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

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

what was nicely done? he said nothing. but then again, neither of you have the slightest understanding that it is not the court decisions which violate human rights, but bigots who violate human rights.

How many times can one person be wrong in a single thread. OF COURSE a court ruling can violate human rights.

How did Loving vs Virginia end up before the Supreme Court, for instance, oh that's right because a court in Virginia originally violated civil rights.

That's not entirely correct, in fact it's mostly incorrect.


With regard to Loving, the state of Virginia violated its residents' civil rights as the consequence of an anti-miscegenation measure, a product of the state's legislative branch of government, not the judicial.

Oh, now I see why you disliked my post. You weren't smart enough to understand it.

Loving started as a CRIMINAL matter and went before a State court in Virginia which upheld the law, effectively violating the defendant's rights. Upon appeal they eventually reached SCOTUS which reversed the lower court's opinion and upheld their rights.

Or did you think they were arrested in Virgina and taken directly before SCOTUS?

 

[Rikurzhen]

Here's what we ought to do. We should have a religion license. You report to an office at the top of the Sears Tower. After you turn in your application, Two Burley Attendants will throw you out the nearest window.

If God Catches you on the way down, you get your license.

Sounds reasonable to me. I don't think we'll have a lot of applications, because they know no one is going to catch them as well as I do.

Actually here is a reasonable solution:

1. Provide under the law that for Same-sex Civil Marriage recognized by government entities.

2. Repeal Public Accommodation laws and provide that business owners have rights of property and free association, they are able to refuse service to anyone they want - for any reason. Each business however is required to post in a prominent place and as part of all advertisements a statement of public access. If they don't want to serve n******, or Jews, or Chinks, or Spicts, or gays, or Camel Jockeys, or Gays - no problem. They must however notify (in advance) the public of such a policy.​

It's a win-win. Homosexuals get equal treatment under the law, and business owners get to deny service to groups they don't like.
>>>>

This is reasonable but it fails because you misdiagnose what's really going on. If you look at the actual homosexual marriage statistics you see that it's not really all that popular with homosexuals. They're not marrying at anywhere near a proportionate rate to heterosexuals.

This effort is about normalizing homosexuality.

So allowing people to choose their associations also allows some people to see and treat homosexuals as abnormal. So the tit-for-tat arrangement where homosexuals get civil marriage is DOA because that's not what they really want.

Nonsense.


Whether gay Americans 'accept' allowing same-sex couples access to marriage law in accordance with the 14th Amendment or not is completely irrelevant – one's civil liberties are not subject to opinion polls or popular vote.


This issue has nothing to do with 'normalizing homosexuality,' it has to do with gay Americans seeking their comprehensive civil rights and the consistent application of Constitutional case law, where the states cannot make a class of persons a stranger to their laws.

It's entirely focused on normalizing homosexuality. Homosexuals have always had the right to marry. Rock Hudson was married. He was a homosexual and he didn't have his rights restricted due to his status as a homosexual.

 

[bodecea]

Slavery was NEVER acceptable. And Christians in the United States cited the bible as to why it should continue even though the rest of the world was in the process of abolishing it.

Uhhh...you might want to sit down...it was Christians who ended slavery in England, and helped to end it here in the United States...and the rest of the world...it is still practiced in Africa, and the muslim world...but not in the Christian West...soooo...

It was actually the democrat political party that wanted to continue slavery based on top down models of the economy...vs...free market Capitalism...Democrats also wanted to start up the slave trade with Africa...where it is still practiced in some countries to this day, and to push slavery into the new states joining the union...and then after the Republicans won the Civil war...and Freed the slaves...the democrats started the kkk, jim crow, lynching and the Great Society to keep African Americans in their control and debt...

Christians fought against slavery and Christians fought for slavery...both used the bible to support their causes. What does that tell you?

 

[bodecea]

Queers hate God and despise breeders. They should be ignored. If they sue you, then hire a few thugs to beat the snot out of them.

Because the likes of you are too cowardly to take on gays by yourself. That's the take-away I get from your post.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Slavery was NEVER acceptable. And Christians in the United States cited the bible as to why it should continue even though the rest of the world was in the process of abolishing it.

