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

[jillian]

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

you aren't allowed to discriminate in public accommodation.

try again.

Before Lawrence vs. Texas, one dude wasn't allowed to screw another dude in the privacy of their home.

If we were debating the human right of humans choosing their own sexual partners and I told you that the law permitted the jailing of homosexuals who commit sodomy, would I win that argument?

and before brown v board of ed segregation was legal.

your point?

over time the Court has corrected earlier rulings. In time discrimination against certain groups will not be illegal. Too many people are sick of it.

The stupid thing is, some people do not seem to realize that a law which SPECIFICALLY carves out certain groups as being afforded extra protections is against the COTUS which guarantees that EVERYONE shall enjoy the same rights.

If a gay person has a right to do business with me than so to does a smelly person. Would you argue that I can't kick someone who stinks out of my place of business?

you seem to not understand the law. if person a walks into your place of business and is disruptive, dressed improperly or some other thing specific to the individual, you have every right to exclude them. remember no shotes, no shirt, no service?

what you do not have the right to do is decide someone "stinks" because they are a member of a minority.

i hope that helps.

p.s. the only ones "sick of it" are bigoted jerks. the rest of the world understands that you don't have the right to hang a sign outside your place of business saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays".

No YOU seem to have a problem understanding business.

Here let me explain it to you.

If I own a business which caters to Bibile thumping, gun toting, tobaccy chewing gasp CHRISTIANS and some gay wants me to do buisness with them, guess what that does, it chases away my customers and violates my right to associate with whom I want to.

And to clear something up, I don't discriminate and wouldn't discriminate, but I also wouldn't have gay sex. But I defend the rights of BOTH who do.So that blows your little theory of only bigoted jerks caring that rights are being taken away right out of the water.

We don't make things illegal in this country because they offend someone, or hurt their sensitive feelings

Oh by the way, you are also wrong about the sign issue. Freedom of speech, I could CLEARLY - even under current law - hang a sign right outside my business that read "no ******/spics/kikes or other assorted mutts" and there is nothing illegal about that.

Let's say I did, and a black person came around and saw my sign and got pissed and drove off and hired a lawyer. All I'd have to do is point out that the black person never actually came in and asked me to serve him, he just saw the sign and drove off.

Check the law, you will see that I am ENTIRELY correct. In fact that is something you should bear in mind ANY TIME you see me post.
.

bubby, no one cares about your hatred. the law protects EVERYONE from bigotry in public accommodation. if you can't cope, don't run a business.

 

[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

you aren't allowed to discriminate in public accommodation.

try again.

That, is hysterically hostile to American principles. Thus, such 'laws' are to be rejected, ignored and unapologetically refused by all Americans.

There is no POTENTIAL for a right, where the exercising of that right injures the means of another to exercise their own rights. PERIOD.

You may 'feel' otherwise, but that only demonstrates that you are part of the problem.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Oh by the way, you are also wrong about the sign issue. Freedom of speech, I could CLEARLY - even under current law - hang a sign right outside my business that read "no ******/spics/kikes or other assorted mutts" and there is nothing illegal about that.

Let's say I did, and a black person came around and saw my sign and got pissed and drove off and hired a lawyer. All I'd have to do is point out that the black person never actually came in and asked me to serve him, he just saw the sign and drove off.

Check the law, you will see that I am ENTIRELY correct.

Actually if you check the law you are incorrect.

2. (a) It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person,
being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or
employee of any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement,
because of the race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation,
military status, sex, or disability or marital status of any person,
directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from or deny to such person
any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof,
including the extension of credit, or, directly or indirectly, to
publish, circulate, issue, display, post or mail any written or printed
communication, notice or advertisement, to the effect that any of the
accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any such place
shall be refused, withheld from or denied to any person on account of
race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, military
status, sex, or disability or marital status, or that the patronage or
custom thereat of any person of or purporting to be of any particular
race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, military
status, sex or marital status, or having a disability is unwelcome,
objectionable or not acceptable, desired or solicited."

Laws of New York​

>>>>

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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

you aren't allowed to discriminate in public accommodation.

try again.

Before Lawrence vs. Texas, one dude wasn't allowed to screw another dude in the privacy of their home.

