Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
A business in Mass was also fined. Turned out they had received generous tax breaks from the state, and it was the nature of the tax breaks that made them vulnerable. Problem is, you can't discriminate when you're poaching public money. I'm not saying the NY Farm is similar, but we sheeple rarely hear the whole story. Knowing NYS, I suspect the Farm is being F'd in the A.
Same story as the Jim Crowe South. If the haters could whip gays legally, some of them would. We'd see segregated bussing, hospitals and schools.
Free-association is not a crime under God or under nature. The test is really very simple. Do both parties agree to the transaction?. If the answer is no, no deal; if yes, proceed.
The individual decides, of course, and as long as the individual is not trespassing on the life, the liberty or the property of another, what's the problem?
Sincerely. I don't see a problem.
Some things never change.
You don't see a problem: The very definition of willful blindness.
Oh, I see. I want to beat you and kill you. Yeah, okay, dickweed. How can anyone take you seriously after you throw out such a pathetic straw man like that?Free-association is not a crime under God or under nature. The test is really very simple. Do both parties agree to the transaction?. If the answer is no, no deal; if yes, proceed.
The individual decides, of course, and as long as the individual is not trespassing on the life, the liberty or the property of another, what's the problem?
Sincerely. I don't see a problem.
Some things never change.
You don't see a problem: The very definition of willful blindness.
So your point regarding your imaginary problem, is to fine me, jail me, beat me or kill me because I refuse to participate in your religious rituals?
Free-association is not a crime under God or under nature. The test is really very simple. Do both parties agree to the transaction?. If the answer is no, no deal; if yes, proceed.
The individual decides, of course, and as long as the individual is not trespassing on the life, the liberty or the property of another, what's the problem?
Sincerely. I don't see a problem.
Some things never change.
You don't see a problem: The very definition of willful blindness.
Oh, I see. I want to beat you and kill you. Yeah, okay, dickweed. How can anyone take you seriously after you throw out such a pathetic straw man like that?Free-association is not a crime under God or under nature. The test is really very simple. Do both parties agree to the transaction?. If the answer is no, no deal; if yes, proceed.
The individual decides, of course, and as long as the individual is not trespassing on the life, the liberty or the property of another, what's the problem?
Sincerely. I don't see a problem.
Some things never change.
You don't see a problem: The very definition of willful blindness.
So your point regarding your imaginary problem, is to fine me, jail me, beat me or kill me because I refuse to participate in your religious rituals?
So denial of equal protection of the laws is not a problem for you since you are not on the receiving end of that WHITES ONLY or STRAIGHTS ONLY sign, eh? You are unable to see a problem because it does not affect you.
You are just proving how willfully blind you really are.
Oh, I see. I want to beat you and kill you. Yeah, okay, dickweed. How can anyone take you seriously after you throw out such a pathetic straw man like that?Free-association is not a crime under God or under nature. The test is really very simple. Do both parties agree to the transaction?. If the answer is no, no deal; if yes, proceed.
The individual decides, of course, and as long as the individual is not trespassing on the life, the liberty or the property of another, what's the problem?
Sincerely. I don't see a problem.
Some things never change.
You don't see a problem: The very definition of willful blindness.
So your point regarding your imaginary problem, is to fine me, jail me, beat me or kill me because I refuse to participate in your religious rituals?
So denial of equal protection of the laws is not a problem for you since you are not on the receiving end of that WHITES ONLY or STRAIGHTS ONLY sign, eh? You are unable to see a problem because it does not affect you.
You are just proving how willfully blind you really are.
Straw man? Are you saying that there is no enforcement mechanism behind Public Accommodation based on sexual orientation?
The monkey thinks repeating his ignorance after it was obliterated is full of win.
PLEASE LINK TO THE LAW WHICH EXECUTES PEOPLE FOR NOT OBEYING PUBLIC ACCOMODATION LAWS.The monkey thinks repeating his ignorance after it was obliterated is full of win.
So there's no fines for refusing to comply?
FINES OR NO FINES? FINES OR NO FINES? FINES OR NO FINES?
FINES OR NO FINES? FINES OR NO FINES? FINES OR NO FINES?
FINES OR NO FINES? FINES OR NO FINES? FINES OR NO FINES?
FINES OR NO FINES? FINES OR NO FINES? FINES OR NO FINES?
FINES OR NO FINES? FINES OR NO FINES? FINES OR NO FINES?
Oh, I see. I want to beat you and kill you. Yeah, okay, dickweed. How can anyone take you seriously after you throw out such a pathetic straw man like that?Free-association is not a crime under God or under nature. The test is really very simple. Do both parties agree to the transaction?. If the answer is no, no deal; if yes, proceed.
