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

[Ravi]

Interesting thread but I'm going to unsubscribe. Scrolling through all the nested quotes is headache making.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

Yet again: are you on drugs? Only you can hear those voices in your head!

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

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.

Ummmm - The Farm wasn't found to be in violation of Federal law. The case revolves around New York State Public Accommodations law (present in just about every state that I know of), under the 10th Amendment States are empowered to set rules for businesses within the confines or that operate within the confines of that state.

Laws of New York


>>>>

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said: ↑



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

Here: Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964).

In addition, the Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied, where the 10th Amendment in no way mitigates Congress' authority pursuant to its proper end, where that proper end is determined by the Federal courts. That can be found in the Constitution here: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).

Remember that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and by the Constitution in Articles III and VI.

Last, the Federal Constitution, Federal laws, and the rulings of Federal courts are the supreme law of the land, where states and local jurisdictions cannot seek to ignore or 'nullify' Federal laws or the rulings of Federal Courts. That can be found in the Constitution here: Cooper v. Aaron (1958).

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Welcome to the point.

.

.

.

The individuals at issue are accepting of the people themselves. As are all decent human beings. The repulsion comes in the abomination wherein people set themselves before God, in matrimony, proclaiming their right to disobey God's law.

Your choices are your choices. But you have no right to demand that others become a party to that which they recognize as abhorrent. This being so, because there is no potential for such a right.

 

[JoeB131]

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

Well, until the law changes... if you agree to open yourself up to the public, as well as weddings, then Public Accommodation Laws apply. Since the wedding is being hosted in her home (I think that's pretty stupid anyhow) technically speaking that place is her home and she is by law allowed to do with her property as she pleases. I doubt any liberal on this thread seems to notice that. Please, I urge people to read the 5th Amendment carefully. This woman has her right to life, liberty; and more pertinently, property. Nobody, not even a pair of lesbians, nor the government can tell her what she can and cannot host in her own home.

What happens if your business happens to be your residence? Well then, if you own the home, you get to dictate who and what enters through the door. Sorry.

NOt really. They offered their home as a place of business.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

Well, until the law changes... if you agree to open yourself up to the public, as well as weddings, then Public Accommodation Laws apply. Since the wedding is being hosted in her home (I think that's pretty stupid anyhow) technically speaking that place is her home and she is by law allowed to do with her property as she pleases. I doubt any liberal on this thread seems to notice that. Please, I urge people to read the 5th Amendment carefully. This woman has her right to life, liberty; and more pertinently, property. Nobody, not even a pair of lesbians, nor the government can tell her what she can and cannot host in her own home.

What happens if your business happens to be your residence? Well then, if you own the home, you get to dictate who and what enters through the door. Sorry.

NOt really. They offered their home as a place of business.

Not really, they live in the converted barn, the first floor was a business venue (with a room for rent on the 2nd floor). The rest of the second floor and the third floor they use as a private residence.

Their "home" space was different than their "commercial" space they have setup and established to conduct business.

>>>>

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said: ↑



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

Here: Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964).

In addition, the Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied, where the 10th Amendment in no way mitigates Congress' authority pursuant to its proper end, where that proper end is determined by the Federal courts. That can be found in the Constitution here: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).

Remember that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and by the Constitution in Articles III and VI.

Last, the Federal Constitution, Federal laws, and the rulings of Federal courts are the supreme law of the land, where states and local jurisdictions cannot seek to ignore or 'nullify' Federal laws or the rulings of Federal Courts. That can be found in the Constitution here: Cooper v. Aaron (1958).

ROFLMNAO! I so ADORE these notions that the SCOTUS represents the embodiment of the COTUS.

Absolute NONSENSE.

The law is only valid where it serves justice. and any law which seeks to force the individual from their means to freely exercise their rights, by setting the rights of another as superior: fails the service of justice.

The Ideological Left, of course, cannot serve justice due to it being founded upon Relativism. Thus periods of governance by the Ideological Left will render the service of justice, moot.

Americans will then be required to simply ignore them and patiently wait for sanity to return when the cultural fever passes.

 

[2aguy]

That's right...it IS the law. And let me let you in on a little secret. Laws can be changed...if enough citizens want them changed. Laws can be repealed if enough citizens want them repealed. Laws can even have their constitutionality challenged by citizens who are affected by said laws.

And I believe that Freedom of Religious expression is enshrined in the Bill of Rights...and yet they are ignoring that fundamental Right...so why should this new law be respected more than an inalienable right...?

 

[Redfish]

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!

Loook at what the idiot Joe posted-----------he wants to ban all religion. Liberals are mentally diseased. They claim that they want freedom for all, equality, tolerance--------but they want to ban religion and force all citizens to worship the state.

This is the lunatic mindset that we are dealing with. Mental illness.

 

[Seawytch]

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 claim that you're oppressed because gays are protected by PA laws in some places, right? Christians, blacks, the disabled and a few more are protected by PA laws in ALL places. Are racist bigots also oppressed?

 

[Seawytch]

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

Ruh roh...we in big twubble...internet tough guy gonna git ya!

 

[Seawytch]

This behavior will result in the sexually abnormal being shoved back in the closet and the door slammed shut.

Now you may ask: "Why is that?" The answer to which is that it is unreasonable.

There is no potential for a right, wherein the exercising of that right usurps the means of another to exercise their rights. This is why the advocacy to normalize sexual abnormality must be destroyed. It is irrational and as such, it is a threat to freedom itself.

There is no other way it can be, therefore: That is how it must be.

How you planning on accomplishing this?

 

[Seawytch]

That's fine with me. It's not me that ya have to worry about. I do not exercise my rights to the detriment of the means of others to do the same.