If we were debating the human right of humans choosing their own sexual partners and I told you that the law permitted the jailing of homosexuals who commit sodomy, would I win that argument?

and before brown v board of ed segregation was legal.

your point?

over time the Court has corrected earlier rulings. In time discrimination against certain groups will not be illegal. Too many people are sick of it.

The stupid thing is, some people do not seem to realize that a law which SPECIFICALLY carves out certain groups as being afforded extra protections is against the COTUS which guarantees that EVERYONE shall enjoy the same rights.

If a gay person has a right to do business with me than so to does a smelly person. Would you argue that I can't kick someone who stinks out of my place of business?

you seem to not understand the law. if person a walks into your place of business and is disruptive, dressed improperly or some other thing specific to the individual, you have every right to exclude them. remember no shotes, no shirt, no service?

what you do not have the right to do is decide someone "stinks" because they are a member of a minority.

i hope that helps.

p.s. the only ones "sick of it" are bigoted jerks. the rest of the world understands that you don't have the right to hang a sign outside your place of business saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays".

No YOU seem to have a problem understanding business.

Here let me explain it to you.

If I own a business which caters to Bibile thumping, gun toting, tobaccy chewing gasp CHRISTIANS and some gay wants me to do buisness with them, guess what that does, it chases away my customers and violates my right to associate with whom I want to.

And to clear something up, I don't discriminate and wouldn't discriminate, but I also wouldn't have gay sex. But I defend the rights of BOTH who do.So that blows your little theory of only bigoted jerks caring that rights are being taken away right out of the water.

We don't make things illegal in this country because they offend someone, or hurt their sensitive feelings

Oh by the way, you are also wrong about the sign issue. Freedom of speech, I could CLEARLY - even under current law - hang a sign right outside my business that read "no ******/spics/kikes or other assorted mutts" and there is nothing illegal about that.

Let's say I did, and a black person came around and saw my sign and got pissed and drove off and hired a lawyer. All I'd have to do is point out that the black person never actually came in and asked me to serve him, he just saw the sign and drove off.

Check the law, you will see that I am ENTIRELY correct. In fact that is something you should bear in mind ANY TIME you see me post.
.

bubby, no one cares about your hatred. the law protects EVERYONE from bigotry in public accommodation. if you can't cope, don't run a business.

Ah doesn't that just hurt my feelings. The little child couldn't respond intelligently to my response to her so she just accuses me of hating .

Did you stomp your feet to?

Listen, I don't hate anyone, least of all gays. In fact I have gay customers, they are good customers. But they are my customers by MY choice.

Oh and further illustrating that you simply have no understanding of the law, all the laws in the world certainly do NOT prevent me from discriminating against EVERYONE. In fact, just the opposite, the laws are QUITE specific on who I can NOT discriminate against, meaning I am quite free to discriminate against any person for any reason not specifically covered.

Do you understand that, or should I break it down into single syllable words for you?

 

[hipeter924]

The issue on this thread is not about the institution of marriage as such.

Eh? Not very likely, the OP post is called:
'Gay statists strike again...you will submit!!!!'
Also it starts with a link to: Blog: NY Farm fined for refusing to host gay wedding
The operative words there are 'gay statist' which implies homosexuals that support state action to allow something, and that a gay wedding (which is part in parcel to the terminology of the same-sex marriage debate) is in dispute.

...Lefty, most especially the homofascists among them, will not allow it to be privatized.

Ironic since if LGBT groups did call for opposite-sex marriage to be privatized people on the 'religious right' would wail that 'religious liberty is being taken away by homo-fascist, socialist, nazi, stalinist, nazi, nazis'.

He will oppose any such move tooth and nail.

Because marriage is not a religious institution, and as such religious right arguments are so silly they undermine themselves. Why should they concede when LGBT groups are winning the debate, despite the 'religious right' claiming that marriage should only be between heterosexuals on flaky religious and not plausibly scientific grounds.

The only significant political segment of American society that does support the privatization of the institution, contrary to the fantasy world in which you live and somehow or another manage to tie your shoes, are classical liberals, libertarians and conservatives, precisely because the only ones trying to impose their religion via the institution are leftists, you poor soul.

