Justice Neil Gorsuch Has Had Enough – Triggered A Complete Leftist Meltdown

[HappyJoy]

But I thought the left was all about state rights now that Trump was in office, or are you denying the state right to have a sanctuary city?

I find it interesting that Arizona was sued by Obama for trying to enforce the immigration laws that the Federal government was not. However, states seem to be able to thwart the Federal government from enforcing immigration laws now that Trump is in office.

Funny how that works.

States don't have the right to discriminate.

The state discriminates all the time.

The state discriminates against me in terms of my health care plan because I'm not a member of Congress. Instead, I have to tackle Obamacare all by my lonesome.

The state discriminates against single folk and polygamists since they don't have the same government perks as married folk.

The state discriminates against those who make too much money by taxing them more.

The state discriminates against people with mental health problems by not allowing them to own a gun.

The state discriminates against white folk who wish to get into college or obtain employment because such institutions have a mandate via affirmative action to choose people of color instead.

The state discriminates against us all the time. The real issue is that you don't like certain segments of society that the states choose to discriminate against.

'The states" as in 1 of 50, not 'the state' and your examples of 'discrimination' are pretty weak.

Pretty weak, eh? Why?

Take marriage, for example. Why is it that people who decide to marry should get special state perks? For what? Saying "I do"?

In fact, why get a marriage license? What did I do to earn that license?

In short, what on earth is a secular state doing condoning or condemning certain sexual unions or even giving perks over people who might choose not to have sex at all?

It seems to me that you are the one who has the weakest of all positions.

Another failure by the church allowing government to interfere with an age old institution of the connection between a man and a woman in matrimony.

Yeah, uh hate to break it to you but mariage is a civil matter, not a religious one in the eyes of the government. The only thing a church can do is either endorse or not endorse a marriage.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In other words, you can't dispute what I have posted: Adam and Steve can't have a child.

That's the bottom line.

Well, yes Adam and Steve can have a child via adoption. Maybe you have heard of it?

I guess that point flew right over your head.

No, the point flew under my ass like a fart because that is how valid of a point it was.

Yeah, well nature can be a bitch some times.

Like being sterile?

Yep. At some point, you have to accept what you are.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Gorsuch publicly disagreed with his colleagues’ decision to pass up a challenge to the McCain-Feingold law’s ban on so-called soft money. He dissented from a ruling enforcing same-sex couple’s rights to have their names on their children’s birth certificates. He lamented the court’s refusal to hear a case about the right to carry a weapon in public. He took a strong stand in favor of churches’ right to public subsidies. And he signed an opinion saying he would have allowed President Donald Trump’s travel ban to go into effect now, in full.
Justice Neil Gorsuch Has Had Enough – Triggered A Complete Leftist Meltdown

Seems he is out of touch with our society

Our society has deteriorated. Look around you.

Good point, we elected Trump.

No nit wit, we elected Hillary but Trump stole the election. That's what you loons say.

I can only imagine you are an expert on loons, that whole birds of a feather sort of thing

 

[HappyJoy]

But I thought the left was all about state rights now that Trump was in office, or are you denying the state right to have a sanctuary city?

I find it interesting that Arizona was sued by Obama for trying to enforce the immigration laws that the Federal government was not. However, states seem to be able to thwart the Federal government from enforcing immigration laws now that Trump is in office.

Funny how that works.

States don't have the right to discriminate.

The state discriminates all the time.

The state discriminates against me in terms of my health care plan because I'm not a member of Congress. Instead, I have to tackle Obamacare all by my lonesome.

The state discriminates against single folk and polygamists since they don't have the same government perks as married folk.

The state discriminates against those who make too much money by taxing them more.

The state discriminates against people with mental health problems by not allowing them to own a gun.

The state discriminates against white folk who wish to get into college or obtain employment because such institutions have a mandate via affirmative action to choose people of color instead.

The state discriminates against us all the time. The real issue is that you don't like certain segments of society that the states choose to discriminate against.

'The states" as in 1 of 50, not 'the state' and your examples of 'discrimination' are pretty weak.

Pretty weak, eh? Why?

Take marriage, for example. Why is it that people who decide to marry should get special state perks? For what? Saying "I do"?

In fact, why get a marriage license? What did I do to earn that license?

In short, what on earth is a secular state doing condoning or condemning certain sexual unions or even giving perks over people who might choose not to have sex at all?

It seems to me that you are the one who has the weakest of all positions.

Not to mention children. Why do people with children get tax breaks that I don't? Why is the government charging me to educate other people's kids? I didn't have kids--they did.