Uhhh...you might want to sit down...it was Christians who ended slavery in England, and helped to end it here in the United States...and the rest of the world...it is still practiced in Africa, and the muslim world...but not in the Christian West...soooo...

It was actually the democrat political party that wanted to continue slavery based on top down models of the economy...vs...free market Capitalism...Democrats also wanted to start up the slave trade with Africa...where it is still practiced in some countries to this day, and to push slavery into the new states joining the union...and then after the Republicans won the Civil war...and Freed the slaves...the democrats started the kkk, jim crow, lynching and the Great Society to keep African Americans in their control and debt...

Christians fought against slavery and Christians fought for slavery...both used the bible to support their causes. What does that tell you?

Care to offer some proof that Christians used the Bible to justify slavery?

 

[bodecea]

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).

I won't belabor SmarterThanTheAverageBear's point regarding the actual foundation of justice, namely, the inalienable rights of man. He makes it's quite eloquently and succinctly.

So what are you leftists gonna do when American's tell you to go to hell, given the fact that your talk about inalienable human rights and the rule of law on other threads, though you may fool the peanuts in the cheap seats, is nothing of the kind, but in fact the rule of men, the relativistic, ever-shifting tyranny of unchecked majoritarianism or judicial oligarchy?

You have a firestorm coming your way, Clayton Jones. In general, conservatives and libertarians have had just about enough, and the Christians among them sure as hell are not going to submit. You're delusional.

Though this be at the state level, for example, what is the state of Colorado, the state of Connecticut doing right now with regard to their recent ammo-grabbing, gun-grabbing legislation? Not a whole lot. The people of those states have essentially nullified it all by their refusal to comply. Indeed, mostly, the local and state police won't enforce it. Oops.

Well, my yes....we saw a glimpse of that "firestorm" with American Spring. Let's Roll! Let's Roll!

 

[bodecea]

Jim Jones

Sorry, jim jones wasn't a Chrisitian...he was follower of real evil...communism...

Jim Jones - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Jones was a communist and democrat supporter.

Indiana beginnings[edit]
Further information: Peoples Temple

Jones's first church inIndianapolis, Indiana
In 1951, Jones began attending Communist Party meetings and rallies in Indianapolis.[14] He became flustered with harassment he received during the McCarthy Hearings,[14] particularly regarding an event he attended with his mother focusing on Paul Robeson, after which she was harassed by the FBI in front of her co-workers for attending.[15] He also became frustrated with ostracism of open communists in the United States, especially during the trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.[16] This frustration, among other things, provoked a seminal moment for Jones in which he asked himself, "how can I demonstrate my Marxism? The thought was, infiltrate the church."[14][15]

Yeah, he was really evil...

Jones moved away from the Communist Party when CPUSA members became critical of some of the policies of former Sovietleader Joseph Stalin.[16]

You know the current wack job in North Korea...jones supported the grand father...

The couple adopted three children of Korean-American ancestry: Lew, Suzanne and Stephanie. Jones had been encouraging Temple members to adopt orphans from war ravaged Korea.[24]Jones had long been critical of the United States' opposition to communist leader Kim Il-Sung's1950 invasion of South Korea, calling it the "war of liberation" and stating that "the south is a living example of all that socialism in the north has overcome."[

The dead leader of the westboro baptist church...voted for Al Gore...and supported the democrats...

Yes...we know....the "No True Scotsman" rule.

 

[Vandalshandle]

But of course, your ennui is due to your ignorance of history, your failure to perceive the imperatives of liberty versus the causes of tyranny, which are woven into the very fabric of reality, and your naiveté regarding the realities of human nature. Hence, you do not see the danger of undermining the principle of inalienable human rights, the extent to which that has been done in America and, consequently, the signs of the impending disaster.

Your eyes have been glazed over all your life. You've never been awake. Your boredom is due to your short attention span, for the reality, as opposed to the easy bromides of your relativistic dream world, nicely wrapped up and unexamined, is infinitely more complex.

In short, you've never grown up. Lefty is the perpetual adolescent.

Whatever. I suppose I will see you manning the barricades on CNN....