No they aren't. Libertarians on the 'left' support same-sex marriage on the basis that if two sexual demographics have marriage enforced by the state, then so should all other sexual demographics like LGBT people.

Whereas right wing libertarians and the like push the line that there should be no marriage, even though that obviously just re-enforces the status quo and ensures the debate sits at a standstill - many just push the line making sure that opposite-sex marriage has an exemption.

Really, the time of 'compromise' is over. It doesn't phase me that the 'religious right' and 'religious-right enablers' are losing the debate, when through the entire debate they viewed change as a threat and would desire only to restrict or turn back all gains of the LGBT rights movement. I admit, I would be a small voice in a room, but that isn't the fault of the quiet campaigners but those that hard campaigned against to the point that even those opposed to full on same-sex marriage on the 'left' and 'center' came out in support.

The whole point of the subversion of the institution of marriage is to destroy religious liberty. You can't do that if you privatize the institution. Further, Lefty is not about to let the institution escape the trappings of the income tax system. That is the primary means of imposing his will on the people.

No it isn't, as the institution of marriage was never a religious institution to begin with - and hasn't been since the Catholic Church and the like lost their monopoly on establishing state sanctioned marriages several centuries ago. The only will being 'imposed' is those on the right that want marriage to be a religious institution and to deny the rights of marriage to same-sex couples and all the state benefits that entails.

By the way, how do you manage to tie your shoes in the morning?

The way everyone else does, but sure you think I wake up with two horns and a tail - so perhaps I should say by magic.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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

you aren't allowed to discriminate in public accommodation.

try again.

That, is hysterically hostile to American principles. Thus, such 'laws' are to be rejected, ignored and unapologetically refused by all Americans.

There is no POTENTIAL for a right, where the exercising of that right injures the means of another to exercise their own rights. PERIOD.

You may 'feel' otherwise, but that only demonstrates that you are part of the problem.

Correct, your rights end where mine begin.

What a novel concept.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Oh by the way, you are also wrong about the sign issue. Freedom of speech, I could CLEARLY - even under current law - hang a sign right outside my business that read "no ******/spics/kikes or other assorted mutts" and there is nothing illegal about that.

Let's say I did, and a black person came around and saw my sign and got pissed and drove off and hired a lawyer. All I'd have to do is point out that the black person never actually came in and asked me to serve him, he just saw the sign and drove off.

Check the law, you will see that I am ENTIRELY correct.

Actually if you check the law you are incorrect.

2. (a) It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person,
being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or
employee of any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement,
because of the race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation,
military status, sex, or disability or marital status of any person,
directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from or deny to such person
any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof,
including the extension of credit, or, directly or indirectly, to
publish, circulate, issue, display, post or mail any written or printed
communication, notice or advertisement, to the effect that any of the
accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any such place
shall be refused, withheld from or denied to any person on account of
race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, military
status, sex, or disability or marital status, or that the patronage or
custom thereat of any person of or purporting to be of any particular
race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, military
status, sex or marital status, or having a disability is unwelcome,
objectionable or not acceptable, desired or solicited."

Laws of New York​

>>>>

I don't live in NY so I will stipulate that NYC is stupid and has outlawed the first amendment

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The issue on this thread is not about the institution of marriage as such.

Eh? Not very likely, the OP post is called:
'Gay statists strike again...you will submit!!!!'
Also it starts with a link to: Blog: NY Farm fined for refusing to host gay wedding
The operative words there are 'gay statist' which implies homosexuals that support state action to allow something, and that a gay wedding (which is part in parcel to the terminology of the same-sex marriage debate) is in dispute.

...Lefty, most especially the homofascists among them, will not allow it to be privatized.

Ironic since if LGBT groups did call for opposite-sex marriage to be privatized people on the 'religious right' would wail that 'religious liberty is being taken away by homo-fascist, socialist, nazi, stalinist, nazi, nazis'.

He will oppose any such move tooth and nail.

Because marriage is not a religious institution, and as such religious right arguments are so silly they undermine themselves. Why should they concede when LGBT groups are winning the debate, despite the 'religious right' claiming that marriage should only be between heterosexuals on flaky religious and not plausibly scientific grounds.

