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

[WorldWatcher]

Would a minority-owned business be forced to cater a KKK event?

Yes they would.

Actually the wouldn't, the KKK isn't a race, religion, ethnicity, place of national origin, sex or sexual orientation so in most states they are not covered under Public Accommodation Laws. (They would be in California because of the CSC ruling about the Uhr (sp?) Act, not not others.)

For example from New Mexico (See PDF page 20) -->> www.adfmedia.org/files/ElanePhotoNMSCopinion.pdf



>>>>

would a Christian owned business be forced to cater a muslim prayer session? How about a druid ceremony?

A Christian owned business would be required under the law to provide the same goods and services they provide to the pubic and can not deny those same goods and services to someone because they are Muslim or a Druid.


>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Fifth doesn't say anything about the government ruling on how property can be used.

Which explains why the Supreme Court has never used the 5th Amendment to strike down government land use regulations.

FindLaw Cases and Codes

Damn, wrong again.

Want to admit you are blowing smoke out of your ass yet?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes, they did.

The Fifth Amendment doesn't say they can't.

It actually does.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They are not being "forced" to do anything. They are being fined for discriminating.

And the Fifth Amendment doesn't say anything about being able to do whatever you want on your "property", it just says the government can't steal it from you without due process.

Is the fine voluntary? If not, how can you claim they aren't being forced to do something?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Your entire argument is based on the claim that the Fifth Amendment prevents states from ruling on how property can be used.

An argument the Supreme Court of the United States says is valid.

Which means your argument that the 5th doesn't actually do that wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And you can link to this post of mine, naturally? I'll be waiting...

Oh, and what is "whinged" exactly?

Are you denying that you posted, multiple times, about the idiots on the Supreme Court and how they got the Hobby Lobby decision wrong?

As for whinged, feel free to get a dictionary and look it up, I am not responsible for your ignorance, and am under no obligation to fix it. I will leave it to you to alleviate it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Businesses are still private and the owner should call the shots. Would a minority-owned business be forced to cater a KKK event? Of course, you will say that the KKK would never walk into a business owned by a minority and want to do business with them. Why then would a gay couple want to force religious people into dealing with them, knowing that they are against gays due to religion?

I wouldn't want to force anyone to deal with me. And I wouldn't go crying to a lawyer if someone didn't want my business. I'd speak out and let people know what the issue is and the business would suffer if enough people disagreed with their stance on any given issue.

I'd choke on the cake someone was forced to bake for me against their will. I wouldn't set foot in a place that objected to my lifestyle.

There are many businesses and if you don't like how one operates, head over to their competition.

I don't think it's right to force business owners to go against their conscience.

Businesses used to have the right to refuse service to anyone. Having lawyers file suits to force them to cater to people is creepy. Neither the business owners or the customers should feel comfortable with that. I don't think it's so much that the people filing these suits really want the particular cakes a baker has or the accommodations for their wedding. In some cases, I think they are just messing with people whose religious beliefs don't include gays.

I could care less about the sexual orientation of a person. But I understand that some do and I wouldn't disrespect that by forcing them to do anything they find objectionable. Force doesn't change people's hearts and minds. If the intent is to be accepted by people, then the last thing you should do is offend them by suing them and saying that their religion doesn't matter.

Yes they would.

Again they would not. When are you going tog get your head out of your ass and stop posting things that are demonstrably false? Would you like me to post a link to the New Mexico photography decision that directly contradicts you lies in order to remind you that this has already been dealt with, and dismissed, by the courts?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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"?

Says the hysterical, homofascist apologist for the shia law of paganism. You'er a political sociopath, and, once again, I'm impervious to the your Alinsky tactics.

What I said is that I’m prepared to engage in civil disobedience or take up arms, if necessary, to uphold INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS, which is the foundation of the Republic’s rule of law. More than a decade ago I stood shoulder-to-shoulder with homosexuals against sodomy laws. Same principle.

