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.
It wasn't about the cake it was about telling an artist what he could and could not create.Hey, I have a question...Should gays be allowed to discriminate against Christians? SCOTUS found they violated the baker's right to practice his religion. Neo-Marxist lefties have it backwards as usual.
It might be a little more along the lines of you cannot as a state have an official ideology you promote over another. LGBT is a lifestyle. Nobody can be forced to condone or support a lifestyle. I think in the near future you're going to see the Court refine its decisions around that principle.It wasn't about the cake it was about telling an artist what he could and could not create.Hey, I have a question...Should gays be allowed to discriminate against Christians? SCOTUS found they violated the baker's right to practice his religion. Neo-Marxist lefties have it backwards as usual.
This is good. I would like to engage in this discussion.But as a libertarian , I'm willing to bet that you would have no problem allowing others to force their shit on gays -without any fear of reprisals from the government. Right?
No she is not right. That is just over the top batshit insane.! How can you say that she may be right. Once again, I am lulled into thinking that you are a reasonable person, only to be disappointed and blindsided by this sort or inane equine excrementYou may be correct, but that's a two-way street.
It has always been about controlling other people.
We have a few jackasses in high places here in Texas. They're all Jesus Nazis who are trying to challenge any Jesus-offending protection of freedoms. We're working on getting rid of the theocratic statists. Give us time.We know that the shitheads who represent the filthy government of Texas forum-shop and that many in the Texas judicial system are corrupt. We know that the scumbags in charge of Texas lie to the people and the government on these issues. There is history there.
How would PP have anything to do with Gosnell? It is the job of the government of every state to inspect medical facilities. They failed. Their failure has absolutely nothing to do with PP clinics. There is no link between him and PP.
Remember that the fuckheads who run Texas continued to advertise in OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT LITERATURE that there is a link between having an abortion and later getting cancer, after this assertion was soundly debunked by medical professionals, and the Texas government maintained to the United States Supreme Court that having an abortion was more dangerous than having a colonoscopy, another assertion soundly debunked by medical professionals.
Just what is the matter with you that you don't want female people with all their options and let them exercise their own decision-making authority?
LGBT is a lifestyle.It wasn't about the cake it was about telling an artist what he could and could not create.Hey, I have a question...Should gays be allowed to discriminate against Christians? SCOTUS found they violated the baker's right to practice his religion. Neo-Marxist lefties have it backwards as usual.
No one wants to control anyone's religious beliefs, but yes , gays just want the same life as others -a statement that seems to contradict you first paragraph -agreeing with KG that it may not be about equality. WTF!??One side wanted to control the relationships of others, while the other side wanted to control the religious beliefs of the other side. Gays were just caught up in it, and used as political pawns, when they simply wanted the same life as straight people.
Leaving the door open to child marriages, coerced marriages , and incest.The correct solution was to disarm BOTH sides and declare marriage a contractual arrangement that does not, and should not require any type of state permission (license).
Well, wait a minute. You're jumping the gun. Take time to internalize all that I say before you judge it. Please.No she is not right. That is just over the top batshit insane.! How can you sat=y that she may be right. Once again, I am lulled into thinking that you are a reasonable person, only to be disappointed and blindsided by this sort or inane equine excrement
No one wants to control anyone's religious beliefs, but yes , gays just want the same life as others -a statement that seems to contradict you first paragraph -agreeing with KG that it may not be about equality. WTF!??One side wanted to control the relationships of others, while the other side wanted to control the religious beliefs of the other side. Gays were just caught up in it, and used as political pawns, when they simply wanted the same life as straight people.
Read the rest.Leaving the door open to child marriages, coerced marriages , and incest.
It may not be about equality for some, who are only using the issue to wield power over others and control them.No one wants to control anyone's religious beliefs, but yes , gays just want the same life as others -a statement that seems to contradict you first paragraph -agreeing with KG that it may not be about equality. WTF!??
That isn’t the way it worksI don't blame you for believing, or not believing what others do, what people are simply asking is, don't try to force your lifestyle on others who don't agree with it, and don't get bent out of shape when someone refuses to act the way they think you should act.Oh please. Give me a break. I do not give a rats hind parts about what you believe, and most people are smart enough to know that they cannot control anyone else's beliefs. The issue is how you behave towards, and treat othersIf anything, it is the "tolerance" crowd that is trying to stigmatize religion and are actually the oppressors, because they are trying to force everyone else to comply with their own beliefs.
If a baker doesn't want to serve you due to religious convictions, then move along to the next baker, and stop trying to turn every case into discrimination when it's not. I'm not saying discrimination doesn't exist, but it's not around every corner when something doesn't go the way you want it to. I mean, if we're going to levy that charge any time our feathers get ruffled, well shoot, I can make a whole lot of people do things they don't want to do, based on discrimination.
And In this post, when I say "you", I don't mean you, I mean you as in general people.
Read the rest.Leaving the door open to child marriages, coerced marriages , and incest.
Children do not have the legal capacity to consent to a contract.
Coerced marriages are contracts by duress and are voidable.
