valid. Your reasoning is simply full of fallacy.

I don't report people since I resort to the fewest fallacies and prefer to win my arguments.

And yet all you can do is say "help help, it's a fallacy" without actually proving it.

Ok. I will support my assertions and you support your assertions, right.

You don't support anything, you respond with either a long winded word salad, or just quote some part of the Constitution without actually linking it to the topic at hand.

Ad hominems are considered fallacies. You need valid arguments to support your currently unsubstantiated opinion.

Again, no ad hominem. As usual you just type in words with no backup or no links to the actual discussion.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of what an ad hominem is. Appealing to ignorance is also, usually considered a fallacy.

 

[martybegan]

Not an ad-hominem, a valid observation of your posting style, or lack thereof.

This is the CDZ, if you think I have made an ad hominem attack feel free to report me.

My observations are just as valid. Your reasoning is simply full of fallacy.

I don't report people since I resort to the fewest fallacies and prefer to win my arguments.

And yet all you can do is say "help help, it's a fallacy" without actually proving it.

Ok. I will support my assertions and you support your assertions, right.

You don't support anything, you respond with either a long winded word salad, or just quote some part of the Constitution without actually linking it to the topic at hand.

Ad hominems are considered fallacies. You need valid arguments to support your currently unsubstantiated opinion.

Again, no ad hominem. As usual you just type in words with no backup or no links to the actual discussion.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of what an ad hominem is. Appealing to ignorance is also, usually considered a fallacy.

There you go using concepts without actually applying them to the situation again.

 

[danielpalos]

Not an ad-hominem, a valid observation of your posting style, or lack thereof.

This is the CDZ, if you think I have made an ad hominem attack feel free to report me.

My observations are just as valid. Your reasoning is simply full of fallacy.

I don't report people since I resort to the fewest fallacies and prefer to win my arguments.

And yet all you can do is say "help help, it's a fallacy" without actually proving it.

Ok. I will support my assertions and you support your assertions, right.

You don't support anything, you respond with either a long winded word salad, or just quote some part of the Constitution without actually linking it to the topic at hand.

Ad hominems are considered fallacies. You need valid arguments to support your currently unsubstantiated opinion.

Again, no ad hominem. As usual you just type in words with no backup or no links to the actual discussion.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of what an ad hominem is. Appealing to ignorance is also, usually considered a fallacy.

There you go using concepts without actually applying them to the situation again.

Non sequiturs are also usually considered fallacies.

You must be on the right-wing. You would have no "arguments" at all if not for fallacy.

 

[martybegan]

Not an ad-hominem, a valid observation of your posting style, or lack thereof.

This is the CDZ, if you think I have made an ad hominem attack feel free to report me.

My observations are just as valid. Your reasoning is simply full of fallacy.

I don't report people since I resort to the fewest fallacies and prefer to win my arguments.

And yet all you can do is say "help help, it's a fallacy" without actually proving it.

Ok. I will support my assertions and you support your assertions, right.

You don't support anything, you respond with either a long winded word salad, or just quote some part of the Constitution without actually linking it to the topic at hand.

Ad hominems are considered fallacies. You need valid arguments to support your currently unsubstantiated opinion.

Again, no ad hominem. As usual you just type in words with no backup or no links to the actual discussion.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of what an ad hominem is. Appealing to ignorance is also, usually considered a fallacy.

There you go using concepts without actually applying them to the situation again.

Non sequiturs are also usually considered fallacies.

You must be on the right-wing. You would have no "arguments" at all if not for fallacy.

No fallacies here, despite your constant reference to them.

 

[danielpalos]

Not an ad-hominem, a valid observation of your posting style, or lack thereof.

This is the CDZ, if you think I have made an ad hominem attack feel free to report me.

My observations are just as valid. Your reasoning is simply full of fallacy.

I don't report people since I resort to the fewest fallacies and prefer to win my arguments.

And yet all you can do is say "help help, it's a fallacy" without actually proving it.

Ok. I will support my assertions and you support your assertions, right.

