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

[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!

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.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Being attracted to people of the same gender does not equate to one having no means to not engage in sexual behavior with people of the same gender. What you are missing is that to engage in sexual behavior: IS A CHOICE.

Edit: So you disagree, but lack the means to sustain it?


LOL!

Adorable... .

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

You do not win elections. You defraud the system, through illegitimate means. Which demonstrates that you adhere to ideas that are hostile to American principle.

What you need to understand is that this is how we can know that:

THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!​

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

So says the hysterical bootlick prattling about reporting folks to the FBI and investigating their hard drives. LOL! Speaking of hard drives, is that a banana in your pocket, freak, or are you just happy to have a pie hole?

What sort of drugs would I have to use for that to make sense?

You retard, if the violation of INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS doesn't warrant civil disobedience or, should that fail, the invocation of the ultimate check against the tyranny of fascists, the whole point of the Second Amendment, then what does?

You DO realize that I AGREE with you on this issue...right? I just think you've lost your marbles!

Yeah. I know that. And you're useless to the cause as you don't adequately understand the nature of the threat or the nature of the beast you're up against. You don't know your history, and you're not making a lick of sense.

The violation of INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS is an offense that verges on murder and inevitably leads to murder in short order if it goes unchecked. Dude! Most of these thugs know they're trespassing. They know they're in violation of natural and constitutional law. When you have people who are conscious of their wrongdoing, yet mock, lie, demonize: what are you up against?

What the hell is wrong with you, marbles?

Your opinion about me is based on historical and moral ignorance, and my comments about civil disobedience and armed resistance are not the ravings or threats of some unhinged yahoo; rather, they are calculated assertions regarding the psychology of leftists.

"The only thing that leftists will ever understand about the rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads."

Dude! They're Jacobins, Marxists.

The first time I wrote that on this forum I was booted for two weeks, and I suspected that I would be. I waited for nearly a year before I returned, as by that time the you know what of public accommodation codes had hit the fan. I rolled it out again. I never should have been censored in the first place. It is not a threat.

"Wow! That’s what he's talking about."

Not a whisper of an objection ever since from the administration, and in fact it's been used to great effect. For months lefty didn't know what to do. This is the first time he has ever tried to marginalize me over it, probably because a moderator led the charge. And what do you do after they are beat back?

You're the friggin’ code red, clueless.

Do you or do you not understand the existential nature of the threat?

Instead of hysterics, instead of mindlessly reacting, think.

And read this exchange:

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?

Not very nice?

. . . Let me ask you why you're a fascist thug promoting the violation of INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS. Is that the behavior of an adult human being respecting the life, the liberty and the property of others, or that of an infantilized barbarian?

I'm reminded of what Golda Meir wrote about your Islamofascist cousins:

We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children.​

Think about that in terms of dragging innocent human beings into court, forcing them into acts of civil disobedience or into taking up arms against you should all else fail, as we talk about your psychology.

Let's talk about your creepy obsession to control the lives of those with whom you disagree. Let's talk about your bizarre contempt for live and let live. Let's talk about your neurotic fear of liberty. Given the fact that there are no strings attached to the enterprise of you minding your own business and leaving those alone who don't wish to be unduly entangle in yours, why does that rejection drive you to acts of tyranny, you sick trick?

Indeed, let's talk about you nearly sociopathic narcissism.

Right. My "shut the hell up" means for you to literally shut the hell up. Who believes that? You lie as easily as a dog licks it genitals. Obviously, everyone with an IQ above that of gnat understands that I'm alluding to your blatant hypocrisy.

Afraid?

We have a $13,000 fine leveled against a family for "the audacity" of asserting its INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS in Pennsylvania. We have bakers and photographers, for example, being fined for asserting their INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS in other states. We have the suppression of the INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS of ideological free-association and parental authority in the private affairs of family via the state-sponsored imposition of paganism under the banner of psychobabble, junk science, against reparative therapy for children plagued by unwanted, same-sex attractions, including those suffering from the crisis of sexual identity, a well-established psychological phenomenon in the literature, due to the trauma of sexual molestation by same-sex predators. In San Francisco we have churches being routinely invaded and vandalized, and Christians being routinely assaulted on public thoroughfares by homosexuals with impunity. We even have a judge ordering a business owner to a "reeducation" camp of sorts in Colorado.

Afraid?

