Freedom Isn’t a Zero-Sum Game - If Gays Have More Rights, Christians Don't Have Fewer

[bodecea]

Civil Rights

"Civil Rights" is code word which is designed to elicit the falsity that Government is capable of providing "Rights".

Government does not possess rights, therefore government has no means to provide rights to anyone. What's more, given the nature of the word, wherein a right is that to which one is intrinsically entitled... and that anything that the government can give, the government is inversely capable of taking away, it becomes clear that such would-be rights are not worth the breath it takes to proclaim them. As they are at BEST temporal privilege... .

And it is on this basis that the notion of "Civil Rights" was and is... contested.

LOL! That civil rights resulted in the decimation of the US black culture is all the evidence any reasonable person should need, to know from where that insane notion came from.

Good to see you followed the link to the polling site, not. The polling site gave it that title, not me.

I don't follow links ... from Leftists. It turns out that trusting those who advocate for immorality is the fast lane to destruction.

LOL! But in fairness to you, given your Relativist nature, there was no way you could have known that.

Yes...it's clear you prefer to remain ignorant....and continue to yell.

 

[The Rabbi]

Civil Rights

"Civil Rights" is code word which is designed to elicit the falsity that Government is capable of providing "Rights".

Government does not possess rights, therefore government has no means to provide rights to anyone. What's more, given the nature of the word, wherein a right is that to which one is intrinsically entitled... and that anything that the government can give, the government is inversely capable of taking away, it becomes clear that such would-be rights are not worth the breath it takes to proclaim them. As they are at BEST temporal privilege... .

And it is on this basis that the notion of "Civil Rights" was and is... contested.

LOL! That civil rights resulted in the decimation of the US black culture is all the evidence any reasonable person should need, to know from where that insane notion came from.

Incorrect, as usual. The government protects our civil rights. Now, I know that burns your butt to see the government finally stepping up to the plate to protect the civil rights of gay citizens. Probably why you are yelling.

What civil rights do gays not have that other people do?
Whaang! That's gonna leave a mark.

 

[The Rabbi]

The article is true in general but it ignores the main point. And that is that the government ir anyone else has no right to force anyone into participating in anything, especially if it violates their religion. Period, end of story.

Yes -- they do.

Our government is an extension of our will, the will of the people.


Public accommodations are something we, as Americans, believe should be open and available to all.

That is what we value. That is our will.

That is how our country works.


The whole "religious freedom" b.s. was weak when it was used for segregation.

These so-called "christians" pick and choose what they believe based on their own fears and insecurities.

exactly.

If serving the public equally will cause a crisis of faith then don't open a business that serves the public.

so basically "screw you" to any people of faith.

Google
What do people of faith say?

No. How about you post a reply with some substance?

That would be a first.

 

[bodecea]

There was no violence and it is truthful that she is a bigot not to mention a hypocrite.

Threats of violence, while not the same as actually violence, are not "peaceful protest" by any stretch.

Also, by reviewing yelp, there was a dearth of reasoned opposition to them, instead it basically fell into two categories, 1) you suck and need to die/disappear/go away and 2) don't like gays? here's a pizza that looks like balls and shaft.

Finally, most descriptions of the story in the MSM made it appear that they actually DENIED someone service, when that never happened. Some reporter went trolling and got a bite.

and the "truth" over being a bigot and a hypocrite is your opinion, nothing more or less.

I don't call a so called death threat on YELP violence.

And refusing service simply because one is gay is the very definition of bigotry

Nobody is refusing service just because someone is gay. I dont know where anyone came up with this meme. It is the hands up dont shoot of the gay community.

Nobody?

There was no violence and it is truthful that she is a bigot not to mention a hypocrite.

Threats of violence, while not the same as actually violence, are not "peaceful protest" by any stretch.

Also, by reviewing yelp, there was a dearth of reasoned opposition to them, instead it basically fell into two categories, 1) you suck and need to die/disappear/go away and 2) don't like gays? here's a pizza that looks like balls and shaft.

Finally, most descriptions of the story in the MSM made it appear that they actually DENIED someone service, when that never happened. Some reporter went trolling and got a bite.

and the "truth" over being a bigot and a hypocrite is your opinion, nothing more or less.