You don't support anything, you respond with either a long winded word salad, or just quote some part of the Constitution without actually linking it to the topic at hand.

Ad hominems are considered fallacies. You need valid arguments to support your currently unsubstantiated opinion.

Again, no ad hominem. As usual you just type in words with no backup or no links to the actual discussion.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of what an ad hominem is. Appealing to ignorance is also, usually considered a fallacy.

There you go using concepts without actually applying them to the situation again.

Non sequiturs are also usually considered fallacies.

You must be on the right-wing. You would have no "arguments" at all if not for fallacy.

No fallacies here, despite your constant reference to them.

In other words, I am Right even though I am on the left simply Because I say so. Thanks for acknowledging the fact there is no need to argue or discover sublime Truth (value) about this topic.

 

[martybegan]

Not an ad-hominem, a valid observation of your posting style, or lack thereof.

This is the CDZ, if you think I have made an ad hominem attack feel free to report me.

My observations are just as valid. Your reasoning is simply full of fallacy.

I don't report people since I resort to the fewest fallacies and prefer to win my arguments.

And yet all you can do is say "help help, it's a fallacy" without actually proving it.

Ok. I will support my assertions and you support your assertions, right.

You don't support anything, you respond with either a long winded word salad, or just quote some part of the Constitution without actually linking it to the topic at hand.

Ad hominems are considered fallacies. You need valid arguments to support your currently unsubstantiated opinion.

Again, no ad hominem. As usual you just type in words with no backup or no links to the actual discussion.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of what an ad hominem is. Appealing to ignorance is also, usually considered a fallacy.

There you go using concepts without actually applying them to the situation again.

Non sequiturs are also usually considered fallacies.

You must be on the right-wing. You would have no "arguments" at all if not for fallacy.

No fallacies here, despite your constant reference to them.

In other words, I am Right even though I am on the left simply Because I say so. Thanks for acknowledging the fact there is no need to argue or discover sublime Truth (value) about this topic.

Nope, nice try at claiming victory.

 

[danielpalos]

Not an ad-hominem, a valid observation of your posting style, or lack thereof.

This is the CDZ, if you think I have made an ad hominem attack feel free to report me.

My observations are just as valid. Your reasoning is simply full of fallacy.

I don't report people since I resort to the fewest fallacies and prefer to win my arguments.

And yet all you can do is say "help help, it's a fallacy" without actually proving it.

Ok. I will support my assertions and you support your assertions, right.

You don't support anything, you respond with either a long winded word salad, or just quote some part of the Constitution without actually linking it to the topic at hand.

Ad hominems are considered fallacies. You need valid arguments to support your currently unsubstantiated opinion.

Again, no ad hominem. As usual you just type in words with no backup or no links to the actual discussion.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of what an ad hominem is. Appealing to ignorance is also, usually considered a fallacy.

There you go using concepts without actually applying them to the situation again.

Non sequiturs are also usually considered fallacies.

You must be on the right-wing. You would have no "arguments" at all if not for fallacy.

No fallacies here, despite your constant reference to them.

In other words, I am Right even though I am on the left simply Because I say so. Thanks for acknowledging the fact there is no need to argue or discover sublime Truth (value) about this topic.

Nope, nice try at claiming victory.

Same to you.

Want to argue about it and see who resorts to the fewest fallacies?

 

[martybegan]

Not an ad-hominem, a valid observation of your posting style, or lack thereof.

This is the CDZ, if you think I have made an ad hominem attack feel free to report me.

My observations are just as valid. Your reasoning is simply full of fallacy.

I don't report people since I resort to the fewest fallacies and prefer to win my arguments.

And yet all you can do is say "help help, it's a fallacy" without actually proving it.

Ok. I will support my assertions and you support your assertions, right.

You don't support anything, you respond with either a long winded word salad, or just quote some part of the Constitution without actually linking it to the topic at hand.

Ad hominems are considered fallacies. You need valid arguments to support your currently unsubstantiated opinion.

Again, no ad hominem. As usual you just type in words with no backup or no links to the actual discussion.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of what an ad hominem is. Appealing to ignorance is also, usually considered a fallacy.