Of course I'm afraid, though not in the sense that you mean. Just how morally gone are you? I'm afraid in the sense that any rational human being would be, given the stakes and the dire alternatives should the courts fail the Republic. I'm afraid for my family, for my friends. I'm even afraid for you, though you're apparently beyond understanding why. You think you'll escape the tyranny of unmooring the Republic from the foundational imperatives of natural and constitutional law with regard to INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS?

Just how naive are you?

Christians, by and large, are not going to submit. You'll delusional. What are you prepared to do?

Do you have an IQ above that of a gnat, Jarlaxle? Do you have eyes that see, or are you still blind?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

So what? It's against the law in NY to discriminate against someone for their sexual orientation.

Shut up, you mindless, homofascist thug.

That's how you talk to them, folks. You are not going to reason a reprobate mind out of its insanity. You are not going reason a murderous Islamofascist out of his insanity. You know that. These jackasses are of the same ilk. Indeed, these are the very people who routinely defend the likes of Islamofascists and spit on Israel. They spit on America. You know these things about them. Hello! What makes you think you can reason with them?

They are the pitchfork-wielding Jacobins. The comrades. The citizens. The Bolsheviks. The Maoists. The fawning worshipers of the Dear Leader. Big Bother is their god. They're the cowardly conformists, the electrical shock of your life as directed by the authority figure standing behind them. They're the sheep. They're the mindless, Sieg Heiling worshipers of Hitler. They're the barbarians at the gate. Like the poor, they've always been with us. In short, they're the murderers, the liars, the willing accomplices of every tyranny and atrocity the world has ever known.

They are morally and intellectually depraved.

What makes you think you can reason with a person who cannot or will not grasp the limits of legitimate political/civil rights against the bulwark of inalienable human rights?

Dude...DECAF AND THORAZINE!

So what's your point, Jarlaxle? The violation of inalienable human rights is no big deal?

My point? That you are having a spectacular, humorous, and highly-entertaining conniption! It's on the level of watching someone piss on an electric fence or play tether-ball while hammered!

So says the hysterical bootlick prattling about reporting folks to the FBI and investigating their hard drives. LOL! Speaking of hard drives, is that a banana in your pocket, freak, or are you just happy to have a pie hole?

You retard, if the violation of INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS doesn't warrant civil disobedience or, should that fail, the invocation of the ultimate check against the tyranny of fascists, the whole point of the Second Amendment, then what does?

So the Founding Fathers, those revolutionaries, and the Framers of the Constitution were all nutcases too? Well, then, I'm in good company, but unfortunately for you, dimwit, it's too late to report them to the FBI.

Easy there George Washington.

Shut up, Martha, and get back in the kitchen.

 

[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....

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.

Again, the government is NOT empowered to decide who we find acceptable and who we don't. That power is NOT enumerated within the COTUS and so the federal government does not have it. whether it's acceptable or not to you is irrelevant. For purposes of federal authority, all we are concerned with is the power enumerated in the COTUS, if it isn't it isn't a power of the federal government.

 

[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.

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

I know you are. Hence, your insecurity, your uncertainty, your suppressed sense of guilt, your compulsion to bring governmental power down on those who do not embrace your lifestyle, your impositions on others, your pathetic need to dominate. Try live and let live. Wouldn't that be simpler and less stressful?

 

[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.

Again, the government is NOT empowered to decide who we find acceptable and who we don't. That power is NOT enumerated within the COTUS and so the federal government does not have it. whether it's acceptable or not to you is irrelevant. For purposes of federal authority, all we are concerned with is the power enumerated in the COTUS, if it isn't it isn't a power of the federal government.

The Constitution of the United States, exists purely the limit the scope and power of the US Federal Government.

It does so because there is no greater risk to individual liberty than the power of government. All of that hinges upon sound, sustainable reason, which rest upon the observed laws of nature. These principles were declared in the charter of American Principles which stated the American Recognition that "All men are created Equal". This expresses the certainty that all are equal before God, thus are equal in the rights endowed to them by God.

What's more, those observed laws requires that where there is the potential for a 'Right', the first test of such is that the would-be right must be recognized in EVERYONE. Second is that where such is exercised, it does not infringe upon the means of another to exercise their own right(s)... .

That I do not recognize clear and irrefutable abnormality to be normal is irrelevant only in terms that such is being held out as a reason that the government should or should not do anything! Such is not a point which I have ever stood up, or for which I have ever advocated.

Which means that the argument that claims that I did... is specious; and specifically logically unsound because of that fatal flaw.

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality's claim that others must 'respect their requests to serve them, in specific instances where doing so runs counter to their most deeply held principles is ABSURD ON ITS FACE and to demand that the Constitution of the United States requires that people MUST turn from their principles to serve that which they recognize as abhorrent, is LUDICROUS.

