Court Rules--LEGAL To Fire Homo's!

[Andylusion]

Religion is a behavior. Speech is a behavior. Assembly is a behavior. Yet their all protected.

Your 'behaviors aren't protected' nonsense is just more ignorant pseudo-legal gibberish signifying nothing.

Don't forget a white man marrying a black woman is also a behavior.


>>>>

Huh? So what? What does that have to do with anything?

Sil is claiming that behaviors aren't constitutionally protected.

I would agree. Assuming I understand the implication of that, yes she is right.

 

[Skylar]

Religion is a behavior. Speech is a behavior. Assembly is a behavior. Yet their all protected.

Your 'behaviors aren't protected' nonsense is just more ignorant pseudo-legal gibberish signifying nothing.

Don't forget a white man marrying a black woman is also a behavior.


>>>>

Huh? So what? What does that have to do with anything?

Sil is claiming that behaviors aren't constitutionally protected.

I would agree. Assuming I understand the implication of that, yes she is right.

And you'd be wrong. Speech is a behavior. Religious activities are a behavior. Bearing arms is a behavior. Assembly is a behavior. Marriage is a behavior.

All are protected.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You're still a 2nd class faggot and will always be. That's where you belong. Deep down you're upset knowing that.

Actually, he is upset that a federal appeals court announced that the 1964 Civil Rights Act doesn't apply to sexual orientation, only sex. He's losing it because that distinction was just formally set as a new precedent. He knows the USSC can't rewrite the Act, only Congress can. So what he knows now is, that in order for sexual orientation to finally get the stamp of "class" cemented, the US Supreme Court will have to perform the duties of the legislative branch...failing that, Congress will have to debate the matter and amend the Act to reflect a new category based on behaviors...just some but not others the majority also objects to...

Have you ever noticed that many causes championed by the Left are non issues? Their belief in millions of bigot employers chomping at the bit to discriminate is not dissimilar to their belief in the global warming myth.

Employers make decisions like this based on their business sense. The idea that a business is going to fire a quality employee who is a net benefit just because he rides the chocolate slide in his free time, while fitting nicely with the Left's warped narrative, just isn't likely in Realville.

This is how it is on the Left, where illusions are more convincing than reality. I'm sure the Bible predicted just that. Worshippers of the image.

 

[Andylusion]

Religion is a behavior. Speech is a behavior. Assembly is a behavior. Yet their all protected.

Your 'behaviors aren't protected' nonsense is just more ignorant pseudo-legal gibberish signifying nothing.

Don't forget a white man marrying a black woman is also a behavior.


>>>>

Huh? So what? What does that have to do with anything?

Sil is claiming that behaviors aren't constitutionally protected.

I would agree. Assuming I understand the implication of that, yes she is right.

And you'd be wrong. Speech is a behavior. Religious activities are a behavior. Bearing arms is a behavior. Assembly is a behavior. Marriage is a behavior.

All are protected.

I guess I'm confused on how you apply that.

 

[Skylar]

Don't forget a white man marrying a black woman is also a behavior.


>>>>

Huh? So what? What does that have to do with anything?

Sil is claiming that behaviors aren't constitutionally protected.

I would agree. Assuming I understand the implication of that, yes she is right.

And you'd be wrong. Speech is a behavior. Religious activities are a behavior. Bearing arms is a behavior. Assembly is a behavior. Marriage is a behavior.

All are protected.

I guess I'm confused on how you apply that.

Sil insists that behaviors aren't constitutional protected. I've given numerous examples of behaviors that are....disproving her theory.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Huh? So what? What does that have to do with anything?

Sil is claiming that behaviors aren't constitutionally protected.

I would agree. Assuming I understand the implication of that, yes she is right.

And you'd be wrong. Speech is a behavior. Religious activities are a behavior. Bearing arms is a behavior. Assembly is a behavior. Marriage is a behavior.

All are protected.

I guess I'm confused on how you apply that.

Sil insists that behaviors aren't constitutional protected. I've given numerous examples of behaviors that are....disproving her theory.

And you idiotically respond that religion is a behavior when in fact it's much more than that.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ Religion and what it is, is an interpretation from the 1st Amendment. The USSC however, cited the 14th Amendment when discussing Obergefell's Opinion. So we'll stick to that for the purposes of this discussion.

Sil is claiming that behaviors aren't constitutionally protected.

I would agree. Assuming I understand the implication of that, yes she is right.

