Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I absolutely support the struggle that gay Americans have waged for equality in this nation. They are winning that struggle. Which makes you a loser.
Do you also support polygamist-Americans and their struggles for equality? How about cleptomaniac Americans? Bulimic Americans (why do we force them to practice their eating-orientation in a bathroom stall, they should have vomit urns on every table in every restaurant.)...
You understand the difference between habitual behaviors and a static class like race, right? There is no such thing as a "gay American". Just because your cult created the term, doesn't make it valid. There are only Americans doing this or that thing. You can't call someone a "behavior-American".. only a class-American. Behaviors aren't a class of people; otherwise all of the possible human behaviors must, via the edicts of "equality", have their own class and protections. Equality means that no group doing habitual behaviors and thereby giving themselves a special name-hyphen-"American", can be left out of the special-protections/class arena.
I absolutely support the struggle that gay Americans have waged for equality in this nation. They are winning that struggle. Which makes you a loser.
You may be the sweetest, most gentle, despicable bigot posting on these pages. I find you to be insufferably lame and you always find a way to use twenty words to communicate thoughts which require only half a dozen.
Just thought you'd like to know.
I absolutely support the struggle that gay Americans have waged for equality in this nation. They are winning that struggle. Which makes you a loser.
Do you also support polygamist-Americans and their struggles for equality? How about cleptomaniac Americans? Bulimic Americans (why do we force them to practice their eating-orientation in a bathroom stall, they should have vomit urns on every table in every restaurant.)...
You understand the difference between habitual behaviors and a static class like race, right? There is no such thing as a "gay American". Just because your cult created the term, doesn't make it valid. There are only Americans doing this or that thing. You can't call someone a "behavior-American".. only a class-American. Behaviors aren't a class of people; otherwise all of the possible human behaviors must, via the edicts of "equality", have their own class and protections. Equality means that no group doing habitual behaviors and thereby giving themselves a special name-hyphen-"American", can be left out of the special-protections/class arena.
You may be the sweetest, most gentle, despicable bigot posting on these pages. I find you to be insufferably lame and you always find a way to use twenty words to communicate thoughts which require only half a dozen.
Just thought you'd like to know.
I know words are overwhelming to you. But I won't limit them to spare the illustration for those who are too slow to grasp that if one behavior is repugnant to the majority, yet gets special "class protections", other behaviors also repugnant to the majority, (cleptomania, bulimia, polygamy) can't be left out in the cold. Equality demands equal treatment for behaviors. One gets protection, they all do. Let me know when you understand what equality means...
I absolutely support the struggle that gay Americans have waged for equality in this nation. They are winning that struggle. Which makes you a loser.
Do you also support polygamist-Americans and their struggles for equality? How about cleptomaniac Americans? Bulimic Americans (why do we force them to practice their eating-orientation in a bathroom stall, they should have vomit urns on every table in every restaurant.)...
You understand the difference between habitual behaviors and a static class like race, right? There is no such thing as a "gay American". Just because your cult created the term, doesn't make it valid. There are only Americans doing this or that thing. You can't call someone a "behavior-American".. only a class-American. Behaviors aren't a class of people; otherwise all of the possible human behaviors must, via the edicts of "equality", have their own class and protections. Equality means that no group doing habitual behaviors and thereby giving themselves a special name-hyphen-"American", can be left out of the special-protections/class arena.
Does tonguing toilets make you ghey?oh well, i had a good run. twenty years in the women's bathroom.
^^ However, the courts are mandated to note that once one behavior repugnant to the majority gets protection from the majority, all others must as well. What would be the determiner? That the majority objects to the new type of behavior? Seriously?
what is it with you leftwing progressives and trans hatred.Does tonguing toilets make you ghey?oh well, i had a good run. twenty years in the women's bathroom.
I absolutely support the struggle that gay Americans have waged for equality in this nation. They are winning that struggle. Which makes you a loser.
Do you also support polygamist-Americans and their struggles for equality? How about cleptomaniac Americans? Bulimic Americans (why do we force them to practice their eating-orientation in a bathroom stall, they should have vomit urns on every table in every restaurant.)...