There you go using concepts without actually applying them to the situation again.

Non sequiturs are also usually considered fallacies.

You must be on the right-wing. You would have no "arguments" at all if not for fallacy.

No fallacies here, despite your constant reference to them.

In other words, I am Right even though I am on the left simply Because I say so. Thanks for acknowledging the fact there is no need to argue or discover sublime Truth (value) about this topic.

Nope, nice try at claiming victory.

Same to you.

Want to argue about it and see who resorts to the fewest fallacies?

We've been "arguing" for 10's of pages, and all you do is post babble and references to concepts you don't back up or even connect to the discussion at hand.

 

[danielpalos]

Not an ad-hominem, a valid observation of your posting style, or lack thereof.

This is the CDZ, if you think I have made an ad hominem attack feel free to report me.

My observations are just as valid. Your reasoning is simply full of fallacy.

I don't report people since I resort to the fewest fallacies and prefer to win my arguments.

And yet all you can do is say "help help, it's a fallacy" without actually proving it.

Ok. I will support my assertions and you support your assertions, right.

You don't support anything, you respond with either a long winded word salad, or just quote some part of the Constitution without actually linking it to the topic at hand.

Ad hominems are considered fallacies. You need valid arguments to support your currently unsubstantiated opinion.

Again, no ad hominem. As usual you just type in words with no backup or no links to the actual discussion.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of what an ad hominem is. Appealing to ignorance is also, usually considered a fallacy.

There you go using concepts without actually applying them to the situation again.

Non sequiturs are also usually considered fallacies.

You must be on the right-wing. You would have no "arguments" at all if not for fallacy.

No fallacies here, despite your constant reference to them.

In other words, I am Right even though I am on the left simply Because I say so. Thanks for acknowledging the fact there is no need to argue or discover sublime Truth (value) about this topic.

Nope, nice try at claiming victory.

Same to you.

Want to argue about it and see who resorts to the fewest fallacies?

We've been "arguing" for 10's of pages, and all you do is post babble and references to concepts you don't back up or even connect to the discussion at hand.

lol. All you do is not understand anything even when I am clear and concise and resort to the fewest fallacies. Want to argue about it and see who resorts to the fewest fallacies?

 

[martybegan]

Not an ad-hominem, a valid observation of your posting style, or lack thereof.

This is the CDZ, if you think I have made an ad hominem attack feel free to report me.

My observations are just as valid. Your reasoning is simply full of fallacy.

I don't report people since I resort to the fewest fallacies and prefer to win my arguments.

And yet all you can do is say "help help, it's a fallacy" without actually proving it.

Ok. I will support my assertions and you support your assertions, right.

You don't support anything, you respond with either a long winded word salad, or just quote some part of the Constitution without actually linking it to the topic at hand.

Ad hominems are considered fallacies. You need valid arguments to support your currently unsubstantiated opinion.

Again, no ad hominem. As usual you just type in words with no backup or no links to the actual discussion.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of what an ad hominem is. Appealing to ignorance is also, usually considered a fallacy.

There you go using concepts without actually applying them to the situation again.

Non sequiturs are also usually considered fallacies.

You must be on the right-wing. You would have no "arguments" at all if not for fallacy.

No fallacies here, despite your constant reference to them.

In other words, I am Right even though I am on the left simply Because I say so. Thanks for acknowledging the fact there is no need to argue or discover sublime Truth (value) about this topic.

Nope, nice try at claiming victory.

Same to you.

Want to argue about it and see who resorts to the fewest fallacies?

We've been "arguing" for 10's of pages, and all you do is post babble and references to concepts you don't back up or even connect to the discussion at hand.

lol. All you do is not understand anything even when I am clear and concise and resort to the fewest fallacies. Want to argue about it and see who resorts to the fewest fallacies?

More strung out word salad that isn't remotely connected to reality.

 

[danielpalos]

Not an ad-hominem, a valid observation of your posting style, or lack thereof.