The only significant political segment of American society that does support the privatization of the institution, contrary to the fantasy world in which you live and somehow or another manage to tie your shoes, are classical liberals, libertarians and conservatives, precisely because the only ones trying to impose their religion via the institution are leftists, you poor soul.

No they aren't. Libertarians on the 'left' support same-sex marriage on the basis that if two sexual demographics have marriage enforced by the state, then so should all other sexual demographics like LGBT people.

Whereas right wing libertarians and the like push the line that there should be no marriage, even though that obviously just re-enforces the status quo and ensures the debate sits at a standstill - many just push the line making sure that opposite-sex marriage has an exemption.

Really, the time of 'compromise' is over. It doesn't phase me that the 'religious right' and 'religious-right enablers' are losing the debate, when through the entire debate they viewed change as a threat and would desire only to restrict or turn back all gains of the LGBT rights movement. I admit, I would be a small voice in a room, but that isn't the fault of the quiet campaigners but those that hard campaigned against to the point that even those opposed to full on same-sex marriage on the 'left' and 'center' came out in support.

The whole point of the subversion of the institution of marriage is to destroy religious liberty. You can't do that if you privatize the institution. Further, Lefty is not about to let the institution escape the trappings of the income tax system. That is the primary means of imposing his will on the people.

No it isn't, as the institution of marriage was never a religious institution to begin with - and hasn't been since the Catholic Church and the like lost their monopoly on establishing state sanctioned marriages several centuries ago. The only will being 'imposed' is those on the right that want marriage to be a religious institution and to deny the rights of marriage to same-sex couples and all the state benefits that entails.

By the way, how do you manage to tie your shoes in the morning?

The way everyone else does, but sure you think I wake up with two horns and a tail - so perhaps I should say by magic.

Actually marriage IS a religious concept and as such our government should not have a single document with toeh word marriage or any form thereof on it, and thus have no business defining marriage.

See, if gays would make THAT argument, those on the right would have to concede, or look like idiots, but they are too stupid to do so.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Oh by the way, you are also wrong about the sign issue. Freedom of speech, I could CLEARLY - even under current law - hang a sign right outside my business that read "no ******/spics/kikes or other assorted mutts" and there is nothing illegal about that.

Let's say I did, and a black person came around and saw my sign and got pissed and drove off and hired a lawyer. All I'd have to do is point out that the black person never actually came in and asked me to serve him, he just saw the sign and drove off.

Check the law, you will see that I am ENTIRELY correct.

Actually if you check the law you are incorrect.

2. (a) It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person,
being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or
employee of any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement,
because of the race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation,
military status, sex, or disability or marital status of any person,
directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from or deny to such person
any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof,
including the extension of credit, or, directly or indirectly, to
publish, circulate, issue, display, post or mail any written or printed
communication, notice or advertisement, to the effect that any of the
accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any such place
shall be refused, withheld from or denied to any person on account of
race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, military
status, sex, or disability or marital status, or that the patronage or
custom thereat of any person of or purporting to be of any particular
race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, military
status, sex or marital status, or having a disability is unwelcome,
objectionable or not acceptable, desired or solicited."

Laws of New York​

>>>>

I don't live in NY so I will stipulate that NYC is stupid and has outlawed the first amendment

Well you did say "Check the law, you will see that I am ENTIRELY correct." So I did.


So what state do you live in, I'll check your states Public Accommodation law and see if you can post a sign that says "no ******/spics/kikes or other assorted mutts"?



>>>>

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Time to call the orderlies and tell them to bring the butterfly nets and tranquilizers...

Time for you to shove off, Jarxale, before I embarrass you further for the twit that you are.

But by all means continue, infant, in your delusional quest to out fox me.

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

Yep. The bottom line with you: the violation of INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS is no big deal, right?

Get this through your thick skull, you are the raving lunatic. You, moron, it's you.

If you insist on using the First they came for ............. please at least use it correctly.

Oh, and I'm not entirely convinced that you have an inalienable right to keep fags out of your life either.