Once again, having dependents is not discrimination. Not a single court would take you seriously.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

But I thought the left was all about state rights now that Trump was in office, or are you denying the state right to have a sanctuary city?

I find it interesting that Arizona was sued by Obama for trying to enforce the immigration laws that the Federal government was not. However, states seem to be able to thwart the Federal government from enforcing immigration laws now that Trump is in office.

Funny how that works.

States don't have the right to discriminate.

The state discriminates all the time.

The state discriminates against me in terms of my health care plan because I'm not a member of Congress. Instead, I have to tackle Obamacare all by my lonesome.

The state discriminates against single folk and polygamists since they don't have the same government perks as married folk.

The state discriminates against those who make too much money by taxing them more.

The state discriminates against people with mental health problems by not allowing them to own a gun.

The state discriminates against white folk who wish to get into college or obtain employment because such institutions have a mandate via affirmative action to choose people of color instead.

The state discriminates against us all the time. The real issue is that you don't like certain segments of society that the states choose to discriminate against.

'The states" as in 1 of 50, not 'the state' and your examples of 'discrimination' are pretty weak.

Pretty weak, eh? Why?

Take marriage, for example. Why is it that people who decide to marry should get special state perks? For what? Saying "I do"?

In fact, why get a marriage license? What did I do to earn that license?

In short, what on earth is a secular state doing condoning or condemning certain sexual unions or even giving perks over people who might choose not to have sex at all?

It seems to me that you are the one who has the weakest of all positions.

Another failure by the church allowing government to interfere with an age old institution of the connection between a man and a woman in matrimony.

I can sort of agree with you on this one, there should be no connection between the religious sacrament of marriage and the civil institution of marriage. They share the same name but that is where they end being alike.

 

[RodISHI]

States don't have the right to discriminate.

The state discriminates all the time.

The state discriminates against me in terms of my health care plan because I'm not a member of Congress. Instead, I have to tackle Obamacare all by my lonesome.

The state discriminates against single folk and polygamists since they don't have the same government perks as married folk.

The state discriminates against those who make too much money by taxing them more.

The state discriminates against people with mental health problems by not allowing them to own a gun.

The state discriminates against white folk who wish to get into college or obtain employment because such institutions have a mandate via affirmative action to choose people of color instead.

The state discriminates against us all the time. The real issue is that you don't like certain segments of society that the states choose to discriminate against.

'The states" as in 1 of 50, not 'the state' and your examples of 'discrimination' are pretty weak.

Pretty weak, eh? Why?

Take marriage, for example. Why is it that people who decide to marry should get special state perks? For what? Saying "I do"?

In fact, why get a marriage license? What did I do to earn that license?

In short, what on earth is a secular state doing condoning or condemning certain sexual unions or even giving perks over people who might choose not to have sex at all?

It seems to me that you are the one who has the weakest of all positions.

Another failure by the church allowing government to interfere with an age old institution of the connection between a man and a woman in matrimony.

Yeah, uh hate to break it to you but mariage is a civil matter, not a religious one in the eyes of the government. The only thing a church can do is either endorse or not endorse a marriage.

Historically the churches kept the marriage, birth and death records. Marriage was co-opted by government in order to create a taxing structure.

 

[HappyJoy]

Well, yes Adam and Steve can have a child via adoption. Maybe you have heard of it?

I guess that point flew right over your head.

No, the point flew under my ass like a fart because that is how valid of a point it was.

Yeah, well nature can be a bitch some times.

Like being sterile?

Yep. At some point, you have to accept what you are.

Why treat sterile couples differently than same sex couples?

 

[RodISHI]

States don't have the right to discriminate.

The state discriminates all the time.

The state discriminates against me in terms of my health care plan because I'm not a member of Congress. Instead, I have to tackle Obamacare all by my lonesome.

The state discriminates against single folk and polygamists since they don't have the same government perks as married folk.

The state discriminates against those who make too much money by taxing them more.

The state discriminates against people with mental health problems by not allowing them to own a gun.

The state discriminates against white folk who wish to get into college or obtain employment because such institutions have a mandate via affirmative action to choose people of color instead.

The state discriminates against us all the time. The real issue is that you don't like certain segments of society that the states choose to discriminate against.

'The states" as in 1 of 50, not 'the state' and your examples of 'discrimination' are pretty weak.

Pretty weak, eh? Why?

Take marriage, for example. Why is it that people who decide to marry should get special state perks? For what? Saying "I do"?

In fact, why get a marriage license? What did I do to earn that license?

In short, what on earth is a secular state doing condoning or condemning certain sexual unions or even giving perks over people who might choose not to have sex at all?

It seems to me that you are the one who has the weakest of all positions.