 

[bodecea]

Slavery was NEVER acceptable. And Christians in the United States cited the bible as to why it should continue even though the rest of the world was in the process of abolishing it.

Uhhh...you might want to sit down...it was Christians who ended slavery in England, and helped to end it here in the United States...and the rest of the world...it is still practiced in Africa, and the muslim world...but not in the Christian West...soooo...

It was actually the democrat political party that wanted to continue slavery based on top down models of the economy...vs...free market Capitalism...Democrats also wanted to start up the slave trade with Africa...where it is still practiced in some countries to this day, and to push slavery into the new states joining the union...and then after the Republicans won the Civil war...and Freed the slaves...the democrats started the kkk, jim crow, lynching and the Great Society to keep African Americans in their control and debt...

Christians fought against slavery and Christians fought for slavery...both used the bible to support their causes. What does that tell you?

Care to offer some proof that Christians used the Bible to justify slavery?

Absolutely...why do you think the Southern Baptist Church split off from the Northern Baptist Church?

How the Bible was used to justify slavery abolitionism 8211 CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

and

The theory of evolution What scientists believe it is and isn t

and

The Southern Argument for Slavery ushistory.org

and

Biblical Verses used by Slave Masters to Justify Slavery

Just to begin with.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Slavery was NEVER acceptable. And Christians in the United States cited the bible as to why it should continue even though the rest of the world was in the process of abolishing it.

Uhhh...you might want to sit down...it was Christians who ended slavery in England, and helped to end it here in the United States...and the rest of the world...it is still practiced in Africa, and the muslim world...but not in the Christian West...soooo...

It was actually the democrat political party that wanted to continue slavery based on top down models of the economy...vs...free market Capitalism...Democrats also wanted to start up the slave trade with Africa...where it is still practiced in some countries to this day, and to push slavery into the new states joining the union...and then after the Republicans won the Civil war...and Freed the slaves...the democrats started the kkk, jim crow, lynching and the Great Society to keep African Americans in their control and debt...

Christians fought against slavery and Christians fought for slavery...both used the bible to support their causes. What does that tell you?

Care to offer some proof that Christians used the Bible to justify slavery?

I guess not LOL

 

[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.

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?

Yep. And in fact, public accommodation laws for religion have the potential of being problematical too.

what are you babbling about?

as long as you can go to the religious institution of your choosing (or not) that is what the first amendment guarantees. no religion requires bigotry and our constitution tells you that you can keep it to yourself.

The first amendment is about 'being able to go to the religious institution of one's choice?

Do tell...


"USC
AMENDMENT I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Now which of those words limits religious freedom to 'being able ot go to the religious institution of one's choosing, counselor? And, as always, PLEASE: BE SPECIFIC.

(See how that's done folks? Specific assertion, met with a specific challenge...)

Please stand by for a concession of the default variety!​

 

[bodecea]

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.

Which god? Followed by which people?

God. The Creator of the Universe.

Which one? There are many gods and goddesses believed in this country alone....as we are allowed to do.

 

[bodecea]

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.

How about civil disobedience? What are you going to do about that?

Civil Disobedience is a tried and true method...are you willing to go to the lengths that Gandhi and MLK Jr. were willing to go to? I think they went a little bit farther than whining on a message board.

 

[bodecea]

Slavery was NEVER acceptable. And Christians in the United States cited the bible as to why it should continue even though the rest of the world was in the process of abolishing it.

Uhhh...you might want to sit down...it was Christians who ended slavery in England, and helped to end it here in the United States...and the rest of the world...it is still practiced in Africa, and the muslim world...but not in the Christian West...soooo...

It was actually the democrat political party that wanted to continue slavery based on top down models of the economy...vs...free market Capitalism...Democrats also wanted to start up the slave trade with Africa...where it is still practiced in some countries to this day, and to push slavery into the new states joining the union...and then after the Republicans won the Civil war...and Freed the slaves...the democrats started the kkk, jim crow, lynching and the Great Society to keep African Americans in their control and debt...

Christians fought against slavery and Christians fought for slavery...both used the bible to support their causes. What does that tell you?

Care to offer some proof that Christians used the Bible to justify slavery?

I guess not LOL

How long did you wait?