Incest. I think it's disgusting, but who am I to say? That's what I am trying to get everyone else to do. Set aside personal feelings and think about liberty.
The same old unworkable argument about getting government out of marriage in order to sidestep the messy question of government recognition of same sex marriage .No thanks. If it ain't broke don't try to fix it. The institution of marriage is fine the way it is. There is no practical way - given the extent to which government is entangled in marriage -to change the system. Try to imaging the outrage on the part of millions of married people when they are told that the government no longer recognized their marriage. I would be just one of them. No contract between two people can compel a third party- be it the government, and employer , or anyone to recognize it and bestow the rights and benefits of marriage upon the couple.A contract does not require gender specifics. Nor is it limited to just two parties (polygamy--oh, no!!!). Nor does it exclude siblings or other close family members (incest -- oh, no!!!). It doesn't require the people to love each other or to be able to produce retarded spawn.
People with the legal capacity to enter into contracts have the legal capacity to marry. That eliminates children, dogs, trees, all other bullshit boogy-man concerns about what marriage will become.
I don't agree with bigots either, but why give that kind of power to government?If you can’t serve all members of the public find another line of work.
Where does liberty fall in all of that successful society building?Since none of us live in a vacuum, our own freedom relies on others. Those actions not congruent to generally held views are not supported and sometimes made illegal to provide a foundation for a successful society.
You mean like Planned Parenthood trades women, their money, and their dead babies for money and political purposes? You mean like the porn industry (proudly protected by queers everywhere) exploits powerless women for money and political purposes?
Last I checked, the people on our side object to that stuff, and people on your side endorse it.
So you have no concept that female human beings might be entitled to make their own decisions. PP has NEVER traded women sexually, or their money, for any purpose. The "dead babies" thing is a result of your ignorance and incapacity to realize that these INDEPENDENT human beings have a right to determine their own futures. Prove in some firm way that PP "trades" anything. You just want prostitution, the sale of women, and the subjugation of women to continue. Filth.
So you maintain that their victims *CHOOSE* to be exploited by PP, the porn industry and other abusers..and therefore must be *accommodated* by people who look the other way.
But when we criticize PP for exploiting women, we're *anti woman*.
See, like I said..you are organically brain damaged.
Provide any, any evidence that PP "exploits" women or somehow turns women and girls into prostitution or the porn industry. The folks who CHOOSE to walk through PP doors do so voluntarily. I personally benefited from this organization's services, as did just about everyone in my dorm at a college run by the Roman Catholic church. PP's services allowed all of these students to make decisions for themselves. In our four years, lots of female and male GRADUATED.
Remember that one has to make the decision to call PP and set up an appointment. No one from PP contacts anybody. Do you have any idea of what a person's capacity for individual decision-making is abouta/
Planned Parenthood Pays $4.3 Million To Settle Allegations Of Unnecessary Medical Care
Planned Parenthood also to blame for Gosnell | News, Sports, Jobs - The Express
We know that the shitheads who represent the filthy government of Texas forum-shop and that many in the Texas judicial system are corrupt. We know that the scumbags in charge of Texas lie to the people and the government on these issues. There is history there.
How would PP have anything to do with Gosnell? It is the job of the government of every state to inspect medical facilities. They failed. Their failure has absolutely nothing to do with PP clinics. There is no link between him and PP.
Remember that the fuckheads who run Texas continued to advertise in OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT LITERATURE that there is a link between having an abortion and later getting cancer, after this assertion was soundly debunked by medical professionals, and the Texas government maintained to the United States Supreme Court that having an abortion was more dangerous than having a colonoscopy, another assertion soundly debunked by medical professionals.
Just what is the matter with you that you don't want female people with all their options and let them exercise their own decision-making authority?
Who is treating marriage as a privilege besides the bigots who-first wanted to limit it to two people of the same race, and more recently , to a man and a woman? What exactly is a privilege vs a right? .Lets think about that.When everyone started treating marriage as a privilege bestowed on us by the state, we lost our way. I believe it started with racism. One had to get permission from the state to be a "race traitor" and marry someone of a different race.
In Turner v Safley (1987), the Court refused to apply strict scutiny to a Missouri prison regulation prohibiting inmates from marrying, absent a compelling reason. Instead, the Court found the regulation failed to meet even a lowered standard of "reasonableness" that it said it would apply in evaluating the constitutionality of prison regulations.
It's not about that. I am on your side regarding same-sex marriage.The same old unworkable argument about getting government out of marriage in order to sidestep the messy question of government recognition of same sex marriage
It existed without government intrusion for thousands of years.If it ain't broke don't try to fix it. The institution of marriage is fine the way it is. There is no practical way - given the extent to which government is entangled in marriage -to change the system.
From the perspective of gays, I would assume they would see it as "payback's a bitch."Try to imaging the outrage on the part of millions of married people when they are told that the government no longer recognized their marriage.
That goes to another issue. Why do married couples get to benefit and be treated differently than single people?No contract between two people can compel a third party- be it the government, and employer , or anyone to recognize it and bestow the rights and benefits of marriage upon the couple.