And again... BEING BLACK is NOT a behavior. It is not a lifestyle... it is not an indication of one's moral proclivities; while being an active adherent to and of sexual deviancy IS an indication of one's moral turpitude.

You seem to be claiming that one can't reasonably use the law to prevent injustices being perpetrated against another because of the color of their skin, or that they should be legally discriminated against for employment or housing and other such notions which define the irrational, unjust treatment of people because of the color reflected by their skin, and not do the same for people who are incapable of not acting upon their deviant desires for sexual gratification with those within their own gender.

Such is simply not true. There is no potential equivalence.

.

.

.


LOL! Now isn't that precious? Another impotent 'disagree' offered up in the face of sound reasoning.

 

[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....

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.

Again, the government is NOT empowered to decide who we find acceptable and who we don't. That power is NOT enumerated within the COTUS and so the federal government does not have it. whether it's acceptable or not to you is irrelevant. For purposes of federal authority, all we are concerned with is the power enumerated in the COTUS, if it isn't it isn't a power of the federal government.

The Constitution of the United States, exists purely the limit the scope and power of the US Federal Government.

It does so because there is no greater risk to individual liberty than the power of government. All of that hinges upon sound, sustainable reason, which rest upon the observed laws of nature.

Part and parcel of those observed laws is that where there is the potential for a 'Right', the first test of such is that the would-be right must be recognized in EVERYONE. Second is that where such is exercised, it does not infringe upon the means of another to exercise their own right(s)... .

That I do not recognize clear and irrefutable abnormality to be normal, is irrelevant. It is also not a point on which I have ever stood up, or for which I have ever advocated.

Which means that the argument which claims that I did... is specious; and specifically logical soundness because of that fatal flaw.

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality's claim that others must 'respect their requests to serve them, in specific instances where doing so runs counter to their most deeply held principles is ABSURD ON ITS FACE and to demand that the Constitution of the United States requires that people MUST turn from their principles to serve that which they recognize as abhorrent, is LUDICROUS.

And again... BEING BLACK is NOT a behavior. It is not a lifestyle... it is not an indication of one's moral proclivities; while being an active adherent to and of sexual deviancy IS an indication of one's moral turpitude.

You seem to be claiming that one can't reasonably use the law to prevent racial injustice, discrimination of other notions which define the irrational treatment of people of color and not do the same for people who are incapable of acting upon their deviant desires for sexual gratification with those within their own gender.

Such is simply not true. There is no potential equivalence.

What part of this do you not understand

If a power is not SPECIFICALLY given to the USG then they do NOT have that power

Show me where in the COTUS the federal government is empowered to outlaw discrimination.

 

[Vandalshandle]

You do not win elections. You defraud the system, through illegitimate means. Which demonstrates that you adhere to ideas that are hostile to American principle.

What you need to understand is that this is how we can know that:

THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!​

Whatever works. Anyway, Just keep ranting away. When you are finished marginalizing the lesbians and gays, be sure to spend the appropriate amount of time ranting about Hispanics, pro-choice people, anyone who ever voted for a Democrat, African-Americans, women, and "gun grabbers".

 

[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.

Again, the government is NOT empowered to decide who we find acceptable and who we don't. That power is NOT enumerated within the COTUS and so the federal government does not have it. whether it's acceptable or not to you is irrelevant. For purposes of federal authority, all we are concerned with is the power enumerated in the COTUS, if it isn't it isn't a power of the federal government.

The Constitution of the United States, exists purely the limit the scope and power of the US Federal Government.

It does so because there is no greater risk to individual liberty than the power of government. All of that hinges upon sound, sustainable reason, which rest upon the observed laws of nature.

Part and parcel of those observed laws is that where there is the potential for a 'Right', the first test of such is that the would-be right must be recognized in EVERYONE. Second is that where such is exercised, it does not infringe upon the means of another to exercise their own right(s)... .

That I do not recognize clear and irrefutable abnormality to be normal, is irrelevant. It is also not a point on which I have ever stood up, or for which I have ever advocated.

Which means that the argument which claims that I did... is specious; and specifically logical soundness because of that fatal flaw.

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality's claim that others must 'respect their requests to serve them, in specific instances where doing so runs counter to their most deeply held principles is ABSURD ON ITS FACE and to demand that the Constitution of the United States requires that people MUST turn from their principles to serve that which they recognize as abhorrent, is LUDICROUS.