Another failure by the church allowing government to interfere with an age old institution of the connection between a man and a woman in matrimony.

I can sort of agree with you on this one, there should be no connection between the religious sacrament of marriage and the civil institution of marriage. They share the same name but that is where they end being alike.

Civil contract would be the proper terminology to use.

 

[RodISHI]

I guess that point flew right over your head.

No, the point flew under my ass like a fart because that is how valid of a point it was.

Yeah, well nature can be a bitch some times.

Like being sterile?

Yep. At some point, you have to accept what you are.

Why treat sterile couples differently than same sex couples?

Because that child doesn't actually know its DNA structure if the real parents are not listed on the birth certificate. You can be a female an act like your the daddy or a male and act like the mamma but it ain't real.

 

[HappyJoy]

The state discriminates all the time.

The state discriminates against me in terms of my health care plan because I'm not a member of Congress. Instead, I have to tackle Obamacare all by my lonesome.

The state discriminates against single folk and polygamists since they don't have the same government perks as married folk.

The state discriminates against those who make too much money by taxing them more.

The state discriminates against people with mental health problems by not allowing them to own a gun.

The state discriminates against white folk who wish to get into college or obtain employment because such institutions have a mandate via affirmative action to choose people of color instead.

The state discriminates against us all the time. The real issue is that you don't like certain segments of society that the states choose to discriminate against.

'The states" as in 1 of 50, not 'the state' and your examples of 'discrimination' are pretty weak.

Pretty weak, eh? Why?

Take marriage, for example. Why is it that people who decide to marry should get special state perks? For what? Saying "I do"?

In fact, why get a marriage license? What did I do to earn that license?

In short, what on earth is a secular state doing condoning or condemning certain sexual unions or even giving perks over people who might choose not to have sex at all?

It seems to me that you are the one who has the weakest of all positions.

Another failure by the church allowing government to interfere with an age old institution of the connection between a man and a woman in matrimony.

Yeah, uh hate to break it to you but mariage is a civil matter, not a religious one in the eyes of the government. The only thing a church can do is either endorse or not endorse a marriage.

Historically the churches kept the marriage, birth and death records. Marriage was co-opted by government in order to create a taxing structure.

Neat, we're talking about the United States and marriage is a bond between a couple recognized by the government, whether it is sanctioned by a church or not is between the church and the couple only.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No, the point flew under my ass like a fart because that is how valid of a point it was.

Yeah, well nature can be a bitch some times.

Like being sterile?

Yep. At some point, you have to accept what you are.

Why treat sterile couples differently than same sex couples?

Because that child doesn't actually know its DNA structure if the real parents are not listed on the birth certificate. You can be a female an act like your the daddy or a male and act like the mamma but it ain't real.

An adopted child does not know its true DNA structure either and that seems to have worked out ok.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

'The states" as in 1 of 50, not 'the state' and your examples of 'discrimination' are pretty weak.

Pretty weak, eh? Why?

Take marriage, for example. Why is it that people who decide to marry should get special state perks? For what? Saying "I do"?

In fact, why get a marriage license? What did I do to earn that license?

In short, what on earth is a secular state doing condoning or condemning certain sexual unions or even giving perks over people who might choose not to have sex at all?

It seems to me that you are the one who has the weakest of all positions.

Another failure by the church allowing government to interfere with an age old institution of the connection between a man and a woman in matrimony.

Yeah, uh hate to break it to you but mariage is a civil matter, not a religious one in the eyes of the government. The only thing a church can do is either endorse or not endorse a marriage.

Historically the churches kept the marriage, birth and death records. Marriage was co-opted by government in order to create a taxing structure.

Neat, we're talking about the United States and marriage is a bond between a couple recognized by the government, whether it is sanctioned by a church or not is between the church and the couple only.

Very true, and remember with the church it does not even need to be a couple, all the big names in the Bible had multiple wives.

 

[RodISHI]

'The states" as in 1 of 50, not 'the state' and your examples of 'discrimination' are pretty weak.

Pretty weak, eh? Why?

Take marriage, for example. Why is it that people who decide to marry should get special state perks? For what? Saying "I do"?

In fact, why get a marriage license? What did I do to earn that license?

In short, what on earth is a secular state doing condoning or condemning certain sexual unions or even giving perks over people who might choose not to have sex at all?

It seems to me that you are the one who has the weakest of all positions.

Another failure by the church allowing government to interfere with an age old institution of the connection between a man and a woman in matrimony.

Yeah, uh hate to break it to you but mariage is a civil matter, not a religious one in the eyes of the government. The only thing a church can do is either endorse or not endorse a marriage.