This is the CDZ, if you think I have made an ad hominem attack feel free to report me.

My observations are just as valid. Your reasoning is simply full of fallacy.

I don't report people since I resort to the fewest fallacies and prefer to win my arguments.

And yet all you can do is say "help help, it's a fallacy" without actually proving it.

Ok. I will support my assertions and you support your assertions, right.

You don't support anything, you respond with either a long winded word salad, or just quote some part of the Constitution without actually linking it to the topic at hand.

Ad hominems are considered fallacies. You need valid arguments to support your currently unsubstantiated opinion.

Again, no ad hominem. As usual you just type in words with no backup or no links to the actual discussion.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of what an ad hominem is. Appealing to ignorance is also, usually considered a fallacy.

There you go using concepts without actually applying them to the situation again.

Non sequiturs are also usually considered fallacies.

You must be on the right-wing. You would have no "arguments" at all if not for fallacy.

No fallacies here, despite your constant reference to them.

In other words, I am Right even though I am on the left simply Because I say so. Thanks for acknowledging the fact there is no need to argue or discover sublime Truth (value) about this topic.

Nope, nice try at claiming victory.

Same to you.

Want to argue about it and see who resorts to the fewest fallacies?

We've been "arguing" for 10's of pages, and all you do is post babble and references to concepts you don't back up or even connect to the discussion at hand.

lol. All you do is not understand anything even when I am clear and concise and resort to the fewest fallacies. Want to argue about it and see who resorts to the fewest fallacies?

More strung out word salad that isn't remotely connected to reality.

lol. Just Your thought process. It takes time to be able to "dumb it down enough for right wingers".

 

[martybegan]

Not an ad-hominem, a valid observation of your posting style, or lack thereof.

This is the CDZ, if you think I have made an ad hominem attack feel free to report me.

My observations are just as valid. Your reasoning is simply full of fallacy.

I don't report people since I resort to the fewest fallacies and prefer to win my arguments.

And yet all you can do is say "help help, it's a fallacy" without actually proving it.

Ok. I will support my assertions and you support your assertions, right.

You don't support anything, you respond with either a long winded word salad, or just quote some part of the Constitution without actually linking it to the topic at hand.

Ad hominems are considered fallacies. You need valid arguments to support your currently unsubstantiated opinion.

Again, no ad hominem. As usual you just type in words with no backup or no links to the actual discussion.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of what an ad hominem is. Appealing to ignorance is also, usually considered a fallacy.

There you go using concepts without actually applying them to the situation again.

Non sequiturs are also usually considered fallacies.

You must be on the right-wing. You would have no "arguments" at all if not for fallacy.

No fallacies here, despite your constant reference to them.

In other words, I am Right even though I am on the left simply Because I say so. Thanks for acknowledging the fact there is no need to argue or discover sublime Truth (value) about this topic.

Nope, nice try at claiming victory.

Same to you.

Want to argue about it and see who resorts to the fewest fallacies?

We've been "arguing" for 10's of pages, and all you do is post babble and references to concepts you don't back up or even connect to the discussion at hand.

lol. All you do is not understand anything even when I am clear and concise and resort to the fewest fallacies. Want to argue about it and see who resorts to the fewest fallacies?

More strung out word salad that isn't remotely connected to reality.

lol. Just Your thought process. It takes time to be able to "dumb it down enough for right wingers".

You haven't made an actual point in multiple pages.

 

[danielpalos]

Not an ad-hominem, a valid observation of your posting style, or lack thereof.

This is the CDZ, if you think I have made an ad hominem attack feel free to report me.

My observations are just as valid. Your reasoning is simply full of fallacy.

I don't report people since I resort to the fewest fallacies and prefer to win my arguments.

And yet all you can do is say "help help, it's a fallacy" without actually proving it.

Ok. I will support my assertions and you support your assertions, right.

You don't support anything, you respond with either a long winded word salad, or just quote some part of the Constitution without actually linking it to the topic at hand.

Ad hominems are considered fallacies. You need valid arguments to support your currently unsubstantiated opinion.