I don't call a so called death threat on YELP violence.

And refusing service simply because one is gay is the very definition of bigotry

You can't call it "peaceful protesting" either. There were also violence proposing tweets, i.e. "burn it down."

refusing to serve anyone for any reason can be considered bigotry, the real question is, without a overriding compelling interest, why should the government care?

Tweets are traceable...where are the arrests?

So your logic is its only violent if it results in an arrest? I guess the victims of jack the ripper died peacefully in their sleep.

No...but if a threat is considered legit, aren't the police able to trace it and do something? Oh......you're conceding that the "threats" were nothing of consequence.......I get it now.

 

[bodecea]

Civil Rights

"Civil Rights" is code word which is designed to elicit the falsity that Government is capable of providing "Rights".

Government does not possess rights, therefore government has no means to provide rights to anyone. What's more, given the nature of the word, wherein a right is that to which one is intrinsically entitled... and that anything that the government can give, the government is inversely capable of taking away, it becomes clear that such would-be rights are not worth the breath it takes to proclaim them. As they are at BEST temporal privilege... .

And it is on this basis that the notion of "Civil Rights" was and is... contested.

LOL! That civil rights resulted in the decimation of the US black culture is all the evidence any reasonable person should need, to know from where that insane notion came from.

Incorrect, as usual. The government protects our civil rights. Now, I know that burns your butt to see the government finally stepping up to the plate to protect the civil rights of gay citizens. Probably why you are yelling.

What civil rights do gays not have that other people do?
Whaang! That's gonna leave a mark.

It's getting to the point of we are equal....finally.

 

[martybegan]

Threats of violence, while not the same as actually violence, are not "peaceful protest" by any stretch.

Also, by reviewing yelp, there was a dearth of reasoned opposition to them, instead it basically fell into two categories, 1) you suck and need to die/disappear/go away and 2) don't like gays? here's a pizza that looks like balls and shaft.

Finally, most descriptions of the story in the MSM made it appear that they actually DENIED someone service, when that never happened. Some reporter went trolling and got a bite.

and the "truth" over being a bigot and a hypocrite is your opinion, nothing more or less.

I don't call a so called death threat on YELP violence.

And refusing service simply because one is gay is the very definition of bigotry

Nobody is refusing service just because someone is gay. I dont know where anyone came up with this meme. It is the hands up dont shoot of the gay community.

Nobody?

Threats of violence, while not the same as actually violence, are not "peaceful protest" by any stretch.

Also, by reviewing yelp, there was a dearth of reasoned opposition to them, instead it basically fell into two categories, 1) you suck and need to die/disappear/go away and 2) don't like gays? here's a pizza that looks like balls and shaft.

Finally, most descriptions of the story in the MSM made it appear that they actually DENIED someone service, when that never happened. Some reporter went trolling and got a bite.

and the "truth" over being a bigot and a hypocrite is your opinion, nothing more or less.

I don't call a so called death threat on YELP violence.

And refusing service simply because one is gay is the very definition of bigotry

You can't call it "peaceful protesting" either. There were also violence proposing tweets, i.e. "burn it down."

refusing to serve anyone for any reason can be considered bigotry, the real question is, without a overriding compelling interest, why should the government care?

Tweets are traceable...where are the arrests?

So your logic is its only violent if it results in an arrest? I guess the victims of jack the ripper died peacefully in their sleep.

No...but if a threat is considered legit, aren't the police able to trace it and do something? Oh......you're conceding that the "threats" were nothing of consequence.......I get it now.

The consequence is it makes your side look like a bunch of thugs. The vulgar ones make your side look like a bunch of cretins.

Also, there is one hard example, linked below.

Arson threat made against Memories Pizza The Pilot News

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Reader should recognize that what the above would-be "Contributors" are trying to advise you of, is their 'feelings' that a Poll represents 'knowledge'. When a poll has no correlation to knowledge of any kind. Polls as used by the Left are not designed to determine public opinion, but to influence public opinion.