You understand the difference between habitual behaviors and a static class like race, right? There is no such thing as a "gay American". Just because your cult created the term, doesn't make it valid. There are only Americans doing this or that thing. You can't call someone a "behavior-American".. only a class-American. Behaviors aren't a class of people; otherwise all of the possible human behaviors must, via the edicts of "equality", have their own class and protections. Equality means that no group doing habitual behaviors and thereby giving themselves a special name-hyphen-"American", can be left out of the special-protections/class arena.
People like LL claim to support equality and equal protection until you expect them to support such things in situations they disagree with. I've asked so many of the same sex marriage supporters whether or not they applied the concept of equal protection to brother/sister, mother/son, or father/daughter marriages I've lost count. What I haven't lost count of is how many that claim to support equal protection oppose it when it comes to marriages they don't think should take place. It's not hard to keep count of zero. They clamor about two people that love each other being able to get married and no one should stop them until those two people are in categories they think shouldn't get married. That's when they find all sorts of excuses to exempt equal protection.
I don't know which are which.. Just thought I'd ask...what is it with you leftwing progressives and trans hatred.Does tonguing toilets make you ghey?oh well, i had a good run. twenty years in the women's bathroom.
I absolutely support the struggle that gay Americans have waged for equality in this nation. They are winning that struggle. Which makes you a loser.
People like LL claim to support equality and equal protection until you expect them to support such things in situations they disagree with. I've asked so many of the same sex marriage supporters whether or not they applied the concept of equal protection to brother/sister, mother/son, or father/daughter marriages I've lost count. What I haven't lost count of is how many that claim to support equal protection oppose it when it comes to marriages they don't think should take place. It's not hard to keep count of zero. They clamor about two people that love each other being able to get married and no one should stop them until those two people are in categories they think shouldn't get married. That's when they find all sorts of excuses to exempt equal protection.
I absolutely support the struggle that gay Americans have waged for equality in this nation. They are winning that struggle. Which makes you a loser.
Do you also support polygamist-Americans and their struggles for equality? How about cleptomaniac Americans? Bulimic Americans (why do we force them to practice their eating-orientation in a bathroom stall, they should have vomit urns on every table in every restaurant.)...
You understand the difference between habitual behaviors and a static class like race, right? There is no such thing as a "gay American". Just because your cult created the term, doesn't make it valid. There are only Americans doing this or that thing. You can't call someone a "behavior-American".. only a class-American. Behaviors aren't a class of people; otherwise all of the possible human behaviors must, via the edicts of "equality", have their own class and protections. Equality means that no group doing habitual behaviors and thereby giving themselves a special name-hyphen-"American", can be left out of the special-protections/class arena.
People like LL claim to support equality and equal protection until you expect them to support such things in situations they disagree with. I've asked so many of the same sex marriage supporters whether or not they applied the concept of equal protection to brother/sister, mother/son, or father/daughter marriages I've lost count. What I haven't lost count of is how many that claim to support equal protection oppose it when it comes to marriages they don't think should take place. It's not hard to keep count of zero. They clamor about two people that love each other being able to get married and no one should stop them until those two people are in categories they think shouldn't get married. That's when they find all sorts of excuses to exempt equal protection.
I see the usual tag team group has arrived. mdk/Skylar taking turns slinging ad hominems in lieu of rebuttal they cannot make to the points I raised. A feminine "gee can't we all just get along...Silhouette is so MEAN!" character....and to tie it up...Moonglow inserting parody and non sequiturs to derail the conversation into "this is just a farce...move on..."
So, my conclusion is that this usual team is quite rattled by the federal court's decision and wording, pointing out as I've been saying all along that behaviors aren't covered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act...nor any interpretative spin offs (Obergefell). "Civil Rights" don't apply to behaviors.
Yet when the cult of LGBT screams that they do apply!...and people point out to them, like you did Conservative65, then all of a sudden "that's icky!" or "polygamists always just want to have sex with minors". That's absurd! While their hero and icon Harvey Milk was documented as having a sexual relationship with a minor, and transporting him across state lines as such (federal crime and felonies), they get our sitting President to name a navy ship after him.