I did use it correctly in this instance to make a certain point. Why would I use the original text when (1) it was written by a socialist who (2) made victims out of socialists . . . before he got to the Jews? You know, the very same socialists from the other side of the Hegelian dialectic who now seek to oppress me and my family in America and have oppressed Christians in Europe ever since we got Hitler off their backs. Ultimately, the denizens of both sides of the Hegelian dialectic are thugs. Oh, you need to go back and read my posts very carefully before you go imagining that the likes of the leftists on this thread accurately understand anything about me. They are as stupid as dirt, and just as dishonest about virtually everything. But you should already know that. You're not stupid or dishonest. How did you get snookered?

Start with these, and then you can apologize if you're so inclined. But it's no big deal if you don't. I'm just tweaking you a bit:

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?

You can add Mr. FBI to that list as well. LOL!

Gay statists strike again...you will submit Page 24 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The post in the above link, begins:

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.

Jarlaxle apparently missed my scathing rejoinders against vicious hypocrisy intended to silence and intimidate, i.e., the first attempt to marginalize me. Jarlaxle's is the second.

A little history.

Jarlaxle's still pissed at me because I called him out several months ago on his less than enthusiastic defense of Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. He thinks the police should just walk all over us. Mr. FBI. LOL! He didn't get such a warm reception on that thread from the other conservatives and libertarians either. Jarlaxle is an idiot of the first order, and not a very just man. Don't mistake my contempt for something that it's not. I am, after all, flying in the face of the conventions of PC in a hostile arena on this thread. I fight fire with fire.

 

[Jarlaxle]

The fuck you smokin', boy? Are you on LSD or something?

 

[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

you aren't allowed to discriminate in public accommodation.

try again.

Before Lawrence vs. Texas, one dude wasn't allowed to screw another dude in the privacy of their home.

If we were debating the human right of humans choosing their own sexual partners and I told you that the law permitted the jailing of homosexuals who commit sodomy, would I win that argument?

and before brown v board of ed segregation was legal.

your point?

over time the Court has corrected earlier rulings. In time discrimination against certain groups will not be illegal. Too many people are sick of it.

The stupid thing is, some people do not seem to realize that a law which SPECIFICALLY carves out certain groups as being afforded extra protections is against the COTUS which guarantees that EVERYONE shall enjoy the same rights.

If a gay person has a right to do business with me than so to does a smelly person. Would you argue that I can't kick someone who stinks out of my place of business?

you seem to not understand the law. if person a walks into your place of business and is disruptive, dressed improperly or some other thing specific to the individual, you have every right to exclude them. remember no shotes, no shirt, no service?

what you do not have the right to do is decide someone "stinks" because they are a member of a minority.

i hope that helps.

p.s. the only ones "sick of it" are bigoted jerks. the rest of the world understands that you don't have the right to hang a sign outside your place of business saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays".

It is unreasonable to 'discriminate' against blacks, because they have no CHOICE in 'being black'; and the same with Jews.

There is ABSOLUTELY >NO< evidence; despite DOZENS of major medical studies intent upon FINDING evidence, which shows ANY medical, biological or genetic basis for sexual abnormality. PERIOD.

Now, the reader can rest assured that there will now be a stream of assertions to the contrary, without a scintilla of ACTUAL evidence in support of the baseless assertions.

These people are simply sociopaths. There is a reason that the history of sexual abnormality is that they were institutionalized. What our predecessors learned, was that to allow them to remain in public, they did crap exactly like they're doing now.

Time's quickly approaching to shove 'em back in the closet and NAIL THE DOOR SHUT!

 

[Rikurzhen]

It is unreasonable to 'discriminate' against blacks, because they have no CHOICE in 'being black'; and the same with Jews.

There is ABSOLUTELY >NO< evidence; despite DOZENS of major medical studies intent upon FINDING evidence, which shows ANY medical, biological or genetic basis for sexual abnormality. PERIOD.

If that's the basis of your argument, then you've just conceded to your opponents. There are actual anatomical distinctions between the brains of homosexuals and heterosexuals. We're dealing with a developmental disorder here, just like with people who are born with Down's Syndrome.

You choosing to claim that it is unreasonable to discriminate against people born a certain way actually endorses the position that it is proper to compel people into Forced Associations under some circumstances. That's a very weak position to argue. It's like arguing that rape can be good under some special conditions and it's OK to force that association on some women.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The issue on this thread is not about the institution of marriage as such.