The only 'poll' that serves KNOWLEDGE is the poll which is taken in the passing of LAW... such as those POLLS wherein the MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE, ELECTED THE MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS WHO PASSED BILLS IN THE MAJORITY OF THE STATES WHICH SUSTAINED THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURE THAT DEFINE MARRIAGE AS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN... BILLS WHICH WERE SIGNED INTO LAW BY THE MAJORITY OF THE GOVERNORS.

As it was that LAW which was overturned by illicit decisions by a half dozen federal jurists...

Wherein the opinion of a half dozen people overruled the opinions of tens of millions of people.

It is that KNOWLEDGE which the Leftist Polls are designed to deflect from your attention.

Again... The Ideological Left rests entirely in Relativism... and relativism axiomatically rejects the objectivity that is essential to recognizing truth. Absent the means to recognize truth, trust is impossible. Absent truth and trust, there is no means for one to know the difference between right and wrong and absent clear lines marking to distinction between right and wrong, there is no means for one to serve right... OKA: Justice.

Now between the two competing concepts of Good and Evil. Reader, which do you feel that Relativism serves?

 

[Skylar]

Says you. In 37 of 50 States...

THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WERE SUBJECTED TO THE ILLICIT DECISION BY THE LEFTISTS IN THE JUDICIARY, WHO OVERTURNED THE MAJORITY OF VOTES, BY THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE, WHO ELECTED THE MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS, WHO VOTED TO PASS BILLS IN THE MAJORITY OF STATE LEGISLATURES, SUSTAINING THE NATURAL STANDARDS OF MARRIAGE, WHICH WERE SIGNED INTO LAW BY THE MAJORITY OF THE GOVERNORS... .

Yet there YOU are deceitfully claiming that the majority of the people support your positions, when in TRUTH, THUS IN REALITY: a half dozen Leftist PROPONENTS of The Normalization of Sexual Abnormality, who sit upon the federal bench support... are the core of support with regard to those states... as it is the illicitly use of their power which OVERTURNED THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE, WHO REJECT YOUR POSITION.

(Reader, what you see in the above cited contributors profession, is deceit, fraudulently advanced as a means to MISLEAD: YOU!)

See how that works?

Your yelling doesn't change the law. Rant all you want....I expect you'll be ranting even more in June.

Keyes can get a little emotional when you reject his subjective personal opinion as infallible objective truth.

 

[Skylar]

The Reader should recognize that what the above would-be "Contributors" are trying to advise you of, is their 'feelings' that a Poll represents 'knowledge'. When a poll has no correlation to knowledge of any kind. Polls as used by the Left are not designed to determine public opinion, but to influence public opinion.

A poll has correlation to public opinion. And a majority of the public clearly supports gay marriage.

While the federal court rulings protect rights from violation by State law. Something the courts have every authority to do.

You disagree. So? Your willful ignorance doesn't change either fact.

As it was that LAW which was overturned by illicit decisions by a half dozen federal jurists...

A law that violates the constitution is already invalid. And as the courts have demonstrated 44 of 46 times, gay marriage bans violate constitutional guarantees.

Rights trump powers. See how that works?

 

[martybegan]

The Reader should recognize that what the above would-be "Contributors" are trying to advise you of, is their 'feelings' that a Poll represents 'knowledge'. When a poll has no correlation to knowledge of any kind. Polls as used by the Left are not designed to determine public opinion, but to influence public opinion.

A poll has correlation to public opinion. And a majority of the public clearly supports gay marriage.

While the federal court rulings protect rights from violation by State law. Something the courts have every authority to do.

You disagree. So? Your willful ignorance doesn't change either fact.

As it was that LAW which was overturned by illicit decisions by a half dozen federal jurists...

A law that violates the constitution is already invalid. And as the courts have demonstrated 44 of 46 times, gay marriage bans violate constitutional guarantees.

Rights trump powers. See how that works?

I keep having a hard time finding the explicit right to gay marriage in the actual document. I guess it over-wrote the explicit right I have to keep and bear arms that progressives seem to want to get rid of.....

Rights are only constitutional rights if explicitly given in the document, made up rights are just that, made up.