If you have "behavior x", which the majority objects to, that suddenly gets "protection/status z", then any and all other behaviors the majority object to, by virtue of the 14th Amendment, ALL get "protection status z". What other situation could there be? How would you deny say, "behavior y"? Because the majority finds it repugnant?

Law has to make sense, particularly when citing over and over the term "equality". Setting apart just one or two behaviors for special protections/privileges when the majority finds them repugnant is discrimination against all the other behaviors in the same situation. Why is polygamy marriage illegal while gay marriage is legal? It is a logical impossibility. If "equality" is the hinge of law here, then all sexual orientations, no matter who finds them repugnant, are all able to marry right now. Today. Or none of them are legal, outside just the states where they were made legal. Making all this worse for Obergefell...marriage is, therefore, by gays own admission (via excluding polygamy and incest orientations) a privilege they enjoy, but not a right. But this ushers in another problem. Who decides who gets what privilege, while others may be excluded? The US Supreme Court? Or the states?

The answer is: The states define who enjoys which privilege within their borders. And to cite precedent on that deduction, Windsor (2013) v USA stated the states are the final say on marriage. This was repeated 56 times in the Windsor Opinion. See this thread for those 56 quotes from Windsor: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

The USSC made this mistake in their interpretation of the 14th. It was too narrow. Obergefell has to be redone. It is an illegal interpretation of the 14th. It discriminates against other sexual orientations. Either marriage is an immediate, applicable right for ALL sexual orientations the majority finds repugnant, or it is a privilege instead, whose parameters are set by the separate states.

 

[Andylusion]

Sil is claiming that behaviors aren't constitutionally protected.

I would agree. Assuming I understand the implication of that, yes she is right.

If you have "behavior x", which the majority objects to, that suddenly gets "protection/status z", then any and all other behaviors the majority object to, by virtue of the 14th Amendment, ALL get "protection status z". What other situation could there be? How would you deny say, "behavior y"? Because the majority finds it repugnant?

Law has to make sense, particularly when citing over and over the term "equality". Setting apart just one or two behaviors for special protections/privileges when the majority finds them repugnant is discrimination against all the other behaviors in the same situation. Why is polygamy marriage illegal while gay marriage is legal? It is a logical impossibility. If "equality" is the hinge of law, then all sexual orientations, no matter who finds them repugnant, are all able to marry right now. Today. Or none of them are legal, outside just the states where they were made legal. Making all this worse for Obergefell...marriage is, therefore, by gays own admission (via excluding polygamy and incest orientations) a privilege they enjoy, but not a right. But this ushers in another problem. Who decides who gets what privilege, while others may be excluded? The US Supreme Court? Or the states?

The answer is: The states define who enjoys which privilege within their borders. And to cite precedent on that deduction, Windsor (2013) v USA stated the states are the final say on marriage. This was repeated 56 times in the Windsor Opinion. Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

The USSC made this mistake in their interpretation of the 14th. It was too narrow. Obergefell has to be redone. It is an illegal interpretation of the 14th. It discriminates against other sexual orientations. Either marriage is an immediate, applicable right for ALL sexual orientations the majority finds repugnant, or it is a privilege instead, whose parameters are set by the separate states.

The entire concept of marriage was created and ordained by G-d. Quite frankly if not for Adam and Eve, there would be no marriage.

And G-d created male and female, and they are joined as one.

It is a privilege, granted by G-d. I don't care what the USSC says.

As long as Christians exist, we will fight for the Biblical concept of marriage, not the made up crap some want it to be.

 

[Skylar]

^^ Religion and what it is, is an interpretation from the 1st Amendment. The USSC however, cited the 14th Amendment when discussing Obergefell's Opinion. So we'll stick to that for the purposes of this discussion.

Sil is claiming that behaviors aren't constitutionally protected.

I would agree. Assuming I understand the implication of that, yes she is right.

If you have "behavior x", which the majority objects to, that suddenly gets "protection/status z", then any and all other behaviors the majority object to, by virtue of the 14th Amendment, ALL get "protection status z". What other situation could there be? How would you deny say, "behavior y"? Because the majority finds it repugnant?

Your obsession with gays and lesbians has nothing to do with their ability to marry. And claiming that behaviors aren't constitutionally protected is a provably false assumption.

Remember, SIl......you don't know a thing about the law. Your record of legal predictions is one of perfect failure. You've literally never been right. Not because all the law, judges and Supreme Court don't understand the law.