The individual decides, of course, and as long as the individual is not trespassing on the life, the liberty or the property of another, what's the problem?
Sincerely. I don't see a problem.
Some things never change.
You don't see a problem: The very definition of willful blindness.
So your point regarding your imaginary problem, is to fine me, jail me, beat me or kill me because I refuse to participate in your religious rituals?
So denial of equal protection of the laws is not a problem for you since you are not on the receiving end of that WHITES ONLY or STRAIGHTS ONLY sign, eh? You are unable to see a problem because it does not affect you.
You are just proving how willfully blind you really are.
Straw man? Are you saying that there is no enforcement mechanism behind Public Accommodation based on sexual orientation?
Please link to the execution and beating enforcement laws, Cheeta.
Oh, I see. I want to beat you and kill you. Yeah, okay, dickweed. How can anyone take you seriously after you throw out such a pathetic straw man like that?Free-association is not a crime under God or under nature. The test is really very simple. Do both parties agree to the transaction?. If the answer is no, no deal; if yes, proceed.
The individual decides, of course, and as long as the individual is not trespassing on the life, the liberty or the property of another, what's the problem?
Sincerely. I don't see a problem.
Some things never change.
You don't see a problem: The very definition of willful blindness.
So your point regarding your imaginary problem, is to fine me, jail me, beat me or kill me because I refuse to participate in your religious rituals?
So denial of equal protection of the laws is not a problem for you since you are not on the receiving end of that WHITES ONLY or STRAIGHTS ONLY sign, eh? You are unable to see a problem because it does not affect you.
You are just proving how willfully blind you really are.
Straw man? Are you saying that there is no enforcement mechanism behind Public Accommodation based on sexual orientation?
Please link to the execution and beating enforcement laws, Cheeta.
No, sir. You claimed straw man. Recall?
The question I wanted to ask you: in those states where only a subset of rights, etc. are provided for CU/DP, is there a general consensus of what is included among the various states that have them?
No, some states provide that CU's/DP's (Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships) are equal to CM (Civil Marriage), in others it varies by state.
Then there are states that banned any CU/DP as being legally recognized.
Also, would you help me to better understand the difference between what the Court established about same-sex marriage recently and the nature of the cases currently pending.
What court? There have been, IIRC, 20-30 District court rulings and currently there is the 10th Circuit and the 4th Circuit that are being appealed to the SCOUTS. There are other cases working their way through the 7th, 9th, and 11th Circuit courts. Those cases are farther back in the pipeline then the 4th and 10th's cases so they may not be ready for the SCOTUS fall term.
All I can recommend is check out the Wiki articles on SSCM in Utah and Virginia, they will provide the case names and sometimes links directly to the briefs and decisions. If not, go to the CIrcuit Courts website and lookup the briefs/decisions.
Another good source is the SCOTUSblog this site is dedicated to indepth commentary on SCOTUS cases and in the same-sex marriage area you will find the cases and often a link to the case history providing full access to the amicus briefs and decisions.
Same-Sex Marriage Post-Windsor SCOTUSblog
>>>>
Huck Finn was written about 20 years after the time period it portrays. However, it IS a primary source on the dialect of that time period and region.They are not...they are Primary Sources from the time period.Fictional stories are not testimony.
Post a SINGLE quote from a verifiable source contained in either of your links. You can't do it, because all the quotes in your sources are from FICTIONAL characters.
You were given plenty. Two whole books, written AT THE TIME in support of slavery ARE quotes.
I give up. You are dishonest as all get out.
Clearly the books you referenced are fictional, they are FICTION. Maybe the rest of the board will tolerate your dishonesty, but I will not.
Yes, and so was Huck Finn
Is your dishonestly borne of your being gay, or are you gay because of your dishonesty?
Monkey invents laws that do not exist. Monkey says I want to execute people for not obeying public accommodation laws. Classic straw man fallacy.
Monkey does not see problem with WHITES ONLY and STRAIGHTS ONLY public accommodations because monkey sees no evil when it does not affect him personally.
Monkey invents laws that do not exist. Monkey says I want to execute people for not obeying public accommodation laws. Classic straw man fallacy.
Monkey does not see problem with WHITES ONLY and STRAIGHTS ONLY public accommodations because monkey sees no evil when it does not affect him personally.
This is one confused mess after another.
The top of the post is the only thing that matters, really, as the rest of the madness flows from that fount.