 

[The Rabbi]

Civil Rights

"Civil Rights" is code word which is designed to elicit the falsity that Government is capable of providing "Rights".

Government does not possess rights, therefore government has no means to provide rights to anyone. What's more, given the nature of the word, wherein a right is that to which one is intrinsically entitled... and that anything that the government can give, the government is inversely capable of taking away, it becomes clear that such would-be rights are not worth the breath it takes to proclaim them. As they are at BEST temporal privilege... .

And it is on this basis that the notion of "Civil Rights" was and is... contested.

LOL! That civil rights resulted in the decimation of the US black culture is all the evidence any reasonable person should need, to know from where that insane notion came from.

Incorrect, as usual. The government protects our civil rights. Now, I know that burns your butt to see the government finally stepping up to the plate to protect the civil rights of gay citizens. Probably why you are yelling.

What civil rights do gays not have that other people do?
Whaang! That's gonna leave a mark.

It's getting to the point of we are equal....finally.

LOL! No, you want special rights. You're already equal.

 

[boedicca]

The OP is incorrect. It all depends upon how "rights" are defined.

If rights are defined as being free to do one's own thing without interference from others, and without interfering upon the rights of others, then I agree.

If rights are defined as using government power to violate the rights of another, then NO.

 

[Skylar]

The Reader should recognize that what the above would-be "Contributors" are trying to advise you of, is their 'feelings' that a Poll represents 'knowledge'. When a poll has no correlation to knowledge of any kind. Polls as used by the Left are not designed to determine public opinion, but to influence public opinion.

A poll has correlation to public opinion. And a majority of the public clearly supports gay marriage.

While the federal court rulings protect rights from violation by State law. Something the courts have every authority to do.

You disagree. So? Your willful ignorance doesn't change either fact.

As it was that LAW which was overturned by illicit decisions by a half dozen federal jurists...

A law that violates the constitution is already invalid. And as the courts have demonstrated 44 of 46 times, gay marriage bans violate constitutional guarantees.

Rights trump powers. See how that works?

I keep having a hard time finding the explicit right to gay marriage in the actual document.

You'll have a hard time finding an explicit mention in the actual document that a right has to be enumerated to exist. As there's no such mention. In fact, the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts the idea.

Marriage is a recognized right. Thus, if you're going to deny it to gays you'll need a very good reason, a compelling state interest, and a valid legislative end. Gay marriage bans fail all three.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Reader should recognize that what the above would-be "Contributors" are trying to advise you of, is their 'feelings' that a Poll represents 'knowledge'. When a poll has no correlation to knowledge of any kind. Polls as used by the Left are not designed to determine public opinion, but to influence public opinion.

A poll has correlation to public opinion. And a majority of the public clearly supports gay marriage.

While the federal court rulings protect rights from violation by State law. Something the courts have every authority to do.

You disagree. So? Your willful ignorance doesn't change either fact.

As it was that LAW which was overturned by illicit decisions by a half dozen federal jurists...

A law that violates the constitution is already invalid. And as the courts have demonstrated 44 of 46 times, gay marriage bans violate constitutional guarantees.

Rights trump powers. See how that works?

I keep having a hard time finding the explicit right to gay marriage in the actual document. I guess it over-wrote the explicit right I have to keep and bear arms that progressives seem to want to get rid of.....

Rights are only constitutional rights if explicitly given in the document, made up rights are just that, made up.

Maybe you should start by reading the Ninth Amendment.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Reader should recognize that what the above would-be "Contributors" are trying to advise you of, is their 'feelings' that a Poll represents 'knowledge'. When a poll has no correlation to knowledge of any kind. Polls as used by the Left are not designed to determine public opinion, but to influence public opinion.

A poll has correlation to public opinion. And a majority of the public clearly supports gay marriage.

While the federal court rulings protect rights from violation by State law. Something the courts have every authority to do.

You disagree. So? Your willful ignorance doesn't change either fact.

As it was that LAW which was overturned by illicit decisions by a half dozen federal jurists...

A law that violates the constitution is already invalid. And as the courts have demonstrated 44 of 46 times, gay marriage bans violate constitutional guarantees.