But because you don't understand the law.

Why is polygamy marriage illegal while gay marriage is legal? It is a logical impossibility.

Save of course that it isn't. Bigamy is illegal for everyone. Which is quite logical.

Again, you don't understand logic anymore than you do the law. You're expressing your desires, your personal obsessions, your beliefs....and then insisting that the law should match them.

Nope.

The answer is: The states define who enjoys which privilege within their borders.

Marriage is a right.

You claim its a privilege...citing yourself.The Supreme recognizes it as a right. Repeatedly. So you ignore the Supreme Court and replace their binding precedent with your imagination.

Your imagination is legally meaningless, Sil.

And to cite precedent on that deduction, Windsor (2013) v USA stated the states are the final say on marriage. This was repeated 56 times in the Windsor Opinion. See this thread for those 56 quotes from Windsor: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

You just ignored precedent on marriage being a right....and now you claim to cite precedent? Its like watching a cat chase her own tail.

And no, the WIndsor decision did not say that the States have the final say on marriage. They said '...Subject to certain constitutional guarantees...' that the State has the final say on marriage.

Yet you inexplicably pretend that 'Subject to Certain Constitutional Guarantees' doesn't exist in the Windor decision. And then even more bizarrely insist that because you ignored precedent, it doesn't exist.

That's not how reality works, Sil. And its exactly why you were wrong on the Obergefell ruling. Why you are *always* wrong on legal predictions.

The USSC made this mistake in their interpretation of the 14th. It was too narrow. Obergefell has to be redone.

Nope, they weren't. Nope, Obergefell doesn't have to be redone.

Again, you're confusing your desires with the law, insisting they are one in the same. They aren't. You can't tell the difference. Which is why your legal predictions, every single one of them, have a perfect record of failure.

 

[Skylar]

Sil is claiming that behaviors aren't constitutionally protected.

I would agree. Assuming I understand the implication of that, yes she is right.

If you have "behavior x", which the majority objects to, that suddenly gets "protection/status z", then any and all other behaviors the majority object to, by virtue of the 14th Amendment, ALL get "protection status z". What other situation could there be? How would you deny say, "behavior y"? Because the majority finds it repugnant?

Law has to make sense, particularly when citing over and over the term "equality". Setting apart just one or two behaviors for special protections/privileges when the majority finds them repugnant is discrimination against all the other behaviors in the same situation. Why is polygamy marriage illegal while gay marriage is legal? It is a logical impossibility. If "equality" is the hinge of law, then all sexual orientations, no matter who finds them repugnant, are all able to marry right now. Today. Or none of them are legal, outside just the states where they were made legal. Making all this worse for Obergefell...marriage is, therefore, by gays own admission (via excluding polygamy and incest orientations) a privilege they enjoy, but not a right. But this ushers in another problem. Who decides who gets what privilege, while others may be excluded? The US Supreme Court? Or the states?

The answer is: The states define who enjoys which privilege within their borders. And to cite precedent on that deduction, Windsor (2013) v USA stated the states are the final say on marriage. This was repeated 56 times in the Windsor Opinion. Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

The USSC made this mistake in their interpretation of the 14th. It was too narrow. Obergefell has to be redone. It is an illegal interpretation of the 14th. It discriminates against other sexual orientations. Either marriage is an immediate, applicable right for ALL sexual orientations the majority finds repugnant, or it is a privilege instead, whose parameters are set by the separate states.

The entire concept of marriage was created and ordained by G-d. Quite frankly if not for Adam and Eve, there would be no marriage.

Prove it.

 

[Skylar]

Sil is claiming that behaviors aren't constitutionally protected.

I would agree. Assuming I understand the implication of that, yes she is right.

And you'd be wrong. Speech is a behavior. Religious activities are a behavior. Bearing arms is a behavior. Assembly is a behavior. Marriage is a behavior.

All are protected.

I guess I'm confused on how you apply that.

Sil insists that behaviors aren't constitutional protected. I've given numerous examples of behaviors that are....disproving her theory.

And you idiotically respond that religion is a behavior when in fact it's much more than that.

I cited speech, bearing arms, religious activities, and assembly as behaviors as well. If you don't think my citation of religion is complete, pick any of the others.

My point stands. Behaviors are protected.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I would agree. Assuming I understand the implication of that, yes she is right.

And you'd be wrong. Speech is a behavior. Religious activities are a behavior. Bearing arms is a behavior. Assembly is a behavior. Marriage is a behavior.