Its YOU that threatens you. You are desperate to find legitimacy, but lack the strength of character to comport yourself within the scope of legitimacy. So, at the bare minimum, you advocate for behavior which must, inevitably, drive itself beyond the means of decent people to tolerate your usurpation of their means to live free and pursue the fulfillment of their lives.

The Left (you) did the same thing with 'fairness'. You pushed it and coerced, cajoled and harangued, until you forced sound principle out, which ... inevitably, pushed up the perceived value of real estate beyond the means of the market to sustain those values, at which point the patented catastrophe common to leftist policy crashed the international financial markets, leaving in its wake millions of people losing their homes. Crushing the dreams of the poor and middle class, who's only crime was that they tolerated your foolishness and some, probably actually bought into it.

Now where was the fairness in that? Was that your intentions? No... Of course not. Which, again, is what makes you people dangerous.

Whether you want to go into the closet or not, you will fairly soon find yourself moving away from where you live and settling into a new life, where you will be 'straight as an arrow'. Because to be recognized as sexually abnormal, will be 'undesirable'.

And you'll have no one to blame, but yourselves. (Naturally you'll secretly blame everyone else, but the 'opinions of the sexually abnormal', at that point, will not be up for consideration.)

LOL!

Crazy ironic, ain't it?

No, just crazy.

 

[Redfish]

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 claim that you're oppressed because gays are protected by PA laws in some places, right? Christians, blacks, the disabled and a few more are protected by PA laws in ALL places. Are racist bigots also oppressed?

The issue is freedom. The freedom to enter into a contract with whoever you choose. I have several rental properties. When one comes open I take applications from prospective renters, then I eliminate all but the one who has the best qualifications and potential to fulfill the lease and properly care for the property, all things considered.

This thread is on exactly the same topic.

and, before you go there. I have a gay couple in one rental. They were the best qualified at the time. Other gays have applied and been turned down, not because of their gayness but for other reasons. Should they be able to sue me for discrimination? Of course not.

 

[Seawytch]

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!

Religion is a choice that is protected by Federal Public Accommodation laws. Whether sexual orientation is a choice or not (it is not) is irrelevant.

Are you advocating institutionalizing gays and lesbians?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

This behavior will result in the sexually abnormal being shoved back in the closet and the door slammed shut.

Now you may ask: "Why is that?" The answer to which is that it is unreasonable.

There is no potential for a right, wherein the exercising of that right usurps the means of another to exercise their rights. This is why the advocacy to normalize sexual abnormality must be destroyed. It is irrational and as such, it is a threat to freedom itself.

There is no other way it can be, therefore: That is how it must be.

How you planning on accomplishing this?

I am not the one 'accomplishing it'. The militant Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is accomplishing it.

If it helps, I was also not 'accomplishing' the certainties that the Left's drive to install their irrational notions of 'fairness' over soundly reasoned, actuarial lending principles, would inevitably crash the financial markets and which presently promise to do the same for the US Health Insurance markets. Such was and will always be accomplished by the adherents to the Cult of Left-think.

The answer to 'how' is: By just being who and what you are, you will force nature to return you to where you have always been, except for in these little demonstrations which remind cultures of why it is never a good idea to tolerate evil.

It happens, people have short memories due to their starkly limited life spans... but nature works it all out. I just don't thing you're going to like it, thus the reason that I counsel you to STFU and promote a go-along to get along approach, wherein those things you demand to be relevant to your rights regarding your private life, be kept... PRIVATE!

 

[Seawytch]

The issue is freedom. The freedom to enter into a contract with whoever you choose. I have several rental properties. When one comes open I take applications from prospective renters, then I eliminate all but the one who has the best qualifications and potential to fulfill the lease and properly care for the property, all things considered.

This thread is on exactly the same topic.

and, before you go there. I have a gay couple in one rental. They were the best qualified at the time. Other gays have applied and been turned down, not because of their gayness but for other reasons. Should they be able to sue me for discrimination? Of course not.

Non sequitur

The business in question was very clear that they did not rent the property because of "gayness".

 

[Seawytch]

I am not the one 'accomplishing it'. The militant Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is accomplishing it.

If it helps, I was also not 'accomplishing' the certainties that the Left's drive to install their irrational notions of 'fairness' over soundly reasoned, actuarial lending principles, which inevitably crashed the financial markets and which presently has it's sights on the US Health Insurance markets, either... . Such was and will be accomplished by the adherents to the Cult of Left-think.

The answer to 'how' is: By just being who and what you are, you will force nature to return you to where you have always been, except for in these little demonstrations which remind cultures of why it is never a good idea to tolerate evil.

It happens, people have short memories due to their starkly limited life spans... but nature works it all out. I just don't thing you're going to like it, thus the reason that I counsel you to STFU and promote a go-along to get along approach, wherein those things you demand to be relevant to your rights regarding your private life, be kept... PRIVATE!

Your hypothesis is supported by what evidence?

Is it in the lessening acceptance of gay and lesbians relationships as moral?

In U.S. Record-High Say Gay Lesbian Relations Morally OK

Nope, not that...

Is it in the growing number of Americans that don't believe gays and lesbians should be able to be legally married?

No...not there either.

So, can you provide evidence that gays are going back in the closet? (because you think they are icky, won't work)

 

[JoeB131]

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!

Loook at what the idiot Joe posted-----------he wants to ban all religion. Liberals are mentally diseased. They claim that they want freedom for all, equality, tolerance--------but they want to ban religion and force all citizens to worship the state.

This is the lunatic mindset that we are dealing with. Mental illness.

Religion has absolutely no value.

Religion hasn't done anything good in the whole of human history, not once, not even by accident.

The day Religion ends will be a great one for humanity.