Eh? Not very likely, the OP post is called:
'Gay statists strike again...you will submit!!!!'
Also it starts with a link to: Blog: NY Farm fined for refusing to host gay wedding
The operative words there are 'gay statist' which implies homosexuals that support state action to allow something, and that a gay wedding (which is part in parcel to the terminology of the same-sex marriage debate) is in dispute.

...Lefty, most especially the homofascists among them, will not allow it to be privatized.

Ironic since if LGBT groups did call for opposite-sex marriage to be privatized people on the 'religious right' would wail that 'religious liberty is being taken away by homo-fascist, socialist, nazi, stalinist, nazi, nazis'.

He will oppose any such move tooth and nail.

Because marriage is not a religious institution, and as such religious right arguments are so silly they undermine themselves. Why should they concede when LGBT groups are winning the debate, despite the 'religious right' claiming that marriage should only be between heterosexuals on flaky religious and not plausibly scientific grounds.

The only significant political segment of American society that does support the privatization of the institution, contrary to the fantasy world in which you live and somehow or another manage to tie your shoes, are classical liberals, libertarians and conservatives, precisely because the only ones trying to impose their religion via the institution are leftists, you poor soul.

No they aren't. Libertarians on the 'left' support same-sex marriage on the basis that if two sexual demographics have marriage enforced by the state, then so should all other sexual demographics like LGBT people.

Whereas right wing libertarians and the like push the line that there should be no marriage, even though that obviously just re-enforces the status quo and ensures the debate sits at a standstill - many just push the line making sure that opposite-sex marriage has an exemption.

Really, the time of 'compromise' is over. It doesn't phase me that the 'religious right' and 'religious-right enablers' are losing the debate, when through the entire debate they viewed change as a threat and would desire only to restrict or turn back all gains of the LGBT rights movement. I admit, I would be a small voice in a room, but that isn't the fault of the quiet campaigners but those that hard campaigned against to the point that even those opposed to full on same-sex marriage on the 'left' and 'center' came out in support.

The whole point of the subversion of the institution of marriage is to destroy religious liberty. You can't do that if you privatize the institution. Further, Lefty is not about to let the institution escape the trappings of the income tax system. That is the primary means of imposing his will on the people.

No it isn't, as the institution of marriage was never a religious institution to begin with - and hasn't been since the Catholic Church and the like lost their monopoly on establishing state sanctioned marriages several centuries ago. The only will being 'imposed' is those on the right that want marriage to be a religious institution and to deny the rights of marriage to same-sex couples and all the state benefits that entails.

By the way, how do you manage to tie your shoes in the morning?

The way everyone else does, but sure you think I wake up with two horns and a tail - so perhaps I should say by magic.

Actually marriage IS a religious concept and as such our government should not have a single document with toeh word marriage or any form thereof on it, and thus have no business defining marriage.

See, if gays would make THAT argument, those on the right would have to concede, or look like idiots, but they are too stupid to do so.

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality craves legitimacy. THAT is the purpose for their demand to 'be married'.

The problem is that to gain legitimacy, one must comport themselves in legitimate behavior. This is not possible where one chooses to adhere to deviant sexualities. Besides that, there is the natural, immutable fact that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Anything else, is simply NOT MARRIAGE. So, where the sexual deviants marry, THAT ACT de-legitimizes marriage.

Just as "The Millionaires Club" would no longer be a club for millionaires, where it accepted non-millionaires, marriage of two men cannot be marriage, as marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

And that would remain so, if every human being on the planet knew to the depths of their soul that marriage was exclusively the union between two biologically incompatible individuals. The union between two people of the same gender serves absolutely no purpose beyond legal recognition, which provides little more the illusion of legitimacy.

As with all Leftist policies, the stated purpose of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is deceitful, the application fraudulent and the advocates of such are Ignorant

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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

you aren't allowed to discriminate in public accommodation.

try again.

Before Lawrence vs. Texas, one dude wasn't allowed to screw another dude in the privacy of their home.

If we were debating the human right of humans choosing their own sexual partners and I told you that the law permitted the jailing of homosexuals who commit sodomy, would I win that argument?

and before brown v board of ed segregation was legal.

your point?

over time the Court has corrected earlier rulings. In time discrimination against certain groups will not be illegal. Too many people are sick of it.