Historically the churches kept the marriage, birth and death records. Marriage was co-opted by government in order to create a taxing structure.

Neat, we're talking about the United States and marriage is a bond between a couple recognized by the government, whether it is sanctioned by a church or not is between the church and the couple only.

No, you are talking about usurping the functions of the church even further by involving the government. Again since you missed it "civil contract would be the proper terminology".

 

[HappyJoy]

No, the point flew under my ass like a fart because that is how valid of a point it was.

Yeah, well nature can be a bitch some times.

Like being sterile?

Yep. At some point, you have to accept what you are.

Why treat sterile couples differently than same sex couples?

Because that child doesn't actually know its DNA structure if the real parents are not listed on the birth certificate. You can be a female an act like your the daddy or a male and act like the mamma but it ain't real.

Because that child doesn't actually know i's DNA structure? You mean like an anonymous donor, or if a gay couple adopt?

 

[RodISHI]

Yeah, well nature can be a bitch some times.

Like being sterile?

Yep. At some point, you have to accept what you are.

Why treat sterile couples differently than same sex couples?

Because that child doesn't actually know its DNA structure if the real parents are not listed on the birth certificate. You can be a female an act like your the daddy or a male and act like the mamma but it ain't real.

An adopted child does not know its true DNA structure either and that seems to have worked out ok.

Actually it doesn't but that is more than I desire to discuss in this thread.

 

[Seawytch]

Wow, this is 2017 and the dumb Left Wingers still do not understand that it takes a man and a women to create a baby.
Liberals are science deniers.

Speaking of science, I would love to see some scientific journal articles comparing children raised by straight parents verses gay parents.

Unfortunately, I don't think such articles would be allowed if they showed that children of straight parents were better off on average.

I think it was painful enough for the CDC to openly admit that gay men in the US account for about 80% of new STD and AIDS cases every year despite being only about 5% of the population.

The studies have been done. The children of gay or lesbian parents fare no worse than other children.

What We Know Blog | What does the scholarly research say about the wellbeing of children with gay or lesbian parents?

And your numbers are off on STDs.

Men who have sex with men face a greater risk of being infected with syphilis. Over 80 percent of male syphilis cases were reported among gay and bisexual males, and over 90 percent of all syphilis cases were in men. People in racial and sexual minority groups can have more than the usual trouble finding care for preventing and treating STDs.

It's not all STDs, just male syphilis.

STD Infections Rise To New Highs After States Close Health Clinics

You know, you have unlimited knowledge at your fingertips. You should look things up before spouting off.

 

[BlackSand]

Why treat sterile couples differently than same sex couples?

Why list anyone other than the biological parents (regardless of gender or marital status) on the birth certificate ...
A child has two biological donors ... As a matter of record as to the lineage ... That is all that is necessary.

.

 

[HappyJoy]

Pretty weak, eh? Why?

Take marriage, for example. Why is it that people who decide to marry should get special state perks? For what? Saying "I do"?

In fact, why get a marriage license? What did I do to earn that license?

In short, what on earth is a secular state doing condoning or condemning certain sexual unions or even giving perks over people who might choose not to have sex at all?

It seems to me that you are the one who has the weakest of all positions.

Another failure by the church allowing government to interfere with an age old institution of the connection between a man and a woman in matrimony.

Yeah, uh hate to break it to you but mariage is a civil matter, not a religious one in the eyes of the government. The only thing a church can do is either endorse or not endorse a marriage.

Historically the churches kept the marriage, birth and death records. Marriage was co-opted by government in order to create a taxing structure.

Neat, we're talking about the United States and marriage is a bond between a couple recognized by the government, whether it is sanctioned by a church or not is between the church and the couple only.

Very true, and remember with the church it does not even need to be a couple, all the big names in the Bible had multiple wives.

Yeah, Rod must love him some polygamy

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Yeah, well nature can be a bitch some times.

Like being sterile?

Yep. At some point, you have to accept what you are.

Why treat sterile couples differently than same sex couples?

Because that child doesn't actually know its DNA structure if the real parents are not listed on the birth certificate. You can be a female an act like your the daddy or a male and act like the mamma but it ain't real.

Because that child doesn't actually know i's DNA structure? You mean like an anonymous donor, or if a gay couple adopt?

Or if a straight couple adopt and their names go on the birth certificate. The DNA structure is still unknown even with straight couples. The DNA thing is not a good argument for discrimination.

 

[HappyJoy]

Why treat sterile couples differently than same sex couples?

Why list anyone other than the biological parents (regardless of gender or marital status) on the birth certificate ...

.

Because they aren't their parents.