Again, no ad hominem. As usual you just type in words with no backup or no links to the actual discussion.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of what an ad hominem is. Appealing to ignorance is also, usually considered a fallacy.

There you go using concepts without actually applying them to the situation again.

Non sequiturs are also usually considered fallacies.

You must be on the right-wing. You would have no "arguments" at all if not for fallacy.

No fallacies here, despite your constant reference to them.

In other words, I am Right even though I am on the left simply Because I say so. Thanks for acknowledging the fact there is no need to argue or discover sublime Truth (value) about this topic.

Nope, nice try at claiming victory.

Same to you.

Want to argue about it and see who resorts to the fewest fallacies?

We've been "arguing" for 10's of pages, and all you do is post babble and references to concepts you don't back up or even connect to the discussion at hand.

lol. All you do is not understand anything even when I am clear and concise and resort to the fewest fallacies. Want to argue about it and see who resorts to the fewest fallacies?

More strung out word salad that isn't remotely connected to reality.

lol. Just Your thought process. It takes time to be able to "dumb it down enough for right wingers".

You haven't made an actual point in multiple pages.

You haven't understood a single point on multiple pages.

 

[martybegan]

Not an ad-hominem, a valid observation of your posting style, or lack thereof.

This is the CDZ, if you think I have made an ad hominem attack feel free to report me.

My observations are just as valid. Your reasoning is simply full of fallacy.

I don't report people since I resort to the fewest fallacies and prefer to win my arguments.

And yet all you can do is say "help help, it's a fallacy" without actually proving it.

Ok. I will support my assertions and you support your assertions, right.

You don't support anything, you respond with either a long winded word salad, or just quote some part of the Constitution without actually linking it to the topic at hand.

Ad hominems are considered fallacies. You need valid arguments to support your currently unsubstantiated opinion.

Again, no ad hominem. As usual you just type in words with no backup or no links to the actual discussion.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of what an ad hominem is. Appealing to ignorance is also, usually considered a fallacy.

There you go using concepts without actually applying them to the situation again.

Non sequiturs are also usually considered fallacies.

You must be on the right-wing. You would have no "arguments" at all if not for fallacy.

No fallacies here, despite your constant reference to them.

In other words, I am Right even though I am on the left simply Because I say so. Thanks for acknowledging the fact there is no need to argue or discover sublime Truth (value) about this topic.

Nope, nice try at claiming victory.

Same to you.

Want to argue about it and see who resorts to the fewest fallacies?

We've been "arguing" for 10's of pages, and all you do is post babble and references to concepts you don't back up or even connect to the discussion at hand.

lol. All you do is not understand anything even when I am clear and concise and resort to the fewest fallacies. Want to argue about it and see who resorts to the fewest fallacies?

More strung out word salad that isn't remotely connected to reality.

lol. Just Your thought process. It takes time to be able to "dumb it down enough for right wingers".

You haven't made an actual point in multiple pages.

You haven't understood a single point on multiple pages.

What point(s)?

 

[danielpalos]

Not an ad-hominem, a valid observation of your posting style, or lack thereof.

This is the CDZ, if you think I have made an ad hominem attack feel free to report me.

My observations are just as valid. Your reasoning is simply full of fallacy.

I don't report people since I resort to the fewest fallacies and prefer to win my arguments.

And yet all you can do is say "help help, it's a fallacy" without actually proving it.

Ok. I will support my assertions and you support your assertions, right.

You don't support anything, you respond with either a long winded word salad, or just quote some part of the Constitution without actually linking it to the topic at hand.

Ad hominems are considered fallacies. You need valid arguments to support your currently unsubstantiated opinion.

Again, no ad hominem. As usual you just type in words with no backup or no links to the actual discussion.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of what an ad hominem is. Appealing to ignorance is also, usually considered a fallacy.

There you go using concepts without actually applying them to the situation again.

Non sequiturs are also usually considered fallacies.

You must be on the right-wing. You would have no "arguments" at all if not for fallacy.

No fallacies here, despite your constant reference to them.