The stupid thing is, some people do not seem to realize that a law which SPECIFICALLY carves out certain groups as being afforded extra protections is against the COTUS which guarantees that EVERYONE shall enjoy the same rights.

If a gay person has a right to do business with me than so to does a smelly person. Would you argue that I can't kick someone who stinks out of my place of business?

you seem to not understand the law. if person a walks into your place of business and is disruptive, dressed improperly or some other thing specific to the individual, you have every right to exclude them. remember no shotes, no shirt, no service?

what you do not have the right to do is decide someone "stinks" because they are a member of a minority.

i hope that helps.

p.s. the only ones "sick of it" are bigoted jerks. the rest of the world understands that you don't have the right to hang a sign outside your place of business saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays".

It is unreasonable to 'discriminate' against blacks, because they have no CHOICE in 'being black'; and the same with Jews.

There is ABSOLUTELY >NO< evidence; despite DOZENS of major medical studies intent upon FINDING evidence, which shows ANY medical, biological or genetic basis for sexual abnormality. PERIOD.

Now, the reader can rest assured that there will now be a stream of assertions to the contrary, without a scintilla of ACTUAL evidence in support of the baseless assertions.

These people are simply sociopaths. There is a reason that the history of sexual abnormality is that they were institutionalized. What our predecessors learned, was that to allow them to remain in public, they did crap exactly like they're doing now.

Time's quickly approaching to shove 'em back in the closet and NAIL THE DOOR SHUT!

COMPLETELY irrelevant.

Under NO circumstances is the government empowered to tell me who I can and can not do business with. It is MY business. It doesn't matter if I choose to discriminate on someone who can help what they are or not.

You actually strengthen the anti discrimination laws by saying that okay you can't discriminate against blacks, but fuck the fags.

It's an all or NEITHER proposition, and that is exactly why the current law is unconstitutional. Under current law, I can discriminate against some , but not against others.

Take gays, for instance. They had to pointedly go in and rewrite the laws to cover gays. That's not good law.

Man, some people REALLY need to learn how to debate....

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It is unreasonable to 'discriminate' against blacks, because they have no CHOICE in 'being black'; and the same with Jews.

There is ABSOLUTELY >NO< evidence; despite DOZENS of major medical studies intent upon FINDING evidence, which shows ANY medical, biological or genetic basis for sexual abnormality. PERIOD.

If that's the basis of your argument, then you've just conceded to your opponents. There are actual anatomical distinctions between the brains of homosexuals and heterosexuals. We're dealing with a developmental disorder here, just like with people who are born with Down's Syndrome.

You choosing to claim that it is unreasonable to discriminate against people born a certain way actually endorses the position that it is proper to compel people into Forced Associations under some circumstances. That's a very weak position to argue. It's like arguing that rape can be good under some special conditions and it's OK to force that association on some women.

ROFLMNAO!


There are distinctions in brain activity of people who are angry and those who are calm, those who are happy and those who are depressed, those who are frightened and those who are not.

Brain activity does NOT indicate a biological distinction between ANYONE from ANOTHER. This argument is yet another deceitful advance of fraudulent "SCIENCE!", produced as a means to influence the ignorant.

Sexual deviancy is behavior and BEHAVIOR IS A CHOICE!

 

[Vandalshandle]

"
Just as "The Millionaires Club" would no longer be a club for millionaires, where it accepted non-millionaires, marriage of two men cannot be marriage, as marriage is the joining of one man and one woman." (Keys)

Nineteen states (so far) have ruled otherwise. Better find another argument.

 

[Rikurzhen]

It is unreasonable to 'discriminate' against blacks, because they have no CHOICE in 'being black'; and the same with Jews.

There is ABSOLUTELY >NO< evidence; despite DOZENS of major medical studies intent upon FINDING evidence, which shows ANY medical, biological or genetic basis for sexual abnormality. PERIOD.

If that's the basis of your argument, then you've just conceded to your opponents. There are actual anatomical distinctions between the brains of homosexuals and heterosexuals. We're dealing with a developmental disorder here, just like with people who are born with Down's Syndrome.