Rights trump powers. See how that works?

I keep having a hard time finding the explicit right to gay marriage in the actual document.

You'll have a hard time finding an explicit mention in the actual document that a right has to be enumerated to exist. As there's no such mention. In fact, the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts the idea.

Marriage is a recognized right. Thus, if you're going to deny it to gays you'll need a very good reason, a compelling state interest, and a valid legislative end. Gay marriage bans fail all three.

The 10th A speaks of any right not a federal power is a state right. Which is how marriage has been seen until recently. In fact "gay marriage" didnt exist 20 years ago. So it's hard to take it seriously as a right.
Gays have exactly the same right of marriage as anyone else. There is no application for a marriage license that asks sexual orientation. None.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Reader should recognize that what the above would-be "Contributors" are trying to advise you of, is their 'feelings' that a Poll represents 'knowledge'. When a poll has no correlation to knowledge of any kind. Polls as used by the Left are not designed to determine public opinion, but to influence public opinion.

A poll has correlation to public opinion. And a majority of the public clearly supports gay marriage.

While the federal court rulings protect rights from violation by State law. Something the courts have every authority to do.

You disagree. So? Your willful ignorance doesn't change either fact.

As it was that LAW which was overturned by illicit decisions by a half dozen federal jurists...

A law that violates the constitution is already invalid. And as the courts have demonstrated 44 of 46 times, gay marriage bans violate constitutional guarantees.

Rights trump powers. See how that works?

I keep having a hard time finding the explicit right to gay marriage in the actual document. I guess it over-wrote the explicit right I have to keep and bear arms that progressives seem to want to get rid of.....

Rights are only constitutional rights if explicitly given in the document, made up rights are just that, made up.

Maybe you should start by reading the Ninth Amendment.

You couldnt find the 9th Amendment with both hands, a map and a flashlight.

 

[martybegan]

The Reader should recognize that what the above would-be "Contributors" are trying to advise you of, is their 'feelings' that a Poll represents 'knowledge'. When a poll has no correlation to knowledge of any kind. Polls as used by the Left are not designed to determine public opinion, but to influence public opinion.

A poll has correlation to public opinion. And a majority of the public clearly supports gay marriage.

While the federal court rulings protect rights from violation by State law. Something the courts have every authority to do.

You disagree. So? Your willful ignorance doesn't change either fact.

As it was that LAW which was overturned by illicit decisions by a half dozen federal jurists...

A law that violates the constitution is already invalid. And as the courts have demonstrated 44 of 46 times, gay marriage bans violate constitutional guarantees.

Rights trump powers. See how that works?

I keep having a hard time finding the explicit right to gay marriage in the actual document.

You'll have a hard time finding an explicit mention in the actual document that a right has to be enumerated to exist. As there's no such mention. In fact, the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts the idea.

Marriage is a recognized right. Thus, if you're going to deny it to gays you'll need a very good reason, a compelling state interest, and a valid legislative end. Gay marriage bans fail all three.

Marriage is a contract, one which is regulated by State legislatures. The constitution gives no brook to the courts to override the State legislatures on this, except in the mind of judges who think they are there to right wrongs, not adjudicate laws. The best you can hope for constitutionally is to force one State to recognize another's gay marriage contract via full faith and credit (which I agree with).

By your logic we shouldn't deny it to polygamists either.

There are plenty of explicit rights, to a jury trial, protection from ex post facto and double jeopardy, and my right to a firearm. Yet NYC doesn't allow me one unless I prove to them I need it.

That is an explicit right being denied, a one progressives agree with, and one propagated by activist judges. Where is your outrage with this?

 

[Skylar]

The Reader should recognize that what the above would-be "Contributors" are trying to advise you of, is their 'feelings' that a Poll represents 'knowledge'. When a poll has no correlation to knowledge of any kind. Polls as used by the Left are not designed to determine public opinion, but to influence public opinion.

A poll has correlation to public opinion. And a majority of the public clearly supports gay marriage.

While the federal court rulings protect rights from violation by State law. Something the courts have every authority to do.