In other words, I am Right even though I am on the left simply Because I say so. Thanks for acknowledging the fact there is no need to argue or discover sublime Truth (value) about this topic.

Nope, nice try at claiming victory.

Same to you.

Want to argue about it and see who resorts to the fewest fallacies?

We've been "arguing" for 10's of pages, and all you do is post babble and references to concepts you don't back up or even connect to the discussion at hand.

lol. All you do is not understand anything even when I am clear and concise and resort to the fewest fallacies. Want to argue about it and see who resorts to the fewest fallacies?

More strung out word salad that isn't remotely connected to reality.

lol. Just Your thought process. It takes time to be able to "dumb it down enough for right wingers".

You haven't made an actual point in multiple pages.

You haven't understood a single point on multiple pages.

What point(s)?

The points You don't have and the arguments You could not come up with.

 

[martybegan]

Not an ad-hominem, a valid observation of your posting style, or lack thereof.

This is the CDZ, if you think I have made an ad hominem attack feel free to report me.

My observations are just as valid. Your reasoning is simply full of fallacy.

I don't report people since I resort to the fewest fallacies and prefer to win my arguments.

And yet all you can do is say "help help, it's a fallacy" without actually proving it.

Ok. I will support my assertions and you support your assertions, right.

You don't support anything, you respond with either a long winded word salad, or just quote some part of the Constitution without actually linking it to the topic at hand.

Ad hominems are considered fallacies. You need valid arguments to support your currently unsubstantiated opinion.

Again, no ad hominem. As usual you just type in words with no backup or no links to the actual discussion.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of what an ad hominem is. Appealing to ignorance is also, usually considered a fallacy.

There you go using concepts without actually applying them to the situation again.

Non sequiturs are also usually considered fallacies.

You must be on the right-wing. You would have no "arguments" at all if not for fallacy.

No fallacies here, despite your constant reference to them.

In other words, I am Right even though I am on the left simply Because I say so. Thanks for acknowledging the fact there is no need to argue or discover sublime Truth (value) about this topic.

Nope, nice try at claiming victory.

Same to you.

Want to argue about it and see who resorts to the fewest fallacies?

We've been "arguing" for 10's of pages, and all you do is post babble and references to concepts you don't back up or even connect to the discussion at hand.

lol. All you do is not understand anything even when I am clear and concise and resort to the fewest fallacies. Want to argue about it and see who resorts to the fewest fallacies?

More strung out word salad that isn't remotely connected to reality.

lol. Just Your thought process. It takes time to be able to "dumb it down enough for right wingers".

You haven't made an actual point in multiple pages.

You haven't understood a single point on multiple pages.

What point(s)?

The points You don't have and the arguments You could not come up with.

Again, What point(s).

 

[danielpalos]

Not an ad-hominem, a valid observation of your posting style, or lack thereof.

This is the CDZ, if you think I have made an ad hominem attack feel free to report me.

My observations are just as valid. Your reasoning is simply full of fallacy.

I don't report people since I resort to the fewest fallacies and prefer to win my arguments.

And yet all you can do is say "help help, it's a fallacy" without actually proving it.

Ok. I will support my assertions and you support your assertions, right.

You don't support anything, you respond with either a long winded word salad, or just quote some part of the Constitution without actually linking it to the topic at hand.

Ad hominems are considered fallacies. You need valid arguments to support your currently unsubstantiated opinion.

Again, no ad hominem. As usual you just type in words with no backup or no links to the actual discussion.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of what an ad hominem is. Appealing to ignorance is also, usually considered a fallacy.

There you go using concepts without actually applying them to the situation again.

Non sequiturs are also usually considered fallacies.

You must be on the right-wing. You would have no "arguments" at all if not for fallacy.

No fallacies here, despite your constant reference to them.

In other words, I am Right even though I am on the left simply Because I say so. Thanks for acknowledging the fact there is no need to argue or discover sublime Truth (value) about this topic.

Nope, nice try at claiming victory.

Same to you.

Want to argue about it and see who resorts to the fewest fallacies?

