Gay statists strike again...you will submit!!!!

[bodecea]

The Executive Branch cannot create law, you know.

Yet it does.

I guess that means you agree with me that the law is unconstitutional.

Either that, or you think you scored a point against me by declaring something that I can prove is wrong.

So...if that is the case, it will be EASY....very very EASY to have this Public Accomodation Law declared Unconstitutional.....assuming that what you said is true...that it was created solely by the NY State Executive Branch. Now...show us that to be true.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"thru the courts" is the same as saying "didn't lose in court"? I see PLURAL "courts" in your reply...SINGULAR "court" in my quoted post.

Did you miss that?

Sigh.

In the context of of a legal case the word court applies to the entire process, not just the original trial.

 

[bodecea]

"thru the courts" is the same as saying "didn't lose in court"? I see PLURAL "courts" in your reply...SINGULAR "court" in my quoted post.

Did you miss that?

Sigh.

In the context of of a legal case the word court applies to the entire process, not just the original trial.

So...an appeal court is not a separate court? Interesting. Evidence that that is legally considered true?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So...if that is the case, it will be EASY....very very EASY to have this Public Accomodation Law declared Unconstitutional.....assuming that what you said is true...that it was created solely by the NY State Executive Branch. Now...show us that to be true.

Remember when Bush created a law that made torture legal? Did that pass Congress? Did any court ever declare it unconstitutional?

The system doesn't work the way it should because the courts refuse to do their jobs. That makes it all but impossible to prove something is unconstitutional. Either that, or you have to admit that Hobby Lobby was the right decision because it is really easy to prove a law is unconstitutional.

If you think New York Executive Law article 15 was actually passed by the legislature of New York feel free to link to the vote.. It should be really easy, everything the legislature does is online now. The title of the law alone proves I am right that it wasn't passed by the legislature.

Feel free to attempt to prove me wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So...an appeal court is not a separate court? Interesting. Evidence that that is legally considered true?

Funny, I never said that. I guess that is the problem when speaking to people that think they know everything.

 

[bodecea]

So...if that is the case, it will be EASY....very very EASY to have this Public Accomodation Law declared Unconstitutional.....assuming that what you said is true...that it was created solely by the NY State Executive Branch. Now...show us that to be true.

Remember when Bush created a law that made torture legal? Did that pass Congress? Did any court ever declare it unconstitutional?

The system doesn't work the way it should because the courts refuse to do their jobs. That makes it all but impossible to prove something is unconstitutional. Either that, or you have to admit that Hobby Lobby was the right decision because it is really easy to prove a law is unconstitutional.

If you think New York Executive Law article 15 was actually passed by the legislature of New York feel free to link to the vote.. It should be really easy, everything the legislature does is online now. The title of the law alone proves I am right that it wasn't passed by the legislature.

Feel free to attempt to prove me wrong.

Bush created a Law? What is that law called? What set of laws is it filed under so I can look it up?

 

[bodecea]

So...an appeal court is not a separate court? Interesting. Evidence that that is legally considered true?

Funny, I never said that. I guess that is the problem when speaking to people that think they know everything.

I don't think I know everything...that is why I am asking you questions...to ascertain some information. And yet, you seem to have taken my inquiries to be something they are not. Why do you think that is?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

or gay people can man the fuck up and stop trying to get people to accept their lifestyle and just tolerate it.

none of these things are public accommodations. Public accommodation is when you walk into a store to buy something, or stay at a hotel, or get on a mode of transport. A small business that is contracted out on a per use basis is not publicly accommodating anything.

What truly galls me is that this wasn't an outright denial, but a condition and still these assholes sued these people because their FEEEWINGS were hurt.

Um...they were not sued. Nice try.

I don;t disagree that the laws exists, what I state is they are wrong.

Well, you're welcome to think the laws are wrong. But they're not going to change.

And eventually all you assholes will be dead, and shit like this will be looked back on the same way we look at "colored" drinking fountains now.

Assholes, Mr. Moderator?

Dead, Mr. Moderator?

Good ol' fashioned American apple pie sentiments of liberty, Mr. Moderator?

Live and let live, Mr. Moderator?

Is that before or after folks like me take up arms against homofascist punks like you, Mr. Moderator, and put you Siege Heiling thugs down for the rabid dogs that you are?

So Christians are the new Judens, eh?

This issue, you drooling idiot, you imbecile, you fascist whore, you clueless, bootlicking statist is inalienable rights. Behavior necessarily touches on ideology, religion, morality . . . you oranges-apples dimwit. Nobody has any legitimate right to impose their behavior, their religion or their morality against the inalienable fights of free-association and private property. So the Bill of Rights are meaningless? Public accommodation codes trump them? Since when, Goebbels? Public accommodation codes that compel one to accommodate behavior or rituals on one's property that is contrary to one's ideological/religious convictions is tyranny, whether one's property be a place of business or not. The rest is irrelevant minutia. There's no such thing as an alienable, inalienable right in the public or private sector. One cannot be legitimately alienated from their inalienable rights, you FASCIST RETARD, not on public property and certainly not on one's own private property.

Are you pretending not to understand that, moron? Are you truly that stupid? Just how depraved are you?

Go to hell, Mr. Moderator. The only thing that homofascist punks like you will ever understand about where your rights end and those of others begin is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at your stupid heads.

I seem to have touched a nerve. It's not often that I see people melt down quite like this.

Indeed, that's precisely the kind of response I would have expected from you. Not one of shame. Not one of contriteness. You are that depraved, as only a depraved person would fail to comprehend how monstrously tyrannical and disgusting your disregard for the rights of others is.