And again... BEING BLACK is NOT a behavior. It is not a lifestyle... it is not an indication of one's moral proclivities; while being an active adherent to and of sexual deviancy IS an indication of one's moral turpitude.

You seem to be claiming that one can't reasonably use the law to prevent racial injustice, discrimination of other notions which define the irrational treatment of people of color and not do the same for people who are incapable of acting upon their deviant desires for sexual gratification with those within their own gender.

Such is simply not true. There is no potential equivalence.

What part of this do you not understand

If a power is not SPECIFICALLY given to the USG then they do NOT have that power

Show me where in the COTUS the federal government is empowered to outlaw discrimination.

Show me where the constitution provides for the power to set speed limits. Such is reasonable, necessary and objectively serves the interests of every individual.

Now, the question becomes: "Then why doesn't the government have the legitimate power to promote the interests of the adherence to the advocacy to normalize sexual abnormality, over everyone else?"

Such is subjective and in so doing, infringes upon the means of others to exercise their own rights and promotes the narrow interests of one group over the interests of everyone else.

This is all VERY simple stuff... why is it so difficult for you to understand?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You do not win elections. You defraud the system, through illegitimate means. Which demonstrates that you adhere to ideas that are hostile to American principle.

What you need to understand is that this is how we can know that:

THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!​

Whatever works. Anyway, Just keep ranting away. When you are finished marginalizing the lesbians and gays, be sure to spend the appropriate amount of time ranting about Hispanics, pro-choice people, anyone who ever voted for a Democrat, African-Americans, women, and "gun grabbers".

Straw reasoning?

LOL! Has that ever worked? ... ADORABLE!

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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".

As usual, jillian, you come onto a thread without bothering to be truthful or understand what the OP is about.

This thread is not about "no homosexuals". It's about homos insisting that others participate in their rituals. It's that simple, and we all know that you have always been the bigot who insists that the government may legitimately demand that others participate in their rituals . . . or else.

I do business with homosexuals--note the shift in terms--all the time. What I will never do is approve of their perversion or provide any service that entangles me in their paganism. Simple. Live and let live. But that's not what you're about at all, and I know a number of homosexuals who are every bit as disgusted as I am with your attitude, persons who are fed up with homofascism too. But, of course, they are not statists like you. They are conservatives or libertarians.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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

Take your faux conservatism and shove off. You haven't talked to me in months, you know, ever since. Go back to that.

I never liked you either, skipper. Ta Ta.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

"
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.

So what? If all 50 States declared Dogs to be Cats, that would in no way alter the facts at issue.

Ya see scamp, popularity is NOT validity. What you're arguing here is the long ago refuted notion that popularity; which serves your temporal interests purely for its potential for power, makes right.

You will NOT feel the same about popularity/power when you're shoved back in the closet and the door is nailed shut. And THAT is how I can be SO sure that your argument is irrational pablum, designed purely for consumption by children and fools.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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!

Whoa! Watch it, Jarlaxle, you might be growing a pair of balls, a real sense of moral outrage in the face of the unacceptable. Wouldn't want to do that, right?

Dude, let's talk about the drugs you're on. You obviously need a pill. But now that I know you're bipolar, I'll be more sympathetic.

 

[Vandalshandle]

So what? If all 50 States declared Dogs to be Cats, that would in no way alter the facts at issue.

Ya see scamp, popularity is NOT validity. What you're arguing here is the long ago refuted notion that popularity; which serves your temporal interests purely for its potential for power, makes right.

You will NOT feel the same about popularity/power when you're shoved back in the closet and the door is nailed shut. And THAT is how I can be SO sure that your argument is irrational pablum, designed purely for consumption by children and fools.

Well, I don't think that I will be "shoved back into the closet", since I am heterosexual, but if you want to think that I am gay, go ahead. As to the rest, I will be content that:
1. History is on my side. The battle over gay rights is all but over, in ALL states, and
2. Whatever you may think about the law, it is still the law, and your ranting over it has absolutely no impact, and
3. As I have said before, you guys are losing support for all of your causes over these social issues.

Come, one, dude! Why not just send in your tithe to Westbor Baptist Church, and be done with it?.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Straw reasoning?

LOL! Has that ever worked? ... ADORABLE!

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I will strike a deal. Remove marriage as a government financed tax subsidy (and whatever other government funding is given to the institution of marriage), and treat individuals the same as a married couple - then the same-sex marriage issue will end, as marriage will no longer exist as a government enforced subsidy - and instead will exist purely as a private contract.