All are protected.

I guess I'm confused on how you apply that.

Sil insists that behaviors aren't constitutional protected. I've given numerous examples of behaviors that are....disproving her theory.

And you idiotically respond that religion is a behavior when in fact it's much more than that.

I cited speech, bearing arms, religious activities, and assembly as behaviors as well. If you don't think my citation of religion is complete, pick any of the others.

My point stands. Behaviors are protected.

Except for bearing arms, which is addressed in a different amendment, speech, assembly, petitioning, etc are extensions of belief, not sexual orientation. Personally, I think anyone who fires a person based solely what they do in their free time is a moron and such creatures are extremely rare. But when one's extracurricular activities become a source of identity politics agitated in the workplace, then that person should be fired, not for being gay but for acting like a faggot.

 

[mdk]

The answer is: The states define who enjoys which privilege within their borders. And to cite precedent on that deduction, Windsor (2013) v USA stated the states are the final say on marriage. This was repeated 56 times in the Windsor Opinion. See this thread for those 56 quotes from Windsor: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

Just b/c you ignore Kennedy's opinion that says states have to abide by certain constitutional guarantees doesn't mean the rest of the society is going to follow suit. Who gives a shit if you think marriage isn't a right? It's been established over and over by the courts that it is a right. When it comes to the law your personal delusions don't have any relevance. Something you willfully forget and then whine when the courts don't take your imagination into account.

 

[Skylar]

And you'd be wrong. Speech is a behavior. Religious activities are a behavior. Bearing arms is a behavior. Assembly is a behavior. Marriage is a behavior.

All are protected.

I guess I'm confused on how you apply that.

Sil insists that behaviors aren't constitutional protected. I've given numerous examples of behaviors that are....disproving her theory.

And you idiotically respond that religion is a behavior when in fact it's much more than that.

I cited speech, bearing arms, religious activities, and assembly as behaviors as well. If you don't think my citation of religion is complete, pick any of the others.

My point stands. Behaviors are protected.

Except for bearing arms, which is addressed in a different amendment, speech, assembly, petitioning, etc are extensions of belief, not sexual orientation. Personally, I think anyone who fires a person based solely what they do in their free time is a moron and such creatures are extremely rare. But when one's extracurricular activities become a source of identity politics agitated in the workplace, then that person should be fired, not for being gay but for acting like a faggot.

Sexual orientation isn't based on action. But attraction. You can act on that attraction or not. But its the attraction that defines sexual orientation.

Speech is a behavior. Religious activities are a behavior. Assembly is a behavior. Bearing arms is a behavior.

They are all protected. Rendering Sil's claims that behaviors aren't constitutionally protected provably false pseudo-legal gibberish.

Well, *more* provably false pseudo-legal gibberish.

 

[Skylar]

The answer is: The states define who enjoys which privilege within their borders. And to cite precedent on that deduction, Windsor (2013) v USA stated the states are the final say on marriage. This was repeated 56 times in the Windsor Opinion. See this thread for those 56 quotes from Windsor: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

Just b/c you ignore Kennedy's opinion that says states have to abide by certain constitutional guarantees doesn't mean the rest of the society is going to follow suit. Who gives a shit if you think marriage isn't a right? It's been established over and over by the courts that it is a right. When it comes to the law your personal delusions don't have any relevance. Something you willfully forget and then whine when the courts don't take your imagination into account.

Its adorable. She really does believe that her typing a claim magically means that its binding legal precedent.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I guess I'm confused on how you apply that.

Sil insists that behaviors aren't constitutional protected. I've given numerous examples of behaviors that are....disproving her theory.

And you idiotically respond that religion is a behavior when in fact it's much more than that.

I cited speech, bearing arms, religious activities, and assembly as behaviors as well. If you don't think my citation of religion is complete, pick any of the others.

My point stands. Behaviors are protected.

Except for bearing arms, which is addressed in a different amendment, speech, assembly, petitioning, etc are extensions of belief, not sexual orientation. Personally, I think anyone who fires a person based solely what they do in their free time is a moron and such creatures are extremely rare. But when one's extracurricular activities become a source of identity politics agitated in the workplace, then that person should be fired, not for being gay but for acting like a faggot.

Sexual orientation isn't based on action. But attraction. You can act on that attraction or not. But its the attraction that defines sexual orientation.

Speech is a behavior. Religious activities are a behavior. Assembly is a behavior. Bearing arms is a behavior.