 

[bodecea]

Well, to start off with, he would have to renounce Judaism before he could become fit to be a member of a Christian Church. he certainly never did that during his lifetime.

The first Christians were all Jews.

Yes...and the later christians turned on the jews.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Indeed. But more than that, they are monsters bent on making their insanity the reality, and that is why I hammer them as I do. I don't bother with their phony talk of victimhood, their phony accusations or their NAME CALLING, intended to silence or marginalize. I'm a grab-em-by-the-throat kind of guy when they wiggle out of their straightjackets and throw off their muzzles.

Ann Coulter knows how to deal with them. Same thing.

But, of course, nutjobs like JoeB131 aren't the real threats. He's to obvious. The real threat are the low-information voters, the sheep among us.

I read stuff like your post when I went to an exhibit at the Washington D.C. Holocaust museum on pre-Holocaust propaganda designed to dehumanize Jews in Germany.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Slavery was NEVER acceptable. And Christians in the United States cited the bible as to why it should continue even though the rest of the world was in the process of abolishing it.

Uhhh...you might want to sit down...it was Christians who ended slavery in England, and helped to end it here in the United States...and the rest of the world...it is still practiced in Africa, and the muslim world...but not in the Christian West...soooo...

It was actually the democrat political party that wanted to continue slavery based on top down models of the economy...vs...free market Capitalism...Democrats also wanted to start up the slave trade with Africa...where it is still practiced in some countries to this day, and to push slavery into the new states joining the union...and then after the Republicans won the Civil war...and Freed the slaves...the democrats started the kkk, jim crow, lynching and the Great Society to keep African Americans in their control and debt...

Christians fought against slavery and Christians fought for slavery...both used the bible to support their causes. What does that tell you?

Care to offer some proof that Christians used the Bible to justify slavery?

Absolutely...why do you think the Southern Baptist Church split off from the Northern Baptist Church?

How the Bible was used to justify slavery abolitionism 8211 CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

opinion piece with no evidence

and

The theory of evolution What scientists believe it is and isn t

Not a single bit of evidence to suggest anyone from that era used that reasoning to support slavery

and


The Southern Argument for Slavery ushistory.org

had ONE quote from a minister in 1860.

The parties in this conflict are not merely Abolitionists and slaveholders, they are Atheists, Socialists, Communists, Red Republicans, Jacobins on the one side and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other."

Hmmm, I don't see him using Christianity to justify slavery.....

and

Biblical Verses used by Slave Masters to Justify Slavery

Just to begin with.

again, NO evidence that anyone actually used those reasons to condone slavery, just opinion.

I asked for PROOF that people then used Christianity to justify slavery. If you can't provide that proof please don't waste my time with links that give opinions. Just admit that you lied about what you can prove.

 

[bodecea]

Here's what we ought to do. We should have a religion license. You report to an office at the top of the Sears Tower. After you turn in your application, Two Burley Attendants will throw you out the nearest window.

If God Catches you on the way down, you get your license.

Sounds reasonable to me. I don't think we'll have a lot of applications, because they know no one is going to catch them as well as I do.

Actually here is a reasonable solution:

1. Provide under the law that for Same-sex Civil Marriage recognized by government entities.

2. Repeal Public Accommodation laws and provide that business owners have rights of property and free association, they are able to refuse service to anyone they want - for any reason. Each business however is required to post in a prominent place and as part of all advertisements a statement of public access. If they don't want to serve n******, or Jews, or Chinks, or Spicts, or gays, or Camel Jockeys, or Gays - no problem. They must however notify (in advance) the public of such a policy.​

It's a win-win. Homosexuals get equal treatment under the law, and business owners get to deny service to groups they don't like.
>>>>

This is reasonable but it fails because you misdiagnose what's really going on. If you look at the actual homosexual marriage statistics you see that it's not really all that popular with homosexuals. They're not marrying at anywhere near a proportionate rate to heterosexuals.

This effort is about normalizing homosexuality.

So allowing people to choose their associations also allows some people to see and treat homosexuals as abnormal. So the tit-for-tat arrangement where homosexuals get civil marriage is DOA because that's not what they really want.