We've been "arguing" for 10's of pages, and all you do is post babble and references to concepts you don't back up or even connect to the discussion at hand.

lol. All you do is not understand anything even when I am clear and concise and resort to the fewest fallacies. Want to argue about it and see who resorts to the fewest fallacies?

More strung out word salad that isn't remotely connected to reality.

lol. Just Your thought process. It takes time to be able to "dumb it down enough for right wingers".

You haven't made an actual point in multiple pages.

You haven't understood a single point on multiple pages.

What point(s)?

The points You don't have and the arguments You could not come up with.

Again, What point(s).

This one: : the most important essential in a discussion or matter

Every argument in a debate has one.

 

[emilynghiem]

To SOME people, and a lot of Christians, these are not the same at all. One type of wedding or relationship is AGAINST their beliefs, and the other is consecrated to God.

It’s not that the marriage is different, it’s that your beliefs are that SOME PEOPLE aren’t allowed to have it in your eyes.

It’s an act of selfishness to me.

Imagine if a restaurant cooked a gorgeous meal and decided that SOME PEOPLE aren’t allowed to eat it, replying that this is a (for example) white people meal and not a (for example) black people meal. It’s the same meal, the only thing that’s changed is the recipient.

Whoa.
1. Everyone can have their own marriage ceremonies, similar to baptisms, communions, funeral services etc that are personal choices and preferences.
2. Technically the Govt cannot endorse or regulate ANY such private or personal choices, especially spiritual or religious, unless the public consents to govt policy so there is no complaint of religious bias.
3. Currently, we might agree on CIVIL UNIONS and Domestic Partnerships as legal and financial contracts regulated by States as SECULAR only. But not all ppl agree on beliefs about SOCIAL and Spiritual Relations, so that part should remain private not govt jurisdiction.
4. Technically marriage laws were always arguably unconstitutional, but went unchallenged and uncontested because ppl consented to let govt be involved and endorse marriage as a tradition. Now that it is clear we do not agree on beliefs, we no longer agree to have Govt impose policy: either ALL marriage should be removed from Govt and only keep NEUTRAL CIVIL CONTRACTS, or as you say and I agree, open up all marriages to people of either same sex or traditional beliefs.

Each State has to decide on a consistent policy so all citizens are treated the same.

Either all get CIVIL unions so the State neither endorses or regulates the "social relationship" but only recognizes the financial contract between any two partners, including legal guardianship, custody, estate etc.

The Govt should remain neutral where any partners should be able to register for a partnership.

As for weddings/marriages for social and cultural practices, that should be left to individual private beliefs and choices, outside of Govt that only handles external legal contracts and partnerships. Govt does not have any authority to decide, endorse or impose, in personal choices such as spiritual/religious/social beliefs that belong to people.

 

[jc456]

Dear emilynghiem,

You omit the fact that operating in public accommodation requires a license and stating that the operator is going to follow rules and fixed Standards created by Government. It is not a right, only a privilege.

The seller could operate on a not-for-profit basis if Morals mean more than Lucre to that operator.

Let's try it this way danielpalos
What if a biased policy was proposed or passed by a city which attempted to "correct a complaint" that schools or businesses were excluding or discriminating against
* Conservatives lobbying for cooperative health care, or spiritual healing of criminal illness or diseases etc.
*right to life teaching against abortion
*Constitutional teachings about respect for police, military or gun rights
* Capitalism or Libertarian beliefs in limited govt
Etc

So this "ordinance" required businesses to "balance their websites" and post:
* ProCapitalism messages on their websites if they mentioned Socialism
* positive photos of police or military if the website posted negative reports or protest photos against police
* Constitutional messages or content teaching proLibertarian beliefs in limited govt if the website had pro statist beliefs in central govt authority or federal mandates
* Prolife content or photos against abortion if the website had prochoice content or photos
* conservative content or images if the website has liberal content or images (or testimonies of healing "ex gays" or "former transgender" if the website has pro LGBT content or testimonies) (or content that is lobbying for health care cooperatives "to balance" lobbying for federalized health care, or lobby for Charter schools or free choice of prayer in schools or flags/anthems if website content is biased against these policies in schools, so the content is "balanced" )

Of course, you would protest that isn't even proper use of accommodations.