If marriage is a 'religious institution' as the 'religious right' claim, then marriage is also unconstitutional as the US government then endorses one religious view over another. So puzzled why the 'religious right' even push this, since it actually undermines their claim rather than re-enforces it. If I was a judge it would be like 'side a says x is true on basis of their religion and scientifically lacking claims about LGBT people, therefore the same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional' *hammer falls*

But since it is obvious that the 'religious right' don't want compromise, more than happy for this to go state by state or court by court till every state in America allows same-sex marriage - in a few decades people will get the same silly looks for condemning same-sex marriage as they would now for condemning inter-racial marriage.

Be honest, gays don't want that compromise either. They won't be happy until Christians who are morally opposed are FORCED to accept their "marriages"

It's pathetic behavior on both ends.

Why pathetic on both ends? Why the sweeping generalization when we both know that most leftists are rabid proponents of homofascism, while most Christians have no problem at all doing business with homosexuals as long as the latter do not demand that Christians provide services that entangle them in behavior or expressions contrary to their values? Indeed, most conservatives and libertarians have the very same attitude. Live and let live. Where are you getting this "both ends"?

As for the question of marriage. That's the crux of the problem. It's bullshit that conservatives are not willing to compromise. Lefty has no intent of allowing the institution to be privatized. Why? Because he is intent on forcing acceptance. Hence, in self-defense, conservatives oppose homo marriage.

Conservative: Olive Branch.

Leftist: No.

Conservative: Fine. No homo marriage.

In any event, the matter is one of liberty vs. tyranny. It's not complex. It's just that human nature incessantly gets in the way of the truth.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Again, the government is NOT empowered to decide who we find acceptable and who we don't. That power is NOT enumerated within the COTUS and so the federal government does not have it. whether it's acceptable or not to you is irrelevant. For purposes of federal authority, all we are concerned with is the power enumerated in the COTUS, if it isn't it isn't a power of the federal government.

The Constitution of the United States, exists purely the limit the scope and power of the US Federal Government.

It does so because there is no greater risk to individual liberty than the power of government. All of that hinges upon sound, sustainable reason, which rest upon the observed laws of nature. These principles were declared in the charter of American Principles which stated the American Recognition that "All men are created Equal". This expresses the certainty that all are equal before God, thus are equal in the rights endowed to them by God.

What's more, those observed laws requires that where there is the potential for a 'Right', the first test of such is that the would-be right must be recognized in EVERYONE. Second is that where such is exercised, it does not infringe upon the means of another to exercise their own right(s)... .

That I do not recognize clear and irrefutable abnormality to be normal is irrelevant only in terms that such is being held out as a reason that the government should or should not do anything! Such is not a point which I have ever stood up, or for which I have ever advocated.

Which means that the argument that claims that I did... is specious; and specifically logically unsound because of that fatal flaw.

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality's claim that others must 'respect their requests to serve them, in specific instances where doing so runs counter to their most deeply held principles is ABSURD ON ITS FACE and to demand that the Constitution of the United States requires that people MUST turn from their principles to serve that which they recognize as abhorrent, is LUDICROUS.

And again... BEING BLACK is NOT a behavior. It is not a lifestyle... it is not an indication of one's moral proclivities; while being an active adherent to and of sexual deviancy IS an indication of one's moral turpitude.

You seem to be claiming that one can't reasonably use the law to prevent injustices being perpetrated against another because of the color of their skin, or that they should be legally discriminated against for employment or housing and other such notions which define the irrational, unjust treatment of people because of the color reflected by their skin, and not do the same for people who are incapable of not acting upon their deviant desires for sexual gratification with those within their own gender.

Such is simply not true. There is no potential equivalence.

.

.

.


LOL! Now isn't that precious? Another impotent 'disagree' offered up in the face of sound reasoning.

Where_r_my_Keys, may I interject something here? I'm a scholar on natural law and especially well-read in Lockean political-economic theory, the founding ethos of the Republic. I don't think you guys are as far apart as all that.

Tomorrow?

 

[Ravi]

This is no different that ruling that a wedding hall must accommodate white people.

Not sure why all the angst.

You don't understand that millions are repulsed by homosexually, regard it to be disgusting, depraved, contrary to their sensibilities, their morality or religious convictions? Behavior and the benign realities of everyday-walk-in-the-park morphological features/traits are the same thing?

Where you dropped on your head as a child? Is the brain damage permanent?

So? If you run a business you must follow the established rules or work to change them. And these people weren't so repulsed that they wouldn't take their money for a party.