Did you just put that out as an excuse?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Here's what we ought to do. We should have a religion license. You report to an office at the top of the Sears Tower. After you turn in your application, Two Burley Attendants will throw you out the nearest window.

If God Catches you on the way down, you get your license.

Sounds reasonable to me. I don't think we'll have a lot of applications, because they know no one is going to catch them as well as I do.

Actually here is a reasonable solution:

1. Provide under the law that for Same-sex Civil Marriage recognized by government entities.

2. Repeal Public Accommodation laws and provide that business owners have rights of property and free association, they are able to refuse service to anyone they want - for any reason. Each business however is required to post in a prominent place and as part of all advertisements a statement of public access. If they don't want to serve n******, or Jews, or Chinks, or Spicts, or gays, or Camel Jockeys, or Gays - no problem. They must however notify (in advance) the public of such a policy.​

It's a win-win. Homosexuals get equal treatment under the law, and business owners get to deny service to groups they don't like.
>>>>

This is reasonable but it fails because you misdiagnose what's really going on. If you look at the actual homosexual marriage statistics you see that it's not really all that popular with homosexuals. They're not marrying at anywhere near a proportionate rate to heterosexuals.

This effort is about normalizing homosexuality.

So allowing people to choose their associations also allows some people to see and treat homosexuals as abnormal. So the tit-for-tat arrangement where homosexuals get civil marriage is DOA because that's not what they really want.

Nonsense.


Whether gay Americans 'accept' allowing same-sex couples access to marriage law in accordance with the 14th Amendment or not is completely irrelevant – one's civil liberties are not subject to opinion polls or popular vote.


This issue has nothing to do with 'normalizing homosexuality,' it has to do with gay Americans seeking their comprehensive civil rights and the consistent application of Constitutional case law, where the states cannot make a class of persons a stranger to their laws.

Incorrect. The protection from your rights being violated in this country is WHOLLY up for a vote. A Constitutional Amendment stating that gay's have no legal protections could be passed and ratified tomorrow and it would be the law of the land.

I mean the odds of that happening are somewhere between nil and none , but the COTUS certainly allows for it.

Absolutely correct... as has been the case in numerous states, such as Florida, wherein the Constitution of our State recognizes the soundly reasoned, natural standards of marriage, as that of one man and one woman.

Which the Federal Court just deemed unconstitutional a few days ago.

Which again, goes to the inevitability of civil war in the US coming soon, demonstrating perfectly why it is such. Subjective judicial decisions over-ruling the legislated will of the people of a State. All because the Federal Government requires that contracts made in one state, be respected in every state, and a Lesbian who split with her room-mate in, I think, Mass, moves here and can't get a hearing for her 'divorce' here, because she isn't married.

It should be noted that on the first day that the first state provided for the pretense of marriage for the sexually abnormal, I said that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality would send the Roomies to different states to file for Room-mate divorce, to force everyone else to recognize marriage through the Federal Laws regarding full faith and credit.

It's basically more of the same deceitful tripe that they spewed when in the 80s the normalization of sexual abnormality was being hotly debated and the Homo-Lobby guffawed at every query which questioned that if people accepted open-homosexuals would they later demand to be allowed into marriage... stating that to even ask the question was ABSURD, that "NO HOMOSEXUAL WOULD EVER THINK ABOUT GETTING MARRIED" ... 'HOW COULD THEY? EVERYONE KNOW THAT marriage is between a man and a woman.

It's the anti-theist Left, they're relativists... thus they bear no sense which could possibly provide for them to be worthy of trust on any level, for any reason. In short, they're liars.

But hey, who would expect anything else from people who can't resist the desire to engage in sex with people of their own gender?

Deceit, FRAUD, Ignorance: The triumvirate of evil at the hollow core of socialism.

 

[bodecea]

God. The Creator of the Universe.

Which is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, thankfully.

No. It was made legally and constitutionally irrelevant by judges who divorced the Constitution from the foundational, sociopolitical philosophy of the Republic's founding, which is propounded in the Declaration of Independence, just as judges have been systematically divorcing the Constitution, beginning, most especially, in the 1940s, from the Bill of Rights, the formally enumerated, though not exhaustively so, inalienable rights endowed by God.

And you just sit here and cry about it.