Seems to me...one should not be ashamed of being FOR equal rights for law-abiding, tax-paying citizens of this country.....instead of cheering for illegal discrimination against fellow citizens.

Seems to me that you're a lying-ass fascist whore. I explained the matter in no uncertain terms. We are talking about inalienable human rights. You're claiming that it's okay to violate the same. You’re either as stupid as dirt or pretending not to understand the limits of your rights, pretending not to understand what you know in heart of hearts to be an outrageous violation of human dignity, indeed, a violation verging on murder that would have you screaming like the stuck pig that you are were it being perpetrated against the prerogatives of your free-association and private property.

Shut the hell up, you depraved bitch. You do not have the right to bring your pagan filth onto the property of a Christian. Trespass.

The only thing I will civilly entertain from you is an honest discussion regarding the facts of inalienable human rights or an apology for your monstrous, existential threats against my family and our way life, you pagan, bootlicking statist whore.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It's not. Why do you keep insisting that it is?

Why do you keep posting things that are demonstrably false?

Like what?

The difference between us is I admit when I am wrong. The information I got was wrong, and I based my posts on it. Feel free to admit you were wrong at least once in this thread. or pretend you won because you never make mistakes.


Your choice.

You admit when you're wrong only after a full day and countless arrogant, condescending posts in which you repeated complete fabrications and heaped insults on anyone who tried to point that out.

Trying to take the "high road" now just looks silly.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Yes, when you are offering a PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION, you have to offer it to everyone who can pay. Period.

"We don't serve you people" has been against the law since the 1960's.

The problem is that progressive states have declared almost everything a public accommodation. I can't wait until they do it to your house so I can move a few dozen homeless meth addicts into it.

Again....QW doesn't understand Public Accommodation laws. Color me surprised.

There's nothing to understand here, you bootlicking fascist whore but the constraints of inalienable human rights.

Shut the hell up.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No, "the article" doesn't state that at all. Perhaps you should re-read it.

The article states that the owners of the farm refused to host the ceremony entirely. The "house" was only mentioned by the owner as an excuse for why they said no.

It doesn't?

Here is where it says exactly that in the link provided by the OP.

This is outrageous. Just because there's an occasional weddiing ceremony performed in their house doesn't make it "public." This blurring of public/private lines by the judge is an insidious attack on privacy and personal liberty.

Did you read a different article?

Apparently. I read the actual article, rather than the paragraph-long histrionic blog post discussing the article.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You know that it already did play out in court, and the farm lost?

That's the whole point of this thread.

You know that the decision can be appealed to a real court, don't you?

I hate to break it you, but this court was "real", too.

They can appeal, but it's pretty cut-and-dried. I doubt they'll even try.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Bush created a Law? What is that law called? What set of laws is it filed under so I can look it up?

Are you saying that the torture memo is fake?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't think I know everything...that is why I am asking you questions...to ascertain some information. And yet, you seem to have taken my inquiries to be something they are not. Why do you think that is?

How am I supposed to react when you ask me questions about things I didn't say?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Like what?



You admit when you're wrong only after a full day and countless arrogant, condescending posts in which you repeated complete fabrications and heaped insults on anyone who tried to point that out.

Trying to take the "high road" now just looks silly.

I am supposed to admit I am wrong because you say I am wrong? Yet, even when I prove you are wrong, you pretend you didn't see the post.

Interesting.

FYI. I admitted I was wrong when someone posted actual evidence that contradicted what I knew. If you had bothered to provide evidence instead of just declaring yourself right you might have a point. As it is, all you have is pretension.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Apparently. I read the actual article, rather than the paragraph-long histrionic blog post discussing the article.

Apparently, you are full of shit.

From the Washington Post article linked to in the "histrionic blog post".

Weddings typically are conducted on the first floor of the Giffords’ home, and Mrs. Gifford argued the lesbian wedding would “literally hit too close to home,” RNS reported.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Like what?



You admit when you're wrong only after a full day and countless arrogant, condescending posts in which you repeated complete fabrications and heaped insults on anyone who tried to point that out.

Trying to take the "high road" now just looks silly.

I am supposed to admit I am wrong because you say I am wrong? Yet, even when I prove you are wrong, you pretend you didn't see the post.

Interesting.

FYI. I admitted I was wrong when someone posted actual evidence that contradicted what I knew. If you had bothered to provide evidence instead of just declaring yourself right you might have as point. As it is, all you have is pretension.

The "actual evidence" that contradicted what you "knew" was in the link in the OP.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I hate to break it you, but this court was "real", too.

They can appeal, but it's pretty cut-and-dried. I doubt they'll even try.

Because the executive branch can create courts, right?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The "actual evidence" that contradicted what you "knew" was in the link in the OP.

The link that says the wedding was in the home of the people being sued? That article?

Seriously dude, give it up.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Apparently. I read the actual article, rather than the paragraph-long histrionic blog post discussing the article.

Apparently, you are full of shit.

From the Washington Post article linked to in the "histrionic blog post".

Weddings typically are conducted on the first floor of the Giffords’ home, and Mrs. Gifford argued the lesbian wedding would “literally hit too close to home,” RNS reported.

Washington Times, not Post.

And how does that disagree with anything I've posted?

As I've now posted many times, the only mention of it being their "home" came from the owners, not the lesbian couple or their court filings - and as was pointed out in that article as well, the "Barn" advertised on the website is, in fact, their "Home".