You didn't define precisely what rights you were talking with regard to homosexuals. That's the whole point. See embolden text above. Note the parenthetical undefined. But you did link your query to PA Public Accommodation in an incoherent, albeit, inverse fashion with regard to both groups. Dude. You're not saying anything different than I. You're just imaging a difference.
Then you write this: "I said PA laws protect Christians from discrimination."
And that, confused one, is the essence of the debate. PA Public Accommodation DOES NOT protect Christians. It violates the hell out of them, as it allows homosexuals to trample all over them.
And why is that true? Because you will not allow for any exceptions regarding business transactions that would directly entangle Christians in your religious rituals. For crying out loud! That's all you need to do. Problem solved, as that would be as close to perfection as we could practically get. Public Accommodation isn't going anywhere. It's established case law in PA and at the federal level. Your suggestion that we abolish it rather than refine it is disingenuous bullshit! While that would be the perfect solution, it is not a politically attainable solution, once again, because you guys and nobody else but you guys oppose that, tooth and nail. Disingenuous bullshit piled atop disingenuous bullshit. You aren't fooling anybody.
We're not going to fight to abolish it. That's a no win. We're going shove it up your asses in civil disobedience as that is the only recourse that is left to us. Knock. Knock. Anybody home?
And you have been told over and over and over again why that is true. Only a sociopath or a retard would fail to
empathize with us or recognize the reality. Hence, your premise is false rendering the rest of your post moot, and you still refuse to acknowledge the truth.
Now read this link, as you guys don't believe or can't grasp what's coming; you're delusional: http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/liberal-quest-to-rehabilitate-christians-the-homofascist-rainbow-shirts-are-at-it-again/
The only "right" gays are currently denied is the right to civilly marry. I never claimed PA laws are a right, they are a FACT. (A fact that has withstood constitutional challenge.
If there is no political will to get rid of all of them, then STFU just because in some locations they protect gays from discrimination like the do Christians.
Check? Just like I said.
You homofascists will not allow for any exceptions regarding business transactions that would directly entangle Christians in your religious rituals, and you don't care that this constitutes an unambiguous infringement, not on any civil right/protection, but on an inalienable human right, i.e., a First Amendment civil liberty? So it's not and never has been about equal treatment, but domination. You are not asserting the rule of law, but invoking the rule of the jungle.
Behold, people, the monstrously tyrranical and depraved filth that homofascists are.
Inalienable rights cannot be granted, created, revoked or transferred. They are nonnegotiable. I don't need your permission to have them, and I don't unilaterally owe you anything to have them. You're mad.
Biblical Christians will not obey the state. That's our option.
That leaves you the options to fine, to beat, to jail or to kill. Choose.
Good luck with that.
Just curious...
So these religious exemptions you want to complying with generally applicable law, do they only apply to homosexuals or can other claim a religious exemption also? I mean can someone claim their personal religious beliefs are that the races shouldn't mix and therefore can not provide service to an interracial couple? Or maybe someone who doesn't believe in a Christian marrying a Hindu, can they deny service to interfaith couples?
And who gets to be the test of these religious principals? The individual? The government? If the individual, then the reality is that any individual can claim a religious exemption they just have to mouth the words "it's my religious belief" right? If the government, we now have government sanctioning what is and isn't a valid religious belief? Is that really what you want?
>>>>
Well, first, are the natural rights of man, enumerated in the Bill of Rights, though not exhaustively, inalienable or not? If they are inalienable, which of course they are as obviously no entity can legitimately force another to submit to its demands without force or due process of law. I simply refuse to participate in any pagan rituals. Where's my crime? As the state cannot legitimately order me to work for anyone I don't wish to work for, what is my crime should I choose to work for myself in my own business?
The answers to these questions aren't my problem. I'm not the one asserting the contradiction. Let's face it, busybody statists like homofascists are the one's asserting this bizarre contradiction that confounds the point at which their rights end and mine begin.
Free-association is not a crime under God or under nature. The test is really very simple. Do both parties agree to the transaction?. If the answer is no, no deal; if yes, proceed.
The individual decides, of course, and as long as the individual is not trespassing on the life, the liberty or the property of another, what's the problem?
Sincerely. I don't see a problem.
I give up. You are dishonest as all get out.
Clearly the books you referenced are fictional, they are FICTION. Maybe the rest of the board will tolerate your dishonesty, but I will not.
Perhaps, but that is NOT what I asked for. I have REPEATEDLY asked for quotes from actual people of the time defending slavery with the Bible.
It certainly is not my problem that you and SeaWytch do not understand that a fictional book does not qualify as a direct quote from someone of that era.