But your lawyer argues you can win your case to strike down that bad bill if we argue in court that it "violates FREE SPEECH" by "govt regulating WEBSITE CONTENT."

Your lawyer argues there is stronger legal precedence to argue against and strike it down Constitutionally.

And the case will get more public support and media by arguing it violates free speech.

Are you going to argue both or just argue about the accommodations law?

If you are trying to win your lawsuit to contest this bill (where govt is abused to control what businesses put on their websites to "balance the bias in their content") would you agree with lawyers to make it a free speech issue?

danielpalos
What if the judge/court sided with the law and agreed "since the INTENT is for ACCOMMODATIONS" then the govt can force businesses to post balancing content as above.

If they pushed "equal accommodations" so the schools or businesses "are not advertising discrimination on their websites, wouldn't you argue those schools and business have the right to post their policies promoting prochoice or pro national health care WITHOUT govt FORCING them "to include" prolife or pro free market or pro cooperative health care to "balance" website content and not "advertise discrimination."

It already happened. Segregation already took place in our Republic even with this clause in our supreme law of the land:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Freedom isn’t free

 

[danielpalos]

Dear emilynghiem,

You omit the fact that operating in public accommodation requires a license and stating that the operator is going to follow rules and fixed Standards created by Government. It is not a right, only a privilege.

The seller could operate on a not-for-profit basis if Morals mean more than Lucre to that operator.

Let's try it this way danielpalos
What if a biased policy was proposed or passed by a city which attempted to "correct a complaint" that schools or businesses were excluding or discriminating against
* Conservatives lobbying for cooperative health care, or spiritual healing of criminal illness or diseases etc.
*right to life teaching against abortion
*Constitutional teachings about respect for police, military or gun rights
* Capitalism or Libertarian beliefs in limited govt
Etc

So this "ordinance" required businesses to "balance their websites" and post:
* ProCapitalism messages on their websites if they mentioned Socialism
* positive photos of police or military if the website posted negative reports or protest photos against police
* Constitutional messages or content teaching proLibertarian beliefs in limited govt if the website had pro statist beliefs in central govt authority or federal mandates
* Prolife content or photos against abortion if the website had prochoice content or photos
* conservative content or images if the website has liberal content or images (or testimonies of healing "ex gays" or "former transgender" if the website has pro LGBT content or testimonies) (or content that is lobbying for health care cooperatives "to balance" lobbying for federalized health care, or lobby for Charter schools or free choice of prayer in schools or flags/anthems if website content is biased against these policies in schools, so the content is "balanced" )

Of course, you would protest that isn't even proper use of accommodations.

But your lawyer argues you can win your case to strike down that bad bill if we argue in court that it "violates FREE SPEECH" by "govt regulating WEBSITE CONTENT."

Your lawyer argues there is stronger legal precedence to argue against and strike it down Constitutionally.

And the case will get more public support and media by arguing it violates free speech.

Are you going to argue both or just argue about the accommodations law?

If you are trying to win your lawsuit to contest this bill (where govt is abused to control what businesses put on their websites to "balance the bias in their content") would you agree with lawyers to make it a free speech issue?

danielpalos
What if the judge/court sided with the law and agreed "since the INTENT is for ACCOMMODATIONS" then the govt can force businesses to post balancing content as above.

If they pushed "equal accommodations" so the schools or businesses "are not advertising discrimination on their websites, wouldn't you argue those schools and business have the right to post their policies promoting prochoice or pro national health care WITHOUT govt FORCING them "to include" prolife or pro free market or pro cooperative health care to "balance" website content and not "advertise discrimination."

It already happened. Segregation already took place in our Republic even with this clause in our supreme law of the land:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Freedom isn’t free

Neither is Government. Ten simple Commandments from God for free not the Expense of Government on Earth!

All it takes is Morals, right-wingers.