Only a pathological liar would characterize the violation of INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS, in truth, an existential threat verging on murder, as a mere disagreement. Only a depraved monster, indeed, the reprobate mind of a seared conscious, would characterize the righteous anger of a sane human being in reaction to your mocking indifference to the violation of INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS as hysteria.

Only a rank sociopath would call Christians asserting their INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS assholes or, even more monstrously insane, allege that the real perpetrators of injustice in this instance are the victims.

I understand your Alinsky tactics. You're not fooling anyone who matters on this forum.

On another thread, you're the hysterical ninny who opined that a T-shirt—a T-shirt, for crying out loud!—with a sentiment pertaining to self-defense constituted an inordinate threat of violence, when in fact the expression of that sentiment on T-shirts is more common in America than the common cold, you silly ass, Goyan grotesquery.

I imagine that it must have occurred to someone even as stupid and depraved as you just how silly your post was, as you didn't stick around after the laugh we all got out of that.

Notwithstanding, this classical liberal agreed with you insofar as the INALIENABLE prerogatives of free-association and private property were concerned and, therefore, recognized Six Flags of New Jersey’s right to eject the man who wore that T-shirt.

It really is that simple.

That was an instance of ideological discrimination, albeit, not an illegal or even an unjust instance of discrimination; for ideological discrimination is the very essence of liberty, you silly ass. But now, in the face of what is a breathtakingly outrageous and, until recently, historically unprecedented violation of the INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS of free-association and private property, you go all obtuse and indifferent.

But of course, we all know what the essence of your hypocrisy is, including you: you don't hold to any universal principle of justice at all. No. You're agenda is the imposition of your morality, such as it is, everywhere and on everyone regardless of the imperatives of natural and constitutional law. You're a fascist thug, and the only thing that fascist thugs like you will ever understand about the INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS of others is civil disobedience or the business end of a loaded gun pointed at your stupid heads.

Check?
________________________________________

That's a real argument. On the other hand, your prattle, as I have shown and as Windbag has shown in every other respect, is an endless train of shoe shine: evasion, depravity, lies, rank stupidity and ignorance. You ain't foolin' anyone who matters, Mr. Moderator.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Unsurprisingly, this makes no sense.


The 'game' you're referring to is the rule of law, it belongs to all Americans.


And the Republic will in fact be finished if we allow the majority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights, and subject individual liberty to popular vote.


The Framers wisely created a Constitutional Republic, as opposed to a democracy, because they correctly understood that often the majority can be wrong – seeking to deny gay Americans access to public accommodations predicated solely on who they are is one such example.

Not surprisingly, you make more baby talk, the truth mixed with the big lie, for it is you, not I, who asserts the existential threat of mobocratic rule, bitch.

The Framers created a constitutional Republic of limited government, as opposed to a democracy, predicated on the imperatives of inalienable human rights against the tyranny of unchecked majoritarianism. In other words, the ultimate limits of legitimate governmental power are the inalienable rights of humanity. They may not be abridged without dire consequences.

You moron! Inordinately intrusive public accommodation codes are an abomination. You homofascists thugs don't have any legitimate right to force anybody to participate in your pagan rituals in any way, shape or form, and if you persist in this outrageous tyranny toward your final solution, Americans will take up arms against you, starting with your politicians and your judges. We will end you.

And this is the second time I've told your depraved, homofascist ass that the adjective constitutional is not capitalized, you phony.

 

[bodecea]

They are not being "forced" to do anything. They are being fined for discriminating.

And the Fifth Amendment doesn't say anything about being able to do whatever you want on your "property", it just says the government can't steal it from you without due process.

Is the fine voluntary? If not, how can you claim they aren't being forced to do something?

So...when a business is fined for polluting the air after a citizen reports them to the governmental authorities....what it really was....that citizen was SUING that business....................uh huh.

 

[bodecea]

Unsurprisingly, this makes no sense.


The 'game' you're referring to is the rule of law, it belongs to all Americans.


