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

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

When did I claim that it wasn't their "home"?

As I said in my first post to you in this thread, the fact that they live on the premises doesn't change the application of public accommodation laws.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

And you still remain clueless? What did you call us? Assholes? We need to be dead? In the meantime, Mr. Moderator, you sick, depraved punk, you're going to do what? Oppress us? Steal from us? Violate our property and personal liberty? Fine us? Why not jail us? Why are you pussy footing around, anyway? What a coward you are. If we're second-class citizens, indeed, apparently, subhuman, vermin, mere animals, not entitled to inalienable rights, not entitled to do business without pagans coming onto our property and slobbering on one another in a pagan ritual in front of our wives and our children, indeed, if homofascists can invade churches and assault Christians on public sidewalks with impunity in San Francisco, why not just kill us? What's next, you fascist thug?

 

[bodecea]

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.

My, my...you certainly are melting down, aren't you?

 

[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.

And you still remain clueless? What did you call us? Assholes? We need to be dead? In the meantime, Mr. Moderator, you sick, depraved punk, you're going to do what? Oppress us? Steal from us? Violate our property and personal liberty? Fine us? Why not jail us? Why are you pussy footing around, anyway? What a coward you are. If we're second-class citizens, indeed, apparently, subhuman, vermin, mere animals, not entitled to inalienable rights, not entitled to do business without pagans coming onto our property and slobbering on one another in a pagan ritual in front of our wives and our children, indeed, if homofascists can invade churches and assault Christians on public sidewalks with impunity in San Francisco, why not just kill us? What's next, you fascist thug?

I'm going to continue sitting here laughing at your breakdown. That's what's "next" for me.

 

[bodecea]

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.

I have to wonder why you want people to...as you say..."shut the hell up"....you seem very uncomfortable by what I say. While I, on the other hand, have no problem with what you say. I don't try to shut you up...don't want you to shut up....you are entertaining to say the least.

 

[Vandalshandle]

"Shut the hell up, punk. I won't be lectured by fascist thugs like you. I slap the piss out of cowardly punks like you . . . verbally speaking, you understand. Hmm. Unless of course you in get in my face, you know, invade my space, then I'm liable to kick your ass to the curb, literally.
A number of cases are already being adjudicated, on their way toward to the Supreme Court out of Colorado, New Mexico, California and other states. The Court had better get this right. I've personally been sued by a homofascist whore like you as I don't play the dodge game. I'm past that song and dance. That depraved sissy lost and was ordered to reimburse me for my legal expenses. But I haven't gotten a dime of that back and probably never will. I've put my assets on the line to defend liberty and have donated thousands to the various legal funds fighting this crap. Years ago I put my life on the line to defend liberty.
All punks like you have ever done all your lives is tear the Republic down and attack the inalienable rights of the people.
I'm in Arizona. I donated time, money and energy to pass The Arizona "Religious Rights" bill (Senate Bill 1062), vetoed by that cowardly bitch Brewer. That bill's coming back up when that statist bootlick is gone, and we will get it passed.
I will engage in civil disobedience if necessary, and I will take up arms if necessary.
Oh, and once again, shut the hell up, you mindless, bootlicking statist."

Rawlings

 

[bodecea]

"Shut the hell up, punk. I won't be lectured by fascist thugs like you. I slap the piss out of cowardly punks like you . . . verbally speaking, you understand. Hmm. Unless of course you in get in my face, you know, invade my space, then I'm liable to kick your ass to the curb, literally.
A number of cases are already being adjudicated, on their way toward to the Supreme Court out of Colorado, New Mexico, California and other states. The Court had better get this right. I've personally been sued by a homofascist whore like you as I don't play the dodge game. I'm past that song and dance. That depraved sissy lost and was ordered to reimburse me for my legal expenses. But I haven't gotten a dime of that back and probably never will. I've put my assets on the line to defend liberty and have donated thousands to the various legal funds fighting this crap. Years ago I put my life on the line to defend liberty.
All punks like you have ever done all your lives is tear the Republic down and attack the inalienable rights of the people.
I'm in Arizona. I donated time, money and energy to pass The Arizona "Religious Rights" bill (Senate Bill 1062), vetoed by that cowardly bitch Brewer. That bill's coming back up when that statist bootlick is gone, and we will get it passed.
I will engage in civil disobedience if necessary, and I will take up arms if necessary.
Oh, and once again, shut the hell up, you mindless, bootlicking statist."