They are so all over the board that it was only a matter of time before a federal judge or panel of them put a stop to the hypocrisy freight train and correctly identified their false premise: "race is the same as behaviors!!".. No...it's not. They aren't even legally in the same ballpark. One behavior can't be special while all the others are shut out. Even ones that are born from sexual deviancy...like polygamy or incest. "They're just wrong!" Well, so is ass sex spreading aids and permanently divorcing kids in that "marriage" from either a mother or father for life..
The United States appeals court has ruled that homo's have NO protection under the law and its LEGAL to fire a homo for being a homo.
“The cases as they stand do ... create a paradoxical legal landscape in which a person can be married on Saturday and then fired on Monday for just that act.”
7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College"
When Trump wins and we get another conservative SCOTUS these "Trans-homos will no longer be in bathrooms and the filth in our schools can be removed.
Appeals court: Sexual-orientation discrimination is legal
Fury
The 1964 Civil Rights Act said nothing about gun ownership or religion. Those are specifically addressed elsewhere in the Constitution. If you want to amend the 1964 Civil Rights act, go ahead and petition Congress to do so. Until then, you'll have to live with behaviors not being covered as to sex, race and country of origin.
Here's a link for the actual Decision from the 7th Circuit. usat-2016-07-29-sexual-orientation-ruling.pdf
But how can they find than when no language exists protecting sexual behaviors in the US Constitution? The only branch of government who can remedy the situation is Congress. The Supremes are done writing new law (acting as the legislature). My guess is the next time they brazenly do so, heads will roll.sexual identification isn't included in the federal law.
at some point when the supremes get it, they will have to find thet not including them violates the equal protection clause of the constitution in light of recent caselaw.
ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Once again this court is asked to consider whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from or offers redress for discrimination based on sexual orientation. This time, however, we do so in the shadow of criticism from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that this court and others have continued to reflexively declare that sexual orientation is not cognizable under Title VII without due analysis or consideration of intervening case law. The EEOC's criticism has created a groundswell of questions about the rationale for denying sexual orientation claims while allowing nearly indistinguishable gender non-conformity claims, which courts have long recognized as a form of sex-based discrimination under Title VII. After a careful analysis of our precedent, however, this court must conclude that Kimberly Hively has failed to state a claim under Title VII for sex discrimination; her claim is solely for sexual orientation discrimination which is beyond the scope of the statute. Consequently, we affirm the decision of the district court.
ntil then, you'll have to live with behaviors not being covered as to sex, race and country of origin.
mdk vv really worked up. Sounds like a threat. Anything substantive to offer besides ad hominems and veiled threats mdk? No? I thought so..
I absolutely support the struggle that gay Americans have waged for equality in this nation. They are winning that struggle. Which makes you a loser.
Do you also support polygamist-Americans and their struggles for equality? How about cleptomaniac Americans? Bulimic Americans (why do we force them to practice their eating-orientation in a bathroom stall, they should have vomit urns on every table in every restaurant.)...
You understand the difference between habitual behaviors and a static class like race, right? There is no such thing as a "gay American". Just because your cult created the term, doesn't make it valid. There are only Americans doing this or that thing. You can't call someone a "behavior-American".. only a class-American. Behaviors aren't a class of people; otherwise all of the possible human behaviors must, via the edicts of "equality", have their own class and protections. Equality means that no group doing habitual behaviors and thereby giving themselves a special name-hyphen-"American", can be left out of the special-protections/class arena.
People like LL claim to support equality and equal protection until you expect them to support such things in situations they disagree with. I've asked so many of the same sex marriage supporters whether or not they applied the concept of equal protection to brother/sister, mother/son, or father/daughter marriages I've lost count. What I haven't lost count of is how many that claim to support equal protection oppose it when it comes to marriages they don't think should take place. It's not hard to keep count of zero. They clamor about two people that love each other being able to get married and no one should stop them until those two people are in categories they think shouldn't get married. That's when they find all sorts of excuses to exempt equal protection.
Perhaps if you whine like a little bitch some more it might make a difference, but I doubt it.