You disagree. So? Your willful ignorance doesn't change either fact.

As it was that LAW which was overturned by illicit decisions by a half dozen federal jurists...

A law that violates the constitution is already invalid. And as the courts have demonstrated 44 of 46 times, gay marriage bans violate constitutional guarantees.

Rights trump powers. See how that works?

I keep having a hard time finding the explicit right to gay marriage in the actual document.

You'll have a hard time finding an explicit mention in the actual document that a right has to be enumerated to exist. As there's no such mention. In fact, the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts the idea.

Marriage is a recognized right. Thus, if you're going to deny it to gays you'll need a very good reason, a compelling state interest, and a valid legislative end. Gay marriage bans fail all three.

Marriage is a contract, one which is regulated by State legislatures.

Per the court marriage is a right. You say differently. I'm gonna go with the Supreme Court on this one. As will the law.

The constitution gives no brook to the courts to override the State legislatures on this, except in the mind of judges who think they are there to right wrongs, not adjudicate laws. The best you can hope for constitutionally is to force one State to recognize another's gay marriage contract via full faith and credit (which I agree with).

Says you. As the USSC made ludicriously clear in Loving V. Virginia, state marriage laws are still subject to constitutional guarantees under the 14th amendment.

To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Per you, the Federal Judiciary has no say in state marriage laws. Per the USSC and the 14th amendment, they do.

Once again, I'm gonna have to go with the Supreme Court on this one instead of you citing yourself.

 

[martybegan]

The Reader should recognize that what the above would-be "Contributors" are trying to advise you of, is their 'feelings' that a Poll represents 'knowledge'. When a poll has no correlation to knowledge of any kind. Polls as used by the Left are not designed to determine public opinion, but to influence public opinion.

A poll has correlation to public opinion. And a majority of the public clearly supports gay marriage.

While the federal court rulings protect rights from violation by State law. Something the courts have every authority to do.

You disagree. So? Your willful ignorance doesn't change either fact.

As it was that LAW which was overturned by illicit decisions by a half dozen federal jurists...

A law that violates the constitution is already invalid. And as the courts have demonstrated 44 of 46 times, gay marriage bans violate constitutional guarantees.

Rights trump powers. See how that works?

I keep having a hard time finding the explicit right to gay marriage in the actual document.

You'll have a hard time finding an explicit mention in the actual document that a right has to be enumerated to exist. As there's no such mention. In fact, the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts the idea.

Marriage is a recognized right. Thus, if you're going to deny it to gays you'll need a very good reason, a compelling state interest, and a valid legislative end. Gay marriage bans fail all three.

Marriage is a contract, one which is regulated by State legislatures.

Per the court marriage is a right. You say differently. I'm gonna go with the Supreme Court on this one. As will the law.

The constitution gives no brook to the courts to override the State legislatures on this, except in the mind of judges who think they are there to right wrongs, not adjudicate laws. The best you can hope for constitutionally is to force one State to recognize another's gay marriage contract via full faith and credit (which I agree with).

Says you. As the USSC made ludicriously clear in Loving V. Virginia, state marriage laws are still subject to constitutional guarantees under the 14th amendment.

To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Per you, the Federal Judiciary has no say in state marriage laws. Per the USSC and the 14th amendment, they do.

Once again, I'm gonna have to go with the Supreme Court on this one instead of you citing yourself.

So I guess you give the Court Citizens united, and would have left it alone when the court decided Plessey V. Fergueson, right?

Loving is construed to racial issues only, and yes, I agree race doesn't matter. Sex, however does, and trying to use loving as a bridge is a stretch beyond imagination. Its depends on what your definition of equal is, and it only matters to me when courts force the issue. If the people in a State want to change the marriage contact via legislative action or referendum I have no quarrel with that.

 

[paulitician]

Freedom is a hard thing. And that's why most who think they support it, really don't. Most only stand for Freedom when they feel it benefits them personally in some way. It's a 'To Hell with anyone else's Freedom' mentality for them. It's all about them.

Gays especially, have become too militant and are not respecting others' beliefs and rights. They're no longer the victim. They're the bully now.