Rawlings

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Shut the hell up.


A fine example of conservative ignorance, hate, and contempt for the rule of law.


Well done.

 

[bodecea]

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

Shut the hell up.


A fine example of conservative ignorance, hate, and contempt for the rule of law.


Well done.

I'm quite proud of him....he's so many RW meme's going on at once there.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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".

Barn? Home?

This is precisely why I cut to the chase with moral retards like you.

It's their property, and they don't want the pagan rituals of sexual degenerates preformed on their property in violation of their religious convictions, no more than they would want to accommodate the pagan filth of skin-head weddings or KKK weddings, I'm sure.

Simple.

I own a business. Does this mean that I have to perform services or make expressions that would entangle me in the pagan filth of skin heads and Clansman too? And what about similar businesses owned by homosexuals? Do they have to accommodate skin-head weddings or KKK weddings? If not, why not, given your fantastic world of logic where inalienable rights are trumped by . . . what exactly?

Get rid of that pretentious avatar of yours, dummy. . . .

No, wait!. Keep it.

On second thought, it actually suits you, the caricature of a limp-wristed, pseudo-intellectual prig, a Goyan grotesquey.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Rawlings, you have got to quit holding back. tell us how you REALLY feel.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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

Shut the hell up.


A fine example of conservative ignorance, hate, and contempt for the rule of law.


Well done.

The homofascist thug of homofascist thugs who has expressed the vilest contempt for Christians and their inalienable rights whimpered.

Shut the hell up about the rule of law, you morally obtuse punk, and back at ya, along with the business end of a loaded gun pointed at your stupid head should the need arise to defend my inalienable rights, which it what you Marxist thugs are pushing this nation toward.

There's your rule of law, the law of the jungle to which you would reduce us all.

 

[JoeB131]

Free Markets don't cure anything but the insatiable greed of the rich.

And, no, those bakers and photographers can only have businesses because we have the government infrastructure to support them. Otherwise, they'd get robbed every day.

Explain why every country that has a free market is thriving, and every country that doesn't isn't.

Because that isn't true.

The Social Democracies are doing just fine.

The Run-away capitalist states aren't doing so well. You clowns haven't gotten us there yet, but I'm sure you are working on it.

 

[JoeB131]

Free Markets don't cure anything but the insatiable greed of the rich.

And, no, those bakers and photographers can only have businesses because we have the government infrastructure to support them. Otherwise, they'd get robbed every day.

Explain why every country that has a free market is thriving, and every country that doesn't isn't.

Free market doesn't mean businesses get to do whatever they want with no regulations.

And that's the problem with his "logic". It's the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

And you still remain clueless? What did you call us? Assholes? We need to be dead? In the meantime, Mr. Moderator, you sick, depraved punk, you're going to do what? Oppress us? Steal from us? Violate our property and personal liberty? Fine us? Why not jail us? Why are you pussy footing around, anyway? What a coward you are. If we're second-class citizens, indeed, apparently, subhuman, vermin, mere animals, not entitled to inalienable rights, not entitled to do business without pagans coming onto our property and slobbering on one another in a pagan ritual in front of our wives and our children, indeed, if homofascists can invade churches and assault Christians on public sidewalks with impunity in San Francisco, why not just kill us? What's next, you fascist thug?

I'm going to continue sitting here laughing at your breakdown. That's what's "next" for me.

Whatever you say, Goya. Of course, you don't really have an argument that could possibly justify the violation of inalienable rights. You’re just a string slogans and depravity.