You choosing to claim that it is unreasonable to discriminate against people born a certain way actually endorses the position that it is proper to compel people into Forced Associations under some circumstances. That's a very weak position to argue. It's like arguing that rape can be good under some special conditions and it's OK to force that association on some women.

ROFLMNAO!


There are distinctions in brain activity of people who are angry and those who are calm, those who are happy and those who are depressed, those who are frightened and those who are not.

Brain activity does NOT indicate a biological distinction between ANYONE from ANOTHER. This argument is yet another deceitful advance of fraudulent "SCIENCE!", produced as a means to influence the ignorant.

Sexual deviancy is behavior and BEHAVIOR IS A CHOICE!

Go will yourself to grow a woody at the thought of some big biker taking you from behind. Train yourself to be sexually turned on by that thought. Notice I'm not telling you to go out and actually do it, just as an experiment get yourself all hot and horny at the thought of blowing some guy. Try it and report back.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I think that I am legally required to disclose that liberals rile you guys up, because you are all Republicans and Libertarians, and the rest of America is sick and tired of your social issues agenda on the Right. It is how we win elections. I mean, god forbid that you focus on foreign policy, the economy, etc.

 

[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

you aren't allowed to discriminate in public accommodation.

try again.

Before Lawrence vs. Texas, one dude wasn't allowed to screw another dude in the privacy of their home.

If we were debating the human right of humans choosing their own sexual partners and I told you that the law permitted the jailing of homosexuals who commit sodomy, would I win that argument?

and before brown v board of ed segregation was legal.

your point?

over time the Court has corrected earlier rulings. In time discrimination against certain groups will not be illegal. Too many people are sick of it.

The stupid thing is, some people do not seem to realize that a law which SPECIFICALLY carves out certain groups as being afforded extra protections is against the COTUS which guarantees that EVERYONE shall enjoy the same rights.

If a gay person has a right to do business with me than so to does a smelly person. Would you argue that I can't kick someone who stinks out of my place of business?

you seem to not understand the law. if person a walks into your place of business and is disruptive, dressed improperly or some other thing specific to the individual, you have every right to exclude them. remember no shotes, no shirt, no service?

what you do not have the right to do is decide someone "stinks" because they are a member of a minority.

i hope that helps.

p.s. the only ones "sick of it" are bigoted jerks. the rest of the world understands that you don't have the right to hang a sign outside your place of business saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays".

It is unreasonable to 'discriminate' against blacks, because they have no CHOICE in 'being black'; and the same with Jews.

There is ABSOLUTELY >NO< evidence; despite DOZENS of major medical studies intent upon FINDING evidence, which shows ANY medical, biological or genetic basis for sexual abnormality. PERIOD.

Now, the reader can rest assured that there will now be a stream of assertions to the contrary, without a scintilla of ACTUAL evidence in support of the baseless assertions.

These people are simply sociopaths. There is a reason that the history of sexual abnormality is that they were institutionalized. What our predecessors learned, was that to allow them to remain in public, they did crap exactly like they're doing now.

Time's quickly approaching to shove 'em back in the closet and NAIL THE DOOR SHUT!

COMPLETELY irrelevant.

Under NO circumstances is the government empowered to tell me who I can and can not do business with. It is MY business. It doesn't matter if I choose to discriminate on someone who can help what they are or not.

You actually strengthen the anti discrimination laws by saying that okay you can't discriminate against blacks, but fuck the fags.

It's an all or NEITHER proposition, and that is exactly why the current law is unconstitutional. Under current law, I can discriminate against some , but not against others.

Take gays, for instance. They had to pointedly go in and rewrite the laws to cover gays. That's not good law.

Man, some people REALLY need to learn how to debate....

Nonsense...

It is irrational to see someone as unacceptable because of the color of their skin. They had no choice in their skin reflecting that color. And the color of one's skin does not indicate the nature of their character.

Adhering to the advocacy to normalize sexual abnormality however, IS A PROFOUND DEMONSTRATION THAT THE INDIVIDUAL IS AN IRRATIONAL, DISHONEST PERSON of low moral character.

It is INSANE to say that that which deviates from the natural standard is normal... to say that, is to prove one to be either a liar or a fool, or both.