And the Republic will in fact be finished if we allow the majority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights, and subject individual liberty to popular vote.


The Framers wisely created a Constitutional Republic, as opposed to a democracy, because they correctly understood that often the majority can be wrong – seeking to deny gay Americans access to public accommodations predicated solely on who they are is one such example.

Not surprisingly, you make more baby talk, the truth mixed with the big lie, for it is you, not I, who asserts the existential threat of mobocratic rule, bitch. And that threat is leveled against me, bitch.

The Framers created a constitutional Republic of limited government, as opposed to a democracy, predicated on the imperatives of inalienable human rights against the tyranny of unchecked majoritarianism. In other words, the ultimate limits of legitimate governmental power are the inalienable rights of humanity. They may not be abridged without dire consequences.

You moron! Inordinately intrusive public accommodation codes are an abomination. You homofascists thugs don't have any legitimate right to force anybody to participate in your pagan rituals in any way, shape or form, and if you persist in this outrageous tyranny toward your final solution, Americans will take up arms against you, starting with your politicians and your judges. We will end you.

And this is the second time I've told your depraved, homofascist ass that the adjective constitutional is not capitalized, you phony.

My goodness....you're one of those christians we hear about....ain'tcha?

 

[bodecea]

So...what did the Court decide in this case again?

 

[Vandalshandle]

I fully expect to check in to this message board some day, only to find Rawlings staring out of my computer screen with a loaded gun to my head.....

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I fully expect to check in to this message board some day, only to find Rawlings staring out of my computer screen with a loaded gun to my head.....

First they fined the Christians, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Christian.
Then they jailed the Christians, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Christian.
Then they killed the Christians, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Christian.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left who would speak for me.

 

[bodecea]

I fully expect to check in to this message board some day, only to find Rawlings staring out of my computer screen with a loaded gun to my head.....

First they fined the Christians, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Christian.
Then they jailed the Christians, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Christian.
Then they killed the Christians, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Christian.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left who would speak for me.

Godwin's Law activated.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Shut up, you confused twit.

Can't answer the question? How are you more oppressed than bigots that don't want to do business with blacks or Muslims?

I didn't answer your question, dumbass, because it's nonsensical, off topic, irrelevant. I do business with homosexuals all the time. Hence, what's your point?

Seawytch: "b b b b b b but . . . uh . . . I mean . . . uh . . . *drool* . . . um. . . ."

Never mind, like theDoctorsIn, that idiot with the motorcycle avatar and that narcissistic bitch who keeps yammering on about the irrelevancy of her "marriage," you don't have a point, do you?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I fully expect to check in to this message board some day, only to find Rawlings staring out of my computer screen with a loaded gun to my head.....

First they fined the Christians, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Christian.
Then they jailed the Christians, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Christian.
Then they killed the Christians, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Christian.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left who would speak for me.

Godwin's Law activated.

Yeah. By lying homofascists, and once again, persist down this road of tyranny, Americans will rise up and end you.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yes, live and let live is not their motto...more gays who will not accept someone not accepting their lifestyle...and so those individuals will be punished...

Blog: NY Farm fined for refusing to host gay wedding

This is the nature of the sociopath. And sure, they're advocates for the normalization of sexual abnormality, but they are first and foremost anti-theists. They are animated by and in every respect, manifestly evil.

 

[bodecea]

I fully expect to check in to this message board some day, only to find Rawlings staring out of my computer screen with a loaded gun to my head.....

First they fined the Christians, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Christian.
Then they jailed the Christians, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Christian.
Then they killed the Christians, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Christian.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left who would speak for me.

Godwin's Law activated.

Yeah. By lying homofascists, and once again, persist down this road of tyranny, Americans will rise up and end you.

Yeah yeah...."gun to head" ....brrrrrrrr....I'm shaking.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I'd be happy if all religion is banned, so you are barking up the wrong tree here, bud.

Businesses don't have religion. Businesses aren't people.

Your being a psychotic fascist is NOT news, bitchboy!