 

[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.

And you still remain clueless? What did you call us? Assholes? We need to be dead? In the meantime, Mr. Moderator, you sick, depraved punk, you're going to do what? Oppress us? Steal from us? Violate our property and personal liberty? Fine us? Why not jail us? Why are you pussy footing around, anyway? What a coward you are. If we're second-class citizens, indeed, apparently, subhuman, vermin, mere animals, not entitled to inalienable rights, not entitled to do business without pagans coming onto our property and slobbering on one another in a pagan ritual in front of our wives and our children, indeed, if homofascists can invade churches and assault Christians on public sidewalks with impunity in San Francisco, why not just kill us? What's next, you fascist thug?

I'm going to continue sitting here laughing at your breakdown. That's what's "next" for me.

Whatever you say, Goya. Of course, you don't really have an argument that could possibly justify the violation of inalienable rights. You’re just a string slogans and depravity.

Says the man hysterically screaming about how he's going "take up arms" against everyone who disagrees with him..

Is that what you mean by an "argument"?

 

[WorldWatcher]

>


Contrary to what some believe. New York "Executive Law" is simply a section designation for a portion of New York State Laws passed by the New York State Legislature. "Executive Law" does not mean laws passed by the "Executive" branch. It's section of the law just like banking laws, election law, labor law, workers compensation law.

New York State Legislature

ABP	Abandoned Property
AGM	Agriculture & Markets
ABC	Alcoholic Beverage Control
ACG	Alternative County Government
ACA	Arts and Cultural Affairs
BNK	Banking
BVO	Benevolent Orders
BSC	Business Corporation
CAL	Canal
CVP	Civil Practice Law & Rules
CVR	Civil Rights
CVS	Civil Service
CCO	Cooperative Corporations
COR	Correction
CNT	County
CPL	Criminal Procedure
DCD	Debtor & Creditor
DOM	Domestic Relations
COM	Economic Development Law
EDN	Education
ELD	Elder
ELN	Election
EDP	Eminent Domain Procedure
EML	Employers' Liability
ENG	Energy
ENV	Environmental Conservation
EPT	Estates, Powers & Trusts
EXC	Executive
FIS	Financial Services Law
GAS	General Associations
GBS	General Business
GCT	General City
GCN	General Construction
GMU	General Municipal
GOB	General Obligations
HAY	Highway
IND	Indian
ISC	Insurance
JUD	Judiciary
LAB	Labor
LEG	Legislative
LIE	Lien
LLC	Limited Liability Company Law
LFN	Local Finance
MHY	Mental Hygiene
MIL	Military
MDW	Multiple Dwelling
MRE	Multiple Residence
MHR	Municipal Home Rule
NAV	Navigation
PPD	New York State Printing and Public Documents
NPC	Not-For-Profit Corporation
PAR	Parks, recreation and historic preservation
PTR	Partnership
PEN	Penal
PEP	Personal Property
PVH	Private Housing Finance
PBA	Public Authorities
PBB	Public Buildings
PBH	Public Health
PBG	Public Housing
PBL	Public Lands
PBO	Public Officers
PBS	Public Service
PML	Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law
RRD	Railroad
RAT	Rapid Transit
RPP	Real Property
RPA	Real Property Actions & Proceedings
RPT	Real Property Tax
RCO	Religious Corporations
RSS	Retirement & Social Security
REL	Rural Electric Cooperative
SCC	Second Class Cities
SOS	Social Services
SWC	Soil & Water Conservation Districts
STL	State
SAP	State Administrative Procedure Act
STF	State Finance
STT	State Technology
SLG	Statute of Local Governments
TAX	Tax
TWN	Town
TRA	Transportation
TCP	Transportation Corporations
UCC	Uniform Commercial Code
VAT	Vehicle & Traffic
VIL	Village
VAW	Volunteer Ambulance Workers' Benefit
VOL	Volunteer Firefighters' Benefit
WKC	Workers' Compensation

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

>>>>

 

[bodecea]

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

Shut the hell up.