They are all protected. Rendering Sil's claims that behaviors aren't constitutionally protected provably false pseudo-legal gibberish.

Well, *more* provably false pseudo-legal gibberish.

You landed on the wrong planet. The Constitution was NEVER designed to govern the private affairs of people. It was written to restrain government.

Period.

 

[mdk]

The answer is: The states define who enjoys which privilege within their borders. And to cite precedent on that deduction, Windsor (2013) v USA stated the states are the final say on marriage. This was repeated 56 times in the Windsor Opinion. See this thread for those 56 quotes from Windsor: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

Just b/c you ignore Kennedy's opinion that says states have to abide by certain constitutional guarantees doesn't mean the rest of the society is going to follow suit. Who gives a shit if you think marriage isn't a right? It's been established over and over by the courts that it is a right. When it comes to the law your personal delusions don't have any relevance. Something you willfully forget and then whine when the courts don't take your imagination into account.

Its adorable. She really does believe that her typing a claim magically means that its binding legal precedent.

It's the same lame bullshit she has been rambling about for years without any success in the court of public opinion and the courts of law. Let her have your delusions. In the meantime, gays will continue to marry and raise their families despite all her foot-stomping hissy fits.

 

[Skylar]

Sil insists that behaviors aren't constitutional protected. I've given numerous examples of behaviors that are....disproving her theory.

And you idiotically respond that religion is a behavior when in fact it's much more than that.

I cited speech, bearing arms, religious activities, and assembly as behaviors as well. If you don't think my citation of religion is complete, pick any of the others.

My point stands. Behaviors are protected.

Except for bearing arms, which is addressed in a different amendment, speech, assembly, petitioning, etc are extensions of belief, not sexual orientation. Personally, I think anyone who fires a person based solely what they do in their free time is a moron and such creatures are extremely rare. But when one's extracurricular activities become a source of identity politics agitated in the workplace, then that person should be fired, not for being gay but for acting like a faggot.

Sexual orientation isn't based on action. But attraction. You can act on that attraction or not. But its the attraction that defines sexual orientation.

Speech is a behavior. Religious activities are a behavior. Assembly is a behavior. Bearing arms is a behavior.

They are all protected. Rendering Sil's claims that behaviors aren't constitutionally protected provably false pseudo-legal gibberish.

Well, *more* provably false pseudo-legal gibberish.

You landed on the wrong planet. The Constitution was NEVER designed to govern the private affairs of people. It was written to restrain government.

Period.

It was amended to prevent the states from violating the rights of their citizens.

But hey, type the word 'Period' again. We'll check to see if same sex marriages magically stop happening.

Spoiler Alert. They won't.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

While dismissing the case, the judges criticized lack of protection for sexual orientation in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The judges said that change must come in a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court or new legislation from Congress.

It's pretty sh***y when the appellate courts don't know basic law applications. Both the AC and SC are making their rulings strictly based on The Constitution. They shouldn't be saying we found this Constitutional but hope that the SC finds otherwise. Dumb asses. I seriously weep for America. We have political wusses at every level of govt.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

And you idiotically respond that religion is a behavior when in fact it's much more than that.

I cited speech, bearing arms, religious activities, and assembly as behaviors as well. If you don't think my citation of religion is complete, pick any of the others.

My point stands. Behaviors are protected.

Except for bearing arms, which is addressed in a different amendment, speech, assembly, petitioning, etc are extensions of belief, not sexual orientation. Personally, I think anyone who fires a person based solely what they do in their free time is a moron and such creatures are extremely rare. But when one's extracurricular activities become a source of identity politics agitated in the workplace, then that person should be fired, not for being gay but for acting like a faggot.

Sexual orientation isn't based on action. But attraction. You can act on that attraction or not. But its the attraction that defines sexual orientation.

Speech is a behavior. Religious activities are a behavior. Assembly is a behavior. Bearing arms is a behavior.

They are all protected. Rendering Sil's claims that behaviors aren't constitutionally protected provably false pseudo-legal gibberish.

Well, *more* provably false pseudo-legal gibberish.

You landed on the wrong planet. The Constitution was NEVER designed to govern the private affairs of people. It was written to restrain government.

Period.

It was amended to prevent the states from violating the rights of their citizens.

But hey, type the word 'Period' again. We'll check to see if same sex marriages magically stop happening.

Spoiler Alert. They won't.

The amendment did not empower government to regulate people's private affairs.