A fine example of conservative ignorance, hate, and contempt for the rule of law.


Well done.

The homofascist thug of homofascist thugs who has expressed the vilest contempt for Christians and their inalienable rights whimpered.

Shut the hell up about the rule of law, you morally obtuse punk, and back at ya, along with the business end of a loaded gun pointed at your stupid head should the need arise to defend my inalienable rights, which it what you Marxist thugs are pushing this nation toward.

There's your rule of law, the law of the jungle to which you would reduce us all.

Again...you seem very afraid...trying to get people to "shut the hell up" . Not very nice....particularly when you also say "along with the business end of a loaded gun pointed at your stupid head". Now....let me ask you...is that the comment of a mature adult?

 

[bodecea]

>


Contrary to what some believe. New York "Executive Law" is simply a section designation for a portion of New York State Laws passed by the New York State Legislature. "Executive Law" does not mean laws passed by the "Executive" branch. It's section of the law just like banking laws, election law, labor law, workers compensation law.

New York State Legislature

ABP	Abandoned Property
AGM	Agriculture & Markets
ABC	Alcoholic Beverage Control
ACG	Alternative County Government
ACA	Arts and Cultural Affairs
BNK	Banking
BVO	Benevolent Orders
BSC	Business Corporation
CAL	Canal
CVP	Civil Practice Law & Rules
CVR	Civil Rights
CVS	Civil Service
CCO	Cooperative Corporations
COR	Correction
CNT	County
CPL	Criminal Procedure
DCD	Debtor & Creditor
DOM	Domestic Relations
COM	Economic Development Law
EDN	Education
ELD	Elder
ELN	Election
EDP	Eminent Domain Procedure
EML	Employers' Liability
ENG	Energy
ENV	Environmental Conservation
EPT	Estates, Powers & Trusts
EXC	Executive
FIS	Financial Services Law
GAS	General Associations
GBS	General Business
GCT	General City
GCN	General Construction
GMU	General Municipal
GOB	General Obligations
HAY	Highway
IND	Indian
ISC	Insurance
JUD	Judiciary
LAB	Labor
LEG	Legislative
LIE	Lien
LLC	Limited Liability Company Law
LFN	Local Finance
MHY	Mental Hygiene
MIL	Military
MDW	Multiple Dwelling
MRE	Multiple Residence
MHR	Municipal Home Rule
NAV	Navigation
PPD	New York State Printing and Public Documents
NPC	Not-For-Profit Corporation
PAR	Parks, recreation and historic preservation
PTR	Partnership
PEN	Penal
PEP	Personal Property
PVH	Private Housing Finance
PBA	Public Authorities
PBB	Public Buildings
PBH	Public Health
PBG	Public Housing
PBL	Public Lands
PBO	Public Officers
PBS	Public Service
PML	Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law
RRD	Railroad
RAT	Rapid Transit
RPP	Real Property
RPA	Real Property Actions & Proceedings
RPT	Real Property Tax
RCO	Religious Corporations
RSS	Retirement & Social Security
REL	Rural Electric Cooperative
SCC	Second Class Cities
SOS	Social Services
SWC	Soil & Water Conservation Districts
STL	State
SAP	State Administrative Procedure Act
STF	State Finance
STT	State Technology
SLG	Statute of Local Governments
TAX	Tax
TWN	Town
TRA	Transportation
TCP	Transportation Corporations
UCC	Uniform Commercial Code
VAT	Vehicle & Traffic
VIL	Village
VAW	Volunteer Ambulance Workers' Benefit
VOL	Volunteer Firefighters' Benefit
WKC	Workers' Compensation

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

>>>>

Thank you...I was wondering if that might be the case....and was hoping QW would help clarify that for us. But...he seems to not want to have done that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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".

Did you not post that the article did not say the issue was that the wedding was to be held in a home/house? Did your account get hacked again?